President Obama’s Policy of Peace through Weakness invites Russian Nuclear Bombers into US Airspace

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Russia early in his administration with a plastic button from an office supply store to ‘reset’ U.S.-Russian relations.  Symbolically, of course.  For George W. Bush had damaged America’s world image with his cowboy ways.  Flexing American power across the globe.  But President Obama was going to heal that image.  By projecting weakness instead of power.  Which he says will make the world like the U.S. again.  Because we’ll stop being bullies.  And people will like that.  So how is that working?  Well, the Russians apparently are interpreting a sign of weakness differently.  They’re seeing it as an opportunity (see Two Nuclear-Armed Russian Bombers Reportedly Skirt US Base by David Cenciotti, The Aviationist, posted 2/16/2013 on Business Insider).

According to the Washington Free Beacon website two Russian Tu-95 Bear-H strategic bombers circled Guam island, in the Pacific Ocean, on Feb. 12.

“Defense officials said the bombers tracked over Guam were likely equipped with six Kh-55 or Kh-55SM cruise missiles that can hit targets up to 1,800 miles away with either a high-explosive warhead or a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead,” reports Bill Gertz in his piece.

The episode happened shortly before President Obama delivered his State of the Union address and prompted U.S. to scramble some Kadena F-15s temporary deployed to Andersen Air Force Base.

During the State of the Union, eh?  Can’t mistake the timing of this incident.  It is a clear message to President Obama.   It says we’re strong.  You’re weak.  And we don’t respect weakness.

Is President Obama reviving the Cold War?  Sounds like it.  Russian nuclear bombers violating U.S. airspace?  Commonplace during the Cold War.  But not so much since Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.  This after pressing that reset button.  And those comments President Obama made to Russian president Medvedev.  Telling him to tell Vladimir Putin that he will have more freedom to negotiate away our nuclear strength after the 2012 election.  And then the Russians violate U.S. airspace with nuclear bombers?  Who could have saw this coming?

The problem with peace is that people forget what war was like.  And get complacent.  Assuming the good times will just keep rolling.  And why not?  It’s all they ever knew.  If you say ‘duck and cover’ today most people will have no idea what you’re talking about.  But this is what they taught us in school during the height of the Cold War.  When nuclear war was a real possibility.

This is what we were to do when the Soviet nuclear missiles started falling out of the sky.  Duck under our desks and cover our heads to protect ourselves from flying debris from the nuclear detonation.   Assuming we weren’t vaporized by that detonation.  Good times.  Now a whole new generation of kids may get to grow up with the fear of nuclear annihilation hanging over their heads.  Thanks to President Obama.  And his misguided belief of peace through weakness.  While our enemies only see that weakness as an opportunity to make us their bitch.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the Finest All-Electric Cars is Beaten by the Cold Temperatures of the East Coast

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

The all-electric car is great as long as it’s warm and you don’t plan on driving great distances (see Tesla stock dips on poor Model S review by Maureen Farrell posted 2/11/2013 on CNN Money).

The idea of a driving an electric car has always intrigued me, but after reading a New York Times review of the Tesla (TSLA) Model S on I-95, it sounds like a total nightmare.

According to the writer, the battery on the Model S drained much quicker than promised in cold weather during a recent trip up and down the East Coast. With only a few charging stations in the Northeast, the writer was forced to turn off the heat in 30 degree weather to conserve power. And that didn’t help him much. At one point he needed to get towed for 45 minutes to the next charging station.

Here are some excerpts from the New York Times article.

The 480-volt Supercharger stations deliver enough power for 150 miles of travel in 30 minutes, and a full charge in about an hour, for the 85 kilowatt-hour Model S. (Adding the fast-charge option to cars with the midlevel 60 kilowatt-hour battery costs $2,000.) That’s quite a bit longer than it takes to pump 15 gallons of gasoline, but at Supercharger stations Tesla pays for the electricity, which seems a reasonable trade for fast, silent and emissions-free driving. Besides, what’s Sbarro for..?

I began following Tesla’s range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin and keeping up with traffic. I turned the climate control to low — the temperature was still in the 30s — and planted myself in the far right lane with the cruise control set at 54 miles per hour (the speed limit is 65)…

At that point, the car informed me it was shutting off the heater, and it ordered me, in vivid red letters, to “Recharge Now…”

I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post…

When I parked the car, its computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I parked.

I called Tesla in California, and the official I woke up said I needed to “condition” the battery pack to restore the lost energy. That meant sitting in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low setting…

The Tesla people found an E.V. charging facility that Norwich Public Utilities had recently installed. Norwich, an old mill town on the Thames River, was only 11 miles away, though in the opposite direction from Milford.

After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to Milford.

Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away.

But the Model S had other ideas. “Car is shutting down,” the computer informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn., before the car made good on its threat.   Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, found a towing service in Milford that sent a skilled and very patient driver, Rick Ibsen, to rescue me with a flatbed truck. Not so quick: the car’s electrically actuated parking brake would not release without battery power, and hooking the car’s 12-volt charging post behind the front grille to the tow truck’s portable charger would not release the brake. So he had to drag it onto the flatbed, a painstaking process that took 45 minutes. Fortunately, the cab of the tow truck was toasty.

At 2:40 p.m., we pulled into the Milford rest stop, five hours after I had left Groton on a trip that should have taken less than an hour. Mr. Ibsen carefully maneuvered the flatbed close to the charging kiosk, and 25 minutes later, with the battery sufficiently charged to release the parking brake and drive off the truck, the car was back on the ground.

And this is perhaps the finest all-electric car in the market.  And it is a modern marvel.  But even as high-tech as it is it still can’t change the law of physics.  Batteries don’t work well in cold temperatures.  It takes time to charge a battery.  Even at 480 volts.  And it should also be noted that charging lithium-ion batteries is itself not the safest thing to do.  For if they over charge they can catch fire.  These are the same batteries they have on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.  That the FAA grounded because their lithium-ion batteries were catching on fire.

Had he been driving at night he probably would have gotten a message that the car was shutting off its headlights, too.  To conserve battery charge.  Which would probably be a little more hazardous than driving without heat in the dark.

If you drive where it is cold the last thing you want is for your car to shut down.  Unable to get you home.  And this is the warmth and security a gasoline engine gives you.  You can top off your tank the night before to be extra safe you won’t run out of fuel.  And if the temperature falls to 40 below zero over night you will have the same amount of gasoline in your tank in the morning.  If you get stuck in bumper to bumper traffic in 40 degree below zero weather you will be able to stay toasty warm.  And if you’re driving after dark you will even be able to see where you are going.  Thanks to gasoline.  And the internal combustion engine.

Or you can try to save the environment and die of exposure instead.  Your choice.  Gasoline.  Or electricity.  Range anxiety or carefree driving.  Shivering in the cold to squeeze out a few extra miles.  Or sitting comfortably in your car with your coat off.  Killing an hour every time you charge your car perhaps once or twice a day.  Or spending 10 minutes pumping gas maybe once a week.  Pain in the ass.  Or convenience.  Your choice.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Solution to the Epidemic of Gun Violence is adopting Conservative Economic Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

The Left is saying there is an epidemic of gun violence in the nation.  And President Obama wants to pass new sweeping federal gun control laws in response to that epidemic.  Because the Left has always wanted to take guns away from the people.  The president wants to try these sweeping measures even if it only saves one life.  And that may be all the lives they save.  One.  For guns aren’t killing people.  It’s the people using these guns that are killing people.  And that’s what we should be looking at.  These people.  And what so many of them have in common (see MILLER: Chicago’s deadly gun control lessons by Paul Miller posted 2/11/2013 on The Washington Times).

Last year, more than 500 individuals were murdered in Chicago…

Fifty-six children — under the age of 18 — met violent ends last year in Chicago, while 133 individuals — nearly one-third of all the murdered victims — never saw their 21st birthdays. Still, the city and the state don’t want to talk about the nightmare that Chicago’s African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods have become. Nobody is asking how the disastrous economy of Illinois is contributing to violence on the streets of Chicago.

Illinois has an unfunded pension deficit of $200 billion. It now lays claim to the worst credit rating in the nation. Single-party rule — controlled by public-employee unions — has created a business climate that is benefiting neighboring states. The black unemployment rate average in 2012, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, was 24.2 percent. That is not a typo — the unemployment rate in Chicago’s black community is almost 1 in 4. The overwhelming majority of the murders take place in minority neighborhoods, which implies this is not a gun control issue — “it’s the economy, stupid…”

Elected officials for over a decade have seen their policies fail time after time. They continue down the same path, knowing full well their policies do more economic harm than good. They are more concerned with power than people. The results are higher taxes, fleeing businesses and no jobs. Minority communities get hit the hardest.

Guns don’t kill people — politicians do…

Unemployment in minority communities is appalling. That story line in Chicago is the same from Detroit to Baltimore and Oakland to St. Louis. The most dangerous cities in the nation have minority communities that see no hope because they have little opportunity. The results have been the same throughout human history — poverty leads to violence and hopelessness equals suffering.

What’s causing people to pick up guns and kill people?  Liberal economic policies.  At least, in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland and St. Louis.  Cities controlled by liberal Democrats.  That are highly unionized.  Have high taxes.  And costly business regulations.  All of which discourage business from locating in these cities.  Which is why these cities have such high unemployment rates.  Especially in their minority communities.  Creating fertile ground for unrest.  Hopelessness.  And desperation.  Making people pick up guns to kill people.

Guns aren’t the cause of this violence.  They’re the effect.  It’s the poor economic conditions that cause people to be hopeless and desperate.  Pushing them towards gangs.  Drugs.  And violence.  Had they had jobs they would not be so hopeless and desperate.  As they would be too busy working.  And raising their families.  This is what conservative economic policies give.  A business-friendly environment that creates jobs.  While liberal economic policies give us strong unions, high unemployment, hopelessness and desperation.  Especially in our minority communities.

So if the president wants to adopt policies that can stop this epidemic in gun violence he should endorse conservative economic policies.  And if you bring down the unemployment rate down from 24.2% you’re going to get a lot of people off the street.  And save a lot of lives.  Far more than just one that the president is targeting with his new sweeping federal gun control laws.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Nixon helped President Clinton despite what Hillary Clinton Did

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when terrorists killed four Americans in Benghazi.  Ambassador Stevens had requested additional security as the safety of Westerners in Benghazi was tenuous.  The British had already left after an attempt on their ambassador’s life.  But Secretary Clinton denied Ambassador Stevens’ request.  For it didn’t look good politically.

All during the 2012 campaign the Democrats repeated over and over how Osama bin Laden was dead.  And General Motors was alive.  Not only that al Qaeda was on the ropes.  Because President Obama defeated them.  Making them an empty shell of what they were when President Bush was president.  This is why we needed to reelect President Obama.  Because only he could defeat al Qaeda.  And did.  After winning the War on Terror it just wouldn’t look good to be beefing up security to defend against a resurgent al Qaeda.  Because that would go against the narrative that President Obama defeated al Qaeda.  So Ambassador Stevens and the Americans in Benghazi were left to fend for themselves so they wouldn’t reflect adversely on the president’s reelection campaign.  And then came 9/11/2012.

Four Americans died so as not to be a political inconvenience to President Obama.  And Secretary Clinton let that happen.  For their safety was her responsibility.  And it was no secret that Benghazi was not a safe place.  Which is why the British left.  When Secretary Clinton finally appeared before Congress to explain how four Americans died under her watch she got indignant and simply yelled “what difference does it make” to their questions.  Refusing to answer them.  Angry and annoyed that these Republicans even dared to ask her these questions.  Why wasn’t security beefed up?  Why didn’t we send help when they were under attack?  Why did she lie about it being a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video?  Who edited the talking points given to Ambassador Rice?  She did not like these questions.  And she made her resentment clear.  Funny when the shoe is on the other foot (see Documents show Bill Clinton’s close dealings with Richard Nixon on Russia, foreign affairs by Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press, posted 2/13/2013 on The Vancouver Sun).

Richard Nixon, in the final months of his life, quietly advised President Bill Clinton on navigating the post-Cold War world, even offering to serve as a conduit for messages to Russian President Boris Yeltsin and other government officials, newly declassified documents show.

Memos and other records show Nixon’s behind-the-scenes relations with the Clinton White House. The documents are part of an exhibit opening Friday at the Nixon Presidential Library, marking the centennial of his birth.

Clinton has talked often of his gratitude to Nixon for his advice on foreign affairs, particularly Russia. In a video that will be part of the exhibit, Clinton recalls receiving a letter from the 37th president shortly before his death on April 22, 1994, at a time when Clinton was assessing U.S. relations “in a world growing ever more interdependent and yet ungovernable.”

What really makes this remarkable and relevant to Hillary Clinton is this.

Clinton in his younger days was no fan of Nixon — as a college student in the 1960s, he opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. And his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, was a young lawyer advising a House committee when she helped draw up impeachment papers against Nixon.

Hillary Clinton helped draw up the impeachment papers against President Nixon which led to his resignation.  For Watergate.  Which amounted to a burglary.  And some wire-tapping.  There was no loss of life.  President Nixon’s crime, the cover-up, didn’t kill four Americans.  Yet Hillary Clinton helped to destroy President Nixon.  Even though he was a good president when it came to foreign policy.  At least, according to Hillary Clinton’s husband.  President Clinton.  But when she’s on the hot seat she responds with righteous indignation.  Even though her actions, or her lack of action, caused the death of four Americans.

So what can we learn from this?  President Nixon was a good president that put his country first.  Even helping the man whose wife destroyed his career.  President Clinton was not as good a president as President Nixon was.  And Hilary Clinton ruined a good president who didn’t do anything as bad as she did.  Allowing four Americans to die on her watch.  Because she put politics first.  Instead of her country.  Just as she did when she helped to destroy President Nixon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama is Killing more People in the War on Terror than George W. Bush

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Under George W. Bush the Americans committed great atrocities.  It embarrassed terrorists at the Abu Ghraib prison.  Including things like forcing these terrorists to form a human pyramid.  In the nude.  Much like a fraternity hazing.  Though without the drinking and sex that typically follows admission into a fraternity.  And American soldiers, including at least one woman, posing for pictures with some of these terrorists at the end of a leash.  But the atrocities didn’t end there.

Allies in the War on Terror took some terrorists into secret prisons.  Where they were interrogated with enhanced interrogation techniques.  Also known as torture.  Even the U.S. used some enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorists in their custody.  Water boarding as many as three terrorists.  Including one that gave up the name of a messenger used by Osama bin Laden which led us to his compound.  But the atrocities didn’t end there.

The Americans held terrorists in a military prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.  Freelance terrorist captured on the battlefield fighting for no organized state.  And therefore not subject to the Geneva Convention.  Terrorists that just travel to wherever they can as long as they can kill Americans.  The Americans captured them.  Imprisoned them.  And, worst of all, denied them access to the American criminal justice system.  Giving them trials by military tribunals instead.  While those on the Left wanted to give them full protection of the American criminal justice system.  Including the mastermind of 9/11.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Who the Left wanted to try in lower Manhattan.  Not far from Ground Zero.  And called George W. Bush a war criminal for not extending the full protection of the American criminal justice system to these terrorists.  For we are Americans.  We don’t torture people.  Or deny them their rights.  Even when they have no rights for they are not military personnel fighting under the flag of a nation signatory to the Geneva Convention.  But unaligned lawless mercenaries.

President Obama, on the other hand, has a way to deflect this criticism.  He just kills people without trial or due process.  Even if they are American-born.  And he labels any innocents caught in the cross fire as terrorists.  Because if everyone is a dead terrorist then there is no detainee problem or collateral damage.  A very efficient solution.  Death.  And when it comes to killing terrorists President Obama has many tools to use (see Stop Calling It The Drone Memo by Kelsey D. Atherton posted 2/11/2013 on Popular Science).

The United States uses a whole arsenal of tools to carry out the targeted killing policy detailed in a recent DOJ memo. Why is everyone focusing on drones..?

While it’s true that drones are the best-known tool for carrying out targeted strikes, they are only one of many methods by which the United States attacks individual terrorists from afar. Here are some others:…

The AC-130 is a type of gunship built on the body of a troop transport that has been in service since Vietnam…

Tomahawk cruise missiles, in use since the 1980s, are also part of the targeted killing program…

Another way the U.S. does targeted killings is with special forces…

We may talk about the “drone war” and debate the drone memo, but we’re not really looking at the use of a specific technology. Instead, the “drone debate” is about policy, and how the United States chooses to attack its enemies in the War on Terror. Fancy as modern drones may be, it’s the policy that makes this kind of war new.

Surprisingly, these assets are still in use even after the war criminal, George W. Bush, used them.  In fact, you’d think this was a laundry list of killing tools for George W. Bush.  Or Ronald Reagan.  Not the beloved President Obama.  The guy that had Hillary Clinton press a reset button with the Russians to show our kinder and more loveable side.  But no.  This is President Obama’s list of killing tools.  Who’s killing terrorists just as President Bush killed terrorists.  Even taking it up a notch with those drone strikes.

President Obama is killing more people with his drone strikes than President Bush did.  Including a lot of innocents standing too close to terrorists when those bombs fell out of the sky.  Some of the innocent dead even included children.  Making the locals hate the Americans even more than when George W. Bush was president.  Where the locals are saying that President Obama’s drone strikes and his indiscriminate killing policy are tools for terrorist recruitment.  Just as the Left said Abu Ghraib, enhanced interrogation techniques, denying rights to outlaw terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and not giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his day in court were tools for terrorist recruitment.

There are degrees of hate.  People hate cancer more than they hate washing the dishes.  So one would assume that some things make people hate Americans more than other things.  And one would have to believe that a bomb falling out of the sky killing innocent children would make people hate Americans more than water boarding three terrorists that no one knew about until the Left told the world about it.  So we can conclude that President Obama’s policies are recruiting more terrorists than the war criminal George W. Bush.  Even though President Obama said George W. Bush was everything that was wrong with U.S. policy.  A policy that only intensified under the Obama administration.  Yet the Left continues to love President Obama.  While they continue to hate George W. Bush.  Even though President Obama is even ‘more’ George W. Bush when it comes to his kill policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,