From Praeger University:
I have nothing to add, save that you can assume my total agreement.
From Praeger University:
I have nothing to add, save that you can assume my total agreement.
Oh, sure. This will keep them from getting a bomb. As if the agreement wasn’t farcical enough as it stands, Iran is already laying the groundwork for walking out:
The Iranian complaint cited White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s press briefing from July 17. (The annotation is taken from the complaint.):
“The military option would remain on the table, but the fact is, that military option would be enhanced because we’d been spending the intervening number of years gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear program. So when it comes to the targeting decisions that would be made by military officials either in Israel or the United States, those targeting decisions would be significantly informed, and our capabilities improved, based on the knowledge that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections regime.” [Emphasis added].
After quoting Earnest’s statement, the complaint explained:
The threat or use of force under any circumstances except in self-defense is a violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and such statements constitute a breach of erga omnes obligations under Article 2(4) of the Charter. Moreover, at a time when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is successfully concluded between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1, such a statement is totally unwarranted and seriously undermines the very basic principles required for its implementation that is expected to begin soon. These statements amount to a material breach of the commitments just undertaken by all JCPOA participants …
This was no threat issued by Earnest but rather a hypothetical. Earnest was responding to a question about what would happen if Iran was found to be cheating and he answered that the information the United States (and the P5+1 nations) would obtain by the monitoring would give it the means to strike at those parts of Iran’s illicit nuclear program that had been discovered.
Given that the complaint is total nonsense, why would Iran lodge it?
Read the rest at Legal Insurrection for four plausible reasons why Iran is doing this. I’ll add a fifth:
Because they can.
Iran long ago realized that Obama will do anything to reach an agreement so he can claim a foreign policy legacy (well, something more than the ruin of Iraq…) and that Kerry will do almost anything to make his boss’ dream come true. Honestly, with the American willingness to humiliate itself so plain, I’m surprised Khamenei hasn’t demanded Obama fly to Tehran to prostrate himself like a good dhimmi. I half think he might agree, so strong is Obama’s belief that, if you show nothing but good intentions, the other guy just has to come around, eventually. (1)
Not only is this a warning to the Obama administration that Iran could walk away from this deal at any time (2), but they’re also doing this because it feels so good. It’s human nature: America is your greatest enemy, so why not pluck a feather from the eagle and wave it in his face. What’s he going to do about it?
Nothing, and we all know it.
(1) “Kupchanism,” a school of thought in foreign affairs highly influential in Obamite circles. I really have to write about this one day.
(2) After they’ve had the UN sanctions lifted, of course, and they have their hands on all that lovely European money. The “snap-back” talk of reimposing those sanctions is a bad joke by the administration. They’ll never be put back in place.
We are going to be paying for the Obama administration’s madness for years to come:
Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.
At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.
Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers.
What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.
Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.
Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.
A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an “urgent firearms disposition request” to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.
Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed “to assist in a criminal investigation,” according to Johnson’s letter, also reviewed by The Times.
The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.
Among other things, Johnson is demanding to know whether federal authorities have recovered the gun Soofi bought in 2010, where it was recovered and whether it had been discharged, according to the letter. He also demanded an explanation about why the initial seven-day hold was placed on the 2010 pistol purchase and why it was lifted after 24 hours.
You can scroll back through the Gunwalker archives here or read Katie Pavlich’s excellent book on Operation Fast and Furious for background on this bloody fiasco. (Also, investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s archive) One point to emphasize is that Lone Wolf Trading was “known” for selling guns illegally because it was pressured by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms into cooperating with this “felony stupid” program, one that supplied guns to Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the deaths of over 300 Mexican civilians, police, and military, as well as two or three US federal officers.
It must be noted that Soofi bought his gun not as a straw buyer for the cartels, and the system did at first flag him, then let him pass. But questions abound: why was he flagged in the first place? Was he thought to be a cartel-buyer? Did they have some other reason to suspect him? Would he have been blocked, having lied on his forms, if not for Operation Fast and Furious? And why was the hold released?
Though Soofi wasn’t walking the gun to Mexico, he did try to kill Americans for the horrid crime of exercising their right to free speech and criticizing Islam. And he may well have used a gun he obtained with the help of the United States Department of Justice and its subordinate agencies, all headed by then-Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama.
We’re not done bleeding for their incompetence.
via Katie Pavlich
Oh, really? Why, oh why am I not shocked to find collusion between Green statists in the government and climate alarmist groups?
Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:
View original 461 more words
When the world’s most vicious jihad organization goes fishing for members in a nearly-failed nuclear-armed state that sports its own jihadi terror groups and an intelligence service that “leans jihad,” what could go wrong?
An apparent Islamic State recruitment document found in Pakistan’s lawless tribal lands reveals that the extremist group has grand ambitions of building a new terrorist army in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and triggering a war in India to provoke an Armageddon-like “end of the world.”
The 32-page Urdu-language document obtained by American Media Institute (AMI) and reviewed by USA TODAY details a plot to attack U.S. soldiers as they withdraw from Afghanistan and target American diplomats and Pakistani officials.
The document was reviewed by three U.S. intelligence officials, who said they believe the document is authentic based on its unique markings and the fact that language used to describe leaders, the writing style and religious wording match other documents from the Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS. They asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The undated document, titled “A Brief History of the Islamic State Caliphate (ISC), The Caliphate According to the Prophet,” seeks to unite dozens of factions of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban into a single army of terror. It includes a never-before-seen history of the Islamic State, details chilling future battle plans, urges al-Qaeda to join the group and says the Islamic State’s leader should be recognized as the sole ruler of the world’s 1 billion Muslims under a religious empire called a “caliphate.”
“Accept the fact that this caliphate will survive and prosper until it takes over the entire world and beheads every last person that rebels against Allah,” it proclaims. “This is the bitter truth, swallow it.”
Read the rest: ISIS’ long-term goal is a major attack on India — Hindus are polytheists, therefore fair game under Islam. Almost as bad, they’re a parliamentary democracy, and democracy is a sin under sharia law (men making laws, a role reserved to Allah alone). And, unspoken, they’ve kicked Muslim Pakistan’s tail in three wars now. Can’t let polytheists get away with that, not when you come from a culture obsessed with honor and shame.
Their ultimate goal, per the document, is to use war on India to generate an apocalyptic war –literally, the “final battle”– with America, India’s ally. Presumably that would bring about the Islamic End Times, when they get to kill all the Jews.
Lovely people, aren’t they?
This new recruiting drive isn’t without its problems, however. First, well, the Taliban was there first. And neither likes the other. Thus a recruiting drive is likely to lead to armed clashes. Second, the Pakistani Taliban have a sort of, off-and-on modus vivendi with the Pakistan government. Heck, members of Pakistan’s ISI, their intelligence agency, may also be Taliban. ISIS, on the other hand, wants to recreate the caliphate and lead it, meaning no more government of Pakistan. That, shall we say, might meet with resistance.
Still, ISIS has been remarkably successful and has the will to carry out its jihad dreams. Everyone in the area –Pakistanis, Afghans, Indians, and Americans, had better be keeping a careful watch.
Two videos today from Prager University, both narrated by Dr. Patrick Moore, a PhD in Ecology from the University of British Columbia and one of the founders of the environmental activist group Greenpeace.
In the first, Dr. Moore discusses the nonsense surrounding the almost superstitious dread of carbon dioxide among climate alarmists. Notably, and as has been mentioned several times on this blog and elsewhere, Dr. Moore points out the inconvenient truth that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has in the past been up to ten times higher than it is now, without the world ending. That, in fact, we are still in an era of relatively low CO2 concentrations. Also, he mentions a truth so obvious that only climate hysterics need to be told it: CO2 is plant food. In fact, the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 4-5 higher than it is now. We can already see the benefits of increasing CO2 as the Earth grows greener, contrary to the Cult of Climate Change’s dire predictions.
But enough of me ranting. Here’s Dr. Moore, not ranting:
The second video is Dr. Moore’s tale of how he came to be a founder of Greenpeace, in its day an organization dedicated to a mix of scientific conservationism and anti-war politics. He relates how the movement changed over time to an anti-scientific, almost anti-human dogma, which at its farcical worst declared banning the element chlorine as a goal, going so far as to label it “the Devil’s element.”
Nothing religious or cultish about that.
Here’s Dr. Moore explaining why he finally had to leave Greenpeace:
That’s the trouble with organizations that get captured by their most ardent activists: they drive out the moderates who could act as a brake on their worst tendencies, which, left unchecked, wreck their credibility.
Okay, I have to admit it: I was wrong about the choices facing business owners when a jurisdiction mandates a minimum wage increase. On several occasions, I’ve written something like the following:
Labor is a cost, because the business owner has to provide wages and, often, benefits that cost him more money. When a government mandate increases that cost, the business owner has three choices: pass the cost along to the customer, who may decide it’s too much and stop shopping there; cut employee hours and stop hiring to save on labor costs, thus costing potential jobs and putting a burden on workers still employed; and, finally, just decide it’s not worth it anymore and close up shop. In the low-margin bookseller business, Borderlands’ owner chose the last course as the only one viable.
Well, it seems I didn’t figure on one other possibility: employees demanding to work fewer hours.
Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent.
Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.
“If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM.
The notion that employees are intentionally working less to preserve their welfare has been a hot topic on talk radio. While the claims are difficult to track, state stats indeed suggest few are moving off welfare programs under the new wage.
A minimum wage is a form of economic redistribution and welfare, taking money from business owners and giving it to the employees in the name of “fairness” and “justice.” The idea, as averred in the last quoted paragraph, is to help get people off government aid. Good intentions, no?
Well, we all know what’s said about using good intentions as paving material. Like so many welfare programs, the minimum wage creates a perverse incentive to not increase one’s income, for fear of losing desirable benefits. Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has a wonderful chart and post explaining this very problem, what he calls a “poverty trap.” By raising the minimum wage, in addition to all the other problems it causes, Seattle is creating its own poverty trap, one that encourages people to work less.
Now how, I ask progressives, is that “progress?”
PS: Read the whole article for other problems caused by Seattle leftists’
good intentions arrogant, economically ignorant self-righteousness.