Just another day in what was once a great nation!
You decide! Mark Levin's Take on Obama's Speech Will Make Your Jaw Drop
===
Sowell comments on "Showman in Chief." (See 1 below.)
The war Obama said we won and broadcast we would be withdrawing troops has restarted and now that many of our finest are trapped and wounded will he also cry for them? (See 1a below.)
Meanwhile, has N Korea detonated an hydrogen bomb? Whether they did or not it is all about miniaturization and they are moving forward in that regard and what N Korea accomplishes will be shared with Iran. (See 1 b below.)
===
In Israel, it is beyond the time for the IDF to think outside the box regarding fighting Palestinian terrorism. (See 2 below.)
===
Hanson call's Obama's hand on climate. (See 3 below.)
Obama needs to be worrying about the climate between ourselves and the Saudis because that is cooling not warming. (See 3a below.)
====
Trump questions whether Hillarious is well enough to seek the presidency. In this regard Trump is probably asking the right question. (See 4 below.)
====
Market volatility will be a condition investors will have to live with in 2016. DOW Earning estimates are in the neighborhood of $1150 so historical multiples would suggest the DOW range for 2016 should be between 14000 and 18000 and negative shock events could send it lower. I doubt positive events would send it much higher because investors are attuned to prospects of more concerns than more positives.
I also do not believe this a is a year for broad sector moves and will be more individual stock driven. I continue to maintain an interest in ABBV, MRK and speculatively OPK in health care. In financials Manulife, though impacted by the weakening Canadian economy short term should because they are making solid global moves and for income A T & T. In technology AAPL, Facebook and Intel still seem to have positive fundamentals but because of the vast interest in them can be volatile. Nothing particularly sexy but quality is becoming a factor as increasing uncertainty rules the day.
===
Finally, the watering down of our interrogation capability. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)
Showman-in-Chief
By Thomas SowellThose who have been marveling at Donald Trump's political showmanship were given a reminder of who is the top showman of them all, when President Barack Obama went on television to make a pitch for his unilateral actions to restrict gun sales and make a more general case for tighter gun control laws.
It was beautifully choreographed, like a great ballet, and performed with consummate skill and understated eloquence. First of all, the scene was set with a room full of people who had lost loved ones to gun violence. A father whose son had been gunned down made a long introduction before the president showed up, walked down the aisle and up on to the stage to growing applause.
As political theater, it put Donald Trump's rantings in the shade.
As for the substance of what Obama said, there was very little substance, and much of it false, but one of the signs of great artistry was that the presentation overshadowed the substance.
None of the things proposed by the president is likely to reduce gun violence. Like other restrictions on people's ability to defend themselves, or to deter attacks by showing that they are armed, these new restrictions can cost more lives on net balance. The most we can hope for is that the effects of the new Obama-created rules will be nil, rather than harmful.
Like most other gun control advocates, President Obama invoked scenes of mass shootings, as if what he is proposing would have prevented those tragedies. But, almost invariably, mass shootings occur in gun-free settings. Yet gun control zealots seem determined to create more gun-free settings.
How often have supposedly mentally unbalanced shooters opened fire at a meeting of the National Rifle Association? They are apparently not that mentally unbalanced. They pick places where people are not likely to shoot back.
A mass shooting at a movie theater a few years ago took place at a theater farther away from where the shooter lived than other theaters in the area that were showing the very same movie. The difference was that this theater had advertised that it was a gun-free zone.
Who is more mentally unbalanced, those who are doing the shooting or those who refuse to examine the facts about what kinds of places attract such shooters? Schools and religious institutions are sitting ducks, and the shootings there have gone on until someone else with a gun showed up on the scene. That is what puts an end to the carnage, not gun control laws.
People who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are not very likely to be stopped by laws against guns. Only law-abiding citizens are likely to be stopped by gun control laws, and to become sitting ducks.
As for facts and statistics, the only ones likely to be mentioned by gun control zealots, including the media, are those on how many people were killed by guns. How many lives were saved by guns will never make it through the ideological filters of the media, the political establishment or our educational institutions.
Yet factual data on how many threats or attacks were deterred in a given year by displaying a firearm have long been available. Seldom is it necessary to actually pull the trigger to get some thug or criminal to back off and go elsewhere, often in some haste.
Are the only lives that matter those that are lost, usually because there is no gun immediately available to protect them, but not the lives saved because they did have a gun at hand to protect them?
Gun control zealots seem especially opposed to people being allowed to carry their guns concealed. But concealed weapons protect not only those who carry them, but also to some extent those who do not, because criminals have no way of knowing in advance who does and does not have a gun.
Muggings and rapes become much more dangerous activities for criminals where many law-abiding people are allowed to carry concealed guns. It can take a lot of the fun out of being a thug.
President Obama said that we are the only "advanced" nation with so much gun violence. But there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than ours and stronger gun control laws. But that leaves the definition of "advanced" to Obama -- and makes for clever political theater.
1a) As Obama Cries at the White House, US Special Ops are Trapped in Afghanistan
By Justin Holcomb |
In the town of Marjah, Afghanistan, near the Helmand Province, as many as 20 US Army special forces soldiers are trapped inside of a compound. Surrounded by the Taliban and other Islamic terrorists, one soldier was killed and others were wounded.
Apparently, there has been some sort of evacuation for the dead and wounded, but there are still others on the ground engaged in combat. One HH-60 helicopter was grounded due to damage and two others were sent to help with the rescue.
Meanwhile, at the White House, Obama was crying during his address to the public regarding his executive action on gun control today. When is the last time Obama cried when addressing dead service members or the wounded.
There has been air support for the trapped soldiers but there are still active firefights near the compound.
1b) North Korea Detonates Hydrogen Bomb
By Justin Holcomb
Less than a month after Dictator Kim Jong-un claimed that North Korea had developed a hydrogen bomb, tremors were detected near a North Korean nuclear testing site early Wednesday morning.
Alarms were raised when China, South Korea, and the United States Pacific Command all confirmed artificial tremors just a short time ago.
If it is true that North Korea does has the ability to create and operate a hydrogen bomb, it will erase the much speculated news that the country's nuclear arsenal was in decline.
Hydrogen bombs are much more sophisticated and cause much more damage than conventional plutonium bombs.
===========================================================
2)Thinking out of the box needed to combat terror
By Isi Leibler
The “lone-wolf” stabbings, shootings and other actions by individuals designed to kill Israelis are not a new phenomenon. Nor are they “popular” responses to settlements, poor living conditions or alienation due to the “occupation.” They are an extension of the conflict with the Arabs that preceded the creation of the Jewish state.
Over the past year, incitement from the Palestinian Authority has intensified, matching that of Hamas, stoking the fires of religious fanaticism based on fabricated hysteria alleging that Jews plan to demolish Al-Aqsa mosque. PA President Mahmoud Abbas shamelessly directs this campaign of hatred, accusing Jews of “defiling Al-Aqsa mosque with their filthy feet,” praising the “holy blood” of the “martyred” killers and condemning Israel for “murdering” the terrorists.
The objective is clear. The PA -- which still endorses a two-state policy when it communicates with Western countries -- today unequivocally exhorts its constituents to promote the elimination of any Jewish entity and demands the establishment of a Muslim state incorporating all territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
The successful outcome of the incitement is reflected in Palestinian polls which indicate that 67% support the stabbings and killing of Jews and believe that this serves the Palestinian national interest and 48% regard the goal of the intifada as the destruction of the Jewish state.
In the past three months, over 25 Israeli civilians and 130 Palestinian terrorists have been killed.
What is frustrating is that the new genre of killers overwhelmingly comprise religious fanatics stirred into a frenzy by their leaders and mullahs to kill Jews with the promise of entry into Paradise as glorious martyrs. Many are teenagers, they include females, and they are virtually impossible to anticipate through conventional intelligence sources.
Terrorism will never be the undoing of the state and we have overcome far tougher challenges in the past.
But there is no sign of this terror abating, but rather predictions that it could intensify. It has already had a massive negative impact on tourism.
The numbers are still far less than casualties from road accidents. But each victim of terror has traumatic implications on the national psyche and is mourned by the entire nation. No matter how resilient Israelis may be, the indefinite extension of an atmosphere in which one is fearful when walking down the street or distressed by a constant stream of terrorist incidents is depressing.
Unfortunately, there are no obvious solutions. To deal with the duplicitous Abbas and the PA is not simple. Despite the incitement to kill, because it fears a Hamas takeover, the PA does prevent public uprisings and maintains internal order. The Israel Defense Forces understandably seeks to maintain this status quo because it has no desire to reoccupy Palestinian cities in order to maintain a semblance of authority.
This current untenable situation requires new approaches and strategies.
For a start, we should try to behave rationally. The decision by the Israeli Medical Association to instruct its members to give priority to wounded terrorists who seem to be in worse condition than their victims is bizarre. It explicitly calls on Israeli medical officials to blur the distinction between a murderer and his victim. It reflects a total lack of a moral compass. Could one visualize doctors being instructed to give priority to Nazi concentration guards in worse condition than their former captives? A terrorist murderer is surely no better.
Likewise, repeated warnings to security forces to take maximum precautions to avoid mortally injuring killers as they seek to murder Israelis may inhibit security officers and lead to tragic consequences. We are not engaged in a friendly sport or acting as chivalrous knights. When a terrorist seeks to murder an Israeli, the instruction should be shoot to kill.
Another infuriating action is the return of the bodies of the killers to their families. The IDF has been persuaded by Palestinian security forces that withholding the bodies generates enormous rage and leads to greater unrest. Yet despite repeated assurances by the families that funerals of terrorists will be low profile events, the horrific mass gatherings and anti-Israeli incitement calling for intensified terror that occurs at such funerals are surely worse than the anger generated when the bodies are not returned. We are dealing with frenzied murderers of innocent civilians, not soldiers or fighters. Handing over their bodies for funerals that become hate fests against Israel and that glorify the murderers as heroes should be terminated.
There is a need to explore further means of deterrence beyond demolishing the homes of the perpetrators’ immediate families.
The IDF has a good track record of pursuing and apprehending terrorists who are not “neutralized” instantly. However, the IDF concern to avoid direct occupation of the West Bank if the PA collapses makes it difficult to force Abbas to cease his incitement. Taking into account the overwhelming support for terrorist acts by Palestinians, the government could perhaps consider some collective punitive responses when Abbas or his leaders launch extreme calls to incitement. But easier said than done.
Closing the borders for a day or more to deny entry to Palestinian laborers would be painful but would cause unjustified hardship to the more moderate Arabs.
Consideration should perhaps be given to now formally annexing the major settlement blocs. This would also make it easier for the IDF to close borders should it be obliged to reoccupy the territories in the event of the PA’s collapse.
With the expanded threat of global terrorism, some Western countries may temper their pressure to create a Palestinian state at this time, realizing that the radicalization of the Palestinians would make such a state a prime candidate to join ISIS.
In terms of deterring Hamas, Israel has greater opportunities to adopt a tough approach. Hamas propaganda even exceeds the most obscene Nazi calls for the extermination of the Jewish people. It is directly engaged in orchestrating terrorist attacks against Israel and restoring attack tunnels on Israeli borders. Last week, Lebanon’s El Khabar newspaper quoted Hamas sources stating that it was resurrecting sleeper cells and recruiting volunteers with the intention of launching a new wave of suicide bombings against Israel.
Understandably, Israel has sought to avoid actions that would lead to a renewed war with Hamas in Gaza. Yet there are lessons to be learned from our failure to react swiftly to former Hamas provocations. Yes, there is a possibility that tough action could renew the conflict. But there is a more compelling case suggesting that resolute action now will prevent us sliding into another war.
We should consider destroying the radio and TV stations that broadcast calls for our annihilation. We should be prepared to cut off electricity and impose tougher blockades if they continue orchestrating terrorist activity or launch rockets against us. That does indeed represent collective punishment but taking into account the enthusiastic public support for terrorist acts against Israel, that should not deter us.
Of course, the greatest and most effective deterrent is to reintroduce targeted assassinations which will make the leaders think twice before indulging in terrorist acts. Such action is also likely to impact on the PA and oblige them to temper their current incitement.
All these suggestions are complex and can lead to other problems. But Israelis can take pride in the fact that they are capable of creative outside-the-box solutions and have frequently adopted unconventional actions that proved successful.
The status quo is unacceptable and in the absence of remedial action it is likely to worsen.
The government must determine a strategy and convey the message unequivocally to Hamas. Now may be the best time to bite the bullet. That Iran and Hezbollah are currently engaged in a bitter battle in Syria makes it less likely that, in the event of war with Hamas, we would face a two-front confrontation The international community, which is not unduly friendly toward Israel, will presumably again call for restraint and proportionality and Israel will still be condemned in the majority of international forums.
But today, with the fear being generated by ISIS terror all over the world, many countries -- even as they publicly join the inevitable chorus of condemnation -- are likely to have a greater understanding of our determination to protect our citizens from brutal terrorist attacks than was the case in the past.
================================================================3)
Our Superstitious President
By Victor Davis Hanson
President Obama talks a lot about the scientific method. On climate change, he has often invoked the idea of a great divide between those on the progressive left, such as himself, who believe in “settled science” and thus a looming man-caused climatological disaster, and those, presumably on the Neanderthal Right, who are slaves to superstition, ideology, prejudice, and self-interest—and thus deny that the planet is rapidly warming due to inordinate human-induced releases of excessive carbon.
Obama’s view of science is reductionist. It relies on count-em-up numbers: if more university professors (not known to be an especially independent or courageous cohort) believe in dangerous man-caused climate change than doubt it or its seriousness, and if climate change fits a larger progressive agenda, then it becomes factual.
Would we assume thereby that Newton, Galileo, and Darwin were all exemplars of groupthink, and worked through consensus and collegiality, especially with the support of status-quo institutions and universities, in advancing majority-held theories?
When Obama signed legislation in his first weeks in office enabling human stem cell research, he pontificated that his act was about ensuring “that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Aside from the fact that there were and are methodologies of harvesting stem cells without resort to embryonic protocols, the president’s entire approach to science, data, and the inductive method is to privilege ideology and subordinate facts.
In short, Obama is the most anti-science, anti-factual president in modern memory.
The president has warned the nation, usually on the most inappropriate and untimely occasions, of the American tendency to succumb to Islamophobia. But to support such an assumed pathology, the president adduced no evidence that Americans are more likely to target Muslims than other groups.
If we were to rely on “scientific” research, there is statistical evidence that in general hate crimes in the U.S. are rare, and that in particular they tend to focus on Jews. The most recent survey (2014) of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows 58% of hate crimes were directed at Jews, while just 16% were against Muslims. Thus, if the president felt that there was a real danger of American citizens or residents harming others due to their religions, then obviously he would warn us not to attack Jews, who suffer more hate crimes than all other religious groups combined.
As a student of science, Obama should incorporate such findings in his pop editorializing and not, for example, sloppily characterize the deliberate sorting and murdering of four Jews in a Paris delicatessen as if it were a random attack on “a bunch of folks” (e.g., “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris”).
If Obama really wished to address hate crimes in more precise scientific fashion, he would ask for data concerning not just the most likely group to suffer such attacks, but the most likely group statistically to commit them. But then again there is an anti-scientific resistance to investigating the matter further, given the likely results that would suggest an unwelcome reality.
The president also insists that the government in reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks must now rush to make it illegal for anyone on the no-fly lists to buy guns. Is there any scientific evidence that such a move would have much effect in preventing or abating terrorism? Or is such a call based on folklore and ideologically driven superstition?
Over 800,000 are on the terrorist watch list, and about 64,000 of them are additionally on the no-fly list. Aside from the facts that both lists grow and do not seem to shrink, and that reasons are not always provided for adding names to the lists, there is no evidence that those included in the past on the no-fly list so far have been the perpetrators of post-9/11 terrorist attacks. Banning guns to those on a no-fly list may in theory be wise, but there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it would be. If one were to consult other various lists of the major terrorist operations in the U.S. since 9/11—and they range in number from 50-60 depending on the criteria used—the vast majority were committed by those who self-identified as acting on behalf of Islam.
In rejecting the Keystone pipeline, the president ignored the scientific conclusions of his own State Department’s body of expert consultants who found no major negative impact to the climate by building the pipeline. In fact, statistically it is likely far less deleterious to the environment to ship oil-sand products by pipeline through the United States than to transport it by existing rail and truck. The Keystone cancellation was emblematic of making scientific decisions based on ideology, not facts.
NASA, as its name implies, by all accounts is a scientific government agency devoted to the exploration of the upper atmosphere and space. Its mission is not, as its Director Charles Bolden understood his mandate from President Obama, a sociological one: “And third, and perhaps foremost, (emphasis added) he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” Once the U.S. again has its own rockets, such outreach may be a nice thing to do. But “feel good” is not the “foremost” mission of that government scientific organization. Envision the next present promising to use NASA to ensure that Christian nations “feel good” about past Christian “contributions to science, math, and engineering.” Almost instantaneously we would hear—and rightly so—charges leveled against an anti-science president subverting for ideological purposes and a “political agenda” an historic government scientific enterprise.
Most climatologists do not connect the California drought with global warming. To the degree that we can ascertain a cause, given the paucity of weather-related data in California dating much before 1850, scientists point to the El Niño effect. Slight changes in east-central Pacific Ocean temperatures have historically affected the formation and trajectories of West Coast storms. To the degree temperature per se is the culprit, our present drought is largely a result of oceanic temperatures being too cool—in other words, too little of an El Niño effect.
Yet Obama flew into the Central Valley of California, Ground Zero of the drought, pronounced climate change the culprit, promised federal monies for that purpose, and flew out. Aside from politicizing a natural disaster for contemporary political advantage, anti-science also plays a role in the drought. Activists and government officials, state and federal, did not calibrate rising state population with increased needs for water storage and transfers.
Instead, in an ideological and anti-science frenzy, they suspended completing the California Water Project and Central Valley Project infrastructure, and embraced romantic but unproven theories about diverting contracted irrigation water to reintroduce salmon to the San Joaquin River and to restore delta smelt populations to assumed normal levels. Both anti-scientific efforts failed to increase those populations, but only after the wastage of several million acre-feet of precious water. Releasing scarce storage water in a drought—contrary to the initial aims of the Central Valley and California Water Projects of flood control, irrigation, recreation, and power generation—on the theory of altering fish populations is about as anti-scientific and anti-human as one can get.
If one were to characterize the Obama administration approach to the natural world, it is precisely an historical effort to privilege ideology over facts. In matters of gun control, Obama ignores how, where, and why most Americans are killed by guns because the facts do not fit a preconceived narrative. In matters of the Affordable Care Act, the administration made unscientific claims about affordability, budgetary consequences, coverage, and access that were quickly proven contrary to available evidence.
In reaction to the Benghazi killings, the Obama team advanced a narrative about a right-wing video maker prompting such “spontaneous” violence that contradicted eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and the social media testimonies of the attackers and the reports of the attacked. Then there is the matter of racial violence such as Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson. The president evoked it as an example of police excess, even though his own Justice Department found no culpability on the part of the officer in question and the narrative of an innocent victim crying out “hands up, don’t shoot” to be an entire fabrication. For political and ideological purposes, the Obama Justice Department supports flawed studies theorizing that one in four females on campus will be a victim of sexual violence during her college years—a theory debunked by facts as often as it is resurrected for its electoral utility.
Obama does not believe in science because science is blind. In today’s political climate, disinterested inquiry is a mortal sin. We live in an age in which aims that are declared socially just require any means necessary to achieve them—even if that ensures a denial of the scientific method and facts themselves.
3a) U.S. in a Bind as Saudi Actions Test a Durable Alliance
The Obama administration on Monday confronted the fundamental contradiction in its increasingly tense relationship with Saudi Arabia. It could not bring itself, at least in public, to condemn the execution of a dissident cleric who challenged the royal family, for fear of undermining the fragile Saudi leadership that it desperately needs in fighting the Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria.
3a) U.S. in a Bind as Saudi Actions Test a Durable Alliance
The Obama administration on Monday confronted the fundamental contradiction in its increasingly tense relationship with Saudi Arabia. It could not bring itself, at least in public, to condemn the execution of a dissident cleric who challenged the royal family, for fear of undermining the fragile Saudi leadership that it desperately needs in fighting the Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria.
The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed its elite to fund Islamic extremists.
In return, Saudi Arabia became America’s most dependable filling station, a regular supplier of intelligence, and a valuable counterweight to Iran. For years it was oil that provided the glue for a relationship between two nations that share few common values.
Today, with American oil production surging and the Saudi leadership fractured, the mutual dependency that goes back to the early 1930s, with the first American investment in the kingdom’s oil fields, no longer binds the nations as it once did.
But the political upheaval in the Middle East and the American perception that the Saudis are critical to stability in the region continue to hold together an increasingly fractious marriage. So when Saudi Arabia executed 47 people, including Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the dissident cleric, on Saturday, beheading many of them in a style that most Americans associate with the Islamic State rather than a close American partner, the administration’s efforts to explain the relationship became more strained than ever.
In fact, the executions were the culmination of a series of events in the past few years that have led to clashes between the two nations.
“We haven’t been on the same page with the Saudis for a long time,” said Martin S. Indyk, the executive vice president of the Brookings Institution and a former top aide to Secretary of State John Kerry. “And it starts with Mubarak.”
In 2011, Saudi leaders berated President Obama and his aides for failing to support President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt during the Arab Spring, fearing Mr. Obama might do the same thing if the uprisings spread to the kingdom.
The nuclear deal with Iran only fueled the Saudi sense that the United States was rethinking the fundamental relationship — and Saudi officials, on visits to Washington, openly questioned whether they could rely on their American ally. It was King Abdullah who was quoted in a 2008 State Department cable, released two years later by WikiLeaks, exhorting the United States to “cut off the head of the snake” — Iran — by launching military strikes. He died before last summer’s deal, but Saudi leaders, who still see Iran’s hand behind every destabilizing act in the Middle East, argued that the administration was naïve to think that Iran would abide by any negotiated accord.
So ever since that accord was reached in July, the Obama administration has been offering reassurance. Mr. Obama invited the Saudis to join a meeting at Camp David to reassure Arab allies that the United States was not abandoning them — and would sell them larger weapons packages than ever before. But the administration has also been sharply critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen, seeing it as a huge distraction from the bigger battle against the Islamic State.
To hear the Americans tell it, the new Saudi leadership struggling for influence under King Salman is headstrong, “more interested in action than deliberation,” in Mr. Indyk’s words.
When Mr. Kerry warned the Saudis against executing Sheikh Nimr, a Saudi-born Shiite cleric who directly challenged the royal family, he was ignored. “This is a concern that we raised with the Saudis in advance,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, acknowledged Monday. He said the execution has “precipitated the kinds of consequences that we were concerned about.”
But that was about as strongly as the administration was willing to criticize the Saudis. Pressed to condemn Sheikh Nimr’s execution, officials urged calm on all sides. The State Department spokesman, John Kirby, urged the entire region to move on to the business of confronting the Islamic State and dealing with the Syria crisis.
“If you are asking whether we are trying to become a mediator in all this, the answer is no,” Mr. Kirby told reporters. “Real, long-term solutions aren’t going to be mandated by Washington, D.C.”
Privately, several American officials expressed anger at the Saudis for picking this moment to conduct the executions.
They noted that Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have been in regular contact with members of the Saudi leadership. Mr. Obama called to urge the Saudis to join the Syrian peace process talks — across the table from the Iranians. Mr. Kerry traveled to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, and later asked the Saudis to organize the Syrian rebels into a single group to negotiate a cease-fire with President Bashar al-Assad.
But the Saudis were reluctant partners, telling their Western counterparts that they would go along, but predicting that Mr. Kerry’s effort would collapse because Iran would never agree to any process that led to Mr. Assad’s removal. Meanwhile, the Saudis’ early participation in airstrikes against the Islamic State petered out as they moved military assets to their campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Others who deal with the Saudis say there is a degree of stress on the leadership in Riyadh they have rarely seen before.
“The kingdom faces a potentially perfect storm of low oil income, open-ended war in Yemen, terrorist threats from multiple directions and an intensifying regional rivalry with its nemesis, Iran,” Bruce Riedel, a former senior C.I.A. officer with long experience in the region, wrote Monday.
Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, saw a desire to send a pointed message to Washington. The Saudis were saying, Mr. Clawson wrote, that “if the United States will not stand up to Iran, Riyadh will do so on its own.”
The Saudi concern that the Obama administration is about to embrace Iran is almost certainly overblown. Since the nuclear agreement, the Iranians have tested ballistic missiles twice, and the administration — after some delays — appears to be readying sanctions in return. And last week, Iranian naval ships fired rockets within 1,500 yards of a United States aircraft carrier group. The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled out cooperation with the United States — though the Iranians have shown up at the Syria talks.
On occasion, American officials muse about whether the United States and Iran might, one day, constitute more natural allies than the United States and Saudi Arabia. But that seems far off.
“It’s not as if you have an Iranian alternative,” a senior gulf Arab official said recently. “And if you have no alternative, your best choice is to stop complaining about the Saudis.”
===============================================================================
4)
4)
There is Something About Hillary
For the past several weeks Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been suggesting that Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has impairments. In a December 3, 2015 column, Business Insider columnist Colin Campbell noted:
"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says the same two things about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in almost every campaign speech these days.
"His favorite zinger is that Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, doesn't have the ‘strength or the stamina’ for the Oval Office.
"’One thing with Hillary, she doesn't have the strength or the stamina to be president. She doesn't have it,’ Trump said at a Wednesday-night campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia.
"’You ever see Hillary?’ And I said, 'She doesn't have the strength, she doesn't have the stamina,’ Trump later said."
Mr. Trump’s comments are generally followed by accusations that she spends little time on the campaign trail and must rest up after her infrequent campaign appearances. As with most accusations made by Mr. Trump about his campaign rivals, there is some truth overrun bybraggadocio.
The truth is this accusation may, in fact, be more serious than the "one-liner" suggests. In December of 2012, weeks before she was to appear before a Congressional committee regarding her role in the attack by elements of al-Qaeda on our embassy in Benghazi resulting in the death of our ambassador to Libya, Ms. Clinton was hospitalized after, according to her, a fall and resulting serious concussion. I say that because with Ms. Clinton, the first story is never true and even mild digging by reporters generally results in the disclosure of something more serious – and to her more disastrous for her image. As it turns out Ms. Clinton actually suffered a stroke.
While Ms. Clinton eventually acknowledged having a "small blood clot" in her brain as a result of the fall, she refused to acknowledge that she had a stroke. According to the World Heart Federation:
"Ischemic strokes happen when a blood clot (thrombus) or a fatty deposit blocks an artery supplying blood to the brain. Around 80% of all strokes are ischemic in origin. The remaining 20% of strokes are hemorrhagic, where an artery bursts. These can be caused by an aneurysm, a bulge or weakness in the wall of a blood vessel.
"All of us have clotting factors in our blood to ensure we do not bleed to death if we cut ourselves. But conditions like hypertension, atherosclerosis and some other blood problems can lead to the development of blood clots. Thrombosis is the name given to the formation of blood clots. When the clot blocks the blood flow to the heart or the brain, a heart attack or stroke can follow. An embolism occurs when a blood clot travels around the body and lodges in an organ."
This is not one of those pedantic arguments that the Clintons love to use in order to dissemble. It is, in fact, a very serious thing. However, the Clintons never tell the truth and in the early investigation of Ms. Clinton’s stroke, her personal physician Dr. Lisa Bardack, stated:
"Secretary Clinton developed a stomach virus, leading to extreme dehydration, and subsequently fainted. Over the course of this week we evaluated her and ultimately determined she had also sustained a concussion. We recommended that the Secretary continue to rest and avoid any strenuous activity, and strongly advised her to cancel all work events for the coming week. We will continue to monitor her progress as she makes a full recovery."
No mention of a stroke. No mention of the "prism" glasses that she was forced to wear. No mention of the extent of rehabilitation that was required.
The use of prism glasses is a regular requirement as a result of some strokes. They are necessary in order to focus the eyes (double vision) for reading purposes. Something that was obvious at Ms. Clinton’s first Benghazi appearance before the House committee on Benghazi on January 23, 2014 – some six weeks following her stroke. Ms. Clinton continued to wear the glasses until at least the date of her resignation on February 1, 2014.
It was Ms. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, while fending of accusations that Ms. Clinton was trying to "duck" the appearance before the Benghazi committee, that let slip the extent of the rehabilitation that as required after Ms. Clinton’s stroke. On May 14, 2014 ABC News reporter Mary Burnes noted:
"Bill Clinton did more today than defend his wife, Hillary Clinton, from recent accusations leveled by GOP strategist Karl Rove that she suffered brain damage after in December 2012.
"The former president revealed that his wife's injury "required six months of very serious work to get over," he said during a question-and-answer session at the Peterson Foundation in Washington.
"’They went to all this trouble to say she had staged what was a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over,’ he said. ‘It's something she never low-balled with the American people, never tried to pretend it didn't happen.’"
Even while dissembling about her putative conditions as a "concussion" Mr. Clinton revealed the seriousness of her actual condition – a thrombotic stroke. More importantly, while Mr. Clinton claims that Ms. Clinton never "low-balled" her condition to the American people, she continues to be less than forth coming about what actually happened and the medical precursors that led to this inevitable stroke.
Ms. Clinton has had other thrombotic episodes. She had a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and another in 2009. According to a report by the clinical staff of Mayo Clinic:
"Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs when a blood clot (thrombus) forms in one or more of the deep veins in your body, usually in your legs. Deep vein thrombosis can cause leg pain or swelling, but may occur without any symptoms.
"Deep vein thrombosis can develop if you have certain medical conditions that affect how your blood clots. Deep vein thrombosis can also happen if you don't move for a long time, such as after surgery, following an accident, or when you are confined to a hospital or nursing home bed.
"Deep vein thrombosis is a serious condition because blood clots in your veins can break loose, travel through your bloodstream and lodge in your lungs, blocking blood flow (pulmonary embolism).
A 2012 Hindawa Scientifica article noted:
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) that includes deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism is a frequent, severe, and potentially lethal disease. After a first episode, VTE has a strong tendency to recur. While VTE is an acute disease, it may have variable outcomes in early and late phases after initial presentation. Furthermore, the incidence of late, clinically important consequences (postthrombotic syndrome and/or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension) increases in case of recurrent events." [Emphasis supplied]
In other words, the first venus thrombotic incident was a predictor of subsequent incidents – two of which have already occurred. In a March 2000 Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) Dr. Per-Olof Hansson noted:
"The recurrence rate after a symptomatic DVT is high. Patients with proximal DVT, diagnosed cancer, short duration of oral anticoagulation therapy, or a history of thromboembolic events had a higher risk of recurrent events, while patients with postoperative DVT had a lower recurrence rate. This knowledge could help identify patients who might benefit most from prolonged prophylactic treatment in various risk situations."
In other words, Ms. Clinton is at greater risk of a subsequent stroke than the average citizen. The facts that she will be sixty-nine in 2016, that she is primarily sedentary and that she is participating in a high stress campaign (and an even more stressful position if she is elected President of the United States) simply increases the risk even more.
I do not believe that the condition of Ms. Clinton’s health is a disqualifier for the presidency. However, I do believe that it is a subject for full disclosure and debate. And that disclosure should include the actual medical records for those treating Ms. Clinton and not just a letter summary of her health from her friend Dr. Lisa Bardack. [WebMD notes that Dr. Bardack treats acute pharyngitis (inflammation of the pharynx and/or tonsils), acute sinusitus (a short-term infection or inflammation of the membranes that line your sinuses), acute upper respiratory tract infections and anxiety phobic disorders – none of which have to do with deep vein thrombosis or ischemic strokes.]
And while it may not serve Ms. Clinton’s best interests, it will serve the interest of American voters who must make a choice for the next President of the United States.
=============================================================
5)The single most prominent characteristic of contemporary America is that common sense has been abandoned to political correctness and "feelings".
5)The single most prominent characteristic of contemporary America is that common sense has been abandoned to political correctness and "feelings".
=========================================================================As President George W. Bush's top speech writer, Marc Thiessen was provided unique access to the CIA program used in interrogating top Al Qaeda terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM).Now, his riveting new book, "Courting Disaster", How the CIA Kept America Safe (Regnery), has been published. Here is an excerpt from "Courting Disaster":"Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi. A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: "I am with KSM."Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable "pocket litter."Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions,informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer Instead he is taken to a secret CIA "black site" in an undisclosed location.Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be. Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience, and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation.When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: "Soon, you will know."It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of "enhanced interrogation techniques" approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include water-boarding.He begins telling his CIA debriefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda's operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens, and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids.He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists.KSM's questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world. In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the "Bojinka plot" to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean.Years later, an observant CIA officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM's description of his plans for a Bojinka-style attack.In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.On the night of Aug. 9, 2006 they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find a USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven Trans -Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:
- United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 PM
- Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 PM
- Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 PM
- United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 PM
- United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 PM
- American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 PM
- American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment