RUTHFULLY YOURS

A lot of people care about climate change, but not nearly as much as they do about other issues, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

Just 7% of respondents said they think climate change is the top issue the federal government should address, with other issues, namely terrorism and the economy, at the top of the list. When asked specifically about climate change, closer to half — 41% — of respondents said they support taking immediate steps to address the problem.

The poll underscores a challenge facing President Barack Obama and other politicians who are pushing sweeping government actions to address climate change: How to make the case for a continued, concerted focus on an issue when most voters prefer a government focus on other things?
The chance timing of the United Nations global climate change conference in Paris coming two weeks after terrorists killed 130 people in that same city has fueled a political debate about which threat is greater and which the Obama administration should focus on more, an either/or dynamic White House officials reject.

“They’re both critically important,” said Ben Rhodes, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, at a press briefing during the U.N. climate talks, which concluded this past weekend. “And we have to do both at the same time. And they pose different threats.”

“At least three of the five Taliban leaders traded last year for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl have tried to plug back into their old terror networks, a government official familiar with the intelligence told Fox News, describing it as an attempt to “re-engage.” March, 2015….rsk
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face a military trial on charges that he deserted his unit in Afghanistan in 2009 and endangered the lives of soldiers who searched for him, the Army said Monday, a move that means he could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty.

Sgt. Bergdahl, who was subsequently captured by the Taliban before being returned to the U.S. in a controversial prisoner exchange in 2014, is accused of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

The decision to pursue a court-martial was reached by Gen. Robert Abrams, who heads Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C. It comes two months after an Army officer recommended that Sgt. Bergdahl, 29, not face jail time or a punitive discharge from the military.

Following an Article 32 preliminary hearing in the case, Lt. Colonel Mark Visger recommended in October that Sgt. Bergdahl face a special court-martial—essentially a military version of a misdemeanor court—according to Sgt. Bergdahl’s civilian defense lawyer, Eugene Fidell.

The juxtaposition of two headlines on the front page of a recent New York Times suggested ideology supersedes facts. The first: “Arms Stockpile is Found in Home of Two Suspects.” The second: “A Couple Who Lived Quietly, Motives Unknown.” Both headlines, it need hardly be said, dealt with the recent Islamist terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. It has been a failure to connect the dots that characterizes not only the liberal press, but more importantly the Administration. Most egregious was the failure of both the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI to detect the couple who had been radicalized since at least 2013 – before they met – and who left overt traces of their jihad-extremist sympathies on social media.

While Donald Trump’s remarks about temporarily banning Muslims immigrants from entering the country were reprehensible, they were understandable given the willfulness of the Administration as to the enemy we face. A week ago, Mr. Obama spoke to the nation from the Oval Office. While he mentioned terrorism, he did not use the modifier, Islamist. Mr. Trump’s reaction is a negation of Mr. Obama’s thesis – that his policies are working. When the pendulum swings to the left, it is propelled back an equal distance to the right. It has been the failure of the Obama Administration’s policies regarding immigration and Islamic terrorism that has given rise to the demagoguery of Mr. Trump.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney made a startling series of revelations Thursday evening (12/10/15) on Fox News’ The Kelly File. Haney described how he began investigating scores of individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat. He maintained the groups were exploiting the visa waiver program to transport suspected jihadist operatives in and out of the U.S., thus he started tracking them, and recording these findings within a DHS database. Haney’s efforts (as summarized by Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller) were eventually noticed by the National Targeting Center (NTC), which operates as an umbrella organization in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Haney was subsequently asked to work for the NTC and rivet his attention on these Deobandi-related organizations. Over the course of his investigation, Haney received an award for identifying more than 300 potential jihad terrorists with links to the Deobandi affiliates.

Tablighi Jamaat certainly merited the attention Haney was giving it, having been connected to a series of jihad terrorist attacks, which included targeting the U.S.: the October, 2002 Portland (Oregon) Seven, and September, 2002 Lackawanna (New York) Six cases; an Aug. 2006 plot to bomb airliners en route from London to the U.S.; attempted bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland, in July 2007; and involvement in the July 7, 2005, London bombings, which killed 52 and injured more than 700. French investigators have further estimated Tablighi Jamaat ideological indoctrination was associated with 80% of their jihad terror cases.

Haney’s fastidious investigations raised serious concerns about the San Bernardino Deobandi movement-affiliated Darul-Uloom al-Islamia mosque—attended by jihad-waging killer Syed Farook. In addition, Farook’s jihadist accomplice wife, Tashfeen Malik, attended a traditionalist Islamic education center in Pakistan, also connected with the Deobandi movement. Notwithstanding his patriotic, yeoman efforts, DHS shut down Haney’s probe, and revoked both his security clearance and access to the databases he compiled. Retributive investigations against Haney by DHS and the Obama Justice Department, however, revealed no wrongdoing on his part. Tragically, as Haney explained, had his probe not been terminated for alleged “civil rights violations” of jihad-indoctrinated Muslim followers of the Deobandi movement:

Charlie Brown: I guess I don’t really know what Christmas is about. Isn’t there anyone who understands what Christmas is all about?
Linus: Sure, I can tell you what Christmas is all about.
— “A Charlie Brown Christmas”

In the Peanuts Christmas (not “holiday”) classic, a morose Charlie Brown struggles to come to grips with “the true meaning of Christmas.” Recall that Lucy, dispensing psychiatric advice as a cure for Charlie Brown’s melancholy, therapeutically tasks him with directing their school’s Christmas play. “You need involvement,” she tells him. “You need to get involved in some real Christmas project.” When the advice fails to pay off, Linus takes to the school auditorium’s stage and having transformed his blanket into a shepherd’s costume recites Luke 2:8-14. “That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown,” Linus concludes.

At least one court disagrees. In a ruling issued last week in the case of Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools, a federal judge ordered an Indiana high school to cancel a live Nativity musical number enjoyed since 1970 as a regular part of its annual “Christmas Spectacular” shows. Over drifting choruses of Christmas carols and surrounding a hay-lined crèche, costumed student performers played the parts of Mary, Joseph, the Three Wise Men, shepherds and angels. In light of last week’s ruling, Linus’ homily no longer represents a message of hope for all mankind. Rather, it is an unconstitutional example of religious indoctrination imposing its cruelty on children vulnerable to religious conversion at the twinkle of a light and the tranquil strains of Silent Night.

Last week, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the latest round of the Fisher vs. University of Texas case over whether race can be used as a criterion in college admissions policies. The defenders of affirmative-action admissions policies have generally been unwilling to discuss the impact these policies have on black students. Indeed, when Justice Antonin Scalia raised the possibility in oral arguments that these policies actually harm black students by placing many of them at schools that are too demanding, he was immediately vilified.

“Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges,” ran a typical headline at Mother Jones. Senate minority leader Harry Reid called Scalia’s line of questioning “racist,” and Georgia Democratic congressman John Lewis said Scalia’s “evident bias was very troubling,” leading him to question Scalia’s “ability to make impartial judgments.”

Here is what Scalia actually said:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.

The brief in question was submitted by UCLA law professor Richard Sanders. A one-time proponent of affirmative action, Sanders changed his position when he studied its effects on black students at American law schools. Sanders found that, because of these schools’ commitment to increasing diversity, the median black student accepted by them placed in the lowest decile of white students admitted — and this translated into low class rankings and low rates of passing the bar exam for these black students. Sanders presented evidence that if black students who had attended a top-tier law school had instead attended a lower-tier school, they would have been more likely to pass the bar exam.

A Department of Homeland Security deputy assistant secretary had no answers for Congress last week when questioned about the U.S. visa waiver program, leaving Republicans worried that “DHS seems clueless about what is going on with potential threats to our security.”

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing last Thursday to address the vulnerabilities of the U.S. visa waiver program, and assess what the U.S. government has done to prevent terrorists from abusing the VWP.

Established in 1986, the VWP allows nationals of certain countries to enter the U.S. as temporary visitors (nonimmigrants) for up to 90 days without having to obtain a visa or undergo an in-person interview at a U.S. consulate. Currently, nationals of 38 countries can enter the U.S. without first obtaining a visa under the VWP.

Attention has been directed toward the VWP of late because of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. At least five of the attackers were French nationals and one was a Belgian national. Nationals of both France and Belgium are able to enter the U.S. under the VWP.

Thousands of Westerners have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria or Iraq to fight with extremist groups. Individuals from VWP program countries who return could then enter the U.S. by taking advantage of the VWP.

President Obama talks a lot about the scientific method. On climate change, he has often invoked the idea of a great divide between those on the progressive left, such as himself, who believe in “settled science” and thus a looming man-caused climatological disaster, and those, presumably on the Neanderthal Right, who are slaves to superstition, ideology, prejudice, and self-interest—and thus deny that the planet is rapidly warming due to inordinate human-induced releases of excessive carbon.

Obama’s view of science is reductionist. It relies on count-em-up numbers: if more university professors (not known to be an especially independent or courageous cohort) believe in dangerous man-caused climate change than doubt it or its seriousness, and if climate change fits a larger progressive agenda, then it becomes factual.

Would we assume thereby that Newton, Galileo, and Darwin were all exemplars of groupthink, and worked through consensus and collegiality, especially with the support of status-quo institutions and universities, in advancing majority-held theories?

When Obama signed legislation in his first weeks in office enabling human stem cell research, he pontificated that his act was about ensuring “that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Aside from the fact that there were and are methodologies of harvesting stem cells without resort to embryonic protocols, the president’s entire approach to science, data, and the inductive method is to privilege ideology and subordinate facts.

On a New Yorker panel nearly a dozen years ago, in the wake of the publication of his novel Snow, Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk set forth an emphatic credo. “Our moral duty,” he said, “is to pay attention to the humanity of everybody.” And since the subject of the panel was “Literature and Politics,” this comment was altogether in keeping with Pamuk’s remarks elsewhere, on the responsibility of the novelist: “I strongly feel that the art of the novel is based on the human capacity, though it is a limited capacity, to be able to identify with the ‘other.’ .  .  . It requires imagination, a sort of morality, a self-imposed goal of understanding this person who is different from us.”

But in 2004, this anodyne and conventional literary conviction, addressed to the New Yorker’s loyal audience, rang out with an unexpectedly unsettling force. The motivations and influences and inmost desires and doubts and dreams and fevered schemes of invented characters in a novel, however pleasing or villainous, make up the very essence of what we derive from storytelling. We want to understand Isabel Archer and Mr. Kurtz (who are so different from us), we want to know them to the deeps of their marrow. The glory of literary modernism especially— the revelatory dazzle of Joyce and Proust and Woolf — turns precisely on this psychological probing into hidden consciousness. It was a shock, then, to learn that Pamuk’s “everybody,” his requirement of imagination, his “goal of understanding this person who is different from us,” his vaunted “humanity” — all this was meant to reach well beyond his primary literary argument. It was meant to include terrorists. Are not terrorists a portion of humanity? A challenge came from a fellow panelist: What about suicide bombers, are they to be similarly understood by the humanely embracing imagination? Pamuk’s response was quick and sharp and dismissive: “We have to base our judgment on moral essential things rather than on what we see on TV the other night.”

We have recently started a not for profit resource site http://militarybases.co that displays all the U.S. military bases on an interactive map.

Militarybases.co is a novel resource for interactive maps that display military bases operated by the U.S. either locally or abroad conveniently along with data points such as: historical info, base facilities, housing, weather, driving instructions and pictures of the bases involved.

Militarybases.co cover different army branches such as air force, navy, marine, coast guard and regular army installations. We aim to be a resource for elementary, secondary and college students who want to learn and absorb information regarding our countries military infrastructure and for families of service men and woman as well as those on active duty to get more information on their next deployment location.

The site is useful in many ways as it can be used for research for geopolitical issues in terms of arms deployment of the US forces accross the globe, it can also be used by families of service men and woman to find their way around the bases where their loved ones serve to protect our country. It can also be used as classroom material for elementary, secondary or even college eductation.

The site is a resource for data points on housing, weather, driving directions, base facilities and even historical information of ALL U.S. military bases either on our soil or abroad. We currently have over 500+ bases listed and expanding day by day.