Democrats believe that Canadian oil is a mortal threat to their survival, but Iranian nukes are nothing to be concerned about.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
- Net Zero In The UK
- Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
Recent Comments
- Bert on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- czechlist on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- Dan A Sinema on Climate Homicide
- MLH on Homophobic Gas
- Billyjack on Climate Homicide
- Laurie on Ivy Echo Chamber
They do want to shut down the power grid, and an Iranian launched EMP would do it.
Awesome observation! And unfortunately, too true.
In their mind; the liberal end game probably looks like the Hunger Games (with them in the city, in power obviously). In reality it ends like Syria or Darfur.
Did you use the words “think” and “Democrat” in the same sentence?
These are the same Democrats/progressives who blithely dismiss abortion as “woman’s choice/removal of a glob of protoplasm” and also completely ignore routine clitorectomies (forced removal of a young girl’s clitoris with a crude razor) that are commonplace in Muslim societies.
One can only conclude that Democrats are anti-life/anti-biology.
The fact that they are opposed to abundant, cheap, reliable energy (which poor people desperately need/want/benefit from) confirms the prior conclusion. That they also ignore the threat of radical Islam demonstrates their commitment to totalitarian rule, regardless of basis.
Iran has already proven they will funnel deadly new technology to those unafraid to use it against the west, or anyone else for that matter. And that’;s just the tip of the iceberg.
“One can only conclude that Democrats are anti-life/anti-biology.”
I have noticed that with the CAGW crowd (and there really IS a huge overlap between Democrats and CAGW) many of them seem to thrill at the prospect of ending life on Earth. They tell me they expect at a minimum for human civilization to be destroyed, and for perhaps even the transformation of Earth into another Venus, killing all life on the planet. They say that they cannot sleep at night from the fear and concern. And yet…
And yet, any counter argument, any conflicting data that CAGW might not be correct, is not met by reasoned response. It is met by vitriol, by curses, by insult and even by profanity.
If someone you loved were ill with an incurable disease, and you found a doctor with a potential cure for it, YOU would be happy. That is not how the CAGW crowd respond.
They want an excuse for micro-managing YOUR life and CAGW is that excuse.
Plans to micromanage your house:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/ams-fires-back-against-the-obama-led-witch-hunt/#comment-496448
Plans to miromanage what you eat:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/sinking-the-tobs-excuse/#comment-494424
They are even working on plans to miromanage what you say/read/think
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/there-is-high-confidence-that-the-ipcc-is-both-corrupt-and-incompetent/#comment-495126
“Within a year Iran will have an A-Bomb”
Nethanyahou 1995(and they still don’t have one)
I guess i’m not american enough for this democrat/republican game where all
people,no matter which side they support only tend to have the exact same cliché opinion like their favourite party and not an individual mix of reflecting thoughts.
Before i even start to feel threatened about nukes from iran they don’t have
i’d first have to start feel threatened by all the atomic weapons terrorist producing islamistic pakistan already owns for decades(and sunnis usually are far more radical than shiis)
and i’d start to fear the samson options,
but i guess most people never heard of pakistans A-bomb Arsenal nor the samson option.
And considering the keystone pipeline:
That has as much to do with environment as the climate hoax-
Warren Buffet simply paid Obama and friends to protect his railway oil transport monopol from canada which would’ve become obsolete by the keystone pipeline.
http://on.cc.com/1CwUEBS
Iran was found liable in a US court of law for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/
And here we are over 30 years later proving we’ve learned NOTHING!
There will be a terrible price to pay for this.
Israel nukes are more dangerous than Iran. And Israel hasn’t signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, but Iran has, and yet CNN/FOX has convinced people that Iran is the problem. Great blog, but I’d stick to climate.
Anyone that thinks any treaty signed with Iran is worth the piece of paper it’s written on is a fool!
Exactly
You Jones, have ZERO understanding of Muslims.
If you are Kaffir an unbeliever, a Muslim is prohibited from befriending you. He is allowed to lie to you, practice deception and concealment if it is expedient and may conclude peace treaties only while he is at a disadvantage. The treaties are one sided because a treaty is considered broken if an unbeliever attacks Islam with disapproval or criticism or if the Muslims feel they now have the advantage if they decide to resume war. Peace treaties are viewed as “timeouts” and not lasting peace.
Muslims on the subject of Peace treaties:
And let us not forget the language it is to be understood in. Find in looking for “Peace Treaty” defined in Arabic.
For it turns out there are three different words in Arabic for “peace.” Only one of them is for real. And it’s not the one used at Annapolis, just like it wasn’t the one used at Camp David II, Oslo, or Camp David I. All failed a linguistic test, a test which any real Arab-Israeli agreement must pass, the Test of Suhl.
The three Arabic words translated as “peace” in English are salaam, hudna, and suhl.
Salaam is the peace of submission. It’s the drawn out pronunciation of “slm” in “Islam,” (written Arabic has no vowels) the Arabic word for submission and obedience, and in “Moslem” or “Muslim,” the Arabic word for “one who submits.”
There is peace, salaam, among Moslems when they submit to Allah and the teachings of the Koran. There is peace, salaam, between Moslems and kafirs, infidels, only when the latter submit to the rule of the former.
In other words, salaam, Moslem peace, is not the absence of violence as it is for us, but the absence of disobedience. Just like it was for the Communists. In Lenin’s words:
Hudna, the second Arabic word translated in English as “peace,” means cease-fire, a temporary truce.
When the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, for example, proposes a hudna with Israel, it’s hailed in the Western media as a peace proposal. It is instead a tactical, temporary break in hostilities, giving Moslems time to re-organize, re-arm, then renew the Jihad against the kafirs when they can be most caught off-guard.
Suhl, the third Arabic term for “peace,” is the most interesting, the one we must insist on Arabs using, the one they always avoid and refuse to use. Suhl means reconciliation.
The Encyclopedia of Islam describes sulh as a concept of Islamic sharia law:
The purpose of sulh is to end conflict and hostility among believers so that they may conduct their relationships in peace and amity….In Islamic law, sulh is a form of contract (aqd), legally binding on both the individual and community levels. Note that it applies only between believers. Once again, it’s deuces wild with unbelievers
Words mean something, even in arabic.
By the way, Democrats don’t THINK, they FEEL.
Forgot the link. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009345.html
This is why the European Union leaders are complete idiots.
Quotes from the Koran on friendship and treaties with unbelievers
GRUMBLE I will try again. WordUNIMPRESSED does not like arabic font within a block quote.
Quotes from the Koran
[??????????????? ??????? ????????]
[????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ??????]
[????????? ????????? ?????????? ??? ???????????? ???????? ????????????? ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????????]
[????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????????]
[????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ???????]
[??????????????? ??????? ????????]
[??????? ??????? ??????????]
[??????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ????????? ????? ??? ???????? ??????????? – ??? ??????????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????????????? ???? ?????????????? – ????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????????????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ]
[?????????????]
[??????????? ??? ?????????]
[???????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????????]
[???????????? ????????? ?????????]
[????? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ???????????????? ????????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ???????????? – ???????????? ????????????? ??????? ????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???????????? – ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ]
FROM: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8052
“Israel nukes are more dangerous than Iran.” Got it. Because one is a democracy and the other one is run by lunatics.
“Israel nukes are more dangerous than Iran”
=============================================
In my view Israel nukes are not a threat at all to the US, and certainly not to Israel. A nuclear armed Iran is a grave threat to the world, and only the threat of nuclear retaliation would have any chance of deterring a nuclear armed Iran.
You may care about your own life and the life of others. But far too many in power in Iran do not share your weaknesses. They believe if they die to further the cause of Islam, that they will be richly rewarded and a number of their family members as well. Whether you believe this or not does not matter. What matters is that THEY believe it.
Threat of retaliation will in no way deter Iran from using any nukes they can manage to make. Threatening someone who would gladly die with death, is NO deterrent at all. Perhaps you have never been told the story of Brer Rabbit and the briar patch. Killing jihadis is like throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch.
This is why any sort of deal which practically guarantees that in 10 years (or less) that Iran WILL have nukes is not a good deal at all.
Do not be fooled. Don’t kid yourself. No matter how much you might not want to be thrown in the briar patch, Brer Rabbit would love to be thrown in there. And Brer Rabbit won’t mind taking as many into that patch with them as they possibly can.
Ahmadinejad is what is known as a ‘Twelver’. Twelvers believe they must bathe the world in blood and fire to bring back the ’12th Imam’, or ‘Mahdi’, who will bring peace and justice to the world (Caliphate).
They not only do not fear death and retribution, they hasten and welcome them.
yea and doesn’t involve some guy coming out of a well?
And the US has been getting rid of Nuclear warheads at an alarming rate. In addition the US had missile defenses in Poland and I think Ukraine and Hussain scuttled them. Also identified some of the British Nuclear Armed Subs to the Russians making GB more vulnerable.
I think Obama is trying to find a way of tying the hands of the administration that comes after his. However, any treaty must be ratified by the Senate.
Only in the eye of those who believe in the US Constitution. From the point of view of the rest of the world if the president signs its good. Even here in the USA they have different types of ‘treaties’
……
Oh good I saved my old comment:
IMPORTANT NEWS on Lima Climate Change Conference
It looks like OBAMA is going to switch names from TREATY to AGREEMENT which only takes a simple Majority. In this way he gets his treaty to shut down the USA fossil fuel energy without the approval of the Republicans.
What is worse the Supreme Court since the time of FDR betrayed this country.
EVEN WORSE
IF a president signs a treaty OTHER countries consider it VALID. Therefore it completely depends on WHAT type of enforcement is contained within the treaty itself. For example the World Trade Organization (WTO) has TEETH!!
Instead of the usual trade treaties for the first time a world organization, WTO, with tough sanction and enforcement powers, was formed. More important, decision making would be secret, with no oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors.
Under WTO rules, countries or Corporations can challenge another’s laws. The case is heard by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats (corporate lawyers). There is no conflict of interest rules binding them, and the names of the judges are kept secret. There is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws, the three judges meet in secret and all court documents are confidential and cannot be published.
I consider the WTO the trial run for ‘Global Governance’ since it overrides national sovereignty and allows the judges of WTO to overrule national laws.
A ratified treaty is binding on future administrations. Anything else, be it an “agreement” or Executive Order is not.
Actually even a ratified treaty is not binding.
The Dulles Boys (KGB agents) were trying to convince every one that treaties are higher on the food chain than the Constitution. This would of course negate US sovereignty which has been a goal since the 1930s.
Of course a treaty repugnant to the supreme law of the land should never have been ratified and cannot be fulfilled, much to the disdain of the totalitarians and leftists. How can such an instrument be legal when it would supersede the very authority granted in the Constitution to treat? IOW, the President and the Senate get their authority from the Constitution and so it is impossible for them to go around or abrogate it’s provisions by treaty. To do so is an unconstitutional/illegal act because THE ONLY proscribed method for changing Constitutional laws/provisions is by amendment.
Yes … I understand “No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution….” If only we could convince the current office holder, and/or congress of this. My dream would be if our congress critters would get a back-bone and grow a set and stop the abuses that have happened and will continue to happen. But I realize that I will only see this in a dream. It seems that those in charge of the henhouse security happen to be the foxes themselves.