The New Terrapin Gazette
We are facing a determined enemy who is striving through all means to destroy the West and snuff out our traditions of free thought, free speech, and freedom of religion. Make no mistake: if we fail, we will be enslaved.
Syria, Israel, G. W. Bush And The Nuclear Reactor That Never Was
You may recall that in September of 2007, a partially-constructed nuclear reactor in Syria was explosively destroyed. The government of Bashar al-Assad has never admitted that there was any such structure on the site.
At the time, this newsletter speculated that press reports of bombs dropped by Israeli F-16 fighters might be false. Perhaps the reactor was blown up by a team of commandos, and the “air strike” was a distraction or a cover, so the team could get safely out of Syria. Further, NTG felt it possible that Syrian air defense systems were totally disabled by US technology on loan to Israel, for it seemed as if Syrian radar screens were literally blank before and during the attack, and the Syrians were totally baffled about how the reactor was destroyed.
Speculation is always fun, isn’t it? (For more speculation, see Wikipedia.) In time, perhaps the real story comes out, and the tales spun by armchair generals look foolish. Well, now we have an account of events that purports to tell the untold story. It makes for fascinating reading, but the technical details of how the Israelis destroyed Assad’s attempt to get nuclear weapons remain obscure.
The insider’s account comes from Elliott Abrams, a highly-placed official in the administration of G. W. Bush. His insights are very interesting and certainly worth your time, for they provide a glimpse into the way Bush operated. Those interested in the relationship between Israel and the USA will also want to read his account.
But is it true? Is Abrams the honest reporter he styles himself? There is no way to know….
Oil, Money, Taxes, Dependency And Control: Cautionary Predictions
You know that the USA will become energy self-sufficient in the near future, and will start exporting petrochemicals. This is very good news, but it’s rather like a starving man discovering that he has more than enough food, even as unseen wolves creep closer to his campsite: getting fat could attract predators.
Consider many of the major exporters of petroleum: who, exactly, controls the petro-collars earned by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brunei, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Mexico? The answer in every case: some very powerful cabals of government officials and/or criminals. Because oil is big money, it was long ago seized by powerful people who are not about to be charitable.
Insatiable greed is just part of the story. It’s what those petrodollars have purchased that is really interesting. Now there is little point in going into detail regarding the use and misuse of the wealth of the nations mentioned above; instead, one can simply note that each ruling elite has done as it sees fit with its astronomical wealth. Nigeria is not Saudi Arabia, nor is Brunei Mexico.
There may be, however, something instructive in considering the experience of other nations if one is interested in what the USA will do with its windfall.
Begin, therefore, with a consideration of political realities as they exist in the contemporary USA; then imagine the emergence of an industry that will doubtless produce great wealth, and continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Who will control that money, and how will it be used?
The first thing to note is that The One is determined to alter fundamentally the premises on which his nation was founded. Exploiting his virtually unanimous support by black voters, he plans to reinvent the political and financial landscape so it reflects his concepts of fairness: he will force the redistribution of wealth and the redefinition of the federal constitution. The wealthy have too much, and the voters who support “progressive” politicians have too little. That will be corrected. The constitution will be revised or set aside by Obamite judicial appointees because it is obsolete. After all, that document caters to the juvenile habits of mouth-breathers who indulge themselves in unenlightened religious activities and, worse, in the shooting sports. The safety of the Progressive order will be secured by the disarmament of the unwashed.
From the munificent federal colossus a steady flood of benefits will flow, guaranteeing health, security and fulfillment to all who bend their knees at the shrine of statist Progressivism. An implicit threat, the suspension of benefits, will hold the masses in thrall to The One and His Team. Yea, verily, it shall come to pass: The One shall enable His children to dwell in The Land of Milk and Honey, and all shall rejoice.
To put it in less declamatory terms, the government will become not the agency of justice, but a producer in the economic sense. Washington will mandate the production of goods and services, and will distribute them as benefits.
Now of course the founding fathers never intended anything even remotely like this, but then they were not Utopian dreamers or power-hungry schemers; they were practical men who wanted to give just about everyone a chance to make their way in the world. No, that did not extend to folks of color, but the founders were wily: they deliberately crafted an ethos and a system that was incompatible with slavery, knowing full well that it would eventually live up to its declared principles, rather than remain forever hypocritical.
Well, what evidence exists to demonstrate that The One plans this alleged seismic reconstruction of US ethics, principles, governance and practice?
Those who have been paying attention will greet the question with laughter. As the borrowing skyrockets and the budget never proceeds from that pack of scoundrels and rogues that is the Senate, the spending continues and even accelerates. Benefits! Benefits! The masses will have benefits!
Yes, of course it’s madness, but that is what is, and the Republicans are backing down before the incessant, insatiable demands.
Now put that fact aside briefly, and consider the approaching petrochemical wealth. It will amount to a tidal wave of sheer power. Money is valuable because it is enabling. For a politician/ideologue like Obama, it is more than (as Jess Unruh said) “the mother’s milk of politics” — it is the key to control.
In order to retain control of his currently enraptured voters, Obama will have to deliver. To do that, he will have to do much more than exploit his ethnicity and deploy his deceitful rhetoric (see the next item); he will have to use money. Borrowing can go on only as long as the borrower has credit, and Obama knows his current policies cannot improve the nation’s financial credibility.
Hold that thought, Pilgrims, and consider Venezuela. It provides an object lesson for Obama and for you.
As in Mexico, the petrochemical industry of Venezuela is totally in government hands, and Chavez the neo-Marxist runs the government. In order to stay in power, Chavez has taken a leaf from the notebook of Juan Peron of Argentina, and literally bribed the voters. That increases their dependency on the government and on him, of course. Government undergoes a transformation in such a system, losing its function of protecting the people from tyranny as it becomes an agent not of justice but of comfort and economic satisfaction. In 2011, the Venezuelan government made profits of more than $60 billion from its oil exports, and it spent that money pandering to the voters.
Of course the appetite of the voters far exceeds the ability of the oil industry to pay the bills.
That’s always the problem: once the public perceives the source of wealth as reposing in the control of the voters’ elected representatives, expectations rise faster than they can be met. Today over two thirds of Venezuelans believe they are not getting “enough” from their nation’s oil industry.
It does not stretch the imagination to see some parallels between the Venezuelan situation and what will probably happen as Obama carries on with his redistribution of the nation’s wealth. What, one may reasonably ask, can be expected from Obamoid policy that unfolds while the US petrochemical industry expands rapidly?
The lesson of Venezuela applies, and with inescapable brutality. The Obamites already see the oil boom as a Heaven-sent cash cow. (WTF? Who’s going to pay this huge bill? Big Oil, naturally!)
If you think taxes on oil will not go up, you are lost in fantasy. The full costs of delivering oil must all be paid by the end user, and that means taxes on the oil industry will be passed along to you.
You will never see cheap gasoline. Be assured: that fact has horrible implications.
Expensive petroleum means the prospect of US industry becoming more productive and internationally more competitive will be reduced. Manufacturing costs are closely linked to the price of oil; all businesses and industries depend on transportation, and the cost of that service is directly determined by the price of petrochemicals.
Meanwhile Obama’s proclamation that free markets do not work must be taken seriously, and the sooner the better. Controlled and legally constrained markets are less able to adapt innovatively and keep costs as low as practical. If the USA wishes to sell its products to the world, it should cultivate as much flexibility and competition as possible in its domestic economy. That is the most effective way of exploiting the nation’s resources.
But under Obamoid tax policy, money that would have gone to investors in the oil industry will instead be drained off to fund government programs that placate — control — the voters. This distortion of the financial system will limit the creation of new jobs and drain the competitive energy of all business and industry. Most of the nation’s financial woes will be iatrogenic.
This Peronist lunacy is profoundly antagonistic to the principles on which the USA was founded. Until the electorate understands that, Obama’s quest for control will be impossible to resist.
Because the US population will come increasingly to believe that government giveaways rather than the efforts of the individual are responsible for economic satisfaction and security, productivity will be in serious danger of declining and sources of capital will increasingly be preyed upon to feed federal redistributive programs. The impulse to innovate will decline, and with it the USA’s competitiveness in international markets. As the need for government giveaways increases, Obama will tax oil producers ever more heavily, setting precedents that his political opponents will eventually use in a futile effort to pay down the national debt.
The examples of other oil-exporting nations indicate clearly that the petrochemical industry cannot support the USA. Only a multifaceted, adaptive and innovative economy that is free to respond to reality can provide adequately for human needs and aspirations.
Obama’s legacy, even if he does not continue in office past his first eight years, will be ruinous, burdening successive generations with tasks that may prove impossible. Not the least of those tasks will involve the resolution of racial tensions and misunderstandings arising from the irrational, uninformed and thoughtlessly reflexive support he currently enjoys from black voters.
A Few Obamoid Lies
In his speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, The One made a number of false statements.
Obama: “…there are nearly seven million Muslims in our country today”. False. The number is under three million, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Obama: “Thomas Jefferson (kept) the Holy Koran in his personal library.” True, but in essence and implication extraordinarily dishonest, for the president was studying his enemy. In like fashion, Churchill might well have had a copy of Mein Kampf. Jefferson certainly did not hold the Muslim text in high regard, or consider it “holy”; he read parts of it as he waged war in 1801 against the Barbary states.
Obama: Morocco was “…the first nation to recognize my country”. False. France has that distinction, followed in chronological order by The Netherlands, Britain, Sweden, Prussia, Spain and then Morocco.
Obama: John Adams wrote in 1796 that “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims”. No proof exists that Adams wrote those words, so the quote must be considered apocryphal; attributing it to him without disclosing the full truth is blatantly deceitful.
Obama claims to respect Muslims, yet he feels he can tell them lies with impunity. Is that taqiyya, Chicago style?
Chicagoland In Perspective, Or, Why Obama Left The Windy City, Maybe
The tragic toll Afghanistan has taken on the USA should be compared to the…er, maybe not so tragic toll taken on Chicago during the same period.
How could statistics like this be ignored? Easily. The news media are not in the slightest interested in attracting attention to politically incorrect facts. Relevant commentary:
…after Obama won his second term, I thought we would finally get to the bottom of what happened in Libya, from the incompetence that left our consulate unforgivably vulnerable, straight through to the White House lying for two weeks to cover up the fact that a successful terrorist attack had occurred on its watch.
But that didn’t happen. The media didn’t revert back to being the media; the media remained at its post as a Palace Guard.
Then the same thing happened with the fiscal cliff and Sandy Hook and immigration and the debt ceiling. Even with Obama safely snuggled in for term two, the media refused to do anything that would or could damage him politically. But it’s not just Obama; the media is openly and viciously protecting the Democratic Party as a whole. Source.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism Faces Yet Another Challenge
“CO2 is a scarce resource that plants have trouble scavenging from the air, and plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2 to inhale.” A recent finding indicates that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are causing a global increase in vegetation. The resulting benefit to nature and to humans will be substantial. By all means read the article and then return to this commentary for perspective.
It is relatively clear (though never explicitly stated) that the author of the weblog post considers carbon dioxide to be the major driving force behind what he assumes is a clear-cut upward trend in global temperatures. This viewpoint can not be welcomed by the anthropogenic global warming cult, because the beneficial consequences of more atmospheric CO2 and warmer temperatures are the exact opposite of the catastrophes the Gore-Hansen alarmists depend on to move their propaganda juggernaut. Could it be that CO2 is good for you, and warming will be better than cooling? A closer look is indicated. Here are the components of the overall situation.
First, warming or cooling might occur, and the sun is the single most influential determinant of both. The Little Ice Age is not in the far distant past, and it is reasonable to expect that the earth is still going through a natural adjustment after the cooling began to taper off in the eighteenth century. If the Little Ice Age was an atypical period, the earth is still returning to “normal” and can be expected to get a bit warmer. Or possibly not; “normal” for the earth could be a state of constant change, often quite dramatic oscillation between cold and hot. This means that today’s warming, if in fact it exists, might not be due to carbon dioxide levels.
Second, it is known that in past epochs of geological time, much higher atmospheric levels of CO2 were present in much colder climates than today’s.
Third, the logarithmic effect of increased levels of CO2 means that as the gas increases in the atmosphere, each additional amount of it has a smaller effect on temperature. That strongly suggests that whatever may be forcing higher global temperatures — if those temperatures are actually climbing — is probably not CO2. The AGW cult has never addressed this phenomenon.
Fourth, your careful reading of the article linked here tells you that its author appears to assume that mankind’s addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is driving marked warming. The data to support that conclusion are anything but conclusive. What is clear is the recent increase (over the last thirty years) of vegetation on the earth. Pushing that observation beyond its rational limitations is distinctly unscientific.
Fifth, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is plant food.
Here is the counter to the alarmism of the Gore-Hansen loons: at present, of all the CO2 in the air, mankind is responsible for perhaps as much as almost five percent. Now the climate could get warmer, and it could get cooler, but to attribute global change and catastrophe to an increase from less than five percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere to, say, eight percent is insane. If humanity tried to double its contribution of CO2 to the amount of the gas in the air, the effort would almost certainly fail — and even if it succeeded, the logarithmic effect on global temperature would be minuscule.
Whatever Mother Nature is up to and wherever she is going, humans are simply along for the ride.
Oh, by the way: have a look at this. Hint: it doesn’t tell you anything this newsletter has not already told you, except that now more scientists agree with the truth.
In spite of repeated proofreading, an error survived in Number 290. The final paragraph in the section of the book review that has the subtitle Overview should include, “This is good philosophy….” How this glaring mistake — the omission of the word “is” — evaded correction remains a puzzle and a vexing irritant.
You might not have heard of this explosion. That could be because it did not happen. Perhaps time will tell, but as this Number of NTG goes to press, confirmation is lacking.
“… the former Nebraska senator is an uninformed nitwit”. Huh? Who? Oh. Yeah.
Does a newspaper ever get it right, or are they all biased and incompetent all the time, as this newsletter has suggested? Clearly, there are bright spots in journalism, and here is one. Kudos to the Milwaukee paper (though most of the folks who work there probably don’t know how that word is pronounced).
Bias in the press: an example
More bias in the press. Are you disgusted yet?
A tip of the hat to reader GB for pointing to some engrossing photos taken in Afghanistan, when the nation was not yet imprisoned by the Taliban and subsequently wracked by war.
Team Obama and the media: the need to control information.
“How can anyone talk about the two-state solution when thousands of Palestinian children are being trained to use weapons and explosives to replace Israel with an Islamic state?”
Unjust justice and the media: the need to control information.
This is the sort of stuff the AP used to pull frequently. Caught a few times, they appear to have learned a painful and expensive lesson. Well, most media gatekeepers are still believers in the article of faith that the public is hopelessly gullible, as the linked article demonstrates. True professionals would not make mistakes like this…unless, of course, they were propagandists first and journalists second.
Another brick in the wall.
The US press: lap dogs and blatant propagandists.
The situation in Mali has not been resolved: “Experts say the goal of the al-Qaida affiliates is to put the US on the defensive in as many ways and in as places as possible — driving up costs — a sneaky way of hitting at the US economy”.
Eggs are not a health hazard.
It’s things like this that should remind everyone why the USA has a constitution. This newsletter will be interested to see how the mainstream media report this incident.
“Sweden, like the rest of the West, will have to come to terms with the fact that it can either have female equality or Muslim immigration. It cannot have both.”
This is an odd-looking website, so you must scroll down quite a bit to find the story of how the videotape was edited by the gatekeepers of the media to show the grief-stricken father heckled by gun nuts. Most folks won’t need to verify the tampering, but if you want to see the proof of skulduggery, here it is.
From the New Terrapin’s Utter Insanity File: Oh, that clears it up! It’s early February and a cold snap has hit the USA, but those in the know can tell you that warm weather causes people to shoot each other. That’s because humans are such irrational animals that they respond violently to the slightest stimuli. Well, some of them do. Which has been studied, and now it is known that certain, er, races respond badly to warmer temperatures. What’s needed, then, is eugenics! Plus some laws to lower everybody’s carbon footprint! Once those minor details are taken care of, people can have all the firearms they want, including M2 quads! Won’t that be a hoot?
Look out of any window
any morning, any evening, any day
Maybe the sun is shining
birds are winging or
rain is falling from a heavy sky
What do you want me to do,
to do for you to see you through?
this is all a dream we dreamed
one afternoon long ago
The masthead includes a quote from the works of Geert Wilders.
The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Slackware Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.
Publisher: The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.