February 24, 2008
by Jack Kemp:
I now won't buy any unsealed food or drink item from a muslim owned grocery or food cart in NY. Only a muffin sealed in celophane or can of seltzer.
Poisoning the Infidels with Feces in UK and US
by Ayesha Ahmed
14 Feb, 2008
Here is an excellent way to slowly poison infidels and kill them guaranteeing yourself 72 virgins, if you are in Bakery/Restaurant business . All you have to do is to collect feces and mix it with the food you are serving to the infidels. Due to the deadly B-Coli in the feces, the nasty kuffars become sick like a dog. They never know what hit them . Here are two mujahids who had been successfully doing it for a while..
MUSLIM BAKERY SELLS CAKE SPRINKLED WITH FECES TO ENGLISHMEN
Cardiff, U.K., 11th February 2008 (The Opinionator)
Two muslim shop-owners were today fined for selling chocolate cake - which had been sprinkled with human faeces.
A horrified customer ate the foul-smelling gateaux but noticed that it didn't taste or smell "quite right" and handed the cake to public health scientists.
The analysts soon established that the sweet treat was covered in faeces and legal proceedings against the shop owners were started.
Shop owners Saeed Hasmi, 25, and Syed Jan Yadgari, 23, were fined £1,500 for selling food unfit for human consumption.
The pair - who ran the Italiano Pizzeria in Roath, Cardiff - admitted the charge but did not say how the chocolate cake was contaminated.
The takeaway is a favourite with late-night revellers and students living around the takeaway close to Cardiff University.
A spokeswoman for the public health department in Cardiff City Council said: "The person who bought the cake realised it didn't taste or smell quite right so they reported it to us.
"Subsequent examination by the public analyst and national public health service laboratories confirmed the presence of faecal matter.
"There were bits of it all over the top of the cake.
"We cannot say for definite what kind of faecal matter it is, although it is very likely it was human. It would have to go through a DNA test for us to know for absolutely sure."
Hasmi and Yadgari at first denied the charge but pleaded guilty at Cardiff magistrates court before the trial.
Hasmi, of Roath, Cardiff, and Yadgari, of Adamsdown, Cardiff, were each fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £200 costs.
(Hey it is well worth the blessings they got from Allah)
DALLAS MUSLIM MIXES FECES IN PASTRIES
The Dallas Daily News:
"A Dallas jury sentenced Behrouz Nahidmobarekeh to five years for sprinkling his own dried feces on pastries at the Fiesta Mart at Ross and Greenville avenues in East Dallas, the foreman of the jury told The Dallas Morning News that the jury had wanted to punish him especially severely because he "showed no remorse."
(Why will he be remorseful, he was following quranic instructions to kill infidels)
This from the non-politico Jack Kemp (oh, for you Talk Origins people who are pretending not to be here, Jack Kemp is a writer in New York City and regular contributor to this site-NOT the politician who copycated his name. I know you guys have trouble differentiating things like that):
The NY Times executive editor Bill Keller, who defended the John McCain article, not only had an affair, but divorced his wife to marry the woman he got pregnant. That is lot more substantial evidence than the innuendos behind the McCain article.
From New York Magazine, September 11, 2006, "The Unites States of America vs. Bill Keller, by Joe Hagan:
'Moving to New York, Keller wrote one last piece on South Africa, an article for the Times Magazine about Nelson Mandela’s wife, Winnie, in which he cited a book called The Lady: The Life and Times of Winnie Mandela. The following week, the magazine published a letter by the book’s author.
I thoroughly enjoyed Bill Keller’s article ``The Anti-Mandela`` (May 14) and am glad he found my biography of Winnie Mandela useful. I agree with him that the phrase ``a blistering inferno of racial hatred,`` used to describe her childhood, is an overwrought one. However, credit where credit is due. It is not my phrase, it is Winnie’s own.
Emma Gilbey, Sag Harbor, L.I.
After reading the letter, Keller called Gilbey, a British journalist living in New York, and asked her to coffee at the Times cafeteria. Gilbey, at the time, had a reputation as something of a power-dater; her exes included Senator John Kerry and Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour. An affair ensued, which shocked Keller’s friends. ``I felt bad for everyone involved,`` says Stephen Engelberg, a former Times reporter. ``This was not characteristic behavior at all. I wouldn’t pretend to be Bill’s psychologist, but he didn’t get a red sports car, so:
Gilbey offers another explanation, related to Keller’s son. ``After he fell in love with Tom, he was just falling in love all over the place, with chairs and tables, and when he fell in love with me he didn’t know whether this was actually real or whether he actually loved me or was in love with the world. And, so, you know, we sort of thank Tom.``
Two years after they met, Gilbey was pregnant, Keller was divorced from Cooper, and he had a new job as managing editor under Joe Lelyveld.'
February 23, 2008
A big part of the Global Warming debate revolves around climare sensitivity; there are numerous ``feedback loops`` involving aerosol cooling, increases and decreases in atmospheric water vapor, changes in ocean salinity, etc. which are affected by a change in atmospheric CO2, and these feedback mechanisms can accelerate or decelerate the fundamental physical principle involved (greenhouse warming). Roger Revelle stated before he passed away (yes, the guy Al Gore touted so heavily) that he expected a modest 1-2* warming as a result of doubling of CO2, and thought GW was more of a curiosity than a ``planetary emergency``.
That is what makes this post at World Climate Report interesting; a new study suggests Revelle was correct:
However, the fundamental question in the greenhouse debate still comes down largely to a question of climate sensitivity defined as the change in global temperature for change in radiative forcing associated with varying levels of atmospheric CO2. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that the sensitivity is between 0.48 and 1.40 degrees Kelvin (K) per one Watt per square meter (Wm-2) which translates into a global warming of 2.0 K to 4.5 K for a doubling of CO2 concentration (1 degree K equals one degree Celsius which equals 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Rather than turn this into a review of a physics course, what we have is the IPCC predicting global warming of 3.2°F to 7.2°F for a doubling of CO2 concentration. Others have shown in very credible professional journals that there is a 66% chance of the IPCC being right in their estimate this provides the fodder for alarmists to suggest that IPCC acknowledges the possibility of a global warm up of 10°F for a doubling of CO2.
To say the least, these numbers are hotly debated in the climate community. A recent article in Geophysical Research Letters presents an interesting approach to pinning down the critical sensitivity value (K/Wm-2) for elevated levels of CO2. The article is by Petr Chylek and Ulrike Lohmann of New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and Switzerland’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science; funding was provided by the Los Alamos Laboratory. The team decided to re-examine the temperature, CO2, methane, and dust record from the Vostok ice core extracted from a site in Antarctica. Although the core record goes back nearly a half million years, Chylek and Lohmann elected to restrict their primary analysis to the past 42,000 years.
By combining temperatures, carbon dioxide concentrations, methane concentrations and importantly, dust amounts determined from the ice core during the past 42,000 years, the authors were able to derive the climate sensitivity from the combined variations for these factors. One of their largest uncertainties surrounded the dust amounts, and so Chylek and Lohmann turned to a climate model to see if changes in atmospheric dustiness could have the magnitude of the effect on global temperatures (and thus climate sensitivity) that they had determined empirically. The modeled results were consistent with their other calculations, giving them added confidence in their calculations.
The reason they were looking for independent confirmation was that their findings for climate sensitivity were near the low end of the bounding range given by the IPCC and that means they are going to be subject to an endless amount of scrutiny from those folks who want potential global warming to seem as bad as possible.
Assuredly, had Chylek and Lohmann discovered that IPCC was underestimating the climate sensitivity, they would have been a front page news story the world over. Instead, they found that IPCC is likely overestimating the climate sensitivity to CO2, so they were reduced to coverage only at World Climate Report.
Be sure to read the rest of the piece!
This from the Federalist Patriot:
The Associated Press reports, ``University of Oxford researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God.`` Over three years, the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will gather theologians, philosophers, anthropologists and other academics to ``study whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind’s makeup.`` Roger Trigg, acting director of the Center, believes that anthropological and philosophical research indicates that a belief in God is a universal human impulse. We might call that a keen sense of the obvious. Trigg says, ``One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.`` How politically incorrect!
That is exactly right; the burden of proof is on the atheists, who make assertions that are as faith-based as those made by believers, but who do not have the concensus of history on their side. We are told ad-nauseum that such consensus is so vitally important by materialist liberals-Darwin and Anthropogenic Global Warming come to mind, yet we are told that the concensus is superstition when it comes to a belief in an Almighty. If ``concensus`` is good enough to ban Intelligent Design Theory from schools then does that mean we can ban naturalism? There are more people who believe in God than there are biologists who believe in Darwin.
But some materialists swaddle themselves in their intellectual superiority to the great unwashed, and their insistence on naturalistic explanations is designed to elevate their grandiose opinion of their mental prowess, so concensus is good enough to stifle dissent from their views while it is not good enough to rebut their own. See, many believe in the supremacy of human reason-particularly their own, and the idea that Believers have a case as intellectually solid is inconceivable, since THEY are the anointed, those bright stars leading Mankind away from superstititon and ignorance.
The reality is, the nonexistence of God cannot be determined through naturalistic analysis anymore than His existence can. A Transcendent God by definition lies outside of His perceptual Creation, and the creature should not expect to understand the Creator. Not that there isn`t plenty of evidence pointing to that Creator, just that rigourous proof isn`t going to be there either way, and to claim that there is no God is a larger act of faith because there is clearly an inherent spirituality in Man and the belief in God is clearly something inherent in the human condition. All else being equal (and it is) the atheistic position requires more faith-faith in a crazy pointless Universe composed solely of matter and energy yet containing the spark of human thought and human life. If Man could come into existence through purely natural mechanisms in this Universe that are subject to capricious catastrophes and the whims of entropic decay and precarious balances, how can one possibly deny the existence of other entities outside of our temporal existence? Uniqueness has been anathema to modern science. If you believe Man exists, you have to believe in the existence of other beings. If you believe in other beings, the existence of God is not much of a step. HOW DO YOU KNOW there is not God?
``There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.`` Hamlet Act 1, Scene 5
Wise words from Shakespeare.
Here is a terrific analysis of Obamamania by Kathleen Parker courtesy of the Federalist Patriot:
The ecstasy of Barack
Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Reports of women weeping and swooning-even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals)-have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama.
His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. ``We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,`` he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.
Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus.
Well, you don’t see any men fainting in Obi’s presence.
Barack Obama has many appealing qualities, not least his own reluctance to be swaddled in purple. Nothing quite says, ``I’m only human`` like whipping out a hankie and blowing one’s nose in front of 17,000 admirers. The audience’s applause was reportedly awkward, as if the crowd was both approving of anything their savior did, but a little disappointed at this rather ungodly behavior.
So what is the source of this infatuation with Obama? How to explain the hysteria? The religious fervor? The devotion? The weeping and fainting and utter euphoria surrounding a candidate who had the audacity to run for leader of the free world on a platform of mere hope?
If anthropologists made predictions the way meteorologists do, they might have anticipated Obama’s astronomical rise to supernova status in 2008 of the Common Era. Consider the cultural coordinates, and Obama’s intersection with history becomes almost inevitable.
To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans.
All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease’s symptoms all tied to the decline of the family.
That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.
Grown-ups with decades under their double chins may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.
One of Obama’s TV ads, set to rock ‘n’ roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: ``We Can Change The World`` and ``We Can Save The Planet.``
Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope, and hope, he’ll tell you, knows no limits.
It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He’s a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.
But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent-hence thousands of years of religion-but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.
Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals.
And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.
Here’s how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling: ``When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa...``
This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It’s all religion by any other name.
Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa.
by Jack Kemp
If you haven't heard that term, Buppie means Black Urban Upwardly Mobile Professional, in short, a black yuppie. Now not all Buppies share Mrs. Obama's attitude towards America, but it is safe to say that if she didn't attend Harvard and Princeton and marry a Harvard trained attorney, the odds of her making headline news with her remarks would be infinitely small.
The concluding sections of Peggy Noonan's article today in the Wall St. Journal sum up the disconnect between Mrs. Obama and the rest of America, both black and white. Ms. She states:
"His (Obama's) problem was, is, his wife's words, not his, the speech in which she said that for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country, because Obama is winning. She later repeated it, then tried to explain it, saying of course she loves her country. But damage was done. Why? Because her statement focused attention on what I suspect are some basic and elementary questions that were starting to bubble out there anyway.
Here are a few of them.
Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like "international justice" than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?
Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?
Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it's his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America's leaders don't love America tenderly, who will?
And there is a context. So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out. They can see we are giving up our sovereignty, that our leaders will not control our borders, that we don't teach the young the old-fashioned love of America, that the government has taken to itself such power, and made things so complex, and at the end of the day when they count up sales tax, property tax, state tax, federal tax they are paying a lot of money to lose the place they loved.
And if you feel you're losing America, you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?
Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.
That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide. A lot of white working-class Americans didn't come up with those things. Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.
Does Mrs. Obama know this? I don't know. If she does, love and gratitude for the place that tries to give everyone an equal shot would seem to be in order."
END OF QUOTE
One day years ago I was riding the subway to Manhattan when a Nation of Islam advocate (Louis Farrakahn's group), wearing the "uniform" of a suit and a bow tie, approached an older black man and began proselytizing his viewpoint, complete with an anti-semitic remark. The older black man rejected his message with a few well chosen words: "Farrakahn doesn't ride the subway." In one simple but eloquent phrase, he pointed out that he didn't ride in limos and live in a social and intellectual situation divorced from the everyday interactions with the roughly one hundred different ethnic groups that make up New York City - and the world. Mrs. Obama, in this same sense, also does not ride the subway or travel by public transit.
People have compared Michelle Obama's remarks to those of Teresa Heinz Kerry. It is a very appropriate comparison. Teresa said that being a wife and mother wasn't a real job - and Mrs. Obama said that the United States wasn't a real source of pride.
In a general election not limited to the party faithful - or those that live on both coasts - Mrs. Obama's remarks (and I believe she will show her attitude again sometime, just as the NY Times repeatedly shows its attitude) could be worth ten voting percentage points to John McCain.
February 22, 2008
Here`s a piece by Ann Coulter courtesy of Jack Kemp:
HOW TO KEEP REAGAN OUT OF OFFICE
February 20, 2008
Inasmuch as the current presidential election has come down to a choice among hemlock, self-immolation or the traditional gun in the mouth, now is the time for patriotic Americans to review what went wrong and to start planning for 2012.
How did we end up with the mainstream media picking the Republican candidate for president?
It isn't the early primaries, it isn't that we allow Democrats to vote in many of our primaries, and it isn't that the voters are stupid. All of that was true or partially true in 1980 -- and we still got Ronald Reagan.
We didn't get Ronald Reagan this year not just because there's never going to be another Reagan. We will never again get another Reagan because Reagan wouldn't run for office under the current campaign-finance regime.
Three months ago, I was sitting with a half-dozen smart, successful conservatives whose names you know, all griping about this year's cast of presidential candidates. I asked them, one by one: Why don't you run for office?
Of course, none of them would. They are happy, well-adjusted individuals.
Reagan, too, had a happy life and, having had no trouble getting girls in high school, had no burning desire for power. So when the great California businessman Holmes Tuttle and two other principled conservatives approached Reagan about running for office, Reagan said no.
But Tuttle kept after Reagan, asking him not to reject the idea out of hand. He formed "Friends of Reagan" to raise money in case Reagan changed his mind.
He asked Reagan to give his famous "Rendezvous With History" speech at a $1,000-a-plate Republican fundraiser in Los Angeles and then bought airtime for the speech to be broadcast on TV days before the 1964 presidential election.
The epochal broadcast didn't change the election results, but it changed history. That single broadcast brought in nearly $1 million to the Republican Party -- not to mention millions of votes for Goldwater.
After the astonishing response to Reagan's speech and Tuttle's continued entreaties, Reagan finally relented and ran for governor. In 1966, with the help, financial and otherwise, of a handful of self-made conservative businessmen, Reagan walloped incumbent Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, winning 57 percent of the vote in a state with two Democrats for every Republican.
The rest is history -- among the brightest spots in all of world history.
None of that could happen today. (The following analysis uses federal campaign-finance laws rather than California campaign-finance laws because the laws are basically the same, and I am not going to hire a campaign-finance lawyer in order to write this column.)
If Tuttle found Ronald Reagan today, he couldn't form "Friends of Reagan" to raise money for a possible run -- at least not without hiring a battery of campaign-finance lawyers and guaranteeing himself a lawsuit by government bureaucrats. He'd also have to abandon his friendship with Reagan to avoid the perception of "coordination."
Tuttle couldn't hold a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for Reagan -- at least in today's dollars. That would be a $6,496.94-a-plate dinner (using the consumer price index) or a $19,883.51-a-plate dinner (using the relative share of GDP). The limit on individual contributions to a candidate is $2,300.
Reagan's "Rendezvous With History" speech would never have been broadcast on TV -- unless Tuttle owned the TV station. Independent groups are prohibited from broadcasting electioneering ads 60 days before an election.
A handful of conservative businessmen would not be allowed to make large contributions to Reagan's campaign -- they would be restricted to donating only $2,300 per person.
Under today's laws, Tuttle would have had to go to Reagan and say: "We would like you to run for governor. You are limited to raising money $300 at a time (roughly the current limits in 1965 dollars), so you will have to do nothing but hold fundraisers every day of your life for the next five years in order to run in the 1970 gubernatorial election, since there clearly isn't enough time to raise money for the 1966 election."
Also, Tuttle would have to tell Reagan: "We are not allowed to coordinate with you, so you're on your own. But wait -- it gets worse! After five years of attending rubber chicken dinners every single day in order to raise money in tiny increments, you will probably lose the election anyway because campaign-finance laws make it virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent.
"Oh, and one more thing: Did you ever kiss a girl in high school? Not even once? If not, then this plan might appeal to you!"
Obviously, Reagan would have returned to his original answer: No thanks.
Reagan loved giving speeches and taking questions from voters. The one part of campaigning Reagan loathed was raising money. Thanks to our campaign-finance laws, fundraising is the single most important job of a political candidate today.
This is why you will cast your eyes about the nation in vain for another Reagan sitting in any governor's mansion or U.S. Senate seat. Pro-lifers like to ask, "How many Einsteins have we lost to abortion?" I ask: How many Reagans have we lost to campaign-finance reform?
The campaign-finance laws basically restrict choice political jobs, like senator and governor -- and thus president -- to:
(1) Men who were fatties in high school and consequently are willing to submit to the hell of running for office to compensate for their unhappy adolescences -- like Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich. (Somewhere in this great land of ours, even as we speak, the next Bill Clinton is waddling back to the cafeteria service line asking for seconds.)
(2) Billionaires and near-billionaires -- like Jon Corzine, Steve Forbes, Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney -- who can fund their own campaigns (these aren't necessarily sociopaths, but it certainly limits the pool of candidates).
(3) Celebrities and name-brand candidates -- like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Bush, Giuliani and Hillary Clinton (which explains the nation's apparent adoration for Bushes and Clintons -- they've got name recognition, a valuable commodity amidst totalitarian restrictions on free speech).
(4) Mainstream media-anointed candidates, like John McCain and B. Hussein Obama.
What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny -- almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)
By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media -- which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.
It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.
You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.more...
Roger Pielke Sr. is as mainstream a climate scientist as can be found-and he can, in no way, be accused of being in the pocket of Exxon-Mobile. But what happens when he bucks the Climate Alarmist agenda?
One of the readers of Climate Science (Fergus Brown), in response to the questions that have been raised by the weblog (and elsewhere) wanted to poll the climate community to ascertain their views on the IPCC WG1 report. The article that we completed on this subject, under his leadership, is given in its entirety later in this weblog. However, a brief history as to why we are publishing as a weblog and not in another venue is discussed below.
After the survey was completed last summer and the article written, it was submitted to the AGU publication EOS as a Forum piece. The EOS description of a Forum is that it
``contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in our fields especially scientific controversies, the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization. Commentary solely on the science reported in research journals is not appropriate.``
Our article certainly fits this description. However, after 4 months without a decision, our contribution was summarily rejected by Fred Spilhous without review. He said our article did not fit EOS policy. We disagreed, of course, based on the explicit EOS policy given above, but our follow request for an appeal was ignored.
We then submitted to Nature Precedings where their policy states
``Nature Precedings is a place for researchers to share pre-publication research, unpublished manuscripts, presentations, posters, white papers, technical papers, supplementary findings, and other scientific documents. Submissions are screened by our professional curation team for relevance and quality, but are not subjected to peer review. We welcome high-quality contributions from biology, medicine (except clinical trials), chemistry and the earth sciences.``
Our article was quickly rejected without explanation.
From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.
In short, science has been hijacked by those with an activist political/philosophical agenda. Serious, mainstream science will be suppressed if it does not fit the template of those who want to push for radical changes in the way we do things.
Also at Climate Science, Dr. Pielke directs our attention to a piece in the U.K. Standard which blames Global Warming for the cool winter we are having, an assertion which elicits the following comment from the good doctor:
``You have got to be kidding!... I could not believe it was serious when I first read it, but regretfully (and inaccurately) it is.``
the piece is entitled ``Global warming blamed for unusual cold spell`` and is written by Nishika Patel.
Heads they win, tails we lose!
Jack Kemp (the unpolitician) makes an interesting observation:
``As a result of reaction to the John McCain story, the NY Times stock suffered a loss yesterday of $1.38 a share or 6.55 percent. I believe 6.66 percent would have been more fitting. It's shares, which had been rising lately to over $20 closed last night at $19.69. An appropriate number because the Times management is stuck in a 1960s mentality.``
February 21, 2008
A new study suggests that the Arctic-at least the Tornetrask area in Sweden-is not exceptionally warm.
Håkan Grudd of Stockholm University recently studied tree rings and wood density in Scotch Pines found in this sub-Arctic region.
According to the researchers:
``The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraäsk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.`` (emphasis added)
Grudd`s study showed a temperature increase of -0.3, or, in other words, a DROP in temperature in that region over the last 1,500 years!
Maybe a little Global Warming is a good thing!
Readers of this website know that we scout out the territory where others will follow, and the successful destruction of our orbital satellite proves yet again that Birdblog gets there first.
Tom Joseph posted this piece on February 15, and only now are the implications sinking in. Even the Russians and Chinese did not fully grasp exactly what it was we were doing, and certainly the mainstream media was in the dark.
according to Tom`s piece:
``The big point in all this is not the satellite's decaying orbit, not the decision to blow it up while it's still in space, but the method of destroying the satellite. They are going to fire a "modified tactical missile" from a Naval vessel. There are a lot of different satellites in orbit, but the one thing they all have in common is the fact that they all have to pass over international waters.
There is a message in the method. If China ever tries to get cute with some of our satellites, we can send them back in time to the Marconi days by destroying any or all of their satellites with missiles launched from ships all over the world.
The media's PAC-Man military geniuses haven't gotten this point yet, but I doubt the Chinese have missed it.
Cats shouldn't try to play with tigers because they'll get eaten alive.
As Tom pointed out to me in an e-mail:
``Frankly, the minute the Pentagon announced it, I was pretty sure they knew it would be a case of mission accomplished. The interesting thing is that the satellite was traveling faster than a nuclear tipped missile would. So, if the Russians are working on faster missiles to penetrate our missile shield, their plans are now ka - putin.``
It should also be pointed out that Tom understood that Iranian missile tests were a not so veiled threat
and that this little display we put on with our own satellite should disabuse our Shiite friends in Medeo-Persia that their new toys are dandy if used against neighboring shepherds and subsistance farmers, but cannot be used against the technological might of the United States.
So, Kudos to Tom Joseph! Remember, you read it here first!
February 20, 2008
People are wondering about Barack Obama`s campaign staff flying Che Guevera flags; wonder no longer! It turns out Obama has some friendly relations with the Red side:
Obama’s Communist Mentor
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 18, 2008
Is ``coalition politics`` at work in Obama’s rise to power?
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.
Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a "Global Poverty Act" designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won't find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama's most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as "left-leaning."
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about "a poet named Frank," who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of "hard-earned knowledge" and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had "some modest notoriety once," was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..." but was now "pushing eighty." He writes about "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self" giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.
This "Frank" is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis's career, and notes, "In Davis's case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership." Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That's not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who "Frank" was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson," came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man's mentor, influencing Obama's sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."
It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the "First International." According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, "It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure..."
Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis "was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]-if not a member..."
In addition to Tidwell's book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis's Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was "deeply troubled" by the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw "Frank" only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college "An advanced degree in compromise" and warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit." Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of "trying to force African feet into European shoes," Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama's giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. "At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack's memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis' equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I'm sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside," he said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the "Frank" in Obama's book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought "an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world" and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a "socialist realist" who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record "and see if I could do something for them." The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson's contacts were "passed on" to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis "espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics."
Is "coalition politics" at work in Obama's rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses.
"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."
Let's challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?
a hearty spasebo to our tovarisch Jack Kemp for forwarding this for our consideration.
February 19, 2008
This from Contributor Jack Kemp (the unpolitician):
Yesterday I walked into a health food store and was given a free copy of a hardcover book, "Perfect Weight" by bestselling health author Jordan Rubin. Trying to take my mind off of politics for a moment (ha, fat chance) and reading page one, Mr. Rubin visited the Mayor of Toledo, Carty Finkbeiner, in September 2007 concerning the city's poor men's health standing. Yes, this is same mayor who recently, canceled the US Marines urban patrol exercises.
Carty Finkbeiner was served as mayor twice, from 1994 until 2000, when term limits stopped him from running for a third consecutive term. After fellow Democrat Jack Ford served one term, Finkbeiner defeated him in a primary and won the general mayoral election in November 2005.
It seems that Mayor Finkbeiner - and Jack Ford - have presided over what became in 2007, according to Men's Health Magazine, the 98th worst city for men's health in America. Men's Health also found that Toledo has a very low ratio of gyms to bars. If that weren't enough, Toledo has the highest adult smoking rate in the country, 31 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Carty Finkbeiner was served as mayor twice, from 1994 until 2000, when term limits stopped him from running for a third consecutive term. After fellow Democrat Jack Ford served one term, Finkbeiner defeated him in a primary and won the general mayoral election in November 2005.
Mayor Finkbeiner himself has had quadruple bypass surgery and was open to a meeting with a health book guru starting a national health campaign (www.perfectweightamerica.com) because he concluded a fitter Toledo would drive down the health insurance rate and sick day statistics for Fortune 500 companies considering whether to move to Toledo. In chapter 13, Rubin reported favorable weight loss for 126 Toledo residents participating in his program. In a city of 313,000 (2000 Census figure), that is nice - but small - start. A health insurance industry employee Rubin met on his return visit to Toledo told him that Toledo health care costs per employee were double the national average at $15,000 per Toledoan.
Well, it was a small start to upgrade Toledo's image. But stress from the backlash to Toledo's insult to the US Marines can also cause a lot of overeating and excess drinking. Perhaps the Mayor should try "The United States Marine Corps Workout" book. http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Marine-Workout-Revised/dp/1578261589/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203344238&sr=1-1
I hear the Marines are really good at getting people into shape.
Whether one likes or despises cigarette smoking, regulation of it by the government should be a disturbing thing; smoking cannot be tied to any basic right, and it cannot be said to violate any Constitutional provision. The best we have gotten is the assertion of ``second hand smoke`` as a health issue, and, quite frankly, there has never been much to make this case. Certainly, people have known about the health problems caused by smoking for centuries and tobacco has been despised by people since Europeans first acquired the habit, but there was never any suggestion that exhaled smoke caused health problems in bystanders. It took modernity and the ``study syndrome`` to hatch this particular egg, and that only after the surgeon-general`s campaign to eradicate tobacco use failed. People would not quit of their own accord, so a mechanism to force them to quit was in order. Tobacco has been vilified to the point where marijuana or hashish is more socially acceptable. Does that make any sense?
The application of the force of law to impose someone`s personal likes or viewpoints is the hallmark of the dictatorship. (As Jonah Goldberg points out in his book ``Liberal Fascism`` the Nazis had a very similar crusade against tobacco and alcohol.) Is tobacco offensive? Many would agree with that statement. Should we campaign against it? No problem there. Should the State enter into this? Are you NUTS!
If the camel`s nose enters the tent the entire beast is sure to follow, and our allowing the strict regulation (nee, strangulation) of the tobacco industry and the subsequent legally-sanctioned discrimination against smokers (strange, that particular behavior is officially discouraged while homosexuality, say, cannot be commented on, despite being far more unhealthy) has opened our legal and social tent flaps, paving the way for much greater legal strongarming ``for our own good``.
Ah, there`s the rub; it won`t stop with tobacco.
This from the incomparable Walter Williams via the Federalist:
``Anti-tobacco zealots don’t have a monopoly on tyrannical designs. There are those who wish to control what we eat, and the successful attack on smokers has provided a template for their agenda... Here’s the Mississippi Legislature House Bill 282,... that in part reads: ‘An Act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the Department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act.’ The bill proposes to revoke licenses of food establishments that violate the provisions of the act. You shouldn’t believe that if this measure is successful in Mississippi that it will stay in Mississippi. Moreover, it will be expanded upon because most people who are obese don’t become so by eating at restaurants; mostly, it’s food eaten at home. Thus, the food tyrants won’t be satisfied with restaurant restrictions, just as the anti-tobacco zealots weren’t satisfied with warning labels on cigarettes. They will push for legislation restricting the sale of foods at supermarkets. Since an obese person can get a svelte person to do his grocery shopping for him, legislators might propose sting operations to fine or arrest people giving an obese person high-calorie food... Americans turning away from rule of law and constitutional government are following in the footsteps of other people around the world who discovered their liberties gone and recovering them was next to impossible. But, what the heck. You might be among those Americans who don’t smoke and are not obese, so why sweat it?``
Tyrannts always do things for our own good, and the social welfare is always the reason given to us when we are asked to surrender our basic freedoms. Smoking was the test case, along with alcohol. Now we have fattening foods. Eventually, all manner of human activity will be taken over by our loving father in Washington. You drive too much; you will be legally penalized so as to encourage a healthier lifestyle and less CO2 ``pollution``. You spend to much time on the internet, so you will be penalized to make you get some exercise outside. You are using too much heating energy so we`ll regulate your thermostat (oh, wait, they tried that in California).
How long before they chose your profession, your spouse, your clothes, your music, your literature? Tyranny doesn`t come from great floods but from small drips.
Our pipes have a steady leak.
For more on this topic read my essay Where`s the Beef which first appeared in July of 2007 at the American Thinker.
February 18, 2008
Our regular contributor Jack Kemp (not the politician of the same name) has his piece ``NY Times, Tell it to the Marines`` at Intellectual Conservative today.
This piece first appeared at the New Birdblog on January 20; once again our regular readers are on the cutting edge!
Another outstanding article by Jack!
Here is an interesting little plan that may be in the works:
Armstrong Williams says at Townhall.com:
"The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory."
Thanks to contributor Jack Kemp!
by Jack Kemp (not the politician):
The New York Post reports this weekend that:
"Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly underrecorded in several districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said yesterday.
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the board said.
In some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even closer to defeating Hillary Clinton."
"Initial results in the 94th, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for Hillary Clinton, but the recount changed the tally to 261-136."
END OF QUOTE:
Reallly? Sen. Obama got thirty-four percent of the votes in the largely black district in Harlem? I guess that speech Hillary made with the fake accent in that Southern black church, about her being 'in no ways tired," really did the trick.
A few years ago, Al Gore claimed that the Republicans wanted to count blacks in the US Census as "three fifths of a man." It seems to me that counting three fifths of a man, while unjust, is a lot better than black voters were given credit for in the New York Democratic primary on Super Tuesday.
When the Democrats say they are the "party of the little man," the appear to mean a man so little he can't be counted.
OBAMA GOT 'ROBBED' OF NY VOTES
By GINGER ADAMS OTIS
February 17, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly underrecorded in several districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said yesterday.
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the board said.
In some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even closer to defeating Hillary Clinton.
Initial results in the 94th, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for Hillary Clinton, but the recount changed the tally to 261-136.
As yet, none of the results have been certified, but a ballot-by-ballot canvassing of all voting machines has begun, a board spokesperson said. Many of the mistakes were chalked up to human error -- and some Clinton tallies were wrong as well. In several congressional districts she was shown as having received zero votes when in fact she got hundreds, Boe said.
Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron called the understated figures "outrageous."
"I think this is an all-out effort to stop a campaign that is about to make history and render America's first black president," he said. "We need some kind of independent or federal agency to investigate this."
February 16, 2008
There is a lesson to be drawn from history, and a comparative analysis of success and failure can often illuminate how best to deal with a given problem. This is especially true in warfare, where tactics must be adjusted by where an overarching understanding of military strategy will act as a guide to the nuts-and-bolts of prosecuting a war.
Michael Totten has a piece at Contentions, the blog site for Commentary Magazine, comparing and contrasting the efforts of American Commander David Patraeus in Iraq with those of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Lebanon. Totten`s thesis is, essentially, that Patraeus` call for a troop surge was not a call for more troops but more troops with a new strategy-embedding with the populace to protect, defend, and befriend, while Olmert`s Lebanese counterinsurgency was nothing more than bombings and long-range warfare, and that Barack Obama, the peace candidate for the American Presidency, would give us more of Olmert`s failed policy of fortress-warming and long-range warfare.
He`s right; the Surge has worked because we have aggressively gone after the enemy, went hunting for them rather than giving them the initiative. George Patton once said that fixed fortifications are a monument to stupidity, and what he meant was that they ultimately fail because the enemy can choose the time and manner of his assaults, while the defenders are stuck in a reactive mode. Consider the Japanese during WWII; they built heavy battleworks on many Pacific islands, and the U.S. simply passed those fortifications and attacked at weak spots. We were mobile-they weren`t! The ``light footprint`` advocated by Rumsfeld was intended to avoid irritating locals, but it left them undefended, at the mercy of Al-Qaeda. We ended up reacting to their war plan. The Surge meant they had to hide, had to react to OUR war plan.
Look, terrorism is a kind of hybrid between war and crime, and you do not hunt criminals from inside a police station. The most powerful crime prevention technique is the beat cop, the guy who walks the streets, saying hello to the neighbors and listening to them. Yes, he is more vulnerable to attack, but he is right there when he is needed. A crime-infested neighborhood will get much worse if the public does not feel confident that they can defend themselves from the criminals. Police hiding in their station-or in their patrol cars-does not give people the confidence needed to fight the criminals; they can be bullied into passively (or actively) assisting the bad guys.
Bombing works to degrade a nation`s infrastructure, and as such is useful against a classic enemy. Factories, munitions plants, communications centers can be destroyed, thus making it impossible for an enemy to conduct a war, but it does little against an asymmetric enemy, one who hides in schools, churches, one who plots to use children, the disabled, the elderly as shields and tools. Bombs and missiles are merely a means to an end, but that end must ultimately be achieved by mortal men going into the strongholds of the enemy.
This is especially true today, since we do not want to take the steps needed to crush the enemy. Terrorists are not acting in isolation; they need supplies, weapons, materials, money, intelligence. These things are being supplied by the cowardly states such as Iran and Syria who use asymmetric warfare to advance their national ambitions. We KNOW this to be the case, yet are afraid to take the fight to the source. America finally decided to do just that when we invaded Iraq, but many want to return our heads to the sand, to remove our toe from the Middle-Eastern waters as if we were deciding to end a vacation. The astonishing foolishness of this view-they aren`t going to let us simply quit fighting-is espoused by the entire Democrat Party and especially by Barack Obama, and believed by many disengaged Americans.
Obama will bring a terrorist attack on the American homeland, one likely to be nuclear. The Democrats in Congress have been, through their quasi-treasonous behavior (they know better; they`ve seen the intelligence) helping our enemies advance on us in a multiplicity of ways; they have restrained actions against Iran, which has been working dilligently to develop nuclear capabilities as well as ICBM technology and is skulking around in Latin America, they were happy to allow the Clinton Administration to sell technical secrets to the Chinese (Loral Aerospace) for campaign contributions, they have insisted on keeping our southern border open to anyone who wants to stroll right in. Their determination to oppose the President on any issue (if the man said good morning they would hold a press conference to call him a liar) has made us vulnerable at a time of great danger. We need unity, but the ``loyal opposition`` has been horribly disloyal because they were shut out of power and their most ferocious efforts in 2000 failed. Barack Obama, by giving us an Olmert-style military strategy (or lack therof) will snatch defeat out of the jaws of Iraqi victory, and plunge the world into war.
Why liberals are too stupid to understand that war comes from weakness, that a failure to deal with a military problem resolutely leads to a far worse situation down the road, is a subject for another essay. Suffice it to say that Obama thinks that the accolades he receives on the campaign trail will translate into bonhommie among our enemies, and that he can reason with them, offer them lollipops, and we`ll all become great friends. His is a childish vision of the world, a vision where everybody is inherently good and OUR bellicosity is the cause of the troubles we face. If we all make nice, learn to play well with others, we can move boldly into a future of hope.
History is littered with the bodies of those who believed such childishness-and with the bodies of those compelled to follow their policies. We are blithely skipping into a gaping maw.
Hat tip; Abe Greenwald
R. Emmett Tyrrell discusses the Archbishop of Canterbury`s insane suggestion that Sharia be imposed on England:
The Archbishop Goes Muslim
by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.
Islam has a new convert. Some will be surprised, but I am not. The newest convert to the religion of the unshaven face is Archbishop Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams has been the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church in the U.K. However, after his Feb. 7 interview on the BBC, I think we all can agree that he is not so much a spiritual leader as a spiritual capitulator.
In his wonderfully wooly-headed interview, derived from a public lecture delivered by him at the Royal Courts of Justice, Williams called on his countrymen to arrive at "constructive accommodation" with Shariah, which is Islamic law. According to his calculations, the inclusion of Shariah into the British code of law is "unavoidable." Thus if you are visiting London in the future and you appear in a British court, do not be surprised if it is presided over by a smiling mullah. Actually, it is not clear what Rowan knows about Shariah law, and in his BBC interview, he admitted: "I'm no expert on this." Nonetheless, he is calling for the institutionalization of Islam into at least some areas of his country's legal code.
Doubtless soon the forward-looking archbishop will be seen lugging a prayer rug over to his local mosque at the appointed hours -- his wife, veiled and obedient, in tow. Shariah law can be pretty demanding.
In some countries where this legal code -- first formulated sometime in the seventh century -- is followed, it enjoins, among other atrocities, the stoning of adulterers, the amputation of body parts, and a kind of female subjugation unimaginable to even the most ardent Western male chauvinist pig. By the way, Shariah law even takes into consideration pigs, as well as mortgages, couture and the care of household pets, which are discouraged. As for pigs, they are considered "unclean." In most countries where Shariah law rules, a ham on rye is malum prohibitum -- pardon my Latin. As I say, Shariah law can be pretty demanding.
This brings me to a matter that Islam's most recent celebrity convert seems not to understand. Shariah law is socially, politically and legally all-embracing. It is not simply a religious faith, as various forms of Christianity are. It is a polity. As Peter G. Riddell, a theologian at the Kairos Journal, wrote in response to Williams on the Web site of The American Spectator, Shariah law "is a system that insists on society's compliance in every sector of human activity: legal, religious, economic, political, and social. Although Muslims may disagree on how to implement Islam as the total package, they do not disagree that Islam is much more than just a private expression of religious belief." So, Dr. Williams, you have had your last ham sandwich, and forget the pigs' knuckles. They are completely off the menu.
At the outset of this column, I mentioned that I am not surprised by the spiritual capitulation of the leader of the Church of England. Since the 1930s, many in the church's leadership have been classic appeasers. They appeased the fascists. Why would we not expect them to appease religious fascists? It is true that as World War II recedes into the mists of time, almost all big-hearted progressives or liberals (or whatever self-congratulatory term they apply to themselves) denounce Nazism and fascism with the utmost ardor. Yet when these odious movements were on the rise, many among the British elite cautioned prudence in dealing with them; and some actually admired them, including members of the royal family and, of course, clerics in the Anglican Church.
The recent inclination of people such as Williams to appease anti-democratic concoctions such as Shariah law might move the real defenders of democracy among us to contemplate what causes this appeasement. It is not tolerance. Williams would not tolerate most forms of bigotry, yet he tolerates the religious bigotry and authoritarianism of Shariah. Why? It is because he is, as were his antecedents who appeased Hitler, a coward. He is afraid of rousing himself from the comforts of his London manse to oppose even those who hate him. He calculates that someone else will do the job or that the threat will subside. Yet there is, I suspect, another more subtle cause for his appeasement.
The "bien pensant" of Williams' variety have lived in a self-contained society for the morally superior for several generations. They do not like their fellow countrymen who are not a part of that society. In a word, they do not like conservatives and others who, like conservatives, resist threats to Britain. We have the same sort of appeasers here. In both countries, these self-regarding poseurs would rather proclaim tolerance toward those who hate our countries than work with the rest of us to defend our way of life. Have a lovely time at the mosque, archbishop.
From Human Events
You can read my thoughts on the matter [link=R. Emmett Tyrrell discusses the Archbishop of Canterbury`s insane suggestion that Sharia be imposed on England:
An addendum from my brother Brian:
Many years ago Crane Brinton argued that "revolution" began with a series of non-revolutionary acts and that the most important of these things was the defection of the intellectual and cultural leaders of a society. These types, the supposed anchors of any culture, giving up on that culture, makes the society ripe for the taking. Britain is following the Byzantines in losing herself in decadence while the ominous Islamic tide is rising around her. To use a more modern metaphor, Britain is the "Titanic", Islam is the iceberg, and the Muslims are the waters rising while the good ship sinks and ultimately founders!
38 queries taking 0.0222 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.