Why Obama doesn’t want to defeat ISIS

By 94 Comments 3,960 views

isis and global warning

 

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Some time ago I wrote that Barack Obama’s foreign policy for the remainder of his regime tenure was going to be sweep everything under the rug and leave the mess for his successor. It’s largely true, now I realize how horribly cynical it really is.

Remember when, in the face of the JV ISIS, getting repeatedly humiliated by Putin, being hacked by the Chinese, Barack Obama declared that the biggest threat we face is climate change?

What President Barack Obama described as the greatest threat to future generations was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either.

“No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.

His statement was met with scattered, muted applause.The United States should lead in international efforts to protect “the one planet we’ve got,” he said.

The general reaction was incredulity. And rightly so.

There is more than a faint hint of rat on the nose. I properly presume that anything Obama says is a lie and generally is a set-up for something else.

ISIS?

Caused by climate change.

Syrian refugees?

They’re climate refugees.

Picking up a pattern here? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? It’s already established that climate change causes more snow, less snow, more hot days, colder winters, greater frequency of stronger hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, more tornados and fewer tornados, loss of Antarctic ice and the growth of Antarctic ice. And we’ve seen that the Arctic has been ice-free since 2013. On top of all of that, climate will lead to less sex.

Now it has a strong interaction with the geopolitical theater.

Yes, the Syrian refugee flight is not cause by ISIS or war. It’s all about climate change, and Angel Merkel has jumped onto the non-stop Looney Tune Central train. Climate change causes refugee flight via drought, except when causing it by too much water.
Drought:

Drawing one of the strongest links yet between global warming and human conflict, researchers said Monday that an extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that the drought was a factor in the violent uprising that began there in 2011.

The drought was the worst in the country in modern times, and in a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists laid the blame for it on a century-long trend toward warmer and drier conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than on natural climate variability.

Drench:

This immense human tragedy also affirms the significance of a recent study in the journal Nature, regarding climate change and sea level rise. The study concludes that unless we limit global temperatures to 1.5 to two degrees Celsius above present levels, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet will cause unstoppable sea level rise that will continue for hundreds to thousands of years.

Angel Merkel of Germany is so bent on destroying her country by flooding it with refugees that she’s leading it toward civil war. She’s on board with the climate change conspiracy and only cutting emissions is going to stop ISIS and the refugee flood. Rat grows from a faint hint to a clear odor. The odor rapidly grows into a puerile stench with the addition of one George Soros. Soros asserts the problem with the world is national borders:

Soros said in an e-mailed statement that a six-point plan published by his foundation helps “uphold European values” while Orban’s actions “undermine those values.”

“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

Obama’s attitude toward our national borders is much the same. The plan now is clear. Obama’s pathetic and tepid response to ISIS is part of an extortionist scheme. Climate change is the wedge issue if we’re going to even discuss ISIS. If America wants ISIS stopped then it has to address climate change on Obama’s terms. After all, according to Obama climate change is a bigger threat than is ISIS. ISIS could have been crushed early on. Obama allowed ISIS to grow, thinking of ISIS as a means to further his ends.

I think Merkel has lost her mind over this. I think she too underestimated the magnitude of the Muslim refugee problem and now it has overwhelmed her. The sands in her hourglass are disappearing.

It’s unbelievable.

Crush ISIS and the refugee flood stops, but that’s not what Obama wants. If ISIS is allowed to continue, Obama gets to continue his efforts to “fundamentally transform” the demographics of this nation, especially diminishing the influence of the white Christian population.

ISIS is a direct threat to our nation. It’s going to take boots on the ground to crush them. It’s going to take a strong American leader to cobble together a coalition to utterly destroy them, and that is what is necessary, and what is entirely doable. It’s is absolutely not going to happen under a President who can’t even say “Islamic terrorist.”  I’ll address this in a separate post, but if it turns out that ISIS took down that Russian airliner, it’s not just Russia’s problem. It’s ours too. This idiot President cannot be gone too soon. The ante may have just upped- to the house limit.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

94 Responses to “Why Obama doesn’t want to defeat ISIS”

  1. 76

    David

    @Pete –

    “It is highly analogous to the frustrating discussions I get into with parents who are absolutely certain their brief internet searches regarding the “evil” of vitamin K injections for neonates is so much more accurate than my 20 years of medical expertise in preventing hemorrhagic disease of the newborn.”

    My wife occasionally has those type of discussions when someone invokes “Dr. Oz says this,” or “I saw on The Doctors”. She bites her tongue most of the time, but every once in awhile she let it slips by saying, “Dr. Oz isn’t here.”

  2. 77

    another vet

    @David: and Ditto

    Or about how much more he knows about Iraq than 4 or 5 of us here who combined probably spent 8-10 years over there compared to his ZERO. He also tried to tell me once that a friend of mine who was investigating a fraud case against the VA didn’t know what he was talking about with regards to federal employee protections under federal law. He was wrong about that too. The ultimate shithouse lawyer. Not exactly the type of person you’d want to go down range with as he is the type who would get you killed with his “expertise”. Ignoring him is best.

  3. 78

    retire05

    @Pete:

    I just have to share the chuckle I get reading the exchanges between you, someone with actual expertise on satellite functionality and processes, and Greg apparently mining Google for distilled bits of superficial scientific talking points.

    Once you understand that Greggie Goebbels tries to be an expert in (all things, but mostly) the subject shell game, you understand his agenda. He changes the subject, attempting to do so in a related issue, to avoid the truth when he is smacked up against the head with it.

    Notice how the subject has gone from Greggie Goebbels claiming that tanks can hide under tarps to the subject of the capabilities of satellites where he is going to school those who actually have experience with satellites to show just how smart he is.

    Greggie Goebbels is a fraud. He is a Democratic Party mouth piece who is here for no other reason than to pimp for the DNC.

    He’s a clown. We know it. He knows it. But he is so lacking in self respect that he comes back, time after time, to be made a fool.

    There has to be a psychosis named after Greggie Goebbles (or the DNC’s answer to Baghdad Bob.)

  4. 79

    Greg

    @Ditto, #71:

    I don’t care what you “believe”. I’m telling you the way it is. If you can’t handle the truth because of your lack of knowledge of the advanced capability of military spacecraft optical sensor systems, that’s a reflection of your own obstinate desire to remain ignorant.

    You keep making this personal, post after post. That doesn’t make what you’re saying correct.

    Why you can’t understand that higher spec geostationary military spacecraft can shoot close-up video of the Earth, which is considerably much closer, proves you are unable to accept anything that does not fit your ignorant preconceived flat-earth notions.

    Because that’s not presently true. Geosynchronous orbital paths, inclined or otherwise, are at a fixed distance from the surface of the earth of approximately 22,236 miles, which is a very long way. One rule of optics is that as distance doubles, brightness diminishes by a factor of four. Given the sensitivity of the best CCD light sensors, gathering enough light to produce high resolution videos at such a great distance requires a very large and precisely configured reflector—something much larger than a Hubble-size mirror. Thus DARPA’s quest for an orbital reflector 68 feet in diameter.

    High resolution still images from such a distance are entirely feasible with a smaller reflector because the exposure time can be lengthened as needed. More light is gathered over a longer time. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that classified geostationary satellites—which share a single geosynchronous equatorial orbital path with many other satellites by default—can resolve details of less than a foot, or even a few inches, given optimal atmospheric conditions, provided the details aren’t moving.

    Because Greg envisions it it must be so? I tried to explain to you why your uninformed “vision” is not only not feasible, but why it can’t work that way in the real universe.

    There’s nothing impossible about multiple satellites sharing a single orbital path. As I pointed out, many geosynchronous satellites do, in fact, share a single orbital path. There are around 600 geosynchronous satellites total, some alive and some dead, including civilian and military communication satellites, classified geosynchronous surveillance satellites, etc. Many follow one another like beads on a single string that circles the earth directly above the equator at a distance of 22,236 miles. Sharing a path is not just possible; it’s the only possibility, if you want a non-inclined geosynchronous equatorial orbit. That’s a straightforward matter of Newtonian physics. In the case of elliptical polar orbits, such an arrangement would be an option. Whether it’s the particular option adopted or not is a different question. I don’t claim to know. There are vastly more possibilities, since you aren’t restricted to only one orbital distance from earth and one orbital period. There would be many practical considerations: optimizing observation time during daylight hours, for example, or taking advantage of the best angle of the sun to maximize light and shadow contrast.

    I’ve reached the limits of my patience with this particular pissing match. There’s much that I don’t know, which I will readily admit, but some things I do know that I have little or no doubt about. People, of course, are entirely free to believe whatever they wish without reference to fact. On the political right this has become routine.

  5. 80

    Greg

    @retire05, #76:

    You attack people rather than what they’re saying whenever you can’t refute the fact or logic of their argument, which seems to be much of the time.

    This is hardly surprising. Personal attacks presently comprise around 90 percent of all republican political effort. This is because their positions—on those rare occasions when they’re clearly stated—are inconsistent, impractical, illogical, or intended to benefit someone other than the average American voter. It has made the GOP the party of negativity, not to mention pseudo-scientific fantasy.

  6. 81

    Common Sense

    @Greg: Greg you defended Reid when he personally attacked Romney on the floor of the Senate with NO proof!! You personally attack Bush by saying he doctored the intel prior to going to Iraq. You have provided NO evidence of either accusation. Obola lied to America about his health care plan and admitted to it and you can’t even say he lied!! Before you try and accuse anyone of this kind of conduct look in the mirror you libturd MORON!!

  7. 82

    retire05

    @Greg:

    You attack people rather than what they’re saying whenever you can’t refute the fact or logic of their argument, which seems to be much of the time.

    Refute what? Your claims that tanks can hide under tarps? Tell me, Greggie, does ISIS build little tarp frames to go over the tanks so when they are on the move they can hide?

    Or perhaps it is you who can’t refute your own claims. And if the Obama administration is so damned on top of the ISIS issue, where is all our human intel?

    You have been bitchslapped on satellites and yet, you continue to post the crap you have gleaned from some internet site. You are so dishonest you can’t even admit that you have no experience in satellites and are just blowing smoke.

  8. 84

    retire05

    @Greg:

    In matters of basic science, you obviously can’t distinguish shit from Shinola.

    Sure I can. Shinola is what I use to clean my boots after wading through your [bull] shit.

    You’re a typical liberal, Greggie Goebbels. You think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer when in reality, you are just a clueless useful idiot.

  9. 85

    Ditto

    @Greg:

    You keep making this personal, post after post. That doesn’t make what you’re saying correct.

    Nor does it make me wrong, which I am not.

    As I pointed out, many geosynchronous satellites do, in fact, share a single orbital path.

    Similar paths, not a single specifically precisely identical path. If someone told you that these satellites are on the exact same orbital path they are making an inaccurate over simplification that is simply not the case. Every orbiting body will have specific eccentricities to their orbit independent of any other orbiting object, and their orbital eccentricities are under constant flux. Their orbits also are affected by the variety of other outside influences that I have already mentioned above. It is not possible to stop these outside influences. The laws of physics and orbital mechanics can not be ignored. Every nearby gravity well will exert it’s influences on the orbit of a satellite. That is why command and control centers for each spacecraft must occasionally make adjustments to it’s orbit to keep it stabilized. Because of the fact that Geostationary satellites are placed to orbit over a specific segment of the earth, it is much easier to keep them in position, and even when they stray slightly from their normal positions (due to outside influences,) it will only be by a minor factor. Their orbits can be easily and efficiently corrected. Each and every Geostationary satellite’s orbit is precisely 24 hours. This is important to remember!. No more no less. Because they orbit farther out there is much more room for other geostationary satellites and virtually no risk of any two geostationary spacecraft ever getting close to each other.

    The game changes where polar and heliosynchronous orbiting spacecraft are concerned. These satellites are usually placed in orbit in the lower exosphere layer (above 1000km,) so as to minimize atmospheric effects. To maintain their orbits, these objects typically have an orbital period of roughly 100 minutes, which means they orbit the Earth 14.4 times times a day at 248.6 miles per minute. These satellites are also vulnerable to the same outside influences as the geostationary spacecraft. In fact, because of their orbital period they are more vulnerable to lunar tidal forces, which means that tracking and data retrieval stations. have to make daily updates to their tracking schedules. This means that such orbital path fluctuations are going to occur. Not maybe, it’s a given. Additionally, no two satellites will have the same orbital fluctuation, and the fluctuations of a specific satellite can and will vary from day to day. The daily orbital path fluctuation corrections (usually calculated to -15th digit), is used to calculate the orbital path and subsequent tracking “look angles” for these satellites, and from vast experience I can guarantee the the orbital fluctuations are never, ever the same from day to day. What all this means is that it is impossible to set and maintain multiple polar/heliosynchronous orbiting satellites spaced into precise intervals in the exact same orbit, and even if by some incredible miracle someone did, they wouldn’t stay that way for very long at all.

    Given the sensitivity of the best CCD light sensors…

    (Snip)

    …There’s much that I don’t know, which I will readily admit, but some things I do know that I have little or no doubt about…

    Again, you have no idea about the capabilities and configuration of the advanced optical sensor systems of these spacecraft. All you are doing is going off on a layman’s knowledge of civilian sensors, based on your speculations of how you “think” the spacecraft’s systems are designed, which is wholly dependent on what limited information you have been able to find on the web. You think you know what you’re talking about but you don’t. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and the same goes for the technology behind surveillance spacecraft. Even the Hubble Telescope uses multiple sensors, and yes, once again, even with it’s mere 8 foot reflector, the Hubble can capture video. I can not and will not describe in detail the optical systems of these spacecraft, (including the Hubble,) or how it is possible for them to capture video in further specifics because it strays into the area of classified information. Unlike Democrats, I take the oaths I swear to very seriously.

    People, of course, are entirely free to believe whatever they wish without reference to fact.

    The only reason you are arguing with me about this is because you are a Democrat and I am not. When Democrats say things, you blindly accept everything they tell you without question. Even as their global warming theories are falling like the house of cards it is, you continue to follow what they say religiously. On the other hand, if it is not a Democrat, you assume that everything they tell you is false. Go ahead and crawl back under your rock troll

  10. 86

    Greg

    @Ditto, #84:

    What is a keyhole satellite and what can it really spy on?

    You can think of a KH satellite as a gigantic orbiting digital camera with an incredibly huge lens on it. Optical image reconnaissance satellites use a charge coupled device (CCD) to gather images that make up a digital photograph for transmission back to Earth from an altitude of about 200 miles. Since the satellites are in orbit, they cannot hover over a given area or provide real-time video of a single location.

    Real-time video of a single location would require a geostationary orbit. A geostationary orbit requires a satellite to be at a distance from the earth of 22,236 miles. From that distance, a Hubble-size mirror cannot collect enough light for real-time video. If you truly have different information from some inside source, perhaps you should stop broadcasting it.

    The relationship of resolution to reflector size from geosynchronous orbit is a topic considered by this 15-year-old declassified document. I’ll readily admit that the mathematics involved are beyond my reach. Note that the conclusions are summarized in plain English in the final paragraphs of the document, however:

    “From the military and risk management applications point of view the availability of a laser continuo(u)s observation capability and a real time beams data delivery constitute an (i)nvaluable asset. Despite the one meter spatial resolution needs 25 meters diameter optic, for a five meters resolution reference only five meters telescope would be necessary.”

    Twenty-five meters of reflector diameter to yield only one meter of ground resolution… And that’s a very big reflector, three times wider than Hubble optics. Thus, my layman’s conclusion that we’ve got no high resolution video capability from geosynchronous orbit.

    Regarding real-time video from low earth orbit, there’s this, from the HubbleSite’s FAQ pages:

    Can Hubble take pictures of Earth?

    The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.

    That seems like an answer most people can grasp. Forget high-resolution satellite video, at least for the time being. A passing low-orbit satellite can only record a short video with fairly good resolution before the subject has slipped from view. High altitude drones are far more useful for this purpose.

    The only reason you are arguing with me about this is because you are a Democrat and I am not. When Democrats say things, you blindly accept everything they tell you without question. Even as their global warming theories are falling like the house of cards it is, you continue to follow what they say religiously. On the other hand, if it is not a Democrat, you assume that everything they tell you is false. Go ahead and crawl back under your rock troll

    I take issue with those on the right when they make claims I believe they cannot back up with facts. Facts themselves are not political. My motivation for wanting them to be correct is, however.

  11. 87

    Smorgasbord

    @retire05: #77
    I quit using google years ago. I don’t want to help those who helped get obama get elected TWICE. There are many other browsers to choose from. I use one that does not track me.

    google has change the way it lists suggestions. It no longer lists them by the most popular, but by, “the most trusted”. google didn’t say how they determine which sites are, “the most trusted”. I’m guessing that there are a lot more liberal sites in their suggestions, than there are conservative.

  12. 90

    Rich Wheeler

    @Greg: Adlai Stevenson to Republican opponent
    “If you promise not to tell lies about me I promise not to tell the truth about you.”
    I often think of that during back and forth with some of these folks.

  13. 91

    Common Sense

    @Greg: Like the democrats and President Bush eh?? How quickly you forget that. Slimy Harry is doing the same thing he despised before he got kicked out with the rest of the liars in the Senate!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *