As you all know by now Obama hasn’t got a plan to fight ISIS. At least that’s what he tells everyone. Sadly I don’t believe it. In fact, I believe he has a plan for everything he does. I don’t believe he does anything by chance. So what am I saying? What I’m saying is that he wants us to believe he’s indecisive, ambivalent and lazy. Why, because if we did know what he was unto we’d probably storm the White House.
Obama, if you’ll remember has a second in command whose parents and family are all big in the Muslim Brotherhood. They all want, though they won’t say it, a world wide Muslim State. And if you’ll remember, during his first presidential campaign in 2008, he used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic.
That secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule. What Obama wants according to Miller is detente, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and N. Africa.
Obama’s quest for an alliance now has at least four channels; Iraq, Switzerland ( the official U.S. representative to Tehran) Oman and and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable I mentioned earlier, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closet adviser. In recent months, though it was well below the radar, Jarrett made numerous personal visits to Middle Eastern leaders and briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed by a former high-ranking American officials who say they were informed by those very leaders.
According to various sources, Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the U.S. has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might, and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares.
If you look at the current crisis through Iran’s eyes, our apparent indecisiveness is easier to understand, for it systematically favors Iran’s interests. Tehran’s closest ally is Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. If Assad were to be overthrown by opposition forces hostile to Iran, it would be a devastating blow to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has committed tens of thousands of fighters (from Hezbollay-the Revolutionary Guards, and the Basip) to shore up the Damascus regime. Everthing Iran does in the region revolves around the necessity of preserving Assad’s tyranny.
You’d have to be a fool to believe Obama doesn’t understand this. It therefore made no sense to bomb Syria in the otherwise baffling about-face on the “red line” a year ago. Also, the refusal to take decisive action today against the Islamic State caters to Iranian and Syrian concerns. Remember that ISIS was supported by Iran and Syria as a weapon against anti-Assad and anti-Iranian forces (from the Kurds to the FSA) none of whom is receiving serious American support.
Most in the know believe it is exceedingly unlikely that Obama will do anything that would threaten Assad’s rule or Iran’s power. To do so would be tantamount to abandoning his core strategy of creating a U.S.-Iranian alliance that would make Tehran the major regional power and Washington a friendly kibitzer and adviser.
It seems even more unlikely that Mr. Obama and his spokespeople will confess to actually having a strategy, because of the political firestorm that would result. Better to be thought a fool than to remove all doubt, after all.
It’s my belief that Obama is sitting back laughing up his sleeve every time someone questions his competence. He knows exactly what he’s doing and it’s all going to plan both here and abroad. To think otherwise would be foolishness.
The College Board, the private company that produces the SAT test our kids take and the various Advanced Placement exams, is effectively requiring that AP U.S. History be taught from a hard-left perspective. It’s doing so through a newly-issued “Framework” for its AP U.S. History exam.
Stanley Kurtz has written extensively about this. He points out that the co-chairs of the committee that redesigned the History Framework, Suzanne Sinke and Ted Dickson, worked closely together on a project whose goal was to reshape the U.S. History Survey Course along the lines recommended by Thomas Bender and the La Pietra Report.
Bender, a history professor at NYU, is (in Kurtz’s words) “the leading spokesman for the movement to internationalize the U.S. History curriculum at every educational level.” He is also a leading critic of “American exceptionalism,” which celebrates America as a model, vindicator, and at times the chief defender of ordered liberty and self-government in the world.
As for Sinke, a history professor at Florida State, she wrote the portion on immigration. Kurtz reports that she tells the tale of an early 20th Century ethnically Dutch woman who immigrated to America, merely to leave and go elsewhere. She says her goal is to teach us “to think beyond national histories and the terms that are caught up in them.”
In other words, we shouldn’t get caught up in the idea that there was something exceptional about America that induced immigrants to come here. We were just another place to go–”just another pleasant sentry somewhere on the UN Roll Call between Albania and Zimbabwe,” to borrow a phrase used by both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to mock those who deny American exceptionalism.
According to Bender, “historians that offer narratives of American exceptionalism “bear some responsibility” for reinforcing “a unilateralist understanding of the U.S. in the world.” That attitude, say Bender, must be fought.
In other words, Bender wants early American history to be less about the Pilgrims, Plymouth Colony, and John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” speech, and more about the role of the plantation economy and the slave trade in the rise of an intrinsically exploitative international capitalism.
If the College Board didn’t understand the political agenda behind Bender’s La Pietra Report before he explained it to them, they certainly did afterward, and yet, after hearing, they doubled their efforts on Bender’s behalf.
It is also important to emphasize that the concept of American exceptionalism, which is systematically excised from and contradicted by, the redesigned Framework, is an integral part of several state curriculum guides, including the Texas Essential Knowledge and Kills Test. That raises serious legal questions about the compatibility of the redesigned Framework with state standards.
The College Board’s new and vastly more detailed guidelines can only be interpreted as an attempt to hijack the teaching of U.S. history on behalf of a leftist political and ideological perspective. The Board has drastically eroded the freedom of states, school districts, teachers, and parents to choose the history they teach their children. That is why this change must not stand. It’s up to every parent to instill in their children the truth about our founding so that they can grow to love and understand this great nation just as we were.
There’s a lot of talk today about solar energy. An unusual amount in my home as well at the moment! Anyway, at Watts Up With That? Ed Hoskins spotlights the intractable problem with solar and wind power. Much of the time, the sun isn’t shinning and the wind isn’t blowing. That means that in practice, solar and wind facilities can produce only a small fraction of their nominal capacities.
Here is one of the major drawbacks. The output of these methods is not dispatchable. Their output is entirely unable to respond to electricity demands as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather, and certainly not necessarily when it’s required.
Let me give you an example. Solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically, with the seasons. Also, as my husband has discovered, it depends on the amount of shade on your roof where you wish to install the devices. Of course one could always cut down those trees that took years to grow and provide shade, but that’s for another day.
Essentially solar power might only work effectively in Southern latitudes and it certainly does not do well in Northern Europe. In Germany the massive commitment to solar energy might well provide up to -20% of the country wide demand for a few hours on some fine summer days either side of noon, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil.
Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle. Why? because renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to be dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale.
Now it’s true that in some areas solar works reasonably will. For instance S. Calif. That’s because the panel on your roof produce most of their power when the sun is out, and there is the greatest demand. The problem with solar in SoCal (as everywhere) is that, even with the declines in panel cost, it just isn’t feasible. Large subsidies are still required or people won’t install it. Why do you think liberals want to see escalating utility cost. It’s why Dems in Calif, build fast trains instead of power plants. This makes renewables seem more attractive than they are. Solar companies most carefully design the systems to remove only the use that falls in the upper tiers, because the lower two tiers are still cheaper than the payback (including subsidies) minus cost over the life of the system.
Of course then there is the danger to migratory birds. Where are the greenies on this or for that matter the wildlife folks who tie themselves to trees to save the spotted owl? They should all be strapped down to the solar panels that are taking over one of the most beautiful deserts in the United States. The Mohave Desert. I know this because I spent many happy days wondering the area with my Dad, a rock hound that let me help him make jewelry out of the rough stones we found.