Thousands are dying from Russian missiles and bombs in the suburbs of Ukraine.
In response, the Biden Administration’s climate-change envoy, multimillionaire and private-jet-owning John Kerry, laments that Russian President Vladimir Putin might no longer remain his partner in reducing global warming.
“You’re going to lose people’s focus,” Kerry frets. “You’re going to lose big-country attention because they will be diverted, and I think it could have a damaging impact.”
Did the global moralist Kerry mean by “impact” the over 650 Russian missiles that impacted Ukrainian buildings and tore apart children?
Are Russian soldiers losing their green “focus”? When Putin threatens nuclear war is he merely “diverted”? Would letting off a few nukes be “damaging” to the human environment?
Climate-change moralists love humanity so much in the abstract that they must shut down its life-giving gas, coal, and oil in the concrete. And they value humans so little that they don’t worry in the here and now that ensuing fuel shortages and exorbitant costs cause wars, spike inflation, and threaten people’s ability to travel or keep warm.
The Biden Administration stopped all gas and oil production in the ANWR region of Alaska. It ended all new federal leases for drilling. It is canceling major new pipelines. It is leveraging lending agencies not to finance oil and gas drilling.
It helped force the cancellation of the EastMed pipeline that would have brought much-needed natural gas to southern Europe. And it has in just a year managed to turn the greatest oil and gas producer in the history of the world into a pathetic global fossil-fuel beggar.
Now gas is heading to well over $5 a gallon. In over-regulated blue states, it will likely hit $7.
The result is left-wing terror that the voters in the coming midterm election might rightly blame Democrats for hamstringing the American ability to travel, keep warm in winter and cool in summer, and buy affordable food.
But how will the Biden Administration square the circle of its own ideological war against oil and natural gas versus handing the advantage to our oil- and gas-producing enemies, as Russia invades Ukraine?
Or put another way, when selfish theory hits deadly reality, who loses? Answer: the American people.
President Joe Biden lifted U.S. sanctions on the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to provide green Germany with loathsome, but life-saving, natural gas.
But first Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. He has no problem with pipelines per se, just American ones.
While Biden doesn’t like the idea of Germany burning carbon fuel, or Putin reaping enormous profits from Berlin’s self-created dependency, or Germans importing liquified natural gas from America, Biden also does not like the idea of forcing German families to turn off their thermostats in mid-winter when there is Russian-fed war not far from Germany’s borders.
Here at home, Biden gets even crazier. As our enemies around the world reap huge profits from record high oil and gas prices, did Biden ask Alaska, North Dakota, or Texas to ramp up production?
In other words, did he ask Americans to save fellow cash-strapped Americans from a self-created energy crisis, in the way he assured the Germans that during war reality trumps theory?
Not at all.
Instead, Biden came up with the most lunatic idea in recent diplomatic history of begging autocratic and hostile regimes the world over to pump more oil to lower America’s gas prices.
For years, America has sanctioned the oil-rich Venezuelan dictatorship, a narco-terrorist state that wars on its own people and its neighbors. Now Biden is begging strongman Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to pump the supposedly dirty fuels America has in even greater abundance but finds it too icky to produce.
Biden also has beseeched the once sanctioned, terrorist Iranian government. He wants Tehran to help us out by upping the very oil and gas production that America has tried to curtail for years. In return, Iran is demanding a new “Iran Deal” that will soon ensure the now petro-rich theocracy the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
On the eve of the Russian invasion, Biden begged Putin to pump even more oil to supplement its current Russian imports to the United States.
Did Putin see that surreal request as yet another sign of American appeasement that might greenlight his upcoming planned invasion? In Russian eyes, was it more proof of American weakness and craziness after the humiliating flight from Afghanistan?
Biden has blasted the human rights record of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. Now he is begging the monarchy to pump more of its despised carbon-spewing oil to make up for what his administration shut down at home. Is that why the Saudi royals refused to take his call?
The moral of Biden’s oil madness?
Elite ideology divorced from reality impoverishes people and can get them killed.
We have been witnessing unprecedented innovations in medical treatments. In the coming years new drug therapies promise to provide solutions for some of the most pressing diseases — diabetes, cancer, heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer’s, retinal diseases — to name only a few. But if People for the “Ethical” Treatment of Animals (PETA) gets their way, most of the research that feeds the amazing future cures that we read about will be shut down or severely curtailed.
For the past few years PETA has undertaken a pressure campaign designed to intimidate airlines from transporting medical research animals. Even though it is illegal for the airlines to refuse to perform service, the campaign is proving successful in certain cases and a widespread adoption of this policy would likely stymie medical innovation.
PETA opposes all forms of animal testing despite the fact that the National Institutes of Health views such research as required by ethics and essential to finding cures. Scientists and researchers do as much research as possible with computer modeling and peer reviewed science, but at some point they must test the most promising medicines on living organisms. For example, pigs were used to develop both the ability to transplant a heart and the drugs that stop the body from rejecting the new heart. It was done ethically, with rigorous standards and oversight, and with anesthetics so as to eliminate pain for the animals involved. But PETA ignores all of this and labels these critical experiments the same as torture.
There are places were there is no animal testing. For example, in China, they test procedures and new products on humans who are prisoners of the state. So effectively, humans become the lab rats. That isn’t an improvement in ethics.
PETA’s real agenda is profoundly anti-human. PETA president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk admitted as much stating that: “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS [or cancer or other horrible diseases], we’d be against it.”
When Hamas terrorists used flaming falcons and exploding donkeys to kill Israeli civilians, PETA under political pressure denounced Hamas — but only for harming and killing the animals — not for endangering or harming the school children in the way of these living weapons. This lack of concern for people is truly disturbing.
PETA’s supporters have filed comments with the Department of Transportation hoping to shut down any medical research with animals. One comment simply said: “Stop experimenting on animals. Experiment on your children and mothers instead.” Then with absolutely no sense of irony, this commenter also accused those who reject the idea of using children and mothers in medical research of being “a bunch of barbarians.” Let that sink in.
But PETA’s track record on animals isn’t so great either. For example, in Virginia, PETA activists were charged for criminal animal abuse. Then there is the PETA animal shelter kill rate from 2007-2017 — a full decade — which averaged 95.3 percent. Simply stated animals that were intended for adoptions were abused and then killed in 95% of the cases by an organization supposedly promoting the ethical treatment of animals. A PETA spokesperson quipped, “there are fates worse than euthanasia.”
The ends to which this organization will go to supposedly defend the interests of animals knows no bounds. PETA led the move to change the packaging of animal crackers that used to show cartoon circus animals in carton railcar cages. Thanks to PETA, the carton animals now roam free on the African Savannah. I’m sure we can all feel better than cartoon lions and elephants now roam a cartoon grassland.
Sadly, as silly as that effort was, far more serious is the mounting public relations campaign PETA is waging to pressure airlines to refuse to transport animals (below deck in climate controlled areas of the plane) that will be used in medical research. To date, United Airlines has caved to PETA’s pressure campaign. What’s so strange is that United’s CEO, Carlos Munoz, is alive today because he had a heart transplant that was made possible because of medical animal research.
Here’s some context — airlines often allow passengers to bring comfort pets to travel by their side — dogs, cats, rabbits, pigs, peacocks, ducks, roosters, turkeys, and even kangaroos and miniature horses. This inconveniences other passengers and in some cases causes severe health problems for other passengers. On the other hand airlines are caving to PETA’s pressure campaign and refusing to transport animals used in ethical, humane & government mandated testing of new cures. These animals will not inconvenience or endanger any passengers. But this is the weird world you get when the lunatics run the asylum.
Airlines win kudos for donating flights to children in need of cancer treatment at specialized medical centers far from their home. At the same time, some airlines refuse to transport research animals and make it more difficult to develop the very cures and medicines needed to cure these sick children.
It is illegal for the airlines to discriminate against transportation of animals for research purposes. Public carriers have long been prohibited from discriminating when it comes to transportation. Non-discrimination laws for airlines do not simply prevent racial discrimination. The law also prevents an airline from transporting animals for zoos, or vacationing passengers, or as comfort animals, and then refusing to transport similar animals to be used in lawful and ethical medical research.
The law is clear — if the airline is willing to ship one woman’s dog or cat, it must also ship other similar animals being transported even if for different purposes — including medical research. Airlines have no real basis for objecting because they are paid to transport them, and these animals actually have no impact on their passengers as they would be shipped below the passenger compartment.
But because they are fearful of the bad press of PETA’s false claims of animal torture, Airlines give in. We all love pets and animals. But who wants to be slimmed by PETA as the equivalent of a war criminal for trying develop heart translate procedures and medicines or for curing cancer?
We need the Department of Transportation to enforce the law. We wouldn’t tolerate an airline discriminating against a racial or ethnic group and we shouldn’t tolerate this form of discrimination either. The lives of countless millions depend on the cures and medicines that are being developed in careful, thoughtful and ethical ways.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who has been critical of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, previously expressed similar views, saying a barrier at the southern border was needed to stop “tons” of drugs from coming into the United States.
Speaking to a South Carolina rotary club in November 2006, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D., Del.) touted his support for the Secure Fence Act, a bill that authorized “700 miles of double-layered fence on the border through more than a billion dollars in appropriations,” CNN reported Friday. Biden made the comments in the run-up to his failed presidential bid in 2008.
“Folks, I voted for a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats—and some of you won’t like it—I voted for 700 miles of fence,” Biden told the group. “But, let me tell you, we can build a fence 40 stories high—unless you change the dynamic in Mexico and—and you will not like this, and—punish American employers who knowingly violate the law when, in fact, they hire illegals. Unless you do those two things, all the rest is window dressing.”
“Now, I know I’m not supposed to say it that bluntly, but they’re the facts, they’re the facts,” Biden continued. “And so everything else we do is in between here. Everything else we do is at the margins. And the reason why I add that parenthetically, why I believe the fence is needed does not have anything to do with immigration as much as drugs.”
“And let me tell you something folks,” he added, “people are driving across that border with tons, tons, hear me, tons of everything from byproducts for methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin, and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico.”
Biden’s comments may prove to be an obstacle in the crowded 2020 Democratic primary, as he faces several progressive Democrats who have been vocal against a border wall and have supported sanctuary cities.
CNN noted that Biden’s previous comments are similar to Trump’s current positions on border security and sanctuary cities, and that he could face backlash from some of his fellow Democratic opponents. Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Biden, said the former vice president wants border security but to get there without “abandoning our values.”
“As then-Senator Biden said at the time, ‘we can build a fence 40 stories high,’ but it will not address the real issues here. Vice President Biden believes we have to stop trying to scare people and instead have an immigration discussion based on facts,” Bates said. “He believes that we can secure our borders without abandoning our values, and that we should do that by addressing the root causes of immigration abroad and working toward comprehensive immigration reform at home, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and smart border security. He also believes that the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, including its crackdown on sanctuary cities and especially its repugnant treatment of migrant children, is contrary to our values as a nation.”
by Brent Scher • Washington Free Beacon
The reelection campaign for Bernie Sanders spent more than $400,000 to travel on private jets during the midterm elections, Federal Election Commission filings show.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported on Sanders’s use of private jets in 2017 after he disclosed a payment of just under $40,000 to Apollo Jets, a New York-based company “dedicated to providing a luxury flight experience.” The campaign stepped up its use of private planes in the campaign’s final weeks, spending $297,685 with Apollo Jets for a nine-state tour at the beginning of October.
The campaign’s latest filing, submitted to the FEC late last week, shows an additional $6,772.50 payment to Apollo Jets on October 30, bringing Sanders’s total spending on private air travel to $403,024 for the midterm cycle.
Sanders’s extensive use of private jets on the campaign flies in the face of his rhetoric on climate change, which he views as the “single greatest threat facing our planet.” The transportation industry is viewed by many, including Sanders, as a major environmental culprit, given the volume of emissions produced by aviation. Continue reading
PBS covered the Republican convention for three hours of prime time on Monday night, in association with its pubcasting buddies at NPR. But they were allergic to showing any Hillary-scandal films that were offered on the convention floor. As a mini-documentary ran about Benghazi, PBS anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff clumsily talked over it, and NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson had a wide-eyed freakout at what she claimed was a historically “intense animus” against an opposing candidate.
GWEN IFILL: Mara Liasson, why is it that this Benghazi episode gets so much attention? Why does it resonate, as it is tonight with the crowd?
MARA LIASSON: This is something that really for a lot of Republicans, and Hillary Clinton opponents, kind of crystallizes the worst thing about her, that she caused the deaths of these, of these soldiers and other personnel. I don’t know if Mark remembers a time when so much intense animus has been directed at the opposing candidate. This strikes me as being pretty intense. Continue reading
Where’s the outrage over the Clinton Foundation’s wage gap?
By Peter Roff • USNews
On a day when most every media outlet in the country is giving its full attention to the Donald Trump/Paul Ryan summit, out comes a report from The Daily Caller that should be of interest to anyone following the financial dealings of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Apparently the former and potentially future first couple “received at least $100million from autocratic Persian Gulf states and their leaders, potentially undermining Democratic president candidate Hillary’s claim she can carry out independent Middle east policies.”
It’s a revelation that won’t shock anyone. The Clintons are notorious for doing a cash-only business, as just about everyone knows. No one cares – though they should – whether a “pro quo” went along with the “quid” as the funds were being raised. Continue reading
by Matt Barber • Townhall
What was President Obama’s immediate and instinctive response to this month’s Islamic terror attacks in Paris? Did he offer prayers for the families of the slaughtered and vow to wipe out the global cancer that is Islamic Jihad? Did he pledge to come alongside France and work with our wounded European ally until every last Islamic State barbarian is wiped from the face of the earth?
No, America’s eunuch-in-chief preened like a petty peacock, mocking and berating the very Americans he’s sworn to protect and serve. He stated – vomiting the word “Christians” with sanctimonious disgust – that there will be no “religious litmus test” on Syrian refugees, while hypocritically employing a religious litmus test of his own that favors Muslims over Christians by a rate of 97 to 3 percent. Continue reading
Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.
After two terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 2009, the FBI began reviewing reams of evidence taken from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that had been used against American troops in Iraq. Federal investigators then tried to match fingerprints from those bombs to the fingerprints of individuals who had recently entered the United States as refugees: Continue reading
But now he says it would be “un-American.”
by Hannity.com Staff
President Obama has offered some heated rhetoric in response to suggestions that the U.S. might want to reconsider it’s policy as it concerns accepting refugees from Syria. The president has called Republican plans to put a hold on accepting Syrian refugees a “potent recruitment tool” for ISIS and “un-American.”
Just today, the President tweeted out:
Slamming the door in the face of refugees would betray our deepest values. That’s not who we are. And it’s not what we’re going to do.
By Shawn Macomber • Lawfare Tyranny
As he awaits his fate at the hands of Dutch immigration authorities, Mathieu Ngudjolo — the first person acquitted of crimes against humanity charges by the International Criminal Court — has given a fascinating interview about his nearly five years imprisoned at the Hague wherein he discusses his bafflement at his charges (“There were people who were much more powerful. The leader of the FNI, [Floribert Ngabu] even testified as a witness, but no charges were brought against him. The Congolese president [Jospeh Kabila] was never indicted either,”) his daily activities (case-building, tennis, football), the strange bedfellows an international prison makes (“When I arrived in 2008 it was calm because there were not many people. Lubanga and Charles Taylor [ex-president of Liberia] were there already; Jean-Pierre Bemba [ex-vice president of the DRC] and others came later. But there were no problems at all. Never. At night we all had dinner together”), and a host of other interesting tidbits.
What’s most surprising, however, is Ngudjolo’s undeterred support for the Court (!):
I still support the court. The world needs a strong ICC and I’m the first one to back it. But currently it is not functioning well. We need people and politicians who support it so the court can prosecute everyone. At the moment many people are not prosecuted for political reasons.
Here are three thoughts on the epic understatement, “currently [the ICC] is not functioning well”:
قمنا من قبل بالإشارة لظاهرة ممارسة بعض الدول لمفهوم تسليط العدالة الدولية على الغير و أستثناء أنفسهم منها. هذه الظاهرة تلازم المناداة بتدخل المحكمة الجنائية الدولية. و ما حدث هذا الأسبوع لا يعتبر أستثناءً للقاعدة.
أولاً، قامت برس تي في (أول قناة إيرانية للأخبار العالمية تبث الأخبار باللغة الأنجليزية على مدار الساعة) ببث التالي:
في قمةٍ يوم الأربعاء في طهران جمعت آية الله صادق أمولي لاريجاني بأعضاء سامين من السلك القضائي، قام الأول بالتعبير عن أسفه فيما يتعلق بالقصف على اليمن، البلد الفقير، ذاهباً إلى أن التدابير التي أتخذتها المملكة (العربية السعودية) في اليمن ترقى إلى منزلة جرائم الحرب حسب ميثاق روما المؤسس للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية.
و أردف: “المسؤلون السعوديون يجب مقاضاتهم في المحكمة الجنائية الدولية كالقادة النازيين.”
و المثير للغرابة أن إيران أختارت أن لا تصادق على ميثاق روما و ألا تنضم إلى صفوف رادعي النازييين الجدد هؤلاء. و في الحقيقة، يقول المستشار القانوني لرئيس المحكمة الجنائية الدولية حيراد أبتاحي ، الجمهورية الإسلامية (إيران) “لها موقف متردد إزاء ميثاق المحكمة الجنائية الدولية يتأرجح ما بين التأييد المتحمس و التشكيك الصريح.” –تأرجح يصعب معه معرفة ما إذا كانت المحكمة تسعى وراء صديق لإيران أو عدو لها.
و في غضون ذلك في كينيا، كان نائب الرئيس الكيني وليام روتو “السياسي الوحيد في هذه البلاد الذي أستثني من لقاء وزير الخارجية الأمريكي جون كيري.”
و أيضاً، حسب مصادر دبلوماسية، فإن روتو من غير المرجح أن يلتقي بالرئيس الأمريكي باراك أوباما عند زيارته لموطن أبيه الراحل بسبب التهم المتعلقة بالجرائم ضد الإنسانية التي وجههتها له المحكمة الجنائية الدولية…
بينما كان الرئيس الكيني يلتقي بوزير الخارجية جون كيري، كان روتو يقوم بتدشين فعالية للإحتفال باليوم العالمي لحرية الصحافة بالفندق العالمي بنيروبي.
التقرير أيضاً إحتوى هذه الجزئية المثيرة:
من المثير للسخرية في نفس الآن أن نائب الرئيس روتو هو من أستقبل الرئيس الأمريكي السابق بيل كلينتون و إبنته تشيلسي في مطار جومو كينياتا الدولي يوم الجمعة من الأسبوع الماضي.
و هذه لعبة التقرب من كلا الطرفين الكلاسيكية لكلينتون.
و لكن هل تريد أن تعرف ما هو المثير للسخرية بحق؟ أن إدارة الرئيس الأمريكي أوباما الغارقة بصبيانية في حب توجهها العصري العالمي و التي لم تظهر مقدار ذرة من الإهتمام بجعل نفسها –أو قواتها التي تستمع المحكمة بالتقرب منها من أجل إرضاء أربابها- تحت رغبة المحكمة، تنهق بشكل شديد العلانية منذرة بعقاب الآخرين ممن وقعوا في مرمى تصويب المحكمة:
قبل الإنتخابات الرئاسية الكينية في العام 2013، حذرت القوى الغربية بإشارات قوية من إنتخاب إثنين من المشتبه بهما يواجهان خطر المثول للمحاكمة في المحكمة الجنائية الدولية و حذرت من الامر سيكون له “عواقب” بالنسبة للبلاد دولياً.
و قال مساعد وزير الخارجية الأمريكي لشؤون أفريقيا في ذلك الحين جوني كارسون: “إن للإختيارات عواقبها.”
هنا إحدى الأشياء التي يبدو أن حكومتي إيران و الولايات المتحدة تتفقان عليه: ما يناسب الأوزة ليس مما يناسب ذكر الأوز عندما يتعلق الأمر بالمحكمة الجنائية الدولية.
By Shawn Macomber • Lawfare Tyranny
We’ve noted previously the hammer-of-international-justice-for-thee-but-not-for-me phenomenon that seems to go hand in hand with pleas for International Criminal Court intervention, and this week has provided no exception to the rule.
First, via PressTV (“the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis”), comes this nugget:
At a Wednesday summit with high-ranking judiciary officials in Tehran, Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani voiced regret over the bombardment of the impoverished country, saying the monarchy’s measures inside Yemen amount to war crimes according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
“The Saudi regime’s officials should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court like Nazi criminals,” he said.
And yet curiously Iran has chosen not to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ranks of these supposed neo-Nazi slayers at the Hague!
Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian
by Lachlan Markay • Washington Free Beacon
A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.
One of those executives, Nicholas Hoskins, is a director at a hedge fund management firm that has invested heavily in Russian oil and gas. He is also senior counsel at the Bermudan law firm Wakefield Quin and the vice president of a London-based investment firm whose president until recently chaired the board of the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft.
In addition to those roles, Hoskins is a director at a company called Klein Ltd. No one knows where that firm’s money comes from. Its only publicly documented activities have been transfers of $23 million to U.S. environmentalist groups that push policies that would hamstring surging American oil and gas production, which has hurt Russia’s energy-reliant economy. Continue reading
Shadowy donor club to shield donor names, internal deliberations from public view
by Lachlan Markay • Washington Free Beacon
The Democracy Alliance says opacity in political funding and the influence of “big money” is corrosive to the democratic process, but the group currently discloses nothing about the hundreds of millions of dollars it steers to leading liberal and Democratic organizations. Continue reading
by Mark Steyn
On his radio show the other day, Hugh Hewitt caught me by surprise and asked me about running for the United States Senate from New Hampshire. My various consultants, pollsters, PACs, and exploratory committees haven’t fine-tuned every detail of my platform just yet, but I can say this without a doubt: I will not vote for any “comprehensive” bill, whether on immigration, health care, or anything else. “Comprehensive” today is a euphemism for interminably long, poorly drafted, and entirely unread — not just by the people’s representatives but by our robed rulers, too (how many of those Supreme Court justices actually plowed through every page of Obamacare when its “constitutionality” came before them?). The 1862 Homestead Act, which is genuinely comprehensive, is two handwritten pages in clear English. “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is 500 times as long, is not about patients or care, and neither protects the former nor makes the latter affordable.
So what is it about? Continue reading