'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Mao Jacket of Oba-Mao

From American Digest:


It probably works like this. Every morning when Obama rises he takes a deep and refreshing hot coffee high-colonic. During this meditative phase of his day he thinks,

"Let's see... how can I show my contempt for America in a manner not previously thought possible? Last week I was giving the American flag my trademarked "crotch salute."** A day or so ago I was bending over for the Emperor of Japan. Humm, what's left? I know, I'll put on the biggest mass murderer of the 20th century's signature jacket for my photo-op. And some lip gloss! And pantyhose! Fuck yeah! [Fist pump]"

Don't think so? Then, as Bird Dog notes, "figure out these photos of the O in a Mao jacket from today or yesterday.

Good grief. Never thought I'd see the day that an American Pres would put on a Mao jacket. It sends a peculiar message. I would wear a tutu before I'd put on one of those - except maybe for Halloween. -- Life imitates satire - Maggie's Farm

**Signature Crotch Salute as the Flag passes:


Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

Wussies in Christ?

"Many Christians have taken the stance of pacifism because of the above mentioned commandments. We are quick when it comes to turning the other cheek. We are slow at taking revenge and we are forgiving (for the most part). I do not contend that those are actions less admirable than the opposite. I do, however, think that we have taken all of it too far.

I can understand us making the decision to forgive or forget when someone does us wrong but should we also decide to forgive and forget if the wrong is done to our fellow human?"
Read the rest HERE.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Avenging Apostate at permanent link# 1 Comments

Human Body Sold To Kebab Shop

The BBC does not address the question of whether the owners of the "Kebab shop" knew they were buying human remains to serve as food. Nor does the BBC address the questions of whether the men who perpetrated this primitive and disgusting crime were Muslims, or if the man killed, eaten and sold was an "Infidel".

That's some reporting by the BBC, huh?

From the BBC:


Police in Russia have arrested three homeless men suspected of killing a man, eating part of the body and selling other parts to a kebab shop.

The men were held in the city of Perm, some 1,400km (870 miles) east of Moscow, local investigators said.

Their statement said that the suspects had targeted the 25-year-old victim out of "personal hostility".

It was not clear when the incident occurred. The men - who have not been named - have been charged with murder.

The investigators said on Friday that the body of the man had been found in a forested area near a public transport stop in Perm.

They said the three men attacked their victim with knives and a hammer.

"After carrying out the attack, the corpse was dismembered. Part of it was eaten and part was also sold to a kebab and pie kiosk," their statement said.

It was not immediately clear if any customers had been served.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Bing West On Our Insane Rules of Engagement

In the video below, Bing West uses footage from recent firefights in Afghanistan to illustrate the fact that the current Rules of Engagement (ROE) have made victory impossible.

"These videos illustrate that the enemy decides when to initiate a fire fight, and when to break contact."

"You can't shoot a guy looking at you with binoculars?" "Negative. Even though we just took fire from there, he has binoculars he could just be curious. That's quote - unquote." "He could just be curious?" "He could just be curious."

"They could see people that I would say 95% they were the enemy. And they did not shoot them because they couldn't confirm 100%. When you have someone looking at you through binoculars on a battlefield ordinarily you'd have permission and you would shoot them. And they didn't on just the tiny chance that he was just an idiot."

"Leaving your enemy intact is not a smart idea in any war."

"We have to remember in the end this is a war and our enemy is implacable."

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 0 Comments

WTF: President Obama Urges Congress To Halt Ft. Hood Probe

From Weasel Zippers (click on the title above to see the whole thing):

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to "resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater." He said those who died on the nation's largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.

"The stakes are far too high," Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president he was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.
Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., said he wanted to go ahead with an investigation from the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the top Republican. He said he wanted an investigation that wouldn't compromise law enforcement or military investigations that were continuing on separate tracks.

In the Senate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said his Homeland Security Committee was opening an investigation.

Obama said he was not opposed to hearings -- eventually. But he strongly pressed lawmakers to hold off until the probes now under way are completed.

"There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy," Obama said. "That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts."

"We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them."

Rest Here >>>
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

A (Very Stupid) Religious Christian

This is how a CBSnews.com article started:

“A religious Christian in Florida tried to send Fort Hood massacre suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan a bouquet of flowers and a note that calls him a "hero," but the man got a knock on his door from the FBI instead, according to a Florida television station.”

It was very easy for them to add this man’s religion in the news. I am sure they didn’t even have to think twice. No one cared about the “backlash” against Christians and no one asked Christians whether they thought this man was following Christ or not. The media has shown time and again that it is quite alright for them to say anything they wish about Christians but saying anything about Islam that is short of glorifying Allah and Mohammed is just unacceptable.

The article continues thus:

“With a Bible close by, a declaration of his Christian beliefs and a website outlining his visits by an angel, Ross said in a television interview that he believes we should all love our enemies.”

Whether what Ross believes is right nor not is a matter that can be debated in another article, however, notice the media bias here. When Muslim terrorists quote Quranic verse after Quranic verse proving that when they kill infidels in the name of Allah, they do so in accordance with Quranic commandment of Jihad—the media decides those Muslims are wrong, Islam is a religion of peace and hence CAIR must be right when they say that we should all respect Muslim values and not listen to what the terrorists are saying. However, for this man, all they had to see was a declaration of his Christian beliefs, his visions and a Bible next to him and conclude, “Yup, a religious Christian!” Imagine if the first thing someone had said was “Ah, a religious Muslim” when Nidal the Muslim terrorist massacred the 13 soldiers…the media would be all over that person like flies on crap calling him/her “racist!” But no, not with Christians that doesn’t happen.

On top of all of this, whenever a Muslim commits a terrorist act or says something stupid, they call CAIR or other Muslim organization to get their opinion and teach us all what Islam really says but when a Christian says something stupid or does something wrong, it is already proven that he is a religious Christian who is following Christianity to the letter. And that “fact” is proven how? He’s got a Bible; he says he’s had visions of angels and he has a statement of faith.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Avenging Apostate at permanent link# 4 Comments

Obama Doesn't Know That This Country Was Created Specifically Because WE HATE ROYALTY!

Barack Obama has got to go. When will our country wake up and remove him from office.

From the LA Times (even they seem to get this one):

Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times

How low will he go? Obama gives Japan's Emperor Akihito a wow bow

November 14, 2009 | 3:38 am

Democrat president Barack Obama bows to Japan's Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko 11-09

How low will the new American president go for the world's royalty?

This photo will get Democrat President Obama a lot of approving nods in Japan this weekend, especially among the older generation of Japanese who still pay attention to the royal family living in its downtown castle. Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference for a superior.

To some in the United States, however, an upright handshake might have looked better. Remember Michelle Obama casually patting Britain's Queen Elizabeth on the back during their Buckingham Palace visit? America's royalty tends to make movies and get bad reviews and lots of money as a sign of respect.

Obama could receive some frowns back home as he did for his not-quite-this-low-or-maybe-about-the-same-bow to the Saudi king not so long ago.

I also like Reliapundit's reaction to this story:










Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 16 Comments

CAIR Stoops To Yet Another Low

Note to family and friends: Updates on Mr. AOW are now being added to this post.

CAIR is using the Fort Hood massacre to promote a fundraiser. Excerpt from the CAIR letter, from this source:
We need financial help to meet these crises and push back against those who seek to score political points off the Muslim community in the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy.
Also note this paragraph:
Our tone and immediate response is paying off. Major media acknowledged the strong statement that American Muslims issued condemning the Fort Hood attack. On CNN, Anderson Cooper reported that CAIR “reacted to the shooting spree, condemning the attack in the strongest terms possible.” ON MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews noted that CAIR was “quick to condemn the massacre.”
The letter is signed by Nihad Awad, CAIR's National Executive Director.

Read the entire letter HERE. Be sure to check out the postscript.

May CAIR's resources be strained to the breaking point.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments

Friday, November 13, 2009

Buddy Guy
Good Morning Little Schoolgirl

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

In Congress, Ignorance is Strength

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

I open this commentary with the introduction to my previous commentary, “The Mainstream Smearing of Ayn Rand.” The disparity in subject is not so irrelevant as one might presume, but I won’t dwell on that matter.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi looked like a deer caught in the blinding headlight of an oncoming freight train, her expression frozen in either ignorance or fear. It has always been difficult to distinguish between the two in her. But the malice in her words was palpable.
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes, I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individual Americans buy health insurance was not a "serious question."

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
His iterating mockery of the reporter is indeed on the record. Elshami, deputy communications director and senior adviser to Pelosi, later issued a press release stating that Congress was empowered by the commerce clause in the Constitution to mandate individual health insurance. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), however, differed from that dubious specificity, instead likening the power to compel all Americans to buy health insurance to federal authority to impose speed limits on interstate highways (???), adding that “nobody questions” Congress’s authority to impose controls of any kind. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) linked the power to the general welfare clause.

Since that demonstration of Congressional arrogance, the House passed its health-care legislation by a vote of 220 to 215, squeaking through only because of the browbeating of Blue Dog Democrats by the Pelosi gang. Hardly a glittering victory. The bill has been sent to the Senate, which has its own versions of health care legislation to scuffle over. The House bill, remarked Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina remarked, soon after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her determined co-conspirators posed with smiles of triumph for photo ops, was “dead on arrival.” In the meantime, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut issued his own warning:

If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.
It seems that some Senators understand the original purpose of the Senate, which is to act as a check on the populist, “democratic,” majority-rule grounded legislation concocted by the House, to better preserve and protect the life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness of Americans. Unfortunately, only Graham, Lieberman, and a handful of other Senators appreciate that intention. Others have publicly articulated it -- but with reservations.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) says he is “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance, as the health care bills in both the House and Senate require.
No, he isn’t aware of the Constitution mandating Congress the power to force Americans to buy health insurance. And that unawareness won’t stop him from advocating such compulsion.

When asked if there was a specific part of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to make people buy health insurance, Akaka said: “Not in particular with health insurance. It’s not covered in that respect. But in ways to help citizens in our country to live a good life, let me say it that way, is what we’re trying to do, and in this case, we’re trying to help them with their health.”

Both House and Senate health care bills mandate that people buy health insurance, facing a financial penalty if they do not. Akaka said this mandate should not be looked upon as a penalty…“It’s an idea of making it possible for people and this is what it’s all about,” he said. “I don’t look upon that as a penalty but as a way of getting help with health insurance.”
If Akaka had been sharp enough, he might have echoed House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and claimed that “helping people” at the point of a gun to buy health insurance came under the (misunderstood) general welfare clause. But, he was not sharp enough, and that neglect simply added to his ignorance quotient.

Other politicians have been more specific in their opposition to any health care legislation. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah remarked that if the government can force Americans to purchase health insurance, “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island is in a dead heat with Senator Akaka in being unaware of any Constitutional mandate to compel Americans to buy health insurance. When asked by a reporter to identify that mandate in the Constitution, Reed answered:

“Let me see,” said Reed. “I would have to check the specific sections, so I’ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don’t think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn’t say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it’s been recognized, the authority to do that.”
The gentleman did not “get back” to the reporter who buttonholed him with that question. He likened the element of compulsion to forcing Americans to register for the military draft. That is okay with him. It is all about duty, and sacrifice, and “giving back” to society. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska also displayed his ignorance as well as his manners:

“Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked Nelson.

“Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar,” said Nelson. So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.” The senator then turned away to answer another reporter’s question.
If he doesn’t know whether or not he’s a constitutional scholar, then he isn’t one. That answer invites the observation and question: One can expect members of the House of Representatives to be foggy on matters of constitutionality, although their two-year terms ought to allow them to become experts on the subject.

Should Senators come to their jobs as Solons prepared to repel any and all usurpations of the Constitution? Yes. Willing and able to uphold individual rights and the sanctity of private contract? Yes. It is in the nature of the title and the concomitant responsibility of the office. Most senators, however, do not come to the job with anything near a tenuous knowledge of their function. And many of them assume their seats in the Senate with a contempt for the Constitution that may as well be ignorance.

Most Senators complement their ignorance of the Constitution with an indifference to its clearly-worded stipulations, and in this state of mind emulate President Barack Obama, former pseudo-professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama is not so much ignorant of that document as hostile to it. It is “deeply flawed,” and a “charter of negative liberties,” which should be amended or rewritten to include the “positive“ liberties of welfare state entitlements and provisions for fiat executive powers. His demonstrated hostility for individual rights and private property is arguably more deep-seated than was FDR’s, whose grasp of the Constitutional limits placed on the executive and legislative branches of government was as blithely disjointed as is Obama’s.

The key to understanding the machinations of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their allies in Congress is to grasp this: No one can express, as they have, such vehement ignorance without knowing full well what it is they are ignorant of.

It is time Americans called their bluff, as they may well do in the 2010 mid-term elections, or in manners reminiscent of the Tea Parties of 2009, or of the Minute Men of 1775.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 0 Comments

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed To Be Tried In Open Court in New York

from The Last Crusade h/t Michael Travis


Constitution Right Granted to Terrorists

No Constitutional Rights For Red-Blooded Americans

Welcome to the Islamic America of Barack Hussein Obama,

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees have been granted full rights and protection under the U.S. Constitution.

They will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official announced today.

Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Mohammed and the other “alleged” terrorists will have the right to a speedy trial, the right to publicly paid counsel, the right to immediate access to all government evidence – - including the most sensitive intelligent files – - that can be used against him, the right to remain silent, the right to obtain witnesses in his favor, the right of protection against self incrimination, and the right to participate in jury selection.

The trial is expected to cost over $100 million and may drag on for many years.

Thanks to President Obama’s decision, Mr. Mohammed will have a platform to reach out to radical Islamists throughout the world to join in the holy war against the United States and the opportunity to disseminate highly confidential government information to every jihadist in creation.

This information is expected to produce a dire impact on the U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and to create a new wave of attacks against the American people.

While Mr. Mohammed has obtained all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen, such rights and privileges are being denied to real red-blooded American citizens.

Dr. Paul L. Williams, noted author and journalist, is now being dragged into a Canadian court of law and stripped of his Constitutional rights for statements he made from his home in Pennsylvania – - statements that are well within the limits of American libel laws.

Williams was quoted as saying: “I want my rights back! Obama has handed them [Constitutional Rights] to an Islamic terrorist.”

Yet neither the American Civil Liberties Union nor the American Center for Law and Justice has come to the defense of Dr. Williams.

By attempting to warn the American people of a terror threat, he is being treated as a terrorist.

And Mr. Mohammed, himself a terrorist, is being treated as a privileged citizen, with rights and status usually reserved for politicians and Wall St. bankers.

Without confirming details of the decision, President Barack Obama said it was a legal and national security matter. “I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subjected to the most exacting demands of justice,” Obama said at a joint news conference in Tokyo with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Bringing Mr. Mohammed and his terrorist friends to U.S. soil to face trial represents a key step in Mr. Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The president initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

It is also a major legal and political test of Obama’s overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama’s agenda.

“This is definitely a seismic shift in how we’re approaching the war on al-Qaida,” said Glenn Sulmasy, a law professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy who has written a book on national security justice. “It’s certainly surprising that the five masterminds, if you will, of the attacks on the United States will be tried in traditional, open federal courts.”

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, that were used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody.

Mr, Mohammed was subjected to water-boarding or simulated drowning 183 times in 2003.

Holder will also announce that five other detainees, including a major suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will face justice before a military commission, the official said.

Attorney General Eric Holder has decided the case of the five Sept. 11 suspects should be handled by prosecutors working in the Southern District of New York, which has held a number of major terrorism trials in recent decades at a courthouse in lower Manhattan, just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers tumbled on Sept. 11, 2001.

Some members of Congress have fought any effort to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial in the United States, saying it would be too dangerous for nearby civilians.

The Obama administration has defended the planned trials, saying many terrorists have been safely tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the United States, including the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef.

Mohammed and the four others — Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali — are accused of orchestrating the attacks that killed 2,973 people on Sept. 11.

Mohammed admitted to interrogators that he was the mastermind of the attacks — he allegedly proposed the concept to Osama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtained funding for the attacks from bin Laden, oversaw the operation and trained the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The charges against the others are as follows:

— Bin Attash, a Yemeni, allegedly ran an al-Qaida training camp in Logar, Afghanistan, where two of the 19 hijackers were trained. Bin Attash is believed to have been bin Laden’s bodyguard. Authorities say bin Laden selected him as a hijacker, but he was prevented from participating when he was briefly detained in Yemen in early 2001.

— Binalshibh, a Yemeni, allegedly helped find flight schools for the hijackers, helped them enter the United States and assisted with financing the operation. He allegedly was selected to be a hijacker and made a “martyr video” in preparation for the operation, but was unable to get a U.S. visa. He also is believed to be a lead operative for a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London’s Heathrow Airport.

— Ali allegedly helped nine of the hijackers travel to the United States and sent them $120,000 for expenses and flight training. He is believed to have served as a key lieutenant to Mohammed in Pakistan. He was born in Pakistan and raised in Kuwait.

— Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, allegedly helped the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler’s checks and credit cards. Al-Hawsawi testified in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he had seen Moussaoui at an al-Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in early 2001, but was never introduced to him or conducted operations with him.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 10 Comments

Pushing Toward The Caliphate

When Moslems know their numbers and power are too small to push harder against a nation's prevailing culture, Moslems blend into the background and cause few problems. When, however, they sense they are getting closer to gaining the upper hand, they act upon their convictions about Islamic supremacism.

From this posting over at Down Under on the Right Side, an Australian-based blog:
A SYDNEY couple has withdrawn their two children from a public primary school, claiming their 11-year-old son was bullied by Muslim students because he ate a salami sandwich during Ramadan. …Mr Grigoriou said he removed his son and a younger child from the school on Tuesday after the boy was punched in the eye and kicked in the legs by a Muslim student. …The Department of Education and Training said it had a zero tolerance policy towards racism.

…Other parents also complained to The Daily Telegraph about bullying at the school and claimed victims received too little protection. One said her 12-year-old son was scared to open his lunch box at school because he was harassed about what is in it. “He has been bullied from day one … about being a Christian and about the hot salami in his lunch,” she said. “My boy has a Greek background … the bullying is extreme. “He has been called a fat pig and hit on the back with a stick.” Another mother said her young son refused to go on school excursions for fear he would be bashed.
MK, the blogmaster at Down Under on the Right Side comments:
...I’d hate to be a the father of those kids and I feel for them, but in a way I’m glad this sort of thing is being reported in the news and people are becoming more aware of it. This is what muslims have been doing all over the world for centuries now, there is no tolerance or acceptance of infidels in muslim lands, but there is no criticism of it and we’re all supposed to sing kumbaya and all cultures are equal and glorious.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 4 Comments

I Know This Has Nothing To Do With The Theme Of IBA

Please read this story.

Any student who uses the word could be suspended from Danvers High School in Massachusetts! Many parents are just fine with the ban on the word "meep," a word popularized by Beaker on The Muppet Show and the cartoon character Road Runner.

Apparently, a biology teacher felt threatened by the word.


You can't make this stuff up.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 4 Comments

A belief in man-made climate change is a 'fundamentalist religion'

So says Prof Ian Plimer, climate change sceptic. In my view his arguments against CO2 being the cause of global warming are the most convincing so far.

1. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on climate above 50 parts per million (ppm).

Prof Plimer rejects the argument that the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from its pre-industrial (1750AD) level of about 270 ppm to today's level of about 380 ppm, has begun to affect the world's change.

In an interview with ABN Newswire in June he said: "Carbon dioxide has an effect on the atmosphere and it has an effect for the first 50 parts per million and once it's done its job then it's finished and you can double it and quadruple it and it has no effect because we've seen that in the geological past, and we've seen it in times gone by when the carbon dioxide content was 100 times the current content. We didn't have runaway global warming, we actually had glaciation."

On Thursday he said: "If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between CO2 and temperature; there is not."

Water vapour is responsible for about 96 per cent of the greenhouse effect, he has argued, a theme consistent among climate change sceptics.

Most climate scientists argue there is a correlation between CO2 and global mean temperatures, pointing to evidence from air trapped deep in the polar ice that gives a snapshot of the atmosphere thousands of years ago.

2. Extraterrestrial events like solar flares have driven major climate change episodes in the geological past

He has said: "It's got nothing to do with the atmosphere, it's about what happens in the galaxy."
Promotional material for his controversial book Heaven + Earth reads: "Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth's orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond."

Most climate change scientists argue that changes in the atmosphere have been fundamental to changing global temperatures throughout the planet's history.

3. Global warming should be welcome because humans 'thrive' in a warmer planet
read more

4. Climate change scientists push global warming theory because it is good for their careers

That sounds about right read more

5. A belief in man-made climate change is a 'fundamentalist religion'

He has described people's belief in anthropogenic climate change as "a fundamentalist religion adopted by urban atheists looking to fill a yawning spiritual gap plaguing the West".

Well. I'll be . . . . didn't we have a court case just a week or so ago when someone won a court case over unfair dismissal on the grounds that his beliefs in global warming etc were his religion?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Ray Boyd at permanent link# 8 Comments

Hey Carlos! You Still Out There?

Rolling Stones
Beast of Burden

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Barney Kessel & Herb Ellis
A Slow Burn

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Feds act to seize skyscraper, 4 mosques


Feds act to seize skyscraper, 4 mosques
Prosecutors say building owners helping to illegally funnel money to Iran
The Associated Press
updated 6:40 p.m. ET, Thurs., Nov . 12, 2009

NEW YORK - Federal prosecutors Thursday took steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a Fifth Avenue skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization long suspected of being secretly controlled by the Iranian government.

In what could prove to be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, prosecutors filed a civil complaint in federal court seeking the forfeiture of more than $500 million in assets of the Alavi Foundation and an alleged front company.

The assets include Islamic centers in New York City, Maryland, California and Houston, more than 100 acres in Virginia, and a 36-story office tower in New York.

Confiscating the properties would be a sharp blow against Iran, which has been accused by the U.S. government of bankrolling terrorism and seeking a nuclear bomb.

A telephone call and e-mail to Iran's U.N. mission seeking comment were not immediately answered.

Religious backlash possible
It is extremely rare for U.S. law enforcement authorities to seize a house of worship, a step fraught with questions about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom are fearful of a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American soldier.

The mosques and the skyscaper will remain open while the forfeiture case works its way through court in what could be a long process. What will happen to them if the government ultimately prevails is unclear. But the government typically sells properties it has seized through forfeiture, and the proceeds are sometimes distributed to crime victims.

There were no raids Thursday as part of the forfeiture action. The government is simply required to post notices of the civil complaint on the property.

Prosecutors said the Alavi Foundation, through a front company known as Assa Corp., illegally funneled millions in rental income back to Iran's state-owned Bank Melli. Bank Melli has been accused by a U.S. Treasury official of providing support for Iran's nuclear program, and it is illegal in the United States to do business with the bank.

The U.S. has long suspected the foundation was an arm of the Iranian government; a 97-page complaint details involvement in foundation business by several top Iranian officials, including the deputy prime minister and ambassadors to the United Nations.

"For two decades, the Alavi Foundation's affairs have been directed by various Iranian officials, including Iranian ambassadors to the United Nations, in violation of a series of American laws," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.

Skyscraper erected under shah
There were no raids Thursday as part of the forfeiture action. The government is simply required to post notices of the civil complaint on the property.

As prosecutors outlined their allegations against Alavi, the Islamic centers and the schools they run carried on with normal activity. The mosques' leaders had no immediate comment.

Parents lined up in their cars to pick up their children at the schools within the Islamic Education Center of Greater Houston and the Islamic Education Center in Rockville, Md. No notices of the forfeiture action were posted at either place as of late Thursday.

At the Islamic Institute of New York, a mosque and school in Queens, two U.S. marshals came to the door and rang the bell repeatedly. The marshals taped a forfeiture notice to the window and left a large document sitting on the ground. After they left a group of men came out of the building and took the document.

The fourth Islamic center marked for seizure is in Carmichael, Calif.

The skyscraper, known as the Piaget building, was erected in the 1970s under the shah of Iran, who was overthrown in 1979. The tenants include law and investment firms and other businesses.

The sleek, modern building, last valued at $570 million to $650 million in 2007, has served as important source of income for the foundation over the past 36 years. The most recent tax records show the foundation earned $4.5 million from rents in 2007.

Rents collected from the building help fund the centers and other ventures, such as sending imprisoned Muslims in the U.S. educational literature. The foundation has also invested in dozens of mosques around the country and supported Iranian academics at prominent universities.

Timing a coincidence?
If federal prosecutors seize the skyscraper, the Alavi Foundation would have almost no way to continue supporting the Islamic centers, which house schools and mosques. That could leave a major void in Shiite communities, and hard feelings toward the FBI.

The forfeiture action comes at a tense moment in U.S.-Iranian relations, with the two sides at odds over Iran's nuclear program and its arrest of three American hikers.

But Michael Rubin, an expert on Iran at the American Enterprise Institute, said the timing of the forfeiture action was probably a coincidence, not an effort to influence Iran on those issues.

"Suspicion about the Alavi Foundation transcends three administrations," Rubin said. "It's taken ages dealing with the nuts and bolts of the investigation. It's not the type of investigation which is part of any larger strategy."

Legal scholars said they know of only a few cases in U.S. history in which law enforcement authorities have seized a house of worship. Marc Stern, a religious-liberty expert with the American Jewish Congress, called such cases extremely rare.

The Alavi Foundation is the successor organization to the Pahlavi Foundation, a nonprofit group used by the shah to advance Iran's charitable interests in America. But authorities said its agenda changed after the fall of the shah.

In 2007, the United States accused Bank Melli of providing services to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and put the bank on its list of companies whose assets must be frozen.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 3 Comments

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Sudbury Shaheed Wants To Go Home and Watch Beheadings

According to WBZ-TV News, (if the link won't work try the WBZ home page) the lawyer for Tarek Mehanna of Sudbury, Massachusetts, who was arrested in October on charges of conspiring to commit jihad, has requested that he be sent home to await trial. Mehanna lives with his parents in an upscale, semi-rural area of Sudbury, about a mile up the road from an Islamic Center of Boston mosque and across the street from a community sports center. Of course, since he is said to enjoy watching beheadings on the internet, he would probably prefer to remain indoors engaged in that and other equally harmless pursuits.

The judge has yet to rule on the request. On the other hand, the nearby town of Chelmsford has banned such overt religious symbols of Christmas as striped candy canes and Santa Claus from its holiday crafts fair. So the dhimmitude is pretty advanced up here in the land of the Minutemen, Lexington, and Concord. Paul Revere is going to have to ride up the road again at 3 a.m., yelling THE EFFING JIHADISTS ARE COMING, YOU MORONS, WAKE UP!!

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by revereridesagain at permanent link# 4 Comments

Example of What Will Happen if We Abandon Afghanistan: One Month Ago US Forces Pulled Out of Nuristan Province, Taliban Now in Full Control and Openly Govern Complete With Sharia Enforcement Units....

Click on the title above to get the whole story over at Weasel Zippers.


Dost Mohammed now rules what was once American-held territory after we withdrew and the Afghan police surrendered without firing a single shot....

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

Forgetting the Cold War’s Heroes

Front Page:

Forgetting the Cold War’s Heroes – by Michael Reagan

This past week I have been in Europe to help commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I went into this trip with a great deal of enthusiasm and an expectation that the heroes responsible for that momentous event be justly recognized. Sadly, I was instead reminded of how much we have willingly forgotten.

Over the past several months, the Reagan Legacy Foundation has been working hard to ensure that Berliners remember the vital role my father played in bringing down the wall and defeating communism. Amazingly, there are no major statues, memorials or tributes to Ronald Reagan — the president, the man who sided with freedom over tyranny. Thankfully, in partnering with the “Checkpoint Charlie” museum, we have now unveiled a Ronald Reagan permanent exhibit to help educate Berliners and their international guests of what would have been an unpardonable omission in modern historical analysis of that period.

During these ceremonies I fully expected the legends of this period to be honored…to at least be mentioned. But over the course of this celebration that included fireworks and a re-enactment of the fall of the wall, I heard nary a mention of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. This was both frustrating and alarming.

One only has to review modern education textbooks to see that this omission is not limited to an important celebration on a cold Berlin night. Rather, it is a trend — a trend that is removing the reference of the great heroes and leaders of the Cold War battle and replacing it with a softer, perhaps less controversial revision.

Last year, a German study revealed how disturbingly little German youths understand about their divided history just a generation back. Two-thirds of the schoolchildren surveyed did not believe East Germans lived under a dictatorship. Nearly as many thought the East German economic system was preferable to West German’s. Communism, preferable?!

When we allow such a travesty, we disregard not only who the heroes were, but that there was ever any need for heroism at all. The Berlin Wall did not simply divide a city. The focus of Monday’s celebrations should have been life and freedom, not unity.

The facts are what they are. We cannot and must not forget that the Soviet Union murdered and oppressed millions of people before, during and after World War II in an effort to conquer more territories, gain more resources and grab more power. And while the world trembled, a select few leaders of that era finally took a stand in defense of freedom-loving people who lived under separate and distinct flags.

Germans are not the only ones who have forgotten. This lazy softening of history is equally a problem in our American classrooms. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, American students test worse in history than they do in any other subject. A survey in 2007 concluded fully a third of 17-year-old American students did not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees our freedoms of religion and speech.

These are the principles our nation’s veterans have fought and died for over the centuries, on our own soil and across an ocean, in places like Germany. These are the principles for which men and women like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher made such courageous stands. This is the bedrock of who are, who we have been, and who we must remain in the future.

Thomas Jefferson told us, “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”

I was proud to stand there and remember the fall of that terrible Wall. But until we remember in full, we leave ourselves open and vulnerable to the seditious creep of socialism, communism, and oppression.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Brigitte Gabriel

The Front Page Mag interview:

Brigitte Gabriel Takes the Gloves Off on Fort Hood and CAIR – by Jamie Glazov

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, founder of the nonprofit organization ACT! for America, and one of the leading terrorism experts in the world. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. She has addressed the Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others. She is the author of the new book, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Gabriel: It’s always a pleasure.

FP: I would like to talk to you today about the petition you are organizing against CAIR. This is part of your battle against Islamic jihad on our territory, which we just saw on horrifying and tragic display at Fort Hood.

What are your thoughts on that jihadi massacre on our own territory? It could have been prevented if it were not for our society’s and citizens’ fear of organizations such as CAIR right?

Gabriel: You have that right Jamie.

The horrific massacre at Ft. Hood has exposed the degree to which political correctness impacts government and military action — and media coverage.

For days immediately after the massacre the media went out of its way blaming every syndrome except radical Islamism on the real reason for Hasan’s actions. Everyone avoided the word Jihad as if it was nuclear. This despite the fact Internet postings in Hasan’s name months earlier compared suicide bombers to heroic soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

The blood of the dead American soldiers is on the hands of the military leaders and personal who kept their mouths shot about Hasan, just as it is on his hands.

Here’s the disturbing question that needs to be asked: Could this act of terrorism have been prevented had there not been such a politically correct reluctance to act on what was known about Hasan?

Imagine if the Army had acted. It’s easy to envision the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) indignantly blasting the Army with statements alleging “discrimination.”

Yet if the Army or law enforcement authorities had stepped in, taken action months ago, and brushed aside the typical and predictable rants from groups like CAIR, is it possible that twelve dead soldiers and one dead police officer would be alive today?

Why are so many in government and the military apparently afraid of “offending” a group like CAIR, which deserves to be investigated for its many questionable activities and ties to terrorists, not accommodated?

But in the aftermath of this terrorist act, too few in the media or government have been willing to call it that. There has been a desperate search for another motive, the most common focusing on his mental state.

FP: Give us an example of this political correctness in the media.

Gabriel: Edina Lekovic, communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), appeared on Fox News just the other day. Lekovic was unequivocal in her remarks, claiming Hasan was “clearly disturbed” and comparing him to the killers at Virginia Tech and Columbine.

Remarkably, only a minute or so after making this unsubstantiated claim as if it were fact, when asked about any possible connection to Islam, she warned we must not “rush to judgment.”

But isn’t that precisely what Lekovic did when she asserted Hasan was “clearly disturbed?” Is she a psychiatrist? Did she examine him?

Of course not. What qualifies Lekovic to assert Hasan was like the Columbine killers? Nothing.
She did exactly what she is warning others not to. She “rushed to judgment.” And while anyone who is contending that this massacre has all the earmarks of a terrorist attack is challenged, no one on the Fox News program challenged Lekovic’s unverifiable claim.

Why not? Political correctness?

More political correctness. Prior to killing 13 people on Thursday, Hasan gave away furniture and Korans, a telltale sign of a jihadist preparing for martyrdom.

So how does a Washington Post story characterize Hasan’s giving furniture away? As an act of kindness.

But the tide may be turning. Facts are stubborn things. There are just too many signs that Hasan was in fact a radical Muslim bent on jihad. Too many signs to be ignored.

ABC News the other day ran a headline asking if the Army missed signs that Hasan was an Islamic extremist.

On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol referred to an AP story that quoted colleagues of Hasan at Walter Reed Hospital who admitted they did not report his suspicious actions due to fear of appearing to be discriminatory toward Muslims.

It may well be determined that Hasan had emotional problems. It may also turn out that he didn’t.

But as Brit Hume stated on Fox News Sunday, even if Hasan had emotional or psychological issues, the facts clearly point to the conclusion that Hasan was a radical Islamist who acted on his beliefs.

FP: So let’s talk about the petition you are organizing, calling for an investigation against CAIR.

Gabriel: Jamie, as you and I’m sure most of your readers know, CAIR has hit some pretty rough patches the past year. In addition to being named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, the FBI cut official ties to CAIR due to its ties to Hamas.

Now, thanks to the new blockbuster book Muslim Mafia it’s clear that not only were these actions against CAIR justified, but that more investigation of CAIR is desperately needed.

This is why ACT! for America has launched a national petition calling for a government investigation of CAIR. I urge everyone reading this article to please join us in signing this petition at ActforAmerica.org and become a voice affecting your community and our nation.

Based on a daring months-long undercover operation, Muslim Mafia contains stunning allegations that reveal just how far CAIR has gone in compromising our national security. CAIR cultivated moles inside a Washington-area law enforcement agency, which resulted in a county police officer searching a classified police database and then tipping off a fellow Muslim who had been under surveillance as a terrorist suspect.

CAIR has been fighting back desperately, and there has been a virtual major media blackout of Muslim Mafia thus far. The grassroots voice of America needs to speak out and demand that the government launch an investigation of CAIR. At the very least it appears that CAIR is violating its non-profit tax status. This is why, in the first step of our campaign to demand an investigation of CAIR’s actions, ACT! for America has launched this new petition. We can read articles, we can get educated but unless we take action nothing is going to change. This is why I am urging people to speak with a loud collective voice to our elected officials through signing our petition at ActforAmerica.org to investigate an organization with shady founders and associates whom have been convicted on terror related charges.

CAIR is hoping that this dust storm will settle and they can sweep everything under the rug. We can’t let this happen. We need to send a very strong message to our elected officials and to CAIR that the American public is alive and well and will not put up with traitors operating in our midst wishing to do us harm. If our elected officials are not going to see the light, we are going to make them feel the heat and get their attention regarding this matter.

FP: CAIR has filed suit against the David Gaubatz, one of the Muslim Mafia authors. What do you think about this?

Gabriel: CAIR’s lawsuit is noteworthy on two fronts. First, CAIR filed the suit without any press fanfare. This is out of character for CAIR. They normally try to get press attention for anything they do. In this case it appears CAIR does not want any attention drawn to the book.

Second, the suit does not dispute the revelations in the book nor does it allege defamation by the authors.

It seems to me that CAIR is going to do everything it can to sweep this under the rug. This is one reason why ACT! for America launched its petition, calling for a government investigation of CAIR. I urge your readers to log on to ActforAmerica.org and add their names to this petition.

FP: Let’s conclude why Muslim groups like CAIR get away with all of this behaviour on our territory.

Gabriel: Like I’ve discussed in this interview Jamie, it’s political correctness and fear. Too many in the media are so indoctrinated in a “blame America first” mentality that they turn a blind eye to real and serious threats to our nation. Too many in our government are more concerned about being called an “Islamophobe” than taking the steps necessary to protect us. And the Fort hood Massacre is the result.

Groups like CAIR exploit this fear in our country, immediately using the propaganda technique of name calling to disparage any critic of radical Islam. How much evidence do those in government and the media need about CAIR to acknowledge, even grudgingly, that this organization and its ties to terrorism is a threat to America?

It’s clear to me the grassroots of America are going to have to rise up and demand that our government do what’s necessary to protect us.

FP: Brigitte Gabriel, thank you for joining us and thank you for your fight for America.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

When Mike and Siraj Met

Bloomberg was the LESSER of two evils???

New York Post:

1993 WTC 'plotter' and Mike meet

Last Updated: 11:08 AM, November 12, 2009

Posted: 3:27 AM, November 12, 2009

A controversial imam who was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was among a group of Muslim leaders invited yesterday to a meeting with Mayor Bloomberg at City Hall.

Siraj Wahhaj has defended the convicted WTC bomb plotters, called the FBI and CIA the "real terrorists," and said he hopes all Americans eventually become Muslim.

He was among religious and civic leaders who met with Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to discuss the deadly Fort Hood shooting spree.

Wahhaj was one of 170 people identified in 1995 as unindicted co-conspirators in the attack two years earlier. He has denied any involvement.

Wahhaj said Bloomberg invited him to the roundtable and shook his hand when he entered the meeting room, which was closed to reporters.

"I think that if the mayor had any discomfort he would not have invited me," said Wahhaj, an imam at Masjid Al-Taqwa in Brooklyn.

Bloomberg, however, initially claimed not to know Wahhaj was there.

As he was leaving, a Channel 2 reporter asked the mayor if he was uncomfortable about Wahhaj's presence.

"I don't know. He's not here," the mayor responded. When told that Wahhaj was in fact in the meeting, Bloomberg reversed course.

"That one. Yes. We have to talk to everybody," he said. "That's what dialogue is all about. That's how you prevent tragedies."

Bloomberg's spokesman Stu Loeser later said it was aides, not the mayor himself, who invited Wahhaj and the others.

Wahhaj's name was omitted from a guest list given to the press after photographers were invited in to take pictures.

Loeser said the list was intended to identify those at the meeting and Wahhaj arrived late, which is why his name was not on it.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 3 Comments

Obama Dithers, Troops Die


Obama Rejects Afghanistan Options
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:55 PM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's thinking.

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan prefers, according to military and other officials.

The key sticking points appear to be timelines and mounting questions about the credibility of the Afghan government.

Administration officials said Wednesday that Obama wants to make it clear that the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan is not open-ended. The war is now in its ninth year and is claiming U.S. lives at a record pace as military leaders say the Taliban has the upper hand in many parts of the country.

Eikenberry, the top U.S. envoy to Kabul, is a prominent voice among those advising Obama, and his sharp dissent is sure to affect the equation. He retired from the Army this year to become one of the few generals in American history to switch directly from soldier to diplomat, and he himself is a recent, former commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Eikenberry's cables raise deep concern about the viability of the Karzai government, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with them who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified documents. Other administration officials raised the same misgivings in describing Obama's hesitancy to accept any of the options before him in their current form.

The options presented to Obama by his war council will now be amended.

Military officials say one approach is a compromise battle plan that would add 30,000 or more U.S. forces atop a record 68,000 in the country now. They described it as "half and half," meaning half fighting and half training and holding ground so the Afghans can regroup.

The White House says Obama has not made a final choice, though military and other officials have said he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than the war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wants at the outset.

Among the options for Obama would be ways to phase in additional troops, perhaps eventually equaling McChrystal's full request, based on security or other conditions in Afghanistan and in response to pending decisions on troops levels by some U.S. allies fighting in Afghanistan.

The White House has chafed under criticism from Republicans and some outside critics that Obama is dragging his feet to make a decision.

Obama's top military advisers have said they are comfortable with the pace of the process, and senior military officials have pointed out that the president still has time since no additional forces could begin flowing into Afghanistan until early next year.

Under the scenario featuring about 30,000 more troops, that number most likely would be assembled from three Army brigades and a Marine Corps contingent, plus a new headquarters operation that would be staffed by 7,000 or more troops, a senior military official said. There would be a heavy emphasis on the training of Afghan forces, and the reinforcements Obama sends could include thousands of U.S. military trainers.

Another official stressed that Obama is considering a range of possibilities for the military expansion and that his eventual decision will cover changes in U.S. approach beyond the addition of troops. The stepped-up training and partnership operation with Afghan forces would be part of that effort, the official said, although expansion of a better-trained Afghan force long has been part of the U.S objective and the key to an eventual U.S. and allied exit from the country.

With the Taliban-led insurgency expanding in size and ability, U.S. military strategy already has shifted to focus on heading off the fighters and protecting Afghan civilians. The evolving U.S. policy, already remapped early in Obama's tenure, increasingly acknowledges that the insurgency can be blunted but not defeated outright by force.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments



From The Guardian:

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

But, the truth is, the United States has five times more oil than Saudi Arabia,

and we keep finding more all the time,

and this is because oil is a naturally-occurring substance produced by the Earth.

Why do leftists love to spin Peak Oil fantasies? Probably because Green is the new Red. Probably because if they can convince us that oil is an energy resource limited in supply and dangerous to our environment, they can then intimidate us into believing that we can not continue to expand our economies, we can not continue to grow, and we can not continue to produce human beings.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the Individual. The Left is at war with the Individual, and that is manifested in the fact that the Left wants less Individual human beings on Earth.
Hence all these Armageddon-fantasies about the limitations of the Earth to supply human beings with what they need.

As Reagan said,
“There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.”

Whatever we believe, we can achieve. We can solve any problem that comes our way. That is the optimism of the Right. History has born out that lesson.

But, for Leftists, the fantasy of History they spin is one of lack: Lack of resources, lack of money, and ultimately, lack of Individuality.

We must all share, because there is a lack. We must collectivize our resources, because there is a lack. We must have fewer babies, because there is a lack.

We must Euthanize the old and infirm, because there is a lack.

The Left is mesmerized by fantasies of lack. The Left is mesmerized by Death and destruction.

The Left is hypnotized by Thanatos:

The Greek poet Hesiod established in his Theogony that Thánatos is a son of Nyx (Night) and Erebos (Darkness) and twin of Hypnos (Sleep).

"And there the children of dark Night have their dwellings, Sleep and Death, awful gods. The glowing Sun never looks upon them with his beams, neither as he goes up into heaven, nor as he comes down from heaven. And the former of them roams peacefully over the earth and the sea's broad back and is kindly to men; but the other has a heart of iron, and his spirit within him is pitiless as bronze: whomsoever of men he has once seized he holds fast: and he is hateful even to the deathless gods." [1]

Homer also confirmed Hypnos and Thanatos as twin brothers in his epic poem, the Iliad, where they were charged by Zeus via Apollo with the swift delivery of the slain hero Sarpedon to his homeland of Lykia.

"Then (Apollon) gave him (Sarpedon) into the charge of swift messengers to carry him, of Hypnos and Thanatos, who are twin brothers, and these two presently laid him down within the rich countryside of broad Lycia." [2]
Counted among Thanatos' siblings were other negative personifications such as Geras (Old Age), Oizys (Suffering), Moros (Doom), Apate (Deception), Momos (Blame), Eris (Strife), Nemesis (Retribution) and even the Acherousian/Stygian boatman Kharon. He was loosely associated with the three Moirai (for Hesiod, also daughters of Night), particularly Atropos, who was a goddess of death in her own right.

Suffering, Doom, Deception, Blame, Strife, and Retribution.

That is a list of the Left's attributes and tactics.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 4 Comments

Check Out This PowerPoint Presentation: "Hasan on Islam"

HERE at the Washington Post. Subscribe to the WaPo web site if necessary so as to view the presentation.

A commenter at Jihad Watch stated as follows:
In it, [Hasan] claims that Koranic verses of abrogation allow for offensive jihad, and that fighting to establish an Islamic state is condoned by Allah.
See Slide 35.

Also note Slide 49:
Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not.
Apparently, Hasan gave more than one such presentation.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 1 Comments

A Reminder: Islam's Deeds On American Soil

Bloviating Zeppelin has posted a list and a link to another list.

Bloviating Zeppelin commented:
Here is the Truth: the Ft Hood terrorist attack was the worst on American soil since 9/11.

And Mr Obama full well knows that any terror attack on American soil during his administration will doom him for a second term. Therefore, it is in his political best interest to craft and shape and mischaracterize any Islamist attack away from that focus and into the "isolated violent act" category with no reference to Islam whatsoever. Hence his current moves.

Those persons who died were disposable -- for Mr Obama's politics. You. Me. We would have been disposable as well. Do you realize how incredibly craven and disgusting that is?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 2 Comments

Achmadinejad to Obama: "Sorry but I need you to bend over further"

'Obama must choose - Israel or Iran'

Nov. 11, 2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the US to choose between Israel and Iran on Tuesday night, according to Iranian state media.

Speaking in Istanbul at the 25th Session of the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation (COMCEC) of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Iranian president said that it was up to US President Barack Obama to realize his motto of "change".

"The support of both Israel and Iran can't go hand in hand," he was quoted as saying by IRNA. "No change is made unless great choices are made.

"We would welcome the changes, and wait for big and correct decisions to be made... We will clasp any hand that is extended sincerely toward us, but changes should be made in practice."

Addressing the same conference a day earlier, Ahmadinejad said that capitalist excesses caused the global economic meltdown and were un-Islamic, as leaders at a Muslim forum touted their religion's banking system a way to revive battered economies.

He also slammed investments that pay interest, deemed usury by Muslims, and said they had contributed to financial and social problems such as homelessness.


"Usury, which is entrenched in the capitalist system, is perhaps the main reason why the system has gone bankrupt," Ahmadinejad said. "It is a way of accumulating capital without working. Usury, according to the Koran, is fighting with Allah."

Maybe this is as hard a test for the American diplomatic system as was Sarah Palin figuring out which Roger Taney decision was more horrific than the rest. OUR SYSTEM MEANS FIGHTING WITH ALLAH. What part of that is not 100% pure Huntington?

Ahmadinejad did not mention Iran's struggling economy, nor did he refer to its dispute with the West over its nuclear activities.

The Islamic forum held its meeting in a plush hotel on the banks of the Bosphorus Strait that divides Istanbul between the Asian and European continents. Syrian President Bashar Assad and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan were also in attendance.

Meanwhile, Iran's defense minister on Wednesday urged Russia to ignore Israeli pressure against selling the S-300 missile defense system to the Islamic Republic.

"We have a contract with Russia to buy S-300 missiles. I don't think it is right for Russia to be seen in the world as a country which does not fulfill its contractual obligations," AFP quoted Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi as telling the IRNA news agency.

"Russia has to fulfill the contract and not be influenced by Zionist pressure," he added.

Russia signed a contract two years ago to sell the S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran but has not made any deliveries or given any explanation for the delay. The United States and Israel strongly oppose the deal because it would significantly boost Iran's air defense capabilities at a time of heightened tension over the country's nuclear program.

On Sunday, a senior Iranian lawmaker warned Russia that its delay in delivering the anti-aircraft missile defense system to Teheran could harm relations between the two countries, state television reported.

"If they do not fulfill their promise, this will be a negative point in relations between the two countries," said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, according to state TV.

The news report quoted Boroujerdi as saying that more delays "will be harmful to Russia since we have many areas of cooperation with them."
"You're dumber than you think I think you are."
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

America vs Islamism - Chinatown

Hasan a psychotic
not an islamist terrorist
on one big team

Allow me, Mr, Gittes to inform you that THEY ARE INDEED, ALL PSYCHOTIC.

And what difference does that make?


Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 3 Comments

We have no idea what we're doing and we're doing better than everyone else - welcome to earth

From Danger Room:

U.S. Nonprofit Screws up Iraq Jobs Program, Now Working on Afghanistan Repeat

Earlier this year, the U.S. Agency for International Development pulled the plug on the Community Stabilization Program, a jobs and public works program for Iraq worth a whopping $644 million.

The program was supposed to keep young (read: fighting-age) men away from the insurgency by putting them to work or enrolling them in vocational programs. But while thousands of Iraqis were paid to pick up trash or paint T-walls, the program was also susceptible to fraud: In a March 2008 audit, the USAID inspector general in Baghdad expressed concern that millions of dollars may have been siphoned off by insurgents.

Which brings us to Afghanistan. International Relief and Development -- the Beltway bandit implementing partner that ran the Community Stabilization Program -- is now busy at work in Afghanistan, overseeing roadbuilding projects and agriculture programs.

Appearing Tuesday at the U.S. Institute of Peace, IRD President and CEO Arthur Keys defended the Community Stabilization Program, saying the reason that the reason the program was so large -- at one point, it had a "burn rate" of around $1 million a day -- was that it was tackling such a big problem. (Other USAID partners declined to bid on the project because of concerns about its enormous scope and worries about accountability.) Keys even has a stockroom full of documents to prove how noble IRD's intentions were.
Executive pay control?
Massive new money infusion?
183 F-22's to replace 751 F-15's?
Diversity over merit?
Equal outcome over equal opportunity?

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts