Obama Does Not Seem To Understand Nuclear Bombs Cause Pollution. VJ, The Mommy Obama Never Had and Needs To Bolster His Ego!

 I find Obama's unenforceable agreement with China ironic.  Obama seems more concerned about pollution yet appears not to care or understand nuclear explosions cause more.

Perhaps Obama believes when he allows Iran to gain nuclear status it will solve his distaste for Israel and his belief Netanyahu's cowardliness are the two greatest threats to world order. 

In his negotiations with Iran, Obama has given everything and received nothing. He continues to be played as a violin fool. (See 1 and 1a below.)

ISIS, just one more defeat in Obama's golf bag of diplomacy.  (See 1b below.)

=== 

The mood in Israel is somber.  (See 2 below.)

===

Being president can be lonely and being incompetent makes it worse.  (See 3 below.)

Valerie Jarrett is not Obama's problem. 

I have consistently maintained she is the 'mommy' Obama never had and needs to bolster his ego!

After last Tuesday, VJ has to be working over time. (See 3a below.)

===

Dick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) No Agreement in Beijing -- Just a Surrender

By William R. Hawkins

The media is calling the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change made by President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing  an "agreement", a term that invokes the idea of mutual obligations. It is also frequently mentioned that the U.S. and China have been holding talks on climate issues for over six months, implying the announcement was the result of negotiations, meaning give-and-take. The New York Times ran an op-ed by Secretary of State John Kerry on Nov. 11 which had the sub-heading "John Kerry: Our Historic 

Agreement with China on Climate Change." This was not, however, an accurate quote from Kerry who only used the term "agreement" in his text to refer to the outcome hoped for in the UN climate talks set for next year in Paris. He did not stray from the term "announcement" for what occurred in Beijing, which is all that happened. Likewise, the White House blog did not use the term "agreement" either.

Beijing agrees with this assessment. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the two countries had simply "announced action plans." And while the government said, "China is willing to make joint efforts with other countries to cope with climate change and promote a new agreement in 2015" that agreement was to be based on " the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities." On that basis, "China is calling on developed countries to shoulder their responsibilities" according to Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei.

The Chinese media has been on message as well. According to Global Times, a publication of the Chinese Communist Party, "the two countries announced their respective post-2020 goals of coping with climate change. They will also jointly push international climate change negotiations for a new agreement to be reached as planned at a conference in Paris next year." The state-run China Daily used the term "pact" in its headline, but attributed it to "experts" all but one of those cited being American. The only Chinese comment was that the "joint announcement" was "significant and constructive." When the term "agreement" was used in the story it was again in reference to the upcoming 2015 Paris conference.  

President Xi understood this and threw Obama a bone, but only after Beijing had taken all the meat for itself. The join announcement gave China exactly what it wanted for 2015, and it had to give up nothing in return. The U.S. announced that whatever agreement comes out of Paris will be based on the "the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities." The "differentiated responsibilities" phrase means in UN lingo that developed countries (like the U.S.) have to do everything, whereas the developing countries (like China) do not have to do anything. This principle was established at the UN in 1992. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was based on it. That agreement required 37 "developed" nations to cut back their emissions while placing no requirements on the rest of the "developing" world. The U.S. did not become a party to Kyoto because it was unequal in its mandate. The U.S. position has always been, even during Obama's first term, that the U.S. would not agree to anything that did not apply to everyone; otherwise those who did not have to comply would gain a competitive advantage on those who had to play by the rules. Now, Obama has declared that he will sign a new agreement based on the unequal principle. That will be his Green legacy.

The action plans announced in Beijing are in line with the UN principle. The U.S. is to make drastic cuts in emissions (which means in energy use and economic activity, slowing growth and job creation) over the next decade while China will continue to grow as fast as possible until at least 2030. What more could Beijing want than to see America hobble itself while China expands to close the gap across a range of strategic capabilities? As the "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" states, "the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.” This will certainly be true for China where President Xi has set goals of doubling the country's 2010 GDP by 2020 and moving one billion Chinese into urban settings by 2030.

The real meaning of the Beijing joint announcement is that China does not consider climate change to be a problem, and that it will use the UN process to protect its right to advance while inflicting as much damage on the U.S. as possible. And Obama is fine with that.  

1a)

Iranian Nuclear Negotiator: No rollback of the existing nuclear capabilities

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If I may repeat, you want to keep all the centrifuges, you do not want to destroy anything and you only want to stop progress for a very short time before moving on as you wish? Ravanchi : The time of limitation should not last long Iranian Nuclear Negotiator: 'We Can't Just Turn Back the Clock' Interview Conducted By Susanne Koelbl Time is running out on the Nov. 24 deadline for a comprehensive nuclear deal between Iran and the West. In an interview, leading Tehran diplomat Takht Ravanchi expresses skepticism over the outcome of talks. SPIEGEL ONLINE: How big is the risk that the negotiations between Iran and the West will fail? Takht Ravanchi: We definitely are at a critical stage. There is not very much time left before Nov. 24 and the issues remain more or less the same. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Observers believe a breakthrough in the nuclear negotiations is not to be expected. Do you share this assessment? Ravanchi: If we cannot come to a conclusion by Nov. 24, I am sure that those who are performing an objective analysis of the situation definitely will not blame Iran for the possible lack of progress, because Iran has shown its determination to finish the job. SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is the main point of contention? Ravanchi : Enrichment is one, of course, and the sanctions, but we also talk about (the) Arak (research reactor) and a number of other things about which we have to come to an agreement. In our judgment the Americans do not want to appreciate what's happening on the ground in Iran as far as the nuclear capabilities and capacities are concerned. We have about 20,000 centrifuges, almost half of which are producing nuclear material, the other half are only spinning. We can't just turn back the clock and say, "now we are in 2005" and are offering what we have offered then. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Clearly an opportunity was lost at the time. But how can you expect things to move forward if you insist on today's status quo? Ravanchi : You have to keep the status quo! But we are ready to accept some limits to our activities for a specific period of time. And after that specific time we need to be treated like any other member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). SPIEGEL ONLINE: If I may repeat, you want to keep all the centrifuges, you do not want to destroy anything and you only want to stop progress for a very short time before moving on as you wish? Ravanchi : The time of limitation should not last long, and we are ready to apply transparency measures in line with an additional protocol to the NPT that includes a very strong commitment to use nuclear power peacefully. The additional protocol needs to be approved by the parliament. SPIEGEL ONLINE: That won't sound very encouraging to the other side of the negotiation table. Ravanchi : The realities on the ground in Iran cannot be put aside. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Part of the Iranian reality is inflation of 32 percent and an unemployment rate of 18 percent, which unofficially could be closer to 32 percent. How long will you be able to continue with your demands? Ravanchi : Iran entered the negotiations not because of the sanctions, but to show its good will and that it has nothing to hide. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are China, India and Russia better choices as allies and business partners than the West? Ravanchi : Europe and America are not the whole world. If a country does decide to not work with Iran it is not the end of the world. As the one in charge of (relations with) Europe and America in the Foreign Ministry, I should be the last one saying something like that, but we have other avenues, other means to work with other countries. Many business people are coming to Iran to see the possibilities for improvement of economic relations with the country, including from Europe. It shows that the sanctions do not hold. The idea of Iranophobia is fading away. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you see new political commonalities with the West since the so-called Islamic State is becoming a growing factor in your neighborhood? Ravanchi : This is something which has to be dealt with at an international level, based on international law. We have specific ideas about how to handle this problem and in tandem with other members of the international community we can provide our share in addressing it. What is important is to understand that this phenomenon is serious for everybody here, in Europe, America, but also in other countries. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you speaking of Saudi Arabia, your political rival in the region? Ravanchi : We are neighbors. We need to talk -- and we do. Our deputy minister was in Riyadh recently. We think we can upgrade our level of contacts, which would be beneficial not only for Iran and Saudi Arabia, but also for the whole region. About Majid Takht Ravanchi Majid Takht Ravanchi, 56, is one of the most important negotiators in nuclear talks between Iran and the West. The deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs studied civil engineering in the United States and Switzerland. He is considered to be a confidant to Iranian President Hassan Rohani. 1b)  Defeat in D.C.: At ISIS hearings, frustrated lawmakers vent, admit to being bested by Jihadists By Kathleen Caulderwood WASHINGTON, DC -- When most people think of fighting terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, they think of covert operations, air raids and military strategy, but the U.S. government has also been fighting the battle on another front — finance. The U.S. Treasury has long been involved with anti-terror efforts, many times in conjunction with the Department of Defense. But fighting the Islamic State, now known for being the richest terrorist organization in the world, has presented a host of new challenges. “Today we face another terrorist enemy for which a half a million dollars appears to be pocket change,” said Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, at a hearing on Thursday to discuss efforts against the Islamic State. Experts say the Islamic State has more than $2 billion in assets, coming not from external donors, but from its own revenue streams. The organization’s wealth makes it especially dangerous. To compare, the Sept. 11th attacks cost Al Qaeda an estimated $500,000. “Fighting a financial war against terror will require constant innovation and improvement. The tools we’ve used in the past may not be suitable for the future,” Hensarling said. Other terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabaab and Hezbollah depend heavily on external donors and state-backed sponsors to fund activities. The Islamic State, on the other hand, is making millions of dollars every week from a combination of illegal oil sales, extortion, kidnapping and other ventures. The group’s independence makes its finances difficult to track down. “Our efforts to combat its financing will take time,” said David Cohen, who is leading the financial fight against the Islamic State as the Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. “We have no silver bullet, no secret weapon.” At the Thursday hearing, lawmakers expressed concern that the U.S. government isn’t doing enough to fight the Islamic State, and dismay that the group’s advance was such a surprise. “It is inconceivable that we have what we think is one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, that ISIS could have developed this far with sophisticated operations for selling oil… without us knowing what they were doing,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. At a later meeting, experts outlined exactly how the trade networks used by the Islamic State developed in the region for years, and in some cases centuries, before the group took on its new name and mission. The informal money transfer system known as hawala, for example, is widely used by the Islamic State to send funds to and from its members. But the networks used are typically drawn along family lines and have existed for generations. Illegal oil-smuggling networks through Turkey and Syria also existed for years before anyone heard of the name ISIS. Going forward, the Treasury will continue its research operations and do more to partner with governments in the region to learn more about who is sending money, and how. Meanwhile, experts say that the very thing that makes the Islamic State unique also makes it vulnerable. For instance, the group is known to pay its members roughly $1,000 every month in wages and is taking on more and more infrastructure and limited social obligations in the territory it controls. To compare, the Iraqi government had budgeted about $2 billion for this year to provide similar services in the region controlled by the Islamic State. Policymakers agreed that going forward, in addition to the airstrikes and intelligence efforts, the U.S. government needs to continue cooperating with local authorities to help control money going to and from the Islamic State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Fear and Loathing in Jerusalem by Jonathan Spyer The current atmosphere in Jerusalem is reminiscent of the Second Intifada's opening days, in the autumn of 2000. Tension and fear. A sense of foreboding. "I can feel it in my bones, what's coming," says Daniella, a native Jerusalemite who owns a restaurant in central west Jerusalem, and whose sister was killed in a suicide bombing in 2002. What's coming, she and many others think, is more violence. There are fewer pedestrians on the streets. People have become cautious and alert in public places. Most of all, a familiar, stoic melancholy has returned. The wave of shootings, automobile attacks and stabbings that hit the city this month has had a profound affect. The faces of the innocents murdered are all over the news. Talk of a Third Intifada is everywhere. Yet atmospherics notwithstanding, in a number of substantive ways the current reality differs sharply from the time of the two intifadas (1987-92 and 2000-04). The new violence, though indiscriminate, brutal and murderous, is more narrowly focused. It is limited, for now, to specific areas of the country and to specific parts of Jerusalem. But the West Bank, the cauldron of so much violence and hatred during the last two intifadas, has so far stayed largely quiet. Why? Because the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank appears to be playing a double game. On the one hand, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is engaging in incitement, spreading fear and anger about supposed Israeli plans to upset the delicate rules for Jewish worship on the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque area. Abbas has spoken of Jews "desecrating" and "contaminating" the site — the holiest place in Judaism. According to the status quo arrangement, Jews may visit at certain times but cannot pray at the Temple Mount. Whether such an arrangement is fair or just is a different question. But there are no plans to change it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reaffirmed Israel's commitment to it. Meantime, while Abbas spouts incendiary rhetoric, his security forces are continuing to cooperate with the Israelis in ensuring relative quiet on the West Bank. This reflects the general lack of Palestinian enthusiasm to provoke another mass confrontation with Israel. This is a dangerous double game. While the attacks on Israeli civilians have been presented in some news reports as spontaneous acts of rage, an examination of the biographies of the perpetrators so far suggests something quite different. All of them are or were committed members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, both groups that have been fanning the flames of anger over the trumped up threat to the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. It's unlikely that the terrorists who carried out the attacks received specific and personalized orders. But clearly a general green light has been issued. The Palestinian Islamists want to leverage Muslim concerns regarding Al-Aqsa into a violent uprising with themselves at its head. Why now? Things have not been going so well for the Islamists in recent months — what with the inconclusive campaign in Gaza, a chronic shortage of money due to the Egyptian government's closing of the tunnels into Gaza and general Arab concern for more pressing regional matters. Maybe Hamas and Islamic Jihad hope to launch themselves back to regional and global attention by trumping up an Israeli threat to a Muslim holy site. The memories of the recent past have produced a mood of gloom in Jerusalem. This, amid the stories of the latest lives to be snuffed out, is entirely understandable. But as of now, the spark set by Hamas and the Jihad has yet to fully catch. Let us hope it never does. Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, Herzliya, Israel, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) The Loneliest President Since Nixon Facing adversity, Obama has no idea how to respond. ENLARGE CHAD CROWE By PEGGY NOONAN 470 COMMENTS Seven years ago I was talking to a longtime Democratic operative on Capitol Hill about a politician who was in trouble. The pol was likely finished, he said. I was surprised. Can’t he change things and dig himself out? No. “People do what they know how to do.” Politicians don’t have a vast repertoire. When they get in a jam they just do what they’ve always done, even if it’s not working anymore. This came to mind when contemplating President Obama. After a devastating election, he is presenting himself as if he won. The people were not saying no to his policies, he explained, they would in fact like it if Republicans do what he tells them. You don’t begin a new relationship with a threat, but that is what he gave Congress: Get me an immigration bill I like or I’ll change U.S. immigration law on my own. Mr. Obama is doing what he knows how to do—stare them down and face them off. But his circumstances have changed. He used to be a conquering hero, now he’s not. On the other hand he used to have to worry about public support. Now, with no more elections before him, he has the special power of the man who doesn’t care. I have never seen a president in exactly the position Mr. Obama is, which is essentially alone. He’s got no one with him now. The Republicans don’t like him, for reasons both usual and particular: They have had no good experiences with him. The Democrats don’t like him, for their own reasons plus the election loss. Before his post-election lunch with congressional leaders, he told the press that he will judiciously consider any legislation, whoever sends it to him, Republicans or Democrats. His words implied that in this he was less partisan and more public-spirited than the hacks arrayed around him. It is for these grace notes that he is loved. No one at the table looked at him with colder, beadier eyes than outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , who clearly doesn’t like him at all. The press doesn’t especially like the president; in conversation they evince no residual warmth. This week at the Beijing summit there was no sign the leaders of the world had any particular regard for him. They can read election returns. They respect power and see it leaking out of him. If Mr. Obama had won the election they would have faked respect and affection. Vladimir Putin delivered the unkindest cut, patting Mr. Obama’s shoulder reassuringly. Normally that’s Mr. Obama’s move, putting his hand on your back or shoulder as if to bestow gracious encouragement, needy little shrimp that you are. It’s a dominance move. He’s been doing it six years. This time it was Mr. Putin doing it to him. The president didn’t like it From Reuters: “‘It’s beautiful, isn’t it?’ Putin was overheard saying in English in Obama’s general direction, referring to the ornate conference room. ‘Yes,’ Obama replied, coldly, according to journalists who witnessed the scene.” The last time we saw a president so alone it was Richard Nixon, at the end of his presidency, when the Democrats had turned on him, the press hated him, and the Republicans were fleeing. It was Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s standard-bearer in 1964, and House Minority Leader John Rhodes, also of Arizona, who went to the White House to tell Nixon his support in Congress had collapsed, they would vote to impeach. Years later Goldwater called Nixon “The world’s biggest liar.” But Nixon had one advantage Obama does not: the high regard of the world’s leaders, who found his downfall tragic (such ruin over such a trifling matter) and befuddling (he didn’t keep political prisoners chained up in dungeons, as they did. Why such a fuss?). Nixon’s isolation didn’t end well. Last Sunday Mr. Obama, in an interview with CBS ’s Bob Schieffer, spoke of his motivation, how he’s always for the little guy. “I love just being with the American people. . . . You know how passionate I am about trying to help them.” He said what is important is “a guy who’s lost his job or lost his home or . . . is trying to send a kid to college.” When he talks like that, as he does a lot, you get the impression his romantic vision of himself is Tom Joad in the movie version of “The Grapes of Wrath.” “I’ll be all around . . . wherever there’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there.” I mentioned last week that the president has taken to filibustering, to long, rambling answers in planned sit-down settings—no questions on the fly walking from here to there, as other presidents have always faced. The press generally allows him to ramble on, rarely fighting back as they did with Nixon. But I have noticed Mr. Obama uses a lot of words as padding. He always has, but now he does it more. There’s a sense of indirection and obfuscation. You can say, “I love you,” or you can say, “You know, feelings will develop, that happens among humans and it’s good it happens, and I have always said, and I said it again just last week, that you are a good friend, I care about you, and it’s fair to say in terms of emotional responses that mine has escalated or increased somewhat, and ‘love’ would not be a wholly inappropriate word to use to describe where I’m coming from.” When politicians do this they’re trying to mush words up so nothing breaks through. They’re leaving you dazed and trying to make it harder for you to understand what’s truly being said. It is possible the president is responding to changed circumstances with a certain rigidity because no one ever stood in his way before. Most of his adult life has been a smooth glide. He had family challenges and an unusual childhood, but as an adult and a professional he never faced fierce, concentrated resistance. He was always magic. Life never came in and gave it to him hard on the jaw. So he really doesn’t know how to get up from the mat. He doesn’t know how to struggle to his feet and regain his balance. He only knows how to throw punches. But you can’t punch from the mat. He only knows how to do what he’s doing. In the meantime he is killing his party. Gallup this week found that the Republicans for the first time in three years beat the Democrats on favorability, and also that respondents would rather have Congress lead the White House than the White House lead Congress. A few weeks ago a conservative intellectual asked me: “How are we going to get through the next two years?” It was a rhetorical question; he was just sharing his anxiety. We have a president who actually can’t work with Congress, operating in a capital in which he is resented and disliked and a world increasingly unimpressed by him, and so increasingly predatory. Anyway, for those who are young and not sure if what they are seeing is wholly unusual: Yes, it is wholly unusual. 3a)Obama's Problem Isn't Valerie Jarrett IBD Op Ed Politics: Why is it that, after six years in office, the press has just become interested in Valerie Jarrett — President Obama's incredibly powerful, influential and little noted adviser? The New Republic prefaces an article on Jarrett by saying that "no one has understood Valerie Jarrett's role, until now." Given the buzz it generated, that might seem true. It isn't. Edward Klein described Jarrett's unusually powerful role in his 2012 book on Obama, "The Amateur," in which Obama admitted that he "absolutely" ran all his decisions past her. In Richard Miniter's 2012 book, "Leading From Behind," he reported that Obama twice canceled the mission to kill Osama bin Laden on Jarrett's urging. In an editorial that year, we called Jarrett "Obama's Rasputin." Even her unfathomably sycophantic relationship with Obama isn't a revelation. She told Obama biographer David Remnick in 2010 that her boss "knows exactly how smart he is" and "has never really been challenged intellectually," and how he is "too talented to do what ordinary people do." The New Republic does add a nauseating new example to the pile, relaying a story about how Jarrett turned to Obama at the end of his 2012 re-election campaign and, in all seriousness, said, "Mr. President, I don't understand how you're not getting 85% of the vote." Perhaps it's because Obama's failings as president are now so undeniable that the press has finally decided to take a look at Jarrett as a possible factor. But she isn't the problem. It's the fact Obama feels the overwhelming need to have her at his side that's so troubling. It's said that when a Roman general made a triumphant return, a servant would, to keep him grounded, whisper into his ear that all glory is fleeting. As Obama surveys the wreckage of his presidency, he has Valerie Jarrett there to tell him how awesome he is.