Tuesday, March 1, 2011

It's a toss-up: which is more impotent and hypocritical? The UN or the Obama Administration.

Recent events have revealed the vacuity of "experts" on the Middle East, the hypocrisy and uselessness of the U.N. ( March 18 was supposed to witness the release of a report LAUDING the human rights record of Gaddaffi and sons ) and Obama refrains from doing (or even saying ) anything about revolutionaries being murdered in the streets of Tehran and belatedly joins in a weak denunciation of Gaddaffi ( whose terrorists, until Al Qaeda, murdered more Americans than any other agency ) but throws Mubarak under the bus so quickly a democratic opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't have time to form.


Tuesday, February 1, 2011

What was the purpose of Obama's WH remarks after Mubarak's speech?

It is curious that President Obama thought it necessary to interject his own remarks to an American audience after Mubarak had announced that he wouldn't run for re-election. He didn't endorse or gainsay the idea that Mubarak would preside over an "orderly transition" and not stand for re-election. He piously proclaimed that, whatever the Egyptian people decided, the U.S. would continue to stand in support. Perhaps motivated by simple narcissim, some of what he said might be counterproductive.

Now, the best thing for peace and stability in the region is for the military to assume an important role so as to preclude the dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood or even the broad "democratic" will which is anti-American and anti-Israel and will almost certainly jeopardize the peace agreement of thirty years' standing. This would require some time for such a transition to be effected. Obama has essentially committed himself to continuing support ( presumably the aid that he threatened to withdraw if Mubarak didn't do the right thing ) even if the rule in Eqypt becomes quickly Islamist and radicalized. Precipitate action has invariably led to takeover of revolutions by more radical elements. (Cf the Bolsheviks taking over from the Mensheviks, Nasser taking over from General Naguib, Saddam Hussein taking over from those who overthrew the Hashemite king of Iraq, ...even the Ayatollah taking over from the immediate revolt against the Shah and the interim rule of Baktiar.

It has been only the military in Muslim countries that has prevented the otherwise inevitable drift to Islamism. Turkey has only recently, after almost a century of military-led restraint, turned Islamist. Likewise, Algeria and others.

Obama is likely to follow in the footsteps of the feckless Carter, who turned a stanch Iranian into a committed and lethal enemy, and preside over the transition of Egypt from friend to foe, likewise.

Once again, Israel will see the folly of trading a piece of paper for tangible resources. Only between stable democracies, can treaties be counted upon to mean something after the passing of those who signed them ( although, even here, Obama and Clinton have abrogated some agreements put in writing by Bush.)

Friday, January 28, 2011

Unrest in the Mideast finds a Jimmy Carter clone mucking up US foreign policy

The situation in Egypt is very unstable. Mubarek is old and sick and his sons are reported to have just defected to the U.K. with the rest of his family.The Tunisian example makes all regimes unstable and the people, largely young, suffer from umemployment and food shortages. Just as in the Iranian Revolution, a revolution that started off secular is likely to transmute into a religious revolution with the Muslim Brotherhood a clear winner, as were the mullahs in Iran in 1979. Obama is likely, as did Carter, to stay hands off as radical elements take over. Support for El Baradej might do some good if the CIA is on top of the situation ( which, unfortunately, they probably are not.) Obama's position is inconsistent and, amazingly, so far wrong. A year ago, there was a potential revolution in Iran and Obama pissed away the opportunity to endorse it. It was a dominated decision for anyone but an Obama because the regime in power is unalterably hostile to our interests so ANY CHANGE would have been for the better. So Obama endorses the status quo. There was no downside because, even had the wrong side won ( as it did anyway ), those against the mullahs would have remembered and thought they could on the U.S. (Reagan supported the Solidarity Movement in Poland at a speech but then got shot immediately thereafter so it was forgotten...except by Lech Walesa who subsequently said that he drew great support from Reagan's words. ) Carter undermined the Shah and boosted the Ayatollah, without knowing that Iran was going from the frying pan into the fire. Obama should act gingerly until he knows ( assuming his "people" know and that they can convince him ) who is going to replace Mubarek. The difference between Egypt now and Iran a year ago is that Mubarek is presently an ally and the Ahmadinejad was ( and is ) definitely NOT.

It is reflexive but stupid for Obama and Clinton to urge Egypt to reconnect the internet and social networks that were instrumental in spreading the Iranian revolt of a year ago.

The price of oil is likely to go up both because of unrest among oil-producing countries but also because the Suez Canal is at risk. Oil producers well outside the region of instability are likely to profit, provided they can expand their production. This excludes American domestic producers who are hampered by the Obama administration, itself. More promising by far is PBR and STO, the national oil companies of Brazil and Norway, respectively. Other forms of available energy ( i.e. not the blue sky versions of Obamamians ) like coal and natural gas should benefit since they are expandable.

Gold and silver are likely to benefit from the uncertainty as are agricultural commodities because of the food shortages and threat to transportation through the Suez.US aid to Egypt has been largely to aid the military ( which is peculiar given that it is likely directed against Israel with whom the US has counted on Egypt maintaining peace. ) Aid should be redirected to food and consumer goods that might mitigate complaints. Ironically, it might be Bernanke whose policies have exported inflation to other countries resulting in rising food prices in Egypt and other places.

If, as is likely, the Muslim Brotherhood achieves power ( or, at least, great influence ) peace between Egypt and Israel is threatened and more military aid ( albeit not, one hopes, for Egypt ) will be required. That means defense companies will get increased business at least for those things that don't involve American military personnel but, rather, materiEl that will have to be supplied to Israel and other allies in the MidEast with Turkey being a potential hotspot, probably more critical than Egypt because its government has already turned Islamist.

Oil is going 'way up; probably gold as well since inflation will spike all over.Domestic American oil companies will still be hobbled by the environuts of the Obama administration.

Monday, January 24, 2011

It ain't all the things you don't know; it's all the things you know that ain't so.

Resisting climate hysteria by Richard Lindzen
****The effects of politically-motivated junk science are not benign.Environmentalist nuts have prevented the construction of dams that would have palliated the flooding in Queensland, Australia and the changing of levees that would have reduced the effects of Katrina in New Orleans. Also, vaccines do NOT cause autism in children but many children were denied vaccination while the false claims had to be dealt with.What accounts for the Left's embracing of all this folly? Perhaps it's a desire to save the world by endorsing some simplistic position that makes them feel useful without the necessity of actually learning scientific method and the humility that comes with it. It is the certainty of religious faith that stokes fervor.For professional scientists, going along with nonsense is lamentably due to the desire for notoriety and grant money that causes them to endorse positions that are unsustainable by actual science.The politicization of science is quite dangerous because remediation of natural disasters is often precluded.****

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Muslims and Truth: not much overlap

Muslims and Truth - Benny Morris
In the wake of the New Year's Day bombing outside the church in Alexandria, Egypt, in which 23 Coptic Christians were murdered, Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Qabbani, Lebanon's Grand Mufti, immediately announced: "This assault...is not an individual internal Egyptian act, but a criminal act with Zionist...fingerprints." A spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Munim Abu al Fattouh Abdel, said: It could not have been Egyptians. Perhaps it was the Mossad. Iranian TV put it: "It goes without saying that no Muslim...will ever commit such an inhuman act."
This raises a serious question. What are the bounds of credulity in the mendacity-ridden Muslim societies of the Middle East? Is there no limit to what the infidel can be accused of - and to the expectation that the charge will stick? Which raises the still more profound question: What are the long-term prospects for peaceful cohabitation on planet Earth between us in the West and these Muslim societies in which truth has absolutely no traction or importance, where the masses believe that the CIA or the Mossad knocked down the Twin Towers on 9/11? (National Interest)

Monday, January 10, 2011

Despite their protestations, it's the Left that owns violence.

****There are two Leftist precepts that they trot out repeatedly: 1) Accuse others of the things you know to be true of yourself; 2) The RAHMANTRA: Don' let a crisis go to waste. Amidst the phony accusations, one might well ask: Is the far left-wing Daily Kos to blame for instigating the murders in Tucson?****
Is Daily Kos to blame for Gifford attack?
Rick Moran
There's no link to the diary entry at Daily Kos that is described in this posting from Hillbuzz. That's because Kos scrubbed it. Thankfully, several bloggers were able to capture screen shots of the post that used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times.
Diary headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" There are also several references to "dead" in the comment thread.
All of it now deleted - something Kos does on a regular basis when he wishes to change history. Kos also seems to have forgotten a posting of his calling for putting a "bullseye" on Giffords' district. The New York Times insinuated something about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs in connection with the shooting, but so far as we have noticed, has not mentioned leftist violent rhetoiric and imagery...
****Now, of course we don't really blame DK for causing the murders but it points up the utter hypocrisy of Paul Krugman, the NYTimes, Sen Durbin,and many others of the left-wing hysteriate trying to blame Tea Partiers or Republicans or the right-wing for instigating the murders. It just happens that the loon who committed the crimes is characterized by an acquaintance as a "left-wing pothead" and self-described as admiring The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Not yet mentioned is the fact that Cong. Giffords is Jewish and most American anti-Semitism comes from the Left (e.g. Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Baghdad Jim McDermott, James Traficant, Keith Ellison et al); Mein Kampf might have some relevance here.****

The Left, Not the Right, Owns Political Violence By Michael Filozof
It took less than 24 hours for the political left to seize upon the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six people on Saturday to blame the political right for the shooting.
Perhaps the most egregious example came from Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who wrote, "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." (The newspaper that published plagiarized and fabricated accounts of the "D.C. sniper" by affirmative-action hire Jayson Blair in 2003 is still publishing unsubstantiated suppositions without "proof," eh?)...