RUTHFULLY YOURS

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP.
We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

PINEHURST — A retired three-star general railed against the Obama administration, political correctness, the media and rules of engagement during a speech Monday night at Sandhills Community College.

Thomas G. McInerney, who retired from the Air Force in 1994 as a lieutenant general, currently serves as a Fox News military analyst and was invited to speak by the Moore County Republican Party.

The general was originally slated to talk about how military downsizing may affect preparedness, but changed his topic to instead address current threats facing the nation.

McInerney presented views that he called “more harsh” than his Fox News commentary.

He particularly focused on events surrounding the attack on a U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

“Unless we’re harsh we’re going to lose this nation,” he said. “We’re losing it fast.”

McInerney said U.S. leaders failed to attack during the Benghazi attack. He said leaders were derelict of duty and have since covered up their actions.

Benghazi is bigger than Watergate, McInerney said, but the media is complacent in covering up the Benghazi attacks.

“I can tell you, even from Fox, the information isn’t getting out here,” he said. “Our nation has never seen such duplicity, such dereliction of duty, such lying … and the media is covering it up.”

McInerney said the U.S. response was one of several miscues by leaders that have contributed to growing threats.

McInerney said the economy, shrinking military and more than a decade’s worth of U.S. policies in the Middle East have only increased the dangers facing the nation.

“These are very dangerous times for America,” McInerney said. “We are leading from behind, and that’s why these things are happening. You cannot lead from behind. Someone has to lead.”

The biggest threat, McInerney said, is radical Islam, and the general said the onus for “cleaning house” has to be on the Muslim community.

Downplaying the jihadist threat won’t keep Americans safe

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper has just released a new National Intelligence Strategy, the first in five years. It’s a highly unsatisfying read for two reasons.

First, no public document can or should tell us everything we want to know — even much of what we think we need to know — about what we should expect from the intelligence community. This “strategy” lists goals and objectives and tosses around buzzwords from “corporate speak” as though it were a “management by objectives” statement written by an MBA student. We can excuse that but for one thing.

Second, a National Intelligence Strategy written for public consumption should resolve the apparent inconsistencies between what the government tells us and what we can see for ourselves. This one doesn’t.

Mr. Clapper writes, “This guidance is designed to propel our mission and align our objectives with national strategies.” However, the document is much more a summation of what the intelligence community should already be doing than a strategy to address the wide range of challenges to our national security. It has to be read in the context of the massive gaps in our strategies that President Obama has left open.

For example, Mr. Clapper’s strategy promises “innovative” intelligence analysis and constant improvements, which we should expect as the norm for intelligence agencies. There are a lot of very smart people trying every day to gather intelligence and improve how it’s done.However, at the president’s direction, the National Security Agency’s actions have been curtailed. Mr. Clapper’s strategy fails to tell us if his “innovations” will overcome those limitations, but he gives no such assurance.

Killing innocents is okay with Choudary.
In the beginning of his speech last week on the threat of ISIS (or ISIL), President Obama told Americans:
“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents…”

He is wrong on both counts. And he knows it. He is doing a disservice to the American public and our “war” effort. If our Commander-in-Chief refuses to honestly identify the enemy, we are not going to win this war in the long run. That’s because even if we destroy ISIS there will be other Islamic organizations to take its place.

The reason: Islam is a religion of violence.

I can only conjecture that the President’s comments were meant to pander to American Muslims and anesthetize the American people to the true internal threat posed by Muslims within our gates.

But British Imam Anjem Choudary set the President and the American public straight in this short video clip. (Click Here)

In the clip from a recent interview on RT’s (formerly Russia Today) Worlds Apart, Choudary, told the world the truth about Islam that so called “moderate” Muslims in America have been trying to hide.

When asked if the beheading of American journalist James Foley was justified under Sharia law, Choudary said:

“Every action for a Muslim must be based on the Koran, the word of Allah and the teachings of the messenger Mohammad … But those who are already Muslim must know that Allah mentions in the Koran, in fact if you look at Chapter 8 Verse 60, he said prepare as much as you can the steeds of war to terrorize the enemy. So, terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam. I mean, this is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned.”

If the California death and dying crowd has its way, in the future, on your child’s 18th birthday he or she will celebrate the event with a trip to a doctor’s office to have The Conversation on how and when to properly end one’s life, and California MediCal may well pay the doctor for having the conversation.

This little paragraph was removed from the Affordable Care Act when Sarah Palin labeled it Death Panels, but now it is appearing in state legislation.

In California this plan is already formulated in legislation and on Governor Brown’s desk awaiting his signature. It is AB 2139 by death and dying advocate Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, entitled Patient Notification.

The bill calls for using MediCal to pay a doctor for discussing end-of-life treatment when a patient receive a diagnosis of a chronic or terminal illness. It further requires the doctor or health care person, to hand the patient a POLST Palliative Care only form along with instructions in how to fill it out.

My local newspaper carried an article entitled “Earlier, better care urged for end of life.” The article is a report on an Institute of Medicine paper which includes the suggestion that one should begin having discussions with family and doctor beginning at age 18 on the subject of how to best plan for your end of life.
The reporter writing the story, Lisa Krieger, is an activist in the death and dying lobby and is once again using the freedom of the press to tout her own agenda. Two years ago the San Jose Mercury News allowed publication of a 10 part series written by Krieger, on the Cost of Dying. This was followed by several appearances in the area touting the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, or, the POLST form.

The article quotes a Dr. Philip Pizzo, former dean of Stanford University’s School of Medicine and co-chair of the report, as saying: “It is our hope that this report will lead to improvements in end-of-life care and the experience of dying for all.”

Have they found some way to return someone from the grave to tell us how wonderful it was to die by a government approved and funded process?

They are seeing the establishment of an Islamic state and now they need to populate the state,” expert says.

MINNEAPOLIS – US law enforcement is investigating a new phenomenon of women from the American heartland joining Islamic State as President Barack Obama vows to cut off the militants’ recruiting at home.

At least three Somali families in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area have female relatives who have gone missing in the past six weeks and may have tried to join Islamic State, said community leader Abdirizak Bihi. He said that while the reasons for their disappearance were unclear, he had told the families to contact police.

In a separate case, a 19-year-old American Somali woman from St. Paul snuck away from her parents on Aug. 25 saying she was going to a bridal shower. Instead, she flew to Turkey and joined IS in Syria.

Home to the biggest Somali community in the United States, the Twin Cities area of Minnesota has been plagued by terrorist recruiting since the Somali group al-Shabaab began enlisting in America around 2007.

This year, law enforcement officials say they learned of 15-20 men with connections to the Minnesota Somali community fighting for extremist groups in Syria. They included Douglas McAuthur McCain, a convert to Islam, who was killed in battle this summer.

The St. Paul woman is the first case of an area female joining IS that has been made public although her family have asked for her name to be kept private because it fears retaliation from Islamists.

Greg Boosalis, FBI division counsel in Minneapolis, said law enforcement was investigating the possible recruitment in the area by Islamist extremists of other females, as well as males, but refused to comment on specific cases.

“We are looking into the possibility of additional men and women travelers,” he said.

“My son and I love life with the beheaders.” — British jihadist Sally Jones.

Mujahidah Bint Usama published pictures of herself on Twitter holding a severed head while wearing a white doctor’s jacket; alongside it, the message: “Dream job, a terrorist doc.”

British female jihadists are now in charge of guarding as many as 3,000 non-Muslim Iraqi women and girls held captive as sex slaves.

“The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS laws in the region. I believe that’s why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force.” — British terrorism analyst Melanie Smith.

Great Britain is now the leading European source of female jihadists in Syria and Iraq.

As many as 60 Muslim women between the ages of 18 and 24 are believed to have left Britain to join the jihadist group Islamic State [IS] during the past twelve months alone, according to British terrorism analysts.

Dozens more have inquired about joining IS since the beheading of American journalist James Foley in Syria in August 2014 set off a frenzy of enthusiasm within jihadist circles.

Many of the women seem to be motivated by the hope of finding a jihadist husband, analysts say, apparently because they covet the cultural and religious “prestige” conferred upon Muslim widows whose husbands have died as “martyrs” for Allah.

Until recently, most of the British women affiliated with IS have been restricted to performing domestic chores such as cleaning and cooking. Lately, however, some women have become restive and have demanded a greater role in the IS enterprise.

Several British women are now engaged in IS recruiting efforts, using social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to encourage a new wave of British jihadists to travel to Syria and Iraq.

A half-dozen other women have been incorporated into a female-only militia called the Al-Khansaa brigade, based in the Syrian city of Raqqa, where the IS has set up its headquarters.

I just left a meeting with a Senior Congressman on Capitol Hill. The information I received from that meeting astounded me. The first thing I’ve done is sit down and write you this email … the information is that important. The Congressman and I were speaking about matters of national security. The conversation naturally turned […]

Robert Spencer makes the case against arming those who would ultimately turn those arms on our soldiers…..Please read rsk
6 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Not Arm the Syrian ‘Moderates’ By Robert Spencer

http://pjmedia.com/blog/6-reasons-why-the-u-s-should-not-arm-the-syrian-moderates/?print=1

Demonstrating yet again that we do not have an effective opposition party in the United States right now, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted Wednesday [2] in favor of Barack Obama’s plan to arm and train “vetted” members of the Free Syrian Army. As expected, the Senate went along on Thursday [3]. The Hill [2] noted about the House vote that “vocal opposition” came from “both war-weary liberals and defense hawks who feel the Syria plan should include more robust steps.” No one, however, seems to have mentioned the main reason why this is a bad idea: the Free Syrian Army is on the wrong side.

Obama made big promises last Sunday on Meet the Press: “What I want people to understand is that over the course of months,” he asserted, “we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum” of the Islamic State. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities; we’re going to shrink the territory that they control; and, ultimately, we’re going to defeat them.” He was using the term “we” loosely: “This is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops. This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war.” But if American troops were not going to perform this herculean task, then who would do it?

“In the interview on Sunday,” said the New York Times [4], “Mr. Obama said he envisioned the Free Syrian Army’s providing the ground presence needed to confront ISIS in Syria.”

But will the Free Syrian Army actually do this job, or do it effectively? Here are some reasons why not:

“America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia – from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East – we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding.Obama wouldn’t know the founding values if they hit him in the head. He is the worst president of the United States in history after all. That is no mean feat, considering the competition.”

French aircraft are in action against ISIS. Britain is flying reconnaissance missions over Iraq. Several other countries – Arab ones included – say they are willing to support the air campaign. None seem interested in pledging any ground troops, however.

“Well, you will hear from Secretary Kerry on this over the coming days. And what he has said is that others have suggested that they’re willing to do that. But we’re not looking for that right now,” Chief of Staff Denis McDonough waffled on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, September 14. “We’re trying to put together the specifics of what we expect from each of the members,” he added, which is one way of saying the United States is finding it hard to persuade other countries to provide ground forces – something the self-designed leader of the “coalition” is unwilling to do. Also on “Meet the Press” James Baker noted that the biggest problem “of course, is who are our, quote, ‘partners on the ground’ that the president referred to in his speech. And I don’t know where they come from.” Let it be noted that Baker put forth an ad-hoc strategic plan that was, in fact, far better than the one outlined by Obama. He suggested joining forces with China, Russia, Iran, Syria and others, following a non-UN-sponsored international conference of genuine international leaders.

There are no “partners on the ground” for now, and those that the Administration wants to groom for the role are worse than none: McDonough conceded that ground troops are needed, “that’s why we want this program to train the [Syrian] opposition that’s currently pending in Congress.” In my curtain-raiser on President Obama’s much-heralded speech of September 10, posted two days before he delivered it (“Obama’s Non-Strategy”), I warned that he – disastrously – still counts on the non-existent “moderate rebels” in Syria to come on board, and still refuses to talk to Bashar al-Assad, whose army is the only viable force capable of confronting the IS now and for many years to come. In short, “he has no plan to systematically degrade the IS capabilities, no means to shrink the territory that they control, and certainly no strategy to defeat them.”

Obama’s address to the nation on September 10 confirmed all of the above, but it also contained numerous non sequiturs, falsehoods, and delusional assertions that need to be addressed one by one. (The President’s words are in italics.)

I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.