Bret Nails It While Bibi Bleats Alone!

If the 'link' fits, wear it!  I can relate!



===

Stratfor's Friedman comes to terms with America. (See 1 below.)
===

Bret traces the liberal way of lying and offers a better and more believable response.

Many of my friends and fellow memo readers have urged me to watch "House of Cards," starring and produced by Kevin Spacey.  Frankly, I am not a big TV watcher and have no technical way of taping and do not even own a cell phone but for some reason I/we began watching  Series One a week ago and we watched 4 programs that night and got to bed at 2:30AM.  I have been hooked since and watched 3 more of the first year's program last night.

My friends were right.  It is captivating and politically very correct and Bret's op ed , (See 2 below.) reminds me of the inability of not only liberals but also politicians in general, to tell the truth which we all know are just their way of spinning and telling - lies.

What we have witnessed for 6 years are, as Bret states - whoppers.  The White House has become the home of the whopper!

Politicians have made public service so cushy they lust to be returned to office time and again and that takes hordes of bucks.  There are those who will supply these bucks but expect pay back for those whose special interests they represent and they make big bucks as well. They are called lobbyists and many are politicians who lost their seats.

Public service has become a dirty business that attracts the likes of the Harry Reid's who will say and do anything because winning is everything. F---- the country and all the dopes who inhabit the land. (Perhaps it has always been so but there were a few statespersons among the crowd.)

Welcome to 2016, as Grandma Hillary lies her way to becoming the first female president or makes every attempt to do so and God Help America and our grandchildren if she succeeds.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/hillary-scorched-on-snl-my-vice-president-will-be-me/


So what's new?  (See 2a below.)
===
"Government" is a killer app: http://www.youtube.com/embed/0sujnvIV4g4

===
Bibi bleats but the sheep do not care to listen! (See 3 below.)

Will/can Israel get American support for this potential venture? (See 3a below.)
===
Sowell on remaining free.  Another gem! (See 4 below.)
===
Better try that reset button again.  Hillary's seems not to have worked. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Coming to Terms With the American Empire

Geopolitical Weekly

By George Friedman

"Empire" is a dirty word. Considering the behavior of many empires, that is not unreasonable. But empire is also simply a description of a condition, many times unplanned and rarely intended. It is a condition that arises from a massive imbalance of power. Indeed, the empires created on purpose, such as Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, have rarely lasted. Most empires do not plan to become one. They become one and then realize what they are. Sometimes they do not realize what they are for a long time, and that failure to see reality can have massive consequences.

World War II and the Birth of an Empire

The United States became an empire in 1945. It is true that in the Spanish-American War, the United States intentionally took control of the Philippines and Cuba. It is also true that it began thinking of itself as an empire, but it really was not. Cuba and the Philippines were the fantasy of empire, and this illusion dissolved during World War I, the subsequent period of isolationism and the Great Depression.

The genuine American empire that emerged thereafter was a byproduct of other events. There was no great conspiracy. In some ways, the circumstances of its creation made it more powerful. The dynamic of World War II led to the collapse of the European Peninsula and its occupation by the Soviets and the Americans. The same dynamic led to the occupation of Japan and its direct governance by the United States as a de facto colony, with Gen. Douglas MacArthur as viceroy.

The United States found itself with an extraordinary empire, which it also intended to abandon. This was a genuine wish and not mere propaganda. First, the United States was the first anti-imperial project in modernity. It opposed empire in principle. More important, this empire was a drain on American resources and not a source of wealth. World War II had shattered both Japan and Western Europe. The United States gained little or no economic advantage in holding on to these countries. Finally, the United States ended World War II largely untouched by war and as perhaps one of the few countries that profited from it. The money was to be made in the United States, not in the empire. The troops and the generals wanted to go home.

But unlike after World War I, the Americans couldn't let go. That earlier war ruined nearly all of the participants. No one had the energy to attempt hegemony. The United States was content to leave Europe to its own dynamics. World War II ended differently. The Soviet Union had been wrecked but nevertheless it remained powerful. It was a hegemon in the east, and absent the United States, it conceivably could dominate all of Europe. This represented a problem for Washington, since a genuinely united Europe — whether a voluntary and effective federation or dominated by a single country — had sufficient resources to challenge U.S. power.

The United States could not leave. It did not think of itself as overseeing an empire, and it certainly permitted more internal political autonomy than the Soviets did in their region. Yet, in addition to maintaining a military presence, the United States organized the European economy and created and participated in the European defense system. If the essence of sovereignty is the ability to decide whether or not to go to war, that power was not in London, Paris or Warsaw. It was in Moscow and Washington.

The organizing principle of American strategy was the idea of containment. Unable to invade the Soviet Union, Washington's default strategy was to check it. U.S. influence spread through Europe to Iran. The Soviet strategy was to flank the containment system by supporting insurgencies and allied movements as far to the rear of the U.S. line as possible. The European empires were collapsing and fragmenting. The Soviets sought to create an alliance structure out of the remnants, and the Americans sought to counter them.

The Economics of Empire

One of the advantages of alliance with the Soviets, particularly for insurgent groups, was a generous supply of weapons. The advantage of alignment with the United States was belonging to a dynamic trade zone and having access to investment capital and technology. Some nations, such as South Korea, benefited extraordinary from this. Others didn't. Leaders in countries like Nicaragua felt they had more to gain from Soviet political and military support than in trade with the United States.

The United States was by far the largest economic power, with complete control of the sea, bases around the world, and a dynamic trade and investment system that benefited countries that were strategically critical to the United States or at least able to take advantage of it. It was at this point, early in the Cold War, that the United States began behaving as an empire, even if not consciously.

The geography of the American empire was built partly on military relations but heavily on economic relations. At first these economic relations were fairly trivial to American business. But as the system matured, the value of investments soared along with the importance of imports, exports and labor markets. As in any genuinely successful empire, it did not begin with a grand design or even a dream of one. Strategic necessity created an economic reality in country after country until certain major industries became dependent on at least some countries. The obvious examples were Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, whose oil fueled American oil companies, and which therefore — quite apart from conventional strategic importance — became economically important. This eventually made them strategically important.

As an empire matures, its economic value increases, particularly when it is not coercing others. Coercion is expensive and undermines the worth of an empire. The ideal colony is one that is not at all a colony, but a nation that benefits from economic relations with both the imperial power and the rest of the empire. The primary military relationship ought to be either mutual dependence or, barring that, dependence of the vulnerable client state on the imperial power.

This is how the United States slipped into empire. First, it was overwhelmingly wealthy and powerful. Second, it faced a potential adversary capable of challenging it globally, in a large number of countries. Third, it used its economic advantage to induce at least some of these countries into economic, and therefore political and military, relationships. Fourth, these countries became significantly important to various sectors of the American economy.

Limits of the American Empire

The problem of the American Empire is the overhang of the Cold War. During this time, the United States expected to go to war with a coalition around it, but also to carry the main burden of war. When Operation Desert Storm erupted in 1991, the basic Cold War principle prevailed. There was a coalition with the United States at the center of it. After 9/11, the decision was made to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq with the core model in place. There was a coalition, but the central military force was American, and it was assumed that the economic benefits of relations with the United States would be self-evident. In many ways, the post-9/11 wars took their basic framework from World War II. Iraq War planners explicitly discussed the occupation of Germany and Japan.

No empire can endure by direct rule. The Nazis were perhaps the best example of this. They tried to govern Poland directly, captured Soviet territory, pushed aside Vichy to govern not half but all of France, and so on. The British, on the other hand, ruled India with a thin layer of officials and officers and a larger cadre of businessmen trying to make their fortunes. The British obviously did better. The Germans exhausted themselves not only by overreaching, but also by diverting troops and administrators to directly oversee some countries. The British could turn their empire into something extraordinarily important to the global system. The Germans broke themselves not only on their enemies, but on their conquests as well.

The United States emerged after 1992 as the only global balanced power. That is, it was the only nation that could deploy economic, political and military power on a global basis. The United States was and remains enormously powerful. However, this is very different from omnipotence. In hearing politicians debate Russia, Iran or Yemen, you get the sense that they feel that U.S. power has no limits. There are always limits, and empires survive by knowing and respecting them.

The primary limit of the American empire is the same as that of the British and Roman empires: demographic. In Eurasia — Asia and Europe together — the Americans are outnumbered from the moment they set foot on the ground. The U.S. military is built around force multipliers, weapons that can destroy the enemy before the enemy destroys the relatively small force deployed. Sometimes this strategy works. Over the long run, it cannot. The enemy can absorb attrition much better than the small American force can. This lesson was learned in Vietnam and reinforced in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a country of 25 million people. The Americans sent about 130,000 troops. Inevitably, the attrition rate overwhelmed the Americans. The myth that Americans have no stomach for war forgets that the United States fought in Vietnam for seven years and in Iraq for about the same length of time. The public can be quite patient. The mathematics of war is the issue. At a certain point, the rate of attrition is simply not worth the political ends.

The deployment of a main force into Eurasia is unsupportable except in specialized cases when overwhelming force can be bought to bear in a place where it is important to win. These occasions are typically few and far between. Otherwise, the only strategy is indirect warfare: shifting the burden of war to those who want to bear it or cannot avoid doing so. For the first years of World War II, indirect warfare was used to support the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union against Germany.

There are two varieties of indirect warfare. The first is supporting native forces whose interests are parallel. This was done in the early stages of Afghanistan. The second is maintaining the balance of power among nations. We are seeing this form in the Middle East as the United States moves between the four major regional powers — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey — supporting one then another in a perpetual balancing act. In Iraq, U.S. fighters carry out air strikes in parallel with Iranian ground forces. In Yemen, the United States supports Saudi air strikes against the Houthis, who have received Iranian training.

This is the essence of empire. The British saying is that it has no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. That old cliche is, like most cliches, true. The United States is in the process of learning that lesson. In many ways the United States was more charming when it had clearly identified friends and enemies. But that is a luxury that empires cannot afford.

Building a System of Balance

We are now seeing the United States rebalance its strategy by learning to balance. A global power cannot afford to be directly involved in the number of conflicts that it will encounter around the world. It would be exhausted rapidly. Using various tools, it must create regional and global balances without usurping internal sovereignty. The trick is to create situations where other countries want to do what is in the U.S. interest.

This endeavor is difficult. The first step is to use economic incentives to shape other countries' behavior. It isn't the U.S. Department of Commerce but businesses that do this. The second is to provide economic aid to wavering countries. The third is to provide military aid. The fourth is to send advisers. The fifth is to send overwhelming force. The leap from the fourth level to the fifth is the hardest to master. Overwhelming force should almost never be used. But when advisers and aid do not solve a problem that must urgently be solved, then the only type of force that can be used is overwhelming force. Roman legions were used sparingly, but when they were used, they brought overwhelming power to bear.

The Responsibilities of Empire

I have been deliberately speaking of the United States as an empire, knowing that this term is jarring. Those who call the United States an empire usually mean that it is in some sense evil. Others will call it anything else if they can. But it is helpful to face the reality the United States is in. It is always useful to be honest, particularly with yourself. But more important, if the United States thinks of itself as an empire, then it will begin to learn the lessons of imperial power. Nothing is more harmful than an empire using its powerful carelessly.

It is true that the United States did not genuinely intend to be an empire. It is also true that its intentions do not matter one way or another. Circumstance, history and geopolitics have created an entity that, if it isn't an empire, certainly looks like one. Empires can be far from oppressive. The Persians were quite liberal in their outlook. The American ideology and the American reality are not inherently incompatible. But two things must be faced: First, the United States cannot give away the power it has. There is no practical way to do that. Second, given the vastness of that power, it will be involved in conflicts whether it wants to or not. Empires are frequently feared, sometimes respected, but never loved by the rest of the world. And pretending that you aren't an empire does not fool anyone.

The current balancing act in the Middle East represents a fundamental rebalancing of American strategy. It is still clumsy and poorly thought out, but it is happening. And for the rest of the world, the idea that the Americans are coming will become more and more rare. The United States will not intervene. It will manage the situation, sometimes to the benefit of one country and sometimes to another.

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

2)

Hillary and the Liberal Way of Lying

How the Clintons pioneered the methods by which Obama sold his Iran deal.

By Bret Stephens

Sometime in the 1990s I began to understand the Clinton way of lying, and why it was so successful. To you and me, the Clinton lies were statements demonstrably at variance with the truth, and therefore wrong and shameful. But to the initiated they were an invitation to an intoxicating secret knowledge.

What was this knowledge? That the lying was for the greater good, usually to fend off some form of Republican malevolence. What was so intoxicating? That the initiated were smart enough to see through it all. Why be scandalized when they could be amused? Why moralize when they could collude?

It always works. We are hardly a month past Hillary Clinton’s Server-gate press conference, in which she served up whoppers faster than a Burger King burger flipper—lies large and small, venial and potentially criminal, and all of them quickly found out. Emails to Bill, who never emails? The convenience of one device, despite having more than one device?

It doesn’t matter. Now Mrs. Clinton is running for president, and only a simpleton would fail to appreciate that the higher mendacity is a recommendation for the highest office. In the right hands, the thinking goes, lying can be a positive good—as political moisturizer and diplomatic lubricant.

***

What the Clintons pioneered—the brazen lie, coyly delivered and knowingly accepted—has become something more than the M.O. of one power couple. It has become the liberal way of lying.

Consider this column’s favorite subject: the Iran deal. An honest president might sell the current deal roughly as follows.

“My fellow Americans, the deal we have negotiated will not, I am afraid, prevent Iran from getting a bomb, should its leaders decide to build one. And eventually they will. Fatwa or no fatwa, everything we know about their nuclear program tells us it is geared toward building a bomb. And frankly, if you lived in a neighborhood like theirs—70 million Shiites surrounded by hundreds of millions of Sunnis—you’d want a bomb, too.

“Yes, we could, in theory, stop Iran from getting the bomb. Sanctions won’t do it. Extreme privation didn’t stop Maoist China or Bhutto’s Pakistan or Kim’s North Korea from building a bomb. It won’t stop Iran, either.

“Airstrikes? They would set Iran back by a few years. But even in a best-case scenario, the Iranians would be back at it before long, and they’d keep trying until they got a bomb or we got regime change.

“Fellow Americans, how many of you want to raise your hands for more Mideast regime change?

“So here’s the deal with my deal: It never was about cutting off Iran’s pathways to a bomb. Let’s just say that was an aspiration. It’s about managing, and maybe slowing, the process by which they get one.

“I know that’s not what you thought I’ve been saying these past few years—all that stuff about all options being on the table and me not bluffing and no deal being better than a bad deal. I said this for political expedience, or as a way of palliating restive Saudis and Israelis. You feed the dogs their bone.

“But if you’d been listening attentively, you would have heard the qualifier ‘on my watch’ added to my promises that Iran would not get the bomb. And what happens after I leave office? Hopefully, the Supreme Leader will be replaced by a new leader cut from better cloth. Hopefully, too, this marathon diplomacy will open new patterns of U.S.-Iranian cooperation. But if neither thing happens we’d be no worse off than we are today.

“That’s why getting a deal, any deal, is more important than the deal’s particulars when it comes to sanctions relief, inspections protocols and so on. The details only matter insofar as they make the political medicine go down. What counts is that we’re sitting at the table together, speaking.”

***

A speech along these lines would have the virtues of intellectual integrity and political honesty. It would improve the quality, and perhaps the tenor, of our foreign-policy discussions. The argument might well lose—the U.S. tool kit of coercion is not so bare, the benefit of diplomacy isn’t so great, the threat of a nuclear Iran isn’t so manageable and Americans aren’t that eager to roll over for the ayatollah. But at least we would have a worthwhile debate.

Question for Mrs. Clinton: Does she think the U.S. should gently midwife Iran’s nuclear birth or violently abort it? If she wants to be president, our former top diplomat could honor us with a detailed answer.

In the meantime, let’s simply note what the liberal way of lying has achieved. We are on the cusp of reaching the most consequential foreign-policy decision of our generation. We have a deal whose basic terms neither side can agree on. We have a president whose goals aren’t what he said they were, and whose motives he has kept veiled from the public.

Maybe the ayatollah will give him his deal, and those with the secret knowledge will cheer. As for the rest of us: Haven’t we learned that we’re too stupid to know what’s for our own good?

2a)  Judith Miller: Media Have 'Double Standard' Against Republicans

The left-of-center media hold Democrats to a less-strict standard than they demand of Republicans, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Judith Miller says.

The former New York Times journalist and author of "The Story: A Reporter's Journey" told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV on Monday that the public is acutely aware of the media's "double standard."

"It's very obvious that most of our colleagues in the media are left of center and they do hold Democrats to a different standard than Republicans — and people see it, they understand that," Miller says. 

The left-of-center media hold Democrats to a less-strict standard than they demand of Republicans, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Judith Miller says.

The former New York Times journalist and author of "The Story: A Reporter's Journey" told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV on Monday that the public is acutely aware of the media's "double standard."

"It's very obvious that most of our colleagues in the media are left of center and they do hold Democrats to a different standard than Republicans — and people see it, they understand that," Miller says. 

"Journalism would be better off if people acknowledge their biases rather than try to do what I was trying to do all these years … to say I'm an objective reporter even though I have personal views. 

"It's better if we just talk about what they are and then people would know what they're getting."

Miller takes on some of the biggest stories of her career in her new book, including the leaking of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame; Miller went to jail for 85 days to protect the identity of her source, Scooter Libby. 

"It's really a shocking incident," Miller says. "When you look at it in retrospect, I mean when you realize that the entire country was riveted on this story, which turned out to be a nonstory, a non-crime with which no one was ever charged."

Miller says she's not even sure Plame was a covert agent.

"She says she was a covert agent. There were many people who worked with her and said she wasn't," Miller says.

Miller also defends aspects of her most high-profile and criticized reporting on Iraq's amassing of "weapons of mass destruction" before the 1991 Iraq war. 

"These were not the weapons we went to war for, which is what readers of the New York Times read," she says, explaining the weapons cache involved "old munitions that were made before the 1991 Iraq war."

"However, the failure to account for the destruction of these weapons, the fact that [former Iraq President] Saddam [Hussein] claimed they had been destroyed and that they're still very much with us would suggest that he had not been forthright, he was not honest with the [United Nations] when he said he destroyed them and that was one of the justifications for war," she said.

Miller speculates some of her critics, however, may have lashed out "because I worked at The New York Times, which was the nation's most prominent newspaper back then. Maybe it's because I was a woman."

"They didn't ask about the stories that I co-wrote with many of my male colleagues," she notes. " I'm a pushy reporter, I probably stepped on toes. If you're a man, they say you're an aggressive reporter and there's a positive connotation."

Miller also concedes the media has a "very complicated relationship" with Democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, calling it "a kind of a love-hate relationship."

"When they're not loving her, they hate her," Miller says. "[W]hat we need today is less opinion and more digging, more fact, more investigative journalism. Yet that is the most expensive form of journalism to do and very few news organizations want to invest in that today."

But the scandals surrounding Clinton as she launches her 2016 White House run only prove how important transparency issues will be, she says.

"That is outrageous," Miller says of Clinton's personal email scandal.

"You cannot be the person who keeps the records and then also decides what's in the public interest, what's public record."

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

3) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued the following statement:

“In the last few days, Iran has shown again why it can’t be trusted.

Iran insists on maintaining its formidable nuclear capabilities with which it could produce nuclear bombs. Iran insists on removing all sanctions immediately. And Iran refuses to allow effective inspections of all its suspect facilities. At the same time, Iran continues its unbridled aggression in the region and its terrorism throughout the world.

So let me reiterate again the two main components of the alternative to this bad deal: First, instead of allowing Iran to preserve and develop its nuclear capabilities, a better deal would significantly roll back these capabilities – for example, by shutting down the illicit underground facilities that Iran concealed for years from the international community. Second, instead of lifting the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear facilities and program at a fixed date, a better deal would link the lifting of these restrictions to an end of Iran’s aggression in the region, its worldwide terrorism and its threats to annihilate Israel.

Iran needs a deal more than anyone. Instead of making dangerous concessions to Iran, now is the time for the international community to reassert and fortify its original demands for a better deal.

We must not let Iran, the foremost sponsor of global terrorism, have an easy path to nuclear weapons which will threaten the entire world.”

3a) ISRAELI OPPOSITION FLESHES OUT IRAN POLICY, DEMANDING US SUPPORT FOR ISRAELI STRIKE

Author:  Ron Ben-Yishai 

Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni laid out their Iranian policy on Sunday and called for a “comprehensive, intimate and in-depth strategic discussion with the US” on nuclear talks between world powers and Iran, saying all issues on the table must be clarified with Washington before a final agreement is signed with Tehran.

In a position paper released Sunday, the Zionist Union's leaders demand the United States to “give legitimization ahead of time to any action Israel will need to take to protect its safety”.

Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni at Ynet's studio
(Photo: Avi Chai)

The party, which came in second in Israel's elections, is expected to head the opposition in the next government. Thus the document, published exclusively by Ynet, can be said to be the first clear articulation of an Israeli alternative to the deal reached with Iran.

As of now, only Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken out against the deal – and he has been repeatedly criticized for failing to presenting an alternative to the deal, most recently by US President Obama, who said Netanyahu failed to offer a plan of his own.

The crux of Herzog and Livni's plan is a call on the American administration to commit in advance to approve an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran violates the framework agreement signed a week and a half ago by trying to produce nuclear weapons.

Infographic: AP

The document was split into three sections: In the first section, the Zionist Union criticizes Israel's current official position, which takes serious issue with the framework agreement reached between world powers and Iran, but fails to articulate improvements.

Their own position paper, they claim, constitutes a practical and detailed proposal to what is considered a “good deal”.

“Incessant criticism without constructive suggestions could leave us at a loss,” Herzog told Ynet. “To prevent that we must have a brave and comprehensive dialogue with the US, down to the last detail,” he said.

The second part of the position paper presents suggestions on how to “close the loopholes” in the framework agreement and improve upon its different sections. The proposed improvements mostly focus on the conditions and limitations on easing the sanctions on Iran.

The Zionist Union demands that “the removal of sanctions will only be done gradually in a predefined framework coinciding with the Iranian deal,” the document demanding that should Iran fail to make good on its part of the deal sanctions will be automatically reinstated in full force.

The document also calls for enhanced oversight capabilities for the UN nuclear watchdog – the IAEA – including access to officials, documents and sites in which alleged Iranian nuclear activity is taking place.

The third part of the document focuses on rehabilitating US-Israel ties, and improving coordination over Iran while the deal is being implemented.

According to the opposition leaders, “Israel must change its regional strategy… and work to strengthen ties with the moderate forces in the region,” a move they say will curb not only Iran's nuclear program, but its destabilizing activates in the area through local proxies.

“We must act quickly to change the final deal, and raise the price of its infringement,” Herzog said, indicating the deal itself was not the true problem, but the aforementioned 'loopholes'. He said that only a “painful” cost to Iran in the case of a breach in the agreement would safeguard Israel's security.

The position paper was released after party members received requests to issue the Zionist Union's official position on the framework agreement.

In order to present the party's position, Herzog consulted senior officials and diplomats from the US and Europe, some of whom he said were actively involved in the negotiations with Iran while others followed the talks closely.

Herzog also consulted with Livni and with senior officials in Israel, including officials from the defense apparatus and those who play a part in shaping Jerusalem's policies.

The Zionist Union's “security team” also took part in consultations, including Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin (former head of Military Intelligence), Maj.-Gen. (res.) Eyal Ben Reuven, Col. (res.) Omer Bar-Lev and others, the party said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) The New Inquisition
By Thomas Sowell 
How long will this country remain free? Probably only as long as the American people value their freedom enough to defend it. But how many people today can stop looking at their electronic devices long enough to even think about such things?

Meanwhile, attempts to shut down people whose free speech interferes with other people's political agendas go on, with remarkably little notice, much less outrage. The Internal Revenue Service's targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, rather than answering them.

Another insidious attempt to silence voices that dissent from current politically correct crusades is targeting scientists who do not agree with the "global warming" scenario.

Congressman Raul Grijalva has been writing universities, demanding financial records showing who is financing the research of dissenting scientists, and demanding their internal communications as well. Mr. Grijalva says that financial disclosure needs to be part of the public's "right to know" who is financing those who express different views.

He is not the only politician pushing the idea that scientists who do not march in lockstep with what is called the "consensus" on man-made global warming could be just hired guns for businesses resisting government regulations. Senator Edward Markey has been sending letters to fossil-fuel companies, asking them to hand over details of their financial ties to critics of the "consensus."

The head of the National Academy of Sciences has chimed in, saying: "Scientists must disclose their sources of financial support to continue to enjoy societal trust and the respect of fellow scientists."

This is too clever by half. It sounds as if this government bureaucrat is trying to help the dissenting scientists enjoy trust and respect -- as if these scientists cannot decide for themselves whether they consider such a practice necessary or desirable.

The idea that you can tell whether a scientist -- or anybody else -- is "objective" by who is financing that scientist's research is nonsense. There is money available on many sides of many issues, so no matter what the researcher concludes, there will usually be somebody to financially support those conclusions.

Some of us are old enough to remember when this kind of game was played by Southern segregationist politicians trying to hamstring civil rights organizations like the NAACP by pressuring them to reveal who was contributing money to them. Such revelations would of course then subject NAACP supporters to all sorts of retaliations, and dry up contributions.

The public's "right to know" has often been invoked in attempts to intimidate potential supporters of ideas that the inquisitors want to silence. But have you heard of any groundswell of public demand to know who is financing what research?

Science is not about "consensus" but facts. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by Einstein's theory of relativity, Einstein himself said that it should not be accepted until empirical evidence could test it.

That test came during an eclipse, when light behaved as Einstein said it would, rather than the way it should have behaved if the existing "consensus" was correct.

That is how scientific questions should be settled, not by political intimidation. There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the "global warming" scenario.

The fact that "global warming" models are not doing a very good job of predicting actual temperatures has led to a shift in rhetoric, with "climate change" now being substituted. This is an issue that needs to be contested by scientists using science, not political muscle.

Too many universities are too willing to be stampeded by pressure groups. Have we forgotten Duke University's caving in to a lynch mob mentality during the "gang rape" hoax in 2006? Or the University of Virginia doing the same thing more recently?

Politicians determined to get their own way by whatever means necessary may have no grand design to destroy freedom, but what they are doing can amount to totalitarianism on the installment plan.

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

5)Russia restarts sales of missile systems to Iran to protect nuclear sites

BY ED MORRISSEY

Remember when  we could trust Vladimir Putin to enforce the terms of the Iran deal being negotiated in Lausanne? John Kerry even  cited Russia as an authority on the deal yesterday when challenged about the conflict between the description of the framework for continued negotiations:

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that if anyone doesn’t believe the information the Obama administration released on the Iran nuclear agreement, they could check with Russia.

“The Russians, who are not our usual allies, released a statement saying that what we have put out in terms of our information is both reliable and accurate,” Kerry said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

So much for  reliable. Earlier today,  Russia reneged on a ban that kept it from providing high-tech surface-to-air missile systems to Iran. The Russians canceled the sales of the S-300 system in 2010 under pressure from the UN to comply with sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The fear at the time was that Iran would harden its defenses to keep the West from using air strikes to stop them from developing a nuke:

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

"Journalism would be better off if people acknowledge their biases rather than try to do what I was trying to do all these years … to say I'm an objective reporter even though I have personal views.