In the Disney movie “Song of the South,” Uncle Remus spins a striking yarn about “br’r rabbit,” a cartoon bunny. To save his hide, he had to con his captors into pitching him into “that briar patch.” That disingenuous bunny did put one over on “br’r bear” and “br’r fox” … delicious irony, outfoxing a fox.

Perhaps, our current president is the exact same way. Com’on, Barack Hussein Obama junior did not get into the Oval Office by being stupid.

Such being reality, the following conjecture is eminently reasonable. That man uttered, in cold blood, that by now notorious “lazy” remark. Beautifully, it worked as bait. And so, some indefatigable Republican presidential contender rose to it. Seizing upon that supposedly careless remark, that contender tried to exploit it to his best advantage.

Mercilessly, a couple dozen prominent commentators pounced on the resulting campaign ad for mendacity. Unfortunately for that contender, those commentators are right to claim that “lazy” remark had been quoted out of context.

The upshot being, that contender stands exposed as a liar as well as a flip flopper. And to that, I should add “dupe.” No wonder he lost a significant endorsement to some disgraced former house speaker.

Sincerely,

A Alexander Stella

Susquehanna, PA

HB1950 and SB1100 would preempt strong local ordinances regulating Marcellus drilling in Pennsylvania and replace them with weak and inadequate state regulations.

These legislative bills were initiated to pre-empt all local zoning ordinances attempting to restrict Marcellus drilling in their municipalities and replace them with weakened state ordinances.

Allowing the Attorney General to rule on local ordinances, the latest twist in the bills, is tantamount to preemption through the back door!

Drilling would even be allowed in residential areas.

These bills are an assault on local governments' sovereignty and the democratic process by allowing corporate gas interests to dictate what legislation will be passed.

It is an outrage that these bills do not provide adequate setbacks for wells, waterways, etc., do not adequately provide for proper control of air pollution, and do not provide for an adequate tax or impact fee.

These bills are a sellout to the gas industry.

These bills reflect completely the wishes of the gas industry and not the wishes and concerns of the people of Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,

Mark & Judy Harvey

Great Bend, PA

I have not heard anyone talking about gas fracking. That is where they use propane gas to frack gas wells. It seems to me that makes sense. Propane is a liquid but during the fracking process it turns back to a gas. If it all comes back out, without water pollution, then why don't we hear about it?

I am going to see an operating power plant in southeast PA, using methane gas from a landfill. They capture the methane produced from rotting garbage and pump it into large jet engines that drive turbines to make electricity, immediately. It is a win win plant.

The air is cleaner, (did anyone smell methane gas?) and the operators sell the electricity to the large electric companies.

With the natural gas that we have here in the northeast, we can create a working electric power plant from the gas underneath us, and create and put money directly into (our local economy) power plants, and at the same time supply millions of megawatts of electricity to any one who wants to buy it.

It is a win win situation. I am just wondering if our local banks and business people could get together and use our natural recourses to help with the high cost of our utilities. Plus keep our air and water clean!

I am just wondering why I have not heard!

Sincerely,

Peter A. Seman

Thompson, PA

Is Iran building the bomb? Last month's International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report was expected to finally answer that question. It was widely assumed to contain damning information about Iran's illegal development of atomic weapons.

But was it the long sought smoking gun loaded with evidence of Tehran’s nuclear weapons program or merely a disarming water pistol filled with media hype and hyperbole?

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel's most influential lobbying organization, smelled gun smoke: “Last week, the IAEC issued an unprecedented report that confirms Iran is closing in on the capability to produce nuclear weapons.”

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his country's “willingness to use force to stop Tehran from developing nuclear capabilities.”

Not to be outdone, General Petraeus, then commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, threatened to pock-mark the landscape with bomb creators: “U.S. bombers and long range missiles are ready to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.”

Pres. Obama joined the chorus: “We will not be using nuclear weapons against any nation that is compliant with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran is not compliant to NPT.”

However, for the time being, the U.S. will have to content itself with imposing sanctions. The restrictions are intended to cripple Iran's petroleum and petrochemical industries.

But wait just a lll-ittle bit. What did the IAEA report actually say?

Robert Kelley, a retired IAEA director, called the report “old news. I wonder why this same stuff is now considered new information by reporters,” he said.

Kelly was seconded by Joseph Cirincione, who serves on Hillary Clinton’s International Security Advisory Board. He noted that the report said that on-site camera inspection “continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material.”

Iran's nuclear facilities have been under TV surveillance 24/7 and repeatedly inspected for the past nine years. During this time no evidence of diversion of nuclear material intended for nuclear weapons development has ever been detected.

In other words, there is no evidence that Iran is not in compliance with IAEA mandates. (Sounds more like squirt, squirt, rather than bang, bang.)

The report does mention two industrial processes that sound exotic and ominous and do have applications in nuclear weapons development: bridgewire detonation and explosion chambers. The press capitalized on this.

However, the media largely failed to note that bridgewire detonation is not exotic. It was used in the first A-bomb and for decades has been used for high-precision timing of explosives used in quarrying.

Similarly, explosion chambers have a duel use in nuclear bomb development and in non-military use. They are used in the manufacture of industrial diamonds used in oil-well drilling bits and have many other civilian employments.

Nevertheless, for Israel “death is at our doorstep.” That was said by Shimon Peres, former president of Israel, 19 years ago referring to Iran posing an “existential threat” to his nation. Really?

Iran has not attacked another nation in 200 years. Can this be said for the U.S. or for Israel?

Iran is a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Israel has refused membership. Iran is a member of the IAEA; Israel has refused to join. Iran's nuclear research is open for inspection; Israel conducts its nuclear activities in secret and is reputed to have between 200 to 400 A-bombs.

The Jewish state spends more per capita for its military than any other nation and twice the per capita amount as Iran.

Israel is a tiny sliver of a nation with a population of only 8 million. It is surrounded on the south by Egypt (83 million) and Saudi Arabia (27 million); on the east by Jordan ( 6.5 million) and Iraq (30 million); on the north by Syria (22.5); and on the west there is the Mediterranean Sea.

Strategically, Israel could not be in a more indefensible position.

Eight million Jews hedged about by 169 million not-too-friendly Muslims. Bombing them is not a good idea.

As for the U.S., it has pursued a policy of sanctions against Iran for 33 years. It has succeeded only in making Iran more independent, encouraging it to find novel ways to circumvent restrictions, and driving it into the orbits of China and Russia.

And threats have only strengthened Iran's resolve.

Perhaps it's time to try a different approach. Offering an olive branch to Tehran might succeed where a thorny twig has failed; clearly, it could not do worse.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA