- WHAT'S AT HEWITT'S TODAY, WE POSTED LAST FRIDAY.
- REGULAR READERS KNOW WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME.
- SPREAD THE WORD.
- BLOGROLL US.
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SCOOPS HUGH HEWITT
WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO BETRAY CONSERAVTIVES, MCCAIN OR MITT?
Mitt might; (he's not been a conservative for a long time).
McCain has - repeatedly. He's a serial conservative basher.
End of story.
McCain has - repeatedly. He's a serial conservative basher.
End of story.
350,000 GAZANS STORM OVER WALL TO GET "EMERGENCY SUPPLIES"!?
HERE'S A PICTURE FROM THE NYTIMES FRONT PAGE.
IT SHOWS SOME GAZANS RETURNING WITH "EMERGENCY" SUPPLIES.
THE TOSHIBA BOX IS A 200 CHANNEL TV.
SOME EMERGENCY.
YA KNOW WHAT THIS REALLY IS A PICTURE OF? 350,000 TERRORISTS, LOOTERS, LIARS AND THIEVES.
A short campaign roundup
Now McCain Must Convince The Right: "John McCain has a problem. After winning South Carolina's primary last Saturday, he should be the overwhelming favorite to capture the Republican presidential nomination. He's not, at least not yet, and the reason is that he's alienated so many conservatives over the past eight years... His victory speech in South Carolina marked a new step. Rather than dwell on the hardy perennials of his campaign message, national security and patriotism, Mr. McCain spoke more broadly about his conservative goals. "We want government to do its job, not your job," he said, "and to do it with less of your money." He praised "free markets, low taxes and small government." Moreover, Mr. McCain intends to go beyond conservative boilerplate and actually campaign as a conservative. His congressional voting record is predominantly conservative (ACU rating 82.3%), qualifying him to do so. He's already stepped outside his comfort zone on taxes, endorsing a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%... Another point to stress: "Winning in November" is crucial to putting conservative judges on the Supreme Court." .. The McCain campaign claims that it's only a handful of conservative luminaries who oppose him. Not true. Complaints about him are rife among grassroots Republicans."
The blind leading the blind: "During a "Good Morning America" interview aired Monday, Obama said, "Bill has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'." Hmmm "Statements that are not factually accurate." Well, this is almost a humorous development. Suddenly, Democrats have discovered the truth?"
Obama's Clinton Education: "One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do." We're reminded of that story listening to Barack Obama protest his treatment by the now ex-President Clinton on behalf of his wanna-be-President wife... Now he knows how the rest of us feel. The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?" This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama"
Bill Clinton's dream: "The campaign is taking its toll on former US president Bill Clinton. He fell asleep yesterday during a ceremony to honour Martin Luther King Jr at a church in New York. Mr Clinton was seated behind a speaker delivering a speech on the inspiration of Dr King. He was caught repeatedly nodding off, fighting the urge to nap and checking his watch" What an uproar the media would have created if a conservative did that!]
Hillary in the pocket of the Arabs: "Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America's leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation? Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill - and therefore herself - have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the UAE? The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points of entry in that nation's control. But the infusion of capital and the acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison."
Posted by John Ray
The blind leading the blind: "During a "Good Morning America" interview aired Monday, Obama said, "Bill has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'." Hmmm "Statements that are not factually accurate." Well, this is almost a humorous development. Suddenly, Democrats have discovered the truth?"
Obama's Clinton Education: "One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do." We're reminded of that story listening to Barack Obama protest his treatment by the now ex-President Clinton on behalf of his wanna-be-President wife... Now he knows how the rest of us feel. The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?" This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama"
Bill Clinton's dream: "The campaign is taking its toll on former US president Bill Clinton. He fell asleep yesterday during a ceremony to honour Martin Luther King Jr at a church in New York. Mr Clinton was seated behind a speaker delivering a speech on the inspiration of Dr King. He was caught repeatedly nodding off, fighting the urge to nap and checking his watch" What an uproar the media would have created if a conservative did that!]
Hillary in the pocket of the Arabs: "Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America's leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation? Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill - and therefore herself - have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the UAE? The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points of entry in that nation's control. But the infusion of capital and the acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison."
Posted by John Ray
SHALLOW GREENIE ATTACK ON A PROMINENT SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST
I reprint the attack below (from the Greenie "Grist" site) followed by some comments from various sources
1). Grist violates its own criteria for what qualifies a scientist to comment on climate issues! The author of this article, Grist's Joseph Romm, (a Senior Fellow at the very liberal and well-funded Center for American) mock's Singer's scientific credentials. But a post from Climate Resistance says Romm may be more accurately described as a "pundit, a policy maker, a political technology advisor." See here. It appears Romm would not meet Grist correspondent Andrew Dessler's definition of someone qualified to have an opinion on climate change issues. Grist is contradicting itself! (Note, according to Dessler, only a about 150-200 scientists in the world are actually qualified to have an opinion on climate issues and guess what, they all happen to be affiliated with the UN. Dessler also does not believe TV meteorologists are qualified, unless they agree with his brand of climate alarm). For a complete debunking of critiques of the Senate `Consensus Busters' Report, see Marc Morano's January 10, 2007 Letter to New York Times.
2). Romm attempts to discredit Singer because "the Earth wasn't actually in a warm trend -- unstoppable or otherwise -- 1500 years ago!" Romm resurrects the canard that the Medieval Warm Period was not global and claims (a la Mann's Hockey Stick") that the Medieval Warm Period was much cooler than today. This assertion ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies showing the Medieval Warm Period warmer than today, including two papers in just the past 6 months! See:
3) Romm's ignores that Singer's 1500 year cycle is not exactly every 1500 years, but approximately 1500 give or take 500 or more. This point is very clearly laid out in the book. Romm knows this, but chooses to spin for cheap propaganda points.
4) Romm ignores the overwhelmingly evidence. Singer and Dennis Avery's book is based on more than 100 scientific studies with more than 300 co-authors revealing how solar activity is linked to the Earth's natural temperature cycles. It is not just a theory or speculation, but passed on decades of peer-reviewed science.
5) Romm mocks Singer as having no credibility in the science community. A few notes on Dr. Singer: He is an atmospheric physicist and was former director the US Weather Satellite Service, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere and the co-author of the recent peer-reviewed paper with Climatologist Dr. John Christy and climate scientist Dr. David Douglass in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. The December 2007 study found (See here) "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming." Romm's failure to mention Singer's peer-reviewed work makes a mockery out of his claim that political leaders should only "talk with peer-reviewed climate scientists." For more on Singer's credentials see here
It is also worthwhile pointing out that Singer wrote a paper with Revelle -- whom Gore cites, in "An Inconvenient Truth" (film/book), as an inspiration. The Gore team then tried to get that paper suppressed but failed. And Singer had to file a lawsuit (which was successful) against the party involved. See here.
6) Romm brings up the old silliness about industry funding. Once again, completely ignoring that it is the proponents of climate fear who have monumental funding advantages over skeptical scientists. (See this Senate funding report here) Plus, Romm is a Senior Fellow at the very liberal and well-funded Center for American Progress. Also note, just this week it was announced that the "Swedes are paying $590,000 to study cow burp greenhouse emissions." This grant was to study just 20 cows or $29,500 per cow! See here
7). Is Romm also one of those Holocene Deniers? Even the Medieval Warm Period can't compare to the Holocene Maximum. See below:
Note: BP stand for Before the Present. Perhaps Romm should stickto his theories about how bridge collapses are linked to global warming.
8). This may help explain why Romm is so upset: "GOP state lawmakers distribute Singer's book to battle 'solutions' to warming". Excerpt: Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, is one of the lawmakers who signed on to the letter and helped distribute the book, saying he wanted to try to provide a more balanced view on global warming.."I think it's gotten to be a political issue, instead of really looking at the scientific facts behind it," Alons said.He points to other warming trends in the Earth's history, and said man's efforts to control it are futile."I think it's always a good direction if we're going to reduce pollution as such and emissions, and that type of thing. But in my view, the carbon dioxide is really not a pollutant. It's a fertilizer for plants," Alons said.
Posted by John Ray
Unstoppable disinformation every 15 minutes from Fred Singer
by Joseph Romm
So Kansas state House member Larry Powell has sent a copy of Fred Singer's lame denier treatise, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, to every Kansas legislator. Of course, he sent one to Governor Sebelius, who denied a permit for two large coal-fired power plants in his home county. Since I've been blogging regularly on Kansas, Kansas reporter Sarah Kessinger called me Friday for my opinion on Singer's book and what legislators should do to become informed on climate. The book has been widely debunked -- see this post on RealClimate.
The most absurd thing about the book is that ... wait for it ... the Earth wasn't actually in a warm trend -- unstoppable or otherwise -- 1500 years ago! (Yes, during the Medieval Warm Period, parts of the earth were a bit warmer, but that peaked [below current temperatures] 1,000 years ago.) I thought the reporter would like that fact:"I don't think there's anybody in the scientific community who takes Fred Singer seriously," said Joseph Romm, a Washington scientist and author. Romm said the 1,500-year cycle theory isn't possible considering the earth wasn't in a warming trend 1,500 years ago.
Duh! I mean, seriously: Every book contains at least a few small errors, but most real scientists, heck, even most global warming deniers try to avoid putting egregious factual mistakes in the title of the book. That is a pretty good sign you can skip the contents.
An even better reason to skip the book: in 1998, coauthor Fred Singer testified to Congress that "the climate is not warming," and as recently as November 2003, he wrote in the Financial Times:The irony is that there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.
I kid you not. So four years ago, Singer said the scientific evidence of warming was not compelling. By 2007, he was publishing a book saying the science shows we are in a natural warming cycle. Why, why, why, traditional media, do you keep quoting someone who just keeps making stuff up and contradicting himself as he goes along?deven for the tobacco industry: For example, here is the link to a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a "research" paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report. Here is the link to a letter thanking the Tobacco Institute for $20,000 intended "to support our research and education projects." Here is a research paper, just as described in the earlier memo, with Dr. Singer's name as the author. And here is another Tobacco Institute memo, reporting on Dr. Singer's appearance with two Congressional Representatives releasing the paper to the media.
That is from DeSmogBlog. Here is more. True, working for organizations that take money from ExxonMobil doesn't mean all of your "research" is flawed -- but the fact that all of your research is obviously flawed, and that you'll change positions 180ø if it suits your funders' arguments, does suggest your core beliefs are not based on fact and that you are ... let's be kind and say Romney-esque.
Anyway, I have a theory that Singer's unending and unstoppable 15 minutes of media fame is tied to the well-known 15-minute sun-spot cycle -- wherein every 15 minutes or so, somebody looks up and spots the sun, is temporarily blinded, and loses their cognitive ability to separate fact from nonsense. I challenge anyone to refute that theory without using any facts.
The reporter did ask me what I would suggest legislators read. Hmm. What synthesizing document or summary should policymakers read? Tough one.If legislators want to inform themselves about global warming, Romm said, they should start by reading the U.N. panel's reports, which have been written specifically for legislators. He also suggests they talk with peer-reviewed climate scientists. "There is no escape from global warming, so even in the middle of the country in places like Kansas, it's important for people to take the time to become informed," Romm said. "Because in 10 to 20 years, as consequences become more obvious, it will become a top issue."
I probably said, "the top issue" (it's already "a" top issue), but a good story nonetheless.
1). Grist violates its own criteria for what qualifies a scientist to comment on climate issues! The author of this article, Grist's Joseph Romm, (a Senior Fellow at the very liberal and well-funded Center for American) mock's Singer's scientific credentials. But a post from Climate Resistance says Romm may be more accurately described as a "pundit, a policy maker, a political technology advisor." See here. It appears Romm would not meet Grist correspondent Andrew Dessler's definition of someone qualified to have an opinion on climate change issues. Grist is contradicting itself! (Note, according to Dessler, only a about 150-200 scientists in the world are actually qualified to have an opinion on climate issues and guess what, they all happen to be affiliated with the UN. Dessler also does not believe TV meteorologists are qualified, unless they agree with his brand of climate alarm). For a complete debunking of critiques of the Senate `Consensus Busters' Report, see Marc Morano's January 10, 2007 Letter to New York Times.
2). Romm attempts to discredit Singer because "the Earth wasn't actually in a warm trend -- unstoppable or otherwise -- 1500 years ago!" Romm resurrects the canard that the Medieval Warm Period was not global and claims (a la Mann's Hockey Stick") that the Medieval Warm Period was much cooler than today. This assertion ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies showing the Medieval Warm Period warmer than today, including two papers in just the past 6 months! See:
2a). A November 2007 study published in Energy & Environment found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" The study was authored by C. Loehle and titled "A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies." (See here & here) and:
2b). A June 29, 2007 scientific analysis by Gerd Burger of Berlin's Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm. Excerpt: "Burger argues that [the 2006 temperature analysis by] Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Burger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded "As a result, the `highly significant' occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear." (See here)
3) Romm's ignores that Singer's 1500 year cycle is not exactly every 1500 years, but approximately 1500 give or take 500 or more. This point is very clearly laid out in the book. Romm knows this, but chooses to spin for cheap propaganda points.
4) Romm ignores the overwhelmingly evidence. Singer and Dennis Avery's book is based on more than 100 scientific studies with more than 300 co-authors revealing how solar activity is linked to the Earth's natural temperature cycles. It is not just a theory or speculation, but passed on decades of peer-reviewed science.
5) Romm mocks Singer as having no credibility in the science community. A few notes on Dr. Singer: He is an atmospheric physicist and was former director the US Weather Satellite Service, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere and the co-author of the recent peer-reviewed paper with Climatologist Dr. John Christy and climate scientist Dr. David Douglass in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. The December 2007 study found (See here) "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming." Romm's failure to mention Singer's peer-reviewed work makes a mockery out of his claim that political leaders should only "talk with peer-reviewed climate scientists." For more on Singer's credentials see here
It is also worthwhile pointing out that Singer wrote a paper with Revelle -- whom Gore cites, in "An Inconvenient Truth" (film/book), as an inspiration. The Gore team then tried to get that paper suppressed but failed. And Singer had to file a lawsuit (which was successful) against the party involved. See here.
6) Romm brings up the old silliness about industry funding. Once again, completely ignoring that it is the proponents of climate fear who have monumental funding advantages over skeptical scientists. (See this Senate funding report here) Plus, Romm is a Senior Fellow at the very liberal and well-funded Center for American Progress. Also note, just this week it was announced that the "Swedes are paying $590,000 to study cow burp greenhouse emissions." This grant was to study just 20 cows or $29,500 per cow! See here
7). Is Romm also one of those Holocene Deniers? Even the Medieval Warm Period can't compare to the Holocene Maximum. See below:
Note: BP stand for Before the Present. Perhaps Romm should stickto his theories about how bridge collapses are linked to global warming.
8). This may help explain why Romm is so upset: "GOP state lawmakers distribute Singer's book to battle 'solutions' to warming". Excerpt: Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, is one of the lawmakers who signed on to the letter and helped distribute the book, saying he wanted to try to provide a more balanced view on global warming.."I think it's gotten to be a political issue, instead of really looking at the scientific facts behind it," Alons said.He points to other warming trends in the Earth's history, and said man's efforts to control it are futile."I think it's always a good direction if we're going to reduce pollution as such and emissions, and that type of thing. But in my view, the carbon dioxide is really not a pollutant. It's a fertilizer for plants," Alons said.
Posted by John Ray
The AP: willful accomplice in the run-up to idiocy
The Associated Press is marketing a new website by antiwar watchdog group Center for Public Integrity,, which lists "935 false statements" by President Bush and his administration during the run-up to war. The new site's headline reads Orchestrated Deception on the Path to War.
The Center's claim is galling on two fronts:
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism," -- Madeline Albright, 2003
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, 1998
"This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer." -- Nancy Pelosi, 2004
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, 2002
"[I]t is clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism." -- Robert Byrd, 2003
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, 2002
"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one." -- Ted Kennedy, 2003.
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, 2002
"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war'... [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there... He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." -- John Rockefeller, 2006
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998
"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done... It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." -- Bill Clinton, 2005
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"He [Bush] betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place." -- Al Gore, 2004
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation." -- John Kerry, 2003
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion... Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." -- John Kerry, 2003
No party has changed course more often, more wrongly and with less commitment to the national security of the United States than the modern Democrat Party.
I think I'm going to summarize all of the false statements by the AP and the CPI and publish my own expose of their idiocy. Though I may need something more powerful than an Access database to track all of their fabrications.
The Center's claim is galling on two fronts:- The group had no access to any classified documents, intelligence summaries, shared foreign intel, Presidential Daily Briefs, or similar material that would help them judge the veracity of the statements.
- The group carefully restricted which persons could issue false statements (e.g., they had to be Republicans), ignoring the scores of Democrats who had access to the same information and made the same "false" claims.
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism," -- Madeline Albright, 2003
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, 1998
"This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer." -- Nancy Pelosi, 2004
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, 2002
"[I]t is clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism." -- Robert Byrd, 2003
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, 2002
"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one." -- Ted Kennedy, 2003.
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, 2002
"The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war'... [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there... He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." -- John Rockefeller, 2006
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton, 1998
"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done... It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." -- Bill Clinton, 2005
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"He [Bush] betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place." -- Al Gore, 2004
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation." -- John Kerry, 2003
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion... Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." -- John Kerry, 2003
No party has changed course more often, more wrongly and with less commitment to the national security of the United States than the modern Democrat Party.
I think I'm going to summarize all of the false statements by the AP and the CPI and publish my own expose of their idiocy. Though I may need something more powerful than an Access database to track all of their fabrications.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Islamism Rising: Defense Department in Crisis
National Security specialist Frank Gaffney has blown the lid off of a scandalous sequence of events today which has caused one of the foremost experts on the Islamist threat we face--Major Stephen Coughlin--to be fired from the Defense Department by Deputy Secretary Gordon Englund--apparently at the recommendation of one Hashem Islam, Englund's man in charge of "Islamic outreach".
This "point man"--who is in a remarkably important Defense Department position, considering we are at WAR with the "political wing" of Islam (i.e. the Islamofascists)--has, simply by virtue of firing Coughlin, had a decidedly negative impact on neutralizing the funding of radical groups right here in the United States. I would argue that this could just be the tip of the iceberg.
Gaffney has termed this scandal "Front-gate" because the issue is Islamic Front groups and a Defense Department that seems to have made a choice to let them operate with impunity. It's horrifying, and it reads like something right out of (the original) Manchurian Candidate (emphasis is mine):
Robert Spencer, who has received threats on his life from these so-called "benign" groups representing the "Religion of Peace", has a post up on Jihad Watch on the serious implications of the firing of Major Coughlin.
This "point man"--who is in a remarkably important Defense Department position, considering we are at WAR with the "political wing" of Islam (i.e. the Islamofascists)--has, simply by virtue of firing Coughlin, had a decidedly negative impact on neutralizing the funding of radical groups right here in the United States. I would argue that this could just be the tip of the iceberg.
Gaffney has termed this scandal "Front-gate" because the issue is Islamic Front groups and a Defense Department that seems to have made a choice to let them operate with impunity. It's horrifying, and it reads like something right out of (the original) Manchurian Candidate (emphasis is mine):
Read the rest. It is scandalous. And it is also a fine example of what can happen when even a well-intentioned organization allows the sickness of Political Correctness to infect his rational thinking. (see President Bush's "courtship" from day one of the decidedly pro-Sharia organization CAIR). It also suggests a critical need for a more thorough vetting by the FBI of people working in positions of influence. In a time of War, Political Correctness has no place anywhere near individuals making policy for that War. War is what it is. Lives are on the line. In this case, not just military lives, but also innocent American lives. It was people who think like the ISNA who brought down those towers in New York. It seems to me we life in far too consequential time to allow our prosecution of an enemy bound to either kill or assimilate us all to become a sacrifice at the altar of the cancer that is PC.It is now well-established in Washington that any scandal, no matter how seemingly innocuous, soon is given the suffix "-gate," establishing a lineal connection to the mother of all scandals, Watergate.
Well, let me be the first to suggest that a recent scandal in the Pentagon be known hereafter as "Front-gate" in recognition of the central role played in the drama by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization designated by the Justice Department as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). With the House and Senate both back in business this week, Front-gate should be subjected to close congressional scrutiny since it may involve the most strategically ominous case of official misconduct since the Clinton administration's China-gate.The Front-gate saga began with the firing last month of Stephen Coughlin, a major in the Army Reserves working as a civilian contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he ran afoul of one Hashem Islam, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England's point-man on Muslim community outreach.
Hashem Islam is also evidently an admirer of ISNA. He arranged for Mr. England to address one of the group's meetings last year — a huge help to an organization reeling from its designation by the Bush Justice Department not only as a Brotherhood front but as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing conspiracy.
According to reporting by The Washington Times' national security correspondent, Bill Gertz, the sacking of Maj. Coughlin was precipitated by a sharp disagreement with Mr. Islam over ISNA. The former had made a serious study of this and other Islamist organizations as part of a 333-page thesis titled "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad," prepared for and recently accepted by the National Defense Intelligence College.
Based on his analysis of the Islamofascist roots and agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, Stephen Coughlin was given to warning his military audiences that it was no "moderate" organization. For example, he notes that one of the Ikhwan's most prominent leaders, Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, has declared: "The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is an obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately."
Maj. Coughlin has also studied the evidence submitted by the government in the Holy Land Foundation trial, including this chilling passage from a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum about its mission: "The Ikwan['s]... work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Mr. Islam reportedly told the Joint Staff's Maj. Coughlin to soften his criticism of the Brotherhood's ISNA and, when the latter refused, defamed him as "a Christian zealot with a pen." Some accounts add that it was a "poison" pen. Since Maj. Coughlin is not giving his side of the story to the press, it may require a congressional subpoena to get it properly told.
What is known, however, is that shortly after this exchange, the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not renew Maj. Coughlin's contract, which will expire at the end of March. Mr. Gertz reports the Chiefs deemed it "too hot" to retain the services of a man widely believed to be the military's most knowledgeable expert on the Islamist ideology of our enemies.
Robert Spencer, who has received threats on his life from these so-called "benign" groups representing the "Religion of Peace", has a post up on Jihad Watch on the serious implications of the firing of Major Coughlin.
THE TRANSPARENCY DEFICIT
After counter-attacking global jihad, ending illegal immigration, and expanding energy supplies, I think fighting the lack of transparency is the most important basic issue in the USA today.
1 - It relates to a lot of wasteful pork-barrel spending: Americans hate earmarks as much for their secrecy as their wastefulness. (Most people rightly think that if they weren't wasteful that they wouldn't be secret.)
2 - It relates to the current real estate and banking crisis: if the repackaged sub-prime mortgages had more transparency then there would be NO CRISIS.
3 - In campaign financing, most people don't care how much someone gives to a candidate, AS LONG AS THEY KNOW WHO IS GIVING WHAT TO WHOM. IOW: it ain't how much it's WHO - and that's a TRANSPARENCY issue.
4 - Part of what pissed MOST Americans about the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill was that it was cobbled together in secret, behind closed doors - without hearings. THERE WAS NO TRANSPARENCY IN HOW IT GOT MADE. people are more likely to accept a compromise of the bargaining is more public.
The candidate who most credibly promises to bring MORE TRANSPARENCY to DC will win.
Because he is not a life-long politician, I think Mitt is most likely candidate to make and keep this type of promise. As a successful businessman, his investments demanded transparency. As a manager and governor, he demanded transparent results. Mitt could bring transparency to DC.
That's why I think the choice is CLEAR. (Pun intended.) Mitt is it.
UPDATE: Coincidently, JAWA posts on an attempt by the Gay agenda folks down in Miami to sneak a new Gay Agenda referendum through by cloaking the Gay parts. This is a deliberate subterfuge, and part of the transparency deficit which pisses many people off. If you want a new law for Gays... FINE, but try to get the votes honestly and openly. Otherwise it's not really democratic.
1 - It relates to a lot of wasteful pork-barrel spending: Americans hate earmarks as much for their secrecy as their wastefulness. (Most people rightly think that if they weren't wasteful that they wouldn't be secret.)
2 - It relates to the current real estate and banking crisis: if the repackaged sub-prime mortgages had more transparency then there would be NO CRISIS.
3 - In campaign financing, most people don't care how much someone gives to a candidate, AS LONG AS THEY KNOW WHO IS GIVING WHAT TO WHOM. IOW: it ain't how much it's WHO - and that's a TRANSPARENCY issue.
4 - Part of what pissed MOST Americans about the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill was that it was cobbled together in secret, behind closed doors - without hearings. THERE WAS NO TRANSPARENCY IN HOW IT GOT MADE. people are more likely to accept a compromise of the bargaining is more public.
The candidate who most credibly promises to bring MORE TRANSPARENCY to DC will win.
Because he is not a life-long politician, I think Mitt is most likely candidate to make and keep this type of promise. As a successful businessman, his investments demanded transparency. As a manager and governor, he demanded transparent results. Mitt could bring transparency to DC.
That's why I think the choice is CLEAR. (Pun intended.) Mitt is it.
UPDATE: Coincidently, JAWA posts on an attempt by the Gay agenda folks down in Miami to sneak a new Gay Agenda referendum through by cloaking the Gay parts. This is a deliberate subterfuge, and part of the transparency deficit which pisses many people off. If you want a new law for Gays... FINE, but try to get the votes honestly and openly. Otherwise it's not really democratic.
FED MAKES MONEY CHEAPER - NOW WE MUST MAKE ENERGY CHEAPER
The economy needs cheaper energy as much or more than it needs money.
And we don't have to wait for OPEC to take pity on us for oil to become cheaper.
We can reduce the price of oil with the stroke of a pen: just by opening up ANWR and the coasts of CA and FL for oil exploration - and by granting licenses for 20 nuclear power plants and 20 clean coal-burning power plants.
Oil will hit $60/barrel in a week.
If we really want to keep America and the world's economy growing, then we will do these things.
I think expanding energy supplies and getting control of immigration are the two biggest issues for the next election.
The GOP should re-package itself as the party of expanding energy supplies and of ending illegal immigration.
McCain is pro-amnesty and a greenie - so he would be incapable of leading.
And we don't have to wait for OPEC to take pity on us for oil to become cheaper.
We can reduce the price of oil with the stroke of a pen: just by opening up ANWR and the coasts of CA and FL for oil exploration - and by granting licenses for 20 nuclear power plants and 20 clean coal-burning power plants.
Oil will hit $60/barrel in a week.
If we really want to keep America and the world's economy growing, then we will do these things.
I think expanding energy supplies and getting control of immigration are the two biggest issues for the next election.
The GOP should re-package itself as the party of expanding energy supplies and of ending illegal immigration.
McCain is pro-amnesty and a greenie - so he would be incapable of leading.
FRED WITHDRAWS; HEATH LEDGER COMMITS SUICIDE
FIRST, Fred Thompson withdrew.
THEN, Heath Ledger commits suicide.
I didn't even know Heath Ledger was a Fredhead.
Seriously, I feel sorry for Ledger's 2 year old daughter.
FRED: A QUITTER THEN; A QUITTER NOW.
THEN, Heath Ledger commits suicide.
I didn't even know Heath Ledger was a Fredhead.
Seriously, I feel sorry for Ledger's 2 year old daughter.
And also seriously: Who could be surprised that Fred withdrew!?!? He's NOT a fighter; if he was then he wouldn't have withdrawn from the US Senate in 2002.
FRED: A QUITTER THEN; A QUITTER NOW.
"The Great One" Rocks the House
I have not hidden my high regard for Mark Levin, because I consider him to be one of the most powerful voices of the vision of Ronald Reagan speaking out today. I linked to his Friday show stream because of a segment in which he quoted the founders, exposing the dirtly little secret that the NEA History teachers no longer want their "leftist ideologues in training" to learn: It is Conservatism which stands for individual liberty, small government, free trade, and a strong national defense.
So now we have full disclosure: I am a dyed in the wool Levin fan. Hell, I even have a sister whose kids are named Chase and Lauren (also the names of Levin's children...), one of whom is attending the University of Alabama (like Levin's daughter does). This is most certainly coincidence, but my high esteem for Levin is not. And when I say that Levin's show yesterday was one of the best I have ever heard, so soon after linking another of his shows, that is not empty rhetoric. I listen almost every day. In this particular audio, Levin discusses McCain and Huckabee, but he also discuss the true meaning of Martin Luther King and also the Clintons' smear tactics against Obama. But my description in no way does it justice.
Perhaps it is the election and the media's pandering to McCain and Huckabee that have energized him so, but my readers should trust me on this one; you will want to listen to the great one's show last night: streaming here (it is the 1/21 show), download here. This one's a keeper.
That's back to back grand slams for Mark (not to mention his great NRO piece); I can't wait for tonight's show to see how he follows it up.
So now we have full disclosure: I am a dyed in the wool Levin fan. Hell, I even have a sister whose kids are named Chase and Lauren (also the names of Levin's children...), one of whom is attending the University of Alabama (like Levin's daughter does). This is most certainly coincidence, but my high esteem for Levin is not. And when I say that Levin's show yesterday was one of the best I have ever heard, so soon after linking another of his shows, that is not empty rhetoric. I listen almost every day. In this particular audio, Levin discusses McCain and Huckabee, but he also discuss the true meaning of Martin Luther King and also the Clintons' smear tactics against Obama. But my description in no way does it justice.
Perhaps it is the election and the media's pandering to McCain and Huckabee that have energized him so, but my readers should trust me on this one; you will want to listen to the great one's show last night: streaming here (it is the 1/21 show), download here. This one's a keeper.
That's back to back grand slams for Mark (not to mention his great NRO piece); I can't wait for tonight's show to see how he follows it up.
Market Corrects Slightly; NYT leads hysterical "Recession" Cheerleading
Two reports this morning from the always sweet Sweetness and Light:
For the past several years, the heavily propagandized DNC-led media coverage has likely resulted in the loss of real American lives abroad by encouraging the enemy to fight harder (i.e. giving the "insurgency" the very 'voice' it was looking for...) and also by spoon-feeding to America's enemies the very secrets that America is using to save lives; not content with this criminality, they are also now actively hurting Americans at home.
Hey, but anything for a vote, right Messars. Soros and Sulzburger?
This is their idea of "caring" about "the common man"...
Who needs the New York Times? A: No one does. They are an albatross around this nation's shoulders. The sooner this paper goes belly up, the better for all of us. If I could help it do so I would. (Rupert, keep that heat turned up, baby.)
- Good: Fed cuts reserve rate 3/4 point ("What if the media gave a recession and nobody came...")
- Better: War News Good? Let's create a recession. Includes a screen print of a search within the New York Times' website, in which the word recession in mentioned 210 times in the last 30 days, and also a very apropos comment:
No, it’s not your imagination.
Once it became undeniably clear to our watchdog media that the surge in Iraq was working, they decided it was time for a recession.
After all, their bosses at the DNC need something to run against.
For the past several years, the heavily propagandized DNC-led media coverage has likely resulted in the loss of real American lives abroad by encouraging the enemy to fight harder (i.e. giving the "insurgency" the very 'voice' it was looking for...) and also by spoon-feeding to America's enemies the very secrets that America is using to save lives; not content with this criminality, they are also now actively hurting Americans at home.
Hey, but anything for a vote, right Messars. Soros and Sulzburger?
This is their idea of "caring" about "the common man"...
Who needs the New York Times? A: No one does. They are an albatross around this nation's shoulders. The sooner this paper goes belly up, the better for all of us. If I could help it do so I would. (Rupert, keep that heat turned up, baby.)
FED CUTS INTEREST RATE 3/4 OF A PERCENT IN "EMERGENCY MOVE"
From Associated Press:
Which only goes to show that the United States is the engine of the world's economy. People all over the world have jobs and homes because of us.
Now, truth is, we could go into a recession. It would not be enjoyable. However, in the long run, where would you put your money? The very fact that the world's markets cascade when ours are troubled underscores the fact that, in the long run, our is the best bet.
If investors saw other markets as viable options, then other markets would grow when ours went down.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve, confronted with a global stock sell-off
fanned by increased fears of a recession, slashed a key interest rate by
three-quarters of a percentage point on Tuesday and indicated further rate cuts
were likely.
The surprise reduction in the federal funds rate from 4.25
down to 3.5 percent marked the biggest funds rate cut on records going back to
1990.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues took the
action after an emergency video conference on Monday night, a day when global
markets had been pounded by rising concerns that weakness in the world's largest
economy was spreading worldwide.
In a brief statement explaining its
move, the Fed said that "appreciable downside risks to growth remain" and
officials pledged to "act in a timely manner" to deal with the risks facing the
economy. The action was approved on an 8-1 vote.
Analysts said the fact
that the Fed did not wait until its meeting next week to cut rates underscored
the seriousness of the situation.
"The world's stock markets are in
meltdown so the Fed came in with an inter-meeting move to try to stop the
panic," Christopher Rupkey, senior economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi.
Which only goes to show that the United States is the engine of the world's economy. People all over the world have jobs and homes because of us.
Now, truth is, we could go into a recession. It would not be enjoyable. However, in the long run, where would you put your money? The very fact that the world's markets cascade when ours are troubled underscores the fact that, in the long run, our is the best bet.
If investors saw other markets as viable options, then other markets would grow when ours went down.
Affirming Our Second Amendment Rights
It was interesting to me that at a recent birthday party, five of the eight men there discussed owning guns, and three of the five (including me) have concealed-carry permits. The other three men did not volunteer information, so they may or may not be gun owners. Some people, like liberal columnist, William Raspberry, famously excoriate gun-owners while reserving that right to themselves (as Democrat Senator Webb was also caught doing),
Gun owners and others who respect the Second Amendment should remember that both Clinton and Obama are anti the 2nd Amendment and have voted for every gun control measure put before them (source: Gunowners.org).
Rather than any more gun control legislation (except for constantly tightening ways to keep guns out of the hands of ex-felons and people with mental defects), what is needed is a federal law for carry-permit holders that recognizes the mobility of today’s society. There is now a federal law, referred to as the “peaceable journey” law, that enables any legal gun owner to carry an unloaded weapon across state lines while traveling. What is needed is a similar law that automatically gives reciprocity to a permit holder who is also on a “peaceable journey”, but wishes to retain the protection he has in his home state.
The same rules would apply as is the case now: one could only stop temporarily in a pass-through state, and the destination must be another residence or place of business. As it is now, I can protect myself through Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, but before entering DC and Maryland I must empty my gun and lock it in a box in my trunk, and it must stay that way through New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island until I reach my other home in RI.
Excerpt; See Rest At: From Sea to Shining Sea
Gun owners and others who respect the Second Amendment should remember that both Clinton and Obama are anti the 2nd Amendment and have voted for every gun control measure put before them (source: Gunowners.org).
Rather than any more gun control legislation (except for constantly tightening ways to keep guns out of the hands of ex-felons and people with mental defects), what is needed is a federal law for carry-permit holders that recognizes the mobility of today’s society. There is now a federal law, referred to as the “peaceable journey” law, that enables any legal gun owner to carry an unloaded weapon across state lines while traveling. What is needed is a similar law that automatically gives reciprocity to a permit holder who is also on a “peaceable journey”, but wishes to retain the protection he has in his home state.
The same rules would apply as is the case now: one could only stop temporarily in a pass-through state, and the destination must be another residence or place of business. As it is now, I can protect myself through Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, but before entering DC and Maryland I must empty my gun and lock it in a box in my trunk, and it must stay that way through New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island until I reach my other home in RI.
The Second Amendment Wedge
by Jed Babbin, 11/26/2007, Human Events
Hillary calls them, “kitchen table issues,” the political questions Americans take seriously enough to talk about them privately, in their homes, among family and friends. Whether she likes it or not, one of those issues is gun control. Last week the Supreme Court decided to take on the biggest gun control case in almost seventy years: District of Columbia v. Heller. The Heller case is an appeal by the DC government from the US Circuit Court’s decision holding unconstitutional D.C.’s ban on privately-owned handguns and severe limits on other weapons.
The Heller appeal will be argued next spring and unless something very odd happens, it will be decided before the election. This is very bad news for the Democrats who -- like Hillary -- don’t believe that the Second Amendment grants to private citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
The DC handgun ban provides that an unlicensed private person may not carry a pistol even from room to room in his own home. Because DC -- as a matter of policy -- doesn’t grant handgun permits, the law effectively bans lawful handgun ownership.
Excerpt; See Rest At: From Sea to Shining Sea
Democrats living in cloud-cuckoo land
There is a post here which shows that everybody (both GOP and Donk voters) rightly sees the GOP presidential candidates as being on the conservative side of American politics but Democrat voters see their candidates as centrist. Once again we see a reliance among Leftists on a false "consensus" and a poor grip on reality. The post takes a bit of thought to get the point but it is a striking and important point.
Posted by John Ray
Posted by John Ray
Spot the Difference
Excerpt:
Posted by John Ray
"Last week the Austrian politician Susanne Winter caused an Alpine storm with her controversial statement that the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was "a child molester" who had married a six-year-old girl and "a warlord" who had written the Koran during "epileptic fits." The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPO, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is "a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean."
Muslim organizations in Austria called Ms. Winter's words "sickening and evil." The Austrian Christian Democrats, Socialists, Greens and even the BZO, the party of former FPO leader Joerg Haider, strongly criticized Winter's remarks. Erhard Busek, the leader of the Christian Democrats, called upon Cardinal Schoenborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, to "speak out clearly" against Ms. Winter, a Catholic.
Mr. Busek said Winter's remarks were "a disaster [.] the most primitive populism, which does not fit in the framework of democracy. [.] I expect a real outcry and criticism from religious communities, of believing people with convictions." There is, however, a `real outcry' in other quarters. Muslim extremists have threatened to kill Susanne Winter. The Austrian authorities are taking the threats seriously and have placed the politician under police protection.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, the words of another intolerant politician are hardly causing a ripple in the polders. Bouchra Ismaili, a Rotterdam councillor of Moroccan origin, sent a controversial email to Jos Parbleu, a Dutch citizen who had written her and many other politicians a polite email to communicate his concerns about the rise of the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir in Rotterdam. Ms. Ismaili told Mr. Parbleu to either "drop dead" or "convert to Islam." She added that Parbleu was "a dirty fool" who ought to realize that Muslims would soon be the majority in the Netherlands and that: "You are the foreigner here."
Ms. Ismaili's words have not provoked threats to kill her, there has been no public national or international outcry, the United Nations are not worried about rising `Christophobia' in Europe, and the Christian Democrats have not called upon the Dutch imams to "speak out clearly" against "the most primitive language which does not fit in the framework of democracy."
Source
Posted by John Ray
Monday, January 21, 2008
HOW INFANTILE: CHARLES JOHNSON BANS PEOPLE
89 Charles 1/21/08 1:05:49 pm 2
- I WAS BANNED AT LGF BECAUSE I CRITICIZED CHARLES.
- THAT SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHARLES AND LGF.
- THE COMMENTS I POSTED AT LGF WHICH GOT ME BANNED WERE POSTED HERE AS FULL POSTS WITH LINKS.
- I STAND BY EVERY WORD.
Basically I have argued this: Garry Kasparov marches alongside the Russian Communist Party in rallies against Putin. The Russian CP is far FAR worse than the BNP or VB. Does this make Kasparov as bad as the CP, or wrong or stupid!? NO.
And if Kasparov is right to do that - and if FDR and WSC were right to be allies of Stalin in WW2, then Europeans who today are fighting "creeping sharia" are right to ally themselves with VB - and other even less savory parties.
I have also pointed out that Charles is hypocritical: Charles thinks it's fine if HE'S allied to leftists who hate Fallaci and Ayaan Ali Hirsi in order to fight counter-jihadists he thinks are racist. Charles doesn't require of himself that he only be allied to people with whom he agrees 100%. But Charles requires it of others.
If Charles doesn't have to agree with everything Oyvind Strommen ever wrote or currently believes, then the European counter-jihadists don't have to be in 100% agreement with each other.
In fact - from a moral war point-of-view - Charles is on much weaker ground, for he is allied with leftists to fight counter-jihadists, whereas Gates Of Vienna, for example, is allied with VB to FIGHT jihadists. The battle Charles has with BNP is of a much lower moral order than the fight Europe has with creeping sharia, dhimmitude and Islamicization. Charles's foe is a phantom - the BNP has injured no one and diminished nobody's rights; the foes of counter-jihadists are real.
IN CONCLUSION: (1) Charles is NOT more morally pure or principled for is stand than Gates of Vienna or FDR or Garry Kasparov. And (2) Charles - in his infantile (and hypocritical) quest for moral purity - is doing damage to the counter-jihad movement in Europe. This is bad and sad. And, (3) By banning people Charles further proves his outlook is basically infantile.
GO LIZARDOIDS GO!
Er um... as in go away.
OH AND CHARLES, PERHAPS YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS DISCLAIMER OFF YOUR WEBSITE:
Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.Obviously - since you police the comments and commenters closely - this statement in NOT TRUE. The comments DO reflect you and your views and LGF. Or you wouldn't ban people you disagree with.
Either you reinstate everyone, or remove this disclaimer - or admit you are a hypocrite.
Your choice.
Gotchya! Heh.
*******UPDATE: LGF seems to love GEERT WILDERS. Which is a little odd because Geert is lumped together with VB (as islamophobic racists) by most of the euroleft that Charles seems to be taking his cues from. Here's what WIKI says about Geert's proposed policies (which I really like!):
I wonder if Charles approves of these proposals? The first one seems like it would be especially repugnant to Charles. If Charles doesn't approve, will he shun Geert like he does Gates of Vienna, or embrace him anyhow - as he does Strommen. Because Charles' position is hypocritical (and seemingly entirely arbitrary) it's impossible to predict.In recent interviews Geert Wilders more than once indicated that the Dutch constitution and European Convention on Human Rights should be changed or temporarily revoked if necessary to better protect the Dutch people from Islamic extremism.
He is in favor of stripping criminals with dual nationality of their Dutch citizenship and deporting them to the country of their original nationality. This has led to considerable criticism.
IF MCCAIN GETS THE NOMINATION HIS VEEP MAY VERY WELL BE...
KERRY.
YUP: KERRY.
Some say Lieberman or Graham. or Cox or Pawlenty.
I say he'll offer it to Kerry - IOW: return the favor; (Kerry offered it to McCain - and McCain nearly took it!).
WHAT KIND OF REPUBLICAN WOULD DO THAT!?
A very VERY liberal one.
One who has sided with the lib Dems against the GOP more often than not.
McCain has earned the right to do this, but it doesn't make him right to do it.
In fact, McCain is wrong. Wrong for the GOP and wrong for the USA.
YUP: KERRY.
Some say Lieberman or Graham. or Cox or Pawlenty.
I say he'll offer it to Kerry - IOW: return the favor; (Kerry offered it to McCain - and McCain nearly took it!).
WHAT KIND OF REPUBLICAN WOULD DO THAT!?
A very VERY liberal one.
One who has sided with the lib Dems against the GOP more often than not.
McCain has earned the right to do this, but it doesn't make him right to do it.
In fact, McCain is wrong. Wrong for the GOP and wrong for the USA.
FEAR OF A USA RECESSION LEADS TO GLOBAL STOCK MARKET PLUNGE
DETAILS HERE.
Today's global stock market plunge proves the idiocy of that charge.
The mere FEAR that we might consume less drives markets down.
That's because people and companies ALL OVER THE WORLD depend on our ability to consume - our wealth, our low trade barriers, our desire to buy stuff.
That's because the economies of Europe and Asia depend on the USA.
They need us to buy their stuff or they suffer. And their poor and children suffer the most.
NOW: A recession might be coming. Maybe not. It might be deep or shallow, long or short. NO ONE KNOWS. (I'd bet it's short and shallow.)
The sooner we Americans start buying MORE stuff - more homes, more computers, more cars - MORE EVERYTHING! - the sooner the entire world's economy improves. And that helps EVERYONE. That lift living standards for everyone.
BOTTOM-LINE: Americans do not "over-consume"; American consumption drives the world economy and creates jobs and wealth worldwide. If the left rally cared about improving incomes and living standards worldwide, then they'd tell people to consume MORE, not less.
The left doesn't because they're really don't want to increase wealth worldwide; they're really more interested in taking away from those richer than themselves, and then giving it to their favorite victims. It makes them feel big and good.
If redistribution schemes worked then we'd be reading and writing blogs on Soviet made computers.
- WHEN THE USA GETS A COLD, THE WORLD GETS FLU.
- THAT'S BECAUSE THE USA IS THE ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD.
Today's global stock market plunge proves the idiocy of that charge.
The mere FEAR that we might consume less drives markets down.
That's because people and companies ALL OVER THE WORLD depend on our ability to consume - our wealth, our low trade barriers, our desire to buy stuff.
That's because the economies of Europe and Asia depend on the USA.
They need us to buy their stuff or they suffer. And their poor and children suffer the most.
NOW: A recession might be coming. Maybe not. It might be deep or shallow, long or short. NO ONE KNOWS. (I'd bet it's short and shallow.)
The sooner we Americans start buying MORE stuff - more homes, more computers, more cars - MORE EVERYTHING! - the sooner the entire world's economy improves. And that helps EVERYONE. That lift living standards for everyone.
BOTTOM-LINE: Americans do not "over-consume"; American consumption drives the world economy and creates jobs and wealth worldwide. If the left rally cared about improving incomes and living standards worldwide, then they'd tell people to consume MORE, not less.
The left doesn't because they're really don't want to increase wealth worldwide; they're really more interested in taking away from those richer than themselves, and then giving it to their favorite victims. It makes them feel big and good.
If redistribution schemes worked then we'd be reading and writing blogs on Soviet made computers.
The Assaults on Speech (by Thought Police) are alive and well in Canada
Remember George Orwell's "Thought Police"? Orwell coined the term in his seminal 1984 in a blistering critique of the Soviet Union under Stalin, but the Thought Police are alive and well in Canada today. We have already discussed the assault against Mark Steyn in Maple Leaf land, but now Ezra Levant adds his own story to the shameful record of Canada's official campaign to protect certain 'special groups' (read: Muslims) from being "offended". I say "only", because her very existence does beg the question: Does it count if the average Canadian Citizen finds Ms. McGovern and her "Human Rights" thought police offensive? :
A few days ago, I was interrogated for 90 minutes by Shirlene McGovern, an officer of the government of Alberta. I have been accused of hurting people's feelings because, two years ago, I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the Western Standard magazine.
Ms. McGovern's business card said she was a "Human Rights Officer." What a perfectly Orwellian title.
Early in her interrogation, she said "I always ask people … what was your intent and purpose of your article?"
It wasn't even a question about what we had published in the magazine. It was a question about my private thoughts. I asked her why my private feelings were of interest to the government. She said, very calmly, that they would be a factor taken into account by the government in determining whether or not I was guilty.
Officer McGovern said it as calmly as if I had asked her what time it was.
When she's doing government interrogations, she always asks people about their thoughts.
It was so banal, so routine. When she walked in, she seemed happy. With a smile, she reached out her hand to shake mine. I refused — to me, nothing could have been more incongruous. Would I warmly greet a police officer who arrested me as a suspect in a crime? Then why should I do so for a thought crime? This was not normal; I would not normalize it with the pleasantries of polite society.
This was not a high-school debating tournament where Human Rights Officer McGovern and I were equals, enjoying a shared interest in politics and publishing. I was there because I was compelled to be there by the government, and if I answered Officer McGovern's political questions unsatisfactorily, the government could fine me thousands of dollars and order me to publicly apologize for holding the wrong views.
I told her that the complaint process itself was a punishment. Even if I was eventually acquitted, I would still lose — hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills. That's not an accident, that's one of the tools of these commissions. Every journalist in the country has been taught a lesson: Censor yourself now, or be put through a costly wringer. I said all this and then Officer McGovern replied, "You're entitled to your opinions, that's for sure."
But that's not for sure, is it? We're only entitled to our opinions now if they don't offend some very easily offended people.
One of the complainants against me is someone I would describe as a radical Muslim imam, Syed Soharwardy. He grew up in the madrassas of Pakistan and he lectures on the Saudi circuit. He advocates sharia law for all countries, including Canada. His website is rife with Islamic supremacism — offensive to many Canadian Jews, gentiles, women and gays. But his sensitivities — his Saudi-Pakistani values — have been offended by me.
And so now the secular government of Alberta is enforcing his fatwa against the cartoons.
It's the same for Mohamed Elmasry, the complainant against Maclean's magazine for publishing an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. Egyptian-born Elmasry has publicly said that any adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for a terrorist attack, a grossly offensive statement.
Both the Canadian and B.C. Human Rights Commissions are now hearing his complaints against Maclean's.
Read the rest of this stunning story here.
For me 1984 is a nightmarish allegory of a society which has already adopted Stalinst Socialism. But for an even more gripping illustration of how a society gets to that point in the first place, I find Animal Farm to be far superior. I would dare any American: just try reading Animal Farm today and not relating it to Democrats, their class warfare, and their "identity politics". I am grateful to my English teachers in high school AND college; I think faculties are less likely to be exposing their little Stalins in waiting to that one these days--it goes against the PC grain. But I highly recommend both for any parent's summer reading list for their kids... it had a profound effect on me, along with The Fountainhead... You can buy both Animal Farm and 1984 together in one hardbound volume here (which includes a nice introduction by Christopher Hitchens...).Venezuala-Iran-Nicaragua Axis more than just an idle threat
A disturbing post from the Counterterrorism Blog today. As someone who is familiar both with Latin America (I travel there quite a bit) and of the situation at our porous border, it is critical that the United States begin to take action to thwart the threat that is developing to our South. Pay particular attention to Admiral Stavridis' remarks (linked below):
Also of note: Venezuela is increasing naval activity ostensibly to defend its offshore oil platforms.My colleague Andrew Cochran's post on the threat (or not) to the Panama Canal seems to me to miss the larger picture of the threat from Latin America.
That threat is contained in the recent statements by Adm. James Stavridis, head of the US Southern Command at a recent CSIS conference.
Stavridis warned that "the connectivity between narcoterrorism and Islamic radical terrorism could be disastrous in this region. What I worry about in this region with outside actors coming into it is the potential for those streams to cross, if you will, for the fuel of narcoterrorism to become engaged in Islamic radicalism here in the Americas."
That is it in a nutshell. It is the Iran-Venezuela-Nicaragua nexus, built on a foundation of already-existing Hezbollah and Hamas operatives who have been economically active in the region for decades. My full blog is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
re: #88 cochise4c2
But you could probably make a pretty good guess based on what he's been posting elsewhere.