News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
Just the News is reporting today that Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament and chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, has nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Considering some of the recent recipients, that nomination may get Mr. Tybring-Gjedde thrown off the committee.
The article reports:
President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following his efforts to broker a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
Trump was nominated by Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament and chairman of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, according to Fox News.
He was also one of two Norwegian lawmakers to nominate Trump in 2018 for the peace prize for his efforts to bring together North and South Korea.
The article concludes:
Tybring-Gjedde, in his letter to the committee, wrote that the Trump administration played a key role in establishing relations between the two countries.
“As it is expected other Middle Eastern countries will follow in the footsteps of the UAE, this agreement could be a game-changer that will turn the Middle East into a region of cooperation and prosperity,” he wrote, according to Fox.
Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament’s far-right Progress Party, also told the cable TV news channel: “I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees.”
This nomination is deserved, but it will be interesting to see how the American media handles it.
After last week’s historic peace deal brokered between the United Arab Emirates and Israel, Sudan wants in. The Sudanese Foreign Ministry Spokesman reportedly told Sky News Arabia Tuesday that it could quite possibly make a similar deal in the near future and didn’t deny having talks with Israel.
“There is no reason for the continuation of hostility between Sudan and Israel,” the Sudan’s FM said. “We do not deny the existence of contacts between the two countries.”
The article notes:
Notably, Sudan was the location where Arab nation’s declared they wouldn’t normalize ties with Israel and had three ‘nos’: “No negotiations. No recognition. No peace.” Yoni Michanie first pointed to this on Twitter Tuesday.
The article includes the following tweet:
This is a milestone. Sudan (and the other Arab countries) have to make a choice–do they want to submit to Iran or make peace with Israel and remain as independent countries? The goal of Iran is to restore the caliphate (the former Ottoman Empire) with Iran as the head. This would involve bringing all the Arab countries in the region under the control of Iran. Not every Arab country wants to give up their sovereignty. The behind-the-scenes negotiations of the Trump administration have brought the possibility of peace to the Middle East.
Sara Carter is reporting today that in a deal brokered by the Trump administration, Israel and the United Arab Emirates have normalized diplomatic ties.
The article reports:
“This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region,” a joint statement released Thursday read.
“All three countries face many common challenges and will mutually benefit from today’s historic achievement.”
This is the statement:
Although the Trump administration brokered the deal, the real responsibility for making the deal possible falls on the increased militancy of Iran. Both Israel and the UAE realize the Iran is continuing to fund terrorist groups in the Middle East with the intention of ruling the region. Iran and Turkey would both like to reestablish the caliphate that was dissolved when the Ottoman Empire fell. Their only disagreement is who will rule the new caliphate. That is what this deal is really about. Nevertheless, it is a much needed step toward stability in the Middle East.
Yesterday The Middle East Forum reported that in October, the Trump administration handed out $100,000 of federal government money to the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Middle East Forum has found.
The article reports:
To fund CAIR, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) first awarded monies to the Washington D.C. government, which then selected CAIR and a number of other extremist organizations as suitable sub-recipients. The federal government would likely have been aware, however, that CAIR was a grantee – according to government documentation, it seems sub-grantees must be approved by DHS before funds are distributed.
The administration’s funding of CAIR was the product of the DHS’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program. As my colleague David Swindle recently wrote in the Daily Wire, Congress’s current proposed expansion of the program’s budget, however “well-meaning,” carries enormous “potential for abuse” and will end up providing “millions of taxpayer dollars” to “pro-jihadist Islamist groups.”
CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial in 2008. The Holy Land Foundation was convicted of providing material support to terrorists.
The article notes:
In 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist organization. And today, its officials continue to promote and excuse violently anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric.
The article concludes:
Surprisingly, under the Trump administration, grants to extremist organizations have actually increased. As we noted last year, “between 2017 and 2018, the amount of taxpayers’ money given to organizations either influenced or controlled by Islamist activists more than tripled from $4 million to $13.5 million. Under the Obama administration, the amount given to Islamist-linked organizations averaged a mere $1.7 million each year.”
In August 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau quickly cancelled a proposed partnership with CAIR after a number of Conservative media outlets started investigating the decision. But why this was not enough to stop the federal government from subsequently funding the very group it had previously conceded was beyond the pale?
Over the last few months, some supporters of the administration have reacted to our research into public subsidy and political support for these theocratic groups by acknowledging the problem but arguing that, in many instances, the federal government’s embrace of Islamists and its failure to work instead with moderate Muslims, is an enduring legacy of extant Obama administration policies.
Given the long-standing programs behind many of these grants, this may well be true. If only there were someone to drain the swamp.
President Trump will need four more years to get to the bottom of the seemingly endless swamp that is Washington, D.C.
Breitbart posted an article today about trade agreements between the United States and Qatar. It seems that there are air trade agreements that Qatar is violating. Those violations were allowed under the Obama administration. Qatar would like to see those violations continue under the Trump administration.
The article reports:
Open Skies agreements are executive agreements, similar to treaties, between the United States and other nations regarding international air travel, designed to foster free-market competition and a level playing field for international flights. From trade, to commerce, to tourism, Open Skies requires each participating country to provide non-preferential access to their airspace, and requires airline companies to compete against each other to in terms of offerings, quality of service, and low prices, without government subsidies.
Breitbart News has previously reported on several Arab nations that were violating their Open Skies agreements with the United States, illegally subsidizing three Persian Gulf carriers. The Obama administration did nothing, and a group of NeverTrumpers tried to convince President Trump to do nothing as well.
President Trump’s team had other ideas. In January 2018, the Department of State announced a deal with Qatar to end violations involving Qatar Airways, and in May 2018, Secretary Mike Pompeo announced a deal with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) addressing the remaining airlines, Etihad Airways, and Emirates Airline. These were hailed as significant victories for American workers and the president’s America First agenda.
But it appears there may still be trouble with Qatar. And someone from the Obama administration has been implicated, apparently operating behind the scenes.
In late April of this year, the CEOs of all three of the top U.S. airline companies – American, Delta, and United – published an open letter to President Trump as an ad in the New York Times and New York Post, entitled, “President Trump: Please enforce our trade agreements to support U.S. airline workers.”
The article then goes on to explain the involvement of someone from the Obama administration in this matter:
Then three other airline companies – FedEx, Jetblue, and Atlas Air – sent a letter defending Qatar to Pompeo and also Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. The April 16 letter pushes back against “false claims” and touts the need “to set the record straight.”
However, according to materials Breitbart News reviewed, it looks like someone forgot to remove the metadata from the document, showing who wrote the document. Because the metadata shows the letter sent by FedEx, JetBlue, and Atlas Air was actually written by Jenny Rosenberg.
Rosenberg is a lobbyist. But she formerly served as assistant administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and at another time served as acting assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs at the U.S. Department of Transportation – both stints during the Obama administration.
In other words, unless this document is a complete forgery or one of the CEOs’ personal secretaries happens to be named Jenny Rosenberg, an Obama White House political appointee is ghostwriting letters trying to persuade President Trump to ignore purported trade violations.
When the CEOs of American companies are asking the president to stand up for American companies against foreign interests who are undercutting American workers, someone who formerly held “senior executive positions” – that is how her company webpage biography puts it – to advance Barack Obama’s policy priorities is seeking to influence the President Trump’s White House, trying to persuade the current president that what is happening is consistent with his America First agenda, and that his Cabinet should ignore claims to the contrary.
If you are going to do something dishonest, it is wise not to leave your electronic fingerprints on it.
Some other countries later joined the four-nation bloc in cutting ties with Qatar, which is also the venue for the 2022 World Cup.
The feud — the most serious in decades among some the region’s most key Western allies — has been simmering for years as Qatar increasingly flexed its political muscle across the region, including backing the Muslim Brotherhood.
Qatar’s outreach often raised conflict with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of whom have sought to exert their own influence across the Arab world.
“[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and al Qaeda, and promotes the message and schemes of these groups through their media constantly,” Saudi’s state news agency SPA wrote.
…For years, Doha has been a strong backer of Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood ruling the Gaza Strip, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.
The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 in Ismailia, Egypt, is often referred to as the “father” of today’s Islamic terror movements.
In 2014, after a turbulent year under long-time Muslim Brotherhood devotee Mohammed Morsi, Egyptians overwhelmingly elected former military chief Fattah Abdel el-Sisi as president.
Slowly, el-Sisi began to address Egypt’s dire economic straits while simultaneously routing Islamic terror cells embedded in the Sinai Peninsula, which had flourished during Morsi’s short-lived term in office.
Egypt, the Arab’s world’s largest country, is 80 percent Muslim, but the population rejected the Morsi administration’s efforts to impose stricter Islamic lifestyle on the country.
There is a certain amount of irony here. Evidently, Qatar has backed the wrong group of terrorists. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism, a militant form of Islam that gave us the men who attacked America on 9/11. However, our alliance with Saudi Arabia is based on the fact that they are willing to fight ISIS and that they have supported the trading of oil in American dollars. The Saudis are also very actively working behind the scenes to prevent America from becoming energy independent and ruining the monopoly that OPEC has held for so long. If you look at the funding of some of the environmental groups that have opposed drilling in various places and various pipelines, you will find Saudi money.
At any rate, President Trump has had a major impact on relationships in the Middle East. It will be interesting to see in the future is these new alliances work to curtail the funding and activities of terrorists.
CBS News is reporting today on a machete attack in an Ohio restaurant. The attacker was described as having a ‘Somali background.’ He is believed to have traveled to Dubai in the UAE in 2012. The Blaze reported that Hany Baransi, the owner of Nazareth Restaurant and Deli, believes that his business may have been targeted because he hangs his native Israeli flag in his business.
CBS News reported:
Police said the man walked into the restaurant, had a conversation with an employee and then left. He returned about a half hour later. That’s when police said he approached a man and a woman who were sitting just inside the door at a booth and started the attack.
Pegues reports the suspected attacker has a Somali background, and officials believe he may have traveled to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates in 2012. Pegues reports that law enforcement is concerned that this incident has the hallmarks of the type of so-called “lone wolf” terrorist attack that they have been working to stop.
Police said employees and patrons tried to get the man to stop.
“Some of the patrons there started throwing chairs at him just trying to get him out of there,” Weiner said.
There is an important message here–the patrons probably limited the number of casualties and the severity of the injuries by fighting back with chairs. A person with a concealed-carry permit would have also been very useful at this point.
There are two things we need to remember about this attack–the person used a machete–not a gun–the problem was the person–not the weapon. A person with a legal gun could have ended the attack quickly. The other thing to be aware of is that Americans need to begin to take more responsibility for their own safety. Until the War on Terror is over and young men are no longer encouraged to kill Americans in America and anywhere else, Americans need to be aware of their surroundings and ready to take action to defend themselves. Even something as simple as throwing a chair, a full glass of water or cup of coffee, or a piece of silverware may be enough to distract an attacker long enough to prevent tragedy.
Each of the identical stuffed toys wore red, green, black and white scarves, and their heads were covered by keffiyehs inscribed with the words “Jerusalem is ours” and “Jerusalem, here we come”. In the doll’s raised hand was a grey object clearly meant to resemble a stone.
Teaching your children to cover their faces and throw stones is not behavior that will lead to peace. Until this sort of behavior ends, there really is no point in having peace talks.
Kerry admits that, despite the deal, Iran will continue to back terrorist groups across the globe and promises to boost military support and funding to Israel and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The letter comes in response to concerns among lawmakers, Israel, and other Gulf region allies that the nuclear accord will boost the Islamic Republic’s support for terrorism, while leaving traditional U.S. allies on the defense.
“Important questions have been raised concerning the need to increase security assistance to our allies and partners in the region and to enhance our efforts to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” Kerry writes. “We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran’s continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Assad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.”
The Obama administration, Kerry claims, is under “no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the JCPOA,” or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
If the behavior of Iran will not change following the implementation of the JCPOA, then why are we agreeing to the JCPOA? Wouldn’t it be better to refuse to lift any sanctions or give Iran any money until the leaders of Iran change their behavior (and maybe stop shouting “Death to Israel” and “Death to America“)? I admit that I am only a lowly blogger, but that seems rather obvious to me. Why are we going to give Iran access to millions of dollars to buy more and better weapons to kill American soldiers?
The article reports:
One senior Congressional aide who received the letter said that it is a clear attempt by the administration to placate regional fears about the deal.
“Let’s not be fooled about what the letter represents. This desperate move to placate Israel and our Gulf partners is a tacit acknowledgment that Iran will expand its international terror regime thanks to the nuclear agreement,” the source said. “If this is such a good deal, why does the administration feel compelled to immediately offer arms packages as compensation to our regional allies?”
“No amount of conventional weapons can neutralize the threat posed by the mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons,” the source said. “This type of appeasement is a slap in the face to our closets allies and a wink-wink to the dictators in Tehran.”
Obviously there are people in our government who understand the dangers of this agreement. Unfortunately, there are also many people in our government who choose not to listen to them. I believe this agreement will be able to get through the games being played in the Senate and will go into force. I also believe that the day that happens will be a truly sad day for America. We have turned our backs on our friends and chosen to fund our enemies. That is not wisdom.
Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the foreign funding behind anit-fracking groups in America.
Before we follow the money, lets look at some history. During World War II, the British limited immigration to Israel because they did not want to antagonize the Arabs. It wasn’t that the British loved the Arabs–the Arabs had the oil Britain needed. In 1960 the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting CountriesilOPEC) was formed in Baghdad, Iraq. The mandate of OPEC is to “coordinate and unify the petroleum policies” of its members and to “ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.” (Essentially, they formed a monopoly whichthey stated would benefit producers and consumers.) We saw how well this worked when they tripled the price of oil in the 1970’s. We have also seen oil used as a political weapon to discourage international support of Israel. Now OPEC has a problem. If America becomes energy independent, OPEC has lost its political clout, and the repressive regimes in the Middle East that control OPEC might lose a lot of their support from western nations. What better way to discourage energy independence in America than to support the groups that oppose fracking and other petroleum industries.
The article reports:
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.
Russia needs high energy prices to support its economy. Fracking is a threat to those prices.
The article concludes:
“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, formerly NATO’s secretary general, said last year.
“If anybody in Russia is behind all the secretive Bermuda investment house and law firm action, it’s most likely some oligarch bidding against U.S. competition,” he said in an email.
Arnold, the author of Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant Driven Environmental Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future, said that the opacity of Klein Ltd.’s involvement with the Sea Change Foundation exemplifies attempts to shield the source of donations to such groups.
“In my experience of trying to penetrate offshore money funnels for U.S. leftist foundations and green groups, I have found that Liechtenstein, Panama and Bermuda are the Big Three green equivalents of the Cayman Islands for hedge fund managers—totally opaque and impervious to my specially designed research tools,” Arnold said.
The Russians are not the first to play this game. In September 2012, Power Line reported:
Earlier today, Steve gave this week’s Green Weenie award to Matt Damon for the anti-fracking movie Promised Land, which, it turns out, was financed by the United Arab Emirates. Who, trust me, acted out of a noble concern for the environment and had no thought of suppressing American fossil fuel development which would compete with the Emirates’ product and likely cost the Emirates billions of dollars.
Before you buy into the latest environmental (or other) cause, find out who is funding it.
The Middle East oil countries have done very well during the past thirty or so years. The have combined to form the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and have raised the price of oil from somewhere near $5 a barrel to over $100 a barrel (although the cost of oil is currently dropping).
But even modest cooperation between many members has broken down, and Saudi Arabia, in particular, has moved to act on its own. While it cut output earlier this summer, other members didn’t go along. Since then, it has dropped its prices.
But on Sunday, Ali al-Omair, Kuwait’s oil minister, said there had been no invitation for such a meeting, suggesting the group would need to stomach lower prices. He said there was a natural floor to how low prices could fallat about $76 to $77 per barrel—near what he said was the average production costs per barrel in Russia and the U.S.
The history of oil prices has often been that when the Middle East begins to drop their prices, Americans stop looking for cheaper oil in their own country. Considering the current instability in the Middle East in the OPEC nations, that would be a big mistake.
America needs to be energy independent for both economic and security reasons. It is time to develop our own resources.
The airstrikes appear tied to fear over the growing muscle of Islamist militias. The region’s monarchies and secular dictatorships are increasingly alarmed about Islamist gains from Libya to Syria and Iraq. And the airstrikes may signal a new willingness by some Arab states to take on a more direct military role in the region’s conflicts.
Various groups in Libya have been battling for control of the main Tripoli airport, and the strikes may have been a failed attempt to keep the strategic facility from falling to extremists.
Our intervention in Libya was a mistake. The only true justification for America’s getting involved was to protect the oil fields that supply Europe with oil. There is also some questions as to whether of not Gaddafi was planning to begin to trade oil in currency other than American dollars. If he had done that, it would have crashed the American economy. Gaddafi had turned over his weapons of mass destruction after the United States had invaded Iraq. He was a horrible dictator, but there was no assurance that he would be replaced with anything less horrible. The Obama Administration’s decision to bomb Libya as part of the ‘Arab Spring’ only strengthened the grip of the multiple terrorist groups in Libya and surrounding areas.
President Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster. It will take years to restore the faith in the United States that our allies once had and to undo the damage President Obama has done by supporting the enemies of democracy.
Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story about Shezanne Cassim, a young man from Minnesota who has lived and worked in Dubai for the past seven years. He works for PricewaterhouseCoopers. Mr. Cassim is currently in a maximum security prison in Dubia. His crime–making a YouTube video that mocked Dubai teenagers. Admittedly, it is bad manners to mock your host country, but putting people in maximum security prison for satire seems a little extreme. Mr. Cassim and four other men will be serving a one-year prison term for their offense. The video is posted at Hot Air. Follow the link above to view it.
The article reports:
It’s easy to joke about this, but it’s no joke to Cassim and his family. It’s outrageous of Dubai to have locked up Cassim for even a day, let alone for eight months — and adding another year in maximum security is absurd. Dubai and UAE want to position themselves as a modern, cosmopolitan oasis in the Middle East, but this suggests that they’re just another oppressive totalitarian state with enough money to buy good PR. The US should have demanded his release months ago, and his continued incarceration should be a high-profile story for anyone who cares about even rudimentary freedoms, such as the freedom to laugh.
The Cassim family spoke to CNN this morning in an attempt to raise Shezanne’s profile here in the US:
This story should be shouted from the rooftops in America. Why isn’t this story on the front page of all of our major newspapers? Where is our government? Do we have any international clout at all these days?
France 24 reported today that Dubai has pardoned Marte Dalelv and will allow her to fly home to Norway. Marte Dalelv was sentenced to jail for 16 months in prison after a co-worker spiked her drink and raped her. Yes, you read that right.
When you hear people say that Sharia Law is compatible with American democracy, remember that Ms. Dalelv’s story does not represent an isolated incident.
According to a U.K. Mail article updated yesterday:
Gali (Australian Alicia Gali, 27) was working at hotel chainStarwood when her drink was spiked in the staff bar.
She awoke to find that three colleagues had raped her, but when she went to a hospital for help, they turned her over to the police and she was charged with illicit sex outside marriage.
Under UAE law, rapists can only be convicted if either the perpetrator confesses or if four adult Muslim males witness the crime.
Under the Sharia-influenced laws, sex before marriage is completely forbidden and an unmarried couple holding hands in public can be jailed.
Foreigners jailed in Dubai are deported immediately after completing their sentences.
This is an example of Sharia Law. This is one of many reasons some states in America have done a preemptive strike against Sharia by outlawing its use in their courts.
CNS News reported today that the Obama Administration will ask the Global Counterterrorism Forum to consider allowing Israel to contribute to its forum–not become a member–but to contribute. It is interesting to note that more than a third of the forum members are Islamic nations.
The article reports:
State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Friday that the administration has “succeeded and agreed with our partners” in the Global Counterterrorism Forum to include the issue (allowing Israel to contribute) as a formal item on the agenda for a GCTF ministerial meeting in the United Arab Emirates.
Please read the article at CNS News for further details. The obvious questions is, “Why are we participating in this forum that excludes Israel when all we really need to do is ask Israel (the most successful country in the world in dealing with terrorism) how to deal with the problem?”
According to a Voice of America article Monday, the new members of the HRC were put forth by their regions so that there were only enough candidates to fill the positions–there was not actual choice.
According to the Voice of America, the new members include:
Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kenya and Sierra Leone will fill the five vacant African seats. Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates will fill the five open Asia-Pacific seats. Estonia and Montenegro will hold the two Eastern European seats while Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela take the three seats of the group of Latin American and Caribbean states.
Obviously, not all of the chosen countries have stellar human rights records within their own countries.
The article reports:
Rights groups have expressed doubts about whether at least seven of these countries – Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela – have adequate human rights records of their own.
Human Rights Watch’s U.N. Director Philippe Bolopion criticized the lack of competition and the questionable records of some of the council’s new members.
This is not a group that America should be a part of.
But the movie is actually worse than a garden-variety, ill-informed environmentalist fantasy, in which companies–especially energy companies–are villains, and whoever opposes development of resources–especially energy resources–is a hero. The original script for Promised Land portrayed anti-fracking activists as disinterested, admirable whistle-blowers. But while the film was in production, it came to light that several of the main real-world anti-fracking activists were peddling frauds:
The article then goes on to list some of the cases that have proved that the complaints against fracking are not valid.
The article explains how the movie dealt with the anti-fracking fraud:
News stories about these frauds were widely enough circulated that the filmmakers were concerned that moviegoers may be aware of them, and it could make the premise of their movie laughable. So, did they respond by telling the truth about the anti-fracking movement? Of course not. Did they cancel the film and eat their losses? Don’t be silly! No, they changed the script. In the finished version of Promised Land, “the fraudulent environmentalists are secretly working for the gas company to smear the environmental movement.”
I have a few questions about this whole fracking thing. “Why is the environmental movement so against America becoming energy independent?” Wouldn’t the environment be cleaner if every country used its own energy sources? Isn’t the use of local resources a better idea than taking a chance on oil spills by transporting oil all around the world? Are the environmentalists themselves using less energy to show that they practice what they preach?
Almost every country in the world has an energy source. The only country that I am aware of that uses almost 100% green energy is Iceland. They have harnessed the volcanoes the country sits on and used the superheated steam from the volcanoes to provide electricity. Obviously, every country does not sit on volcanoes and can’t do that, but America sits on large deposits of natural gas, a relatively clean source of energy that can be retrieved by fracking. We need to use our own resources. The United Arab Emirates needs to find new customers!
Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.
Approximately 35 percent of the world’s oil that is transported by sea travels through the Strait of Hormuz (approximately 18 million barrels of oil every day). The theory is that if Iran is attacked, it will immediately move to close the Strait. America will be able to get some of its oil from Canada, but Europe will be very hard hit if the Straits are closed. Closing the Straits would have a devastating impact on the economy of the entire world.
The article reports:
In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual 12-day exercise.
The article presents a rather detailed picture of the operation and what it is designed to prevent.
There are differing opinions as to when and if Israel will attack Iran. Obviously, Israel cannot afford to let Iran produce a working nuclear weapon–even if Iran chose not to use the weapon against Israel (a major question in the discussion), the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would seriously change the balance of power in the Middle East. A Shiite nation, Iran, would have a bomb to use against the Sunni nations in the area (such as Saudi Arabia). Even though much of the Middle East unites against the west, the tribal and religious splits in the region are very important. Iran going nuclear could result in turmoil in the Middle East that has nothing to do with either the United States or Israel.
It is my personal opinion that if Israel feels that Mitt Romney is going to be elected, they will not attack Iran until after the Presidential election because they feel that he will aid them in their effort. If the Israeli government feels that President Obama is going to be re-elected, they probably will attack before the election.
No attack on another country is ever good, but Iran going nuclear is worse.