Physics

President Obama — “Good Deal” for Islamic Republic of Iran, Shia, Russia, China — Bad Deal for United States, U.S. Allies Including NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Sunnis — ‘If Iran cheats, the world will know’’ After Iran Has Nuclear Weapons — Deal Not Written nor Signed — Trust Terrorists? — — Chamberlain At Least Got A Written Signed Agreement From Hitler — Peace In Our Time — Time For Military Option: Destruction of Iran’s Nuclear Facitlites –The Road To World War 3 and Nuclear Proliferation — Videos

Posted on April 3, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, British History, Business, Catholic Church, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Coptic Christian, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Drones, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Middle East, Missiles, Money, Music, Narcissism, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Space, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Story 1: President Obama — “Good Deal” for Islamic Republic of Iran, Shia, Russia, China — Bad Deal for United States, U.S. Allies Including NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Sunnis —  ‘If Iran cheats, the world will know’’ After Iran Has Nuclear Weapons — Deal Not Written nor Signed — Trust Terrorists? — — Chamberlain At Least Got A Written Signed Agreement From Hitler — Peace In Our Time — Time For Military Option: Destruction of Iran’s Nuclear Facitlites –The Road To World War 3 and Nuclear Proliferation —   Videos

IF – Rudyard Kipling’s poem, recitation by Sir Michael Caine

Neville Chamberlain – Peace in our Time

Peace in our Time September 1938

Obama Iran Nuclear Deal Talks — US President Barack Obama Speaks Delivers a Statement on Iran

Obama On Iran Nuclear Deal – Full Speech

What’s in the Iran nuclear framework agreement?

Historic Nuclear Deal With Iran Sparks Mixed Reviews

Breaking News April 2 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiators announce framework agreement

Bill O’Reilly – Let’s Give Iran Deal a Shot , We Don’t Want to Risk War – Fox News

Is Obama Lying About Iran Nuke Deal, Netanyahu Deal Leads to Horrific War, 0% GDP Growth

Heinonen: We Don’t Know How Many Centrifuges Iran Has

Does Iran Need 54,000 Nuclear Centrifuges?

Peters: If Israel Disappeared From The Face of The Earth Tomorrow, Obama Would Not Shed a Tear

Rudyard Kipling’s “If”, a song by Six Elements

The most important quote from Obama’s Iran deal speech

There is one quote, buried in the middle of Obama’s Thursday address on the new Iran nuclear deal, that really captures his approach to what has become one of his key foreign policy priorities. It explains both why Obama wants this deal so badly — and how he’s planning to tackle the inevitable political fallout now that a basic framework for an agreement has been struck.

Here’s the passage:

When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented backed by the world’s powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?

The question, for Obama, isn’t whether this deal is perfect (though he clearly thinks it’s pretty good). It’s whether there are any alternatives that might be better. And the president, quite fundamentally, believes there aren’t.

Obama sees a deal with Iran as the least-worst option

As he said in the speech, Obama thinks there are only two possible alternatives to the deal that’s shaping up if the US wants to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. Either America could go to war with Iran, or it could withdraw from negotiations and hope sanctions would force Tehran to give up its hopes for a bomb.

The second option hasn’t worked so far. “Is [a deal] worse than doing what we’ve done for almost two decades with Iran moving with its nuclear program and without robust inspections?” he asked. “I think the answer will be clear.”

That leaves only one real alternative: war. Obama (along with most military experts) believes that war would delay Iran’s nuclear program at best. He believes, deeply and in his bones, that international inspections are a more effective way of stopping Iran from getting nukes — and that the consequences of war would be severe. This is, after all, a president who was elected on the basis of his opposition to the Iraq War.

This argument — that all of the alternatives to the deal are worse — also explains how Obama plans to handle the political challenges to the deal. At home, Republicans will vociferously oppose the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of America’s closest ally in the Middle East, will do the same. Both believe Iran can’t be trusted, and appear to believe that terms of this agreement aren’t enough to ensure Iran won’t get a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu and the Republicans are perhaps the most important of the “inevitable critics” Obama mentioned in his speech. His response to them is clear: what do you have that’s better? What is the credible alternative to what I’m doing, and how — specifically — could it prevent Iran from getting a bomb without taking us to war?

Or is it war you want?

This argument isn’t just an exercise in spin. If Congress chooses to pass new sanctions, and enough Democrats vote with Republicans to override Obama’s veto, it can kill the Iran deal. This line about alternatives is likely what the president and his aides will peddle to legislators, especially congressional Democrats tempted to side with Republicans, in the days to come.

Essentially, we’re about to get a test of whether enough Democrats share the president’s belief that “there is no alternative” to a deal — and whether that argument, together with partisanship and party loyalty, are enough to save the deal from the coming political fight.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337123/obama-iran-deal-quote

Obama announces outlines of a nuclear deal: ‘If Iran cheats, the world will know’

By Juliet Eilperin

President Obama on Thursday announced a potentially historic nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the culmination of intense negotiations between the United States, Iran and several world powers.

Speaking from the Rose Garden, Obama stressed that the deal — which none of the parties involved have yet formally agreed to — represented the best possible path to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“Sanctions alone could not stop Iran’s nuclear program, but they did help bring Iran to the negotiating table. Because of our diplomatic efforts, the world stood with us,” Obama said. “Today, after many months of tough principle diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal.

“And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives,” the president added.

[Fact sheet from State Department: Parameters of plan on Iran nuclear program]

As part of the unprecedented framework, the Iranian government has agreed not to stockpile materials it could use to build a nuclear weapon. In exchange, the United States and several world powers have agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain sanctions placed on it by the international community.

The president said that sanctions placed on Iran “for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program” will remain in place.

Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking from Lausanne, Switzerland, said that the final agreement “will not rely on promises, it will rely on proof,” saying that diplomatic relations moving forward will depend on Iran’s compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Both the president and Kerry stressed that Iran will be under close scrutiny moving forward.

“If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it,” Obama said. “With this deal, Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. So, this will be a long-term deal that addresses each path to a potential Iranian nuclear bomb.”
President Obama has made the negotiations between Iran, six major world powers and the European Union a centerpiece of his foreign policy, investing any final outcome with major potential benefits and risks.

The pact came after an all-night work session that extended well past the talks’ original deadline of March 31. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf tweeted Thursday afternoon, “For those keeping track, it’s 6am in Lausanne. That was truly an all-nighter.”

Iran, world powers agree on parameters of Iranian nuclear deal(3:01)
Negotiators from Iran and major world powers reached agreement on a framework for a final agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions, participants in the talks said. (Yahoo News)
Obama had been slated to leave early Thursday afternoon to deliver an economic speech in Louisville, but remained in the White House as the deal in Lausanne, Switzerland coalesced.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted just before 1 p.m. ET, “Solutions on key parameters of Iran #nuclear case reached. Drafting to start immediately, to finish by June 30th.”

Before coming out to speak Obama spoke separately with French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

According to a statement released by the White House, “The leaders affirmed that while nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the framework represents significant progress towards a lasting, comprehensive solution that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb and verifiably ensures the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program going forward.”

The president also called Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdul Aziz to discuss the agreement, and said during his speech he plans to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later on Thursday.

As Obama’s motorcade made its way to Joint Base Andrews shortly after the speech large, cheering throngs stood along the route through the Mall and along the Tidal Basin. At 3:21 p.m. the motorcade arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, roughly three hours behind schedule, and the president jogged up the stairs to Air Force One as he prepared to take off on the flight to Kentucky.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/02/u-s-iranian-officials-expected-to-speak-on-nuclear-deal/

Hitting the sweet spot: How many Iranian centrifuges?

Ariane Tabatabai

With the deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, and Germany) right around the corner, the negotiating parties are starting to reveal more of their cards in hopes of striking a deal. Along with the creative solutions that the West has put on the table, there are now reports about it showing more flexibility on what remains the talks’ key sticking point: enrichment.

News reports indicate that the current numbers of centrifuges that the two sides are discussing fall in the range of about 4,000 to 5,000 of the machines. This is the “sweet spot” for both sides, when it comes to how many centrifuges Iran can have for enriching uranium.

How far both sides have come. The negotiations surrounding Iran’s enrichment capacity would make any Iranian rug merchant haggling in the bazaar proud. Many in the West were pushing for a few hundred centrifuges. This past summer, Iran’sSupreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (link in Persian) stirred things up when he put a specific number on his country’s enrichment goals. Given his status as Iran’s highest political authority, the large number he had announced made many nervous that a deal would no longer be reachable. Khamenei formulated Iran’s goal of enrichment capacity as 190,000 separative work units, or SWUs. (An SWU is a measure of the work expended during enrichment.)

For the country to be able to reach this number, Iran would likely need at least 190,000 and perhaps as many as about 243,000 first-generation centrifuges, known as IR-1 centrifuges. (The efficiency of these first-generation centrifuges varies a good deal, from about 0.78 SWU per unit per year to 0.9 SWU, but in the past couple of years most of them have been producing at the lower end of the scale. All of which means that Iran may need a lot more than first anticipated to reach the goal of 190,000 SWU produced annually.)

The news came at a time when most of those discussing Iran’s practical needs—how much fuel the country requires to keep its domestic nuclear energy program running—said they could be met with roughly 1,500 centrifuges, or fewer than one percent of Khamenei’s figure.

Tehran has made it clear that its goal is to have industrial-scale enrichment. But while fixing a clear and concrete goal, Khamenei’s speech also gave a lot of room for his negotiating team to maneuver. This part of the speech was lost in translation in the United States. Many in the arms control community and Congress focused on that 190,000 SWU figure, with those in favor of a deal becoming worried that this number would tie the hands of negotiators. Those opposing it cited this figure as a reason why the talks would fail.

In fact, what Khamenei had stated was: “Our officials say we need 190,000 SWU. It is possible this need is not for this year, the next couple of years, or the next five years, but this is the country’s undeniable need.”

The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, explained Khamenei’s statement, noting that 190,000 SWU would meet the Bushehr civilian nuclear power plant’s need for fuel for one year. This wouldn’t mean that Iran could take care of all of its fuel needs domestically, but it would give it a backup plan in case its suppliers fail again. This number, however, seems way above Bushehr’s needs alone.

Oddly, while fixing a redline, Khamenei’s statement also opens the doors wider for the negotiating team—and Iran’s nuclear industry in general—on the matter. It is significant that he doesn’t give a timeline for industrial-scale enrichment.

It is also significant that Iran has been adhering to the interim deal reached in November 2013. Even though it has more advanced and efficient technologies, such as the recently installed cascades of second-generation, IR-2m centrifuges (which produce approximately 5 SWU per machine per year, or more than four or five times that of an IR-1), Iran has chosen not to feed their new machines with natural uranium hexafluoride gas—a vital step to enrichment.

And in practical terms, Iran is nowhere close to being able to produce 190,000 SWU any time soon. Of the more than 190,000 IR-1 centrifuges needed, the country currently only has approximately 20,000—and only half of those are actually operating. While Iran also has a number of centrifuges even more advanced than the IR-2m under research and development at the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, those centrifuges are not currently operating. And Tehran has undertaken to not install any new machines. Consequently, 190,000 SWU is not a number Iran can realistically attain any time soon.

Spinning out the implications. If the negotiating team accepts the 4,000- to 5,000-centrifuge proposal on the table, it can sell the deal back home in Iran using Khamenei’s guidelines, depending on the timeframe fixed in the final agreement. This is especially true if this proposal is part of a larger package that the team can stand behind. The current deal includes an attractive offer from the P5+1 on other sticking points, including the Arak heavy water reactor and the underground enrichment facility in Fordow.

But in Iran, the issue of enrichment is the most visible component of the nuclear talks. Many people may not be aware of the other sticking points such as Arak or Fordow, but virtually everyone in Iran is aware of the enrichment debate. Any limitation on enrichment will likely cause some factions to criticize the negotiating team, but no deal is possible without some kind of limitation. So far, the Rouhani government has let the issue of enrichment become the centerpiece of debate about the negotiations, and the only measure of the team’s success. But knowing that any deal of any kind would diminish Iran’s enrichment capacity, the government must step up and begin to publicize to the Iranian public the benefits of the other components of the agreement, such as the considerable concessions it is getting from the P5+1. This will allow the Iranian government to sell the deal as a whole, and not be judged by the number of centrifuges it is “losing.”

During his 2013 presidential campaign, Hassan Rouhani famously declared that the centrifuges should spin, but that people’s lives should run too. He hadn’t said how many centrifuges should spin but this has become one of the key issues of the first eighteen months of his presidency. Something in the range of 4,000 to 5,000 centrifuges is a good compromise, a “win-win” formula for both sides. They’ll allow the Iranian negotiating team to go back to Tehran and state that they started negotiating at a time when their opponents at the bargaining table were pushing for Iran to be limited to a few hundred centrifuges, and that the Iranian team successfully kept over half of the current operating centrifuges. They can also say that they managed to keep Arak with some design modifications, and Fordow as a research facility. Meanwhile, the White House can tell Congress that it has effectively rolled back approximately half of Iran’s enrichment capacity.

For Iran, anything less than 4,000 centrifuges will be a hard pill to swallow. The Iranian parliament, or Majles, won’t roll out a red carpet for the negotiating team if it comes back with a lower number. Likewise, on the US side, selling more than 5,000 centrifuges to Congress would be extremely difficult. Many congressmen still believe any enrichment to be a major concession to Tehran, let alone about half of the country’s current number of operating centrifuges.

With nearly a month left until the November 24 deadline, the Iranian government should step up its promotional campaign to its people regarding the negotiations, and accept a number falling between 4,000 and 5,000 centrifuges.

http://thebulletin.org/hitting-sweet-spot-how-many-iranian-centrifuges7763

Rudyard Kipling, If: A Father’s Advice to His Son

“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!”

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/346219-if-you-can-keep-your-head-when-all-about-you

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-440 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

United States Nuclear Deal is Another Obama Disaster — Just Walk Away Kerry — Back To Punishing Economic Sanctions — Iranian Regime Change — Videos

Posted on April 3, 2015. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, Bomb, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Data, Demographics, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Drones, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Missiles, Music, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weather | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Story 2: United States Nuclear Deal is Another Obama Disaster — Just Walk Away Kerry — Back To Punishing Economic Sanctions — Iranian Regime Change — Videos

Treaty Clause

“The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

What to know about the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotations

Iran Nuclear Negotiations: What’s at Stake? | The New York Times

Iran Nuclear Talks Approaching Deadline

Iran nuclear talks intensify as deadline for deal looms

Kerry defends US policy to continue nuclear talks with Iran

Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Deal or No Deal? / Ted Cruz, Election 2016

Former WH aide Dan Pfeiffer on potential collapse of Iran nuclear talks

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan (BBC Newsnight 7 Nov 2013)

Saudi Nuclear Deal Raises Arms Race Fears

Iran – Nuclear negotiations waste of time says Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia reportedly able to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan to counter Iran threat

Why do the Saudis Want the US to Attack Iran? (4/5)

Saudi Arabia Showcases Ballistic Missiles in Military Parade

Shocking Histry of saudi Arabia

Walk Away Renee – The left Banke

Walk Away Renee

  1. And when I see the sign that points one way
    The lot we used to pass by every day
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
    You’re not to blame
    From deep inside the tears that I’m forced to cry
    From deep inside the pain that I chose to hide
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    Now, as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
    For me, it cries
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    Now, as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
    For me, it cries
    Your name and mine inside a heart upon a wall
    Still finds a way to haunt me though they’re so small
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
    You’re… Full lyrics on Google Play

    Herman’s Hermits – Walk Away Renee (1968)

    The Four Tops – Walk Away Renee (with lyrics on screen)

Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne

Amir Hossein Motaghi says he no longer sees any “sense” in his profession as he could only write as he was told

A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.

Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).

He then appeared on an opposition television channel based in London to say he no longer saw any “sense” in his profession as a journalist as he could only write what he was told.

“There are a number of people attending on the Iranian side at the negotiations who are said to be journalists reporting on the negotiations,” he told Irane Farda television. “But they are not journalists and their main job is to make sure that all the news fed back to Iran goes through their channels.

“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more.” Mr Mottaghi was a journalist and commentator who went on to use social media successfully to promote Mr Rouhani to a youthful audience that overwhelmingly elected him to power.

But he was also subject to the bitter internal arguments within the Iranian regime. One news website claimed he had been forced in to report to the ministry of intelligence weekly, and that he had been tipped off that he might be subject to arrest had he returned to Tehran.


Jason Rezalan

He is said to have been a friend of Jason Rezaian, the Iranian-American reporter for the Washington Post who has been detained in Tehran, and to have campaigned privately for his release.

ISCA, which has come under fire from regime hardliners critical of Mr Rouhani, issued a statement denying that Mr Motaghi was in Lausanne to report for it.

“Amir Hossein Motaghi had terminated his contribution to ISCA and this news agency has not had any reporter at the nuclear talks, except for a photojournalist”, it said.

However, critics said Mr Mottaghi was “prey of the exiled counter-revolutionaries” and had gone to Lausanne with the sole purpose of seeking refugee status in Switzerland.

In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11500145/Pro-Hassan-Rouhani-Iranian-editor-defects-while-covering-nuclear-talks-in-Lausanne.html

NETANYAHU: NUKE DEAL A ‘REWARD FOR IRAN’S AGGRESSION’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blasted the impending nuclear deal between the P5+1 world powers and the Iranian regime, calling the accord a historically bad agreement that lets Iran race towards nuclear weapons development.

“The deal emerging in Lausanne [Switzerland] sends a message that there is no cost for aggression, and in turn, that there is a reward for Iran’s aggression,” Netanyahu said.

The Israeli Prime Minister vowed to continue fighting against vital threats to the national security of his country.

He added: “We will never close our eyes and we will continue to operate against every threat in every generation, and of course in this generation.”

Netanyahu predicted that many countries in the region would be immediately affected by a bad deal.

“Moderate, responsible countries in the region, primarily Israel but other countries as well, will be the first to be harmed by this agreement,” he said.

On Sunday, the Israeli Prime Minister expressed concern with the Iranian regime’s growing sphere of influence and control.

“After the Beirut-Damascus- Baghdad axis, Iran is carrying out a pincer movement from the south to take over and occupy the entire Middle East. The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity and it must be stopped,” Netanyahu said on Sunday at his weekly cabinet meeting.

Netanyahu suggested in the meeting that the impending nuclear deal likely “paves Iran’s way to the [nuclear] bomb.”

The foreign ministers of Iran and the entire P5+1 world powers met in Switzerland on Monday in hopes to secure a basic framework for a nuclear deal by Tuesday’s March 31 deadline. This marked the first time that all of the negotiating foreign minister’s gathered together at the same event.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the media, “I think it is possible to reach a deal by [Tuesday] night. The gaps are narrowing. I am always optimistic.”

“Our deadline is tomorrow night so obviously we are working very hard,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters.

Treaty Clause

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.

Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-state’s executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.” In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined:

The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.

Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”

The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest. An episode just a year before the start of the Convention had highlighted the problem. The United States desired a trade treaty with Spain, and sought free access to the Mississippi River through Spanish-controlled New Orleans. Spain offered favorable trade terms, but only if the United States would give up its demands on the Mississippi. The Northern states, which would have benefited most from the trade treaty and cared little about New Orleans, had a majority, but not a supermajority, in the Continental Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation.

At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power.

The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.

Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?

While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.

A second question is how the President and Senate should interact in their joint exercise of the treaty power. Many Framers apparently thought that the President would oversee the actual conduct of diplomacy, but that the Senate would be involved from the outset as a sort of executive council advising the President. This was likely a reason that the Framers thought the smaller Senate was more suited than the House to play a key role in treaty-making. In the first effort at treaty-making under the Constitution, President George Washington attempted to operate in just this fashion. He went to the Senate in person to discuss a proposed treaty before he began negotiations. What is less clear, however, is whether the Constitution actually requires this process, or whether it is only what the Framers assumed would happen. The Senate, of course, is constitutionally authorized to offer “advice” to the President at any stage of the treaty-making process, but the President is not directed (in so many words) as to when advice must be solicited. As we shall see, this uncertainty has led, in modern practice, to a very different procedure than some Framers envisioned. It seems clear, however, that the Framers expected that the Senate’s “advice and consent” would be a close review and not a mere formality, as they thought of it as an important check upon presidential power.

A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the President as part of the President’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his Cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral.

A second view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the President and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers).

The third view is that the Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications.

Finally, there is a question of the limits of the treaty power. A treaty presumably cannot alter the constitutional structure of government, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements—and so apparently treaties—are subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights just as ordinary laws are. Reid v. Covert (1957). InGeofroy v. Riggs (1890), the Supreme Court also declared that the treaty power extends only to topics that are “properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.” However, at least in the modern world, one would think that few topics are so local that they could not, under some circumstances, be reached as part of the foreign-affairs interests of the nation. Some have argued that treaties are limited by the federalism interests of the states. The Supreme Court rejected a version of that argument in State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), holding that the subject matter of treaties is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress. The revival of interest in federalism limits on Congress in such areas as state sovereign immunity, see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), and the Tenth Amendment, see Printz v. United States (1997), raises the question whether these limits also apply to the treaty power, but the Court has not yet taken up these matters.

Turning to modern practice, the Framers’ vision of treaty-making has in some ways prevailed and in some ways been altered. First, it is not true—and has not been true since George Washington’s administration—that the Senate serves as an executive council to advise the President in all stages of treaty-making. Rather, the usual modern course is that the President negotiates and signs treaties independently and then presents the proposed treaty to the Senate for its approval or disapproval. Washington himself found personal consultation with the Senate to be so awkward and unproductive that he abandoned it, and subsequent Presidents have followed his example.

Moreover, the Senate frequently approves treaties with conditions and has done so since the Washington administration. If the President makes clear to foreign nations that his signature on a treaty is only a preliminary commitment subject to serious Senate scrutiny, and if the Senate takes seriously its constitutional role of reviewing treaties (rather than merely deferring to the President), the check that the Framers sought to create remains in place. By going beyond a simple “up-or-down” vote, the Senate retains some of its power of “advice”: the Senate not only disapproves the treaty proposed by the President but suggests how the President might craft a better treaty. As a practical matter, there is often much consultation between the executive and members of the Senate before treaties are crafted and signed. Thus modern practice captures the essence of the Framers’ vision that the Senate would have some form of a participatory role in treaty-making.

A more substantial departure from the Framers’ vision may arise from the practice of “executive agreements.” According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments.

Where the President acts pursuant to a prior treaty, there seems little tension with the Framers’ vision, as Senate approval has, in effect, been secured in advance. Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). On the other hand, arguments for “complete interchangeability”—that is, claims that anything that can be done by treaty can be done by congressional–executive agreement—seem counter to the Framers’ intent. The Framers carefully considered the supermajority rule for treaties and adopted it in response to specific threats to the Union; finding a complete alternative to the Treaty Clause would in effect eliminate the supermajority rule and make important international agreements easier to adopt than the Framers wished.

The third type of executive agreement is one adopted by the President without explicit approval of either the Senate or the Congress as a whole. The Supreme Court and modern practice embrace the idea that the President may under some circumstances make these so-called sole executive agreements. United States v. Belmont (1937); United States v. Pink (1942). But the scope of this independent presidential power remains a serious question. The Pink and Belmont cases involved agreements relating to the recognition of a foreign government, a power closely tied to the President’s textual power to receive ambassadors (Article II, Section 3). The courts have consistently permitted the President to settle foreign claims by sole executive agreement, but at the same time have emphasized that the Congress has acquiesced in the practice. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981);American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003). Beyond this, the modern limits of the President’s ability to act independently in making international agreements have not been explored. With respect to treaty termination, modern practice allows the President to terminate treaties on his own. In recent times, President James Earl Carter terminated the U.S.–Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1977, and President George W. Bush terminated the ABM Treaty with Russia in 2001. The Senate objected sharply to President Carter’s actions, but the Supreme Court rebuffed the Senate in Goldwater v. Carter (1979). President Bush’s action was criticized in some academic quarters but received general acquiescence. In light of the consensus early in Washington’s administration, it is probably fair to say that presidential termination does not obviously depart from the original understanding, inasmuch as the Framers were much more concerned about checks upon entering into treaties than they were about checks upon terminating them.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-437

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Director General Yukiya Amano of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — Videos

Posted on March 24, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, British History, College, Communications, Documentary, Education, European History, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government spending, history, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Raves, Religion, Science, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Technology, Terrorism, Video, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

A Conversation with Director General Yukiya Amano – 2015 NPC

Yukiya Amano is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Mr. Amano served as Chair of the Agency’s Board of Governors from September 2005 to September 2006 and was Japan’s Resident Representative to the Agency from 2005 until his election as Director General in July 2009. At the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Mr. Amano was Director-General for the Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Science Department from 2002 until 2005. He previously served as a governmental expert on the U.N. Panel on Missiles and on the U.N. Expert Group on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education. A graduate of the Tokyo University Faculty of Law, Mr. Amano joined the Japanese Foreign Ministry in April 1972, when he began a series of international postings in Belgium, France, Laos, Switzerland, and the United States.

IAEA Chief Urges Iran to Keep Its Promises on Nuclear Program

Director of the IAEA: We have never said that Iran has a nuclear weapon program, or nuclear weapons

Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

By Steven Mufson

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran has failed to provide the information or access needed to allay the agency’s concerns about the weapons potential of the country’s nuclear program.

With the deadline nearing for international talks on constraining Iran’s nuclear program, Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said in an interview that Iran has replied to just one of a dozen queries about “possible military dimensions” of past nuclear activities.

Amano said that Iran has provided only “very limited” information about two other issues, while the rest have not been addressed at all.

“Recently, the progress is very limited,” he said.

The IAEA is the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, and its inspections are considered a key safeguard against countries using civilian nuclear energy technology to produce weapons. Failure by Iran to comply with IAEA demands would undermine the country’s efforts to win the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

Amano said that the six global powers negotiating with Iran should insist that the country implement the additional protocol that would allow IAEA inspectors to go anywhere at any time to examine sites suspected of harboring secret nuclear weapons development.

He said that he spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Feb. 7 in Munich but noted that Iran has not yet provided the information the agency needs.

Amano met early Tuesday with U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry. He was scheduled to meet later with President Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice.

That additional protocol, Amano said, will be “very much needed. It will give us more powerful tools to look at activities not declared to us.” He said that in the past the agency has had two to four inspectors in Iran, but that recently there have been as many as 10.

Iran signed the protocol in December 2003 and initially implemented it, Amano said, but the country ended its compliance in 2006.

Amano said that near the top of his list of unanswered questions about possible military dimensions of Iranian nuclear activities was the Parchin military complex. He said that the IAEA has information that Iran conducted experiments in a high-explosive chamber there.

“We would like to have access, and we would like to clarify,” Amano said. He said Iran had twice given IAEA inspectors access to the base, but he added that Parchin “is a huge area with many buildings.” Now, he said, the IAEA thinks it has identified “the right place to visit,” but its access has been blocked.

After the agency requested admittance to that area in late 2011, it observed by satellite extensive landscaping, demolition and new construction there.

Amano said that looking at sites with military nuclear potential was “like a jigsaw puzzle.” He said, “As we have a better understanding of one issue, we have better understanding of another issue.”

Amano said that the IAEA’s failure to detect Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in the 1980s had forced the agency to demand unfettered access to countries suspected of building weapons in secret.

In openly declared sites, he said, the agency places cameras and seals in strategic places so that it can “detect abnormalities in a timely manner,” ranging from a day to a week.

Amano’s comments come after a Feb. 19 report the agency sent to member governments that complained about Iran’s lack of responsiveness. The report said: “The Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Although Iran has declared to the IAEA 18 nuclear facilities and nine other locations where nuclear material is used, the agency said in its report that it “is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Michael D. Evans — Showdown With Nuclear Iran

Posted on March 10, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Dirty Bomb, Education, Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, history, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Religion, Resources, Security, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Terrorism, Video, War, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Sen. Cotton On Iran: ‘If Congress Doesn’t Approve A Deal, Congress Won’t Accept A Deal’

Joe Biden blasts Republicans over letter to Iran leaders

President Obama mocks Republican letter to Iran over nuclear talks

News Wrap: GOP senators write open letter to Iran over nuclear deal

Nuclear Showdown in Iran Book Trailer

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

Iran – The Greatest Threat to Western Civilization

Mike Evans Interview at the 700 Club

Why do the Saudis Want the US to Attack Iran? (4/5)

JOHN BOLTON: “ISRAEL HAS 0 DAYS TO STRIKE IRAN” 8-17-2010

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Part 2 Commentary On: Three Cheers For Netanyahu’s Warning To American People About Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic State and Three Thumbs Down On Obama’s Bad Deal With The Iranian Republic On Developing Nuclear Weapons And Intercontinental Missiles — “Your Enemy of Your Enemy Is Your Enemy” — Restore Severe Sanctions On Iran Immediately — Take Out The Nuclear Weapons Facilities With Israel Defense Forces – Stop Iran’s Uranium Enrichment Forever Now! — Videos

Posted on March 7, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Bomb, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Energy, European History, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Missiles, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Science, Security, Shite, Space, Sunni, Talk Radio, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

 Story 1: Part 2 Commentary On: Three Cheers For Netanyahu’s Warning To American People About Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic State and Three Thumbs Down On Obama’s Bad Deal With The Iranian Republic On Developing Nuclear Weapons And Intercontinental Missiles — “Your Enemy of Your Enemy Is Your Enemy” — Restore Severe Sanctions On Iran Immediately — Take Out The Nuclear Weapons Facilities With Israel Defense Forces – Stop Iran’s Uranium Enrichment Forever Now! — Videos

Iran-Nuke-Fixiran_cartoonbombNegotiatingWithTehran-bigmichael_ramirez_michael_ramirez_kerry-cartoonKerry-Chamberlain_Varvelarabs_israelkerry-and-bibiCartoon-Iran-Nuke-Dealtrustkeep nuclearprogram
reactor
rocketssyria-iran-middle-east-map

Nuclear_weaponsIran_nuclear_program_map-en

nuclear enrichment sitesiran-nuclear-facilitiesiran incidencesiranarsenal_missilesUS-preventative-strike-against-Iranian-nuclear-facilities-and-ballistic-missile-basesShia-Sunni percentagesmid_east_shias2_map416mapMEethnicmuslim-distributionreligious-minorities-chart2iran_ethnic_groupsLegalSystemsberglee-fig08_055menapopulationtablepoplChangeturkey-map

Iran Nuclear Site: Natanz Uranium Enrichment Site

natanz

Inside Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Plan

A Briefing on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

O’Reilly on Iran Nuclear Deal: ‘Let’s See It’

Sen Rand Paul sounds off on Iran nuclear negotiations latest news today

Kerry says demanding Iran’s ‘capitulation’ is no way to secure nuclear deal

Benjamin Netanyahu speech to congress 2015 – Prime Minister of Israel Address Meeting of Congress

Benjamin Netanyahu speech to congress 2015 – Prime Minister of Israel Address Joint Meeting of Congress benjamin netanyahu speech to congress Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel Address to a Joint Meeting of Congress Netanyahu on Tensions Over Iran Speech to Congress FULL Benjamin Netanyahu Speech To US Congress Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress The quickest of takes are already coming in, but few seem to agree about whether Netanyahu’s speech was a boom or a bust for President Obama and talks with Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel Address to a Joint Meeting of Congress

“This was a speech the American people needed to hear, plain and simple. It addressed the gravity of the threats we face and why we cannot allow a nuclear Iran, or any semblance of a path to a nuclear Iran. It demonstrated why there is such deep-seated – and bipartisan – concern about the deal that is being made. I thank my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, who took the time to hear the Prime Minister’s address on behalf of their constituents, and I hope all Americans will have the chance to see it for themselves.” – Speaker John Boehner

Kerry says demanding Iran’s ‘capitulation’ is no way to secure nuclear deal

Iran Nuclear Talks Advancing, no Deal Likely Next Week

Negotiations on an agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program have advanced substantially, but difficult issues remain and a senior U.S. official said he did not expect a deal in the coming week. U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will join in talks next week between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Montreux, Switzerland. The United States and five major powers are seeking a deal under which Iran would restrain its nuclear program in exchange for the gradual easing of economic sanctions that have crippled the oil exporter’s economy. Washington and some of its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb, which they regard as a direct threat to Israel as well as to Arab allies of the United States. Iran says its program is solely for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Kerry Tries to Ease Gulf Countries’ Concerns On Iran Nuclear Talks

Krauthammer: Sanctions on Iran Are Only Way to Avoid Capitulation or War

Iran rejects US Nuclear Freeze Call

Rubio to Iran: You Can Have An Economy or Nukes Program, Not Both

Graham Discusses Secretary’s Kerry’s Testimony on U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations

DNI James Clapper on Israel, Iran and Nuclear Negotiations (Mar. 2, 2015) | Charlie Rose

James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, talks to Charlie Rose about the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and whether the U.S. and Israeli intelligence services are “on the same page” regarding their assessment of Iran’s capabilities. The full interview airs March 2, 2015 on PBS.

Ambassador John Bolton, American Enterprise Institute CPAC 2015

 

John Bolton: Obama giving Iran “an open path to nuclear weapons”

“The odds are right now the deal will be signed and that Iran will have an open path to nuclear weapons…there’s no guarantee that the verification mechanisms that are required are going to work. You really think we really know everything about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, like whether some of it’s being conducted in North Korea? I have no faith in our verification capabilities, number one. Number two, to the extent Iran is allowed any continuing uranium enrichment capability at all, and that’s where the administration’s concessions are moving, it has in its hands the long pole in the tent that any aspiring nuclear weapons state wants” he said. Adding that appeasing Iran is “par for the course for the Obama administration. The negotiation with Iran over its nuclear weapons program is a policy of appeasement, and the president is desperate to get this deal done so it doesn’t slip between his fingers.”

Iran Nuclear Talks – Negotiations Continue As Deadline Nears – Special Report All Star

Obama’s Nuclear Demand Unacceptable To Iran

Chairman Royce on CNN Discusses Iran Nuclear Negotiations & Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress

No Deal…Yet: Iran Nuclear Talks Extended

Why Iran Nuclear Deal Is An Urgent Issue For President Obama

Staged Attack Coming As Result of Iran Nuclear Deal

Could Israel Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Sites? Experts Say Perhaps, But….

Israel’s countdown to a Nuclear Iran: Can and will Jerusalem strike?

History of Modern Iran A Nuclear Islamic Republic – BBC Documentary – YouTube

Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal

Kerry Visiting Saudi Arabia to assuage concerns

By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV

DUBAI—It isn’t just about Bibi.

The Israeli prime minister’s public confrontation with PresidentBarack Obama over the U.S. administration’s pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran may have drawn all the spotlight this week. But America’s other key allies across the Middle East—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates—are just as distraught, even if they lack the kind of lobbying platform that Benjamin Netanyahu was offered in Congress.

ANALYSIS

These nations’ ties with Washington have already frayed in recent years, dented by what many officials in the region describe as a nagging sense that America doesn’t care about this part of the world anymore.

Now, with the nuclear talks nearing a deadline, these allies—particularly in the Gulf—fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.

“A lot of the Gulf countries feel they are being thrown under the bus,” said Mishaal al-Gergawi, managing director of the Delma Institute in Abu Dhabi and a prominent Emirati political commentator. “The Gulf thought it was in a monogamous relationship with the West, and now it realizes it’s being cheated on because the U.S. was in an open relationship with it.”

Trying to assuage such concerns, Secretary of State John Kerry flew Wednesday to Saudi Arabia. There, he is slated to discuss with King Salman and foreign ministers of other Gulf nations their worries that the nuclear deal may enable Iran to dominate the region.

In remarks after Mr. Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged Iran’s “ambitions when it comes to territory or terrorism”—but argued that “if, in fact, they obtain a nuclear weapon, all those problems would be worse.”

Steven Simon, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute who served as senior director for Middle East and North Africa at the White House in 2011-12, noted that the Gulf countries—while genuinely alarmed by the U.S. outreach—can’t really propose a viable alternative.

“The alternative to what the administration is doing with Iran is war,” he said. “And I don’t think the Saudis and the Emiratis and others are actually prepared for war.”

America’s other key allies across the Middle East are just as distraught about Obama’s pursuit of a nuclear grand bargain with Iran. WSJ’s Yaroslav Trofimov discusses. Photo: AP

A joint effort to contain Iran and its proxies after the 1979 Islamic revolution was the key reason for the massive architecture of military, political and economic ties that the U.S. built with its regional allies in recent decades.

Even before the revolution, Iran tried to dominate the Gulf, laying claim to Shiite-majority Bahrain and seizing disputed islands claimed by the U.A.E.

Taking advantage of the Obama administration’s attempt to pivot away from the region, Tehran in recent years asserted its influence in Baghdad and solidified its control in Damascus and Beirut. Last month, pro-Iranian Houthi Shiite militias seized power in Yemen’s capital San’a and ousted that country’s U.S.-backed president.

The Sunni Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia that are engaged in proxy conflicts with Tehran in Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Lebanon view this confrontation as an existential zero-sum game—and interpret any American opening to Iran, and any relaxation of the economic sanctions that have hobbled Iran’s ability to project power, as succor to the enemy.

“Some of these countries are more worried about the consequences of the deal, about how it will change the balance of power in the region, rather than the actual contents of the deal,” explained Ali Vaez, Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. These fears are overblown, he said: “The reality is that the U.S. may have a tactical overlap in its interests in the region with Iran, but strategically it sees the region in a very different way.”

That may be true, but this tactical overlap has already created strategic consequences in the crucial battlefields of Syria and Iraq, cementing Iran’s sway in both nations.

The White House decision to focus the U.S. military effort exclusively on Islamic State, sparing the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, has allowed the regime and its Iranian-backed allies to regain ground there.

This means that even the fighters of the U.S.-funded Free Syrian Army, which is supposed to help defeat Islamic State one day, are no longer sure about which side Washington really supports.

“America wants to back whoever is stronger, and the strongest now are Iran and Bashar. This is clear to all people,” said Bakri Kaakeh, a senior FSA officer in Aleppo province.

In Iraq’s war against Islamic State, the U.S. has in fact become a cobelligerent with Iran, which maintains brutal Shiite militias and is directly involved in running major campaigns, such as the current assault on the Sunni city of Tikrit.“Any opportunities that the Arab countries will have to undermine the deal, they will not miss it,” said Riad Kahwaji, CEO of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai. “They will all conclude that the U.S. is no longer a reliable strategic ally, and that the U.S. can sell them out any minute.”

John Kerry in Switzerland before flying to Saudi Arabia Wednesday.
John Kerry in Switzerland before flying to Saudi Arabia Wednesday. PHOTO: EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY

Moeen al-Kadhimi, a senior commander in the largest Iraqi Shiite militia, Badr, which is armed by Iran and staffed with Iranian advisers, said he’s yearning for the day when Tehran and Washington will finally reconcile.

“It’s our wish as Iraqis for this to happen. We will be happy, and the entire Middle East will be stabilized,” he said.

Stability under an Iranian tutelage, of course, isn’t the most desirable outcome for other powers in the region, particularly in the Gulf. The big question is what can these allies do about it.

Not much, said Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank close to the Obama administration.

“All of the fuss shows how much they need America. Who are they going to turn to? Russia or China?” he wondered. “ No one has the security footprint, capabilities, and network of partnerships across the region.”

But that doesn’t mean the disgruntled allies won’t start looking for ways to torpedo any U.S. opening to Iran—and for alternatives, including a nuclear option of their own, if that fails. Their dismay with the administration’s Iran policy—while not displayed as publicly as Mr. Netanyahu’s—is just as strong.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/like-israel-u-s-arab-allies-fear-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1425504773

The complete transcript of Netanyahu’s address to Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is addressing a joint meeting of Congress; here is a complete transcript of his remarks.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you…

(APPLAUSE)

… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

[READ: Republicans loved every word of Bibi’s address]

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.

My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…

(APPLAUSE)

… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You’re wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/03/full-text-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

 

Comprehensive agreement on Iranian nuclear program

The Comprehensive agreement on Iranian nuclear program is a topic in a series of negotiations among Iran and theP5+1United states, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany.

The prospective agreement is to be achieved based on the context of the Geneva agreement, officially titled the Joint Plan of Action (JPA). The Geneva agreement was an interim deal forged on November 24, 2013,[1] under which Iran agreed to roll back parts of its nuclear program for relief from some sanctions. The interim agreement went into effect on January 20, 2014.[2] Later the parties agreed to extend their talks. The first extension deadline was set to 24 November 2014[3]and, when it expired, the second extension deadline was set to 1 July 2015.[4]

List of declared nuclear facilities in Iran

 The following is a partial list of nuclear facilities in Iran (IAEA, NTI and other sources):[5][6]

Negotiations under the Joint Plan of Action

First round: 18–20 February

Catherine Ashton and Javad Zarif in final news conference; The negotiation was described “Useful”.

The first round of negotiations was held at the UN’s center in Vienna from February 18 to 20, 2014. A timetable and framework for negotiating a comprehensive agreement was achieved, according to Catherine Ashton and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.[7]

Second round: 17–20 March

Diplomats from the six nations, as well as Ashton and Zarif, met again in Vienna on March 17, 2014. A series of further negotiations were to be held before the July deadline.[8]

Fourth round: 13–16 May

This fourth round of Vienna negotiations ended on May 16. The Iranian and U.S. delegations headed by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman held a bilateral meeting. Both sides intended to begin drafting a final agreement, but made little progress. A senior U.S. official said “We are just at the beginning of the drafting process and we have a significant way to go,” while Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told reporters that “the talks were serious and constructive but no progress has been made” and “we have not reached the point to start drafting the final agreement.” The U.S. official emphasized that negotiations had been “very slow and difficult,” saying talks would resume in June and all parties want to keep the July 20 deadline and adding: “we believe we can still get it done.” Negotiators had made progress on one issue, the future of Iran’s planned Arak reactor, but remained far apart on whether Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium should shrink or expand. The U.S. delegation also raised the issues of Iran’s ballistic missile program and military dimensions of its past nuclear research. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton conducted negotiations with Zarif and Wendy Sherman joined the talks at the end the last meeting.[9][10][11]

Fifth round: 16–20 June

The fifth round of talks ended on June 20 “with substantial differences still remaining.” The negotiating parties will meet again in Vienna on July 2. Under Secretary Sherman noted after the talks that it was “still unclear” whether Iran would act “to ensure the world that its nuclear program was strictly meant for peaceful purposes.”[12] Foreign Minister Zarif said the United States was making unreasonable demands of Iran, saying “the United States must take the most difficult decisions.”[13]

Under the Geneva interim agreement Iran agreed to convert some of its up to 5 percent LEU into an oxide powder that is not suitable for further enrichment. According to the monthly IAEA report released during this round the conversion of LEU has not been started yet. This means that Iran’s LEU stockpile “is almost certainly continuing to increase for the time being, simply because its production of the material has not stopped, unlike that of the 20 percent uranium gas.”[14]

Sixth (final) round: 2–20 July

The sixth round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group started in Vienna on 2 July 2014. The parties are headed by Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and the EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.[15]

John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif conduct a bilateral meeting in Vienna, Austria, July 14, 2014

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western foreign ministers arrived at Vienna to break a deadlock in the nuclear talks with Iran,[16] but their joint efforts failed to advance the negotiations. “There has been no breakthrough today,” said British Foreign Secretary William Hague on 13 July 2014 after meetings with the foreign ministers of USA, France, Germany and Iran. German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: “It is now time for Iran to decide whether they want co-operation with the world community or stay in isolation.”[17] The European foreign ministers left Vienna the same day. The Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that the talks had “made some important headway.” [18] After three days of talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister Secretary of State Kerry headed back to Washington where he will consult with President Barack Obama and Congress leaders. No decision on an extension of negotiations beyond the July 20 deadline has been taken yet.[19] In order to continue talks a decision of each member of P5+1 is required.[20]

Wrapping-up the sixth round the Foreign Minister Zarif said that the achieved progress convinced the sides to extend their talks and the ultimate deadline would be November 25. He also expressed the hope that the new British foreign secretaryPhilip Hammond “will adopt a constructive diplomacy” towards Iran.[21] Several sources reported that all parties were prepared to extend negotiations but extension faced opposition in the U.S. Congress. Republicans and Democrats in Congress made it clear that they view a prolongation of the talks as allowing Iran to play for time. The Republican chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs Ed Royce said he hoped “the administration will finally engage in robust discussions with Congress about preparing additional sanctions against Iran”.[22][23]

Before the expiration of the six months imposed by the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) the sides agreed to extend negotiations by four months with a final deadline set for 24 November 2014. Additionally, in exchange for Iranian consent to convert some of its 20% enriched uranium into fuel for a research reactor, United States will unblock $2.8 billion in frozen Iranian funds. Negotiations will resume in September. John Kerry said that tangible progress had been made, but “very real gaps” remained. Ed Royce stated that he did not see “the extension as progress”.[3][24][25]

Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has testified before the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the status of the talks. At her testimony on July 29, 2014 she said: “We made tangible progress in key areas, including Fordow, Arak, and IAEA access. However, critical gaps still exist…” Both Republicans and Democrats have insisted that a final agreement be put to a vote.[26]

Negotiations under the First Extension of JPA

Seventh (first extended) round: New York

Negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program were resumed on 19 September 2014. They started on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly and Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterparts were given the opportunity to join the talks.[27][28] The talks were planned to last until September 26.[29][30]

Eighth round: Vienna

Negotiating teams of Iran and the P5+1 have held their eighth round of talks in Vienna on 16 October 2014. The meeting was led jointly by Foreign Minister Zarif and High Representative Ashton and the parties made an effort to sort out their differences.[31] Ashton’s spokesman stated: “Diplomatic efforts to find a resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue are now in a critical phase”.[32]

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov pointed that the issues of Iran’s enrichment programme, the schedule for sanction lifting and the future of the reactor in Arak were not settled and the subjects of inspection and transparency, duration of the agreement and some others were not completely agreed yet. Ryabkov expressed his opinion that a comprehensive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will require no ratification. “We are negotiating a binding document, but under a generally recognized doctrine international political liabilities are equated with legal,” he said and admitted that some resolutions of the Security Council on Iran will need to be adjusted.[33]

Ninth round: Muscat

The round of talks took place on November 11 in the Omani capital Muscat and lasted one hour. At the meeting, Iranian deputy foreign ministers Abbas Araqchi and Majid Takht Ravanchi exchanged views with their counterparts from the P5+1.[34] The round, chaired by former EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, was scheduled to brief the P5+1 members on Kerry and Zarif’s talks.[35] Local media reported that some representatives of the parties remained in Muscat to continue the talks.[36]

Tenth round: Vienna

Nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 resumed in Vienna on 18 November 2014 with participation of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif, EU chief negotiator Catherine Ashton, and foreign ministry officials. The talks were supposed to continue until the November 24 deadline.[37][38]

P5+1 Ministers and Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in Vienna, Austria, November 24, 2014

Secretary of State John Kerry, after meeting British and Omani foreign ministers in London and Saudi and French foreign ministers in Paris, will arrive in Vienna for talks with Zarif and Ashton. Kerry’s meetings with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal were considered critical.[39] After his Paris talks with Kerry Saudi Foreign Minister was due to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow.[40]

At IAEA meeting held on 20 November in Vienna the agency’s Director General Yukiya Amano, referring to allegations related to Iran’s engagement in weaponization activities, said that “Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures.”[41] The same day at a press conference in Brussels The International Committee in Search of Justice (ISJ) presented its 100-page investigation report and claimed that Iran was hiding its nuclear military program inside a civil program. The report was endorsed by John Bolton and Robert Joseph and authored by ISJ President Alejo Vidal‐Quadras, a professor in nuclear physics and the former Vice-President of the European Parliament.[42][43][44][45]

The tenth round of nuclear negotiations and the first extension of the Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 have ended on November 24. The two sides have failed to cut a deal at this round of talks and agreed to extend the Joint Plan of Action for the second time. The new deadline for a comprehensive deal was set to July 1, 2015. British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said it was not possible to meet the November deadline due to wide gaps on well-known points of contention. He stressed that while July 1 was the new deadline, the expectation was that broad agreement would be in place by March 1. According to Hammond, expert level talks will resume in December and Iran will receive about $700 million per month in frozen assets.[46][4]

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a press conference after the Vienna talks: “Today the Iranian nuclear program is internationally recognized and no one speaks about our enrichment right…”[47] While answering a question about “fundamental gaps over how much enrichment capacity Iran would be allowed to retain”, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a news conference: “I’m not going to confirm whether or not there’s a gap or not a gap or where the gaps are. There obviously are gaps. We’ve said that.”[48]

Negotiations under the Second Extension of JPA

Eleventh round: Geneva

Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 were resumed on 17 December 2014 in Geneva and lasted one day. No statements were issued after the closed-door talks either by the U.S. negotiating team or by EU spokesmen. Deputy foreign minister Araqchi said that it was agreed to continue the talks “next month” at a venue to be decided. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov said that Arak heavy-water reactor and sanctions against Iran were the two key outstanding issues in the nuclear talks.[49][50]

Twelfth round: Geneva

The round, held at the level of political directors of Iran and the P5+1, took place on January 18, 2015 following the four-day bilateral talks between the United States and Iran.[51] EU political director Helga Schmid chaired the meetings. After the talks France’s negotiator Nicolas de la Riviere told reporters: “The mood was very good, but I don’t think we made a lot of progress.”[52] “If there is progress it is a very slow one and there are no guarantees that this progress will transform into a decisive shift, breakthrough, into a compromise,” Russian negotiator Sergei Ryabkov told journalists, adding that “major disagreements remain on the majority of disputed issues.” [53]

Thirteenth round: Geneva

Representatives of Iran and the P5+1 met on February 22 at the EU mission in Geneva. Nicolas de la Riviere said after the meeting: “It was constructive, we will know results later.”[54][55]

Bilateral and trilateral talks

U.S.-Iran bilateral talks

According to a statement of the U.S. State Department bilateral nuclear consultations between the U.S. and Iranian officials “will take place in the context of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations”. The talks were held August 7 in Geneva and only few details about them were provided. The U.S. delegation was led by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and included Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Jake Sullivan, national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. The Iranian delegation included Deputy Foreign Ministers Abbas Araqchi and Majid Takht-Ravanchi.[56][57]

Deputy Minister Abbas Araqchi said that the bilateral talks were useful and focused on “the existing differences” in the negotiations.[58] Deputy Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi made it clear that Iran will not accept a weak enrichment programme, while saying “we will not accept that our uranium enrichment programme becomes something like a toy”.[59]

Mohammad Javad Zarif, John Kerry and Catherine Ashton at a trilateral meeting in New York, September 26, 2014

The second round of the bilateral talks between representatives from the USA and Iran took place in Geneva on September 4–5. The negotiations consisted of 12 hours long political talks and 8 hours long expert talks.[60] The third round of the bilateral talks between the two countries took place in New York on September 18, 2014.[61]

According to The Associated Press, the U.S. has turned negotiations with Iran into a series of bilateral talks between the two countries that “race to seal a deal”.[62] Gary Samore, former White House coordinator for arms control and WMD, participating in a panel, said: “Any deal will have to be struck between Washington and Tehran and then ratified by the P5+1 and ultimately the UN Security Council.”[63]

On October 14 Iranian negotiators headed by the deputy foreign minister held a bilateral meeting with Senior U.S. Officials William Burns and Wendy Sherman in Vienna. Among other issues the negotiators set the stage for the trilateral meeting with Secretary Kerry, Baroness Ashton, and Foreign Minister Zarif that was convened for the next day.[64][65]

The US and Iranian delegations met on December 15 to 16 in Geneva in preparation for the multilateral talks, led by the US Acting Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. A member of Tehran’s team told IRNA that uranium enrichment and how to remove sanctions were sticking points in the bilateral talks.[49] [50]

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif met with Secretary of State John Kerry on January 14 in Geneva and on January 16 in Paris.[66] According to Al-Monitorthe negotiators have worked intensively to try draft a joint document called the Principles of Agreement. The document is supposed to be an element of the framework agreement between Iran and P5+1, which is to be completed by March.[67]

Two rounds of bilateral negotiations between Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry occurred on February 6 and 8 on the sidelines of the Security Conference in Munich.[68][69] During the conference, Mohammad Zarif gave an interview in which he claimed that IAEA inspected Iran for 10 years or more and found no evidence that Iran’s program wasn’t peaceful. He also claimed that JPA did not imply step-by-step removal of sanctions and the removal of sanctions has been “a condition for an agreement”. Foreign Minister Zarif stated: “I don’t think if we don’t have an agreement, it’ll be the end of the world. I mean, we tried, we failed, fine.”[70] IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano, who also took part in the conference, pointed out that Iran must provide urgent clarification on key aspects of its nuclear program. Making this more specific Yukiya Amano said: “Clarification of issues with possible military dimension and implementation of the Additional Protocol and beyond is essential.”[71]

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif held three bilateral meetings in Geneva on February 22 and 23.[72] The Associated Press reported progress on a deal that would freeze Iran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then “ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.” After the talks Mohammad Zarif spoke about “a better understanding” between the parties and John Kerry said: “We made progress.”[73] The columnist Charles Krauthammer commented on the leaked “sunset clause” that an agreement, containing this and other concessions to Iran, will mean “the end of nonproliferation.”[74]

U.S.-EU-Iran trilateral talks

Iran, EU and U.S. held two trilateral meetings at the foreign minister level in New York in September 2014. The U.S. State Department has argued that there are points when it makes sense for the foreign ministers at the trilateral level to get together to talk. “In part because the majority of the sanctions are EU and U.S., the trilateral makes sense.”[65]

On October 15 Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and Secretary of State John Kerry have met again, this time in Vienna. A senior U.S. Department of State official said at a briefing with reporters that the parties were focused on the November 24 deadline and had not discussed an extension of the talks. The negotiators were working on a full agreement – the understandings and the annexes to them. “This is a situation where unless you have the detail, you do not know that you have the agreement,” explained the official.[75][76]

Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif and former EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton have held talks on November 9–10 inMuscat seeking to bridge differences on a comprehensive nuclear agreement. Officials from all delegations have abstained from briefing reporters.[77] The talks ended without an imminent breakthrough.[78]

After arriving in Viena on 20 November John Kerry met for more than two hours with Mohammad Zarif and Catherine Ashton. It was not reported whether they made any headway.[79][80]

Main Points

Uranium stockpile and enrichment

Diagram of nuclear power and weapons cycle

Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity is the biggest stumbling block in the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement.[11][59][81][82][83][84] The Security Council in its resolution 1929 has required Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.[85][86] For many years the United States held that no enrichment program should be permitted in Iran. In signing the Geneva interim agreement the U.S. and its P5+1 partners shifted away from zero enrichment to limited enrichment objective.[87][88] Additionally, they have determined that the comprehensive solution will “have a specified long-term duration to be agreed upon” and once it has expired Iran’s nuclear program will not be under special restrictions.[89]

Limited enrichment would mean limits on the numbers and types of centrifuges. Shortly before the comprehensive negotiations began, Iran was estimated to have 19,000 centrifuges installed, mostly first generation IR-1 machines, with about 10,000 of them operating to increase the concentration of uranium-235. The Iranians strive to expand their enrichment capacity by a factor of ten or more while the six powers aim to cut the number of centrifuges to no more than a few thousand.[88][90]

Olli Heinonen, former deputy director general of the IAEA, said in a radio interview that the agency does not have a complete picture of Iran’s nuclear profile since inspectors have been kept out of some sites. In particular, IAEA has not been able to assess “how much uranium has been produced in Iran over these years” and to verify the completeness of Iran’s declaration about the number of its centrifuges. Heinonen also pointed out that Iran has an “unfortunate history of misleading and not disclosing all its nuclear material.”[91]

Western analysts argued there were two distinct paths to deal with Iran’s nuclear program: complete dismantling or allowing limited activities while preventing Iran from a nuclear “breakout capability”.[92][93] The measures that would lengthen breakout timelines include “limits on the number, quality and/or output of centrifuges”.[94] The former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Robert Joseph has argued that attempts to overcome the impasse over centrifuges by using a malleable SWU metric “as a substitute for limiting the number of centrifuges is nothing more than sleight of hand.” He has also quoted former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”[95]

In order to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes, constraints should be put on its uranium enrichment. This should include the number and quality of centrifuges, research and development of more advanced centrifuges, the size of low-enriched uranium stockpile. The constraints are interrelated with each other – the more centrifuges Iran would have, the less stockpile the U.S. and P5+1 can accept, and vice versa. Colin Kahl, former Deputy Assistant U.S. Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, estimated in May 2014 that Iran’s stockpile was large enough to build 6 nuclear weapons and it had to be reduced.[96]Lengthening breakout timelines requires a substantial reduction in enrichment capacity and many experts talk about an acceptable range of about 2000-6000 first-generation centrifuges. But Iran stated that it wants to extend its capability substantially. In May 2014 Robert J. Einhorn, former Special Advisor on Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at the U.S. State Department, expressed confidence that if Iran will continue to insist on that huge number of centrifuges, there would be no agreement, since this robust enrichment capacity would bring the breakout time down to weeks or days.[97]

Plutonium production and separation

Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said that a good deal will be one that cuts off Iran’s uranium, plutonium and covert pathways to obtain nuclear weapon.[26] Secretary of State John Kerry has testified before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs and expressed great concerns about the Arak nuclear reactor facility. “Now, we have strong feelings about what will happen in a final comprehensive agreement. From our point of view, Arak is unacceptable. You can’t have a heavy-water reactor,” he said.[98] President Barack Obama, while addressing the House of Representatives and Senate, emphasized that “these negotiations do not rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb.”[99]

Arak Heavy Water Reactor (IR-40)

Despite these statements, some analysts have feared that Obama administration might accept dangerous concessions to achieve a deal with Iran. For example, Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and Chief of Staff to Undersecretaries of State for Arms, believed that such concessions were being proposed, and, as he explained: “… most dangerous is that we are considering letting Iran keep the Arak heavy water reactor which will be a source of plutonium. Plutonium is the most desired nuclear fuel for a bomb, it has a lower critical mass, you need less of it which is important in building missile warhead.”[100]

The head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi said in an interview that the heavy water reactor of Arak was designed as a research reactor and not for plutonium production. It will produce about 9 kg of plutonium but not weapons-grade plutonium. Dr. Salehi explained that “if you want to use the plutonium of this reactor you need a reprocessing plant”. “We do not have a reprocessing plant, we do not intend, although it is our right, we will not forgo our right, but we do not intend to build a reprocessing plant.” Further in the interview Salehi expressed his opinion that the pressure on Iran has not been genuine, it has been just an excuse to put “political pressure” and the concern about developing nuclear weapons was “fabricated”.[101]

According to information provided by the Federation of American Scientists, a sizable research program involving the production of heavy water might raise concerns about a plutonium-based weapon program, especially if such program was not easily justifiable on other accounts.[102] Gregory S. Jones, a senior researcher and a defense policy analyst, warned that if the heavy-water-production plant at Arak was not dismantled, Iran would be granted a “plutonium option” for acquiring nuclear weapons in addition to the dangerous centrifuge enrichment program.[103]

Agreement’s duration

According to an editorial in the Washington Post, the most troubling part of the Geneva interim agreement has been the “long-term duration” clause. This provision means that when the duration expires, “the Iranian nuclear program will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party” to the NPT. Thus, once the comprehensive agreement expires, Iran will be able to install an unlimited number of centrifuges and produce plutonium without violating any international accord.”[104] Many Western analysts have referred to the comprehensive agreement as a “final” nuclear agreement with Iran “but clearly it will only be a long-term interim agreement”.[89]

Iran wants any agreement to last for at most 5 years while the U.S. prefers 20 years.[105] The twenty years is viewed as a minimum amount of time to develop confidence that Iran can be treated as other non-nuclear weapon states and allow the IAEA enough time to verify that Iran is fully compliant with all its non-proliferation obligations.[106]

The Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said in May 2014: “Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought.”[107] This and other declarations of jihadist principles by Ayatollah Khamenei[108] leave no doubt about Iran’s adoption of religiously-inspired combat against the U.S. and the West.[109] These principles include aramesh (hudna)[110] and such a truce cannot exceed 10 years.[111]

Some analysts suggested that if a single 20-year duration for all provisions of the agreement is too constraining, it would be possible to agree on different durations for different provisions. Some provisions could have short duration, and others could be longer. A few constraints, like enhanced monitoring at specific facilities, could be permanent.[112]

Possible covert paths to fissile material

Fordow Underground Fuel Enrichment Facility near Qom

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. “We have never pursued or sought a nuclear bomb and we are not going to do so,” Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani said, according to a translation of an interview with him.[113] Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has pronounced a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.[114] Some observers, however, have questioned the fatwa’s actual existence.[115]

The Iranian uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz (FEP and PFEP) and Fordow (FFEP) were constructed covertly and designed to operate in a similar manner. The facilities were declared by Iran only after they were revealed by other sources. Thus, only in September 2009, Iran notified the IAEA about constructing the Fordow facility.[116][117] The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimateon Iran’s nuclear capabilities and intentions stated among the key judgments : “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” Additionally the Estimate stated that after 2003 Iran has halted the covert enrichment for at least several years.[118][119]

The Estimate also stated: “We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities — rather than its declared nuclear sites — for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon.”[119] Despite this assessment some analysts have argued that negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, as well as most public discussions, were focused on Iran’s overt nuclear facilities while there existed alternative paths to obtain fissile material. Graham Allison, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Oren Setter, a research fellow at Belfer Center, compared this approach with Maginot’sfixation on a single threat “that led to fatal neglect of alternatives”. They have pointed out at least three additional paths to obtain such material:[120][121]

  • Covert make
  • Covert buy
  • Hybrid pathway (a combination of overt and covert paths)

William Tobey, former Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration, has outlined the possible ways to nuclear weapons as follows:[118]

  • Break out of the Nonproliferation Treaty, using declared facilities
  • Sneak out of the Treaty, using covert facilities
  • Buy a weapon from another nation or rogue faction

Some sources published recommendations for agreement provisions relating to monitoring and verification in order to prevent covert activities and to provide tools to react if needed.[122][123][124][118] One of the sources warned the P5+1 that “if the monitoring elements that we recommend are not pursued now to diminish the risks of deception, it is difficult to envision that Iran would be compliant in the future, post-sanctions environment.”[125] According to the recommendations the agreement with Iran should include:

  • A requirement to cooperate with the IAEA inspectors in compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions
  • Transparency for centrifuges, mines and mills for uranium ore and yellowcake
  • Monitoring of nuclear-related procurement
  • Obligation to ratify and implement the Additional Protocol[126] and to provide the IAEA enhanced powers beyond the Protocol
  • Adhering to the modified Code 3.1[127][128]
  • Monitoring of nuclear research and development (R&D)
  • Defining certain activities as breaches of the agreement that could provide basis for timely intervention

IAEA inspection

According to multiple resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and 1929), enacted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Iran is obligated to cooperate fully with the IAEA on “all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear programme, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the IAEA…” On 11 November 2013 the IAEA and Iran signed a Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation committing both parties to cooperate and resolve all present and past issues in a step by step manner. As a first step, the Framework identified six practical measures to be completed within three months.[129] The IAEA reported that Iran had implemented those six measures in time.[130] In February and May 2014[131][132] the parties agreed to additional sets of measures related to the Framework.[133] In September the IAEA continued to report that Iran was not implementing its Additional Protocol, which is a prerequisite for the IAEA “to provide assurance about both declared and possible undeclared activities.” Under those circumstances, the Agency reported it will not be able to provide “credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran”[134][126]

The implementation of interim Geneva Accord has involved transparency measures and enhanced monitoring to ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. It was agreed that the IAEA will be “solely responsible for verifying and confirming all nuclear-related measures, consistent with its ongoing inspection role in Iran”. IAEA inspection has included daily access to Natanz and Fordow and managed access to centrifuge production facilities, uranium mines and mills, and the Arak heavy water reactor.[135][136][137] To implement these and other verification steps, Iran committed to “provide increased and unprecedented transparency into its nuclear program, including through more frequent and intrusive inspections as well as expanded provision of information to the IAEA.”[138]

Yukiya Amano and Mohammad Javad Zarif

Thus, there have been two ongoing diplomatic tracks — one by the P5+1 to curb Iran’s nuclear program and a second by the IAEA to resolve questions about the peaceful nature of Iran’s past nuclear activities. Although the IAEA inquiry has been formally separate from JPA negotiations, Washington said a successful IAEA investigation should be part of any final deal and that may be unlikely by the deadline of 24 November 2014.[139]

One expert on Iran’s nuclear program, David Albright, has explained that “It’s very hard if you are an IAEA inspector or analyst to say we can give you confidence that there’s not a weapons program today if you don’t know about the past. Because you don’t know what was done. You don’t know what they accomplished.” Albright argued that this history is important since the “infrastructure that was created could pop back into existence at any point in secret and move forward on nuclear weapons.”[140]

Iranian and IAEA officials met in Tehran on 16 and 17 August 2014 and discussed the five practical measures in the third step of the Framework for Cooperation agreed in May 2014.[141] Yukiya Amano, Director General of the IAEA, made a one-day visit to Tehran on August 17 and held talks with President of Iran Hassan Rouhani and other senior officials.[142] After the visit Iranian media criticized the IAEA while reporting that President Rouhani and the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Salehi both tried “to make the IAEA chief Mr. Amano understand that there is an endpoint to Iran’s flexibility.”[143] The same week Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said that Iran will not give IAEA inspectors access to Parchin military base. Yukiya Amano has noted previously that access to the Parchin base was essential for the Agency to be in position to certify Iran’s nuclear programme as peaceful.[144] Tehran was supposed to provide the IAEA with information related to the initiation of high explosives and to neutron transport calculations until August 25, but it failed to address these issues.[145] The two issues are associated with compressed materials that are required to produce a warhead small enough to fit on top of a missile.[146] During its October 7–8 meetings with IAEA in Tehran, Iran failed to propose any new practical measures to resolve the disputable issues.[147]

Nuclear-related issues beyond the negotiations

There are many steps toward nuclear weapons.[148] However, an effective nuclear weapons capability has only three major elements:[149]

  • Fissile or nuclear material in sufficient quantity and quality
  • Effective means for delivery, such as a ballistic missile
  • Design, weaponization, miniaturization, and survivability of the warhead

Evidence presented by the IAEA has shown that Iran has pursued all three of these elements: it has been enriching uranium for more than ten years and is constructing a heavy water reactor to produce plutonium, it has a well-developed ballistic missile program, and it has tested high explosives and compressed materials that can be used for nuclear warheads.[150]

Some analysts believe that Iran’s nuclear program should be negotiated in its entirety — it must include not only fissile material discussions but also ballistic missile development and weaponization issues.[151][152]

Priorities in monitoring and prevention

Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State, has explained in his recent book (2014): “The best—perhaps the only—way to prevent the emergence of a nuclear weapons capability is to inhibit the development of a uranium-enrichment process …”

Joint Plan of Action[153] has not explicitly addressed the future status of Iran’s ballistic missile program. However, having been an interim agreement, it could not take into account all the issues that should be resolved as part of a comprehensive agreement. If a comprehensive agreement with Iran “does not tackle the issue of ballistic missiles, it will fall short of and may undermine … UN Security Council Resolutions.” Moreover, shifting “monitoring and prevention aims onto warheads without addressing Iran’s ballistic missile capacity also ignores U.S. legislation that forms the foundation of the sanctions regime against Iran”.[154]

Additionally, “monitoring warhead production is far more difficult than taking stock” of ballistic missiles and the U.S. government is far less good at detecting advanced centrifuges or covert facilities for manufacturing nuclear warheads.[154]

Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and a holder of the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), highlighted the view that the U.S. and other members of the P5+1, along with their attempts to limit Iran’s breakout capability and to prevent it from getting even one nuclear device, should mainly focus “on reaching a full an agreement that clearly denies Iran any ability to covertly create an effective nuclear force.”[155]

Ballistic missile program

Iran’s ballistic missiles have been tied to its nuclear-weapons program. Security Council Resolution 1929 “decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”[156] In May–June 2014 a U.N. Panel of Experts submitted a report pointing to Iran’s engagement in ballistic missile activities. The Panel reported that over the last year Iran has conducted a number of ballistic missile test launches, which were a violation of paragraph 9 of the resolution.[157]

Shahab-3 estimated threat range

Director of U.S. National Intelligence James Clapper testified on March 12, 2013, that Iran’s ballistic missiles were capable of delivering WMD.[158] According to some analysts, the liquid-fueled Shahab-3 missile and the solid-fueled Sejjil missile have the ability to carry a nuclear warhead.[159] Iran’s ballistic missile program is controlled by IRGC Air Force (AFAGIR), while Iran’s combat aircraft is under the command of the regular Iranian Air Force (IRIAF).[160]

The United States and its allies view Iran’s ballistic missiles as a subject for the talks on a comprehensive agreement since they regard it as a part of Iran’s potential nuclear threat. Members of Iran’s negotiating team in Vienna insisted the talks won’t focus on this issue.[161]

A few days before May 15, date when the next round of the negotiations was scheduled,[162] Iran’s Supreme Leader AyatollahAli Khamenei told the IRNA news agency that Western expectations on limits to Iran’s missile program were “stupid and idiotic” and called on the country’s Revolutionary Guards to mass-produce missiles.[163]

In his testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, Managing Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Michael Singh argued “that Iran should be required to cease elements of its ballistic-missile and space-launch programs as part of a nuclear accord.” This question was off the table since Iran’s Supreme Leader has insisted that Iran’s missile program is off-limits in the negotiations and P5+1 officials have been ambiguous.[151]

According to Debka.com, U.S. in its direct dialogue with Iran outside the P5+1 framework demanded to restrict Iran’s ICBM, whose 4,000 kilometers range places Europe and the United States at risk. This demand did not apply to ballistic missiles, whose range of 2,100 km covers any point in the Middle East. These medium-range missiles may also be nuclear and are capable of striking Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.[164]

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan stated at a press conference on August 2014 that Iran’s missile capability issue was not included in the comprehensive talks with the P5+1 countries and “will by no means be negotiated with anyone”.[165]

In a Senate committee hearing former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz has expressed believe that Iran’s missile program and its ICBM capability, as well as its support of the terrorism, should also be on the table.[166]

Possible military dimensions

Since 2002, the IAEA has become concerned and noted in its reports that some elements of Iran’s nuclear program could be used for military purposes. More detailed information about suspected weaponization aspects of Iran’s nuclear program – the possible military dimensions (PMD) – has been provided in the IAEA reports issued in May 2008 and November 2011. The file of Iran’s PMD issues included development of detonators, high explosives initiation systems, neutron initiators, nuclear payloads for missiles and other kinds of developments, calculations and tests. The Security Council Resolution 1929 reaffirmed “that Iran shall cooperate fully with the IAEA on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the IAEA.”[116][167][168]

In November 2013 Iran and the IAEA have signed a Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation committing both parties to resolve all present and past issues.[129] In the same month the P5+1 and Iran have signed the Joint Plan of Action, which aimed to develop a long-term comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear program. The IAEA continued to investigate PMD issues as a part of the Framework for Cooperation. The P5+1 and Iran have committed to establish a Joint Commission to work with the IAEA to monitor implementation of the Joint Plan and “to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern” with respect to Iran’s nuclear program, including PMD of the program and Iran’s activities at Parchin.[153][169] Some analysts asked what happens if Iran balks and IAEA fails to resolve significant PDM issues. According to the U.S. Department of State, any compliance issues wouldn’t be discussed by the Joint Commission but would be dealt “at the expert level, and then come up to the political directors and up to foreign ministers if needed.” Thus, an unresolved issue might be declared sufficiently addressed as a result of a political decision.[170]

Prior to the signing of an interim nuclear agreement, it was commonly understood in Washington that Iran must “come clean about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program,” as Undersecretary Wendy Sherman testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2011. The Iranians have refused to acknowledge having a weaponization program. Meanwhile, analysts close to the Obama administration begin to boost so-called limited disclosure option.[171]Nevertheless, 354 members of U.S. Congress were “deeply concerned with Iran’s refusal to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.” On October 1, they sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry stating that “Iran’s willingness to fully reveal all aspects of its nuclear program is a fundamental test of Iran’s intention to uphold a comprehensive agreement.”[172]

Some organizations have published lists of suspected nuclear-weaponization facilities in Iran.[173][174] Below is a partial list of such facilities:

  • Institute of Applied Physics (IAP)
  • Kimia Maadan Company (KM)
  • Parchin Military Complex
  • Physics Research Center (PHRC)
  • Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC)

In September 2014 the IAEA reported about ongoing reconstructions at Parchin military base. The Agency has anticipated that these activities will further undermine its ability to conduct effective verification if and when this location would be open for inspection.[175] A month later, The New York Times reported that according to a statement by Yukiya Amano, the IAEA Director General, Iran had stopped answering the Agency’s questions about suspected past weaponization issues. Iran has argued that what has been described as evidence is fabricated.[176] In his speech at Brookings Institution Yukiya Amano said that progress has been limited and two important practical measures, which should have been implemented by Iran two months ago, have still not been implemented. Mr. Amano stressed his commitment to work with Iran “to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme”. But he also warned: “this is not a never-ending process. It is very important that Iran fully implements the Framework for Cooperation – sooner rather than later.”[177]

Supreme leader’s Fatwa against nuclear weapon

Ali Khamenei, Iranian leader issued a Fatwa (religious edict) denouncing nuclear weapon and calling it as “Haraam” (Forbidden by religion). American officials noticed the topic several times and called it as a point to start discussions. In an interview in Jordan, Kerry said he respect the idea.[178]

Some observers, however, have questioned the fatwa’s actual existence.[115]

Ayatollah Jalal Ganje’i, a ayatollah based in Paris, has given a detailed explanation why it is “more than evident” that there is no fatwa to back up the regime’s officials when they claim that Iran has only peaceful intentions for its nuclear program. Ayatollah Ganje’i has concluded his comments as follows: “President Obama and other Western leaders cannot set policy according to non-binding and easily reversible remarks by Khamenei. Doing so would put the world in great peril on the basis of a fantasy.”[179] The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has made “a clear-cut distinction between the notion of pure Islam of the Prophet Mohammad and the American-style Islam”, but ‘Paris-style’ Islam has not been declared illegal.[180]

Arak reactor

The head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi said in April 2014 that a dispute between world powers and Iran over its heavy water reactor at Arak had been “virtually resolved” and the reactor will be redesigned to produce one-fifth of the plutonium initially planned for it.[181]

In May 2014, after the fourth round closing, Abbas Araqchi announced on Iranian TV that Arak reactor will remain a heavy water facility and would continue its work with 40 megawatts of power.[182]

In June 2014, Salehi announced that Iran was redesigning the Arak reactor to produce less than 1 kg of plutonium per year, compared to 9–10 kg per year with the original design. Princeton University experts had proposed a redesign involving changing the reactor’s fuel and reducing its power level, with a similar effect on plutonium production. However, the concern remained that this redesign could be reversed.[183]

After the sixth round of negotiations Abbas Araqchi had made clear that “any agreement about Arak or Fordo nuclear facilities is denied”.[184]

Uranium enrichment

France’s foreign minister Laurent Fabius said on June 10, 2014 that the biggest point of disagreement in the talks is how many centrifuges Iran will be allowed. The six powers say Iran may keep some hundreds of centrifuges while the Iranians say they require hundreds of thousands of centrifuges.[185] “…what is the purpose of having thousands of centrifuges if we’re not heading towards an atomic bomb? So the question that will be asked in the coming weeks is whether Iran is really ready to accept to give up the atomic bomb or not,” Fabius said.[84]

Negotiating countries

Islamic Republic of Iran

The U.S. and Iran cut off diplomatic ties in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution and the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, where 52 Americans were held hostage for more than a year. After Barack Obama’s inauguration, he personally authorized talks with Iran in order to reach out to this country.[186]

The FATF has been “particularly and exceptionally concerned” about Iran’s failure to address the risk of terrorist financing. Iran was included in FATF blacklist.[187]In 2014 Iran remained a state of proliferation concern. Despite multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran has continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.[188]

Iran insists that its nuclear program is “completely peaceful and has always been carrying out under supervision of the IAEA”.[189] Some analysts argue that “Iranian actions, including the evidence of work on weaponization, the development of long-range ballistic missiles, and the placement of the program within the IRGC” indicate that Iran’s arsenal is not virtual.[190]

According to policy documents published by the Obama administration, it believes in the efficacy of traditional Cold War deterrence as the remedy to the challenge of states acquiring nuclear weapons. Another assumption of the administration is that the Iranian regime is “rational” and hence deterrable. Dr. Shmuel Bar, former Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, has argued in his research that the Cold War deterrence doctrine will not be applicable to nuclear Iran. The inherent instability of the Middle East and its regimes, the difficulty in managing multilateral nuclear tensions, the weight of religious, emotional, and internal pressures, and the proclivity of many of the regimes toward military adventurism and brinkmanship give little hope for the future of the region once it enters the nuclear age. By its own admission, the Iranian regime favors revolution and is against the status quo in the region.[191] Shmuel Bar has characterized the regime as follows:

“Since its inception, it has been committed to ‘propagation of Islam’ (tablighi eslami) and ‘export of revolution’ (sudur inqilab). The former is viewed by the regime as a fundamental Islamic duty and the latter as a prime tenet of the regime’s ideology, enshrined in the constitution and the works of the Imam Khomeini. Together they form a worldview that sees Islamic Iran as a nation with a ‘manifest destiny': to lead the Muslim world and to become a predominant regional ‘superpower’ in the Gulf, the heart of the Arab world, and in Central Asia.” [191]

A quite different approach to Iran has been proposed by The Economist:

“The disastrous presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the failed Green revolution—which sought to topple him in 2009—and the chaotic Arab spring have for the moment discredited radical politics and boosted pragmatic centrists. The traditional religious society that the mullahs dreamt of has receded… Although this hardly amounts to democracy, it is a political marketplace and, as Mr Ahmadinejad discovered, policies that tack away from the consensus do not last. That is why last year Iran elected a president, Hassan Rohani, who wants to open up to the world and who has reined in the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”[192]

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has declared on September 4, 2014 that the way forward for his regime is to ramp up its “eqtedar” (might). Ayatollah Jalal Ganje’i has explained that Iranian regime intended to achieve this by one of two ways: to expand regional influence through the export of terrorism, officially described as “export of revolution” or to develop nuclear weapons.[179]

The fighters from Hezbollah and Quds forces have been publicly operating in several foreign territories. Iran and pro-Iranian proxies have been military involved inSyria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and other regional nations. Iranian state TV has been showing the pictures of the commander of Quds force in foreign territories and pointing to the Islamic Republic’s indispensable power and influence in the Middle East. Iranian leaders have been attempting to reassert their power and supremacy in the region more publicly and sending the signal to other states that “Iran is in fact the sole regional power to rely on rather than the United States and Western allies.”[193]

Iran has developed a close and cooperative relationship with Cuba and Venezuela against the U.S. Having limited military capabilities and substantial distance from the region, Iran, in case of a conflict with the U.S., would be able to launch an asymmetrical offensive against the U.S. “through surrogate terrorist states and paramilitary organizations.”[194] Iran and Hizbullah also maintain a considerable presence in other countries of Latin America.[195]

On January 4, 2015 President of Iran Hassan Rouhani pointed out that the Iranians cause was not connected to a centrifuge, but to their “heart and willpower”. He added that Iran couldn’t have sustainable growth while it was isolated. So he would like some economic reforms passed by referendum. These words could be considered as willingness to work with international powers.[196] But a few days later Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who makes final and conclusive decisions on all matters of Iranian national security, warned that “Americans are impudently saying that even if Iran backs down on the nuclear issue, all the sanctions will not be lifted at once.” Iran should therefore “take the instrument of sanctions out of enemy’s hands” and develop “economic of resistance.”[197]

Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, testifying in January 2015 before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, said about Iranian nuclear ambitions:

“They’re trying to develop nuclear weapons. There is no sensible explanation for the extent, the money, the talent they’ve devoted to their nuclear thing, other than that they want a nuclear weapon. It can’t be explained any other way.”
“They give every indication, Mr. Chairman, that they don’t want a nuclear weapon for deterrence, they want a nuclear weapon to use it on Israel. So it’s a very threatening situation.”[166]

P5+1

United States

In its Nuclear Posture Review in April 2010 the U.S. has stated that in Asia and the Middle East – where there were no military alliances analogous to NATO – it had mainly extended deterrence through bilateral alliances and security relationships and through its forward military presence and security guarantees. According to the Review Report: “The Administration is pursuing strategic dialogues with its allies and partners in East Asia and the Middle East to determine how best to cooperatively strengthen regional security architectures to enhance peace and security, and reassure them that U.S. extended deterrence is credible and effective.”[198] Since 2010 the U.S. position has been less clear and it seems “to be deliberately lowering its profile – either because it might interference with negotiations by the 5+1 or because it has less support within the Obama Administration.”[199]

Two weeks after the Geneva interim deal was achieved, President Barack Obama disclosed in an interview that while taking office, he decided to “reach out to Iran” and open up a diplomatic channel. He emphasized: “the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons is for a comprehensive, verifiable, diplomatic resolution, without taking any other options off the table if we fail to achieve that.” The President also expressed strong belief that an end state can be envisioned, where Iran will not have breakout capacity. Barack Obama, however, added: “If you asked me what is the likelihood that we’re able to arrive at the end state that I was just describing earlier, I wouldn’t say that it’s more than 50/50.”[200][201]

About fourteen months after the Geneva interim agreement was signed, President Barack Obama reiterated his assessment that the chances to “get a diplomatic deal are probably less than 50/50.”[202] Shortly afterwards, in his State of the Union presented to a joint session of the United States Congress, the President announced: “Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”[203] The accuracy of this statement has been challenged by some media sources. For example, based on experts’ assessments Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post has come to the conclusion that between 2013 and 2014 the amount of nuclear material, which could be converted by Iran to a bomb, has been increased. Olli Heinonen observed that the interim agreement “is just a step to create negotiation space; nothing more. It is not a viable longer term situation.” Jeffrey Lewis observed that Obama’s statement was an oversimplification, and that while Iran’s stockpiles of the “most dangerous” nuclear materials had declined, overall stocks had increased.[204] Right-wing publications The Federalist and The Washington Free Beacon have said that the Iranians have exploited loopholes in the interim agreement and made significant progress on all areas of their nuclear program. Right-wing commentator Fred Fleitz stated in The National Review Online that the “number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency”.[205][206][207]Both, the mainstream Washington Post and the conservative National Review Online, presented the Center for Security Policy’s chart that illustrates Iran’s build-up of nuclear material since 2009.[208]

United Kingdom

United Kingdom is interested in constructive relationship with Iran. For decades Iran has been regarded as a threat to the security of the UK and its regional partners in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. The UK believes that negotiations in Vienna are the most appropriate framework for coping with Iranian nuclear intentions. The British Government is satisfied with the convergence of UK and US policy on Iran and with a united front maintained by the P5+1 countries. It also assures that the agreement with Iran does not imply any diminution in the commitments to the alliances in the region and to the struggle against terrorism. Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons expressed opinion that the comprehensive agreement should include the issues of Parchin Military Complex.[209]

Non-negotiating countries’ positions

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia fears that a deal with Iran could come at expense of Sunni Arabs. President Barack Obama paid a visit to Riyadh in March 2014 and assured King Abdullah that he is determined to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and that USA will not accept a bad deal. However, an editorial in Al Riyadh newspaper claimed that the president did not know Iran as the Saudis did, and could not convince them that Iran will be peaceful.[210]

Israel

After the meetings between Western foreign ministers and Iranian counterpart on 13 July 2014 Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu in an interview with Fox News warned that “a bad deal is actually worse than no deal.” He explained that allowing Iran to stockpile nuclear material or to preserve the capability of uranium enrichment in return for the presence of international inspectors would lead to a “catastrophic development”.[211] At his meeting with Barack Obama in Washington in October 2014, Benjamin Netanyahu warned U.S. President not to accept any Iran deal that would allow Tehran to become a “threshold nuclear power.” Netanyahu’s remark highlighted the long-standing disagreement between Israel and the Obama administration on the nuclear talks with Iran.[212]

In his speech presented to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that the negotiated deal was bad because of its two major concessions: leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” said the Prime Minister. Netanyahu also urged the leaders of the world “not to repeat the mistakes of the past” and expressed his commitment that “if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”[213]

What-if analysis

Oil prices

Iran needs oil at $136 a barrel to finance its spending plans. In 2013 it spent $100 billion on consumer subsidies, about 25% of GDP. “Sanctions mean it cannot borrow its way out of trouble”.[214]

Collapse of negotiations]

Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman warned that a failure of the nuclear negotiations with Iran will lead to a dangerous escalation by both Tehran and the West. “That is why I say the stakes are quite high here,” she said on October 23, 2014. “The alternatives are quite terrible.”[215]

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has supposed that if the parties don’t reach an agreement by the June 30, 2015, the United States may turn on its ability “to use cyberweapons to attack Iranian nuclear facilities” and Iran may turn on its ability “to wage covert war through its proxies in the Middle East.”[216]

Cutting a bad nuclear deal with Iran

A deal “that removes the most important sanctions but does not extend Iran’s breakout scenario to at least six months, that does not address the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear work, that does not allow for rigorous monitoring and transparency, that places only short duration constraints that are easily reversible, and that unravels sanctions against Iran’s support for terrorism and gross human rights violations as well” is a bad deal. This definition has been given by a former senior analyst for the U.S. Department of Defense J. Matthew McInnis at his testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on November 18, 2014.[217]

A bad deal will leave everyone in the region uncertain about Iran’s intentions and potential nuclear weapons capabilities. It will lead other countries to take potentially dangerous decisions, such as acquiring nuclear weapons or making strategic accommodation with Iran. According to McInnis, “In the worst case scenario, we could eventually face a nuclear Iran, for whom classic containment and deterrence approaches are unlikely to be effective.”[217]

Testifying before the Committee David Albright said that in order to avoid a bad nuclear deal with Iran “the P5+1 must hold strong on achieving an agreement that limits Iran’s nuclear program to a reasonable civilian capability, significantly increases the timelines for breakout to nuclear weapons, and introduces enhanced verification that goes beyond the IAEA’s Additional Protocol.”[218]

Albright also highlighted at his testimony that a “sound deal” will require Iran to address IAEA’s concerns about PMD of its nuclear program before a deal is finalized or the economic or financial sanctions are relieved. To achieve a “verifiable solution” Iran will have to significantly reduce the number of its centrifuges and uranium stocks, as well as to limit its centrifuge R&D programs.[218]

U.S. President vs Congress

The president remains in overall control of foreign policy and defence. “Mr Obama would probably veto any bill that tightened sanctions against his wishes.”[219]

According to Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law School professor and a former Bush administration official, President Obama has the authority to “waive most if not all sanctions against Iran for the remaining two years of his term.” If he does so, the deal with Iran “will be tenuous”. The President believes that Congress will not cooperate on this issue now. “So if he wants a deal with Iran (which he clearly does), Obama must strike the deal on his own.”[220] If President Obama suspends sanctions the entire sanctions regime will probably collapse. “The end result would be a deal that expires when Obama leaves and a sanctions regime in tatters. Iran will then have exactly what it wants — relief from sanctions, a deal that doesn’t block it from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability … and a revived economy,” has argued Jennifer Rubin, a lawyer and a columnist for The Washington Post.”[221]

The lawyer Alan Dershowitz is of the view that if “Congress chooses to assert its constitutional power to participate in foreign policy decisions”, Obama would not have a completely free hand in making a deal with Iran. In case of a constitutional conflict between these branches of government, the Supreme Court may resolve the conflict but it is unclear how the judges would deal with it.[222]

Next Supreme Leader Appointment

The Supreme Leader is the most powerful man in Iran. He has the ultimate say on Iran’s foreign policy and nuclear programme. Iran’s Supreme Leader is appointed by the Assembly of Experts in the event of the death, resignation, or dismissal of the leader. While the Assembly of Experts has the formal role in the appointment, in practice the decision will be influenced by powerful lobbies. The most powerful political organization is Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) that has control over the military, politics, economy, and nuclear program. The IRGC and the office of the current Supreme Leader will be the key selecting players. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American scholar at Harvard University, has argued that the IRGC will attempt to choose an individual who serves its objectives: “obtaining nuclear capabilities, having a monopoly over economic and political affairs, having power in foreign policy and having the capability to intervene in other countries’ affairs without hurdles from any political figures including the Supreme Leader.”[223][224]

Clifton W. Sherrill, an assistant professor of international relations at Troy University, has come to the conclusion that with “no consensus successor and with concerns that dividing power among a council may diminish the strength of the regime, the conditions are ripe for an IRGC power grab.” Explaining the role of the IRGC, Sherrill has written (2011): “Today, it has its own air force, navy, and infantry; maintains its own intelligence service; runs strategic think tanks, defense research and development programs, and its own universities; coordinates Iranian support for Islamist terrorist groups abroad; and holds primary responsibility for the regime’s nuclear weapons program.”[225]

See also

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Three Cheers For Netanyahu’s Warning To American People About Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic State and Three Thumbs Down On Obama’s Bad Deal With The Iranian Republic On Developing Nuclear Weapons And Intercontinental Missiles — “Your Enemy of Your Enemy Is Your Enemy” — Restore Severe Sanctions On Iran Immediately — Take Out The Nuclear Weapons Facilities With Israel Defense Forces – Stop Iran’s Uranium Enrichment Forever Now! — Videos

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-426

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Nuclear Secrets — Videos

Posted on March 7, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Bomb, British History, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Diasters, Documentary, Education, Energy, European History, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Films, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Missiles, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, People, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Science, Security, Strategy, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Nuclear Secrets 1 of 5 The Spy from Moscow

Nuclear Secrets 2 of 5 Superspy

Nuclear Secrets 3 of 5 SuperBomb

Nuclear Secrets 4 of 5 Vanunu and the Bomb

Nuclear Secrets 5 of 5 The Terror Trader

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman — The Nuclear Express: A Political History of The Bomb and Its Proliferation — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Mark Allpert — Final Theory

Posted on February 4, 2015. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Chemistry, Communications, Culture, Energy, Fiction, government, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Literature, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Raves, Science, Security, Terrorism, Video, War, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

TR_Mark_Alpertfinal theoryalpert

Mark Alpert: Final Theory

Mark Alpert Discusses New Book: Final Theory

The Final Theory: Adventure, Mystery, and Einstein

Author Mark Alpert gives us a sneak peek at the sequel to FINAL THEORY

Mark Alpert recommends his last great read

What’s At the Nucleus of THE OMEGA THEORY?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Historic Winter Blizzard Snow Storm Named Juno Hits Northeast — What is New? — Progressive Global Warming Alarmists Panicking! — Shrinking Balls — So What? — Memory — The Coming Ice Age — Videos

Posted on January 26, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Climate, College, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Education, Employment, Energy, Family, Food, Fraud, Freedom, Geology, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Money, Music, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Story 1: Historic Winter Blizzard Snow Storm Named Juno Hits Northeast — What is New? — Progressive Global Warming Alarmists Panicking! — Shrinking Balls  — So What? — Memory — The Coming Ice Age — Videos

blizzardtwo feets plusnortheast-stormmanhattan-new-yorksnow-plow4-web-genericsnow-travel-driving-cars-traffic-web-genericsnow stormwinter-storm-juno-latestsnowfall predictions

long-island_map long_island_mapnew-york-long-island

NYC braces for “historic” snowstorm

Massive blizzard hits the United States’ East Coast on Monday

Potentially crippling snowstorm begins to hit Northeast

Snow Emergency In New York City

NYC mayor: Snowstorm could be worst ever | Northeast Braces for ‘Catastrophic,’ ‘Historic’ Storm

NEW YORK BLIZZARD 2015 – Drone Footage Biggest Snow storm Hit NYC [RAW FOOTAGE]

 

Weather History: The Great Blizzard of 1888winter-storm-1888

Patriots Press Conference Cold Open – Saturday Night Live

Grumpy Old Men Having a Heat Wave

grumpy old men fence stand off / the great Ice war.

Dean Martin – Baby It’s Cold Outside

ice ages geologic timeice_ages2400000 years5000 years_temperature milankovitz

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies

Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY 4 /14- Intelligence Squared U.S.

Co-Founder of The Weather Channel: GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE HOAX

Professor Bob Carter torpedoes the “scientific consensus” on the climate HOAX

Professor Bob Carter on Global Warming Science

Global Warming or a New Ice Age: Documentary Film

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

Concerns about nuclear winter arose in the early 1980s from several reports. Similar speculations have appeared over effects due to catastrophes such as asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. A prediction that massive oil well fires in Kuwait would cause significant effects on climate was quite incorrect.

The idea of a global cooling as the result of global warming was already proposed in the 1990s. In 2003, the Office of Net Assessment at the United States Department of Defense was commissioned to produce a study on the likely and potential effects of a modern climate change, especially of a shutdown of thermohaline circulation. The study, conducted under ONA head Andrew Marshall, modelled its prospective climate change on the 8.2 kiloyear event, precisely because it was the middle alternative between the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The study caused controversy in the media when it was made public in 2004. However, scientists acknowledge that “abrupt climate change initiated by Greenland ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century”.

Currently, the concern that cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, has been observed to be incorrect by the IPCC. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown that the cooling concerns of 1975 have not been borne out.

As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations): it isn’t true that interglacials have previously only lasted about 10,000 years; and Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally. Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years. Berger (EGU 2005 presentation) believes that the present CO2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely.

As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

Milankovitch Cycles

Milankovitch Cycles Precession and Obliquity

Milankovitch Cycles

How Milankovicth cycles can theoretically change Earth’s current orbit and result in cycles of glaciation and warmer periods.

Watermelons

ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

George Carlin on Global Warming

Rush Limbaugh Podcast January 26 2015 Full Podcast

Rush On The Passing of Christopher “Kit” Carson

A Huge Void in Our Hearts

January 26, 2015

RUSH: We all here at the EIB Network are experiencing a huge void in all of our hearts here today because of a death, one of our staff members, the very first staff member to join me 27 years ago in New York.  Christopher Carson, “Kit,” my trusted chief of staff, aide-de-camp, passed away today at 8 a.m. at his home in New Jersey after what really was a four-year battle, really valiant, never-seen-anything-like-it battle with essentially brain cancer.

Barbra Streisand – HD STEREO – Memory – CC for lyrics

“Memory”

Midnight
Not a sound from the pavement
Has the moon lost her memory
She is smiling alone
In the lamplight
The withered leaves collect at my feet
And the wind begins to moan
Memory, all alone in the moonlight
I can dream of the old days
Life was beautiful then
I remember the time I knew what happiness was
Let the memory live again
Every street lamp seems to beat
A fatalistic warning
Someone mutters and the street lamp sputters
Soon it will be morning
Daylight
I must wait for the sunrise
I must think of a new life and
I mustn’t give in
When the dawn comes
Tonight will be a memory too
And a new day will begin
Burnt out ends of smoky days
The stale court smell of morning
A street lamp dies
Another night is over
Another day is dawning
Touch me,
It is so easy to leave me
All alone with the memory
Of my days in the sun
If you’ll touch me,
You’ll understand what happiness is
Look, a new day has begun…

Cuomo On Blizzard 2015: Subways To Shut Down At 11 P.M., Travel Ban On Local, State Roads

De Blasio Warns: Non-Essential Drivers Caught On Streets Could Face Arrest, Stiff Fines

As a potentially historic blizzard swept through the Tri-State Area on Monday night, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the entire New York City subway system and other Metropolitan Transportation Authority transportation would shut down at 11 p.m.

In addition, local, state and city roads would be shut down to all but emergency vehicles.

New estimates indicate that wind speeds will gust up to 70 mph, and thus, the state decided to shut down all MTA and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey facilities.

Earlier, Cuomo had said the subway would slow down service and continue limited service after 11 p.m. , but he later said the system would have to shut down altogether.

CHECK: Forecast & Alerts | Traffic & Transit | School Closings & Delays | Flight Status | Cold Weather & Safety Tips

“Getting the subways and the railroad cars in a safe position is key, so that when the weather does leave, we’re in a position for the system to start back up,” Cuomo said.

The shutdown of the system began rolling into effect at around 5 p.m., and was to be completed by 11 p.m.

“A lot of people think of the subways as being completely underground. In fact, a huge proportion of it, probably about 40 percent, of the subway is above ground and is prone to getting icing and snow,” MTA Spokesman Aaron Donovan told WCBS 880.

“We’re going to be spending the whole night monitoring the conditions throughout our service area, monitoring the area. It really depends on what we see the conditions are but we can’t guarantee there will be service tomorrow morning,” he added.

Travel will also be restricted on all roads – whether interstate, state, county, city or town – in 13 counties from Ulster and Sullivan in the northern suburbs to New York City and Long Island, Cuomo said. Only emergency vehicles would be allowed on the roads, and those caught not complying would face penalties, he said.

“This is a serious situation,” Cuomo said. “If you violate this state order, it’s a possible misdemeanor, with fines up to $300, and that will go into effect at 11 o’clock also,” Cuomo said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio earlier ordered a ban for non-emergency travel on all New York City streets, also beginning at 11 p.m. Police Chief of Department James O’Neill said those who violate the ban in the city could get a ticket, or in the worst-case scenario, be arrested.

“Not what we want to do. We want to be helping people. But we need people to be staying off the roads tonight,” O’Neill said.

Airports will also be shut down overnight. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey executive director Pat Foye said virtually all flights from LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport were to be canceled beginning Monday night.

A blizzard warning is in effect for the metropolitan area through midnight Wednesday morning. CBS2’s Lonnie Quinn expects snow to fall at a rate of 2 to 4 inches an hour between late Monday night and midday Tuesday, with winds gusting 40 to 60 mph.

The storm could bury some communities in 4 or more feet of snow. Coastal flooding and erosion is also a major threat.

One forecasting model anticipates a grand total of 34.4 inches of snow falling in New York City. More modest models anticipate 17.1 inches.

Northeast Residents Preparing For ‘Crippling’ Blizzard That Could Dump Up To 2 Feet Of Snow Over 250-Mile Stretch

The Philadelphia-to-Boston corridor of more than 35 million people began shutting down and bundling up Monday against a potentially history-making storm that could unload a paralyzing 1 to 3 feet of snow.

More than 5,000 flights in and out of the Northeast were canceled, and many of them may not take off again until Wednesday. Schools and businesses let out early. And cities mobilized snowplows and salt spreaders to deal with a dangerously windy blast that could instantly make up for what has been a largely snow-free winter in the urban Northeast.

Snow was already falling during the morning commute in several cities, including Philadelphia and New York, with Boston up next in the afternoon. Forecasters said the brunt of the storm would hit Monday evening and into Tuesday.

The Weather Channel reports that 28 million people are under blizzard warnings and an additional 11 million are under winter storm warnings.

All too aware that big snowstorms can make or break politicians, governors and mayors moved quickly to declare emergencies and order the shutdown of highways, streets and mass transit systems to prevent travelers from getting stranded and to enable plows and emergency vehicles to get through.

“You cannot underestimate this storm. It is not a regular storm,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio warned in ordering city streets closed to all but emergency vehicles beginning at 11 p.m. “What you are going to see in a few hours is something that hits very hard and very fast.”

Boston is expected to get 2 to 3 feet, New York 1½ to 2 feet, and Philadelphia more than a foot. The National Weather Service issued a blizzard warning for a 250-mile swath of the region, meaning heavy, blowing snow and potential whiteout conditions.

In Hartford, Connecticut, Frank Kurzatkowski stopped for gas and said he also filled several five-gallon buckets of water at his home in case the power went out and his well pump failed.

“I’ve got gas cans filled for my snowblowers,” he said. “I have four-wheel-drive.”

Supermarkets and hardware stores did a brisk trade as light snow fell in New Jersey.

Nicole Coelho, 29, a nanny from Lyndhurst, New Jersey, was preparing to pick up her charges early from school and stocking up on macaroni and cheese, frozen pizzas and milk at a supermarket. She also was ready in case of a power outage.

“I’m going to make sure to charge up my cellphone, and I have a good book I haven’t gotten around to reading yet,” she said.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie issued a state of emergency and asked commuters to stay off the roads.

“From the reports I’ve seen, you’ve all been to the supermarket. I don’t know why the rush on bread, but what the heck,” Christie joked.

About half of all flights out of New York’s LaGuardia Airport were called off Monday, and about 60 percent of flights heading into the airport were scratched. Boston’s Logan Airport said there would be no flights after 7 p.m. Monday.

The storm posed one of the biggest tests yet for Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who has been in office for less than three weeks. He warned residents to prepare for power outages and roads that are “very hard, if not impossible, to navigate.”

Wind gusts of 75 mph or more were possible for coastal areas of Massachusetts, and up to 50 mph farther inland, forecasters said.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared a state of emergency and urged commuters to stay home on Monday, warning that roads could be closed before the evening rush hour, even major highways such as the New York Thruway and the Long Island Expressway.

Similarly, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy ordered a travel ban on his state’s highways, while officials in other states asked residents to avoid going anywhere unless it is necessary.

The Washington area was expecting only a couple of inches of snow. But the House postponed votes scheduled for Monday night because lawmakers were having difficulty flying back to the nation’s capital after the weekend.

On Wall Street, the New York Stock Exchange said it will stay open and operate normally on Monday and Tuesday.

A tractor-trailer jackknifed, and a beer truck crashed into the median on Interstate 81 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, during the morning commute. No injuries were reported.

Some schools were planning to close early or not open at all Monday in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

The Super Bowl-bound New England Patriots expected to be out of town by the time the storm arrived in Boston. The team planned to leave Logan Airport at 12:30 p.m. Monday for Phoenix, where the temperature will reach the high 60s.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2015/01/26/northeast-residents-preparing-for-crippling-blizzard-that-could-dump-up-to-2-feet-of-snow-over-250-mile-stretch/

Long Island snowfall since 1947

This has been an “active” winter, climatologists say, but snowfall totals haven’t set a record for Long Island yet.

Here are monthly snowfall totals recorded by Brookhaven National Laboratory since the winter of 1947-48. The chart shows amount of snowfall for December through February. For 2014, the February total is as of Feb. 20.

Search by year:

Showing

1-50
1-50
51-67

of 67 records

Year October November December January February March April 7 month total Dec.-Feb. monthly averages Dec.-Feb. totals
1947-1948 0.0 0.0 19.0 26.0 18.5 3.0 0.0 0 21 64
1948-1949 0.0 0.0 23.6 6.3 14.2 10.8 0.0 55 15 44
1949-1950 0.0 0.5 3.0 Trace 10.5 6.3 3.5 24 7 14
1950-1951 0.0 Trace 2.5 5.6 4.0 3.2 0.0 15 4 12
1951-1952 0.0 Trace Trace 1.6 7.2 10.0 0.0 19 4 9
1952-1953 Trace 1.4 4.5 1.4 Trace 4.5 Trace 12 3 6
1953-1954 0.0 Trace Trace 12.2 1.0 Trace 0.2 13 7 13
1954-1955 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.9 7.5 2.2 0.7 16 4 13
1955-1956 0.0 2.2 6.7 9.5 2.5 20.5 1.5 43 6 19
1956-1957 0.0 Trace 1.8 5.7 6.0 1.0 1.2 16 5 14
1957-1958 0.0 0.0 6.0 14.0 18.6 22.5 0.0 61 13 39
1958-1959 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.3 0.8 8.1 0.0 15 2 7
1959-1960 0.0 Trace 15.2 4.1 3.7 18.9 0.0 42 8 23
1960-1961 Trace Trace 13.7 24.3 18.5 1.0 Trace 58 19 57
1961-1962 0.0 Trace 7.0 1.0 13.0 1.8 Trace 23 7 21
1962-1963 1.0 1.0 4.8 7.4 6.0 3.2 Trace 23 6 18
1963-1964 0.0 Trace 13.5 12.2 20.4 1.5 Trace 48 15 46
1964-1965 0.0 0.0 3.6 23.0 6.0 4.0 Trace 37 11 33
1965-1966 Trace 0.0 Trace 12.1 8.5 Trace Trace 21 10 21
1966-1967 0.0 0.0 9.3 1.6 32.5 31.5 Trace 75 15 43
1967-1968 0.0 3.8 9.2 8.4 6.0 3.0 Trace 30 8 24
1968-1969 0.0 Trace 3.2 0.2 19.0 9.0 0.0 31 8 22
1969-1970 Trace Trace 12.2 5.2 4.5 4.5 0.0 26 7 22
1970-1971 Trace 0.0 6.4 12.2 1.0 0.5 2.0 22 7 20
1971-1972 0.0 Trace Trace 3.2 10.5 3.0 Trace 17 7 14
1972-1973 0.0 Trace Trace 3.0 2.5 0.2 Trace 6 3 6
1973-1974 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 19.8 5.0 3.5 38 10 30
1974-1975 0.0 0.4 Trace 3.3 11.3 2.3 0.0 17 7 15
1975-1976 0.0 Trace 6.8 10.9 6.5 7.0 0.0 31 8 24
1976-1977 0.0 Trace 9.1 11.3 6.5 2.7 0.0 30 9 27
1977-1978 0.0 0.5 0.6 22.5 25.7 13.1 Trace 62 16 49
1978-1979 0.0 2.5 0.5 5.5 13.8 Trace 0.0 22 7 20
1979-1980 Trace 0.0 1.5 4.5 2.0 3.0 0.0 11 3 8
1980-1981 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 Trace 6.3 0.0 18 6 12
1981-1982 0.0 0.0 1.5 18.8 0.3 0.5 11.0 32 7 21
1982-1983 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 17.3 Trace 0.5 27 9 26
1983-1984 0.0 0.0 4.5 13.5 Trace 15.0 0.0 33 9 18
1984-1985 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.8 9.5 0.5 0.0 24 8 23
1985-1986 0.0 1.0 3.8 2.5 11.8 0.5 Trace 20 6 18
1986-1987 0.0 0.5 6.0 17.5 10.5 1.0 0.0 36 11 34
1987-1988 0.0 2.5 4.5 12.5 Trace 2.5 0.0 22 9 17
1988-1989 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 17 5 15
1989-1990 0.0 7.5 2.0 3.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 27 4 11
1990-1991 0.0 0.0 7.0 4.5 6.0 Trace 0.0 18 6 18
1991-1992 0.0 Trace 2.0 1.5 2.0 10.5 Trace 16 2 6
1992-1993 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 15.0 0.0 27 4 12
1993-1994 0.0 0.0 8.0 10.0 27.5 9.5 0.0 55 15 46
1994-1995 0.0 Trace Trace 0.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 7 3 7
1995-1996 0.0 4.5 15.5 23.5 20.0 11.3 16.0 91 20 59
1996-1997 0.0 Trace 0.5 4.5 5.5 3.5 4.0 18 4 11

Showing

1-50
1-50
51-67

of 67 records

A History of New York City Snowstorms (1970 – 2014)

Clipart_shoveling_snowSince 1970 New York has experienced fifteen snowstorms of one-foot or more (more than half of them in the past ten winters).  An additional seven storms have dumped between 10 and 12 inches.  The summary of storms that follows lists not only these big ones but others in the five to ten-inch range, since even these can be debilitating, especially in Manhattan (these smaller storms often produced greater accumulations in the suburbs).  The storms, 56 in total, are arranged by calendar date.  If you’d like to see a list arranged by each winter, double click here.

 

JANUARY

Jan. 1, 1971 – Old Man Winter waited until New Year’s Eve revelers returned home before dumping the largest snowfall of the winter.  6.4″ of snow accumulated between 4AM-4PM, with much of it falling in the storm’s initial three hours.  This was the century’s largest New Year’s Day snowfall (and second all-time after a nine-inch snowstorm way back in 1869).

 

Jan. 2-3, 2014 – A sprawling winter storm moved into the area during the evening with snow beginning in NYC at 6:30 and continuing into the overnight hours.  In total 6.4″ fell.  Besides snow and gusty winds, there was Arctic cold to contend with as the mercury fell from the upper 20s when the snow started to 18 degrees by midnight and down to 11 by daybreak.

 

Jan. 4, 1988 – The City woke up to 5.8″ of snow that fell overnight.  It was the winter’s biggest snowfall.  Four days later a steady light snow fell throughout the day, accumulating an additional5.4″.

 

Jan. 7-8, 1996 – A crippling blizzard began Sunday afternoon and continued until early afternoon thenext day.  It immobilized an area from West Virgina through Massachusetts and dumped 20.2″ on Central Park, the third greatest snow total in NYC history (13.6″ fell on Jan. 7 and 6.6″ on Jan. 8, records for the dates).  At one point five inches of snow fell between 5-7PM.  Wind gusts of 40-50 mph whipped the snow into three and four-foot drifts on many side streets.

Areas west of NYC reported considerably more snow than Central Park: 32″ in Staten Island; 28″ in Newark; 26″ in Allentown, PA; and 31″ in Philadelphia.  Temperatures were also very cold with a high/low of just 22/12 on the 7th and 23/16 on the 8th.

 

Blizzard96_greenwich_ave
Looking west on Greenwich Ave.

 

Jan. 11, 1991 5.7″ of snow accumulated during the afternoon and evening before changing to rain overnight as temps rose into the mid-30s (close to one inch of rain fell).  Despite the changeover it was a record amount of snow for the date.

 

Jan. 11-12, 2011 – Snow began the night of the 11th (three inches fell by midnight) and was over by daybreak, totaling 9.1″.  The 6.1″ that fell during the morning of the 12th was a record for the date.

 

Taxi_in_snow
Photo was napped shortly after midnight in Greenwich Village on 7th Ave. South near Sheridan Square.

 

Jan. 13, 1982 – A late afternoon/nighttime snowstorm that dumped 5.8″ on NYC was the same winter system that affected Washington, DC earlier in the afternoon when an Air Florida jet crashedinto the Potomac River minutes after takeoff, killing 78.  The following day an additional 3.5″ of snow fell from an “Alberta clipper” that moved through in the evening hours.

 

Jan. 20, 1978 – Snow that began yesterday evening fell at a rate of an inch per hour between 2-7AM, and by 2PM 13.6″ had fallen.  This was NYC’s biggest snowfall since the “Lindsay snowstorm” of February 1969.  (However, in less than three weeks this storm would be largely forgotten, overshadowed by the great blizzard of February 1978.)

 

1978_snowstorm

 

Jan. 20, 2000 – The largest snowfall of the winter, 5.5″, caught forecasters by surprise.  The accumulation was held down when sleet and freezing rain mixed in.  The same storm buried Raleigh, NC with 20.3″ of snow, the largest snowfall in that city’s history.

 

Jan. 21, 2001 – A quick-moving snowstorm dumped six inches of snow on Sunday morning, a record for the date.  The flakes stopped flying by 8AM.

 

Jan. 21, 2014 – A wind-driven snow began at around 9AM and fell throughout the day and evening, with 11″ on the ground by midnight – a record for the date (an additional 0.5″ fell after midnight).  Besides wind and snow, the storm was made more fierce by Arctic cold, with temperatures in the teens all day.  The storm extended from DC to Boston.  Its timing couldn’t have been worse for commuters, who had to contend with getting home in the teeth of the storm.  Accumulations were even greater on Long Island.

 

Jan. 22, 1987 – A daytime snowstorm dumped 8.1″ of snow on the City while much of Long Island picked up a foot or more.  (Virginia, DC, Maryland, Delaware and South Jersey bore the brunt of the storm.)  The City’s accumulation was held down when sleet mixed in.  This was NYC’s biggest snowfall in four years and would be the biggest until the March 1993 Superstorm.

 

Jan. 22-23, 2005 – A weekend snowstorm began early Saturday afternoon and by daybreak Sunday13.8″ had fallen (8.5″ fell on Saturday, 5.3″ on Sunday).  After a very cold a.m. low of 9 degrees on the 22nd, the high of 25 was reached at midnight.  This was the biggest January snowstorm since the blizzard of 1996.

 

Jan. 26-27, 2011 – Snow began falling heavily by late afternoon and blizzard conditions developed after nightfall.  By midnight close to 13 inches had fallen, and by the time the snow wound down at daybreak on the 27th 19 inches had piled up. (This was just one month after the post-Christmas blizzard socked NYC with 20 inches.)  Shortly after midnight I ventured outside to snap photos and found traffic mostly at a standstill on the streets of the West Village, with taxis on Seventh Ave. pointed every which way.  The quiet usually associated with a snowfall was broken by the sound of spinning tires.  This furious spinning produced an odor of burning rubber that pervaded the air.

The 6.7″ of snow that fell before daybreak on the 27th was a record for the date and brought the month’s snow total to 36.0″ – the most ever in January.  (Just one year earlier 36.9″ of snow fell in February.)  In the past thirty-three days, beginning with the Christmas blizzard, an incredible 52″ of snow fell.  And for the first time NYC had two snowstorms of 19″ or more in one winter.

 

Snowcovered_cars

 

Jan. 27-28, 2004 – Snow moved in after 8PM and by the time it ended early the next morning 10.3″inches of powdery snow had accumulated (six inches of it fell tonight).  January 27 was the fifth day in a row in which high temperatures were colder than 25 degrees.

 

FEBRUARY 

Feb. 3, 1996 7.5″ of snow, which was over by daybreak, fell in advance of the coldest air of the winter.  This was the the third snowfall of six+ inches this winter (with one more of that magnitude two weeks later).  I had flown down to Key West for vacation the day before thinking I had escaped, but a few days later the Arctic cold penetrated all the way down to the Keys and it felt like more like fall.

 

Feb. 3, 2014One day after the high temperature was 56 degrees, eight inches of heavy, wet snow fell during the morning and afternoon as the temperature hovered around the freezing mark.  Today’s snowfall was a record for the date and was the third accumulation of six inches or more this winter (just the eighth winter since 1960 in which this has occurred).  Snow began falling less than nine hours after the Super Bowl, played in northern NJ, had ended.

 

20140203_145833

 

Feb. 4, 1995 – Only 11.8″ of snow fell during the winter of 1994-95 and almost all of it fell today as10.8″ of heavy, wet snow fell furiously on a Saturday morning (close to three inches fell between 6-7AM) before changing over to rain at around 9AM.  Then the coldest air of the winter moved in overnight.

 

Feb. 6-7, 1978 – Less than three weeks after 13.6″ of snow buried the City, an even bigger snowstorm struck.  Snow began before dawn and by midnight 15.5″ had fallen in Central Park.  An additional 2.2″ fell the next morning.  Snow, drifted by wind gusts of 30-40 mph, fell heaviest between 7PM-1AM, when it fell at a rate of more than an inch per hour.

The storm’s 17.7″ accumulation made this NYC’s biggest snowstorm since December 26-27, 1947, when 26.4″ buried the City (later broken in February 2006).  This was the first winter in 17 years to have two snowstorms of one foot or more.  Snow would be on the ground in Central Park for the next five weeks.

 

Weather_1978blizzard

 

Feb. 8-9, 2013 – An intense winter storm developed off the Delmarva peninsula during the day and by nightfall near-blizzard conditions were common in NYC and points north and east.  An icy mix of light snow and wind blown sleet began at daybreak and fell throughout the day, becoming steadier and heavier after dark.  By midnight, 6.3″ had fallen in Central Park; by the time the snow ended shortly before daybreak on Feb. 9, 11.4″ had piled up.  This was the City’s 15th biggest snowfall since 1970.  However, this amount was manageable compared to Suffolk County and New England, where accumulations of two to three feet were common.

 

Feb. 8-9, 1994 – After January saw a large amount of sleet and freezing rain NYC finally got a storm that brought snow as nine inches fell.  It came down especially heavy between 9AM-1PM, but the snow predicted for the rest of the day didn’t materialize as it came down as sleet.  Snow resumed after midnight and an additional 1.8″ fell.

 

Snow_greenwichvillage_newell

 

Feb. 10, 2010 – Four days after a monster snowstorm stopped short of NYC’s doorstep, another one made its presence known today and dumped 10″ of heavy, wet snow.  Because the daytime temperature was just above freezing (the high was 34) it prevented main streets from getting much in the way of accumulation.

 

Feb. 11, 1983 – A monster snowstorm moved in Friday afternoon and continued until the wee hours of the morning on Saturday.  The storm really cranked up between 8-11PM when six inches of snow came down.  When the last flakes had fallen 17.6″ had piled up.  It was the biggest snowfall in NYC since 1978 (when 17.7″ fell on Feb. 5-7) and at the time was the sixth biggest snowstorm in NYC history (it’s now ranked twelfth).

 

Feb. 11, 1994 12.8″ of snow fell during a snowstorm that began shortly before daybreak and continued into Friday evening.  This was just three days after a nine-inch snowstorm and was NYC’s biggest snowfall since 1983, which happened to occur on this date as well.

 

Stpatricks_in_snowstorm
A nearly deserted 5th Ave. near St. Patrick’s Cathedral on the afternoon of Feb. 11, 1994.

 

Feb. 11-12, 2006 – New York was the bulls-eye for a record-setting amount of snow over the weekend.  Beginning the night of the 11th as light snow (2.8″ fell by midnight), it turned heavier after midnight and between 4-10AM Sunday morning the snow was falling at a rate of two inches/hour (between 8:25-9:25 nearly four inches piled up).

When it was over 26.9″ had fallen, a half-inch more than the City’s previous record on Dec. 26-27, 1947.  Snowfall totals outside of NYC were also impressive but not nearly as much as what Central Park picked up.  This storm accounted for two-thirds of the winter’s total snowfall.  Only 1.3″ of snow fell for the rest of the winter.

 

Washington_square_park-snowstomr
Snow-buried benches in Washington Square Park.

 

Feb. 12, 1975 – A quick-moving winter storm delivered the biggest snowfall of the winter, with 7.8″piling up between 8AM-3PM.  Snow fell at the rate of one-inch per hour for five consecutive hours.  This was the biggest snowfall of the eight winters from 1970 thru 1977.

 

Feb. 13-14, 2014 – An intense storm system moved up the East Coast and brought with it high winds, heavy snow in the morning (9.5″), rain in the evening (accompanied by thunder & lightning) and more snow after midnight (3.0″).  This was the winter’s fourth snowfall of 6 inches or more, something that’s happened in just one other winter since 1950 (in 1958).  This snowstorm brought the season’s snowfall to 54.0″, moving it up to 7th on the all-time list.

 

Weather_snowypedestrians

 

Feb. 16-17, 1996 – Snow fell throughout the day and by the time it came to and end shortly after 1AM 10.7″ had piled up (9.9″ of it fell on the 16th; the rest after midnight), the third snowstorm this winter of eight-inches or more.  It was a fluffy snow with just 0.52″ of water content.

 

Feb. 16-17, 2003 – After beginning Sunday night (when 3.5″ fell), the brunt of the Presidents’ Day blizzard kicked in and dumped an additional 16.3″ on Monday, making this NYC’s fourth biggest snowfall on record.  (Since then three snowstorms during the winters of 2005/06, 2009/10 and 2010/11 have surpassed it.)  Ferocious winds gusting over 40 mph created snow drifts of 3-5 feet.  And although Monday’s temperatures were quite cold (high/low of 26/14), they were a warm-up from Sunday’s frigid 15/8.

 

Presidents_day_blizzzard_2003

 

Feb. 19, 1972 – A nor’easter packing 40 mph winds brought the biggest snowfall of the winter, 5.7″, but it was part of a sloppy mix of snow, sleet and rain so there was never more than two to three inches of snow on the ground at any given time. Temperatures didn’t go below freezing until evening. In total 1.64″ of precipitation was measured.

 

Feb. 19, 1979 – A fast-moving snowstorm buried the City on Presidents’ Day with 12.7″ of snow between 4:00AM-noon.  However, the storm’s deepest snows, of 18-24″, fell in Virginia, DC, Maryland and Delaware.  The storm came in the midst of a deep freeze that saw fifteen of the past nineteen days with high temperatures at the freezing mark or below, averaging 14 degrees below average.  Including today’s snowfall, 20.1″ of snow fell during these nineteen days.  Another President’s Day storm with even more snow would strike NYC 24 years later.

 

February 22, 2008 Six inches of slushy snow fell during the morning into the early afternoon, the biggest snowfall of the winter – and the largest accumulation since NYC’s all-time snowstorm two Februarys ago.  Today’s snow was also a record for the date.

 

February 24, 2005 – Snow moved in during the evening and by 3AM six inches had accumulated.

 

February 25-26 2010 – After beginning in the morning as steady rain a changeover to snow occurred in the afternoon and developed into NYC’s third major snowstorm of the winter.  9.4″ fell by midnight and an additional 11.5″ of snow fell on the 26th, ending in the early afternoon, bringing the storm’s two-day total to 20.9″.  This was the fourth largest accumulation in NYC history – and just 0.1″ shy of the total from the great blizzard of March 1888.

With this storm February’s total snowfall reached 36.9″, the most ever measured in any month.  (And this was without getting any snow from the big Mid-Atlantic blizzard of Feb. 4-5 that stopped at our doorstep.)  This turned out to be the last snowfall of the winter.

 

Christopherst_subway_snow

 

February 26, 1991 – A surprise snowstorm dumped 8.9″ of wet snow, the biggest accumulation in eight years (since 17.6″ buried the City in on Feb. 11-12, 1983 ).  Because the temperature was just above freezing for much of the day the snow didn’t accumulate much on the streets or sidewalks.  This was the winter’s third snowfall of five inches or more.

 

February 28-March 1, 2005 – March came in a like a lion camouflaged as a lamb by all of the snow covering him.  7.7″ of snow fell from a storm that began the afternoon of Feb. 28 and ended at daybreak on March 1.  It wasn’t a cold storm as the temperature rose into the low 40s after the snow ended.  This was the third accumulation of five inches+ in the past ten days.  Combined, 18.7″ fell from these snow events.

 

MARCH

March 1-2, 2009 8.3″ of snow fell from a quick-moving storm that began the night of the 1st (when 1.8″ fell), making this the largest accumulation of the winter (and the most to fall in three years).  12-15″ fell out on Long Island.

 

Dec14_2003_snow

 

March 5, 1981 – A heavy, wet snowfall of 8.6″ was the biggest snow of the winter and a record amount for the date.  It also has the distinction of being the second largest accumulation in the month of March in the 1970-2014 period.

 

March 5-6, 2001 – Call this the storm that couldn’t.  The City was put on high alert after 15-24″ of snow was predicted during the weekend.  City schools and some businesses were closed on Monday and we waited, but it was in vain as the storm never lived up to its billing.  The storm strengthened later and further north than predicted.  New York received 3.5″ as a consolation prize.  However, Long Island received significant accumulations.

 

March 8-9, 1984 – Snow moved in the night of the 8th and by daybreak 6.9″ had accumulated (5.1″ of it on the 9th), making this the biggest snow of the winter.  It was a powdery snow with just 0.38″ of water content.

 

March 13, 1993 – The great March Superstorm (also called “Storm of the Century”) paralyzed the Eastern third of the nation and dumped 10.6″ of snow on NYC.  The heavy snow changed to sleet and rain later in the afternoon, a Saturday, reducing the predicted snow total by about six inches.  The sound of the sleet lashing against my windows, propelled by 40-60 mph wind gusts, was deafening.  All told, 2.37″ of precipitation fell.  To read a first-person account of the storm double click here.

 

1993Superstorm
Plowing down 7th Ave. South, approaching Bleecker St.

 

March 16, 2007 – An all-day onslaught of sleet and snow dumped 5.5″ of icy precipitation, the biggest snow of the winter.  This storm somewhat resembled last month’s severe sleet storm onValentine’s Day, but this one had considerably more snow.  The total amount of precipitation was 2.07″, a record for the date.  This was the last snowfall of the winter, a winter in which just 12.4″ fell, quite a contrast from the previous four winters, all of which had at least forty inches of snow.

 

March 19, 1992 – The biggest snowfall of the winter occurred today, a sloppy 6.2″.  This tripled the winter’s relatively snowless snow total to 9.4″.  Just two degrees separated the day’s high and low (33/31).

 

APRIL

April 6, 1982 – Just 1.1″ of snow had fallen in February and March when a blizzard dumped 9.6″ of snow on the City today, less than a week before Easter.  More than a foot fell in New Jersey and Westchester County.  The storm started as rain in the pre-dawn hours and changed over to snow mid-morning and lasted through late afternoon.  By midnight the temperature had fallen to a record low 21 degrees.  This was the most snow to fall so late in the season since ten inches fell on April 3, 1915.  To read a first-person account click here.

 

April1982nyc_blizzard_nypost

 

April 7, 2003 – Four inches of snow fell, the biggest April snowfall in twenty-one years.  This brought the season’s snowfall close to 50 inches.

 

OCTOBER/NOVEMBER

October 29, 2011 – An intense nor’easter lashed the area with high winds and outrageously early snowfall.  The 2.9″ of heavy, wet snow that was measured in Central Park was the most ever to fall in October (5.2″ fell in Newark and over a foot buried northern NJ, parts of NY state, Connecticut, western Massachusetts and New Hampshire).

Since the temperature never fell below freezing there was no serious accumulation on City streets (except for slush).  However, the day’s low of 33, which occurred in the early afternoon, was the coldest reading in October since 1988.  Total liquid precipitation from the storm was two inches.  Remarkably, twelve weeks would pass before the next measurable snow (4.3″ on Jan. 21, 2012).

 

Freak_october_snowstorm

 

November 7, 2012 – Just nine days after the region was raked by hurricane Sandy’s high winds and record storm surge, a nor’easter lashed the area.  It moved far enough off the coast to pull cold air into the area, changing the rain to snow by 2PM.  This was just the fifth snowfall of one-inch+ to occur in November in the past 40 years – and the first since 1997.  4.7″ fell (4.3″ of it today), making it the earliest 4-inch snowfall on record (the previous record was in 1989 when 4.7″ fell on Nov. 22-23).  It was also the largest accumulation of the calendar year, topping the 4.3″ that fell on Jan 21.

 

November 22-23, 1989 – A Thanksgiving Day snowstorm along the Mid-Atlantic (which began late the previous night) dumped 4.7″ of snow on NYC; however, it was over by the time the Macy’sparade began.  Although this wasn’t officially a wintertime snowfall it was larger than any accumulation during the 1989/90 season.  The day’s high topped out at just 31, twenty degrees below average.

 

DECEMBER

December 5, 2002 – One year after record warmth occurred on this date (high of 70 degrees) six inches of snow fell, the biggest snow so early in the season since 1938.

 

December 5-6, 2003 – Snow fell during the afternoon and lasted into early evening, accumulatingeight inches (more than was predicted).  This snowfall came one year to the date after six inches fell.  It was part of a two-stage storm that brought more significant snowfall the following day.  That day, a Saturday, the City was under a blizzard warning for much of the day and an additional six inches of snow fell.  The high temperature rose to only 28 after a morning low of 23.  Just a week into the month and this was already the snowiest December since 1960, when 19.8 inches fell.

 

Washingtonsqpark_snow
Waverly Place, on the North side of Washington Square Park.

 

December 9, 2005 – 9.3″ of snow fell in the past six days.  The 5.8″ of wet snow that fell on this Friday morning was a record for the date.

 

December 19-20, 1995 – Beginning today and continuing into tomorrow NYC experienced its biggest December snowstorm since 1960 as 7.7″ fell (10-12″ had been predicted).  Less than 10 miles away, La Guardia Airport was buried by 15″.

 

December 19-20, 2009 – This first snow of the winter was a snowstorm that moved in late in the afternoon on a Saturday.  By the time it ended at around 4AM on Sunday 10.9″ had fallen.  Long Island received considerably more with parts of Suffolk County buried by more than 20″.

 

December 26-27, 2010 – Snow began falling during the afternoon and by evening blizzard conditions had developed.  When the flakes stopped flying the following morning 20 inches had piled up.  The City was largely unprepared for a storm of such intensity (and mayor Bloomberg was on vacation at an undisclosed location).

This was the sixth biggest snowstorm in NYC’s history (and it shared its dates with New York’s landmark 1947 snowstorm that dumped 26.4″).  It was the second 20-inch accumulation of the year – the only year to have two storms of such magnitude (the first was on Feb. 25-26 when 20.9″ fell). The blizzard’s bulls-eye was west of NYC where most towns in New Jersey were buried by more than two feet of snow (e.g., Newark measured 24.2 inches).

 

 

Xmas_2010_bliz

 

December 28, 1990 – Today’s 7.2″ snowfall (which began late last night) was the largest accumulation in nearly four years (since January 1987) and the biggest December snowfall since 1960.  Snow ended shortly before 11AM.

 

December 30, 2000 A foot of snow fell as the year was winding down.  It was a record for the date, the most snow since the blizzard of January ’96 and the biggest December snowstorm since 1960.  This Saturday snowstorm was a fast mover, lasting just eight hours (5AM-1PM). 

 

Dec30_2000snowstorm

Mitt Romney Shifts His Position on Climate Change—Again

He made global warming a punch line in his 2012 nomination speech. Now he says it’s a “major problem.”

Is Mitt Romney becoming a climate change crusader?

During his 2012 presidential bid, Romney was dismissive about Democratic efforts to combat the effects of climate change, and he pushed for an expanded commitment to fossil fuels. But in a speech in California on Monday, Romney, who is considering a third run for president in 2016, signaled a shift on the issue. According to the Palm Springs Desert Sun, the former Massachusetts governor “said that while he hopes the skeptics about global climate change are right, he believes it’s real and a major problem,” and he lamented that Washington had done “almost nothing” to stop it.

For Romney, this is his second about-face on climate change. In his 2010 book, No Apology, he called human activity a “contributing factor” to melting ice caps. And in the run-up to the 2012 Republican primaries, Romney backed a reduction in emissions to curb anthropogenic global warming. “I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer,” he told the Manchester Union-Leader in 2011. “And…I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that. So I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

But as the 2012 campaign evolved, Romney reversed course. He said that heopposed curbing carbon dioxide emissions. He declared, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.” Instead, he pledged to increase coal production and ramp up oil exploration. At the Republican convention in Tampa, he turned climate change into a punch line. “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet,” he remarked during his nomination speech—a jab at President Obama’s 2008 campaign promise that his victory would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

A Romney spokesman says the former governor’s remarks on Monday are”consistent with what he said on the trail in 2012 about climate change.” Perhaps. It just depends which 2012 comments he’s referring to.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/mitt-romney-climate-change-shift

 

RUSH LIMBAUGH’S CHIEF OF STAFF DIES

‘I never once doubted his instincts. I had total trust’

JOE KOVACS

 

An emotional Rush Limbaugh remembers his chief of staff, Kit Carson, who died of brain cancer Monday, Jan. 26. 2015.
Christopher “Kit” Carson, the chief of staff for America’s top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh, died Monday morning in New Jersey after a four-year battle with brain cancer. He was 58.

“It’s such a void because he loved this job,” Limbaugh said Monday with a heavy heart as he paid tribute for nearly an hour to Carson, who was the first staffer he hired for his show 27 years ago. “He’s just going to be really missed … Even though we knew this was coming for a while … It’s a huge void in everybody’s heart.”

“You knew you were talking to somebody who actively loved being alive and had active respect for being alive,” he continued. “It’s the one bad thing about getting old, because your friends start [getting] old, too.”

“He was such an integral part of this program every day, even though you never heard him. …

“He was irreplaceable and it’s just a very, very, sad, unfortunate thing that happens to everybody, and the way he dealt with it is a lesson in and of itself.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/kit-carson-rush-limbaugh-chief-of-staff.jpg

Kit Carson (courtesy RushLimbaugh.com)
Kit Carson
Carson was originally from the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, area, and his initial career goals led toward Hollywood, Limbaugh explained.

“He wanted to be an actor, and he ended up enjoying what he did here so much, he became 100-percent totally devoted to the program.”

Limbaugh said Kit “became the resident expert on me and the program. He became its number-one champion, defender, evangelist.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

As far as his presence around the broadcast office, “Kit Carson honest to God never ever had a bad word to say about anybody,” Limbaugh said. “He did not engage in backstabbing.”

Rush recalled the first time Carson showed up for work, saying, “He walked in the room wearing those cargo shorts and the short white socks and the black Keds. He didn’t care if you were laughing at him. It didn’t matter. And everyone laughed.”

Limbaugh noted he had complete trust in Carson.

“He is the one guy … I never once doubted his instincts. I had total trust. … The only thing he cared about was doing whatever to make sure I looked the best I could be.

“He had this innocent exuberance about everybody. … You really had to earn his distrust.”

Limbaugh even admitted, “I stole his opinions sometimes. Sometimes I gave him credit.”

Listen to Rush Limbaugh remembering Kit Carson:
“He did not allow me to be pessimistic or negative. He didn’t allow me to get down in the dumps about anything. And if he sensed that I was, he would do anything that he could that enabled me to get the best out of myself.”

Limbaugh recalled the happiest he ever saw Carson was when Kit first met his future spouse.

“When he met his soon-to-be wife Theresa, he was like a kid in a candy store forever.”

Once married, “He could not believe that he actually convinced this woman to marry him,” Limbaugh said. “It was exactly like a fairy tale.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/kit-carson-wife-theresa-rush-family.jpg
Kit Carson stands next to his wife, Theresa, and Rush Limbaugh’s cousin, aunt and uncle (courtesy RushLimbaugh.com)
Limbaugh said the last time he talked with Carson was a couple of Wednesdays ago.

“I grabbed his hand and held his hand and said, ‘There’s nobody who can replace you. There’s no one who can do what you do.’”

Limbaugh says Carson had a head that was full of red hair, and even after undergoing cancer treatments, he still retained much of it.

“He loved to go walking down 6th Avenue and Japanese tourists thought he was Conan O’Brien,” Limbaugh said.

Carson had many friends among the news media.

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah was among them.

“I’ve known Kit Carson for more than 20 years,” Farah said. “I worked with him on the development of a daily column for Rush at the Sacramento Union. I worked with him again during my collaboration with Rush on his mega-bestselling ‘See I Told You So.’ And, over the years, he has always been a gracious help to me – a real gentleman. He will be greatly missed by all – especially Rush, whom he served as chief of staff for so long.”

James Grisham, producer of Sean Hannity’s radio program, told WND: “Kit Carson always took time from a very busy schedule to kid around with us or help if needed. He was a man of faith lived, never talked about much, the kind that I think matter most.”

Carson leaves behind his wife, Theresa, and two sons, Jack and Jesse.

Limbaugh says his own wife, Kathryn, has been spending time with Carson’s family in recent days.

“She thinks we ought to put a chair in [the Palm Beach, Florida, studio] and up in New York, called the Kit Chair, the honorary Kit Chair,” Limbaugh said. “It’s always gonna be there. That chair is always gonna be where he sat. So we’re gonna do that.”
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/rush-limbaughs-right-hand-man-dies/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-403

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Supervolcano — Videos

Posted on September 28, 2014. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Climate, Communications, Computers, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Food, Geology, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Video, Volcano, Water, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Naked Science – Super Volcanoes

Supervolcano (full movie)

Yellowstone Caldera : The Biggest Volcanic Eruption Ever Awaits Mankind

Supervolcano.The Truth About Yellowstone.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Cascade Range of Volcano Earthquake Swarm — Will Mount Rainier and Mammoth Mountain Be Next To Erupt — Yellowstone? — Will It Happen? Yes. When? Do not know! — Videos

Posted on September 28, 2014. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Chemistry, Communications, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Energy, Federal Government, Geology, government spending, history, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Radio, Science, Strategy, Technology, Video, Volcano, Water, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Cascade_Range_map

screen_poster_lahar_hazrainier-lahar-flow-map-lgmt-rainier-lahars-from-eruption-will-create-massive-tsunamisdebris_flows

California SUPERVOLCANO Earthquake Swarm — Mono Lake / Mammoth Mountain

Top 10 Most Dangerous Volcanoes in the USA

Top 10 Highest Cascade Volcanoes! “Perfect Harmony,” Music by MrPerfectHarmony

Mount Rainier Volcano is a Ticking Time Bomb

Yellowstone Caldera : The Biggest Volcanic Eruption Ever Awaits Mankind

Mount Rainier Volcano is a Ticking Time Bomb

Supervolcano.The Truth About Yellowstone.

Supervolcano (full movie)

 

 

 

 

Mammoth earthquake swarm is the largest in nearly a decade

 

Morre than 600 small earthquakes have rattled the Mammoth Lakes region in less than 36 hours as ripple effects continued across one of the most seismically active volcanic regions in California, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The swarm of quakes — ranging from magnitude 1.0 to 3.8 — began just before 5 a.m. Thursday, according to the USGS.
“This is one of the largest earthquake swarms we’ve seen in the past decade or so,” said David Shelly, a USGS research seismologist who has been studying the volcanic system near Mammoth Lakes. “We’ll be tracking it closely.”

Residents reported periodic rattles through the day but said they were used to the shaking given that Mammoth is a seismically active area.

Earthquake swarms are not uncommon to this region in California’s Eastern Sierra. Countless small faults crisscross the area known as the Long Valley Caldera, Shelly said. This roughly 20-mile-wide crater-like depression, adjacent to Mammoth Mountain, was formed from ash and pumice deposits during a volcanic “super eruption” about 760,000 years ago.

At 11,053 feet, Mammoth Mountain is a lava dome complex on the southwest rim of the caldera and last erupted about 57,000 years ago. The volcanic region is one of the most seismically active in a mostly quiet network of 17 volcanoes throughout California.

The central part of the caldera has been uplifting slowly in recent decades, and these earthquake swarms happen episodically as part of the volcanic and tectonic interactions in the area, Shelly said.

It doesn’t mean that the volcano is any more active. It’s an ongoing process in an volcanic system.
– David Shelly, USGS research seismologist
Deep down in the earth, there is magma, but the magma is not what’s moving, Shelly said. The earthquakes are usually triggered when water and carbon dioxide above the magma move up into higher layers of the earth’s crust and into the cracks of the small faults. The increase in fluid pressure sets off the movements.

“It doesn’t mean that the volcano is any more active,” he said. “It’s an ongoing process in an volcanic system.”

The latest earthquakes seem to be occurring in the same location as a swarm in July, when about 200 quakes of magnitude 2.7 or smaller rocked the area.

The size of the most recent swarm was notable, but was not nearly the size of some swarms in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the 1980s, the area was hit with multiple 6.0-magnitude temblors, which were likely overshadowed by the Mount St. Helens eruption in Washington state, Shelly said.

The last larger swarm occurred in 1997, when temblors as high as magnitude 4.9 shook the region. Thousands of earthquakes were part of that sequence, which lasted several months, Shelly said.

Mammoth quake swarm
Mammoth Mountain is one of the most seismically active volcanoes in California. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
There has been no indication that this week’s earthquakes will turn into anything like what happened in 1997. About 109 quakes of magnitude 2.0 or greater have been recorded since Thursday morning, while hundreds of smaller 1.0-magnitude quakes made up a bulk of the activity. At least six were greater than 3.0 magnitude.

By midday Friday, the swarm seemed to be slowing down, but Shelly said scientists would continue to monitor the area closely.

“At this point, we don’t know if it would continue to die down, or if there’d be another stage to this swarm,” Shelly said. “This is certainly an interesting scientific opportunity to better understand the processes that are driving this activity.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mammoth-earthquake-swarm-largest-in-a-decade-20140926-story.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Record Low Temperatures in United States As Mother Nature Changes Weather and Climate To Global Cooling — The Coming Ice Age — Need Nuclear Power To Keep Warm and Cool — Videos

Posted on January 6, 2014. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, Climate, Communications, Computers, Culture, Economics, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Science, Security, Technology, Video, Water, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-187

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Story 1: Record Low Temperatures in United States As Mother Nature Changes Weather and Climate To Global Cooling — The Coming Ice Age — Need Nuclear Power To Keep Warm and Cool — Videos

TIME_Covers

global_cooling

Time-Global-Cooling

global-cooling_time-magazine

060403_DomCNNL3R1

global_warming

war_global_warming

global_warming_time

global_warming_Time_Cover

time_gw_covers_large

polar_bears

gw-time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming

Bloomberg-Cover1

North America set for record low temperatures as cold snap stretches

Arctic freeze hits US Midwest with record low temperatures

What is an Ice Age?

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

The Next Ice Age and The Gulf Stream – Future Focus

In Search Of… The Coming Ice Age (1978) [Global Cooling]

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

Dr Matthew J Penn suggests global cooling – new Little Ice Age

Global Cooling || UN Climate Report Reveals Rate Of Global Warming About Half Average Rate – Dobbs

Global Warming or a New Ice Age: Documentary Film

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Roy W. Spencer: Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong–Video

Cap and Trade

Glenn Beck Exposes The Crime of The Century By The Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party–The Global Warming Investment Fraud, Political Scam and Science Scandal–Extorting and Robbing The American People–Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Case!

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Global Warming Is Caused By Man: The Arrogance of Man–The Wrath Of Mother Nature–

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–A Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade Bill to be Voted in U.S. House on Friday–Kill The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Today! UPDATED

Green Government Gestapo Goons: Global Warming Police Force Invades Your Home And Living in Your Home May Be A Crime!

White House Memo: Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant and A Cap And Trade Program (Carbon Dioxide Tax) Serious Economic Impact –The Smoking Gun Video!

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Global Warming/Climate Change

Roy Spencer–The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists –Videos

CO2 is Life: Global Warming Panel Discussion–Videos

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Professor Fred Singer–On Climate Change–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–The Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos

John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice — Alarmists Bang The Gong for Help — Rescued By Carbon Burning Helicopter — Passengers and Luggage Air Lifted Out — Videos

Posted on January 2, 2014. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Economics, Federal Government, Food, government spending, media, People, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

MV_Akademik_Shokalskiysintists_passengers_trappedantarctica-rescuecommonwealth-bay-region-of-antarctica-ship_trappedMV-Akademik-Shokalskiy-Shiphelicopter-rescue-for-ship-in-ice

ANTARCTIC RESCUE BEGINS ON THE ICE-BOUND SHIP – BBC NEWS

All passengers airlifted from stranded Antarctic ship Akademik Shokalskiy

Frozen Out: 98% of Stories Ignore That Ice-bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission

By Mike Ciandella January 2, 2014

A group of climate change scientists were rescued by helicopter Jan. 2, after being stranded in the ice since Christmas morning. But the majority of the broadcast networks’ reports about the ice-locked climate researchers never mentioned climate change.

The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming.

Chris Turney, the expedition’s leader, is a professor of climate change at the University of South Wales. According to Turney’s personal website, the purpose of the expedition is to “discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

Twenty-two crew members stayed with the ship for the time being, as the scientists and researchers were rescued. According to CNN, the ship has enough supplies for “a very long time.”

Three rescue attempts had been thwarted by growing levels of sea ice and weather conditions.

“Outside, blizzard conditions packing an abnormal amount of ice in to the area for this time of the year, summer in the Antarctic,” ABC News Correspondent Gio Benitez reported on “Good Morning America” Dec. 31.

On Jan. 2, all 52 passengers were airlifted to a nearby Australian icebreaker ship which had tried, and failed, to plow through the ice and free the Akademic Shokalskiy, on Dec. 30. “Good Morning America” said on Dec. 30, that “the ice could be as thick as 13 feet.”

According to Fox News, Turney admitted “we’re stuck in our own experiment.” They reported on Dec. 30, that a statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said, “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.”

There was only one news story out of 41 that mentioned climate change. That was CBS “This Morning” Dec. 30. “Despite being frozen at a standstill, the team’s research on climate change and Antarctic wildlife is moving forward,” CBS News Correspondent Don Dahler said. That night, all three evening news programs still failed to make any mention of the group’s climate change research.

The MRC’s Business and Media Institute was unable to view a copy of CBS “Sunday Morning” for Dec. 29, so that broadcast had to be excluded from the tally.

Before their ship got stuck in ice, the researchers were following the trail of the explorer Douglas Mawson, who was stranded in Antarctica for more than a year, beginning in December 1912, according to the website about the expedition.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi#ixzz2pHVy2JVs

MSM Glosses Over Irony Of Global Warming Scientists Trapped In Antarctic Ice

Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity. As an example here is an Associated Press story that avoids mentioning the real mission of the scientists aboard the icebound Russian ship:

The Snow Dragon icebreaker came within 7 miles (11 kilometers) of the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been stuck since Christmas Eve, but had to retreat after the ice became too thick, said expedition spokesman Alvin Stone.

The Akademik Shokalskiy, which has been on a research expedition to Antarctica, got stuck Tuesday after a blizzard’s whipping winds pushed the sea ice around the ship, freezing it in place. The ship wasn’t in danger of sinking, and there are weeks’ worth of supplies for the 74 scientists, tourists and crew on board, but the vessel cannot move.

So what was the exact mission of these scientists? AP is rather vague about this reporting only:

The scientific team on board the research ship — which left New Zealand on Nov. 28 — had been recreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson’s century-old voyage to Antarctica when it became trapped. They plan to continue their expedition after they are freed, expedition leader Chris Turney said.

Um, there is a bit more to the expedition than merely following in the footsteps of a century-old voyage. But what that mission really is, AP won’t say. If AP is vague about the mission’s purpose, Reuters provides even less information.

Since the MSM isn’t forthcoming as to the real purpose of those scientists traveling to Antarctica, we turn to Whats Up With That for more insight:

The expedition is being led by Chris Turney, “climate scientist”, who has “set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.” The purpose of the expedition is “to discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

It seems they found out what the “environmental changes taking place in the south.” are.

Finally, National Geographic bluntly states the mission purpose:

…The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson’s numbers, “using the twist of modern technology,” Turney told National Geographic earlier this month.

As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.

Ah, so now we see why the MSM reluctance to flat out state why the scientists are in the Antarctic. Anything to avoid an inconvenient (but accurate) headline like this:

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE

Ship stuck in Antarctica awaits rescue: A ship remains stranded in Antarctica as rescue crews battle treacherous ice to reach it. CNN’s Isa Soares reports.

Libtard “Global Warming” Update: The Ice Thickens; Stranded Ship In Antarctic Awaits New Rescue Plan

52 People Trapped in Antarctica Ring in New Year 2014

Ship trapped in Antarctica

Research Ship Trapped in Antarctic Ice

Antarctica’s Ice on the Move – Antarctica’s Climate Secrets

Global Warming Hoax Explained

Nigel Farage confronts Barroso on global warming scam (State of the Union 2013)

Global Warming or a New Ice Age: Documentary Film

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

Concerns about nuclear winter arose in the early 1980s from several reports. Similar speculations have appeared over effects due to catastrophes such as asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. A prediction that massive oil well fires in Kuwait would cause significant effects on climate was quite incorrect.

The idea of a global cooling as the result of global warming was already proposed in the 1990s. In 2003, the Office of Net Assessment at the United States Department of Defense was commissioned to produce a study on the likely and potential effects of a modern climate change, especially of a shutdown of thermohaline circulation. The study, conducted under ONA head Andrew Marshall, modelled its prospective climate change on the 8.2 kiloyear event, precisely because it was the middle alternative between the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The study caused controversy in the media when it was made public in 2004. However, scientists acknowledge that “abrupt climate change initiated by Greenland ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century”.

Currently, the concern that cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, has been observed to be incorrect by the IPCC. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown that the cooling concerns of 1975 have not been borne out.

As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations): it isn’t true that interglacials have previously only lasted about 10,000 years; and Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally. Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years. Berger (EGU 2005 presentation) believes that the present CO2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely.

As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie

World’s climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

Scientists say the world’s climate is warming faster than feared because previous predictions were too “optimistic” and overestimated the cooling impact of clouds

By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney

As the planet marked its fourth hottest year on record, a study published in the journal Nature found increasing levels of carbon dioxide will lead to thinner ocean clouds and reduce their cooling impact, causing temperature rises of at least 5.6F (3C) over the course of the century.

The team of scientists said the findings show some climate models have been too “optimistic” and previous estimates of a minimum temperature rise of only 2.7F (1.5C) could now be discounted. The optimistic models did not properly assess the impact of water evaporation, which sometimes rises only a short distance into the atmosphere and causes updraughts that reduce cloud cover, the study found.

”These models have been predicting a lower climate sensitivity but we believe they’re incorrect,” Professor Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, told The Sydney Morning Herald.

”The net effect of [climate change] is you have less cloud cover.”

The study comes amid a controversy in Australia over claims by Maurice Newman, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s top business adviser, who said the world had been taken “hostage to climate change madness”.

Mr Newman said the climate change establishment, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, remained “intent on exploiting the masses and extracting more money”.

“The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling,” he wrote in The Australian. “Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years… If the IPCC were your financial adviser, you would have sacked it long ago.”

Mr Newman, a former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, was criticised by the opposition and pilloried by scientists, who said he was expressing “flat earth” views and should be sacked.

“His piece is a mix of common climate change myths, misinformation and ideology,” said Professor David Karoly, from the University of Melbourne, in an article in The Sydney Morning Herald.

“I would not choose a person who believes that the Earth is flat to advise Australian shipping or airline businesses on how to plan routes to travel around the world. It is clearly not sensible to have a person who believes that climate change science is a delusion as leader of the prime minister’s Business Advisory Council.”

Mr Abbott, who is something of a climate change sceptic, once claimed that “climate change is “absolute crap”, though he later said he accepts it is “real”.

Since winning a federal election last September, he has moved to scrap Labor’s tax on carbon emissions and instead proposes to address climate change by paying polluters to reduce emissions, though critics say the plan is underfunded and will not achieve its reduction targets.

The debate comes as Australia in 2013 marked its hottest year since reliable recordings began in 1910. The world’s driest continent also recorded its hottest day, hottest month, hottest winter’s day and hottest summer.

The run of warmer weather began late in 2012 and was so great that Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology last year changed its official weather forecasting map to include new colours – deep purple and pink – for areas with temperatures above 50C (122F).

Globally, according to figures released in December by the United States National Climatic Data Center, 2013 was set to be the fourth hottest year in 134 years of records behind 2010, 2005 and 1998.

Meteorologists said it was the hottest year on record for a non-El Niño year.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

United Nations Earth Summit Agenda 21 — Sustainable Development — Videos

Posted on November 5, 2013. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, Climate, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , |

9781482672770

Sustainability

Glenn Beck – Agenda 21 On O’Reilly

Glenn Beck Supports Agenda 21…His Book that is!

UN Agenda 21 ~ The End of Freedom

Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version

Agenda 21 -Progress 2/24/13

TrutherGirl Infiltrates NWO Conference!

Agenda 21- Codex- Fema Camps-80% Depopulation = New World Order (Terror Camps: The Global Agenda)

Honourable Ann Bressington Exposes UN Agenda 21 Club of Rome Population Control World Government

Whistleblower Scientist Exposing Secrets of Agenda 21 Part1

Whistleblower Scientist Exposing Secrets of Agenda 21 Part 2

H.A.A.R.P., Agenda 21 and Google’s Role In The Sinister DNA Plan – Mature Content

Agenda 21: Global Control Starts Here – An Interview with Glenn Beck

Agenda 21 The Depopulation Agenda For a New World Order

► Agenda 21, the NWO, Executive Order 13575, Sustainable Development, and Population Reduction

UN AGENDA 21 ” Sustainable Development “…..For Dummies. (Low).flv

Agenda 21 in Less Than 5 Minutes

Agenda 21 Sustainable Development States Block Communist Socialist Land Grab

United Nations Agenda 21

Nature of Sustainable Development / United Nations AGENDA 21

John Birch Society on Agenda 21

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ray Kurzweil–How To Create A Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed–Videos

Posted on November 21, 2012. Filed under: Babies, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, College, Communications, Computers, Culture, Economics, Education, Energy, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Raves, Science, Security, Strategy, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Ray Kurzweil “How to Create a Mind”, Authors at Google

Exclusive Interview with Ray Kurzweil 

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 1

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 2

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 3

Ray Kurzweil:How to Create a Mind 4

Learning Technologies 2012 – Ray Kurzweil – The Web Within Us: When Minds and Machines Become One

Glenn Beck –  Ray Kurzweil Part 1

Glenn Beck –  Ray Kurzweil Part 2

Glenn Beck –  Ray Kurzweil Part 3

Ray Kurzweil & Daughter Amy Kurzweil in a Fireside Chat at NASA

Ray Kurzweil: You Are What You Think

Ray Kurzweil on the Singularity

Ray Kurzweil – Exponential Learning & Entrepreneurship

Ray Kurzweil on “From Eliza to Watson to Passing the Turing Test” at Singularity Summit 2011

Ray Kurzweil – Futurist

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ray Kurzweil–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Matrix Phlosophy–Videos

Posted on November 11, 2011. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Communications, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Entertainment, European History, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Life, Links, media, Movies, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Religion, Science, Security, Sports, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Philosophy and the Matrix: Return to the Source [FULL DOCUMENTARY]

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Roy W. Spencer: Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong–Video

Posted on November 6, 2011. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Climate, Communications, Economics, Employment, Energy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Science, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

James Burke : “After The Warming”–Videos

Posted on November 5, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Climate, College, Communications, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Farming, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Music, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Private Sector, Programming, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , |

Warning: Burke’s video is propaganda and should be viewed with caution

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 1/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 2/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 3/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 4/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 5/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 6/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 7/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 8/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 9/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 10/11

James Burke : “After The Warming”, 11/11

Please watch the following videos to see why Burke is wrong.

Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 1 of 6

Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 2 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 3 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 4 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 5 of 6

Dr  Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6

Background Articles and Videos

1 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

2 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

3 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

4 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

5 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

6 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

7 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

8 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

9 of 9 Richard Lindzen The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming Fermilab Colloquium

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Movie)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

James Burke: Connections and Re-Connections–Videos

Global Warming/Climate Change

Roy Spencer–The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists –Videos

CO2 is Life: Global Warming Panel Discussion–Videos

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Professor Fred Singer–On Climate Change–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–The Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos

John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

James Burke: Connections and Re-Connections–Videos

Posted on November 5, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Art, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, Climate, Communications, Computers, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Dirty Bomb, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Physics, Pistols, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Rifles, Science, Security, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, “The Trigger Effect”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, “The Trigger Effect”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, “The Trigger Effect”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, “The Trigger Effect”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 1, “The Trigger Effect”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 2, “Death In The Morning”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 2, “Death In The Morning”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 2, “Death In The Morning”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 2, “Death In The Morning”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 2, “Death In The Morning”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 3, “Distant Voices”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 3, “Distant Voices”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 3, “Distant Voices”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 3, “Distant Voices”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 3, “Distant Voices”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 4, “Faith In Numbers”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 4, “Faith In Numbers”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 4, “Faith In Numbers”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 4, “Faith In Numbers”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 4, “Faith In Numbers”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 5, “Wheel Of Fortune”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 5, “Wheel Of Fortune”,  2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 5, “Wheel Of Fortune”,  3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 5, “Wheel Of Fortune”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 5, “Wheel Of Fortune”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 6, “Thunder in the Skies”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 6, “Thunder in the Skies”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 6, “Thunder in the Skies”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 6, “Thunder in the Skies”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 6, “Thunder in the Skies”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 7, “The Long Chain”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 7, “The Long Chain”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 7, “The Long Chain”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 7, “The Long Chain”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 7, “The Long Chain”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 8, “Eat, Drink and be Merry”, 1 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 8, “Eat, Drink and be Merry”, 2 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 8, “Eat, Drink and be Merry”, 3 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 8, “Eat, Drink and be Merry”, 4 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections, Episode 8, “Eat, Drink and be Merry”, 5 of 5 (CC)

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 9 : “Hit The Water” (HQ), 1 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 9 : “Hit The Water” (HQ),2 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 9 : “Hit The Water” (HQ), 3 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 9 : “Hit The Water” (HQ), 4 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 9 : “Hit The Water” (HQ), 5 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 10 : “In Touch” (HQ), 1 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 10 : “In Touch” (HQ), 2 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 10 : “In Touch” (HQ), 3 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 10 : “In Touch” (HQ), 4 of 5

James Burke : Connections³, Episode 10 : “In Touch” (HQ), 5 of 5

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 1 of 7

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 2 of 7

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 3 of 7

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 4 of 7

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 5 of 7

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 6 of 7

James Burke : “Re-Connections”, 7 of 7

Background Articles and Videos

James Burke

“…James Burke (born 22 December 1936) is a British broadcaster, science historian, author and television producer known amongst other things for his documentary television series Connections (1978) and its more philosophical oriented companion production, The Day the Universe Changed (1985), focusing on the history of science and technology leavened with a sense of humour. The Washington Post has called him “one of the most intriguing minds in the Western world”.[1]

Burke was born in Derry, Northern Ireland. He was educated at Maidstone Grammar School and at Jesus College, Oxford, where he gained an M.A. in Middle English.

Later, Burke moved to Italy, where he lectured at universities in Bologna and Urbino as well as at English schools in that country. While in Italy, he was engaged in the creation of an English–Italian dictionary and the publication of an art encyclopedia. In 1966, after a period of broadcasting work, Burke moved to London to join the BBC’s Science and Features Department, where he hosted and co-hosted a number of programmes. He also worked for a while as a teacher of English as a Foreign Language at the Regency Language School in Ramsgate.

Burke first made his name as a reporter on the BBC science series Tomorrow’s World. He was BBC television’s science anchor and chief reporter on the Project Apollo missions, being the main presenter on the BBC’s coverage of the first moon landings in 1969.

Burke co-produced (with Mick Jackson) an acclaimed 10-part documentary series Connections (1978) that was first aired on the BBC and subsequently on PBS channels in the United States. The series traced paths of invention and discovery through their interrelationships in history, with each episode chronicling a particular path, usually in chronological order, and was a great success for Burke, being the most watched PBS series up to that time. It was followed by the 20-part Connections2 (1994, Exec. Prod. Tim Cowling) and then the 10-part Connections3 (1997, Exec. Prod. Michael Latham) series. Later, it was shown in more than 50 countries and appeared in about 350 university and college curricula. Additionally, the book that followed the series was also a best seller on both sides of the Atlantic.

In 1985, Burke co-produced (with Richard Reisz and John Lynch) a 10-part series The Day The Universe Changed (revised in 1995). This series focuses more on the philosophical aspects of scientific change on Western culture. Burke has also been a regular contributor for Scientific American and Time magazines and served as a consultant to the SETI project. He has received the Royal Television Society’s silver and gold medals. In 1998 he was made an honorary fellow of the Society for Technical Communication.[2]

In contrast with the end of Connections, in which Burke worried that computing and communications would increasingly be in the hands of an expert elite, in the closing scenes of The Day the Universe Changed he instead suggested that a forthcoming revolution in communication and computer technology would allow people all over the world to exchange ideas and opinions instantaneously. Popular access to the internet suggests he was correct. …”

KnowledgeWeb

James Burke is the leading figure of the KnowledgeWeb Project. This is the digital incarnation of his books and television programmes, which allows the user to fly through history and create their own connective paths. According to the site, it will eventually have immersive, inhabited virtual reality recreations of historical people and places.

Major television credits

Television series and major single documentaries made by James Burke:

  • The Burke Special (1972–1976)
  • The End of the Beginning (1972), marking the end of Project Apollo
  • Scenario: The Oil Game (1976), crisis game examining OPEC
  • Scenario: The Peace Game (1977), crisis game examining NATO
  • Connections (1978)
  • The Men who Walked on the Moon (1979), 10th anniversary of Apollo 11
  • The Other Side of the Moon (1979), a more critical look at Apollo
  • The Real Thing, on various aspects of perception (1980)
  • The Neuron Suite on the human brain (1982)
  • MacGillivray Freeman’s Speed (IMAX) (1984), Narrator
  • The Day the Universe Changed (1985, revised in 1995)
  • After the Warming (1989), on the greenhouse effect
  • Masters of Illusion (1993), on Renaissance painting
  • Connections 2 (1994) (sometimes written Connections²)
  • Connections 3 (1997) (or Connections³)
  • Stump the Scientist, in which an audience of children were invited to put questions to a resident panel of scientists in the hope of “stumping” them[citation needed]
  • ReConnections (2004) ReConnections from KCSM on archive.org

 Books

  • Tomorrow’s World I, (with Raymond Baxter) (BBC 1970) ISBN 978-0-563-10162-8
  • Tomorrow’s World II, (with Raymond Baxter) (BBC 1973) ISBN 978-0-563-12362-0
  • Connections: Alternative History of Technology (Time Warner International/Macmillan 1978) ISBN 978-0-333-24827-0
  • The Day the Universe Changed (BBC 1985) ISBN 0-563-20192-4
  • Chances (Virgin Books 1991) ISBN 978-1-85227-393-4
  • The Axemaker’s Gift, (with Robert Ornstein), illustrated by Ted Dewan (Jeremy P Tarcher 1995) ISBN 978-0-87477-856-4
  • The Pinball Effect — How Renaissance Water Gardens Made the Carburettor Possible and Other Journeys Through Knowledge (Little, Brown & Company 1996) ISBN 978-0-316-11610-7
  • Circles — Fifty Round Trips Through History Technology Science Culture (Simon & Schuster 2000) ISBN 978-0-7432-4976-8
  • The Knowledge Web (Simon & Schuster 2001) ISBN 978-0-684-85935-4
  • Twin Tracks (Simon & Schuster 2003) ISBN 978-0-7432-2619-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

James Burke : “After The Warming”–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed–Videos

Posted on October 30, 2011. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Chemistry, College, Communications, Economics, Education, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Science, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 1 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 2 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 3 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 4 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 5 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 6 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 7 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 8 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 9 of 10)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Part 10 of 10)

Background Articles and Videos

Mind Control Hate Propaganda, Hate Speech & Crime, Black PR

Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis

Mind Control in a Can, Soft Drinks Aren’t Sexy, Coke, Pop

Music, Emotion & Mind Control, Psychology

MK-Ultra, CIA Mind Control & Brain Washing to Make Assassins

Propaganda, Black Public Relations & Mind Control Report Part 1

Propaganda, Black Public Relations & Mind Control Report 2

Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

Sex Control Police State, Eugenics, Galton, Kantsaywhere, Mind Control

Sex Addiction, Restless Legs Syndrome, PMS & Drug, Mind Control Report

 END GAME: Official Movie Eugenics pt1

 END GAME: Official Movie Eugenics pt2

 END GAME: Official Movie Eugenics pt3

 END GAME: Official Movie Eugenics pt4

 END GAME: Official Movie Eugenics pt5

EndGame HQ full length version

Collapse of Darwinism : Theory of Evolution [full video]

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is “creation,” the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of “evolution,” which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory.

From Darwin to Hitler

From Darwing to Hitler

Richard  Wikary

http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromdarwintohitler.htm

Related Posts OnPronk Palisades

Dr. Bernard Nathanson–Abortion Doctor Turned Pro-Life Activist Dies At 84–Vidoes

Eugenics, Population Control and Global Totalitarianism–Videos

Black History Month–Progressives–Eugenics–Black Population Control–Planned Parenthood–Abortion–Killing Children–Black Genocide–Race Traitors–Barack Obama–Womb Lynchers–Defund Planned Parenthood–Videos

Samuel F. Yette–The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America-Videos

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America–Videos

Senator Rick Santorum Pro Life Position Attacked By Progressive Radical Socialists As A Racist–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Racism and Reparations For Genocide From Eugenics Advocates

Progressivism America’s Cancer–Videos

The Progressive Radical Socialists’ Darkest Secret–Eugneics–The American Crusade To Create A Master Race

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

Black Genocide–Eugenics–Planned Parenthood–Population Control–Videos

Margaret Sanger–Videos

Maafa 21–Videos

Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Black Liberation Theology + Progressive Radical Socialism = Evil Tyranny

Two Worlds–Two Peoples–Independence, Integrity and Individualism vs. Dependence, Deception and Despotism–Which Side Are You On?

Green Jobs Czar and Communist Commissar Van Jones: Redistributing The Wealth=Black and Red Race Reparations=Social Justice?

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Cell Phone Bugging and Tracking–Videos

Posted on September 26, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Constitutional Controversy Brewing Over Phone Tracker

Cell Phone Tracking by the Government

Tapping your cell phone

Is Your Cell Phone Bugged?

Protect Yourself from Cell Phone Spying Robert Siciliano www.IDTheftSecurity.com

CELL PHONE  (FBI can listen to you when phone is turned off)

How To Tap A Cell Phone | Can You Really Tap A Cell Phone?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Herman Cain–The Tea Party Movement Candidate–Running On Cutting Spending, Opposing Higher Debt Ceiling, Enforcing Immigration Laws, Defunding Planned Parenthood, Nominating Pro Life Judges, And Passing The FairTax–Common Sense Solutions!–Videos

Posted on May 23, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 29:May 26, 2011  

 

Who is Herman Cain ?

Herman Cain : We the People

 

Cain

 

Herman Cain on Taxes

 

Herman Cain on Jack Kemp

 

Herman Cain on ABC This Week panel June 5, 2011

 

Herman Cain 2012 Event! 1 of 3

 

 

2011 NRA Annual Meetings – Herman Cain – Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum

 

Herman Cain: “Priorities”

Herman Cain on America Live

 

 Herman Cain on Sean Hannity – 5/23/11

 

 

Fox News Sunday – Exclusive With Herman Cain May 22 2011

 

Just Herman Cain’s Answers in First Republican Debate for 2012

 

All Ron Paul 2012 Presidential debate answers full HQ

 

Frank Luntz Focus Group Picks Winner of First GOP Debate!

 

Herman Cain: We Need to Secure the Border With Technology and Guns

 

Herman Cain – Immigration

 

Herman Cain Explains the Fair Tax

 

Herman Cain Discusses Fair Tax with Neil Cavuto

 

Herman Cain on Second Amendment and Abortion

 

 

Herman Cain Talks Social Issues

 

Herman Cain says if he runs for President he would defund Planned Parenthood

 

America Loves Herman Cain!

 

Herman Cain – We need to return to Gold Standard and Eliminate the Debt

 

 

Herman Cain : We the People

 

Is America Ready for Common Sense Solutions?

Herman Cain to Obama at CPAC: “U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our Watch”

 

My favorites candidates for the office of President of The United States are Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

The one thing all three have in common is character and integrity.

The one thing all three do not have is the support of the Republican Party establishment in Washington, D.C.

All three are pro life and would defund Planned Parenthood, all three want Federal Government spending cut with no increase in the National debt ceiling, and all three favor lower taxation and comprehensive income tax reform such as the FairTax

All three would make an outstanding President of the United States.

While my dream ticket is Ron Paul as the  candidate for President and Michele Bachmann as the candidate for Vice-President on the Republican Party ticket, Herman Cain would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury Department or Chairman of the Republican Party.

Let the American people decide for themselves who is the best candidate.

 

Background Articles and Videos

Rush Limbaugh – Herman Cain Is Serious Snerdley

 

Herman Cain versus Bill Clinton

 

Herman Cain – Bill Bennett – May 11, 2011

 

Glenn Beck Loves Herman Cain

 

 

Mark Levin Interviews Herman Cain

 

Herman Cain – Laura Ingraham

 

Herman Cain – Thomas Jefferson Comes to Dinner Part 1

 

Herman Cain – Thomas Jefferson Comes to Dinner Part 2

 

Herman Cain

“…Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, political activist, columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.[2] Cain’s newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He lives in the Atlanta suburbs.

In January 2011, Cain announced he had formed an exploratory committee for a potential presidential campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and on May 21, 2011, Cain officially announced his candidacy.[3]

Background

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.[4][5] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a chauffeur.[2] He was raised in Georgia.[6] He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,[7] while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You’re Stupid (May 2005).

Business career

After completing his master’s degree from Purdue, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for The Coca-Cola Company as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain’s leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather’s to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather’s from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather’s.[8]

Cain became a member of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992 and served as its chairman from January 1995 to August 1996, when he resigned to become active in national politics.[9] Cain was a 1996 recipient of the Horatio Alger Award.[10]

Media work

Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB, a Cox Radio affiliate until February 2011 and serves as a commentator for Fox Business and a syndicated columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain founded “Hermanator’s Intelligent Thinkers Movement” (HITM), aimed at organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping government spending, and Restructuring Social Security.[11]

Political activities

 Role in the defeat of the Clinton health care plan

Cain publicly opposed the 1993/1994 health care plan of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. While president-elect of the National Restaurant Association he challenged Bill Clinton on the costs of the employer mandate contained within the bill, criticizing its effect on small businesses. Cain has been described as one of the primary “saboteurs” of the plan:

The Clintons would later blame “Harry and Louise,” the fictional couple in the ads aired by the insurance industry, for undermining health reform. But the real saboteurs are named Herman and John. Herman Cain is the president of Godfather’s Pizza and president-elect of the National Restaurant Association. An articulate black entrepreneur, Cain transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., last April. Cain asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the “employer mandate.” Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted. “Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate,” he told the president. “In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn’t work that way.”[12]

Joshua Green of The Atlantic has called Cain’s exchange with Clinton his “auspicious debut on the national political stage.”[13]

1996 Senior Adviser of Dole/Kemp Campaign

Cain was a senior economic adviser to the Dole/ Kemp presidential campaign in 1996.[14]

2004 U.S. Senate candidacy

Main article: United States Senate election in Georgia, 2004

In 2004, Cain ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, pursuing the seat that came open with the retirement of Democrat Zell Miller. Cain sought the Republican nomination, facing congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins in the primary. Cain and Collins both hoped to deny Isakson a majority on primary day in order to force him into a runoff.[citation needed] Collins tried to paint Cain as a moderate,[15] citing Cain’s support for affirmative action programs, while Cain argued that he was a conservative, noting that he opposed the legality of abortion even in cases of rape and incest.[16] Cain finished second in the primary with 26.2% of the vote, ahead of Collins, who won 20.6%, but because Isakson won 53.2% of the vote, Isakson was able to avoid a runoff.[17]

 2012 presidential candidacy

Main article: Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012

In 2010, “Cain addressed more than 40 Tea Party rallies, hit all the early presidential states, and became a YouTube sensation.”[6] In April, he teased the audience at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference about his being a possible 2012 presidential candidate by saying that there may be a “dark horse candidate.”[18][19] On September 24, 2010, Cain announced that he was considering a run for president in 2012 on the Republican Party ticket.[20] “In December, he was the surprise choice for 2012 GOP nominee in a reader poll on the conservative Web site RedState.com, narrowly edging out Palin.”[6]

Cain announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on January 12, 2011 on the Fox News Channel program Your World with Neil Cavuto.[21] [22]

Cain supports a non-federally subsidized efficient economic stimulus, saying: “We could grow this economy faster if we had bolder, more direct stimulus policies,” criticizing President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan as simply a “spending bill” instead of meaningful stimulus through permanent tax cuts.[23]

In December 2010, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review wrote of Cain: “it’s hard to imagine him amounting to more than an exciting also-ran.”[24]

In February 2011, Cain addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).[25] Ed Morrisey of the conservative website Hot Air said he “stole the show” and that some attendees were moved to tears by the speech.[26] In contrast, liberal website AlterNet accused Cain of pandering to white conservatives and referred to him and other black conservatives as “garbage pail kids”. Cain called the news website’s attacks racist and condemned its “shameful behavior”.[27]

Following a number of comments made by Cain regarding his attitudes toward Muslim people, he was asked in March 2011 if he would feel comfortable appointing a Muslim to his administration or as a Judge. Cain said “No, I will not … There’s this creeping attempt, there’s this attempt, to gradually ease Shariah Law, and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government”[28][29] and he went on to cite court cases in Oklahoma[30] and New Jersey as evidence.[31] This led to criticisms of “bigotry” and “muslim bashing” from CAIR, whose spokesperson stated “It would be laughable if it weren’t having such a negative impact on the lives of Muslim Americans”.[32][33]

On May 5, 2011 Fox News presented a presidential campaign debate. Cain was one of five potential candidates who participated. (The others were Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Gary E. Johnson and Rick Santorum as the higher-profile candidates declined Fox’s invitation.) Cain was declared the winner by pollster Frank Luntz after a show of hands among 29 debate witnesses who were chosen by Fox to act as a post-performance focus group.[34][35] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

 

 

Herman Cain to Obama at CPAC: “U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our Watch”

 

 

Herman Cain: Liberals ‘Don’t Want People to Know the Truth’

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011–Video

Posted on May 21, 2011. Filed under: Biology, Blogroll, Chemistry, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

Entertaining and interesting nonsense.

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

“Who is Peter Joseph?” Full Version – A Mini-Doc by Charles Robinson

 

Peter Joseph

“…Peter Joseph is an American independent filmmaker. He has written, directed, narrated, scored and produced three non-commercial, self-produced and freely-distributed documentary films called Zeitgeist: The Movie, Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. These films comprise what is called the “Zeitgeist Film Series”. He is also the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Joseph

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

“…Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the third installment in Peter Joseph‘s Zeitgeist film series. The movie was independently released in over 60 countries and in over 30 languages starting on January 15, 2011 with over 340 screenings worldwide.[1]The film was launched for free on the Internet starting January 26, 2011, receiving over 300,000 views on YouTube in the first 24 hours[2] and over 4.5 million views in the first two months of its release.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_Moving_Forward

The Zeitgeist Movement

“…The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) is a grassroots movement and online community.[3] It describes itself as a sustainability advocacy organization. The Zeitgeist Movement was inspired by the social response from Peter Joseph’s film Zeitgeist: Addendum, sequel to Zeitgeist: The Movie. It was Zeitgeist: Addendum which first introduced the Venus Project. A third film was released in theaters globally on January 15, 2011 and on the internet on the 25th called Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, which focuses on human behavior, technology, and rationality.[4] As of 2011, the Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project have split ways and are no longer functioning as a partnership.[5]

 

Concepts advocated by the Zeitgeist Movement

The core idea advocated by TZM is the replacement of current civilization with a money-free and cybernated “resource-based economy”.[6] The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project promote replacing human labour with automation, government will be through collective participation of the public, aided by advanced cybernation.[6][7][8] According to the movement, there will be no decision-making process regarding greater social issues by human beings, those decisions are arrived at by using the scientific method, based on the carrying capacity of the Earth, rather than human opinions.[9] The replacement of human decision making by artificial intelligence is termed ‘Social Cybernation’.[10] Private property will not be abolished, but it will become obsolete as culture grows, being replaced by “a system of universal access”.[11]

 Activities and publications

Zeitgeist Day (Z-Day)

The Zeitgeist Movement holds an annual “Z-Day” in March. The first Z-Day was on March 15, 2009 and the second on March 13, 2010. On this day, the Zeitgeist Movement has local gatherings to learn and share information with all interested individuals. In 2009 there were more than 450 events held in 70 countries around the world.[12] In 2009, among other events, Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco spoke to a sold-out crowd of around 900 at the Borough of Manhattan Community College for over two hours.[13] The third Z-Day was on March 13, 2011. Peter Joseph and others spoke to a sold-out audience of 1100 at “Friends House” in Euston, London.

Michelle Rodriguez of Avatar attended Z Day 2011 in Los Angeles on March 12, 2011 at Los Angeles Convention Center.[14] She said she is intrigued by the idea of the Venus Project.

Brandon Boyd of Incubus also attended Z Day in Los Angeles with his girlfriend Baelyn Neff.[15] He said Zeitgeist Moving Forward is his favorite Zeitgeist film so far. He also said he is very familiar with Jacque Fresco and watched a documentary film about Jacque Fresco’s work called Future by Design.

Media Project

According to a press release circulated to members on May 12, 2010, the Zeitgeist Media Project (ZMP) Beta was released. According to the press release the Media Project is an extension of the Communications Team.[16]

Chapters

The Zeitgeist Movement members are organized into country/regional, state and city “sub”-chapters.[17] Each chapter/sub-chapter is hosted and maintained independently on its own domain, or in sub-domains from the Zeitgeist Movement’s main site. The chapters are coordinated by individuals or groups of individuals who are well-versed in the movement’s tenets and direction and have chosen to donate their time to help further its current goals. According to the Zeitgeist Movement July 2010 Newsletter, the Zeitgeist Movement has 46 official country chapters over 200 regional sub-chapters internationally.[18] This includes all 50 official U.S. state chapters.[19]

Radio address

Peter Joseph, the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement and other Zeitgeist Movement members deliver a weekly radio address which is broadcast every Wednesday on BlogTalkRadio. These broadcasts discuss the progress of the Zeitgeist Movement, hold interviews with various relevant personalities, provide information for the Zeitgeist Movement’s chapters, and answer questions sent in by listeners/members. There are two other BlogTalkRadio shows that discuss the Zeitgeist Movement, a resource-based economy and the Venus Project. One is Z Radio, a weekly broadcast co-hosted by Thunder and Franklee, and produced by Shawn Hodgins. The other, known as V-Radio,[20] is hosted by Neil Kiernan Stephenson (aka Liz, aka Brittany Smith, aka Leveer Silverleaf, aka VTV). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Government Schools And Colleges Indoctrinating Students To Become Collectivist and Radical Progressive Socialists Favoring Government Interventionism–Videos

Posted on May 14, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Music, People, Philosophy, Physics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Science, Security, Talk Radio, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

If the Government Does X, It Is Called Y

 

Glenn Beck-05/13/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-05/13/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-05/13/11-C

 

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (1 of 8)

 

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (2 of 8)

 

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (3 of 8)

 

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (4 of 8)

 

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (5 of 8)

 

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (6 of 8)

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (7 of 8)

How Radical Professors Indoctrinate Students – David Horowitz (8 of 8)

 

The Federal Reserve and Indoctrination Nation

 

MICHAEL SAVAGE MOCKS STUPID LIBERALS AND EXAMINES HISTORY – (FUNNY AND TRUE)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Daniel–Videos

Posted on April 12, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Energy, Entertainment, European History, Federal Government, Films, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, Nuclear Power, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Religion, Reviews, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Daniel (Part 1)

 

Daniel (Part 2)

 

Daniel (Part3)

 

Daniel (Part 4)

 

Daniel (Part 5)

 

Daniel (Part 6)

 

Daniel (Part7)

 

Daniel (Part 8)

 

Daniel (Part 9)

 

Daniel (Part 10)

 

Daniel (Part 11)

 

Daniel (Part 12)

 

Daniel (Part 13)

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Prince of the City–Videos

Sidney Lumet–Rest In Peace–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos

Posted on April 2, 2011. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Chemistry, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, Life, Links, media, Nuclear Power, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Security, Technology, Transportation, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.”

“We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom.”

~Frederic Bastiat

 

Give it a listen!

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2)

April 08, 2011 11:16 AM PDT

Pronk Pops Show 22, April 7, 2011

Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos

Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos

Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos

Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos

For additional information and videos on the above segments:

http://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/pronk-pops-show-22-april-5-2011-segment-113500000-million-americans-unemployed-in-march-2011-still-exceeds-great-depression-high-of-13000000-in-march-1933%E2%80%93the-obama-depressions-contin/

Pres. Obama Unveils Energy Plan: Full Speech

 

Media “On Board” With Skyrocketing Energy Prices Under Obama


 

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

 

Crude Oil, Gasoline and Natural Gas Futures Price

NYMEX Prices for April 1,
2011

NYMEX Light Sweet Crude +1.22
$107.94
ICE Brent +1.34
$118.70
RBOB Gasoline NY Harbor +0.0436
$3.1513
Heating Oil NY Harbor +0.0220
$3.1345
NYMEX Natural Gas -0.027
$4.362

http://www.wtrg.com/index.html

Barry Buys a Big New Truck! Ethanol and Food Riots !

 

Middle East Events Drives Oil Speculation

 

Ron Paul The real reason why oil prices are high

Bulltick’s Vera Forecasts $100 Oil Through End of 2011


As Market Manipulation Drives up Gas Prices


CHHS Director discusses excessive speculation in oil markets


Oil speculation and oil prices


America’s Energy Security

 

Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling


Obama’s Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry


Air quality control technology at Dry Fork Station

 

Chris Horner On Obama Energy Policy

 

“…Crude oil, refining, distribution & marketing, and taxes are the four major cost components for estimates of the retail price of a gallon of gasoline:

  • Crude oil – the major feedstock used to produce gasoline. This portion of the gasoline price is represented by the cost of crude oil purchased by refiners.
  • Refining – processing the crude oil into gasoline. The refining portion of the gasoline price is the spread between the cost of crude oil purchased by refiners and the wholesale price of gasoline. This spread represents both the costs and profits associated with the refining process.
  • Distribution & Marketing (Retail) – the part of the supply chain where wholesale gasoline is brought to a retail station and sold to the final consumer. This portion of the gasoline price is the retail price minus the other three price components. It represents both the costs and profits associated with selling retail gasoline to the final consumer.
  • Taxes – The Federal Government levies a tax of 18.4 cents on each gallon of gasoline, and the States levy an average tax of 22 cents on each gallon. This does not account for all State and local taxes, such as sales taxes, so this component, ranging from 7.5 to 37.5 cents per gallon across States, is probably understated (and the Distribution and Marketing component correspondingly overstated). …”

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=470

Verleger Says U.S. Shale Gas Rivals Saudi Oil Reserves

ANWR Drilling

The truth about ANWR

First Deepwater Drilling Permit Since BP Oil Spill

U.S. Energy Policy Faces New Choices, Limitations

 

Dan Kish talks gas prices, keystone and energy policy

Secretary Salazar Objects to Anyone who will Listen

Inhofe Speech: Ending the Obama Administration’s Attack on Affordable Energy

Milito Says Obama Energy Lease Plans Are `Disincentives’

Shell’s Pete Slaiby talks about Alaska drilling safety

Rep Jeff Landry on FOX and Friends 031311

 

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER Huber

Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment

Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 2)

 

Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 3)

Forget about trying to decrease the demand for energy by wage, price and production controls and government regulations and executive orders.

Forget about trying to decrease the supply of energy by banning drilling and not approving permits to drill for oil and gas and build electrical power plants and oil refineries.

The United States government should not be in the energy or real estate business by trying to pick winners and losers with government subsidies and regulations.

The government is the problem by it pervasive interference and intervention into both the energy,  transportation, agriculture and real estate sectors of the economy.

Government produces nothing but uncertainty, inflation and massive debt.

If the Federal and state governments simply got out of the way the United States economy could double its rate of growth with a full employment.

Instead the United States economy now has more government employees than employees in the manufacturing sector.

Both Federal and state governments collect more in taxes from energy suppliers than the profits earned by energy companies.

The professional politicians of both political parties together with the government bureaucracies have become a drag on the economy and a threat to the liberties of the American people.

Get Federal and state governmenst out of business and businesses out of goverments.

First, permanently shut-down the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation,  Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture.

Second, sell off Federal lands to the highest bidders.

Third, lift all bans on oil and gas exploration on land and at sea.

Fourth, end all subsidies and mandates starting with ethanol.

Obama and Ethanol

 

PA Approves Higher Ethanol Fuel Blend for More Cars

 

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great

 

The Ethanol Myth

 

Biofuels & Ethanol: The Real Story

Food Prices Rise to ‘Dangerous Levels’

 

Fifth, drill, drill, drill.

Dramatically increase the supply of all forms of energy fuels including coal, nuclear, natural gas,and  petroleum used for electrical power generation, transportation and heating.

 

The United States does not need an energy policy.

The United States and the American people are perfectly capable of producing all of the energy it needs from domestic sources.

This requies Federal and State governments to stop government intervention into the economy in the form of regulations, taxes, subsidies, and endless lawsuits.

What the United States needs to do is unleash free enterprise to produce the cheapest energy possible whatever the fuel source.

If wind and solar energy cannot make it in the market place without government subsidies, then stop the subsidies now.

If ethanol requires a government mandate to force Americans to use have it in their gasoline, then repeal the mandate now.

 

Obama Hates US…

DRILL! DRILL!! DRILL!!!

Take decisions about energy, transportation, agriculture and real estate out of the hands of the government and put these decision in our hands–the hands of the American people.

In Our Hands: American Free Enterprise, Anti-Communism, and the Cold War (1950)

 

With less than 5% of the world population and less than 6% of world’s land, the United States today produces over 20% of the world’s gross domestic product.  Sixty years ago the United States produced nearly 50% of the world gross domestic product!.

Put the American people back to work in a peace and prosperity economy and a constitutional republic.

Vote progressive radical socialists out of office including President Obama with his so-called energy policy with his master plan.

 

” In spite of the anticapitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, page 15


“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, page 10

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

President Obama on Green Energy