Friday, October 19, 2012

Obama creates Green on Green bloodbath in Energy world

I am conservative with a home in Baja that is totally off grid. I didn't build it to save the snail darter or reserve a seat at the table of Gaia and the other Environmental Gods in Green Heaven. I and the other neighbors (several thousand Gringos) in my area built solar homes, because we love the desert sun and the view of the ocean.

When we meet at the local coffee hangout by the beach, we discuss yesterday's sports scores, but at least once a day we chat about our energy systems the way teenagers used to discuss their four barrel carbs on their hot rods. Wind power, PV, propane, Solar Thermal, generators, etc. Old timers try to impress newbies with what the new technology they saw in Popular Mechanics.

The fact that just north of the border, California carefully regulates where one can build, communities like this would be too costly to spring up in this way. Small tinkerers is where new ideas are born, but Obama was in a hurry and that meant go big, go fast, and flood the green world with money.

I was reading a list of the dozens of big companies that Obama funded that went under. One of them was a company I had heard about from some of the local alternative energy experts. It was called Stirling Energy and they recently filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although I do not know the details, but I've been told they were driven to bankruptcy by competing Photovoltaic price drops caused by artificially volatile prices in PV technology which as you know is the darling of Obama's "On Grid" Energy experts. Obama's energy eggheads live in traditional on grid houses, but they have read a lot about Alternative energy, so they pick winners and losers and are also under a deadline.

Stirling had bet on a fascinating technology, of which there are many, that competes with PV and is not as favored as PV. They only got $7 million. But this is how winners and losers are chosen and how green on green violence occurs in the alternative energy world. Stirling Energy had plans to build a solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert. The Imperial Valley is sunny year round and can get as hot as 120 degrees F.

I don't know the exact Solar thermal specs of this company's product, but here is the general principle of Stirling engines. The technology is based on an idea around since the 19th century. A Stirling engine is similar to a steam engine, but with fluids more likely to be found in a refrigerator or air conditioner. This allows an engine to run with heat differentials of 60 degrees. Meaning a fluid that is heated by solar reflectors or concentrators to let's say 160 degrees can be run in to the ground or in water by tubes to cool to below 100F and you have a large scale energy source. The efficiency and price will always struggle to compete with PV, especially if PV is subsidized.

The Stirling engine and solar thermal is an interesting technology for tis area, because it can be developed and maintained by locals at relatively low cost in a region with lots of sun and modest incomes, compared to PVs which we all own down here, but they are high tech, high price and made by big corporations. But now with Obama subsidies PV prices have dropped, for now, and crowded out other innovative technologies. Will the prices stay low? Will the subsidies continue for ever? Who gets the favored status? No one knows.

Here is a description of Stirlings bankruptcy:

Stirling Energy caves in against PV's falling costs

06 October 2011
Stirling Energy Systems has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy as the stirling dish technology could not compete against the falling costs of solar photovoltaics (PV), according to media reports.

By Kari Williamson

A sign of the trouble to come was already visible at the beginning of the year when Stirling Energy's development arm, Tessera Solar, sold off its two large projects, the 709 MW Imperial project and the 850 MW Calico project to AES Solar and K.Road, respectively.

According to Reuters, Stirling had assets of US$1-10 million, whereas liabilities were in the US$50-100m range.

Stirling Energy's website has been down since the story broke in US media.

I am all for Alternative energy innovation, but Obama clearly has no clue about what it means to "go green", as they say. I know people that have windmills and PVs to supplement their on grid power, but when you are completely off gird, you think about your wattage all the time. I don't think Mr. Obama will ever have a passing thought about wattage. So how can he or his people save the economy by creating a green revolution which he promised, by rigging the system.

Here is that list of green busts:

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

When I see the coffee gang of popsci engineers these days, several of them complain about certain technologies that were once up and coming and they were all excited to see how the technologies would develop, but unfortunately for these tinkerers, the field has been narrowed, not expanded by Eggheads in Washington trying to earn a place in green heaven. But even in the Green universe, good intentions don't earn a spot in green heaven, it gives you a one way ticket down the giant slide to a very Geothermal place.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Crowley plays Replacement Ref and declares touchdown for Obama

I killed Bin Laden once and I could do it again, if I get a second term

In 1858, the Seven Lincoln Douglas Debates was not only popular in Illinois, but the stenographers that transcribed the events for major newspapers were then covered in all the major papers in the Union. The Partisan newspapers, mostly Democrats, would edit out gaffes by Douglas or key debate points that they considered weak.

Now it appears in desperation, the media, motivated by meltdowns of their peers have decided to jump up on the stage and not just make their own arguments, but prop up the lies of their candidate with lies of their own and encourage the mob to hoot and applaud. Even the First Lady was clapping and cheering.

I remember in the Watergate era, we watched these same journalists pat themselves on the back as if they were saintly civil rights crusaders, because they had "saved the Republic" and one part of the narrative I fell for was the notion they peddled that with the new Television age, it would be more difficult, if not impossible for future Presidents to hide scandals or outright lie to coverup major policy failures and corruption that might hurt their chances of holding on to power.

Wow, was I wrong.

How could I have been so wrong to imagine Television would be used for truth and justice or that the power of government would be held in check by the priesthood of the box, which is the talking heads of the mainstream media.

It is clear Obama has made a decision to play semantical games from the school of the meaning of the word "Is".

The reason the first debate put Obama and the media are in such a free fall was the media protected Obama for 8 years and McCain who was burdened by a years of anti-Bush hammering was not able to prove that an unknown was lying about his abilities. For 4 years the media covered for him, he gave no real press conferences where he was force to answer to the people and the teleprompter jokes were considered rantings of rightwing radicals. Then in the current campaign, the media continued to inject itself into every aspect of the campaign trying to shape the narratives, not report on them. This campaign will be remembered as the "What about the Gaffes" campaign. The first debate showed that for the first time in Obama's life, he was forced to explain his capabilities, his performance and his achievements or lack thereof. And he looked like a complete moron, even to his friends. That was the real Barack Obama. Welcome to our shared national nightmare.

Without the objectivity of the media to point out the ridiculous notion that a President who spent nearly a month denying that the biggest terrorist attack by AL Qaeda was neither pre-planned or an act of terror, let alone associated in anyway with Al Qaeda, is somehow protected by a single remark in a speech that referred to 911 as terrorism, is so utterly ridiculous that it risks making anyone that justifies the innity with debate as somehow a nit picker.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say, here are the 978 times the governemnt claimed it was not pre-planned and it was solely a spontaneous reaction to the actions in Cairo and the video by Sam Becile,..and here is the one remark by Obama which was not what he says it was.

SO let the Nit Picking begin. Here is the quote from the Rose Garden about "acts of terror":
Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

First paragraph he discusses the "Subject" of the acts of terror remark. He mentions 911 victims, those that died in Afghanistan and Iraq, Wounded warriors in hospitals and then he mentions "the attack" in Benghazi.

Is he claiming that all of the above people were victims of terrorism at the hands of Al Qaeda? No. Did all the dead of Iraq die at the hands of Al Qaeda. Obama and his friends claimed Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.

Second Paragraph he clarifies the connection between these groups. He is explaining that not just our soldiers, but civilians or bureaucrats take risks too and they might die in a number of different ways, especially if they are trying to work in the middle east in non-military ways, like Ambassador Stevens. You might die at the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists like those on 911, you might die in Iraq by non terrorist acts, you might be wounded in Afghanistan by non-terrorist acts, you might be killed in a spontaneous eruption of violence which is not terrorism or pre-planned, but shares with terrorism the fact that it is a reaction to a misunderstanding of our character, which I Barack Obama am the living embodiment of and George Bush is not.

Third paragraph, he finally says "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation,..."

If he wanted to say Benghazi was an act of terror, he would have, but he didn't. He gave a list of ways that Americans are injured or killed in the Mid East some as a result of "acts of terror" and some not, then he went on to convey whether it is a minor misunderstanding, a stupid war in Iraq, or even the most significant and horrific such as the 911 terrorist attacks that he had just discussed mourning over,...that none of these, the minor or the major will diminish our efforts to protect you.

The very essence of that statement is a lie. It is clear he is not calling Benghazi an act of terror, he is merely trying to elevate Stevens' sacrifice to a more meaningful level, by associating it with these other events, but the truth is, he died because of the bumbling of Obama and his misguided policies.

Worse than that, he is trying to rekindle the narrative of the Osama Bin Laden hit, by claiming he will hunt these people down. So far Sam Becile was the first villain to be captured and he is still in a Wen Ho lee style cell somewhere for making a crappy youtube video.

So he developed a comic book narrative that if you kill the Arch villain, that the henchmen slither down the drains of the sewers of Gotham and disappear. He killed Osama Bin Laden, so the war is over, or as Clinton used to say, the Russian missiles are no longer pointing at us, so we can cash in our chips for a peace dividend. The Arab Spring was the carrot side of the con job meant to convince us that Obama killed Al Qaeda and Democracies based on a model of "Ghandi and Martin Luther King" has emerged in the ashes of the now ended war.

The bizarre thing is, the narrative of the OBL hit is now being dredged up and imitated in a lame attempt to disguise how ineffective the killing of Osama Bin Laden really was in destroying Al Qaeda, which is very much alive and well in North Africa, because it killed Ambassador Stevens. This is the ultimate post modern foreign policy President. This is not wag the dog, its wag the snake, because the snake is all tail and no reality.

We have a President who claimed Bush was not fighting a war, he was using it as a distraction to steal valuable natural resources from people of color with a religion that Obama understands because he could see Islam from his front porch when he was 7. He claimed he would give sermons on the mount in Cairo and the arms would be laid down and liberty would "Let my people go" from Egypt and the Middle East would be a beacon of freedom.

This narrative had millions of holes in it, but had not really been covered by a main stream media that didn't want to point to trouble in paradise, unless the response to it created an opportunity for their candidate. Just like in Rwanda, the media admited later it feared a Black Hawk Down scenario of bad press for Clinton, if a sharper focus on genocide created a drumbeat for action, so they looked the other way.

So in Benghazi and Cairo, the warning signs were all there. Obama keeps sending out the word, don't use the word terror, don't act like the war on terror is still under way, lay low. Just as they laughed at Bush's Red, Yellow, Orange warning system, Obama was sending a message around the world not to worry, there is no danger. So many responded accordingly. Apparently those on the ground in Libya did not think it was peaceful, but those closer to the political center of the US government denied them the protection they requested.

In a previous attack in Benghzai, a breach in the containment wall was blown open big enough for an assault squad to enter. This would not have been a run of the mill security breach. In a country Obama where Obama had waged war just months ago, to have a consulate attacked in this manner would have absolutely made its way in to the Presidents Security briefing, which we know he has been criticized for not receiving in person while on campaign. So Obama either did or should have known of the security threat to terrorism at this exact location, assuming his briefing procedures had not been compromised for political reasons. This should have prompted him personally to comment on security there prior to Sept 11. He apparently did not. Because the requests were denied.

What we had on Sept 11 was a major terror attack on an Ambassador by Al Qaeda affiliates. Worse yet, Obama had met with Gamal Islamiya in the White House about the release of Abdel Rahman,... and this attack was spawned by Rahman's brigade. So Obama tried negotiating and didn't recognize it was the old Jihadi tradition of offering your opponent mercy before killing him.

Obama's entire post modern theme that Al Qaeda is dead and the radical islamists are now Ben Franklin in a Hijab is unraveling. It should be noted, when Obama cried out that Romney was accusing he and his staff of lying for political purposes and that he was extremely offended, Romney actually had not. But Obama's "accustaion" against Romney was ironic. Obama had just minutes before accusedRomney of politicizing the event, which by his standard is unpatriotic and further more gave Romney an opening for the next debate. Romney can now say in the next debate, "You accused me of accusing Susan Rice of lying for political reasons, you accused me of accusing you of lying for political reasons on the terrorist attack in Benghazi that caused the attack on Amb. Stevens that resulted in his torture and death and mutilation, and you claimed that I was using your many mistatements of fact on this act of terror and your inconsistent remarks and those of your staff and the circular blame that has circulated around your disoriented White House and characterizing all of that "Stuff" as a cynical attempt on your part to distract away from your failed policies in the region and your negligence for purely political reasons that are designed to keep your white knuckled clutches on the reins of power,...

....but I never accused you of that.

Here is what the attack did prove:

Al Qaeda is still alive and on offense

AL Qaeda is operating openly in Egypt and may actually be moving its headquarters there if Morsi continues to look the other way

If Egypt (and its neighbor Libya) becomes the new Afghanistan that means Al Qaeda now operates out of a sophisticated urbanized nation that controls the Suez canal, borders Israel, has a sophisticated military, is 300 miles from Italy and plays a leadership role amongst Political thinkers throughout Islam.

The Arab Spring never was

Obama is mostly annoyed with Israel and not very concerned with their existential fears

The Middle East is about to get much worse than we have ever seen it and much of the blame rests on Obama's doorstep

Obama is completely unequipped mentally and philosophically to respond to the shit storm that is about to hit us, and his ideological stubbornness means he never will, even if bodies keep landing at Andrews

Obama's White House meetings with Al Qaeda affiliate, Gamal Islamiya regarding the release of Abdel Rahman show he is ignorant of the true identity of who is running the Egyptian Government and is at the very least may be naively handing our enemies the opportunity to threaten Europe directly and isolate America.

So did he declare this an Al Qaeda terrorism attack on Sept 12? No. Has he ever declared a true act of terror as such within 24 hours? Never. Not Once. George Bush did. Even Clinton did. Obama as amatter of policy, never has and now his Chickens have come home to roost.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Obama,... Does the truth really hurt?

I find it hilarious that it's been 3 weeks since the 47% remark emerged as the MSM's excuse for a hard news prism by which to view this race. I watch all the Network News broadcast nightly news everyday and for 21 days at least one and usually all of them have had a story about the 47% with the accompanying video. Scott Pelley, erroneously asked Romney in an exclusive interview at the opening of his broadcast that Romney had said "He does not care" about 47% of Americans. Talk about someone having to deal with a bald faced lie, right in your eye.

The key element of the 47% and Obama's Epic Debate Fail is what does it reveal about the candidate and the race. The MSM want you to believe that Romney hates the poor and underprivileged and that he is careful not to reveal his secret agenda to kill them or let them die of cancer. This video "unveils" the "Hidden agenda" as they called Reagan's secret plot against the poor. It is clear Romney says the people he listed in his 47% remarks will vote for Obama regardless so he can't "worry" about them regarding their voting for him and he will never convince them to vote for him. Does that mean he does not care if they die of cancer just because he can not convince them to vote for him? If black people again vote at a 95% rate for Obama again, should Romney spend a majority of his time and funds on a campaign targeting African Americans? Does that mean he doesn't care about them or that he is racist? So what does the 47% remark reveal about Romney, a man we are told for 20 years spends between 10 and 20 hours per week "personally" helping families of dying children, poverty stricken families and individuals suffering from substance abuse. Never mind the more than one quarter of his income he donates to charity. So what does the 47% reveal about this man?

Now let's look at Obama's debate performance. Nobody denies Obama failed to give a good performance. Some admit he lost, most consider it abysmal, maybe the worst of any sitting President. Romney's 47% was a hidden camera remark nearly 6 months ago during the primaries and Obama's 90 minute performance was abundant, wide ranging, very public and should be considered a candidates most prepared for event, yet he could hardly put two words together. When he described his own Healthcare bill, his signature legislation, he mumbled and stammered and seemed to be confused about what it really meant. He seemed unprepared to speak extemporaneously about topics he claims to be the world authority on. When Romney took Obama's attacks, such as the oil industry subsidies of $2 Billion as ways to cut spending and Romney counter attacked by pointing out Obama's failed $90 billion energy subsidies to bundlers and cronies that went down the tubes, he just stared like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

Did the media portray this performance as "revealing" proof of what conservatives have said about him for 8 years, that he is inexperienced, naive, dependent on his handlers and his teleprompter and unable to respond when questioned about the validity of his poorly explained ideas? Even though it did demonstrate he is as Mitt Romney has been saying "In over his head", the media did not say that. Instead they proved Mitt Romney's words to be true, by contorting themselves in ways that are so ridiculous and far fetched, that the only answer must be the scary truth that the Emperor has no clothes. Was it the true Obama, who has never been talked to like this in his life that was fumbling around on the floor or was it the high altitude, the moderator, the debate prep team run by the French looking John F. Kerry, his anniversary, his lack of time since he never focuses on his campaign and spends too much time meeting with foreign dignitaries, too much zanax, he's just too nice, Republican racism forces him to be too nice so he can't come across as an angry black man, a big thud in the back of the room distracted him, Romney's cheat sheet distracted him,... or as Paul Krugman says, he has difficulty when faced with an untruth in a town swimming in untruths, so much so that he folds like a lawn chair when faced with one.

So a single sentence by Romney in a hidden video about which demographic he will spend time campaigning on that was twisted to convey he wants you dead gets 21 straight days of "This represents the true Romney".... but Obama swan dives off the podium and nearly starts foaming at the mouth and the media can't stop spitting out "un-truths" to convey "What are you going to believe ME? ... or your lying eyes? Was Obama's stumbling blatherings the real and unscripted man or was his first chance ever to face tough questions in public just a strange coincidental atmospheric anomaly?

For what its worth CBS Nightly News opened tonight's wrap up of the Sunday morning talk shows by saying, "..and nearly a WEEK later, they are STILL talking about the debate....". I did the math. As of the end of debate coverage the night of the debate to the filming of today's morning talk shows, 78 hours had past. About 3 days. Yet to the Liberal media, it seems like a lifetime.

The Truth most definitely does hurt.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Obama's earpiece and wireless transmitter failed during debate

As the mainstream media discuss theories of what happened in last nights debate, I think a very clear explanation is obvious. President Obama's wireless transmitter and earpiece that allow him to receive answers from his handlers was malfunctioning during the debate. Furthermore, It is quite clear who caused the malfunction. There is emerging evidence that George W. Bush was behind the debacle and his team of wifi hackers and oil industry electronic technicians were successful in tapping in to his frequency and interfering with his ability to hear David Axelrod feed him answers.

Proof? Here is the story in the Washington Post in 2004 that uncovered Bush's expertise in electronic spy devices.

Bulge Under President's Coat in First Debate Stirs Speculation

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 9, 2004; Page A16

A photograph that flew around the Internet this week shows a boxy bulge in the back of President Bush's suit coat during the first debate, leading to widespread cyber-speculation that he was wired to receive help with his answers.

Bush's aides tried to laugh off the controversy, with one official joking about "little green men on the grassy knoll."

Several officials, pressed for a serious answer, flatly denied that anything was fishy about the hump. These officials said they had checked and that there was nothing under Bush's jacket -- not a wire, not a transmitter, not a garage door opener. Bush was not wearing a protective vest, sources said.

The White House refused to provide an on-the-record comment, saying that it would dignify a baseless issue, and referred questions to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"It is preposterous," campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said. He declined to elaborate or to suggest what could have produced the unusual photo.

Bush's aides said the suit was well-tailored and did not have a roll in back. One official, in a cheeky reference to a discredited story about Bush's National Guard record, suggested checking with document experts at CBS News to see if the photo had been doctored.

At the time, Karl Rove refused to address the issue and still refuses to explain the bulge in Bush's Suit raising further suspicion.

Experts also speculate that a loud thud that was heard during the Obama-Romney debate that caused both candidates to turn around was actually Karl Rove stumbling from his perch beyond the scaffolding of the debate floor backdrop. MSNBC sources have pointed out that Karl Rove was not seen in the audience and when he was spotted later in the proximity of the ultra right wing Fox News communications truck, he appeared nervous and was suspiciously close to a number of wires and electrical devices.

CNN photo analysts are studying photographic images of Romney's suit to discover the location of his listening device that allowed him to answer his questions so quickly and in such detail. There were several times when Jim Lehrer tried to stop Romney, but it appeared Romney was able to confuse the PBS moderator and take control of the microphone and sound system. Stephanie Cutter believes Romney was controlling the moderators microphone and with Bush's help and the sound technicians from Haliburton, they completely took control of the debate. Removing any doubt, analysts have noted, Jim Lehrer was the moderator of the Bush Kerry debate in 2004 and further, Kerry was the debate prep stand in for Romney.

White House Press Secretary would not confirm or deny the plot to comandeer the debate or if Bush's crack team of hackers left their finger prints on this operation, but he did say it's too early to speculate and he did not want to get ahead of the ongoing investigation. The FBI is expected to arrive at the University of Denver as soon as the debate site is safe for them to search for evidence.

We can expect the real Obama to be back and in true form for the next debate and for the bumbling caricature of Romney to return after Obama administration officials get to the bottom of this.

Dan Rather was quoted as having heard a man yelling, "What is the Frequency, Kenneth" from behind the stage.

An unnamed source told us, "If Jimmy Carter's grandson can dress up like a waiter and wire up a Republican candidate talking about the 47%, Halliburton and Rumsfeld can pull together enough old Nixon plumbers to make one last ride for their rich oil buddies".

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Both Obama and Bill Clinton tried to hide the threat and Americans died

As disturbing news trickles out about the numerous requests from the American diplomats in Libya for more security to protect them from the impending terrorist attacks, we are starting to see a pattern of behaviour from Democrat Presidents.

When you take in to account Obama's attempts to pretend we are not at war and convince the media to throw a blanket over any terrorist attack that comes along, it is interesting to note parallels with Bill Clinton's attempts to try to take credit for the end of the cold war and convince people there is no longer a threat from Nuclear Weapons.

Here are some examples of Clinton's remarks. There are 130 in this link, but I will only supply 20 here. It should be noted that in the 1990s, a Nuclear arms specialist was asked about missiles being pointed at our children and he said, if they are not currently pointed at us, it takes about 15 seconds to re-target them on us:

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 (House of Representatives - June 20, 1997)

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:

One Hundred Thirty And Counting: President Clinton Assures Us No Nuclear Missile Threat Exists

President Clinton has assured the American people on at least 130 separate occasions that Russian nuclear missiles no longer threaten the United States. On dozens of those occasions--including his October 6, 1996 debate with Senator Bob Dole--he said that no nuclear missiles of any kind threaten America. The following quotes are excerpted from his speeches, interviews, and radio addresses, as downloaded from the `White House Virtual Library' on the World Wide Web and other electronic databases.

1. `I was proud to go to Russia and sign an agreement where we agreed that for the first time in decades we would no longer even point our missiles at each other.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the Citizens of Atlanta, May 3, 1994.

2. `* * * there are no nuclear missiles pointed at us from the Soviet Union [sic], but there are other countries trying to develop nuclear programs.'--President Clinton, Remarks at the Small Business Person of the Year Announcement, Old Executive Office Building, May 4, 1994.

3. `And now, for the first time, our nuclear missiles are no longer targeted at Russia, nor theirs ours [sic].'--President Clinton, Remarks on CNN Telecast, `A Global Forum with President Clinton,' May 4, 1994.

4. `* * * the nuclear arsenal in Russia is no longer pointed at the United States, nor are our missiles pointed at them.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the People of Warwick, Rhode Island, May 9, 1994.

5. `* * * the United States and Russia at last no longer aim their nuclear weapons at each other.'--President Clinton, Speech at the U.S. Naval Academy Graduation Ceremony, May 25, 1994.

6. `* * * for the first time since the dawn of the atomic age, the United States and Russia no longer have nuclear missiles pointed at each other.'--President Clinton, Remarks at Swearing-In Ceremony for the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Rose Garden, May 31, 1994.

7. `We are reducing nuclear stockpiles, and America and Russia no longer aim their nuclear missiles at each other.'--President Clinton, Address to the National Assembly, Paris, France, June 7, 1994.

8. `For the first time since World War II * * * Russian and American missiles no longer target each other's people. Three of the four nuclear members of the former Soviet Union have agreed to remove all nuclear weapons from their soil.'--President Clinton, Address to the 49th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 26, 1994.

9. `Our missiles no longer target each other's people for destruction; instead they are being dismantled.'--President Clinton, Remarks at arrival ceremony for Russian President Boris Yeltsin, South Lawn, the White House, September 27, 1994.

10. `We've got Russian missiles that are no longer pointed at the United States for the first time since World War II.'--President Clinton, Radio interview with Eileen Ratner, October 7, 1994.

11. `* * * Russian President Boris Yeltsin came to further the partnership between our two nations so well
expressed by the fact that now Russian and U.S. missiles are no longer pointed at each other's people, and we are working to reduce the nuclear threat even more.'--President Clinton, Address to the Nation, The Oval Office, October 10, 1994.

12. `. . . for the first time the missiles of Russia are no longer pointed at the American people. . . .'--President Clinton, Speech to the Citizens of the Bridgeport Area, Stratford, Connecticut, October 15, 1994.

13. `The United States and Russian missiles missiles are no longer targeted at each other.'--President Clinton, Saturday Radio Address, October 15, 1994.

14. `Russian missiles are no longer pointed at the United States.'--President Clinton, Speech to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 17, 1994.

15. `I know that this country is a safer and more secure place because Russian missiles aren't pointing at us and we're making peace in Haiti, the Middle East, Northern Ireland.'--President Clinton, Interview with WLIB radio, New York, October 18, 1994.

16. `We also clearly are working to make the world a safer and a more democratic and a freer place. For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, Russian missiles are no longer pointed at the United States.'--President Clinton, Remarks to the Governors Leadership Conference on the Future of the Economy, New York, October 19, 1994.

17. `Is the fact that Russian missiles are not pointed at your children for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age an abnormal thing? I think that's pretty good.'--President Clinton, Remarks at dinner honoring Kathleen Brown, San Francisco, October 22, 1994.

18. `I wanted you to be safer. And that's why I'm so proud of the fact that these little children are the first generation of Americans since the dawn of nuclear power that do not have Russian missiles pointing at them. I'm proud of that.'--President Clinton, Remarks at the Washington State Coordinated Campaign Rally, Seattle, October 23, 1994.

19. `...we've had the success in no Russian missiles are pointed at American children for the first time.'--President Clinton, Interview, Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 24, 1994.

20. `For the first time since nuclear weapons were developed, no Russian missiles are pointed at the children of Ohio and the United States this year.'--President Clinton, Reception honoring Congressman Thomas Sawyer, Akron, Ohio, October 24, 1994.

National Review provided some examples of Obama trying to disguise and distract from the "Global War on Terror", which by the way, they prohibited the use of that term and the term "Long War" upon taking office. It is clear the "Democrats are now better at foreign policy" meme the left was trying to peddle during that one week after the DNC, but before Sept. 11 was built on a house of cards, propped up by the state run media.

Four Cases of Administration Untruths About
al-Qaeda Terrorism
By Jim Geraghty
September 26, 2012 12:20 P.M.

Notice the strange pattern when this administration discusses the issue of terrorism with the American people:

In the attempted bombings of the Detroit flight and Times Square:

On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.

The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”

In the Fort Hood shooting, Obama’s comments the following morning:

This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women. We don’t have all the answers yet. I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.

The government’s later assessment Fort Hood shooting:

Sen. Susan Collins on Wednesday blasted the Defense Department for classifying the Fort Hood massacre as workplace violence and suggested political correctness is being placed above the security of the nation’s Armed Forces at home.

During a joint session of the Senate and House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, the Maine Republican referenced a letter from the Defense Department depicting the Fort Hood shootings as workplace violence. She criticized the Obama administration for failing to identify the threat as radical Islam.

“The documents attached illustrate how the Department is dealing with the threat of violent Islamist extremism in the context of a broader threat of workplace violence,” read the letter, which was obtained by Fox News.

Despite Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s e-mail conversations with al-Qaeda’s Anwar al-Awlaki, the FBI did not classify the shooting as terrorism.

Now, in the administration’s accounts of the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Nonetheless, it took until late last week for the White House and the administration to formally acknowledge that the Benghazi assault was a terrorist attack. On Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs explained the evolving narrative as a function of new information coming in quickly on the attacks. “We learned more information every single day about what happened,” Gibbs said on Fox News. “Nobody wants to get to the bottom of this faster than we do.”

Four attacks by radical Islamists against Americans, and four statements from the administration mischaracterizing the nature and scope of the threat. It is harder and harder to believe this is just a series of innocent mistakes.

It has been mentioned by some that Obama's initial response to the Fort Hood shootings and that of his media allies centered on 4 themes.

* Hasan is a lone gunman

* Multiple tours of duty in this misguided war on terror have pushed soldiers to the breaking point

* We are working hard to avoid an anti-muslim backlash

* Soldiers should not become paranoid about being on duty next to an armed US soldier or allied soldier who happens to be a Muslim

So the translation is:

* This was not terrorism, there is no war on terror being waged against us

* He was a victim of Bush's war for oil, we should feel sorry or him, not hateful

* These dead people, although they are merely a bump in the road could be a catalyst to a REAL crime, Anti-Muslim hate crimes, which is about as prevalent as Big foot captures and about as much of a threat

* You soldiers are quick to jump at racist emotional responses because you are slow witted, but don't ever suspect that here or in Afghanistan that the Afghan soldiers you are training will turn their guns against you just because they are Muslim. That will never happen so just lower your guard, I know these things.

It was interesting that in 2010, Obama briefly tried to pitch the idea that he felt strongly about the idea of rogue nukes getting in to the hands of terrorists, not because he was warning that terrorists exist, but because he was trying to scare people to side with him on his attempts to eliminate all nukes.

The official said the administration appears to be inflating the danger in ways similar to what critics of the Bush administration charged with regard to Iraq: hyping intelligence to support its policies.

The official said one likely motivation for the administration’s new emphasis on preventing nuclear terrorism is to further the president’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. While the U.S. nuclear arsenal would be useful in retaliating against a sovereign state, it would be less so against a terrorist group. But if the latter is the world’s major nuclear threat, the official explained, then the U.S. giving up its weapons seems less risky.

So there are no nukes. There are no Terrorists. But if there were, they might get together and that could be bad, so please lower all shields to show the world we mean them no harm. Let's see how well that worked out in the past.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Obama, Al Qaeda is just not that in to you

Is Barack Obama's foreign policy simply a failed version of those self help books on how to get men to fall for you? That hot guy in the gym can be yours,...guaranteed!!!

You've seen them before. Why does he hate me? Why doesn't he call back? Is it my hair? What can I do to impress him? I especially love the subtitle of the above book, "How to be so irresistible, You'll barely be able to resist dating yourself". Isn't that what it's all about? Narcissism as opposed to confusing the kind of self love that is really self respect.

The problem those books never address is that the problem is not about making yourself in to someone else that THEY fantasize about, its about you not having a stable core that you are confidently sure of and you crave affection from others that do not have a stable core either. That's the answer to "why do I wake up in the bed of some jerk?".

It is also the answer to "Why did the Ayatollah take those hostages after we helped sack the Shah for him?" or "Why was I negotiating with Egyptian members of Al Qaeda last month over the release of the Blind Sheik and last week offering to give them two attack subs and $2 Billion in cash, but they attacked our embassy and murdered our diplomats and made me look like my entire "Obama Doctrine" was a farce and an Epic Fail?"

This is the essence of the Left's view on Foreign Policy since the emergence of the New Left. Jimmy Carter was the first, but Obama is the most disastrous adherent of this ideology. LBJ and JFK were not members of this club. Carter, Obama and even Clinton based their Foreign Policy on the premise of what Kenneth Minogue called "Olympianism" and in their gut they suffer from severe Oikophobia. This is like the Presidential equivalent of "Girls with low self esteem."

When a terrorist attack occurs, a protest in the Arab street or a European celebrity clinching his fist against America, the first thing the left think is, What did we as Americans do wrong?. Why don't they love us? We are despicable, It's true, but we can change, really!

Oikophobia is an impulsive urge to ignore obvious motives and causes for disastrous events if the the obvious data bolsters the idea of American exceptionalism and in reaction to blame America as exceptionally evil and deserving of punishment for its sins. This Old Testament scenario then blames the sins on conservatives and the solution is to turn to the left.

Olympianism is the notion that western civilization is in need of an enlightened elite that is the anointed judge of the church of Oikophobia:

Olympianism is the project of an intellectual
elite that believes that it enjoys superior enlightenment
and that its business is to spread
this benefit to those living on the lower slopes
of human achievement.... Olympianism
burrowed like a parasite into the most powerful
institution of the emerging knowledge
economy--the universities.

Remember how they mocked George Bush when he said, "Why do they hate us? They hate us for our freedom"

Here is an example:

Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11. It is a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda that some Americans still pose this as a serious question, and are legitimately dumb-founded that such antipathy exists toward the United States. Our government, media and schools start burnishing the false notion of American moral superiority into our brains at a very young age. However, beneath the thin veneer of their white-washed accounts of history and current events, abundant sources of information reveal the true malevolence of the moneyed elite who rule America. There is a great body of evidence which obliterates the inane notion that the United States is a benevolent world leader. Despite the ready availability of contrary evidence, many Americans remain blind to the truth about our despised nation, and choose to believe the fairy tale version of “truth, justice and the American Way”. The sad reality is that America is an imperialistic, avaricious war machine ruled by the wealthy. Yes, much of the world despises this nation. Our leaders have virtually assured abhorrence of America, and what’s more, they do not care!

Here is a video of Bush making his anti-Oikophobia point:

Obama ran on Olympianism. Obama ran on Oikophobia. What we are seeing in the Middle East in the final months of his administration is the result of his failed policy.

Why don't the guys at the gym like me? Why can't I make people love me for who I am, since I wore all the right clothes and did all the right things?

Obama ran his 2008 campaign on the idea that the world hates us because of George Bush and Americans of his ilk. As Dinesh D'Souza's movie 2016 explains, the anti-colonialism model is one of the west robbing the rest of the world. The left doesn't understand wealth creation. They believe wealth is not created, it is organic and whoever snatches it up first or steals it is rich and powerful. The world is full of natural resources and people who are not necessarily smarter or more industrious than others travel around the world to steal that wealth. These thieves justify their sins by claiming the uncivilized residents of that land were less than human and did not deserve that wealth. Obama portrays himself as the enlightened Olympian who understands their pain and the anger they have towards the US. He believes he has been anointed with certain charms and insights that will help him conduct a giant teach in to these child like third world simpletons and convince them that he is banishing the bitter clingers responsible for their injuries and that he is building a new paradise and he will be generous and kind with them and after having given them trinkets and beads they will fall to their knees and convert the Arab Street to Haight Ashbury. This is why Berliners rallied to see Obama and why he won the Nobel Prize before doing anything. There are a lot of Olympians in Berlin, the Nobel Prize has turned in to the Olympian prize and they all believed if the most powerful man on earth is willing to bow down, apologize and promise to be flexible, then the angels will descend on the Brandenberg gates and the "undesirables" will be cleansed from Germany and the West.

What we are seeing now is the fact that our enemies are very, very clever and acutely aware of the weaknesses of the leaders who adhere to Olympianism. They know they can roll Jimmy Carter. They know they can roll Obama. The Ayatollah did not release the hostages because he feared the bombs, but because he believed he could not manipulate Reagan's administration. It is unfortunately true that even Reagan's people fell for their efforts at manipulation when they sent envoys to Tehran with a cake and a plan to release the hostages in Lebanon. These people have been trading hostages, killing diplomats and slitting throats for centuries and Obama thought he could make them love him with a bow?

Military Historian John Keegan explained, you win wars by removing the means for enemies to wage war on you or by breaking their will to wage war on you. Iran is building the means to wage nuclear war and Obama either believes trinkets and charm will do it or he really doesn't care. Breaking Al Qaeda's will for Obama is a charm offensive, but they have no interest in his charms. Worse yet, we are going broke so we will soon have no trinkets.

When Gamaal Islamiya, the Blind Sheik's branch of Al Qaeda won seats in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood formed a coalition with the Islamists, meaning terrorist groups that have been killing our people for a generation, his response was to compare the new bosses as like Ghandi or Martin Luther King and he stood ready to throw his arms around them and give them the charm that makes others love you. He met with an Al Qaeda representative in the White House to discuss the release of the Blind Sheik, he offered to give them two Attack Subs, and he promised to give them Billions of dollars for no reason at all. The previous regime had provided commitments to us of value and they fulfilled those commitments and in return we kept our side of the bargain, payments. It should be noted also, one of the reasons for Egypt's economic struggles was a downturn in tourism because the terrorist groups that now hold power, went to tourist attractions and murdered westerners. So Mubarak kept the terrorists in check, the terrorists responded in part to protest the Camp David accords, the economy tanked and we paid Mubarak.

To the question why do they hate us? How do they respond when asked why does the US hate us? They are only interested in what angers us as it pertains to a strategic advantage they can find to kill us.

As Chris Christie said, it is more important that they respect us than it is for them to love us. Trotsky once said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". The first priority we have is to be willing to fight our enemies. Why they hate us is either of value for our need to understand strategically what motivates them so we can defeat them, or an esoteric question that comes after our security interests have been established.

The apology tweet in Cairo was the equivalent to apologizing for not putting out on the first date to a guy with a knife.

The evidence that Al Qaeda was planning attacks in Cairo and Libya was all over the Mid East. It was in the papers, it was on CNN, it was announced by their leaders. Obama was spinning so furiously that Al Qaeda was dead, that he either convinced himself there was no threat or he convinced his own people there was no threat, but either way, we were unprepared and our apologies and self loathing only served as an aphrodisiac for the terrorists to attack.

I ask myself how the Green on Blue terrorists must feel as they are luring our soldiers into their confidence, just before they kill them. They must either feel slight guilt, but it is more likely in order to achieve their goal, they feel the sense of superiority of a hunter over his prey. We are told this goes against the teachings of Islam, but this is a rule of the jungle and Jihadis will use any trick to exploit our generosity and use it to defeat us.

The Olympians constantly underestimate these enemies as childlike simpletons. When Saddam said Mother of all battles, the left laughed. Desert Shield did sire an offspring of 20 plus years of battles. Saddam in defeat seemed pathetic to the left, but he convinced the Olympians to buy in to Oil for Food which he used to create the greatest bribery network in history which turned our allies against each other. Clinton tossed Cruise missiles at OBL and thumped his chest, but the towers came down only 3 years later.

When confronted with the futility of Olympianism and the urge to charm our enemies, the left asks, "But War can't be the answer, isn't our aggressiveness the thing that made them hate us in the first place? Aren't American troops in the MidEast nothing more than a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda?"

Yes, sometimes war is the answer. No, they DO hate us because of our freedom. Yes, our freedom draws people to our shores and the power of an idea is a threat to tyrants and hegemonistic monsters worldwide and it always will be, so get used to it. They don't want freedom of religion. They don't want freedom of the press or freedom of speech. They don't want tolerance or respect for women. They lose sleep at night imagining ways to mass murder gay people, yet they sodomize their enemies before they kill them. They do not want the common people to vote for their leaders. They like to arm themselves, but don't believe in a right for everyone to do so. They do not believe in due process or a presumption of innocence. They do not believe in a separation of church and state. Sometimes war is the answer.

When Obama says, we are taking no option off the table. He might be considering war, but only if war benefits him personally and bolsters his enlightened status, not if it bolsters the credibility of his political and ideological opponents, even if the innocent collateral damage that occurs when an embassy is over run creates a bump in the road for his unstoppable juggernaut of charm.

When you give trinkets to terrorists and work your charms on them, and they respond by assaulting you, betraying you and using your generosity against you in a very public way, that makes you look like a fool in front of your girlfriends and your "Frien-emies", There is only one option. Lie to everybody, create a diversion, attack your accuser and try to make them shut up, then call all of your friends and spread the lie before the truth gets traction.

Then find another self help book to figure out "Why they hate us".

Bush was right. Your Ex was right. Its not about them, its about you. Get in touch with your core, your values, your traditions and look to your elders. Stop hating and blaming. Stop trying to be someone you are not. God loves you.

How can a man love you if you don't love and respect yourself and the legacy of love you have inherited.

Osama Bin Laden once said to his aides, "How can that culture be superior to ours, if they can't even agree to defend it and fight for it".

They know us better than many of us know ourselves, because for them it is a full time job not a parlor game or an Oprah Winfrey episode.

Monday, October 1, 2012

Tag Cloud of 100 Reasons to vote against Obama

Here is a word cloud from Hugh Hewitt's 100 reasons to vote against President Obama for Mitt Romney. at Tribble News.

accept act administration admit adversaries agree allies american answer anything appeasement appointments arguments arms associated attack attempts bain barack begin behave behind believes bipartisan blames board boeing bows budget bush catholic century challenges change character china chinese church coal companies congress cost country create crushing cut czech dead deal debt defend defense deficit democrats department dollars don done either elected embarrassed enemy epa example extraordinary extreme f22 fast fighter fund furious future gave generous george gibbs gibson gitmo give given going government growing guitars gulf health hesitated house huge inauguration india indication institute invested ipab iranian iraq islamic israel jobs justice knows law life likes marines market massachusetts medical medicare million mission mitt money month movement national navy needs netanyahu nothing notice nuclear obama obamacare olympics opposition partisan passed paul peace people plant poland policy politics power president press pressure prize problems programs progress provide public questions raised real recent reform refused regulation relations remove republic republicans responsibility result revolution romney rule ryan secretary ships signs single slash social solyndra stadium states straw street support suppressed system taken takes taxes tells tens terrorist thousands throat toward trial trillion truth unconstitutional united vote wants war wastes white won world years yes
created at