Britain and US ‘have no moral right to prevent Israel acting against Iran’
by:: Adrian Blomfield, Jerusalem and David Blair of the UK Telegraph
The Israeli prime minister’s words followed a secret visit by an unnamed British official last month, who is understood to have delivered a warning from David Cameron against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Mr Netanyahu wants America to lay down clear “red lines” beyond which Iran would risk war by pressing on with its nuclear ambitions. He fears that Iran is successfully playing for time while the nuclear programme advances. In response, Mr Netanyahu is pressing Washington to impose a deadline on diplomatic efforts to resolve the confrontation.
Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, appeared to turn him down on Monday, saying publicly that America was “not setting deadlines for Iran”.
Mr Netanyahu delivered a caustic response Monday, saying that under these circumstances, no one could expect Israel to remain patient. “The world tells Israel to wait because there is still time,” said Mr Netanyahu. “And I ask: wait for what? Until when? Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
This approach would only embolden Iran, warned Mr Netanyahu. “If Iran knows that there is no red line or deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it is doing today – continuing to work unhindered towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and, from there, nuclear bombs,” he said
The prime minister’s language will increase fears that Israel is intent on launching a unilateral strike on Iran.
Some observers see Mr Netanyahu’s threats to attack Iran as hollow, believing that Israel does not have a viable military option. They judge that Mr Netanyahu’s real aim is to ensure that the US and European powers continue to maximize the pressure on Tehran,
particularly by imposing tougher sanctions.
However, his threats were taken seriously enough for Mr Cameron to send a senior British envoy to Israel to convey his concern. Sources confirmed that this official, whose identity has not been disclosed, saw Mr Netanyahu about two weeks ago. A British diplomat in Jerusalem and the Israeli prime minister’s office declined to comment.
Mr Netanyahu’s tough approach has apparently earned Washington’s displeasure, with reports in the Israeli press last night claiming that President Barack Obama has turned down a request from Mr Netanyahu for a meeting during the United Nations general assembly later this month. An unnamed Israeli official said the Israeli prime minister had been told by the White House that there was not room in the presidential schedule.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Mr Obama, dismissed the report, saying that the President and Mr Netanyahu were not meeting because they would not be in New York at the same time.
The two leaders have had a testy relationship, with Mr Netanyahu once lecturing the president in the Oval Office on the importance of US support for Israel. Obama officials have also expressed frustration at how Mr Netanyahu has consistently pressurised them to adopt an aggressive posture towards Tehran.
The US believes diplomacy can still deliver a solution before Iran achieves the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, said this threshold would be reached in “a little more than a year”. He said: “We think we will have the opportunity, once we know that they’ve made that decision, to take the action necessary to stop [Iran].”
Mr Panetta told CBS: “We have the forces in place to be able to not only defend ourselves, but to do what we have to do, to try to stop them from developing nuclear weapons.”
Note from the Common Constitutionalist: They all have to go, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al. Diplomacy will not work with Iran. Heck, it never works anywhere with anyone. Iran will simply never stop until they reach their goal or are forced to stop.
America and the UK are willing to chatter on and wait until Israel is annihilated and then simply point fingers and blame someone else. What is Netanyahu to do? The fate of his entire nation rests on this decision. He does not have the geographic luxury to fiddle about with a bunch of idle talk. Iran is less than 1,000 miles from Israel. With one strategically placed short-range nuclear missile, Israel is effectively gone.
Frankly, they may not even wait to produce a weapon. Considering the recent alliances they have or are forging with the Brotherhood controlled countries, effectively surrounding Israel, Iran will be able to attack Israel from all sides.
Considering all that has transpired in the past few days, might the Obama and Cameron administrations see the light and stand with Israel? The short answer; NO!
With extermination a possibility, I wouldn’t wait either.
Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas goes off on the administration and others over the embassy attacks.
A 92-year-old war veteran who shot dead an intruder at his home says he has only one regret – that he didn’t shoot the alleged burglar’s accomplices.
Earl Jones from Boone County, Kentucky, killed Lloyd (Adam) Maxwell after the intruder broke into his home at 2am on Monday with two accomplices.
He told the Enquirer: ‘These people aren’t worth any more to me than a groundhog. They have our country in havoc. We got so many damned crooked people walking around today.’
Jones said that on the night of the shooting, he heard a bang coming from the basement and walked eight paces to get his loaded .22 caliber rifle from behind the bedroom door.
He then returned to his armchair in the living room where he had been watching the TV and lay in wait for the intruders to enter.
When Maxwell kicked the basement door open 15 minutes later Mr Jones fired off a shot at his chest and killed him.
Maxwell’s accomplices Ryan Dalton, 22, and Donnie Inabnit, 20,then fled, dragging the dead man with them.
It was the third time Jones, who has worked on the same farm since 1955, has been broken into this year.
Earl Jones said he was only sorry that two others who took part in the raid escaped unharmed.
‘I was hoping another one would come up – I aimed right for his heart,’ he said.
Jones also showed little emotion over killing 24-year-old Lloyd Maxwell who was gunned down during the home invasion.
‘Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell, no.
Escaped unhurt: Ryan Dalton, 22, (upper), and Donnie Inabnit (lower), 20, fled with their accomplices’ body
“It was simple. That man was going to take my life. He was hunting me. I was protecting myself.”
Jones, who served in army during WW2, was alone at his 500 acre ranch in Verona, Kentucky, when he heard noises outside.
Police do not expect to charge Jones with a crime as Kentucky as the state has a “stand your ground law” that allows householders to use deadly force if they are in fear of their lives.
Jones is adamant that he was within his right to shoot the intruder at the home he has lived in since 1955.
The break-in was the third he has experienced in this year.
‘I didn’t go to war for nothing. I have the right to carry a gun. That’s what I told the police this morning.” according to the Enquirer newspaper.
Police said Dalton, 22, and Inabnit, 20, were arrested later.
The pair called police to report their friend had been shot. They later admitted to taking part in the raid on Jones’s home.
Dalton and Inabnit, both from Dry Ridge, have been charged with second degree burglary and tampering with evidence, but Mr Jones may yet escape conviction thanks to Kentucky’s ‘castle doctrine’ which is enshrined in law.
Nationally the killing of criminals by individuals trying to defend their property has increased in recent years, from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010, according to FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics.
Kenton County Police found Maxwell’s body and the two uninjured men in a 2001 Chevrolet Impala who later admitted to being at Jones’ home.
In April, thieves stole 90 of Mr Jones’ cows from a field behind his property and in August burglars took a television, a several thousand dollars and a personal check from his house.
Attribution: Mail Online
by: the Common Constitutionalist
The attack on the Libyan and Egyptian embassies are said to be a response to an anti-Muslim YouTube movie titled, “Innocence of Muslims” that derides the leader of the Muslim faith, Mohammed and also the Islam holy book, the Koran. (I’ve seen at least
some of it. It’s pretty funny; not the content, that was spot on, but the cinematography. It’s like one of those old Godzilla movies.)
Anyway, the U.S. ambassador to Lybia that was killed was the same man who was instrumental in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi , thus clearing the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood . That’s some thanks for a job well done. It’s like 1979 in Iran, but instead of American hostages, there are just corpses. And instead of Carter we have Obama.
Now, no one is ever allowed to make light (or tell the truth) of the Koran, Mohammed, or anything Islam.
Anyone, anywhere is, however, allowed to mock, degrade and subvert the Christian or Jewish faiths with impunity. The United States government is allowed to command the Catholic faith toss out one of the most precious tenets of their faith with forced
contraception, and most likely, abortions on demand. Yet, these same people would never dare speak ill of the Muslim community, for fear of merely cause the Muslims to feel bad, much less having their heads cut off.
I wonder if the raid by the Brotherhood (and make no mistake, this was the Brothers, or a wholly owned subsidiary of) was caused by viewing the Democrat National Convention? How is that, you say?
At said Convention, the peace-loving leftists joyously and publicly exclaimed that they killed Osama bin Laden no less than 21 times.
Those who attacked were actually shouting “Obama, Obama; there are still a billion Osama’s”. Remember, it was the anniversary of 9-11 on that day. This dopey little movie had very little or nothing to do with it. Obviously, this is just an excuse, for violence against the infidels. It is also my firm belief that this was not just some spontaneous riot. This was a premeditated, coordinated attack.
There is evidence unfolding that the ambassador and staff were told the area of the embassy they were in was not safe and they should be moved to a more secure location. The Brotherhood was then told where the Americans were moved to, affording the opportunity to attack. Another question, that will surely ruffle some feathers is, were the Brothers, in any way, facilitated by those Brotherhood members in the U.S. administration or State Department. It has to be asked!
And how did our, tough on terrorists, government react? Here is the statement issued:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
So, instead of taking a hard line agianst the terrorists, we essentially apologize to the them. They have to just be laughing at how pitifully weak we are.
Mitt Romney’s response to the Obama administration statement was a tad more apropos:
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
I believe it is fact that our embassies in every foreign land throughout the globe, are sovereign U.S. territory, just as foreign embassies in this country are not within U.S. jurisdiction. That being the case, is not an attack on our embassy considered an attack on United States soil? Is that not then a defacto, act of war?
Now we have yet another glimpse at our Commander in Chief, who is charged with protecting us. Heck of a job he’s doing, eh.
I almost forgot to mention that Obama is currently funneling taxpayer money to the “rebels” in Syria, who are tools of the Muslim Brotherhood and on the day our diplomatic facilities were being attacked, it was also revealed that the Obama Administration was negotiating a deal with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that would give them $1 billion to buy German submarines.
So who’s side is this guy really on anyway?
Attribution: Tad Cronn at Political Outcast
It sounds like a couch potato’s dream: two-and-a-half minutes of exercise could be just as good as a 90-minute run.
Research suggests that short, sharp bursts of exercise are better at warding off heart disease than much longer – but less strenuous – sessions.
Those on the exercise bike pedalled as hard as they could for 30 seconds, rested for up to four minutes and then repeated the pattern four times.
This meant that, in all, they did two and a half minutes of exercise strenuous enough to make them sweat and leave them out of breath.
The others walked at the sort of brisk pace recommended in health guidelines.
A day later, they came back into the lab and ate a fatty breakfast and lunch consisting of bread, mayonnaise and cheese.
Their blood was then tested to see how quickly the levels of fat in their blood fell – as fat lingering in the blood after eating is known to trigger the first in a series of steps that can lead to clogging of the arteries and heart disease.
The results revealed that walking cut fat by 11 per cent, compared with not doing any exercise.
Dr Gray, of Aberdeen University, told the British Science Festival that short bursts of intensive exercise may somehow spur the liver into taking in more fat from the blood, before storing it or burning it off.
He said that, while the high intensity training ‘won’t necessarily’ improve strength, it does boost endurance. He added that the short duration of the exercise was ‘highly important as time is often cited as the main barrier to taking part in exercise’.
The need to rest between the high-intensity activity means the whole routine took around 20 minutes – and it has to be done regularly.
Dr Gray said: ‘Although moderate intensity, longer sessions of exercise can help protect the body against cardio-vascular disease, the findings of our study showed that higher-intensity shorter intervals of exercise might be a more effective method to improve health and reduce the time commitment to exercise.’
Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacted the Gallup Organization to discuss the company’s research methodology after their poll’s findings were unfavorable to the President. After declining to adjust their methodology, Gallup was named in an unrelated lawsuit by the DOJ.
Axelrod took to Twitter to direct people to an article by the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein suggesting a flaw in Gallup’s methodology. Brownstein compared Gallup’s demographic sampling predictions to previous election exit polls as well as contemporaneous research released by Pew, CNN/ORC and ABC/WaPo.
The heart of the Obama camp complaint lies with varying predictive models for 2012 turnout. Gallup had predicted a lower minority turnout, effecting Obama’s margin against Romney.
An email chain from Gallup employees reveals the deliberations about how to handle Axelrod:
In response to that suggestion, another senior Gallup official wrote — in an email chain titled “Axelrod vs. Gallup” — that the White House “has asked” a senior Gallup staffer “to come over and explain our methodology too.”
That Gallup official, the email continued, “has a plan that includes blogging and telling WH [the White House] he would love to have them come over here etc. This could be a very good moment for us to [show] our super rigorous methods compared to weak samples etc. …”
The writer named several news organizations with their own polling methodologies, all of which resulted in numbers more favorable to President Obama at the time.
“Imagine Axel[rod] with Brando’s voice: ‘[Name redacted], I’d like you to come over and explain your methodology…You got a nice poll there….would be a shame if anything happened to it…’”
Since Axelrod first contacted Gallup, the DOJ has become interested in an old allegation made by a former Gallup employee, claiming that the firm violated the False Claims Act by overcharging on their contracts with other federal agencies. Michael Lindley, a former Gallup employee, filed suit against Gallup in 2009 and Gallup was served and responsed to Lindley’s suit in 2010. The DOJ signed on to Lindley’s suit in August of 2012.
Lindley, was a former field organizer in Iowa for the Obama campaign in 2008.
In addition to Gallup’s unfavorable polling numbers on the Obama re-election effort, they have also published employment numbers that are not “politically helpful” for Obama.
“Gallup publishes its research without seasonal adjustments,” William Tate wrote for the American Thinker. ”The BLS’s version applies adjustments in an alchemic formula that’s more mysterious than the Shroud of Turin.”
This article was from May of this year, but it is still instructive.
Navigating the Polls in an Election Year
by: Mike Flynn at Breitbart
with comments from the Common Constitutionalist [ ] cause I just can’t help it.
As the campaign season gets into full swing, voters can expect a deluge of polls. Every major media outfit and several independent polling organizations will provide almost real-time information on every twist and turn in the political landscape. The polls will not only cheer or frighten partisans on all sides, they will likely have a gravitational effect on individual campaigns themselves, as candidates adjust their campaigns to polling results. But, voters should beware. Even modern-day polling is more art than science. [I’ve seen many polls (most in fact) I believe are published for only one reason; to dispirit conservatives voters and hopefully cause them not to vote. They have all come from major media and polling organizations that are in the tank for Obama and the democrats. The polls you see are for public consumption and are usually not accurate. However, campaigns run their own internal polling that is usually for honest and accurate. They know they can’t afford to rely on the normally bogus public polls. We will never be privy to the internal polls.]
All polls reflect certain biases–not necessarily in the political sense–of pollsters. Taking a small sample and extrapolating it to the overall electorate involves lots of judgement calls that may not provide an accurate picture of the political landscape. While voters should look to sites like RealClearPolitics, which average a basket of recent polls to smooth out aberrations, the occasional “outlier” poll, showing results wildly different than other polls, is occasionally correct. It mostly comes down to the choices pollsters make in conducting their poll.
If you are reading this, you’re likely fairly politically aware and understand some basic differences between many polls. You understand that the first step in accessing a poll is looking at what’s called the “voter screen.” In other words, is the poll of adults, registered voters or likely voters. The difference matters a lot:
So if you have one poll of “adults” which says D53.5%-R46.5%, another of “registered voters” which shows D52-R48, and another of “likely voters” which shows D50-R50, they’re all saying the same thing. When you factor in the relevant adjustments for each screen, they’re all showing a tie at somewhere around an exact 50/50 split of those who will actually wind up choosing between Democrats and Republicans.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why media outlets like The Associated Press continue to poll “adults” on political issues. Around 20% of adults aren’t registered to vote. Putting aside the rather large inherent bias toward Democrats, why do we even care to know the political views of those who won’t be voting? Its about as useful as polling Canadians on their preference of U.S. politicians. [ I sound like a broken record, but duh. The AP might as well be the Obama press office. The know when they poll adults it will heavily skew the results toward their end, which is getting “The One” relected. ]
With the exception of Rasmussen Reports, however, most media and polling organizations use the registered voter screen until late in the campaign. This is due to the not unreasonable belief that, early in the campaign season, it is difficult to estimate who is most likely to show up at the polls. It won’t come as a shock to learn that people often lie in polls, claiming they will definitely vote but then, for a variety of reasons, fail to do so. So, as you see polls of registered voters, keep in mind that there is a general bias of +4% for Democrat candidates. [ Again, duh. Any poll, at the very least, not using only likely voters is junk and is used only to influence voters.]
But, even polls using a likely voter screen can be inaccurate. At this point, we need to discuss one of the less talked about and least understood aspects of polling: weighting.
When you start from a random sample of voters and begin conducting the actual interviews, it is very likely that the total universe of voters you actually speak with aren’t representative of the overall populace. You may have too many male, white, low-income, high education or Midwestern voters. Polling firms deal with this by “weighting” the sample, essentially tossing certain interviews so that the final results reflect responses from a representative sample that matches the nation’s demographics. [ Or, of course, responses that skew the outcome of the poll.]
Most of this is fairly technical and, with the exception of the occasional disreputable firm, fairly straightforward. Where it gets very tricky is where polling firms “weight” their sample based on their estimate of the partisan breakdown of the electorate. In other words, how many democrats, republicans and independents they include in their sample. This judgement call can throw off even the more accurate likely voter screen.
In 2008, an obviously big year for Democrats, the partisan breakdown of the actual electorate was:
- Democrats 39%
- GOP 32%
- Independents 29%
By ideology, the breakdown was:
- Liberal 22%
- Conservative 34%
- Moderate 44%
[ Ah, moderates, got a love um. Liberals without the courage to admit it.]
In 2010, an obviously big year for the GOP, the partisan breakdown of the actual was:
- Democrats 35%
- GOP 35%
- Independents 29%
By ideology, the breakdown was:
- Liberal 20%
- Conservative 42%
- Moderate 38%
So, any poll in 2010 that used 2008 as their baseline, i.e. weighting their polling sample to reflect the partisan breakdown of 2008, would have been wildly off. Remember, the pollster would have “tossed” certain interviews to get to the D-39, R-32 and I-29 sample.
So, is the electorate in 2012 going to be more like 2008 or 2010? Personally, with an energized GOP and conservative base, I don’t think the 2012 electorate is going to come remotely close to the partisan breakdown we saw in 2008. But, most pollsters seem to disagree and are weighting their polls for just such an outcome.
Organizations like Gallup and The Associated Press make it almost impossible to find out their partisan screen. Newer organizations, though, like Politico, DailyKos and Fox News do make this information available.
A recent poll by DailyKos/PPP, which had Obama up by 3 points, had the following partisan screen:
- Democrats 40%
- GOP 37%
- Independents 24%
- Liberal 27%
- Conservative 42%
- Moderate 32%
So, the DailyKos poll expects a bigger Democrat and liberal turnout than in 2008. Somehow, I don’t think that’s likely.
Politico‘s recent poll, which found Romney with a 1-point lead had the following partisan screen:
- Democrats 37%
- GOP 34%
- Independents 28%
(Note: I’ve done my own “weighting” and assigned “leans GOP” and “leans Democrat” to “Independents.”)
A recent FoxNews poll, which showed Obama with a 7-point lead had this partisan breakdown:
- Democrats 42%
- GOP 34%
- Independents 20%
What color is the sky in FoxNews’ world if they think the Democrats, in 2012, are going to increase their share of the electorate from 2008? When was it, exactly, that a bunch of independents suddenly switched to the Democrat party? [ They’re trying to all fair and balanced, don’t ya know.]
I think all of these polls are oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans. The nadir for the GOP was 2008, when they only made up 32% of the electorate. In the wake of ObamaCare and a stalled economy, there is no way the GOP is going to sit home like they did when faced with a McCain candidacy. Also, the Democrats were at the high-water mark of the “hope and change” promise of Obama in 2008, when they made up 39% of the electorate. There is no way they reach that level again.
So, every poll you see, dig deep into the partisan breakdown. Your mileage may vary, but you’d be right to adjust the numbers accordingly.
Attribution: Bev, Pat