Perspectives on choking off our resources...

One of the underreported issues of the last twenty five years is the limiting of America to its own natural resources. Bubba Clinton sold off major coal reserves in Utah and refused to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. George W Bush, with a Republican (RINO) Congress didn't get ANWR opened and you know B Hussein Obama will not. Thankfully the shale oil finds are out of the reach of the feds.

With that as background I find this interesting. From this morning's Houston Chronicle.

Perspective on our fuel prices

By Joe Barnes and James Coan

We should welcome recent news about dramatic increases in U.S. production of oil. But their impact on our domestic and foreign energy policies may be less earthshaking than we might believe.

The U.S. petroleum sector is surely in the midst of a remarkable revival. Output is up from just a few years ago, an increase driven in large measure by technological advances that permit sharply increased production from shale oil formations such as the Eagle Ford in South Texas. At the same time, domestic oil consumption appears to have reached a plateau. This is partly because of slow economic growth and high prices at the fuel pump.

But subdued U.S. consumption also reflects other, longer-term factors, notably increased fuel efficiency in automobiles. Rising output and flat demand have combined to reduce oil imports. As recently as 2005, net imports of fuel liquids (including petroleum), represented 60 percent of total consumption; in 2012, their share had dropped to 41 percent. Most analysts expect this trend to continue.

Let us stipulate: Increased domestic oil production is, on balance, a good thing. It will generate economic activity, bolster employment — particularly in the Houston area — and reduce our balance of payments deficit. It will also — all other things being equal — tend to reduce world prices for petroleum.

But increased domestic petroleum output will not — at least for the foreseeable future — either fully insulate American consumers from price shocks emanating from abroad or dramatically reduce the strategic importance of oil producing regions such as the Persian Gulf.

The fundamental reason: Oil markets are not national, but global. Prices are set by world-wide supply and demand. Here’s a good way to understand this critical point: Think of global oil production as water in a swimming pool. Remove a glassful from one end of the pool and the level declines everywhere; add a glassful at the other end and the opposite occurs. The inference for the United States is clear. Even were we to become fully self-sufficient in petroleum, major disruptions in supply elsewhere would lead to price increases here at home. The experience of Canada is a case in point. Though it has long been a major exporter of oil, Canadian consumers, like their counterparts to the south, have suffered from volatility in fuel prices...

...The bottom line: Increased U.S. oil production, however welcome, does not relieve us from the imperative of addressing possible oil shocks through domestic and foreign policy. Perhaps it’s time to open the champagne and raise a toast. But we should limit ourselves to a single glass.

If you were in a static economy that would be correct gentlemen. However, left to its own devices, the economy is dynamic. In the water example, if I were to remove a glass of water and then add another glass, the level would be maintained. However, if I were allowed to dump not a glass but five gallons of water, the level would rise. By the direct efforts of the government, the oil industry is being hampered in its efforts to fulfill a demand for more oil. And with China and India coming online, demand for more oil will force prices higher unless we can bring more oil on the market. But this article doesn't explain this or the fact we need more oil or the fact government is hindering our efforts to get more oil. It's only a weak attempt to justify high prices and CAFE standards. And CAFE arguably has the side effect of increasing highway deaths.

Sorry guys, it is not an article but an opinion piece, but please, this is bad.

Geopolitical Weekly: Strategy, Ideology and the Close of the Syrian Crisis, September 17, 2013

By George Friedman

It is said that when famed Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich heard of the death of the Turkish ambassador, he said, "I wonder what he meant by that?" True or not, serious or a joke, it points out a problem of diplomacy. In searching for the meaning behind every gesture, diplomats start to regard every action merely as a gesture. In the past month, the president of the United States treated the act of bombing Syria as a gesture intended to convey meaning rather than as a military action intended to achieve some specific end. This is the key to understanding the tale that unfolded over the past month.

When President Barack Obama threatened military action in retaliation for what he claimed was the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, he intended a limited strike that would not destroy the weapons. Destroying them all from the air would require widespread air attacks over an extensive period of time, and would risk releasing the chemicals into the atmosphere. The action also was not intended to destroy Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime. That, too, would be difficult to do from the air, and would risk creating a power vacuum that the United States was unwilling to manage. Instead, the intention was to signal to the Syrian government that the United States was displeased.

The threat of war is useful only when the threat is real and significant. This threat, however, was intended to be insignificant. Something would be destroyed, but it would not be the chemical weapons or the regime. As a gesture, therefore, what it signaled was not that it was dangerous to incur American displeasure, but rather that American displeasure did not carry significant consequences. The United States is enormously powerful militarily and its threats to make war ought to be daunting, but instead, the president chose to frame the threat such that it would be safe to disregard it.

Avoiding Military Action

In fairness, it was clear at the beginning that Obama did not wish to take military action against Syria. Two weeks ago I wrote that this was "a comedy in three parts: the reluctant warrior turning into the raging general and finding his followers drifting away, becoming the reluctant warrior again." Last week in Geneva, the reluctant warrior re-appeared, put aside his weapons and promised not to attack Syria.

When he took office, Obama did not want to engage in any war. His goal was to raise the threshold for military action much higher than it had been since the end of the Cold War, when Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq and other lesser interventions formed an ongoing pattern in U.S. foreign policy. Whatever the justifications for any of these, Obama saw the United States as being overextended by the tempo of war. He intended to disengage from war and to play a lesser role in general in managing the international system. At most, he intended to be part of the coalition of nations, not the leader and certainly not the lone actor.

He clearly regarded Syria as not meeting the newly raised standard. It was embroiled in a civil war, and the United States had not been successful in imposing its will in such internal conflicts. Moreover, the United States did not have a favorite in the war. Washington has a long history of hostility toward the al Assad regime. But it is also hostile to the rebels, who -- while they might have some constitutional democrats among their ranks -- have been increasingly falling under the influence of radical jihadists. The creation of a nation-state governed by such factions would re-create the threat posed by Afghanistan and leading to Sept. 11, and do so in a country that borders Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon. Unless the United States was prepared to try its hand again once again at occupation and nation-building, the choice for Washington had to be "none of the above."

Strategy and the specifics of Syria both argued for American distance, and Obama followed this logic. Once chemical weapons were used, however, the reasoning shifted. Two reasons explain this shift.

WMD and Humanitarian Intervention

One was U.S. concerns over weapons of mass destruction. From the beginning of the Cold War until the present, the fear of nuclear weapons has haunted the American psyche. Some would say that this is odd given that the United States is the only nation that has used atomic bombs. I would argue that it is precisely because of this. Between Hiroshima and mutual assured destruction there was a reasonable dread of the consequences of nuclear war. Pearl Harbor had created the fear that war might come unexpectedly at any moment, and intimate awareness of Hiroshima and Nagasaki generated fear of sudden annihilation in the United States.

Other weapons capable of massive annihilation of populations joined nuclear weapons, primarily biological and chemical weapons. Robert Oppenheimer, who oversaw the scientific work of the Manhattan Project, employed the term "weapon of mass destruction" to denote a class of weapons able to cause destruction on the scale of Hiroshima and beyond, a category that could include biological and chemical weapons.

The concept of weapons of mass destruction eventually shifted from "mass destruction" to the weapon itself. The use and even possession of such weapons by actors who previously had not possessed them came to be seen as a threat to the United States. The threshold of mass destruction ceased to be the significant measure, and instead the cause of death in a given attack took center stage. Tens of thousands have died in the Syrian civil war. The only difference in the deaths that prompted Obama's threats was that chemical weapons had caused them. That distinction alone caused the U.S. foreign policy apparatus to change its strategy.

The second cause of the U.S. shift is more important. All American administrations have a tendency to think ideologically, and there is an ideological bent heavily represented in the Obama administration that feels that U.S. military power ought to be used to prevent genocide. This feeling dates back to World War II and the Holocaust, and became particularly intense over Rwanda and Bosnia, where many believe the United States could have averted mass murder. Many advocates of American intervention in humanitarian operations would oppose the use of military force in other circumstances, but regard its use as a moral imperative to stop mass murder.

The combined fear of weapons of mass destruction and the ideology of humanitarian intervention became an irresistible force for Obama. The key to this process was that the definition of genocide and the definition of mass destruction had both shifted such that the deaths of less than 1,000 people in a war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives resulted in demands for intervention on both grounds.

The pressure on Obama grew inside his administration from those who were concerned with the use of weapons of mass destruction and those who saw another Rwanda brewing. The threshold for morally obligatory intervention was low, and it eventually canceled out the much higher strategic threshold Obama had set. It was this tension that set off the strange oscillations in Obama's handling of the affair. Strategically, he wanted nothing to do with Syria. But the ideology of weapons of mass destruction and the ideology of humanitarian intervention forced him to shift course.

An Impossible Balance

Obama tried to find a balance where there was none between his strategy that dictated non-intervention and his ideology that demanded something be done. His solution was to loudly threaten military action that he and his secretary of state both indicated would be minimal. The threatened action aroused little concern from the Syrian regime, which has fought a bloody two-year war. Meanwhile, the Russians, who were seeking to gain standing by resisting the United States, could paint Washington as reckless and unilateral.

Obama wanted all of this to simply go away, but he needed some guarantee that chemical weapons in Syria would be brought under control. For that, he needed al Assad's allies the Russians to promise to do something. Without that, he would have been forced to take ineffective military action despite not wanting to. Therefore, the final phase of the comedy played out in Geneva, the site of grave Cold War meetings (it is odd that Obama accepted this site given its symbolism), where the Russians agreed in some unspecified way on an uncertain time frame to do something about Syria's chemical weapons. Obama promised not to take action that would have been ineffective anyway, and that was the end of it.

In the end, this agreement will be meaningful only if it is implemented. Taking control of 50 chemical weapons sites in the middle of a civil war obviously raises some technical questions on implementation. The core of the deal is, of course, completely vague. At the heart of it, the United States agreed not to ask the U.N. Security Council for permission 
to attack in the event the Syrians renege. It also does not clarify the means for evaluating and securing the Syrian weapons. The details of the plan will likely end up ripping it apart in the end. But the point of the agreement was not dealing with chemical weapons, it was to buy time and release the United States from its commitment to bomb something in Syria.

There were undoubtedly other matters discussed, including the future of Syria. The United States and Russia both want the al Assad regime in place to block the Sunnis. They both want the civil war to end, the Americans to reduce the pressure on themselves to aid the Sunnis, the Russians to reduce the chances of the al Assad regime collapsing. Allowing Syria to become another Lebanon (historically, they are one country) with multiple warlords -- or more precisely, acknowledging that this has already happened -- is the logical outcome of all of this.

Consequences

The most important outcome globally is that the Russians sat with the Americans as equals for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Russians sat as mentors, positioning themselves as appearing to instruct the immature Americans in crisis management. To that end, Putin's op-ed in The New York Times was brilliant.

This should not be seen merely as imagery: The image of the Russians forcing the Americans to back down resonates all along the Russian periphery. In the former Soviet satellites, the complete disarray in Europe on this and most other issues, the vacillation of the United States, and the symbolism of Kerry and Lavrov negotiating as equals will shape behavior for quite awhile.

This will also be the case in countries like Azerbaijan, a key alternative to Russian energy that borders Russia and Iran. Azerbaijan faces a second consequence of the administration's ideology, one we have seen during the Arab Spring. The Obama administration has demonstrated a tendency to judge regimes that are potential allies on the basis of human rights without careful consideration of whether the alternative might be far worse. Coupled with an image of weakness, this could cause countries like Azerbaijan to reconsider their positions vis-a-vis the Russians.

The alignment of moral principles with national strategy is not easy under the best of circumstances. Ideologies tend to be more seductive in generalized terms, but not so coherent in specific cases. This is true throughout the political spectrum. But it is particularly intense in the Obama administration, where the ideas of humanitarian intervention, absolutism in human rights, and opposition to weapons of mass destruction collide with a strategy of limiting U.S. involvement -- particularly military involvement -- in the world. The ideologies wind up demanding judgments and actions that the strategy rejects.

The result is what we have seen over the past month with regard to Syria: A constant tension between ideology and strategy that caused the Obama administration to search for ways to do contradictory things. This is not a new phenomenon in the United States, and this case will not reduces its objective power. But it does create a sense of uncertainty about what precisely the United States intends. When that happens in a minor country, this is not problematic. In the leading power, it can be dangerous.

Strategy, Ideology and the Close of the Syrian Crisis is republished with permission of Stratfor.

A look at how fast a shot/don't shot decision must be made

All the cop sees is a man with a knife...

Dash cam video sheds new light on Seattle police shooting

SEATTLE -- Newly obtained dash cam video shows the dramatic confrontation that ended with a Seattle police officer shooting a man in Magnolia last June.

The man was later found to have a history of mental illness, and court documents show the shooting was just one of several involving people with mental illness.

...According to court records, a young man called 911 several times to say someone armed with a kitchen knife was in front of his house. When officers arrived, they say it was the 911 caller who had the knife.

Dash cam video shows the man running toward officers with the knife. As he makes it to the side of the car, which is just out of camera view, you hear the sound of a gunshot.

The Seattle Police Department is not commenting on the court ordered release of the dash cam video. Like several other recent officer-involved shootings, records show the victim in the June 1 shooting suffered from mental illness.

The man's family asked that his name not be used. He survived the shooting and just this week pleaded guilty to assault.

Thank God the cop is alright. And hopefully the suspect is sent to a mental facility. He needs help.

Makes me proud to be an American and a Harley rider!

From The Wilderness of Mirrors:

55 MILES LONG, 4 LANES WIDE, NO WONDER THE NEWS IS SILENT ON THIS REVOLUTION!!

Your Fifth Column Treasonous Media in action.

For additional perspective consider that the group from Los Angeles alone was 55 miles long. 55 miles of four lane highway – from ONE CITY:
NEWS COPTERS REPORTED A FOUR LANE 55 MILE COLUMN ALREADY HEADED OUT FROM LA – 55 MILES LONG, 4 LANES WIDE, NO WONDER THE NEWS IS SILENT ON THIS REVOLUTION!!

Even when it was reported in local media, downplay was the word of the day.

“Two Million Bikers” Rally Roars Into D.C. Area for 9/11

Although they didn’t reach a goal of two million riders, thousands of bikers rolled through the Washington, D.C. area to mark the 12th anniversary of 9/11 on Wednesday.

The bikers — riding with the group “Two Million Bikers to D.C.” — snarled traffic on the Beltway with a ride honoring the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the members of the military called to serve after the attacks.
Many participating riders were veterans who said they rode to protect Americans’ freedom in the midst of tumultuous times.
“The enemy has a say when the war is over,” said rider Pete Raymond. “I believe they’re saying it’s not, so we’re here.”
On their Facebook page, in all caps, the group said they will stand by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, adding that they’re “against any fundamental transformation of America.”

Take this for what it’s worth, the DC Police, notorious for under reporting the numbers of conservative patriotic American’s that show up for rallies in DC, admitted that 1.2 million bikers showed up. These were hard working American citizens who took time off from their jobs to protest Muslims demonstrating on 9/11 in Mordor on the Potomac.

A Column stretching 55 miles long rode out of Los Angeles California, just let that sink in for a while… That is a column of Bikers that stretches beyond horizon to horizon. That is a column, that even traveling at 60 miles per hour, would have taken more than an hour to pass any given point. That was JUST the bikers from Los Angeles California.

The Fifth Column Treasonous Media desperately hopes that the sentiment that drove millions of American’s to take a couple days off from work and ride into Mordor on the Potomac to protest Muslims demonstrating on what amounts to a sacred holy day in America, will both go unnoticed and not catch on. The truth is more to the effect that this Biker led protest represents a kind of barometric reading of the mood of America.
Traditionally, the average American is very slow and reluctant to protest. We are a gentle, peace loving and pragmatic people by nature. By the time our collective dander is up enough for us to start protesting, we are mighty pissed off. Yes, there are special interest group driven Americans who will protest pretty much anything at the drop of a hat, but they do not even remotely represent the average American.
You can pay attention to what millions upon millions of average middle class Americans riding into Mordor on the Potomac means, or, you can continue to keep your head up your ass and live in a delusional fantasy world, it is of course, your choice. However, make no mistake about it, reality is coming knocking.

A few more videos from that awesome ride. Great work guys...only wish I was with you two days ago.

If you go there next year, count me in!

There is still hope for America.....

Although this is a somber day of reflection, there is some good news from Colorado last night. Thank you citizens from the Centennial State, reminding those “public servants” they serve at the pleasure of people, not their own. I recall a great document that has this quote,

“...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....”

The always objective Washington Post/AP reports it this was:

2 Colo. Democratic lawmakers ousted in gun control recalls promoted by activists, NRA

DENVER — Two Democratic state lawmakers who backed tighter gun laws in the aftermath of mass shootings have been kicked out of office in a recall election promoted by both grassroots activists and the National Rifle Association.

Senate President John Morse lost by just 343 votes Tuesday in a swing district in the Republican stronghold of Colorado Springs but Sen. Angela Giron lost by a bigger margin in a largely blue-collar district that favors Democrats....

The NRA backing the people of Colorado is implied to be illegitimate but Bloomberg and this ilk putting money in is not.

Hopefully this expands to pulling the federal politicians out. Time will tell. But for now I"m now recalling this great video from my Saturday morning cartoon days.

Geopolitical Weekly: Syria, America and Putin's Bluff, 9/10/13

By George Friedman

In recent weeks I've written about U.S. President Barack Obama's bluff on Syria and the tightrope he is now walking on military intervention. There is another bluff going on that has to be understood, this one from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin is bluffing that Russia has emerged as a major world power. In reality, Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that that he doesn't have, and he has done it well. For him, Syria poses a problem because the United States is about to call his bluff, and he is not holding strong cards. To understand his game we need to start with the recent G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Putin and Obama held a 20-minute meeting there that appeared to be cold and inconclusive. The United States seems to be committed to some undefined military action in Syria, and the Russians are vehemently opposed. The tensions showcased at the G-20 between Washington and Moscow rekindled memories of the Cold War, a time when Russia was a global power. And that is precisely the mood Putin wanted to create. That's where Putin's bluff begins.

A Humbled Global Power

The United States and Russia have had tense relations for quite a while. Early in the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up in Moscow carrying a box with a red button, calling it the reset button. She said that it was meant to symbolize the desire for restarting U.S.-Russian relations. The gesture had little impact, and relations have deteriorated since then. With China focused on its domestic issues and with Europe in disarray, the United States and Russia are the two major -- if not comparable -- global players, and the deterioration in relations can be significant. We need to understand what is going on here before we think about Syria.

Twenty years ago, the United States had little interest in relations with Russia, and certainly not with resetting them. The Soviet Union had collapsed, the Russian Federation was in ruins and it was not taken seriously by the United States -- or anywhere else for that matter. The Russians recall this period with bitterness. In their view, under the guise of teaching the Russians how to create a constitutional democracy and fostering human rights, the United States and Europe had engaged in exploitative business practices and supported non-governmental organizations that wanted to destabilize Russia.

The breaking point came during the Kosovo crisis. Slobodan Milosevic, leader of what was left of Yugoslavia, was a Russian ally. Russia had a historic relationship with Serbia, and it did not want to see Serbia dismembered, with Kosovo made independent.

There were three reasons for this. First, the Russians denied that there was a massacre of Albanians in Kosovo. There had been a massacre by Serbians in Bosnia; the evidence of a massacre in Kosovo was not clear and is still far from clear. Second, the Russians did not want European borders to change. There had been a general agreement that forced changes in borders should not happen in Europe, given its history, and the Russians were concerned that restive parts of the Russian Federation, from Chechnya to Karelia to Pacific Russia, might use the forced separation of Serbia and Kosovo as a precedent for dismembering Russia. In fact, they suspected that was the point of Kosovo. Third, and most important, they felt that an attack without U.N. approval and without Russian support should not be undertaken both under international law and out of respect for Russia.

President Bill Clinton and some NATO allies went to war nevertheless. After two months of airstrikes that achieved little, they reached out to the Russians to help settle the conflict. The Russian emissary reached an agreement that accepted the informal separation of Kosovo from Serbia but would deploy Russian peacekeepers along with the U.S. and European ones, their mission being to protect the Serbians in Kosovo. The cease-fire was called, but the part about Russian peacekeepers was never fully implemented.

Russia felt it deserved more deference on Kosovo, but it couldn't have expected much more given its weak geopolitical position at the time. However, the incident served as a catalyst for Russia's leadership to try to halt the country's decline and regain its respect. Kosovo was one of the many reasons that Vladimir Putin became president, and with him, the full power of the intelligence services he rose from were restored to their former pre-eminence.

Western Encroachment

The United States has supported, financially and otherwise, the proliferation of human rights groups in the former Soviet Union. When many former Soviet countries experienced revolutions in the 1990s that created governments that were somewhat more democratic but certainly more pro-Western and pro-American, Russia saw the West closing in. The turning point came in Ukraine, where the Orange Revolution generated what seemed to Putin a pro-Western government in 2004. Ukraine was the one country that, if it joined NATO, would make Russia indefensible and would control many of its pipelines to Europe.

In Putin's view, the non-governmental organizations helped engineer this, and he claimed that U.S. and British intelligence services funded those organizations. To Putin, the actions in Ukraine indicated that the United States in particular was committed to extending the collapse of the Soviet Union to a collapse of the Russian Federation. Kosovo was an insult from his point of view. The Orange Revolution was an attack on basic Russian interests.

Putin began a process of suppressing all dissent in Russia, both from foreign-supported non-governmental organizations and from purely domestic groups. He saw Russia as under attack, and he saw these groups as subversive organizations. There was an argument to be made for this. But the truth was that Russia was returning to its historical roots as an authoritarian government, with the state controlling the direction of the economy and where dissent is treated as if it were meant to destroy the state. Even though much of this reaction could be understood given the failures and disasters since 1991, it created a conflict with the United States. The United States kept pressing on the human rights issue, and the Russians became more repressive in response.

Then came the second act of Kosovo. In 2008, the Europeans decided to make Kosovo fully independent. The Russians asked that this not happen and said that the change had little practical meaning anyway. From the Russian point of view, there was no reason to taunt Russia with this action. The Europeans were indifferent.

The Russians found an opportunity to respond to the slight later that year in Georgia. Precisely how the Russo-Georgian war began is another story, but it resulted in Russian tanks entering a U.S. client state, defeating its army and remaining there until they were ready to leave. With the Americans bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, no intervention was possible. The Russians took this as an opportunity to deliver two messages to Kiev and other former Soviet states. First, Russia, conventional wisdom aside, could and would use military power when it chose. Second, he invited Ukraine and other countries to consider what an American guarantee meant.

U.S.-Russian relations never really recovered. From the U.S. point of view, the Russo-Georgia war was naked aggression. From the Russian point of view, it was simply the Russian version of Kosovo, in fact gentler in that it left Georgia proper intact. The United States became more cautious in funding non-governmental organizations. The Russians became more repressive by the year in their treatment of dissident groups.

Since 2008, Putin has attempted to create a sense that Russia has returned to its former historic power. It maintains global relations with left-wing powers such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba. Of course, technically Russia is not left wing, and if it is, it is a weird leftism given its numerous oligarchs who still prosper. And in fact there is little that Russia can do for any of those countries, beyond promising energy investments and weapon transfers that only occasionally materialize. Still, it gives Russia a sense of global power.

In fact, Russia remains a shadow of what the Soviet Union was. Its economy is heavily focused on energy exports and depends on high prices it cannot control. Outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, life remains hard and life expectancy short. Militarily, it cannot possibly match the United States. But at this moment in history, with the United States withdrawing from deep involvement in the Muslim world, and with the Europeans in institutional disarray, it exerts a level of power in excess of its real capacity. The Russians have been playing their own bluff, and this bluff helps domestically by creating a sense that, despite its problems, Russia has returned to greatness.

In this game, taking on and besting the United States at something, regardless of its importance, is critical. The Snowden matter was perfect for the Russians. Whether they were involved in the Snowden affair from the beginning or entered later is unimportant. It has created two important impressions. The first is that Russia is still capable of wounding the United States -- a view held among those who believe the Russians set the affair in motion, and a view quietly and informally encouraged by those who saw this as a Russian intelligence coup even though they publicly and heartily denied it.

The second impression was that the United States was being hypocritical. The United States had often accused the Russians of violating human rights, but with Snowden, the Russians were in a position where they protected the man who had revealed what many saw as a massive violation of human rights. It humiliated the Americans in terms of their own lax security and furthermore weakened the ability of the United States to reproach Russia for human rights violations.

Obama was furious with Russia's involvement in the Snowden case and canceled a summit with Putin. But now that the United States is considering a strike on the Syrian regime following its suspected use of chemical weapons, Washington may be in a position to deal a setback to a Russia client state, and by extension, Moscow itself.

The Syria Question

The al Assad regime's relations with Russia go back to 1970, when Hafez al Assad, current President Bashar al Assad's father, staged a coup and aligned Syria with the Soviet Union. In the illusion of global power that Putin needs to create, the fall of al Assad would undermine his strategy tremendously unless the United States was drawn into yet another prolonged and expensive conflict in the Middle East. In the past, the U.S. distraction with Iraq and Afghanistan served Russia's interests. But the United States is not very likely to get as deeply involved in Syria as it did in those countries. Obama might bring down the regime and create a Sunni government of unknown beliefs, or he may opt for a casual cruise missile attack. But this will not turn into Iraq unless Obama loses control completely.

This could cause Russia to suffer a humiliation similar to the one it dealt the United States in 2008 with Georgia. The United States will demonstrate that Russia's concerns are of no account and that Russia has no counters if and when the United States decides to act.

The impact inside Russia will be interesting. There is some evidence of weakness in Putin's position. His greatest strength has been to create the illusion of Russia as an emerging global power. This will deal that a blow, and how it resonates through the Russian system is unclear. But in any event, it could change the view of Russia being on the offensive and the United States being on the defensive.

Putin made this a core issue for him. I don't think he expected the Europeans to take the position that al Assad had used chemical weapons. He thought he had more pull than that. He didn't. The Europeans may not fly missions but they are not in a position to morally condemn those who do. That means that Putin's bluff is in danger.

History will not turn on this event, and Putin's future, let alone Russia's, does not depend on his ability to protect Russia's Syrian ally. Syria just isn't that important. There are many reasons that the United States might not wish to engage in Syria. But if we are to understand the U.S.-Russian crisis over Syria, it makes sense to consider the crisis within in the arc of recent history from Kosovo in 1999 to Georgia in 2008 to where we are today.

Syria, America and Putin's Bluff is republished with permission of Stratfor.

Good look at search law.

Sorry I've been off the net for the last few days...crazy weekend. I was at work this afternoon and saw this article on voluntary search.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS TO DECIDE WHETHER A DEFENDANT MUST BE PRESENT AND OBJECTING WHEN POLICE ASK A CO-TENANT FOR CONSENT TO SEARCH PREMISES

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fernandez v. California to decide “whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant's previously-stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is a continuing assertion of 4th Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant.”

In this case, on the early afternoon of October 12, 2009, petitioner-appellant, Walter Fernandez, approached the victim, Lopez on the street, issued a gang challenge and tried to stab Lopez. When Lopez resisted, Fernandez called out to accomplices, who helped Fernandez subdue and rob an unarmed Lopez. Fernandez fled the scene into a nearby apartment that he shared with his girlfriend, Rojas, and where pursuing police officers heard a verbal altercation. Police then approached the residence and a bloodied Rojas opened the door for the investigating officers. Police believed they had encountered an ongoing domestic violence incident. Fernandez then objected to police entry into his shared apartment...

Police Magazine has a few more details about this:

After knocking on the door, Rojas answered with a bruised nose and bloody hand. Detectives requested entry and Fernandez stepped forward and refused. They arrested Fernandez and informed Rojas he was in custody in connection with a robbery. Detectives again requested entry and Rojas consented verbally and in writing.

Upon detaining Fernandez, the officers discovered that he matched the robbery suspect’s description. After Lopez identified petitioner as the robber, the police arrested him. With Fernandez either in the squad car or en route to the police department, the police returned to the apartment after an hour, where they obtained Rojas’s oral and written consent to search the residence. The police then discovered an illegal firearm and ammunition, among other items.

Before trial, Fernandez filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search of his apartment following his arrest, seeking to exclude various items including a 20–gauge shotgun, ammunition and a knife. The motion to suppress was denied. A jury found Fernandez guilty of second degree robbery of Lopez, and inflicting corporal injury on his cohabitant, Rojas. The trial court imposed a fourteen year sentence.

Before the Court of Appeals, it held that there was no showing that the arrest was a pretext for the search and Fernandez’s prior objection to police entry was overridden by his absence from the apartment and Rojas’s consent. Fernandez argued on appeal that the Fourth Amendment did not allow the police to obtain valid consent to enter his home by removing the objecting tenant (Fernandez) from the scene against his will and then seeking permission from the other tenant shortly thereafter. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim, holding Rojas’s consent to a search of the apartment she shared with petitioner was valid and justified the officers’ actions.

Never say never but I see this as a legal search. If Rojas (aka Baby Mama) is a legal tenant of the apartment, she can consent. But the full details are not listed in this article, like how long Baby Moma and Baby Daddy have lived together.

Then again, SCOTUS said Obamacare was Constitutional and that is grade A BS!

This is an awesome commercial...

I think I'll have a Guiness in commeration.

Officer Down

Sergeant Jorge Luis "JL" Garcia
Pharr Texas Police Department
End of Watch: Thursday, August 8, 2013
Age: 51
Tour: 27 years
Badge # 1239

Sergeant JL Garcia was killed in an automobile accident while en route to a meeting at the Pharr International Bridge.

His vehicle was struck by a dump truck at the intersection of South Cage Boulevard and East Anaya Road at approximately 3:50 pm. He was transported to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries about one hour later.

Sergeant Garcia had served with the Pharr Police Department for 27 years. He is survived by his wife and two children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Police abuse, so called....

A friend of mine showed me this video of Houston Police taking a couple of Houston's not finest into custody.

Now after seeing a bad situation being handled pretty well, I just happened to see this on the side and the mask perked by interest:


Obviously the suspect has been handled rather hard. He is also a capital murder suspect, having a murdered a cop in police headquarters and on the run, armed. He has shown himself more than capable of killing another man so forgive me if the officers out there will be rather up tight when they go after him. And if he was severely arrested, oh well. I don't see any evidence that five men held him down while another officer kicked him in the face. What I do see is him in a face shield to keep him from spitting. Perhaps a man who knows he's on his way to prison for the rest of his life was spitting at the officers and they had enough.

The story did mention they officers were cleared in the arrest. Too bad the sack of s^&* won't be facing execution but not every state capital punishment. But again, this Court TV video only shows one side of an issue. With yellow journalism like like you should get a Pulitzer Prize soon.

A season of discontent...and lies of omision....

As I sit at the Dot Coffee House, eating my breakfast and prepare to labor on Labor Day, I sit reviewing the daily propaganda rag in Houston, the Houston Chronicle. It has been hemorrhaging money and readers for years and this propaganda dressed up as an editorial is an example why.

Labor pains

Two groups that have it too good

It’s a season of discontent for too many American workers, but for two very different groups things are copacetic — for much the same specific reason. In 2012, according to the Economic Policy Institute, chief executives of the nation’s largest companies earned 273 times as much as the average American worker. In 1965, the typical CEO earned only about 18-20 times what the average worker took home. And one reason why the gap has jumped nearly 14-fold in the past 50 years is that the raises of CEOs are too often voted by their buddies on corporate boards. If you’re looking for a fine example of crony capitalism, look no further.

And group two? Why, that would be members of public employee unions, especially those at the federal level. Their salaries and generous benefits are voted by the same politicians who rely on their votes for re-election. If you’re looking for an example of political cronyism, this is it...

Well you can argue about the issue of CEO compensation. Yes, they are paid multiples of what a "front line" worker but auguabely they are worth more. Would anyone disagree that Steve Jobs was more vaaluable to Apple or Bill Gates to Microsoft that a phone manufactrer in China? Not really. And one can argue if the public is getting its money out of the civil service. Fair enough. But how about some of these who don't get much bang for our buck.

President B Hussein Obama and his family. Over sixteen vacations since less than five years. Using a OSPRAY to transport a dog. Using a 747 for Fastass Michelle can got to Martha's Vineyard two hours before B Hussein. And I know, those 4 hour days are really something to recover from so he needs all the golf.

Or many members of the congress, both parties, who spend more time raising money for themselves that actually working. Or pass one law after another that's devastating on the American people (e.g. Obamcare) and conveniently exempt themselves. Although that may be a good thing. Like with B Hussein, less they do the better. An unlike the head of Ford or Apple Computers, these men spend other people's money.

How about union heads. Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, makes just over 300K a year. Not bad for a so called "working man"

Or the heads of major media like The Washington Post, NY Times, Houston Chronicle themselves. I know they are paid well but their organization is bleeding cash. Sounds like they are being paid well for running a sinking ship deeper into the water. It's only a matter until these organizaitons are bankrupt.

So yes, on this Labor Day, there are people making a lot for not doing much. And the HC, as usual, misses the more obvious examples.

Security Weekly: Assessing Hezbollah Kidnapping Threats in Lebanon, August 29, 2013

By Scott Stewart

As the United States and its allies move closer to direct military action in Syria, Russia and Iran have expressed vocal opposition to any attack against their ally in Damascus. In addition to press statements, more subtle messages have been passed around the region. For example, while Iran is quite unlikely to confront the United States directly and militarily, we have received reports that Iranian diplomats have discussed the possibility of Hezbollah launching a wave of hostage takings in Lebanon in response to any U.S. military strike on the al Assad regime -- discussions apparently intended for U.S. ears. The Daily Star, a Lebanese newspaper, quoted pro-Hezbollah Sheikh Afif Nabulsi on Aug. 27 as saying that "any [U.S.] strike against Syria would be met by harsh responses against U.S. interests in the region."

While there are fewer Americans living in Lebanon than there were in the 1970s and early 1980s -- the wave of kidnappings in Lebanon commenced with the abduction of American University of Beirut President David Dodge in July 1982; the last Western hostage, Terry Anderson, was released in December 1991 -- there are many more American college students, tourists and businessmen in Lebanon at present than there were in the early 1990s in the immediate wake of the Lebanese hostage crisis. With the abduction U.S. Marine Col. William Higgins, the last American taken hostage, having occurred in 1988, the threat is seen as greatly reduced. This sentiment exists despite U.S. State Department warnings of the threat of kidnapping in Lebanon, like the travel warning issued in April. Warnings notwithstanding, many if not most of the Americans living in Lebanon would be easy kidnapping targets for a sophisticated group such as Hezbollah -- especially if they are not looking for surveillance directed against them.

The manner in which these warnings are occurring suggests the Iranians and their Lebanese allies are using this threatening message to the U.S. government as a bluff. Given the history of kidnapping in Lebanon, however, such as the Aug. 9 abduction of two Turkish Airlines pilots, this threat should be taken very seriously by Americans residing in or visiting Lebanon.

The Dog that Barks

If the Iranians were really preparing to unleash Hezbollah for a kidnapping operation, it seems unlikely that they would provide such a well-telegraphed warning in advance. Past covert operations by the Iranians and Hezbollah have been conducted with much more secrecy, and in most cases with a very large degree of plausible deniability. For example, Hezbollah used many different organizational names to hide its hand during the Lebanese hostage crisis, such as Islamic Jihad, Organization for the Defense of Free People and Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, among others. This obfuscation was also intended to hide the Iranian connection to the kidnappings despite the very real involvement of Iranian intelligence. While the first American hostage, David Dodge, was held in an Iranian prison near Tehran, the Iranians took many steps to attempt to keep their involvement in later kidnappings more concealed, arms-for-hostages deals and other indicators aside. The charade was enough to keep the United States from directly attacking Iran and also sufficed to allow the Europeans enough leeway to continue commercial relations with Iran despite U.S. objections and economic sanctions.

As seen in the August 2006 Lebanon war and in its current offensive actions in Syria to assist the al Assad regime, Hezbollah remains a potent militant force with a large number of highly trained and dedicated fighters. Indeed, the urban warfare skills Hezbollah is demonstrating in Syria, such as planning and executing complex ambushes and employing improvised explosive devices, are things that can be directly applied to terrorist attacks. As seen by their apparent involvement in the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and other more recent incidents, the group has also not lost its ability to construct and effectively deploy large vehicle bombs.

Hezbollah also operates a very complex intelligence apparatus inside Lebanon that allows it to collect a great deal of intelligence on prospective targets. This includes the ability to tap phone traffic at will. Moreover, Hezbollah has long controlled security and communications at Beirut's Rafik al-Hariri International Airport, a position that lets it note the comings and goings of foreigners or other targets of interest. It is believed that this network was instrumental in the October 2012 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan, the intelligence chief for Lebanon's Internal Security Forces.

In addition to assassinations, Hezbollah clearly has retained the capability to locate and kidnap foreigners. The ability was showcased Aug. 9 when two Turkish Airlines pilots were kidnapped shortly after they departed from Rafik al-Hariri International Airport in a van. While the kidnapping was claimed by a previously unknown group calling itself Zuwwar al Imam Ali al Reda, (the Visitors of the Shrine of Imam Ali al Reda), there is little doubt Hezbollah actually carried it out. The kidnappers have demanded the release of a group of nine Lebanese Shia kidnapped by Sunni rebels in Syria. Syrian rebels have claimed the abducted Lebanese were members of Hezbollah, and said they will not be released until Hezbollah stops fighting in Syria. Hezbollah took the Turkish pilots in the hope that Ankara, which is assisting the Syrian rebels, could pressure the Syrian rebels to release the Lebanese prisoners. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has conveniently volunteered to help negotiate the pilots' release.

Intent, not Just Capability

While Hezbollah clearly retains the capability to take American hostages -- and there are numerous vulnerable Americans in Lebanon at this time -- the big question is whether Hezbollah intends to do so.

Hezbollah has long had operatives capable of undertaking missions aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon and beyond, including in the United States. In fact, Hezbollah's militant operatives are better trained and more numerous than any group the al Qaeda core has ever controlled. Yet despite this capability, Hezbollah has not chosen to use it to strike American interests for several years now. Though there are indications Hezbollah operatives may have assisted the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force in the July 2012 attack against Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, Hezbollah has been very careful not to anger the United States in recent years.

This is due in large part to the way Hezbollah has matured as an organization. It is no longer the new, shadowy organization it was in 1982 or 1983, but rather is now a large global organization with a proverbial return address. Its assets and personnel now can be identified and seized or attacked. Hezbollah understands that a serious terrorist attack or series of attacks against Americans could result in the type of reaction that followed 9/11, and that the organization would likely end up on the receiving end of the type of relentless global campaign that the United States launched against al Qaeda. The ability of the United States to strike targets using special operations forces, drones and other advanced weapons far surpasses its capabilities in the 1980s -- and Lebanon is far easier for the United States to strike than Afghanistan or Pakistan.

As discussed above, in the early days, Hezbollah (and its Iranian patrons) worked hard to sow ambiguity and hide responsibility for terrorist attacks, but as Hezbollah matured as an organization, such subterfuge became more difficult.

There is also international public opinion to consider. Hezbollah is not just a militant group. Today, it is also a political organization seeking legitimacy. It is one thing for it to portray itself as a "victim of Israeli aggression" when standing up to Israeli forces in southern Lebanon or even fighting jihadists in Syria to help Alawites being attacked. It is quite another to be seen kidnapping students or businessmen.

Hezbollah also sees the United States (and the rest of the Western Hemisphere) as a wonderful place to make money through its array of legal and illegal enterprises. If it angered the United States, Washington could launch a persistent and focused campaign against Hezbollah financial networks similar to the one conducted against al Qaeda's finances. If this were to occur, Hezbollah's business interests in the Western Hemisphere would be severely impacted. Such an economic campaign could also extend to Hezbollah's business interests in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. With Iran and Syria facing serious financial issues, Hezbollah needs its financial network more than ever.

Hezbollah's terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the 1980s, such as the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks and the two attacks against the U.S. Embassy, were intended to drive U.S. influence out of Lebanon, and the attacks largely succeeded in doing that. An attack by Hezbollah against American interests today could result in the return of U.S. attention to, and perhaps even attacks against, Hezbollah's infrastructure in Lebanon, something that is clearly not in Hezbollah's interests. Therefore, even if the Iranians did ask Hezbollah to undertake a kidnapping campaign, it is not certain Hezbollah would oblige -- especially in the wake of these recent threats, which would make it difficult for Hezbollah and Iran to deny involvement.

Taking all that into account, given Hezbollah's capabilities and the history of kidnapping in Lebanon such as the recent kidnapping of the two Turkish pilots, Americans in Lebanon should not ignore the potential kidnapping threat. They should reassess their personal security, examine their travel habits and patterns, dust off their contingency plans and above all, practice good situational awareness.

Hezbollah may possess advanced operational and intelligence capabilities, but it cannot operate without detection. Even the most professional militant networks are bound by the constraints of the attack planning cycle and their operational activities are vulnerable to detection during certain phases of that cycle -- especially during the surveillance phase.

If the threat of Hezbollah kidnappings is not merely an Iranian bluff, picking up on signs of preoperational surveillance and then acting to avoid a potential abduction could spare one a long and painful hostage ordeal.

Copyright Stratfor.com

From the files of Couldn't have happened to nicer guys

REGARDLESS OF HOW IT LOOKS, THESE ARE NOT THE VICTIMS OF A CRIME – THEY ARE THE PERPETRATORS WHO LEARNED A VERY PAINFUL LESSON

Two suspected robbers left the scene of their own crime looking like the victims of a brutal attack after their would-be victims fought back.

Johnny Calderon Jr., 19, and Gerald Allen, 18, attempted to rob two University of Virginia students at gunpoint, which turned out to be a huge, painful mistake, according to police in Charlottesville, Va.

Police arrived on the scene to find the two students had beaten up and detained the suspects.

Clearly, Allen got the worst of the beating. His right eye was swollen shut and his face bloodied. However, Calderon didn’t get off easy and arrived at the police station with a black eye and plenty of bruises.

Calderon has been charged with two counts of attempted robbery, one count of pointing a firearm and using a firearm in the commission of a felony, WVIR-TV reports. Allen is facing two counts of attempted robbery.

“Calderon is due in General District Court Friday morning for a hearing. Allen is due in court on October 3,” the report adds.

Hopefully children next time you think to rob someone at gun point something make you decide "naaaaa".

Can anyone at the New York Times write the English language.

I'm not much of a fan of this formerly great newspaper, now out and out leftist rag, although I do review some of its articles. Hey, I'm an intelligence geek and I read the propaganda of my coutry's enemies, e.g. Pravda, Isvesdai and The New York Times.

Now I'm not going to make comment on the artile but one thing that struck my eye.

White power promoter’s plans alarm rural town

NEW YORK TIMES

LEITH, N.D. — The bearded man with thinning, gray-and-bleach-blond hair flapping down his neck first appeared in this tiny agricultural town last year, quietly and inconspicuously roaming the crackly dirt roads.

Nettie Ketterling thought nothing of it when he came into her bar to charge his cellphone in an outlet beneath the mounted head of a mule deer. To Kenneth Zimmerman, the man was just another customer, bringing his blue Dodge Durango in for repairs.

Bobby Harper did not blink when the man appeared in front of his house and asked him if he had any land to sell. And the mayor, Ryan Schock, was simply extending a civic courtesy when he swung by the man’s house to introduce himself.

Their new neighbor, they thought, was just another person looking to get closer to the lucrative oil fields in western North Dakota known as the Bakken.

But all that changed last week.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Bismarck Tribune revealed that the man, Paul Craig Cobb, 61, had been buying up property in this town of 24 people in The effort to transform it into a colony for white supremacists....

OK, one comment. Southern Poverty Law Center. Can you use something less radical than that? Probably not. But this I found really interesting.

There is a doomsday plan in place, Schock explained: If enough of Cobb’s friends move in to gain a majority that could vote out the current government, the council would immediately dissolve the town.

Harper, Leith’s only black resident, said a lot of people approached him at his mother-in-law’s funeral on Monday to tell him they had his back.

“People told me to leave town for the weekend, and they’d take care of everything,” he said. 

But he and his wife, Sherrill — who found herself referred to as a “filthy race-mixing white woman” in one of Cobb’s online posts — said they were not going anywhere....

Good for the Harper's but for the person who write this, "had his back." Where the hell did you learn that as proper language. Try some remedial English courses so you don't type vernacular into an article in the supposed "Paper of Record." What a joke this is. No wonder it doesn't have a "by line".

An update from a judge in Montana who needs to be hung in the public square...

A few days ago I posted on a judge's outrageous sentence to a middle aged teacher who raped a student of his. Granted it was probably "consensual" becuase she said yes, but legally she cannot. But the relationship was part of the girl commiting suicide. Now we hear something else this disgrace to the bench said.

Judge issues an apology for remarks on teen’s rape

ASSOCIATED PRESS

BILLINGS, Mont. — A Montana judge apologized Wednesday for saying a 14-year-old rape victim was “older than her chronological age” and had as much control of the situation as the teacher who raped her — remarks that prompted protests and a petition for his resignation.

District Judge G. Todd Baugh made the comments Monday while sentencing former Billings Senior High School teacher Stacey Rambold to a 15-year prison sentence then suspending all but 31 days and giving him credit for one day already served.

Yellowstone County officials previously agreed to defer Rambold’s prosecution for three years and dismiss the charges if he completed a sexual offender treatment program. The case was revived in December after prosecutors learned Ram-bold, 54, was kicked out of the program for having unsupervised visits with minors who were family members and not telling counselors he was having a sexual relationship with a woman.
Faced with backlash over his comments and the sentence that protesters considered too light, Baugh wrote an apology in a brief letter to the editor to The Billings Gazette.

A protest scheduled for Thursday outside Yellowstone County Courthouse will go on despite the apology, said organizer Sheena Rice, stressing that it’s important for the community to show it is not going to stand for victim blaming.

“I’m glad he apologized, but he should have known better as a judge,” Rice said. “The fact that he said it makes me think he still believes it.”

He should be removed from the bench as soon as possible. I don't know if a recall is an option but this Democrat must be removed from office.

Why do I say Democrat? Because this is a piece from AP, aka Associated Propaganda. If this judge was a Republican that fact would be mentioned every other sentence.

A letter to the editor.

Here is a letter to the editor I sent to the Houston Chronicle this morning. Who knows if they will publish it. They have published some of my writings. But if anyone can answer the question I pose or if you can give an example of the 4th Estate asking the question, please let me know.

VIEWPOINTS
C/O Houston Chronicle
P.O. Box 4260
Houston TX 77210

Reference Pending US attack on Syria.

As Mr. Obama moves this county to a unilateral attack on Syria I’m surprised by one question that’s not being asked. While there is no real doubt that Mr. Assad used chemical weapons on the forces against his government, what has not been asked, let alone answers, is where did he get the weapons?

Any reader of Janes, STRATFOR or a decent unclassified intelligence source knew in the 1990s Iraq and Iran were working to produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But Syria wasn’t really on the radar. Again, where did they get them?

Back to open sources. In the public domain there were reports of shipments of Saddam’s weapons in late 2002 from Iraq to Syria, but for some reason that wasn’t mentioned much when then Senator Obama, among others, where accusing then President Bush of taking the US to war on false pretenses.

So again, can we ask the Forth Estate to ask Jay Carney et all the simple question. Where did they get these weapons? If they were produced in Syria, our intelligence may be lacking again. If they originated in Iraq, the basis for the Iraqi invasion has been shown valid.

I think the proper term is "Failed to Yield Right of Way-Entering Moving Lane of Traffic

It's fail to say which vehicle had "Right of Weight"!

Thanks to Michael Berry for the link.

Geopolitical Weekly: Obama's Bluff, August 27, 2013

By George Friedman

Images of multiple dead bodies emerged from Syria last week. It was asserted that poison gas killed the victims, who according to some numbered in the hundreds. Others claimed the photos were faked while others said the rebels were at fault. The dominant view, however, maintains that the al Assad regime carried out the attack.

The United States has so far avoided involvement in Syria's civil war. This is not to say Washington has any love for the al Assad regime. Damascus' close ties to Iran and Russia give the United States reason to be hostile toward Syria, and Washington participated in the campaign to force Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Still, the United States has learned to be concerned not just with unfriendly regimes, but also with what could follow such regimes. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have driven home the principle that deposing one regime means living with an imperfect successor. In those cases, changing the regime wound up rapidly entangling the United States in civil wars, the outcomes of which have not been worth the price. In the case of Syria, the insurgents are Sunni Muslims whose best-organized factions have ties to al Qaeda.

Still, as frequently happens, many in the United States and Europe are appalled at the horrors of the civil war, some of whom have called on the United States to do something. The United States has been reluctant to heed these calls. As mentioned, Washington does not have a direct interest in the outcome, since all possible outcomes are bad from its perspective. Moreover, the people who are most emphatic that something be done to stop the killings will be the first to condemn the United States when its starts killing people to stop the killings. People would die in any such intervention, since there are simply no clean ways to end a civil war.

Obama's Red Lines

U.S. President Barack Obama therefore adopted an extremely cautious strategy. He said that the United States would not get directly involved in Syria unless the al Assad regime used chemical weapons, stating with a high degree of confidence that he would not have to intervene. After all, Syrian President Bashar al Assad has now survived two years of civil war, and he is far from defeated. The one thing that could defeat him is foreign intervention, particularly by the United States. It was therefore assumed he wouldn't do the one thing Obama said would trigger U.S. action.

Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst. His opponents are equally ruthless, and we can imagine them using chemical weapons to force the United States to intervene and depose al Assad. But their ability to access chemical weapons is unclear, and if found out, the maneuver could cost them all Western support. It is possible that lower-ranking officers in al Assad's military used chemical weapons without his knowledge and perhaps against his wishes. It is possible that the casualties were far less than claimed. And it is possible that some of the pictures were faked.

All of these things are possible, but we simply don't know which is true. More important is that major governments, including the British and French, are claiming knowledge that al Assad carried out the attack. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a speech Aug. 26 clearly building the case for a military response, and referring to the regime attack as "undeniable" and the U.S. assessment so far as "grounded in facts." Al Assad meanwhile has agreed to allow U.N. inspectors to examine the evidence onsite. In the end, those who oppose al Assad will claim his supporters concealed his guilt, and the insurgents will say the same thing if they are blamed or if the inspectors determine there is no conclusive evidence of attacks.

The truth here has been politicized, and whoever claims to have found the truth, whatever it actually is, will be charged with lying. Nevertheless, the dominant emerging story is that al Assad carried out the attack, killing hundreds of men, women and children and crossing the red line Obama set with impunity. The U.S. president is backed into a corner.

The United States has chosen to take the matter to the United Nations. Obama will make an effort to show he is acting with U.N. support. But he knows he won't get U.N. support. The Russians, allies of al Assad and opponents of U.N.-based military interventions, will veto any proposed intervention. The Chinese -- who are not close to al Assad, but also oppose the U.N.-sanctioned interventions -- will probably join them. Regardless of whether the charges against al Assad are true, the Russians will dispute them and veto any action. Going to the United Nations therefore only buys time. Interestingly, the United States declared on Sunday that it is too late for Syria to authorize inspections. Dismissing that possibility makes the United States look tough, and actually creates a situation where it has to be tough.

Consequences in Syria and Beyond

This is no longer simply about Syria. The United States has stated a condition that commits it to an intervention. If it does not act when there is a clear violation of the condition, Obama increases the chance of war with other countries like North Korea and Iran. One of the tools the United States can use to shape the behavior of countries like these without going to war is stating conditions that will cause intervention, allowing the other side to avoid crossing the line. If these countries come to believe that the United States is actually bluffing, then the possibility of miscalculation soars. Washington could issue a red line whose violation it could not tolerate, like a North Korean nuclear-armed missile, but the other side could decide this was just another Syria and cross that line. Washington would have to attack, an attack that might not have been necessary had it not had its Syria bluff called.

There are also the Russian and Iranian questions. Both have invested a great deal in supporting al Assad. They might both retaliate were someone to attack the Syrian regime. There are already rumors in Beirut that Iran has told Hezbollah to begin taking Americans hostage if the United States attacks Syria. Russia meanwhile has shown in the Snowden affair what Obama clearly regards as a hostile intent. If he strikes, he thus must prepare for Russian counters. If he doesn't strike, he must assume the Russians and Iranians will read this as weakness.

Syria was not an issue that affected the U.S. national interest until Obama declared a red line. It escalated in importance at that point not because Syria is critical to the United States, but because the credibility of its stated limits are of vital importance. Obama's problem is that the majority of the American people oppose military intervention, Congress is not fully behind an intervention and those now rooting the United States on are not bearing the bulk of the military burden -- nor will they bear the criticism that will follow the inevitable civilian casualties, accidents and misdeeds that are part of war regardless of the purity of the intent.

The question therefore becomes what the United States and the new coalition of the willing will do if the red line has been crossed. The fantasy is that a series of airstrikes, destroying only chemical weapons, will be so perfectly executed that no one will be killed except those who deserve to die. But it is hard to distinguish a man's soul from 10,000 feet. There will be deaths, and the United States will be blamed for them.

The military dimension is hard to define because the mission is unclear. Logically, the goal should be the destruction of the chemical weapons and their deployment systems. This is reasonable, but the problem is determining the locations where all of the chemicals are stored. I would assume that most are underground, which poses a huge intelligence problem. If we assume that perfect intelligence is available and that decision-makers trust this intelligence, hitting buried targets is quite difficult. There is talk of a clean cruise missile strike. But it is not clear whether these carry enough explosives to penetrate even minimally hardened targets. Aircraft carry more substantial munitions, and it is possible for strategic bombers to stand off and strike the targets.

Even so, battle damage assessments are hard. How do you know that you have destroyed the chemicals -- that they were actually there and you destroyed the facility containing them? Moreover, there are lots of facilities and many will be close to civilian targets and many munitions will go astray. The attacks could prove deadlier than the chemicals did. And finally, attacking means al Assad loses all incentive to hold back on using chemical weapons. If he is paying the price of using them, he may as well use them. The gloves will come off on both sides as al Assad seeks to use his chemical weapons before they are destroyed.

A war on chemical weapons has a built-in insanity to it. The problem is not chemical weapons, which probably can't be eradicated from the air. The problem under the definition of this war would be the existence of a regime that uses chemical weapons. It is hard to imagine how an attack on chemical weapons can avoid an attack on the regime -- and regimes are not destroyed from the air. Doing so requires troops. Moreover, regimes that are destroyed must be replaced, and one cannot assume that the regime that succeeds al Assad will be grateful to those who deposed him. One must only recall the Shia in Iraq who celebrated Saddam's fall and then armed to fight the Americans.

Arming the insurgents would keep an air campaign off the table, and so appears to be lower risk. The problem is that Obama has already said he would arm the rebels, so announcing this as his response would still allow al Assad to avoid the consequences of crossing the red line. Arming the rebels also increases the chances of empowering the jihadists in Syria.

When Obama proclaimed his red line on Syria and chemical weapons, he assumed the issue would not come up. He made a gesture to those in his administration who believe that the United States has a moral obligation to put an end to brutality. He also made a gesture to those who don't want to go to war again. It was one of those smart moves that can blow up in a president's face when it turns out his assumption was wrong. Whether al Assad did launch the attacks, whether the insurgents did, or whether someone faked them doesn't matter. Unless Obama can get overwhelming, indisputable proof that al Assad did not -- and that isn't going to happen -- Obama will either have to act on the red line principle or be shown to be one who bluffs. The incredible complexity of intervening in a civil war without becoming bogged down makes the process even more baffling.

Obama now faces the second time in his presidency when war was an option. The first was Libya. The tyrant is now dead, and what followed is not pretty. And Libya was easy compared to Syria. Now, the president must intervene to maintain his credibility. But there is no political support in the United States for intervention. He must take military action, but not one that would cause the United States to appear brutish. He must depose al Assad, but not replace him with his opponents. He never thought al Assad would be so reckless. Despite whether al Assad actually was, the consensus is that he was. That's the hand the president has to play, so it's hard to see how he avoids military action and retains credibility. It is also hard to see how he takes military action without a political revolt against him if it goes wrong, which it usually does.

Obama's Bluff is republished with permission of Stratfor.

What is the point of justice....

With asshole judges like this.

Former Senior High teacher gets 30 days for rape of student

Judge's remarks about teenage rape victim spark outrage

A Yellowstone County district judge Monday ordered a former Senior High teacher convicted of raping a 14-year-old female student who later committed suicide to spend 30 days in jail.

Judge G. Todd Baugh sentenced Stacey Dean Rambold to 15 years in prison, with all but 31 days suspended, for sexual intercourse without consent...

...The judge's sentence was not received well by the girl's mother, who repeatedly screamed "You people suck!" and stormed out of the courtroom.

Auliea Hanlon testified earlier at the hearing that her daughter's relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide, and she begged the judge to order Rambold to prison.

"Please put him behind bars," the woman said.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza had asked the judge to order Rambold to serve 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.

Souza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Rambold pleaded guilty to the single felony charge in April in a case that began in 2008, when school officials and police first learned of the sexual relationship between Rambold and the girl, Cherice Morales.

Rambold was placed on paid leave in April of that year and resigned from his teaching job three months later. He also surrendered his teaching certificate.

In October 2008, prosecutors charged Rambold with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, alleging that the then-49-year-old man had an ongoing sexual relationship with Morales, who was 14 at the time.

While the case was pending, and a few weeks before her 17th birthday, Morales took her own life...

Hopefully the judge has to face the voters soon and someone will hang this sentence around his neck. If not, he needs to get his ass removed by impeachment. A middle aged man abused a girl leading to her death and was going to get a less time than for a small theft. I pray they at least took his pension.

Another example of how we do it down in Texas.....

And let's all say a loud Nice Shooting Tex!

Teen fatally shoots burglary suspect in grandmother’s Baytown home

The shooting happened at a home in the 800 block of Brentwood Drive around 5:30 a.m., according to the Baytown Police Department.

BAYTOWN, Texas – One burglary suspect was killed and another was listed in critical condition after a teen watching over his grandmother’s Baytown home opened fire on them, police said.

Police said the 18-year-old woke up to the sound of someone breaking into the home around 5:30 a.m. Wednesday. He called 911 and went into the living room with a shotgun to find two men inside.

The teen told police he ordered the two men to put their hands up, but they didn’t listen. He shot both men with the shotgun. One collapsed and died at the scene while the other stumbled around and ran away. The injured suspect later turned up at the hospital in critical condition, police said.

Baytown police said the teen’s grandmother was recently put in a nursing home, and was living on the property to watch over it. He’s a graduate of the Harris County Police Explorers Program, which is a program for kids interested in law enforcement.

The young man’s family hasn’t commented on the shooting, but neighbors praised his quick actions.

“He did good, he did right, he did his job,” said Abe Garcia.

Yes Mr Garcia, he did. Thankfully he's ok, one sack of human waste is no longer on the public payroll but another is unfortunately going to be on the public dole for the rest of his (hopefully) short life.

Officer Down

Police Officer Ivorie Klusmann
DeKalb County Georgia Police Department
End of Watch: Saturday, August 10, 2013
Age: 31
Tour: 10 months
Badge # 3184

Police Officer Ivorie Klusmann was killed in a single vehicle crash while responding to backup another officer at approximately 2:45 am.

He had been involved in a pursuit earlier in the evening that had been called off in compliance with the department's pursuit policy. Another officer requested backup after spotting a vehicle matching the wanted vehicle's description. Officer Klusmann was responding to the assistance call when his patrol car left the roadway and struck a tree near the intersection of DeKalb Medical Parkway and Heritage Park Trail.

Officer Klusmann had served with the DeKalb County Police Department for only 10 months and was assigned to the East Precinct. Officer Klusmann is survived by his two children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Camille Paglia shows herself again

One of the things I despise about the left is the intellectual dishonesty. Bobby Kennedy's screaming against fossil fuels while a good hunk of the trust fund his bootlegging daddy left him has oil stock in it. Caroline Kennedy complainants about wealth when she is another beneficiary of her Old Joe's illegal largess to the turn of over 250 million dollars. Or the ALGORE flying from one conference to another on a private jet to complain about what ever he calls global warming this week.

Camille Paglia is a rare breed. An honest liberal. She is not one of the hypocrites who complained about George Bush flying to his ranch (during the hottest month of the year) while not finding an issue with B Hussein Obama's multiple vacations to five start locations on the taxpayer dine. Let's be honest, part of the reason the press loved Bubba and B Hussein is they brought them to Martha's Vineyard and those reporters could go there and charge the hotel to their corporate card, cut I digress. An interesting read well worth the time. Here are some highlights.

Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”


I can vividly remember the first time I read Camille Paglia. I was visiting New York with my mom during college and we happened across “Vamps and Tramps” at a bookstore near our hotel. Lying in neighboring twin beds, I read passages out loud to her. Explosive things like, “Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.” I didn’t always agree with Paglia, but I enjoyed her as a challenging provocateur.

I still have that copy of the book. There are asterisks in the margins, double-underlined sentences and circled paragraphs. Reading it was a satisfying rebellion against the line-toeing women’s studies classes I was taking at the time — and at a college with an infamously anti-porn professor, no less. Since then, I have moments of genuine outrage and fury over Paglia’s writing and public commentary (see: this, this and this, for examples of why) — but she is still compelling and occasionally brilliant. The truth is that many people still want to hear what she has to say — about everything from BDSM to Lady Gaga.

The paperback release last week of her book “Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art From Egypt to Star Wars” — which Salon interviewed her about last year, and which is an example of Paglia at her intellectual best and an antidote to her birther moments — is a great excuse to check back in with the so-called bete noire of feminism. I spoke with Paglia by email about contemporary feminism, Anthony Weiner and the “end of men.”...

...When Salon interviewed you last year, you were feeling inspired by Bravo’s “Real Housewives.” Are you a fan of any other TV series out there?

No, I can’t stand the bad lighting, tinny voices, snarky scripts and fake cool of today’s TV shows.

Bravo’s “Real Housewives” series isn’t just entertainment for devoted fans like me — it’s an entire all-absorbing universe of pride and passion. I can watch the same episode four or five times. The series descends from tear-jerker “women’s pictures” during the Lana Turner era, which inspired TV soap operas from the 1950s on. The formula overflowed into blockbuster prime-time soaps like “Dynasty” and “Knots Landing” in the 1980s. But then daytime soap writers started to get uppity and craved respectability in the industry. They veered away from the flamboyant trash and flash that had once endeared them to their audience, and soaps committed slow suicide by boredom. It was really stupid — because by the 1990s, the mainstream audience was flocking to movies about over-the-top drag queens like “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.”

Andy Cohen, the executive producer of “Real Housewives,” was a longtime ardent fan of Susan Lucci (Erica Kane on ABC’s “All My Children”), and he has always understood the soul of soap opera as a female genre — its tender emotions, ruthless rivalries and theatrical sexual exhibitionism. Soaps are a major diva mode. But beyond that, Bravo’s ace technical team has refined “Real Housewives” into a feast for the eyes. I have such admiration for the amazing camerawork and deft narrative editing — the rapid scene-setting, the revelatory reaction shots, the touches of realism in how people get out of cars or shop or order a cocktail. Too much film and TV in our digitized era has lost a sense of space. But “Real Housewives” has the old Hollywood flair for knowing how to situate bold, dynamic personalities in tangible four dimensions — from chic or glitzy interiors to exhilarating landscapes. This is contemporary cinematography at its sparkling best....

Two words: Anthony Weiner. Your thoughts?

Two words: pathetic dork. How sickeningly debased our politics have become that this jabbering cartoon weasel could be taken seriously for a second as a candidate for mayor of New York. But beyond that, I have been amazed by the almost total absence of psychological critique in news analyses of the silly Weiner saga. For heaven’s sake, Weiner is no randy stud with a sophisticated sex life that we need to respect. The compulsion to exhibit and boast about one’s penis is embarrassingly infantile — the obvious residue of some squalid family psychodrama in childhood that is now being replayed in public.

I assumed at first that Huma Abedin stayed married to Weiner out of noble concern for her unborn child, who deserved a father. But her subsequent behavior as Weiner’s defender and enabler has made me lose respect for her. The Weiners should be permanently bundled off to the luxe Elba of Oscar de la Renta’s villa in the Dominican Republic. I’m sure that Hillary (Huma’s capo) can arrange that.

Any hopes, fears or predictions for the presidential elections in 2016?

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. In saying “I take responsibility” for it as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately. The weak response by the Obama administration to that tragedy has given a huge opening to Republicans in the next presidential election. The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter to massage rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was.

Throughout history, ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders. It’s even a key motif in “King Lear.” As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood. The escalating instability not just in Egypt but throughout the Mideast is very ominous. There is a clash of cultures brewing in the world that may take a century or more to resolve — and there is no guarantee that the secular West will win.

What do you make of contemporary feminism, especially as it’s manifested online?

Oh, feminism is still alive? Thanks for the tip! It sure is invisible, except for the random whine from some maleducated product of the elite schools who’s found a plush berth in glossy magazines. It’s hard to remember those bad old days when paleofeminist pashas ruled the roost. In the late ‘80s, the media would routinely turn to Gloria Steinem or the head of NOW for “the women’s view” on every issue — when of course it was just the Manhattan/D.C. insider’s take, with a Democratic activist spin. Their shameless partisanship eventually doomed those Stalinist feminists, who were trampled by the pro-sex feminist stampede of the early ‘90s (in which I am proud to have played a vocal role). That insurgency began in San Francisco in the mid-‘80s and went national throughout the following decade. They keep dusting Steinem off and trotting her out to pin awards on her, but she’s the walking dead. Her anointed heirs (like Susan Faludi) sure didn’t pan out, did they?

While it’s a big relief not to have feminist bullies sermonizing from every news show anymore, the leadership vacuum is alarming. It’s very distressing, for example, that the atrocities against women in India — the shocking series of gang rapes, which seem never to end — have not been aggressively condemned in a sustained way by feminist organizations in the U.S. I wanted to hear someone going crazy about it in the media and not letting up, day after day, week after week. The true mission of feminism today is not to carp about the woes of affluent Western career women but to turn the spotlight on life-and-death issues affecting women in the Third World, particularly in rural areas where they have little protection against exploitation and injustice.

What do you think about arguments that we are witnessing “the end of men” or a crisis in masculinity?

If this phenomenon exists, it primarily applies in my view to white upper-middle-class culture, a product of the service-sector economy that has gradually displaced manufacturing since World War II. Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men,” a best-seller last year, is the focus of a Munk Debate that I will be part of at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto on Nov. 15. The proposition is: “Be it resolved that men are obsolete.” Arguing for the motion will be Rosin and Maureen Dowd. Arguing against the motion will be me and Caitlin Moran. It should be a fascinating and substantive discussion. Lineups of opposing views like this have been rare indeed in feminism, which has preferred to ostracize and exile dissident voices....

Worth the read. Camille, please keep talking, writing and generally making people uncomfortable.