Obama Administration Once Approved a Pipeline Just Like Keystone XL

Something to think about after the Senate failed to override President Obama’s Keystone XL veto is that not long ago, pipelines weren’t tied up in regulatory limbo and the focus of anti-energy advocates.

Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobile’s vice president of public and government affairs, looks at a pipeline approved by the Obama administration that does the same thing Keystone XL will do–move Canadian oil sands crude [emphasis mine]:

Consider that the original Keystone pipeline took 693 days to approve. The current Keystone XL application has languished for 2,356 days and counting.

Then there’s the Alberta Clipper pipeline, another cross-border pipeline whose comparison to Keystone XL should leave many people scratching their heads.

That pipeline took 829 days to approve.  That’s about one-third as long as the Keystone XL review.

The Alberta Clipper pipeline moves oil from Alberta to Wisconsin.

Alberta Clipper pipeline map.

Alberta Clipper pipeline map. Image credit: Enbridge.

Cohen quotes the State Department’s 2009 announcement of the Alberta Clipper’s approval [emphasis his]:

The addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. .… Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

“The same arguments that prevailed for Alberta Clipper in 2009 apply even more to Keystone XL today,” Cohen writes.

[In 2013, I broke down in more detail how the State Department’s rationale squared with arguments for the Keystone XL pipeline.]

Remember, this is President Obama’s State Department.

Its attitude toward Keystone XL is a mirror image of what it was toward the Alberta Clipper even though they have similar benefits.

Instead of appreciating how Canadian oil sands crude improves U.S. energy security, the president gets called out for misleading the public that oil through the Keystone XL pipeline will be exported from the U.S.

And instead of applauding the jobs what will be created by the pipeline, the president considers some construction jobs better than others.

What’s the difference between then and now? Politics.

Organizations are cynically using the Keystone XL pipeline as a symbol to gin up anger, expand membership rolls, and raise money to push a “not here or anywhere” anti-energy agenda.

Not that this opposition is stopping oil sands productionRecord volumes of oil sands crude are being refined in the U.S. while President Obama feeds the hopes of activists that he’ll reject a project that his State Department says will have few negative effects on the environment.

Going back to the Senate’s veto override attempt, Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, released a statement:

In an era when Congress can’t agree on much, the Keystone XL pipeline has stood out because it has such strong, bipartisan support.  Unfortunately, pipeline supporters were a few votes short of the super-majority needed to overturn President Obama’s veto, but the President should not ignore this strong level of support when he makes his final decision on the pipeline.

Meet Sean Hackbarth @seanhackbarth Follow@uschamber

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta. Photo credit: Brett Gundlock/Bloomberg.

Representative Ros-Lehtinen Recognizes the Career Of U.S. Army Major Trent Colestock [Video]

It is not often that I have the opportunity to write about something positive. On March 4th, however, my brother U.S. Army Major Trent Colestock was honored on the floor of the U.S. Congress by Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-District 27). Click here to read the Congressional Record of the Honoring of Major Trent Colestock U.S. Army.

Writing in the Spring 2013 edition of TCU Magazine, Marcus Murphree notes:

Trent Colestock’s ’04 sense of duty seems to come naturally. He has been serving his country since before, during and after his years at TCU.

Most recently, Army Cpt. [now Major] Colestock, shown below at the State of the Union Address, has been learning the ins and outs of congress as a military defense liaison for Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, while rounding out his master’s degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University.

“Right now, it’s a very special time in Congress in relation to the armed services, and budget items that affect the military greatly,” Colestock said. “I’m glad to help [Conaway], and to tell him what we think about in the military and relay the word to him.”

Colestock, 34, enlisted in 1997, starting him on the path to civil service. After being  stationed in Fort Drum, N.Y., for four years, the Mineral Wells native took his military career to Fort Worth as part of the Horned Frog Battalion.

Service continued, and an Iraq deployment and Bronze Star later, he is now working as a voice for his fellow soldiers on Capitol Hill.

“Veterans who return home are facing issues, and I want to make sure I am there to take care of them,” Colestock said. “Every issue is a learning experience, but also I see every challenge to make sure I’m taking care of the person right away, effectively and successfully.”

Read more.

The nation is in good hands with men like my brother Trent.

Netanyahu’s Profile in Courage

Regardless of your “political affiliation,” you must admit Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu made a firm case as to why President Obama and the United States has no business entering into negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran — then again, perhaps Iran is not Islamic.

Is there any debate that Iran is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism? Is there any debate that Iran has extended its hegemonic designs in the Middle East — controlling four capitol cities, Baghdad, Sanaa, Damascus, and Beirut? Is there any debate that it is Iran leading an offensive operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq? And this comes after what is now a massive embarrassment for the Obama administration and our USCENTCOM to have divulged that America working with the Iraqis will have to push back its plans to take Mosul to later in the year.

Is there any doubt that Iran has shown no change in its militant Islamic behavior and rhetoric? Iran is still the same country that overran our embassy and held Americans hostage — when a previous American president displayed weakness and paralysis.

This is the same Iran that worked through Hezbollah to slaughter nearly 250 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers in Beirut. Iran continues to hold an American Pastor — Saeed Abedini — and we want to negotiate?

But according to our president — there was “nothing new” — and I must agree Mr. President, there is nothing new about Iran and its belligerence. As well, there is nothing new about President Obama who sadly — along with many members of the Democrat party — acted like a petulant child, angry because someone didn’t give in to him. For someone to tell the Prime Minister of Israel to go home showed a complete lack of regard, respect, and displayed unadulterated disdain.

Why? Why is the truth was so frustrating?

The supposed “deal” with Iran only lasts for ten years; afterwards, Iran is free to pursue its nuclear intentions — and if any of you don’t believe Iran has those designs, you’re as naïve as Sir Neville Chamberlain or his modern reincarnation, Barack Obama.

Or perhaps Obama isn’t naïve after all?

There is a contest in the Islamic world for the new hegemony. The traditional state that has filled that role has been Saudi Arabia where the most holy sites in Islam reside — Mecca and Medina. The challenger is the last Islamic empire, the Ottoman, Turkey, where President Recip Tayyip Erdogan has rejected the original secular Muslim state vision of Kemal Ataturk.

But the new kid on the block is not Sunni, but Shia: Iran. And as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, “we can focus on ISIS and beating them, but if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, we will have won a battle but lost a war.” And it seems the Obama administration is more than happy to sit back and allow the Iranian Republican Guard and Shiite militias to fight ISIS.

You ask me why should you care?

Because in the end, as Netanyahu stated, “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.” Shall we sit back and disregard our own security but more so abandon Israel and its survival?

And consider the growing anti-Semitism in Europe that is forcing Jewish communities to disappear. Who of you will look into the eyes of Elie Wiesel and not understand the meaning of the words, “Never again?” This is not about a little skirmish with no ramifications for the future of liberty and freedom – it is a seminal battle for the soul of Western civilization. That’s neither over the top, nor fear mongering hyperbole. It is the hard truth.

Yes, I hear the detractors: we are war weary and we don’t want to fight; this is just an example of foreign entanglements and President George Washington in his farewell speech warned against this. Something tells me General George Washington would not allow militant Islam — Sunni or Shiite — to thrive.

Do I have a strategy? Sure.

  1. First of all it is insanity to have vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline. We should be developing our energy resources enabling us to keep prices minimal in order to spur on economic growth. Then we should be exporting excess energy resources so that Europe does not have to depend upon Iranian sources.
  2. Reinstitute the crippling economic sanctions against the Islamic regime — it was working, so why would Obama let up on the gas? In the military we had a saying, “Why do you kick a man when he’s down? Because he’s close to your foot.” We should have kept kicking Iran, not offering them a hand helping them up — they have a knife ready.
  3. We should form an alliance with Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and the Kurdish Regional Government to defeat militant Islamic terrorism in the region. Arm the Kurds and promise them what they truly deserve and have always wanted — a sovereign homeland. A homeland that extends from northern Iran to Iraq to Syria. Enable them to be a bulwark against Iran, Turkey and Syria, while pressuring Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yes, this is an opportunity for leadership to reshape the Middle East into strong allies that can assist in defeating the jihadists.
  4. And we need to fully support our best ally, Israel, and support their play against the array of Islamic terrorist groups who wish their destruction.

President Obama is hiding something. There is no other reason why he has issued a veto threat to the Congress for any legislation requiring his approval from the legislative body on his Iranian deal. So it seems the only enemy Barack Obama sees is the American Congress — I forgot, it is GOP-controlled, but none of this is political, right?

I just want everyone reading this to ask yourselves a question. You saw Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech yesterday. You heard President Barack Obama’s response to his speech (and his State of the Union address).

I ask you which one is a leader who loves his country? Let me give you a hint — in ten years, Iran will be free to become a nuclear power because of a deal that one of those two men wants very badly.

Netanyahu in Washington: An Eleventh-hour Plea for Sanity by Jerry Gordon and Ilana Freedman

On Tuesday, March 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu laid out in an address before a joint meeting of Congress, a compelling rebuttal to the President’s case for the phased deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  He diplomatically paid court to President Obama for supplying both known and secret support for the Jewish nation of Israel.

We didn’t need Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to come tell us how big a threat a nuclear enabled Iran will be. Well-informed Americans already know that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons production capability in the hands of an apocalyptic regime , will fan the flames of war in the Middle East and put the entire world at risk.

This is a regime whose rulers are sowing seeds of chaos in preparation for the coming of their messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

Netanyahu’s message to a packed house in a Joint Meeting of Congress was clear, concise, and spelled out starkly the issues and the choices we face.

Watch this C-span Video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s  address before the Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3, 2015:

An affronted delegation.   Visually absent from the joint meeting were 50 Democrat members of both Chambers, who chose to demonstrate their partisan loyalty to their party and the President. At issue was misplaced sense that the President had been slighted, represented by Netanyahu’s presence before the Joint Meeting  of Congress, because the visit was organized by House Speaker John Boehner without consultation with Obama. That no representative of the Obama administration was present as well showed how petulant partisan politicians, even at the highest levels, can be when faced with what they perceive as slights, real or imagined.

By avoiding the Prime Minister’s speech, they also missed the more than 40 rounds of standing ovations that punctuated his remarks.  More importantly they  failed to observe minimum protocols of courtesy due to a visiting head of state. In this case, when the object of their anger is the head of state of one of America’s closest allies, their lack of courtesy is shameful.

According to reports from reliable sources, the President was “infuriated” by Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. However,  because Netanyahu’s speech was full of praise for Obama and his generous assistance and support of Israel, all Obama could say was that Netanyahu didn’t present anything new or “any viable alternatives”. That became the veritable chorus from his White House spokespersons and in some quarters of the mainstream media. So bitter was the vitriol that one of Netanyahu’s detractors suggested that the Prime Minister’s speech was ‘racist’ because it was critical of America’s first minority President. A group of African American pastors responded by coming out in support of Netanyahu’s speech and went on record in a news conference to disagree with this bizarre comment, promising that they would stand with Israel.

The Prime Minister’s speech was framed in history.  Israel’s Prime Minister came to inform Americans about the seriousness of the threat represented by a nuclear Iran. He began the body of his speech by placing his remarks in an historical context.

He explained to the Congressional audience that the ancient Jewish Festival of Purim would begin the following evening. The holiday commemorates another Persian government, some 2,500 years ago, when Haman, Vizier to the Persian Emperor Xerxes (also known as Ahasuerus) singled out the entire Jewish population for slaughter.  They were saved by Queen Esther and her uncle, Mordechai, and given permission to defend themselves against the massive pogrom that had been planned against them. Netanyahu then drew the parallel between this ancient plot against the Jews of Persia and the current threats against the Jewish State of Israel by the mullahs of Iran, the current government in the modern-day land of ancient Persia.

Bringing history a bit closer to home, Netanyahu made copious references to the Holocaust.  He introduced, for recognition and applause, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel, who sat in the Speaker’s Box as an honored guest of the Prime Minister and his wife, Sara. Wiesel, who is a personal friend of the President, came nevertheless as Netanyahu’s guest. “Although he has deep affection for the President”, in the words of his friend, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, “he didn’t feel saying that the Jewish people face danger would be an offensive message.”

These historical connections, creating links between the ancient threat of a Persian viceroy, the more recent catastrophe of the Holocaust, and the current threats of the apocalyptic reign of Shia Mahdists in Tehran, covered two thousand years of history of the Jewish experience. Today’s threat is hardly less significant. Whether from the Ayatollah Khamenei or the alleged moderates in his government, President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif, they, like Haman, are determined to wipe Israel, ‘the Zionist Enterprise” off the map of the world. In the words of Hezbollah’s retired Brig. Gen. Walid Sakariya, the nuclear weapons Iran is developing are intended to “create a balance of terror with Israel” and “finish off the Zionist enterprise.”

Netanyahu also reminded his audience that Israel is the bastion for world Jewry under anti-Semitic assault in the West and throughout the Muslim world. He warned that it would, out of necessity, defend itself against both conventional and non-conventional threats by Iran and its proxies:

This is why — this is why, as a Prime Minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

Netanyahu also put in historical context Iran’s continuing war against the West. He referenced Tehran’s secret war against America, Israel, and Jews that began with the Islamic Revolution in 1979 with the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis that lasted 444 days, a war that still continues.

He spoke of the hundreds if not thousands of American soldiers and diplomats who were killed by Iranian Quds Force and their proxies, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas in locations like Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan.

He spoke of the hundreds if not thousands of Jews who were killed in actions across five continents. Witness as examples the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and 1994 AMIA Jewish Center blasts in Buenos Aires, Argentina and, more recently the bombing of an Israeli tourist bus in Burgas, Bulgaria by Hezbollah operatives.

Netanyahu aptly pointed out that the Iranian Constitution crafted by these Mahdists said that the purpose of the Islamic Revolution was to export Jihad around the world. Unlike the US, he said, which was founded on the promise of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, Iran’s founding documents promised, “Death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad.”

Netanyahu also warned his Congressional audience and those watching live from around the globe that Iran’s apocalyptic version of militant Islam comes from the source and that their current assault against ISIS should not fool us into adopting the ancient Arab maxim, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’.  “When it comes to Iran and ISIS,” he said, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

Iran as the agent of global jihad.     Among the most egregious of Iran’s involvement in attacks against the US, was the connivance with Al Qaeda in facilitating the training of many of the 9/11 perpetrators by the late Hezbollah terrorist mastermind, Imad Maghniyah.  That was revealed in affidavits by  former Iranian intelligence operatives in the Federal Iran 9/11 links case.

More recently, we have the revelations of collusion between the Shia Iran and Sunni Al Qaeda in e-mails from the treasure trove of information captured by US Navy Seal Team Six during the assassination of the late Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan.

Then there is the evidence of Iran’s Quds Force assisting the launch of ISIS in Syria. This is ironic now that the IRGC is leading Iraqi military forces against ISIS in the attack on the late Saddam Hussein’s birthplace of Tikrit, which was captured by ISIS. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is placed in the precarious and unwelcome position of standing by while Iran expands its reach and forwards its agenda.

Open Source Intelligence as the basis for Netanyahu’s warning.   The heart of Netanyahu’s message was conveyed halfway through his speech. It was based, he said, on information available on many public open sources which he invited his audience to “Google”. This was intended to quell any concerns raised by Obama that he would release classified intelligence that could torpedo negotiations with Iran. Many of the details of the ‘deal’ had already been leaked and were in the public domain. So he continued.

“We’ve been told,” he said, “that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal, a very bad deal.”  Instead, he pointed out, “this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program; and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That is why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

So why would anyone make this deal? Netanyahu posited this theory: “Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?”

Netanyahu used the petard of Ayatollah Khamenei’s own tweets, echoed by Secretary Kerry in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the future chaos wrought by this worse deal. He said, “My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.”

The State Department immediately accused him of taking Kerry’s Congressional testimony out of context, but here is Kerry’s own testimony, which makes the point abundantly clear:

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

Netanyahu then painted a dystopian vision for the World and the Middle East region, should Iran, already a global sponsor of terrorism, become a nuclear threshold state and open the Pandora’s Box of nuclear proliferation:

Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Netanyahu drew attention to the looming threat of Iran’s missile program and military nuclear developments, excluded from the proposed Memorandum of Understanding  being word smithed in Geneva by Secretary Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif:

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

Iran’s Ongoing Progress Despite Negotiations.   To buttress Netanyahu concerns about Iran’s nuclear military applications and ICBM program, we have just heard from reliable sources that the Islamic Republic has achieved a technical breakthrough – the miniaturization of nuclear warheads – through technical support from both China and North Korea so that nuclear warheads will be able to be installed on their slender Shahab missiles.

Less certain is whether experiments with nuclear triggers have succeeded, given several explosions that have occurred at the Lavizan sites near Tehran and at Parchin, the military explosives test center. If this report is separately confirmed it means that Iran would have the ability to load ICBMs with nuclear warheads.

If tests conducted in Caspian Sea by Iran and the purchase of container-launched missiles from Russia are an indication may provide the capability to deploy small yield nuclear detonations off the American coasts. Those could produce an Electronic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack, possibly disabling our less-than-secure power grid sending the country hurtling back to the pre-industrial age.

Even as the negotiations continue, the media ran a story about how Iran conducted cruise tetst attacks against a mock US aircraft carrier. Less covered but also last week, Iran launched a cruise missile from a submarine in the Persian Gulf. The missile has a range of 150 nautical miles and was designed to destroy a US carrier. So even as they sit at the negotiating table, the Iranians rattle their sabers and clearly demonstrate their animus.

Netanyahu’s Plan.   Contrary to Obama’s comment that there was ‘nothing new’, Netanyahu was clear in firmly stating that the lifting of sanctions and restrictions must be justified by Iranian action in three areas:

  • Stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East;
  • Stop supporting terrorism around the world; and,
  • Stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Netanyahu’s plan was clear. Marco Rubio summed it up nicely:  “Iran can have an economy, or it can have nuclear weapons. But it can’t have both.”

A closing thought from the Bible.  Netanyahu concluded his address by pointing to the frieze of Moses high on the wall opposite from where he stood surrounding the House chamber.  He recited and translated from the Hebrew Moses’ instructions in his final address to the ancient Hebrews about to cross the Jordan and enter the Promised Land:

Before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

A warning to be heeded.  Netanyahu’s message in his address to Congress is not lost on Israelis and the preponderance of Americans, who view Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon as a clear and present damage to the world.  At issue is whether the Administration’s obsession with an agreement with Iran at all cost has blinded them to the consequences of a deal that would allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

This is not the time for peevishness. No insults were intended and none should be interpreted. Netanyahu’s visit and his speech were timely – a last minute call for clarity and resolve against an implacable enemy masquerading as a negotiating partner.

There are many who fervently believe that any negotiations with Iran will lead us dangerously close to a nuclear precipice.  Perhaps,  Netanyahu’s comments before Congress where prescient. Apparently, Iran has rejected  the proposed phased deal placing negotiations in Geneva at an impasse.

Netanyahu’s ultimate message is clear:  Iran’s nuclear clock is rocketing towards midnight. Can we stop it in time or will our own Munich in Geneva lead us into a nuclear doomsday scenario that, once begun, no one will be able to stop?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Before Joint Meeting of Congress with Speaker John Boehner on left and Senate President Pro-temp Sen. Orrin Hatch on right on March 3, 2015.

Congress has no problem holding these men to a term limit, but refuses to limit itself by Nick Tomboulides

I bet you didn’t know that most members of Congress do support term limits. The catch is, these limits apply only to the president’s tenure – not their own careers.

Under Article V of the Constitution, Congress has the power to introduce and vote on any constitutional amendment, which is then brought before the states for ratification. It’s the same method Congress used to add eight-year presidential term limits to the Constitution in 1947-1951.

That also means Congress is empowered – at any time – to pass an amendment bill to REPEAL presidential term limits. It never happens. Though Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) routinely introduces such a bill, it gets about as much momentum (read: none) as silly proposals to change the flag or create a national jaywalking database.

The dismal support for a repeal of presidential limits can only be read one way: as Congress endorsing the idea of term limits and honoring the public’s high approval for it. But this places America’s ruling class in a tough predicament. How can legislators claim with a straight face that the president should be term-limited but they should get to stay in office forever?

Think about it. All of the flimsy arguments legislators make against term limits on themselves also apply to the president. While Rep. Serrano may be more in disagreement with U.S. Term Limits than any other legislator, we have great respect for his logical consistency. The same can’t be said for his colleagues, who hypocritically oppose term limits on their own jobs while simultaneously upholding them on the president.

Perhaps they all want to be president someday, which would necessitate the job opening up on a regular basis. Well, that’s how teachers, firefighters, small business owners and ordinary Americans feel about Congress. They too would like to serve someday, but they sense that a cabal of unaccountable insiders has taken over, callously refusing to let go out of fear it cannot find a better job.

Contact your member of Congress and tell them you’re sick and tired of the double standard. Tell them “Since you support term limits on the President, you should be consistent by working to enact them on your own office.”

ABOUT US TERM LIMITS:

“Term Limits is known as the largest grassroots movement in American history, and US Term Limits (USTL) was, and still is, the leader of that movement”

Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 37 states place term limits on their constitutional officers.

USTL stands up against government malpractice. We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people- not a ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.

We have worked tirelessly with citizens all across the nation, helping them better understand why term limits are a necessary government reform, and how to implement that vision from your town council, to Congress.

Outgoing UN IPCC Chief reveals global warming ‘is my religion and my dharma’

Pachauri’s full resignation letter here.

Climate Depot’s Morano statement on Pachauri’s resignation: ‘The IPCC is quietly popping champagne corks today. Pachauri gone can only be good news for the UN IPCC’ – Marc Morano: ‘If Pachauri had any decency, he would have resigned in the wake of the Climategate scandal which broke in 2009. Climategate implicated the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists in attempting to collude and craft a narrative on global warming while allowing no dissent. Or Pachauri could have resigned when he wished skeptics would rub asbestos on their faces or conceded that the IPCC was at the ‘beck and call’ of governments. There were so many opportunities to to the right thing and fade away. But it took the proceedings of the Indian court system over the allegations of sexual harassment to finally bring Pachauri down. Things can only be looking up for the UN IPCC now that it has ridded itself of this political and ethical cancer.’

Many climate change activists are motivated by religious conviction. See: Climate Depot round up of climate religion. Actor Harrison Ford’s Green Religion: ‘I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of God’

Wave Bye-Bye: IPCC Chair Pachauri forced out at UN climate panel after sexual harassment complaint

IPCC Chair Pachauri

Related Links:

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report

Pachauri critic: Evidence ‘suggest strongly that Pachauri is a longtime sexual predator’ – Donna Laframboise: ‘What’s missing from this (Pachauri’s resignation) letter is any suggestion of remorse. When a scandal-plagued leader resigns because his alleged misdeeds are nuking his organization’s reputation, that is a mark of failure. He has let everyone down. Where are his words of apology to the thousands of IPCC-linked scientists whose honour is now eternally tarnished by their association with him?’ Pachauri’s letter talks about his “greatest joy,” and his “sublime satisfaction.”

Rajendra Pachauri’s Resignation Letter: ‘A two-page love letter to himself’

Flashback 2010: Greenpeace calls for UN climate chief Pachauri to step down in wake of Climategate

“Bomb Iran” – The Musical

Should we or should we not bomb the nuclear infrastructure of a country who has the desire for world domination, a genocidal hatred of Jews and aspirations to bring “Death to America?”

The answer is so simple that after consulting the fictional B-5 + 1, we could find a song about it, enhance it with video and produce…

“BOMB IRAN – The Musical!

Global Islamic Caliphate Spreading Like Spilled Ink: One Observant Muslim at a Time

First, a couple of notes from the author to the reading audience: As with all of my articles, none of the Islamic terms or phrases used are of my own invention; every term or phrase (including the title itself) is derived exclusively from primary sources (i.e., the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Sharia Law).  I invite and encourage everyone to access the hyper-linked references, then evaluate each statement in this article for accuracy and completeness.

Expanding The ‘Observant Muslim Base’ is the latest in what I hope will be an on-going series of articles dealing with complex, sometimes abstract subjects, which are often counter-intuitive to those of us in the non-Islamic West.  By counter-intuitive, I mean that there are times when it is almost impossible for us to believe that the authorized Islamic sources mean exactly what they say.  Instead, our natural tendency is to respond ‘That can’t possibly be true!’  Nonetheless, if we hope to preserve any chance of victory against the escalating threat we face, we must endeavor to master this (sometimes unpleasant) subject; we must ‘dis-enthrall ourselves, and then we shall help save our country, the last best hope on earth.’

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of ‘Expanding The Observant Muslim Base’ (Al-Qaeda Al-Islamia Al-Moltzema), which is a tactical term found in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood (MB) document known as the Explanatory Memorandum (EM).  In Arabic, the EM is a concise, densely written manifesto – not a word is arbitrary or incidental.  Saturated with iconic language, it distills 1,400 years of Strategy & Tactics, which have been used since the time of Mohammed to advance the ‘Global Islamic State’ (also see The Quranic Concept of War).

quran expand muslim base

Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum: Expand the observant Muslim base.

Since 9-11, we’ve heard the term Al-Qaeda (i.e., ‘The Base’ or القاعدة in Arabic) almost every day.  However, Al-Qaedais not just the name of a hydra-like global terrorist organization.  It is also an abstract concept, with a deep ocean of Islamic history behind it.  For example, after Mohammed established his final Al-Qaeda in Medina in 622, it became the power base of Islam for the next hundred years, initially under Mohammed’s leadership, and then under four ‘Rightly Guided Caliphs.’  Also, we see it reflected on TV every night; the black flag of Jihad displayed so prominently by ISIS features the ‘Seal of Mohammed,’ which goes back to the founding of Islam in 610.

The MB has maintained a highly-visible leading role in the global effort to ‘expand the observant Muslim base’ since it was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, in close collaboration with Sayyid Qutb.  After these two ‘founding fathers’ summarized and published the goals and operational tactics of Islam, they began attracting thousands of dedicated followers from countries all over the world.  To this day, the MB remains the largest and most well-organized Islamic organization on earth.  Not only that, but the MB continues providing a solid, reliable theological and political base to fellow members (operatives) in nearly every country in the world.

Meanwhile, as a relatively small but financially influential Islamic community began to coalesce in North America, a ‘Group’ (see Figure 1 above) of respected MB leaders summarized the same strategic goals and tactics discussed by Al-Banna and Qutb in a format tailored to fit the theological and socio-political challenges faced by Muslims living in a wealthy, predominantly non-Islamic region.  These respected members of the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference (see Figure 1 above) called this carefully crafted strategic and tactical communiqué the

Explanatory Memorandum

It is important to recognize that the MB summarized the goals and tactics for ‘expanding the observant Muslim base’ more than 10 years before Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri helped form a global coalition of 12 Islamist groups called the World Islamic Front (a.k.a. the Global Jihad Front and/or Al-Qaeda), then declared Jihad on America and Israel on February 23, 1998.  In fact, Al-Zawahiri, who is the current leader of Al-Qaeda, was not only a member of the Brotherhood in his native Saudi Arabia, but also bases his operational templates on the views of prominent Islamic theorists like Al-Banna and Qutb.

Despite the fact that the EM was introduced as prima facie evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, many today still do not realize that the ideology of a wide spectrum of Islamic macro-groups, such as Al-Shabaab, Hamas, ISIS, and the World Islamic Front, are all based on exactly the same aggressive goals and concepts that were summarized and endorsed in 1987 by Muslim Brothers in North America.  In simple terms, every Islamic group mentioned just above is engaged in their own regional version of ‘expanding the observant Muslim base.

Finally, as I discussed earlier in Fitnah Is Worse Than Slaughter, much of the driving force (catalyst) for this expansion comes from ‘push-back’ (aka Islamophobia) encountered by the Muslim community in North America.  As mentioned earlier, the EM is very concise and comprehensive, and includes tactical principals (‘operative verbs’) that are designed to overcome and neutralize this Islamophobic ‘push-back,’ which is also described in the EM as a ‘Civilizational alternative,’ and/or a ‘Civilizational Jihad.’

Here is how the EM addresses the problem of ‘push-back’ from the resistant, non-Muslims they encounter: ‘The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process with all the word means.  The Ikhwan [i.e., Brothers in Arabic] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it [i.e., Fitnah] is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’  As discussed in the Fitnah article, this concept is derived directly from Quran 2.1938.39.

Background – How Did We Discover The Explanatory Memorandum?

In August of 2004, a Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer conducted a traffic stop after observing someone videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.  As it turns out, the driver was Ismail Selim Elbarasse, who was already wanted in connection with fundraising for Hamas.  The FBI subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence, where they found 80 boxes of archived documents hidden in a sub-basement.

The search led to an incredible discovery.  Among the thousands of documents found, one of the most revealing was entitled An Explanatory Memorandum On The General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America, aka the Explanatory Memorandum (EM).  Originally commissioned in 1987 by the leadership of the MB in North America, it was not officially released to the Board of Directors until 1991.  It may just be a coincidence, but it is plausible that the same Muslim Brothers who commissioned the EM also authorized the 1988 Hamas Charter.  In any event, Hamas (aka the Palestine Branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood), pursues the exact same goals and objectives found in the EM, and even uses the same slogan as the MB (Allah is our objective.  The Prophet is our leader.  The Qur’an is our law.  Jihad is our way.  Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.)

Approved by the MB’s Shura Council (aka Organizational Conference) for internal use only, the EM was never supposed to become public.  For this reason, the EM is both an Enigma Code and the Rosetta Stone of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM).  Like the Enigma Code, it was meant to remain hidden (unbroken), but now provides the key to deciphering the Strategy & Tactics of the GIM.  And, like the Rosetta Stone, the EM enables those of us in the non-Islamic world to discern the commonly-held strategic and tactical doctrines of every Muslim organization in the world.

The EM was written by a former US resident and still-active senior MB/Hamas leader named Mohamed Akram (aka Mohamed Akram Adlouni, aka Muhammad Akram Al-Adlouni).  To this day, Muslim apologists insist that Mohamed Akram is an obscure, ‘self-described’ fringe member of the MB, and that the EM is the ‘product of either of the Muslim lunatic fringe, or of the Islamophobic lunatic fringe.’  In fact, Mr. Akram is currently the President of an OFAC-listed organization (Al-Quds International) who not only remains a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial (HLF), but is a well-known fundraiser for Hamas in Asia and Europe.  Mr. Akram was also listed in a 1992 ‘Phonebook‘ (included as evidence in the discovery phase of the HLF trial), where he is listed as a member of both the Board of Directors and the Executive Office (see page 03 and 15, respectively).

Regarding the ‘lunatic fringe’ argument, the EM will never become obsolete or outdated.  Why not?  Because it is based entirely on the Quran and Hadith.  The Strategy & Tactics described in the EM are exactly the same today as they were 30 years ago (when it was written), and exactly the same as they were 1,400 years ago (when Islam was founded).

Relevant Current Events

On January 28, 2015, we learned that high-level officials at the U.S. State Department had hosted meetings with several ‘former’ members of the Freedom & Justice Party (F&JP), which is the well-known political arm of the MB in Egypt. Samuel Tadros of the Hudson Institute observed that the visit served two goals. ‘First, to organize the pro MB movement in the US,’ and second, to ‘reach out to administration and the policy community in DC,’ adding that the delegation’s composition was designed to portray ‘an image of a united Islamist and non-Islamist revolutionary camp against the [Abdul Fattah al-Sisi] regime.’

Just two days later, it was revealed that the MB in Egypt posted a message on its official website, stating that ‘It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase…where we recall the meanings of Jihad and prepare ourselves…to a long, uncompromising Jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.’  The official announcement also referred to Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the MB, stating that ‘Imam Al-Banna prepared the Jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers, and the second [Supreme] Guide Hassan Al-Hudaybi reconstructed the ‘secret apparatus’ to bleed the British occupiers.’

In retrospect, these sharply contradictory statements (i.e., saying one thing in English, but something entirely different in Arabic) are common, and are very similar in nature to the January 11, 2015 appearance of Mahmoud Abbas at the Charlie Hebdo solidarity march, while on the very same dayhis organization (Fatah)posted violent pictures and statements on its official website.

Despite claims by the State Department that the meetings were ‘routine,’ on January 31, 2014, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shokry said that the reasons for the meetings were ‘not understandable, as they are not a political party, and according to the Egyptian law they should be treated as a terrorist group.’  Along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have also declared the MB to be a terrorist group.

Incidentally, the word ‘Prepare’ (Wa-Aiddu), which is mentioned several times in the above quotes, is taken directly from Quran 8.60, and is prominently displayed in the MB logo.  The verse reads ‘Prepare for them whatever force and tethered horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not.’  In other words, preparing forces to terrify your enemies is the iconic theme of a supposedly moderate Muslim organization, which currently enjoys unprecedented direct access to the highest levels of the US Government.

To finish up this section, there is a revealing point of contact (nexus) between [1] the F&JP individuals who met at the State Department, [2] the MB members who posted the call to Jihad on their website, and [3] the ideology found in the Explanatory Memorandum.

The point of contact is Hassan Al-Banna, an open advocate of offensive Jihad who was honored in the EM in the following concluding passage: ‘This paragraph was delayed…to stress its utmost importance as it constitutes the heart and core of this memorandum…It suffices to say that the first pioneer of this phenomenon [i.e., doing Jihad] was our prophet Mohamed…as he placed the foundation for the first civilized organization, which is the mosque…And this was done by the pioneer of the contemporary Islamic Dawah [i.e., ‘Promotion of Islam’] Imam martyr Hasan al-Banna…when he and his brothers felt the need to re-establish Islam and its movement anew, leading him to establish organizations with all their kinds.’

Conclusion

At this point, it would be fair to ask whether the MB’s efforts to ‘expand the observant Muslim base’ in North America have been successful.  The objective answer would be an unqualified ‘Yes.’

On December 01, 2014, the White House issued an official response to a petition signed by more than 213,000 Americans, requesting that the Muslim Brotherhood be designated as a terrorist group.  The White House response reads as follows:

We have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence.  The United States does not condone political violence of any kind and we continue to press actors of all viewpoints to peacefully engage in the political process.  The United States is committed to thwarting terrorist groups that pose a threat to U.S. interests and those of our partners.’

Despite the constant focus on Islamophobia by MB-front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), there has actually been a wave of conversions to Islam, while the population of Muslims in America has nearly doubled since 9-11.  In addition, the number of Mosques has also nearly doubled since 9-11.

More importantly, the less visible (overt) strategic goals of creating a ‘Central political party, [influencing] local political offices and political symbols, [building] relationships and alliances, and establishing an American Organization for Islamic Political Action‘ have probably succeeded far beyond what Muhammad Akram Al-Adlouni and the other members of the Shura Council in North America ever expected.

Bill Nye on Muslim Terrorism: Jews Need to Get to Know Their Neighbors Better

It was a solution right up there with “Let them eat cake.” Addressing the issue of Jews fleeing Europe due to increasing Islamic terrorism and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for them to seek safety in Israel, Bill Nye “the Science Guy” had an interesting solution: “Get to know your neighbors.” The comment, made on Bill Maher’s show Real Time Feb. 20, was then followed by Nye’s interrogative, “What, does it take a century, something like that?”

This prompted some commentators, such as Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld, to say that Nye was blaming Jews for the Muslim threat. Get to know your neighbors? Yes, to pick up on a point Gutfeld made and run with it, perhaps a few dinner parties and other assorted soirees would inspire epiphanies such as, “You know, I was going to chop your head off, but you make a killer matzo ball soup.” The problem here, as Gutfeld said in so many words, is not Jews shooting up halal grocery stores. Nor are Muslims being taunted and spat upon while walking Paris streets as the Jewish man in this video was.

But perhaps Nye is like those school administrators who punish a victimized child who tried physically defending himself just as harshly as his attacker in the thinking, “Hey, he was repeatedly punching the kid on top of him in the fist with his face, right?”

This commentary by Nye — who has invoked Holocaust terminology in branding climate-change realists “deniers” — caused Gutfeld to label him, “Bill Nye ‘the Denial Guy.’” It may be a more fitting moniker than one relating to science, too, as a real scientist is actually out there, you know, inventing stuff. Instead, Nye took his B.S. in mechanical engineering, cut his entertainment teeth on a Seattle sketch-comedy TV show, and then parlayed his credentials into his well-known children’s science program. Now he’s supposedly qualified to dismiss climate-change realism and pontificate as an Expert in the Area of Everything. But Nye has always been a left-wing guy; take Barney the dinosaur, put a bowtie around his neck, a beaker in his hand, starve him for two months and make him a quasi-Marxist — and you have Bill Nye.

In fairness to the Denial Guy, perhaps he would say that he’d counsel both Jews and Muslims, and everyone else, to get to know each other better. And maybe he meant that what takes a century is assimilation. Regardless, his commentary betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about man’s nature.

Nye reflects a common belief today: Just get people to know each other, and silly prejudices are dissolved by the solvent of reality. It’s easy for Americans to believe this not only because of Kumbaya-multiculturalism conditioning, but also because of the common impression that this has been our experience. After all, anti-Irish bigotry was once rife, but how much exists now?

And assimilation had worked to a great degree in America, but our relatively short, 239-year history is a mere snapshot of man’s story. In places such as Ruanda and the Balkans, there have been genocide and ethnic cleansing. Countless times in history peoples have been subsumed, as has largely happened to the Ainus in the Japanese islands. And in ancient Greece, the Spartans got to know their neighbors quite well — well enough to turn them into helots, a captive slave class. So, yes, sometimes it takes a century for assimilation.

And sometimes it takes a century to effect conquest.

There’s a funny joke that illustrates a common difficulty living up to the injunction “Love thy neighbor.” It goes: “You know, I basically love everyone in the whole world — everyone. I just have a problem with the 16 or 17 people who happen to be around me.” Sure, Abraham Lincoln once said, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better,” but another saying to ponder is “Familiarity breeds contempt.” To know people is to love them? Sometimes it’s to hate them.

Of course, some interaction-induced irritation is inevitable. Being around people oftentimes means “bumping into them,” with their occupying the bathroom when you want it or slowing you down on the road; this is where tolerance, properly defined as abiding something you perceive as a negative, actually is a virtue. But then there’s the fact that getting to know people does dispel illusions — and that this includes illusions of goodness.

A family close to me once acquired a DVD of vintage cartoons, the kind they don’t show on TV anymore because, as the politically correct disclaimer stated at the disc’s opening (I’m paraphrasing), “WARNING: These cartoons contain stereotypes that may be offensive to some viewers.” They were referring to things such as depictions of turban-bedecked Arabs in traditional garb and Japanese speaking stereotypical pidgin English. They were the kinds of cartoons I watched Saturday mornings as a boy — and the politically correct critics have it all wrong. Far from inducing in me and my friends negative attitudes toward the groups in question, they instead were intriguing portrayals that might have piqued our interest in learning more about their cultures. What tends to happen, however, when a person from an “intriguing culture” moves in next door? Then you often find that in many ways he’s “just like us.”

“It’s the differences that kill you, though,” as least in certain cases, to quote Colonel Ralph Peters. It’s as when a man and woman marry and really get to know each other. While you usually have that normal bumping into each other, their deepening knowledge of one another can enrich their love. Then again, sometimes there are what many call irreconcilable differences. The husband may learn that his wife harbors a deep-seated hatred of men that sabotages their relationship, or the woman may find out that the man is a lecherous lout. And then there’s that occasional person who was unfailingly charming during courtship, and maintains a sterling public persona, but has a collection of shrunken heads in the attic.

A romantic may now say that love conquers all — and it does have transformative power — but sometimes being too softly loving can lead to being conquered. And, as someone I once knew put it, some people have to be loved from afar.

Speaking of which, why do liberals such as Nye judge situations and people (e.g., Muslim terrorism vis-à-vis the Jews) so wrongly? It’s because they deny the existence of Truth — the only thing that can reveal your emotions as wrong — and thus have deified their emotions, making them the ultimate arbiters of reality. And anyone governed by emotion, that irrational judge, will always fall sway to prejudice.

It takes a century? Sometimes the melting pot boileth over. For not everything melts. Some things just burn.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Bill Nye on the left, President Obama, and astrophysicist/author Neil deGrasse Tyson on the right. Selfie courtesy of Bill Nye.

Star Trek’s “Infinite Diversity” and the Endless Frontier

Spock understood the importance of innovation for life and prosperity by RICHARD LORENC …

Last Friday, millions of Star Trek fans were saddened by the news that Leonard Nimoy, the actor who played the iconic character Spock on the series, had died at the age of 83 after a brief hospitalization.

I was among the multitude on social media who paid tribute to Nimoy by posting pictures, sayings, videos, and eulogies in remembrance of the man who brought “Live long and prosper” to the world.

The classic Vulcan farewell is not the only thoughtful gift from Nimoy and Spock. Another idea shared by the quintessential Vulcan was his people’s concept of “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations,” or IDIC.

IDIC was the Vulcans’ subdued, yet profound, appreciation for diversity. They wore pendants representing IDIC and posted it like a religious icon in their homes, temples, and starships. It became the de facto symbol of the Vulcans and their intensely logical ways. It was as if they were saying, “Difference is essential to the universe, and we’ve seen far less than actually exists. We’ll never see the end of it – and that’s a good thing.”

That idea didn’t always sit well with space cowboys Kirk and McCoy, who wanted more concrete answers. But then humans are illogical. What else could Spock expect?

Like Star Trek generally, IDIC had a big impact on me. It’s an idea that still motivates and delights me when I think of the possibilities for humanity today, and particularly the opportunities for difference and diversity offered by markets.

If you view the market process as one of discovery – discovering new ways to combine old ideas, and imagining how to apply those ideas in service to others – you can see how it begins to reveal IDIC. With nothing holding back individuals’ creative energies, there’s no telling what orders and ideas might emerge, and there’s no end in sight to the frontiers of social and economic innovation.

The next time you walk a city street and gawk at the skyscrapers, or wander a supermarket and marvel at fresh strawberries in the winter, or gaze through a glowing box to see friends across the planet, take a moment to remember IDIC. Because of it, for the first time in history, our species truly can “live long and prosper.”

It’s fascinating – but it’s only logical.

ABOUT RICHARD LORENC

Richard N. Lorenc is the Chief Operating Officer of FEE.

Economic Equality and Social Injustice (Video)

Mandating equal outcomes leads to unfair treatment by LEVAN GVALIA …

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently….

We do not object to equality as such…. Our objection is against all attempts to impress upon society a deliberately chosen pattern of distribution, whether it be an order of equality or of inequality.

– FA Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

ABOUT LEVAN GVALIA

Levan Gvalia is a financial manager and animation enthusiast from Georgia.

Do You Have the Civil Disobedience App?

You might be downloading tomorrow’s law by MAX BORDERS…

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out… but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn. 

 Henry David Thoreau

In the peer-to-peer revolution, the most important elections will happen outside the voting booth. And the most important laws won’t be written by lawmakers.

Consider this: The first time you hopped into a Lyft or an Uber, there was probably, at the very least, a legal gray area associated with that trip. And yet, in your bones, didn’t you think that what you were doing was just, even if it wasn’t yet clearly legal?

If you felt that way, I suspect you weren’t alone.

Today, ridesharing apps are operating in most major cities around the country. And municipalities are having to play catch-up because the people have built massive constituencies around these new services.

This is just one example of what Princeton political scientist James C. Scott calls “Irish democracy,” where people simply stop paying attention to some rule (or ruler) because it has outlived its usefulness.

One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy,” the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

Now, let’s be clear: the right rules are good things. Laws are like our social operating system, and we need them. But we don’t need all of them, much less all of them to stick around forever. And like our operating systems, our laws need updating. Shouldn’t legal updates happen not by waiting around on politicians but in real time?

“But Max,” you might be thinking. “What about the rule of law? You have to change the law through legitimate processes.”

And that’s not unreasonable. After all, we don’t want mob rule, and we don’t want just anyone to be able to change the law willy-nilly — especially those laws that cover our basic rights and freedoms. There is an important distinction, however, between justice and law, one that’s never easy to unpack. But Henry David Thoreau said it well, when he wrote,

Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?

Today’s peer-to-peer civil disobedience is tomorrow’s emergent law.

In other words, the way the best law has always come about is not through a few wise rulers getting together and writing up statutes; rather, it emerges among people interacting with each other and wanting to avoid conflict. When peaceful people are engaging in peaceful activity, they want to keep it that way. And when people find new and creative ways to interact peacefully, old laws can be obstructions.

So as we engage in peer-to-peer civil disobedience, we are making choices that are leading to the emergence of new law, however slowly and clumsily it follows on. This is a beautiful process, because it requires not the permission of rulers, but rather the assent of peer communities. It is rather like democracy on steroids, except we don’t have to send our prayers up through the voting booth in November.

Legal theorist Bruce Benson calls this future law the “Law Merchant.” He describes matters thus:

A Law Merchant evolves whenever commerce emerges. Practices that facilitated emergence of commerce in medieval Europe were replayed in colonial America, and they are being replayed in Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, Latin America, and cyberspace. Law Merchant arrangements also support “underground” economic activity when states constrain above-ground market development.

It might be a while before we evolve away from our outmoded system of sending politicians to capitals to make statutes. And the issue of lawmakers playing catch-up with emergent systems may be awkward and kludgy for a while. But when we think that the purpose of law is to help people interact peacefully, peer-to-peer civil disobedience might be a necessary ingredient in reweaving the law for the sake of human flourishing.

ABOUT MAX BORDERS

Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

Dissociated Press

Associated Press (AP), one of the largest and most trusted sources of independent news gathering, reported “Israeli house strikes killed mostly civilians.” It reported 247 airstrikes (bombings) in Gaza during the summer of 2014, killing 840. Of that number, 508 (60%) were civilians, 96 (11%) were terrorists, and 240 (29%) remained uncharacterized. The failure to seek identification of the “uncharacterized” reveals a scheme to re-engineer the outcome, and a flawed count can only lead to a flawed conclusion.

AP professes a commitment to the highest standards of objective, accurate journalism over the past 165 years. It employs the latest technology to collect and distribute news and photos, with a 24-hour update process, and has one of the largest collections of historical and contemporary imagery. Headquartered in New York, it operates in more than 180 locations worldwide, including every US statehouse, and has won 51 Pulitzer Prizes since the prize’s establishment in 1917.

Regrettably, the wire services, which include AP, Reuters, and similar sources of news for broadcast, print media, and on-line news, are responsible for the blatant lies peddled and truths compromised when the original story opposes the Arab Muslim narratives. A recent example was an international wire service report that accused Israel of releasing water to deliberately flood the Gaza Valley, destroying houses and causing hundreds of Gazans to flee. When caught in this lie, Daily Mail apologized and clarified that there are no dams in southern Israel, that the flooding was caused by unusually heavy rain and drainage issues. Al Jazeera retracted its statements and the photos of rushing waters. Similarly, Reuters had been found guilty of switching photos or cropping photo edges, such as when they excluded weapons held by activists aboard the Mavi Marmara during the Gaza flotilla raid. This is serious treachery.

We have now learned that the 240 “uncharacterized” males were indeed terrorists (ages 16-59), changing the total from 96 to 336 terrorists (40%), not an unusual ratio of women and children to terrorists, as these poor victims are customarily used as human shields, whether alongside the rocket sites or within the buildings. Hamas often secretes rockets and explosives in residential homes, which certainly contributes to the civilian casualty count. AP never reports Israel’s warnings to civilians to evacuate residential areas, never cites Israel’s casualties, and never reveals that the strikes are always retaliatory for wars begun by the Arabs.

AP has repeatedly sought to discredit Israel by accusing her armed forces of conducting disproportional warfare against Palestinians, when no war or sport has ever been fought for an equal outcome. From 2001 to July 2014, Palestinians have conducted a war of terror, resulting in psychological trauma (PTSD) to more than 50% of the children and depression and miscarriages to adults, and using more sophisticated rockets (some containing white phosphorous) to reach larger cities. AP did not propose that Israel conduct a comparable rocket attack into Gaza for the sake of proportionality, or suggest Israel bomb Palestinian school buses, or advocate that Israel dig an equivalent number of terror tunnels leading to Palestinian children’s schools and dormitories when Hamas’s were discovered.

In an attempt to further paint Israel as the aggressor, AP incorporates “evidence” to accuse Israel of intentionally targeting civilians. Hence, it presented the fatality figures of 844 against the backdrop of 247 air strikes, an equation of 3.4 people per bombing when, in fact, Israel actually made 20,000 air strikes, thereby achieving a .04 fatality figure per bombing. These percentages verify that AP’s reporters script deceptive, damaging information and that Israel does its utmost to avoid civilian casualties. Israel’s record is in fact, unparalleled.

AP also failed to provide comparative analyses, such as how these numbers match up to other wars and air strikes conducted in urban areas. Withheld information is as dishonest and harmful as erroneous information. In fact, investigative journalist Richard Behar’s studies of conflicts since World War II show that the norm of fatalities is 85 to 90 percent civilian. We might well be reminded of Germans’ killing 28,000 civilians in the London Blitz; Allies’ killing 25,000 civilians when they bombed Dresden and destroyed the Nazi industrial center; our killing 130,000 civilians with our nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which brought about Japan’s unconditional surrender and peace.

The United Nations’ figures cited at least 1,483 Gazan Palestinian civilians killed, with an overall death toll of 2,205, the balance being militants, with the source of information being Hamas-controlled Gazan Health Ministry. AP actually did have access to figures from a trustworthy, private research institute in Israel, Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center, but chose not to avail itself of them – although they do sort through their information if they can contribute to a war crimes accusation against Israel.

Oddly, throughout the world, Imams spew hate and incite to kill from their mosque podiums. Muslims murder Jews and Christians because of their religion or, as with Charlie Hebdo, because of cartoons against their prophet. Muslims (Hamas) fire deadly rockets for (Israeli) territory. Muslims (ISIS) chop off people’s heads and burn others alive, and just kidnapped 90 Christians. Muslims (Boko Haram) kidnapped young girls for sexual slavery and buried some alive. Muslims (Chechens) beheaded Russian soldiers and attacked, kidnapped and killed children and school staff. Muslims appear to have reached the percentage at which they are now capable of conquest of the Nordic countries, and the natives are committing cultural suicide without a fight. And we know of this through AP. Yet AP continues its deception as well as its unparalleled accusations not against Muslims, but against Israel primarily.

Not only has Associated Press become known for its sloppy, dishonest and unreliable reporting, but it has also been accused of biased reporting on the Middle East by its own journalists. Indictments included story-lines showing Arabs and Palestinians to be entirely blameless and Israel fully culpable; refusing to print a 2008 Israeli peace proposal when it would have verified Israel’s desire for peace; and killing a story that would have shown Israel appropriately.

It is time these wire services were rewired to overhaul their failed policies, and return to responsible, honest journalism.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s Full Speech To Congress on March 3, 2015

Savage Nation has posted Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s full speech to Congress on the P5 +1 nuclear deal with Iran given Tuesday, March 3, 2015.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement after attending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress:

“Prime Minister Netanyahu provided a stark assessment of the dangerous path the administration has taken us on through its negotiations with Iran. Allowing Iran to retain its nuclear infrastructure even as it does not change its behavior is unacceptable.

“Congress should pass additional sanctions on Iran as soon as possible, and it should also ensure that any deal is submitted to Congress for a formal review. I will continue working to increase pressure on Iran to ensure that the regime does not acquire nuclear weapons.

“We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel.”

Netanyahu and Jewish Survival

In 1933, approximately 9.5 million Jews lived in Europe, representing 1.7% of the total European population which, in turn, was about 60% of the Jewish world population, estimated to have been 15.2 million.

By 1945, in the wake of the Holocaust, two out of every three Jews would be dead.

By 2012 the global Jewish population by had reached 13.75 million. That is less than 0.2 percent of the world’s population.

The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 43% of the world’s Jewish community lives in Israel. Sharing Israel as their home were 1,636,600 Arabs and a diverse population of Christians and non-Jews, numbering around 318,000.

If the Iranians make good on their threat to “wipe Israel off the map”, presumably with nuclear weapons they would acquire by stealth and deception, the Jewish world population would be cut nearly in half.

AA - Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

All of this will be on Benjamin Netanyahu’s mind when, as the Prime Minister of Israel, he addresses a joint meeting of Congress. It will be his third such speech. On July 10, 1996, he said the world must act to prevent Iran’s nuclearization, since “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

In 2011 he returned, saying “When I stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us, a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.”

So now it is 2015 and the only thing Netanyahu knows for sure is that the Iranians remain intent on being able to produce their own nuclear weapons.

The March 2nd edition of The Times of Israel reported that Yukiya Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said “Iran has yet to provide explanations that enable the agency to clarify two outstanding practical measures”, a diplomatic way of referring to “alleged explosive tests and other issues related to research that may also be useful for military uses of atomic energy.” This is the same problem that the U.N. agency has with North Korea.

Netanyahu was worried about Iran’s nuclear weapons program in 1996, in 2011, and now in 2015; more than enough time for Iran to have made considerable progress toward their goal. At the heart of this third address to Congress is the survival of nearly half of all the Jews in the world because they live in Israel.

It’s no secret there is no love-loss between Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama, but this third effort to urge Congress to go on record supporting the survival of Israel is necessary because, for the first time since 1948, there is some cause to wonder whether a war-weary U.S. would come to Israel’s defense.

Obama has said in no uncertain terms that he wants to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the world has learned that the gap between what he says and what he does is often wide or non-existent. It must be said, however, that past Presidents have decried North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, but that has not translated into any direct action because China entered the Korean conflict in the 1950s to defend it and no one wants a repeat of that.

Netanyahu does not speak for “all Jews.” He speaks for Israel and other than national survival the political divisions there are even more diverse than our own. The fact that he is running for reelection there is not a factor for his speech to Congress—timing is.

One suspects that the best intelligence both Israel and the U.S. have been able to secure suggests that, this time, Iran is very close to its goal of being able to produce its own nuclear weapons despite the sanctions that have been imposed.

Netanyahu is understandably concerned about the negotiations that Obama has relentlessly pursued with Iran, the result of which has alienated not only Israel, but Saudi Arabia and all of the Gulf nations. The P5+1 parties to the negotiations include Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany. The negotiations have deadlocked in the past and may do so again despite the fact that both Russia and China have close ties to Iran.

Even if Iran agrees to terms that would supposedly slow or stop its nuclear weapons program, there is not a scintilla of evidence that they would fulfill their promises. Iran, after all, is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

The odds are that Netanyahu knows that Iran, this time, is very close to becoming militarily nuclear. Addressing Congress calls attention to the danger, not only domestically, but worldwide.

What Netanyahu also knows is that President Obama seems to have blind spot when it comes to the growing anti-Semitism that resembles what existed in the 1930s in Europe. When Jews in a French kosher supermarket were murdered, Obama referred to it as an act of “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

Whoa! It wasn’t “a bunch of folks.” They were Jews buying food for the Sabbath meal. And those “violent, vicious zealots” were Muslims, just like the ISIS Muslims beheading, crucifying, burning, kidnapping, and enslaving those they don’t kill for being Christian, Jewish, Yazidis, or just not Muslim enough!

Netanyahu’s speech will, indeed, be historic. It may not be his last visit to the chambers of Congress.

© Alan Caruba, 2015