Archive for the ‘US’ Category

Trump has more support on immigration than political correctness allows

August 19, 2015

Good clowns – in amongst their antics – have the ability to hit the right nerve, to trigger something primal in our emotions.

Donald Trump is no doubt a “clown”. The politically correct media and politicians are pouring scorn on his immigration positions. But he may be tapping in to something felt strongly by many but which they have been unable to express for fear of being politically incorrect. He may be reflecting the mood in the country – and not just among Republicans – far better than anybody dares to give him credit for:

Rasmussen Reports:

As far as voters are concerned – and not just Republicans –  Donald Trump has a winning formula for fighting illegal immigration.

My take aways from the report:

  1. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration.
  2. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Republicans agree that the United States should deport all illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony in this country.
  3. Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border.
  4. Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters disagree with the current federal policy that says a child born to an illegal immigrant here is automatically a U.S. citizen.
  5. Just 34% favor President Obama’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation.
  6. … most voters want the border with Mexico secured to prevent further illegal immigration before there is any talk of amnesty. In May, 63% said gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States, the highest level of support for border control since December 2011. 
  7. Sizable majorities in nearly all demographic categories favor deporting illegal immigrants convicted here of felony crimes. But Democrats are less enthusiastic about such a policy than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are. Only 30% of Democrats favor building a wall, compared to 57% of unaffiliated voters.
  8. Trump took a lot of criticism last month from Democrats and other Republican presidential hopefuls over his candid remarks about the criminality of many illegal immigrants, but most voters agree with Trump that illegal immigration increases serious crime in this country.

Trump’s Republican rivals are gradually realising that the agenda is being set by Trump.

I wonder how long it will be before the main stream media jump on the band-wagon. If they do start covering him more seriously and then perhaps even backing him, then my reading is that Trump could “go viral”  and walk away with the nomination.

Isn’t it rich …..

August 18, 2015

The clowns have it so far.

Donald Trump is being taken as a “serious clown” and so is Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour party. Even the Democrats are beginning to realise that they need to lighten the staid, boring and almost too earnest bill of fare they have to offer. They need a clown.

In the US, Donald Trump is setting the agenda from the front and his act is beginning to attract even his rivals. Scott Walker and other Republicans are jumping on Trump’s immigration train (children of illegals born in the US should not have automatic citizenship and The Wall). Former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have also hopped onto this train. Even the Washington Post is beginning to analyse Trump’s positions – as they gather flesh – a little more seriously.

In the UK Labour party leadership fight, Corbyn the clown is so far ahead that his nearest rival (also union supported), Andy Burnham, is now finding that he actually does not disagree with Corbyn all that much. It looks like the Unions will win and that the Labour party is starting down the road to oblivion.

But the Democrats are looking more jaded each day. Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Al Gore are all coming off as “has-beens and past-its”. Sanders has tried to take on the mantle of a clown but does not quite make it. They desperately need someone to capture the Democratic imagination. Where are the clowns?

The Trump phenomenon continues and the latest Fox poll puts him at 25% and his nearest rival 13 points behind.

WaPo:

The ideas once languished at the edge of Republican politics, confined to think tanks and no-hope bills on Capitol Hill. To solve the problem of illegal immigration, truly drastic measures were necessary: Deport the undocumented en masse. Seize the money they try to send home. Deny citizenship to their U.S.-born children.

Now, all of those ideas have been embraced by Donald Trump, the front-runner in the Republican presidential race, who has followed up weeks of doomsaying about illegal immigrants with a call for an unprecedented crackdown.

On Monday, Trump’s hard turn was already influencing the rest of the GOP field. In Iowa, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also began to call for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, echoing a longtime Trump demand. Walker said the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories is proof that the concept could work here.

Walker also seemed to echo Trump by questioning “birthright citizenship,” the constitutional provision that grants citizenship to anyone born in this country. After a reporter asked if birthright citizenship should be ended, Walker said: “I think that’s something we should — yeah, absolutely, going forward.”

The Hilary Clinton momentum is dissipating away with her e-mails. Even the rabidly supportive Huffington Post is getting concerned:

Things are getting weird when even Al Gore is thinking of getting into the Democratic presidential race, which is turning into a last hurrah for the Baby Boomers and their tad-older camp counselors.

Hillary Clinton, permanently punctilious, has done everything right: She put her HQ in Brooklyn, hired savvy digital/social/big data nerds, raised a ton of dough, gave substantive, well-thought-out speeches and flooded early primary and caucus states with organizers. She’s still the default bet for the Democratic nomination: national polls show her with a fat 36 percent lead.

And yet all is not well in Hillaryland. Polls also indicate that voters now view her as untrustworthy. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose DeLorean time machine is in overdrive, is drawing colossal crowds and, according to one poll, now leads the former secretary of state in New Hampshire. Vice President Joe Biden, who had previously said “no way,” is now sounding serious about jumping in. So, we are told, is Gore, who was warning of environmental doom as far back as the ‘60s.

Meanwhile the Guardian reports:

Andy Burnham has made an explicit plea to anyone thinking of voting for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader to pick him instead for what he described as “the worst job in politics”, saying there was “a good deal of common ground” between him and the veteran leftwinger.

Sondheim again –

 Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clowns.

Trump’s cabinet

August 15, 2015

A US Presidential election is one of my entertainment highlights. But next year it runs the risk of becoming an exceedingly boring affair if it becomes “another Clinton, another Bush”. But it could be the most entertaining ever if Trump is there as the GOP candidate or as an independent (and the GOP risks becoming obsolete if Trump runs as an independent). The silent majority of the “fed up” – not just Republicans but in the country – could be big enough to bring in the clowns.

But what could be even more entertaining than such an election would be watching Trump choose his cabinet as the President of the US. I can just see him interviewing prospective candidates – and who wouldn’t be a fly on the wall for those interviews. Imagine if he makes that all part of a reality show. “The West Wing” would be eclipsed. Imagine if viewers/voters could ring in to express support or rejection of a Foreign Secretary or Defense Secretary? Then the top 50 in his administration (by annual salary including bonuses) would be subject to a monthly performance review with Key Performance Indicators being published. The lowest performer each month would be fired  – on live Television of course.

If one pays any attention to the nonsense speculation (here for example) we could have a cabinet which included

  • Kim Kardashian, Vice President
  • Sarah Palin, Secretary of (?) Defense
  • Trey Gowdy, Attorney General
  • Ron Paul, Fed Chairman
  • Jesse Ventura, Secretary of State
  • Ivanka Trump, Secretary of the Treasury
  • Carlos Irwin Estevez (Charlie Sheen), Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Omarosa Manigault, CoS
  • Warren Buffet, Henry Kravis, Jack Welch, and Carl Icahn, would be senior advisors and members of his selection/interview panel.

John McCain would not be invited.

Foreign policy under Trump could be fascinatingly simple. Mexico would be made to pay for building the wall. He would “bomb the hell out of Iraq and ISIS” and take over Iraqi oil – “We shouldn’t be there but since we are, we should take the oil”. A Twitter war would be started with Iran. Israel would be a US friend on Facebook. Palestine would be defriended. China would be fined for hacking and forced to accept a Trump Hotels franchise in all major cities.

It is not clear if Las Vegas will replace the White House or Camp David.

But that is all just fantasy – maybe wishful thinking. I am resigned to “another Clinton another Bush” and potentially the most boring US Presidential election in my lifetime.

Obituaries of the Trump campaign are wishful thinking, premature and exaggerated

August 10, 2015

That most of the US media want the Trump campaign to die is fairly clear. That the Republican party establishment are in a little panic about Trump becoming the Republican nominee or – even worse – being an independent third candidate is also fairly clear. In fact, for the Republican party an independent Trump could be worse than a Trump nomination. There has been more than a whiff of wishful thinking in the headlines over the last 3 days. But the latest NBC post-debate poll shows that the anti-Trump spinning and even the Megyn Kelly hullabaloo have done nothing to dent his commanding lead in the polls.

TPM:

Despite a debate in which Fox moderators repeatedly attacked him and three days of hostile press coverage which came after it, Donald Trump remains in a commanding lead in the race for the Republican nomination, according to a poll released Sunday evening by NBC News. The results confound weekend press coverage suggesting Trump’s campaign was foundering.

The online poll was conducted by the Analytics Unit of NBC News and the University of Pennsylvania’s Program on Opinion Research and Election Studies over a 24 hour period from Friday evening into Saturday, thus coming entirely after the debate on Thursday evening.

According to poll, Trump has the support of 23% of Republican voters, followed by Ted Cruz with 13%, Ben Carson with 11%, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina tied at 8% and Jeb Bush and Scott Walker at 7%. The poll showed Trump essentially unchanged from a poll taken one week ago in which he garnered 22% support.

Numerous commentators speculated over the weekend that Trump’s public spat with Fox News host Megyn Kelly might finally spell the end of his surge in the polls. Top Republicans openly cheered his apparent downfall. But NBC’s weekend poll suggests that assumption was misplaced.

The media headlines were quite clear in their hopes. For some reason the UK Guardian is very perturbed about Trump and is quite openly anti-Trump in its wishful thinking (though it is schizophrenic in its views about the UK’s very own left-wing clown in Jeremy Corbyn):

  1. Washington Post – GOP leaders say erratic attacks hurt Trump
  2. New York Times – Donald Trump Remains Defiant on News Programs Amid G.O.P. Backlash
  3. CNN – Donald Trump’s ‘blood’ comment about Megyn Kelly draws outrage
  4. CNBC – Trump dumped from conservative event
  5. CBS News – Republicans chastise Trump
  6. The Guardian – Donald Trump jab at Megyn Kelly may be beginning of end for GOP frontrunner

But a formally “recognised clown” – as Trump clearly is – has an “authorisation” to be as politically incorrect as he wishes. He is now capturing the attention of a large section of the disaffected Republican electorate and attacking him for being politically incorrect can only be counter-productive. Any candidates who wish now to displace him need to create their own independent story-lines which can live their own lives.

As in any show, a clown is not necessarily just a B-act. An accepted clown is not susceptible to ridicule. I suspect that Trump cannot be shot down by the conventional bullets of political correctness. He now can only be over-taken by a “faster” candidate with a better story.

Trump won, resoundingly (and he feeds on pc attacks)

August 8, 2015

The media, every Democrat, his Republican challengers and even the Republican establishment are trying to represent, in one way or another, that the clown Donald Trump did not win the debate. They are in denial, and just cannot admit that he won the event by ignoring debate. He changed the game to be to be about the occasion and not about winning debating points. Twenty four million tuned in to the event.

HuffPoIn terms of total viewers, the debate was the highest-rated non-sports cable telecast of all time, according to Nielsen data — with the staggering viewership shattering expectations of what was already a highly-anticipated event. The telecast also made history for Fox: it was the most highly-rated broadcast of the network’s 20-year history, according to CNN Money

That level of interest is entirely to Trump’s credit. He was chasing exposure – not some brownie debating points – and he won. Resoundingly. Neither the moderators nor his challengers had any idea of how to handle him. The moderator Megyn Kelly attacked him with a barrage of political correctness. How stupid was that? She came off as being sanctimonious and he could demonstrate – again – “that he speaks his mind”.

For the first time in many years I observe in the US that “speaking your mind” is beginning to trump being politically correct. (Sorry). And not just in the US. I suspect the pendulum is beginning to swing and there is a realisation – globally – that sanctimonious, self-righteous, “political correctness” is not an acceptable excuse to avoid asking the questions you don’t want to hear the answer to.

Donald Trump has formally taken on the role of being “clown”. And in a circus the role of “clown” is not so unimportant. In fact the “clown” is very often the star of the show. Trying to make a “clown” look ridiculous is doomed to help the clown perform his act. Trying to get a clown to be serious only demonstrates stupidity and can only backfire. A clown does not need to be politically correct. In fact to be politically incorrect is not just expected of him, it his calling-card. He feeds on the indignation of others. The others and the media are just becoming his “straight men”, and “straight men” are never the star event.

I observe that nearly all the media – and even the Republican media – are playing down what Trump achieved. But they are playing into his hands. Erick Erickson of RedState has “disinvited” him from the Red State gathering. He is by his own admission being politically correct in his own way. But he is trying to make Red State part of the establishment and the disinvitation too only plays into Trump’s hands.

The post debate polls will be available next week and I will not be at all surprised to see Trump well ahead of the others again. The one post-debate poll I have seen shows him not just the clear winner but so far ahead of the others as to be embarrassing – for the others.

Newsmax: Here is a breakdown of the poll results:

  • Donald Trump: 38 percent
  • Ted Cruz: 15.5 percent
  • Neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson: 10.2 percent
  • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: 9.7 percent
  • Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: 9.3 percent
  • Ohio Gov. John Kasich: 4.9 percent
  • Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: 4.5 percent
  • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: 3.5 percent
  • Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush: 2.5 percent
  • New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: 1.4 percent

So far, the clown has it.

Will Trump or Corbyn step down?

July 24, 2015

The clowns went in when the Labour party in the UK and the Republicans in the US both found their own audiences were deserting them. Just some light entertainment thought the aspirants for leadership. In the UK some actually nominated the clown to “widen appeal” and liven things up, thinking he was a no-hoper.

But the respective electorates are in no mood for the clowns to be just a relieving act before the main show. They are inclined to make the comedy act the main show.

The clowns are still in the lead.

But what was initial amusement at Trump’s antics and Corbyn’s naive Marxism is now becoming a nervous panic within their respective parties. It sounds like the nervous giggling before the catastrophe. It is beginning to sink in that a Corbyn win could split the UK Labour party and keep both parts in the wilderness for decades to come. In the US, the other Republican hopefuls are all united in castigating Trump. But the disillusioned Republican voters in the country are staying with the comedy act. If the opposition to Trump continues, he could go it alone and that would fracture the Republican vote so fundamentally that they could be kept out of the White House for the next 4 terms.

Could Trump or Corbyn step aside and save their parties?

Their parties probably need them to. But that will not happen unless there are other credible and convincing candidates for the leadership position. And such figures are conspicuous by their absence, both in the UK and in the US. The Labour party only has lightweights to offer and the Republicans only some less accomplished clowns. The Republican field of candidates must be quite depressing for party members.

Still, there is little doubt that the clowns are livening things up.

Lack of ethics institutionalised at American Psychological Association

July 11, 2015

That members of the American Psychological Association actively participated in and helped to design the torture programme during the Bush era has been known for some time. But for over 10 years the APA has shielded its members and covered up their involvement. In fact they have had an Ethics Officer whose primary job has been to conceal the lack of ethics. The New York Times has details about a new investigation report which focuses on the failings of the members of the American Psychological Association.

NYT Editorial:

The first detailed accounts of the brutal interrogation program the Central Intelligence Agency established after the Sept. 11 attacks noted that psychologists and other medical professionals played key roles in abetting the torture of terrorism suspects. However, much about their role and their degree of responsibility in one of the most macabre and shameful chapters of American history has remained shrouded in secrecy.

A new report by a former federal prosecutor, first disclosed by James Risen in The Times, contains astonishing, disturbing details. It found that top members of the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of psychologists, colluded with officials at the Pentagon and the C.I.A. to keep the group’s ethics policies in line with tactics that interrogators working for the agency and the military were employing. …….. 

On Friday, Physicians for Human Rights justifiably called on the Department of Justice to begin a criminal investigation into the psychologists association’s role in the Bush administration’s torture program.

The Obama administration has so far refused to prosecute the torturers. As more evidence about this program comes to light, that position becomes increasingly indefensible.

There are no “good guys” if the behaviour of the “good guys” is no different to that of the “bad guys”. And the degree of “badness” is worse, I think, when the bad behaviour is institutionalised and not just that of rogue individuals.

Clinton Foundation got millions from Swedish firms to avoid being blacklisted for Iran involvement

June 3, 2015

That the Clinton Foundation functioned as a channel for lobbyists to get access to Hilary Clinton is an open secret. But I certainly had not expected that there were such large money flows from Sweden and Swedish firms to the Clinton Foundation which apparently allowed them to carry on business in Iran without being blacklisted. Some payments were even made directly to Bill Clinton. It seems almost as if the Clinton Foundation may have specifically targeted firms and countries susceptible to US actions as sources for lobbying money.

So far I don’t see this being covered by the Swedish media but the Washington Times has a very long article. There is a clear Wikileaks connection since much of this information is obtained from diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks.


Update: Swedish Radio is now carrying the story but just quoting the Washington Times article. The radio report points out that they have not been able to check the story and imply that it is not reliable since it is from a right wing paper which is opposed to Hilary Clinton. But I note also that Swedish radio is generally very biased in favour of the Democrats in the US (and the Social Democrats/Greens at home).


The Wikileaks connection is interesting. I cannot help thinking that there must be a hidden back story as to why Assange has been hunted and prosecuted by the Swedish authorities for a quite ridiculous molestation/rape allegation. The allegations are by two women who shared a bed with him – quite willingly by their own accounts. The prosecutors first declined to take the matter further and there is surely also a hidden back story as to why the whole prosecution was restarted. Maybe this story is one of the reasons. But why does the Swedish prosecution based on what seems to be rather flimsy “statements” continue? What other Swedish – US connections are there that the Swedish government did not or does not want revealed?

Washington Times:

Bill Clinton’s foundation cashed in as Sweden lobbied Hillary on sanctions

– The Washington Times – Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Bill Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.

As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.

“Sweden does not support implementing tighter financial sanctions on Iran” and believes “more stringent financial standards could hurt Swedish exports,” one such cable from 2009 alerted Mrs. Clinton’s office in Washington. Separately, U.S. intelligence was reporting that Sweden’s second-largest employer, telecommunications giant Ericsson AB, was pitching cellphone tracking technology to Iran that could be used by the country’s security services, officials told The Times. …….. 

Mr. Clinton’s Swedish fundraising shell escaped public notice, both because its incorporation papers were filed in Stockholm — some 4,200 miles from America’s shores — and the identities of its donors were lumped by Mr. Clinton’s team into the disclosure reports of his U.S.-based charity, blurring the lines between what were two separate organizations incorporated under two different countries’ laws.

……… At the time of Mr. Clinton’s foray into Swedish fundraising, the Swedish government was pressing Mrs. Clinton’s State Department not to impose new sanctions on firms doing business with Iran, including hometown companies Ericsson and Volvo.

Mrs. Clinton’s State Department issued two orders identifying lists of companies newly sanctioned in 2011 and 2012 for doing business with Iran, but neither listed any Swedish entities.

Behind the scenes, however, the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm was clearly warning the State Department in Washington that Sweden’s trade was growing with Iran — despite Swedish government claims to the contrary.

“Although our Swedish interlocutors continue to tell us that Europe’s overall trade with Iran is falling, the statements and information found on Swedish and English language websites shows that Sweden’s trade with Iran is growing,” the U.S. Embassy wrote in a Dec. 22, 2009, cable to the State Department that was released by WikiLeaks. The cable indicates it was sent to Mrs. Clinton’s office.

At the time of the warning, Mrs. Clinton was about a year into her tenure as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state and the two were leading efforts in Washington to tighten sanctions on Iran.

……… The Swedes were resistant to new sanctions, telling State Department officials repeatedly and unequivocally that they were worried new penalties would stifle the business between its country’s firms and Tehran. At the time, Iran was Sweden’s second-largest export market in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia.

“Behind the Swedish government’s reluctance to support further sanctions in Iran, especially unilateral European measures, is a dynamic (though still fairly small) trade involving some of Sweden’s largest and most politically well-connected companies: Volvo, Ericsson and ABB to name three,” the U.S. Embassy wrote in one cable to Washington.

Several top Swedish officials made the case against proposed U.S. sanctions in successive meetings in 2009 and 2010, according to classified cables released by WikiLeaks.

“[Swedish] Sanctions coordinator [Per] Saland told us that Sweden does not support implementing tighter financial sanctions on Iran and that more stringent financial standards could hurt Swedish exports,” one cable reported. Other cables quoted Swedish officials as saying they were powerless to order banks in their country to stop doing business with Tehran.

Sweden’s foreign trade minister, Ewa Bjroling, met with State officials and said even though her government was obeying all existing United Nations and European Union sanctions, “Iran is a major problem for the GOS (Government of Sweden) because Swedish businesses have a long-standing commercial relationship in the trucks and telecom industries.”

Eventually, Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Bildt — Mrs. Clinton’s equal on the diplomatic stage — delivered the message personally to top State Department officials, who described him as “skeptical” about expanded Iran sanctions.

“Overall, I’m not a fan of sanctions because they are more a demonstration of our inability than our ability,” Mr. Bildt was quoted as telling State officials in a cable marked “secret.”

………. Current State Department officials and outside experts who advised the department on Iran sanctions told The Times that Sweden, and more specifically Ericsson, was a matter of internal discussion from 2009 to 2011 before new sanctions were finally issued. “The Ericsson concerns were well-known, but in the end many of the sanction decisions were arbitrary and often involved issues beyond the actual business transactions,” one adviser directly involved in the talks told The Times, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because he was describing private deliberations.

U.S. intelligence officials told The Times that they kept the Obama administration apprised of Ericsson’s activities inside Iran, including the fact that the Swedish firm had provided Iran’s second-largest cellular provider with location-based technology to track customers for billing purposes. The technology transfer occurred in late 2009, shortly after Tehran brutally suppressed a pro-democracy movement in that country, the officials said.

U.S. intelligence further learned that Ericsson in 2010 discussed with Iran’s largest cellular firm providing tracking technology that could be used directly by Iranian security authorities but never formally pursued the contract, officials said.

Read the full story.

Obama deals with imaginary threats while “in denial” about ISIS

May 25, 2015

I would have said that Barack Obama is not just “in denial” but living in a bubble of his own making. If one needed an example to illustrate a “clear and present” danger, there couldn’t be one better than the advance of ISIS and the lack of resistance from the Iraqi Army. It is the danger of advancing barbarism and the lack of resistance from the “civilised” world represented by the US and its allies. The risk now is greater than that imagined to be posed by Saddam Hussain’s imaginary WMD. It is greater than the risk posed by Gaddafi in Libya.

And instead Obama is blathering on about the imaginary immediacy of the imaginary risk of imaginary global warming. “An immediate risk to our national security ….and we need to act now” he proclaims. He stopped just short of ordering air strikes against global warming.

The Guardian:

Senator John McCain on Sunday attacked the president for citing climate change as a threat to national security, suggesting that the Obama administration’s focus on environmental issues was detracting from the fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

The comments by the Senate armed services committee chairman were part of a rotating blame game over the Memorial Day weekend about who is responsible for recent gains by Isis fighters, who last week took control of the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra and the Iraqi city of Ramadi.

“There is no strategy, and anybody who says there is, I’d like to hear what it is,” McCain said, appearing on CBS News. “Because it certainly isn’t apparent. Right now we are seeing these horrible reports, in Palmyra, they’re executing people and leaving their bodies in the streets.

“Meanwhile the president of the United States is saying that the biggest problem we have is climate change.”

In a commencement address at the US Coast Guard Academy last week, President Barack Obama said climate change posed an “immediate risk”.

“I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security,” Obama said. “An immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act, and we need to act now.”

Bolton was just as blunt, accusing the White House of being in denial.

Washington Examiner:

White House officials are “in denial” about the threat posed by Islamic State fighters in the Middle East, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said Sunday.

“They just simply will not acknowledge that ISIS is a threat,” Bolton told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace. “I think they’re blinded by their own ideology.”

Bolton said countries in the region, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, “need American leadership” to fight the rising extremist movement that has swallowed up cities in Iraq in recent weeks.

“Are we really saying we are going to put American security in the hands of the Saudi defense ministry?” Bolton said.

And the spin doctors are out again to divert attention from the lack of US strategy and instead to blame the Iraqis. The Iraqis are now nothing more than what has been created by the US. If they lack the will to fight it is because the US “divide and rule” policy has sapped their will to fight. And the artificially created Iraq, without the Shia element will always be incomplete. But to bring the Shia into a position of strength – and thereby favour Iran – is ideologically impossible for Obama. He is stuck with his religious commitment to Saudi Arabia. Maybe that will change when the nuclear deal with Iran has to be struck.

On Sunday the US defense secretary, Ash Carter, blamed the fall of Ramadi, in Anbar province west of Baghdad, not on a lack of American commitment but on Iraqi forces, who he said lack the “will to fight”.

“What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight,” Carter told CNN. “They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. That says to me, and I think to most of us, that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight [Isis] and defend themselves.”

The simple conclusion I come to is that merely stating that he has a strategy does not mean that Obama actually has any strategy. His actions (or lack of action) actually demonstrate that he does not.

US, UK and Canada protect Israel’s nuclear weapons

May 23, 2015

An Egyptian proposal for a nuclear weapons free Middle East as part of the UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) was blocked by the US, UK and Canada. The blockage was not unexpected since Israel which is not a signatory to the NPT had already indicated its opposition and on such matters Washington generally obliges Israel. The NPT 2015 conference ended without agreement and the US representative blamed the Egyptians – of course – for making a proposal that had no chance of success. The status quo continues and Israel can maintain all its nuclear warheads. The NPT conference will next be held in 2020.

It is not so surprising that all the western countries which created Israel and now protect its not-so-secret stock of nuclear warheads are the same powers who don’t want any possibility of Iran developing its own nuclear weapons. I can quite accept that Israel will want to protect its own interests. The position of the US and its allies is entirely expected but is also just plain hypocritical. But the myth of Israel not having any nuclear warheads can be put to rest for ever. If they didn’t have any there would be no point in blocking the Egyptian proposal.

Jerusalem PostAfter four weeks of negotiations on ways to improve compliance with the pact, there was no consensus among its 191 signatories. US Under Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller announced there was “no agreement” and accused some countries of undermining the negotiations.  Gottemoeller did not name any countries but diplomats said she was referring to Egypt. ……. 

Last month, Egypt, backed by other Arab and non-aligned states, proposed that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon convene a regional conference on banning weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as called for at the 2010 NPT review with or without Israel’s participation, without agreement on an agenda and with no discussion of regional security issues.

Those conditions are unacceptable to Israel and Washington.

Decisions at NPT review conferences, which are held every five years, are made by consensus. ……. 

Egypt’s proposals, Western diplomats say, were intended to focus attention on Israel. Washington and Israel say Iran’s nuclear program is the real regional threat. Iran says its program is peaceful. It is negotiating with world powers to curb it in exchange for lifting sanctions. Israel has said it would consider joining the NPT only once at peace with its Arab neighbors and Iran.

There were disagreements on other aspects of the NPT but delegates said the Middle East issue was the most divisive.

And in the meantime ISIS has announced that it is trying to get hold of one of the Pakistani warheads to be able to do something spectacular.

The Israeli nuclear stockpile of nuclear warheads probably lies between 100 and 400.

Estimates for Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.   http://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Estimates for Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile range from 70 to 400 warheads. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate. Additional weapons could probably be built from inventories of fissile materials.
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/