…goes full commie.
One wonders what Huntley and Brinkley would think.
…goes full commie.
One wonders what Huntley and Brinkley would think.
Simply put, he prefers Iran over Israel:
The fact that Obama has adopted a Lindberghian policy doesn’t mean that in this new context he is not being realistic. The worrisome reality is that the relative strengths in the much-discussed, historical hostility between Sunnis and Shiites in the Middle East, are not balanced, this according to a reliable security source with access to intelligence data. Syria is the main area for this struggle and what the US and Israel see is that the Shiites, backed by Iran, are a solid power with the ability to control and carry out a clear policy.
In contrast, the Sunnis do not have any real power at this point. They are fragmented. The Syrian opposition has not proved that it is internally cohesive and can control and keep order in major sections of Syria, let alone in Iraq. They were unable to retain power even in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood won control. So the Americans handed over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to Iran.
There is no doubt that Preisdent Obama knows very well that he is turning into a partner of leaders who have committed crimes against humanity and a friend of those who declare their intentions of doing so. No problem. He simply prefers Iran over Israel.
It does seem a theory that best fits the evidence.
I was wondering myself why it was even there.
But despite a court ruling against it, a Florida university says that it will continue to violate the law.
…took no prisoners on CNN last night in a debate with a couple warm mongers.
A non-government handbook to train government employees, that corresponds to reality.
Judith Curry has a post up on today’s Congressional hearing.
OK, can someone explain to me why prices will double if the farm bill isn’t passed? I always thought that dairy prices were propped up by the government program, not subsidized.
…by a Nobel Prize winner:
…leading scientists know that the “prestige” academic journals are biased in favor of flashy and politically correct research findings, even when such findings are frequently contradicted by subsequent research. This is important in the context of the global warming debate because Nature and Science have published the most alarmist and incredible junk on global warming and refuse to publish skeptics. (Full disclosure: Nature ran a negative editorial about us a few years back and a much better but still inaccurate feature story.) Claims of a “scientific consensus” rely heavily on the assumption that expertise can be measured by how often a scientist appears in one of these journals. Now we know that’s a lie.
This was one of the revelations of Climaquiddick, that the warm mongers continue to try to paper over.