RUTHFULLY YOURS

The Keystone Pipeline is a very hot partisan issue….almost all the Republican Congressional incumbents have voted in support of the Keystone Pipeline without any limiting amendments and only about 30 Democrats supported it…..rsk
Environmentalists say the new pipeline will be a disaster. We lived through these scare tactics before.

Earlier this year the Obama administration again delayed a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline. The 1,200 mile, $5.2 billion pipeline could increase North American energy security and create more than 15,000 jobs. But behind the White House’s unwillingness to move forward are environmental groups that vehemently oppose the project. Groups like the Sierra Club warn that Keystone “poses a health risk to our communities” and is a “climate disaster in the making.”

We’ve lived through these scare tactics before. Exhibit A is the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Since its completion in 1977, this technological marvel has conveyed more than 17 billion barrels of oil, worth more than $1.5 trillion in today’s dollars, from Alaska’s North Slope to the Port of Valdez for shipment to the lower 48 states. Yet the pipeline was almost not built, thanks to a propaganda campaign by environmental groups beginning in 1969. Most of their dire warnings have proved inaccurate.

The Wilderness Society, for example, issued a resolution warning that the pipeline threatened “imminent, grave and irreparable damage to the ecology, wilderness values, natural resources, recreational potential, and total environment of Alaska.” James Moorman, counsel to the Environmental Defense Fund, predicted that “disastrous massive oil spills along literally thousands of miles of the Pacific Coast” were “inevitable.” David Bower, then president of Friends of the Earth, said that, “If, as many scientists fear, we are approaching the point of no return in a race to oblivion, then we urge that all the checks and balances of Government be used, not superficially, to ensure a tenable future for us all.”

In March 1970 the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Defense Fund sued to block the pipeline. The lawsuit claimed the pipeline would “have a substantial adverse environmental impact on a significant portion of the Alaska wilderness.” The complaint also warned it would “interfere with the natural and migratory movements of wildlife, primarily caribou and moose.”

The resulting court injunction and other legal hurdles delayed the project until Congress passed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act in November 19

America’s economy has not worked for average families since the Clinton administration ended.

If they were judging the economy by the monthly jobs report, working Americans would be popping champagne corks. Total employment has risen every month for more than four years. According to the Current Population Survey, more than eight million jobs have been created since the trough, while the number of unemployed has been cut by nearly six million. The unemployment rate has declined to 6.1% from 10%, and the number of Americans enduring long-term unemployment (27 weeks or more) has fallen to three million from 4.3 million in the past 12 months.

Yet average Americans remain gloomy about the current economy and anxious about its future. According to a Pew Research Center report released this month, only 21% rate current conditions as excellent or good, versus 79% fair or poor. Only 33% say that jobs are readily available in their communities; when asked about good jobs, that figure falls to 26%. Only 22% believe the economy will be better a year from now; 22% think it will be worse, while fully 54% think it will be the same.

More than five years after the official end of the recession, the Public Religion Research Institute finds, only 21% of Americans believe the recession has ended.

Two recent reports help explain the disconnect between the official jobs numbers and the economic experience of most Americans. Every fall, the U.S. Commerce Department issues a detailed analysis of trends in income, poverty and health insurance. Although economists have some technical quibbles with the Commerce data, the broad trends are unmistakable

Last night, with great fanfare, it was announced that U.S. airstrikes on the Islamic State, focusing on the city of Raqqah, Syria were “joined” by five regional “moderate Sunni Arab allies,” namely the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrein, and Qatar. The UAE was singled out, perhaps because of its recently reported air strikes on jihadist militias in Libya.

London Telegraph analyst David Blair, however, provided this note of caution about the potential extent of UAE involvement:

But the UAE shares the traditional Arab reluctance to join Western-led military offensives. Whether its air force is carrying out combat sorties in Syria is unclear. If not, the UAE’s role may be confined to opening its air space and allowing the US to use al-Minhad military air base near Dubai.

While we withhold our collective breathless anticipation to learn which significant IS (or other “un-Islamic” jihad terrorist) targets the crack UAE pilots have destroyed—or “allowed” our own brave U.S. pilots to destroy—assessing the authentic “moderate” Islamic Weltanschauung of our Emirati allies, is a sobering experience.

Fortunately, the combined efforts (largely) of our own U.S. Department of State (USDOS, here, here), and Congressional Research Service, render clear understanding of the UAE’s Sharia-based worldview a straightforward task. What these reports reveal, in summary, is that the UAE is a Sharia-supremacist Muslim state, and a thoroughly anti-democratic despotism, even beyond the application of Islamic law, per se.

Briefly, here are salient examples of the UAE’s unmollified Sharia supremacism—and its predictable consequences for women and non-Muslims—derived (mostly verbatim) from the USDOS (here, here) reports.

The constitution declares that Islam is the official religion of all seven of the constituent emirates of the federal union and defines all citizens as Muslims.

Thousands of people converged outside of the Metropolitan Opera in NYC on Monday, Sept. 22 to denounce the staging of a wildly anti-Semitic opera, the “Death of Klinghoffer.”

Thousands of protesters showed up to tell the Metropolitan Opera patrons, arriving Monday night, Sept. 22, for the year’s black tie gala, that staging the opera named the “Death of Klinghoffer” was a vile act of anti-Semitism.

Politicians, such as former New York Governor Pataki, and U.S. Congressman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), an Israeli knesset member, local politicians, rabbis, activists, heads of Jewish Zionist organizations and Evangelical Zionist organizations, former U.S. Attorney General Judge Michael Mukasey, victims of terrorism and Jewish high school students came to voice their protest against the “Death of Klinghoffer” opera.Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey spoke out strongly against the general manager of the Metropolitan Opera, Peter Gelb, insisting on staging the “Death of Klinghoffer” at the Metropolitan Opera. Mukasey was scathing in his denunciation of Gelb and his wrongheaded decision.

Several American presidents have had quarrels with their generals, sometimes for reluctance to take the fight to the enemy, occasionally for wanting to take too much fight to the foe. Generals have to be careful in these quarrels.

Abraham Lincoln despaired of the sloth and timidity of George B. McClellan, a dandy in medals and ribbons who was a punching bag for Robert E. Lee and was forever begging for more men. “Sending more men to McClellan,” Lincoln said, “is like shoveling flies across a barn.”

Douglas MacArthur, a genius at squeezing success from meager resources in trying to save the Phillippines, begged President Franklin D. Roosevelt to distraction with pleas to get some of the troops FDR was sending to Europe. A decade later MacArthur pushed President Harry S Truman an impertinence too far, demanding to be allowed to bomb Chinese concentrations of troops and supplies north of the Yalu River, and was sacked for it.

The generals — MacArthur excepted — always know when to stop, salute and figure out another route to what they want. Sometimes they depend on old friends and colleagues safely in retirement to continue to make their arguments.

President Obama is nobody’s idea of a soldier or strategist, and suspicion grows nearly everywhere that he’s in water far over his head and has no idea of how to dog-paddle out of danger. Everything he touches turns to mud — Syria, Benghazi, Libya and now the Islamic State, or ISIS as most people call it. The generals, taught by law, tradition and instinct to hold their tongues, nevertheless see another train wreck coming and are making noises, carefully.

Mr. Obama, now that he has promised to destroy ISIS, thinks he can do it with allies who hardly know the business end of a gun and can’t shoot straight when they do. He tries to inspire his soldiers with promises that no matter what, they won’t be called on to fight, that they have “no combat mission.” (This was his strategy at Benghazi.)

I’m temporary between road trips, so some quick thoughts on the newly launched U.S. bombing campaign against jihadists in Syria and Iraq.

1. As significant as the strikes on IS/ISIS are the attacks against al-Qaeda franchises that have not broken away from original al-Qaeda. I’ve been arguing for a few weeks (e.g., here) that IS/ISIS is not even half of the equation — that al-Qaeda is also more powerful than it was prior to 9/11/01. Shortly after that, we got congressional testimony from Obama’s national-security team and other administration statements to the effect that al-Qaeda could be a more imminent threat to attack the US (even if IS/ISIS is currently the more powerful of the two networks in Iraq/Syria).

2. If the administration is accurately stating that the al-Qaeda threat is imminent, the strategic importance of hitting al-Qaeda targets is obvious. But it is also worth considering the significant legal considerations.

The administration has been arguing that military action against IS/ISIS does not require congressional approval because it is covered by the 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that applied to the 9/11 attacks and the 2002 AUMF that applied to Iraq. This argument may technically be correct (John Yoo makes a strong case for it, here and here), but it is debatable. IS/ISIS did not exist as such in 2001–02. It is, however, an al-Qaeda spin-off and the 2001 AUMF has been broadly construed to include other al-Qaeda franchises that exist now but did not on 9/11. The Iraq AUMF has also been very broadly construed . . . not to mention that the franchise IS/ISIS grew out of is al-Qaeda in Iraq (also known as AQI and AQIM — as in al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia).

But now, let’s add the al-Qaeda franchises into the mix (notwithstanding that they are in an on-again, off-again intramural jihad with IS/ISIS). There is no question that they are covered by the existing military force authorizations as those have been construed for the past 13 years (as I have long contended, this interpretation is a strained reading of the text, which has long needed overhauling). Equally significantly, consider the repeated recent statements by executive branch officials that the al-Qaeda franchises in Syria/Iraq pose “an imminent threat” to the United States. It is a longstanding doctrine, affirmed by the Supreme Court since the Civil War, that when there is an imminent threat the president has not only the authority but the duty to respond with any necessary force — it is an inherent power of the presidency under Article II of the Constitution and does not require a congressional green light.

The unleashing of the campaign of U.S. air strikes on terrorist targets throughout Syria last night may be the beginning of an offensive that will, as President Obama claimed this morning, “take the fight” to ISIS. If so, the bombings must be judged to be a commendable, if belated instance of presidential leadership. But as even the president’s cheering section at MSNBC and other liberal strongholds suddenly take on the appearance of being “war lovers,” it’s fair to wonder about one question that was uppermost on the minds of most of the media this past summer when other terrorists were being pounded from the air: what about the civilian casualties and infrastructure damage?

Accounts of the attacks on ISIS targets as well as those on the Khorasan group speak of strikes on bases, training camps, and checkpoints as well as command-and-control centers in four provinces and having been in the vicinity of several Syrian cities. Many terrorists may have been killed and severe damage done to the ability of both ISIS and the Khorasan group to conduct operations. The first videos of the aftermath of the bombings show members of the groups digging out the rubble and seeking survivors of the attacks. The surrounding area appears to be one of built-up structures. While some of these bases and command-and-control centers may well have been in isolated places, it is likely that many, if not most, were in the vicinity of civilian residences. All of which leads to the question that almost no one, at least in the American media, is asking today: what about civilian casualties or damage to infrastructure facilities that might severely impact the quality of life of those who live in these areas?

If we are being honest, the answer to such queries is clear: we don’t know. American forces conduct such operations under rules of engagement that seek to limit if not totally eliminate non-military casualties. But even under the strictest limits, civilians are killed in war. It is also to be hoped that all of the strikes were conducted with perfect accuracy, but that is the sort of thing that generally only happens in movies. In real life, war is conducted in an environment in which a host of factors make perfection as unattainable as it is in every other aspect of life. Which means it is almost certain that at least some Syrian civilians (a population that may include supporters of the terrorists and some who are essentially their hostages) were killed and wounded last night.

Given that Obama is not an advocate for American exceptionalism, he has thwarted American advancement at every opportunity. And from coast to coast, that is exactly what is occurring. Obama has taken over the health care system, destroying it bit by bit. Since his election, there has been a 40 percent wealth decline for Americans. Moreover, Obama has nationalized industries, restricted businesses, and threatened entrepreneurs with ominous consequences if they do not buckle under his administration’s fiats. He has decided where Americans may live or travel. He threatens sanctions to anyone who disagrees with him, and, finally, he knowingly breaks the law and shreds the Constitution.

The standard response as to why Obama has manufactured the southern border crisis is that he plans to increase the base of future Democratic voters. Surely this makes sense. But much more diabolical and terrifying is the idea that he has intentionally and maliciously enabled deadly diseases to wend their way north in order to overwhelm already overburdened hospitals and threaten Americans of all stripes with diseases that were once considered vanquished.

In short, he wants to literally make us sick and wound us in every way possible.

I keep searching for a compelling reason as to what would induce a leader of a country to purposefully bring in deadly diseases and, consequently, put Americans at grave risk.

If an individual wanted to destroy the American way of life and cause chaos, what better way to bring America to its knees? Transporting deadly diseases would surely ensure that we were properly punished for our way of life.

Surely this is just too much conspiratorial thinking. Or is it?

While Obama allegedly leads the anti-Ebola charge to save Africa, little is done about the diseases coming up from the border. Consequently, Ebola, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and dengue fever are now entering the United States. Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh explains that

Alana Goodman’s revelation at the Washington Free Beacon of previously unknown correspondence between Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky shows that Clinton has not been honest about her far-left past. The lost Alinsky letters also remind us of what we ought to know but have forgotten: Hillary is not “Clintonian.” While Bill and Hillary have worked, schemed, and governed as a couple for decades, Hillary has always been to the left of Bill. As president, she would govern more like Obama than like her husband.

Hillary Clinton was the Elizabeth Warren of her day, the leader of the left-wing of the Democratic party. Hillary continually pressed Bill from the left during their White House years, while clashing on the inside with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and the administration’s Wall Street contingent.

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is that Warren flouts her ideology, thrilling the base by making the leftist case as few other Democrats dare. Ever the Alinskyite, Hillary prefers to achieve leftist ends incrementally, in pragmatic guise. It’s a conflict of means rather than ends, the same conflict that leads many leftists to doubt Obama’s ideological credentials, when in fact the president is as much a man of the left as ever.

Alinsky’s original quarrel with the young radicals of the 1960s, which Hillary alludes to in her letter, was over the New Left’s tendency to make noise rather than get things done. Working effectively, Alinsky believed, requires ideological stealth, gradualism, and pragmatic cover. In his day, Alinsky took hits from more openly leftist ideologues for his incrementalist caution, as Obama and Hillary do now. Yet he was no more a centrist than his two most famous acolytes are today.

Glenn Reynolds links to a tweet in response to the Goodman story by Politico’s Glenn Thrush: “Remind me again why liking Saul Alinsky is unacceptable.” Alright Glenn, and the rest of a Democratic-leaning media that will do everything in its power to play this revelation down, I’ll remind you.

Alinsky was a democratic socialist. He worked closely for years with Chicago’s Communist party and did everything in his power to advance its program. Most of his innovations were patterned on Communist-party organizing tactics. Alinsky was smart enough never to join the party, however. From the start, he understood the dangers of ideological openness. He was a pragmatist, but a pragmatist of the far left. (See Chapter Four of Spreading the Wealth for details.)

As Germany has learned, renewables are not only exorbitant; they do little to reduce CO2 emissions.

Renewable energy has become a potent rallying cry uniting Hollywood and the Beltway. “We can move our economy town by town, state by state to renewable energy and a sustainable future,” Leonardo DiCaprio says in his eight-minute climate movie Carbon, released in August. In his fiscal-showdown speech during his first term, in April 2011, President Obama put Paul Ryan’s proposals for a 70 percent cut in clean energy at the top of his list of reprehensible and unnecessary reductions. “These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget,” he said. “These are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America that I believe in and I think you believe in.”

In May of this year, President Obama declared the shift to clean energy a “fight” that was about shaping the sector “that is probably going to have more to do with how well our economy succeeds than just about any other.” At least on that, the president was right. If we get energy wrong, America will throw away the world-leading energy advantages bestowed on it by geology, technology, and capitalism.

Presenting the administration’s Clean Power Plan, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy admitted it was not about pollution control. “It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy,” she told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in July. “This is an investment strategy.” The president’s favorite corporate-tax inverter has a different take on the nature of the investment opportunity. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms,” Warren Buffett told Berkshire Hathaway’s investors. “That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” While wind investors hoover up the $23 production tax credit per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced, the real costs of intermittent renewables such as wind and solar are many times greater. And they’re not even good at what they’re meant to do — reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Deriving a large proportion of energy from renewables is proving extremely costly for Germany. Last year, Peter Altmaier, then the energy and environment Minister and now one of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s closest advisers, said that Germany’s effort to decarbonize electricity generation could cost one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s. Not that you would necessarily see that from Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions. Despite lower economic growth in Germany than in the U.S., German emissions have been rising seven times faster — up 9.3 percent between 2009 and 2013 compared with 1.3 percent for the United States.