August 09, 2014

Egyptian court dissolves the Muslim Brotherhood's political party

Dana Mathewson

Oh, boy! President Obama's gonna be very, very upset by this, mark my words!

In an AP post from Cairo: Egypt's highest administrative court dissolved Saturday the political party of the banned Muslim Brotherhood and ordered its assets liquidated, in the latest move against the 86-year old Islamist group.

The decision against the Freedom and Justice Party comes ahead of parliamentary elections expected this year and prevents the group from trying to rejoin politics a year after leading member, President Mohammed Morsi, was overthrown by the military.

The party was founded in 2011 by the Brotherhood, Egypt's historic Islamist movement created in 1928, after President Hosni Mubarak was deposed in a popular uprising and it went on to dominate subsequent legislative elections.

The Middle East News Agency said the decision by the Supreme Administrative Court is final and can't be appealed.

In a statement, the Freedom and Justice Party said the dissolution won't succeed in uprooting the group's ideals.

"We affirm that while the military coup, the counterrevolution judiciary may be able to dissolve the party, they will not be able to dissolve its principals or besiege its civilized peaceful thought," he said.

Civilized, peaceful thought, eh? It's obvious that words mean different things to different people. Even their name for themselves is pretty "out there," if you ask me. But these days, marketing is everything. Look how our Democratic Party presents itself.


The government declared the Brotherhood a terrorist group late last year, accusing it of orchestrating a wave of violence to destabilize the country after the military overthrew Morsi in July. Militant attacks against the police and military have surged since his ouster.

The Brotherhood denies it has adopted violence as a tactic, saying the government is scapegoating the group, Egypt's strongest and oldest political organization that once had large network of social programs that mostly targeted the poor.

After coming to power, however, the group faced public anger over what critics said were its attempt to monopolize power, enshrine Islamic laws in the country's legislation and allying with more radical Islamist groups.

Since Morsi's ouster, the group has kept up its protests against the government, though they have been decreasing in size amid the security crackdown. Morsi himself is in jail facing a slew of charges, including conspiring with foreign groups to destabilize Egypt.

Nice folks. Glad they aren't in my neighborhood! I wish the Egyptians well in their attempts to get these vermin under control!

The entire article is here:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 4 kb.

Michelle Obama Rants and Raves

Timothy Birdnow

Michelle Obama went on a rant at the US-Africa Leadership Summit, claiming Women are smarter than men and that nobody cares what her children had for lunch.

First, one must question Madam O's assertion that women are smarter than men. The rise of homo sapiens stems from superior intelligence, not from superior physical atrributes. The human species ascended based on our superior brainpower, and whereas most predators were better than their prey in terms of physical attributes - stronger, faster, sharper claws, better senses - humanity rose because we could figure our ways around our competitor's abilities. A deer is faster than a man, but is not faster than a spear and definitely not faster than an arrow. Wolves are faster then men and have sharper claws, but are slower than arrows and their claws aren't as sharp as a spear blade or knife, and the man has the longer reach with these weapons. A wild boar has sharp tusks but a man has sharper snares and whatnot.

It was what Man devised using his brain that mattered.

So, if intelligence has always been the key to the success of homo sapiens, why have women always been subjegated by men? Their superior intelligence seems to have been quite ineffectual.

Oh I understand; the men could use the tools and had superior physical prowess. And older tools required greater physical strength than the modern technological miracles, but what of that? Surely women, with their greater social abilities, for instance, could band together to overwhelm the more solitary males who may seek dominance. Part of the success of the male hunters was in tribal co-operation. Could not primative women have done likewise?

What Shelley fails to understand is that MEN voluntarily ceded power to women, and the feminist movement was successful as an indulgence by men, not through the greater brainpower of women.

Technology made it possible for women to be as productive as men, and this allowed women to ask for more and higher status. Of course, being a mother was and is the highest of social callings, one that men simply cannot compete at, but many women wanted the "exciting" life led by working men (who wanted OUT of their workaday life through most of history.) So, to indulge women like Michelle Obama, men acquiesced.

This is a strange sort of superior intelligence, unless one argues it was a deep, dark plan of the women all along.

One need but look at science and other intellectual pursuits to see the follow of such a claim; men dominate in almost all fields and always have. Yes, women are getting into the game late, but still, if women are smarter than men there would be few male names on scientific papers or whatnot. That this is not so puts the lie to Shelley's ridiculous little "joke".

Onto the latter; why is Michelle Obama talking about her daughter's lunches?

Because children are taking pictures of the lunches SHE promotes and the public is appalled. She is making school children eat rabbit food, only less than most hares get to enjoy.

Shelley doesn't want the public to know (typical leftist technique) and so she says nobody cares what they eat. Yet she clearly does.

Why would anyone mention this at a summitt with African leaders, anyway?

No wonder nobody has any respect for America anymore.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Foreign or Domestic Missions?

Timothy Birdnow

Ann Coulter is a bomb thrower, and I am often quite disgusted with her because I suspect she acts not so much from principle as from self promotiion, but she has an incisive mind and is often correct. Recently Coulter started a firestorm by criticizing the Missionaries who came down with Ebola for being in Africa and not caring for the people back home and many good conservatives became quite wroth with her. But many agree with her, too. Here is one such.

I have been staying out of this because I can see both sides, and I do not like to get into internal struggles between people who should be fighting the Enemy rather than each-other. We have better things to do than rearrange deck chairs on the HMS Titanic. Still, this is an issue that bears thinking about, so I shall wade into it here.

This is the oldest battle in Christianity. When Paul of Tarsis began his mission to the Gentiles he caused a rift between himself and that greatest of the Apostles, Simon called Peter, the Rock upon which Christ said He would build His Church. Peter believed in first converting the Jews; he was a Jew himself, after all, an observant one, and he remembered Jesus had said:

"21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

Mt 21-24

And yet Jesus helped the woman anyway. He also helped a Roman soldier, and a Samaritan woman. Indeed, He never shirked from helping any in need, and admonished that all people are neighbors and brothers.

So Paul carried the Good News to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. Paul was successful in spreading Christianity, Peter not so much. Had Peter's view prevailed Christianity would have been just one Judaic sect that withered away.

That said, things do not always remain the same, and where the Holy Spirit led the Church outward early on it may require a more Cephatic approach now. (Cephas was the alternate name for Peter.)

America is no longer a Christian nation, but a secular one. The long march of Progressivism through our institutions has resulted in a land of lost souls, a post-Christian nation devoted to pleasure and material wealth. It is as Paul wrote:

"3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to all men."

End excerpt.

This litany of evil sounds amazingly like modern America, and yet we have few missionaries in this country. One must ask if it is prudent to export Christianity when it is in the process of dying at home.

Let me first state that missionary work is important. The Church and the Gospel cannot spread without the missions, and that spread is not to advance political power or monetary gain (which is often the ostensible goal of many who promote the missions) but to SAVE SOULS. Jesus didn't care how many people followed him except in his quest to save them. Christianity is a spiritual exercise, a mission to promote an eternal benefit on the missionarized. Food, clean water, clothes, literacy are but tools, means to that end. Christians believe it is better to be filthy, ignorant, starving, poor, and sick than to be a king, nay an emperor, and lose one's soul. The soul is immortal, and the ultimate destination is what is important, not the temporary housing it resides in on this Earth. Of course, to accomplish this task one must feed and clothe and house and care for the physical needs of the people, and Christian charity has always been an important role in the missions. Jesus fed the crowd with four loaves of bread and a few fish, and this proved his understanding of meeting the physical needs of the people. But those people had remained until it was too late to go home for supper because they were being nourished spiritually, and they did not wish to leave even then, so Jesus fed them physically. The feeding was not the important part; it was the spiritual education they were receiving that mattered.

At this point there is far greater danger of losing souls in America than in Africa; America has succumbed to the temptations of the flesh, and Americans are busy throwing away their souls for the pleasures of this world and the pride of life. The greater danger is now here, not there.

It is understandable why people participate in the foreign missions; it is exciting, offering a chance to travel and see exotic places. It gives the missionary a wonderful feeling of accomplishment, as he can actually see the fruits of his efforts whereas an American mission may feel quite futile. It also provides a sense of unity with two thousand years of Christianity, the endless going out to the wilderness. I do not begrudge anyone who feels a calling for foreign missions. Our friend and contributor to the Aviary Mark Musser is one such, a missionary to Ukraine. Dr. Musser certainly feels the calling of the Holy Spirit and I am not going to slight him in the least for obeying the requests of the Most High. I believe there is important work to be done abroad.

But I fear that the lure of foreign missions may lead to a certain neglect of our own country. And those who are tasked with shepherding our people have been seduced by tax exemptions, by a desire to accomodate the world, by a fear of losing any more contributions from the collection plate. Never do Catholic priests speak of Hell any longer, nor do they speak of Catholic doctrine - such as the prohibition against homosexuality, or against fornication, or against any of the popular sins of the moment. Instead they talk a happy kindergarten Christianity where we just need to be a little nicer to each-other. It is a content-free message, one that is approved of by the Progessives and our government.

In the Revelation to John Christ gives this letter to the Church at Laodicea:

14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.

19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”


Indeed, this was the last letter to the Seven Churches in the Book of Revelation. Theologians believe the letters represent eras of the Church, and Laodicea represents the last, worst era. What I see in Catholic churches seems to bear this out; there is no fire, no zeal, nor is there any understanding of WHY we are there. It is a place neither hot nor cold, one suffering spiritual blindness and impoverished spiritually. I see no better in most of the Protestant denominations.

America is in serious need of a revival, yet so many of our truly zealous are in the oversees missions. We need more laborers in our own vineyard.

Again, I do not arrogate to myself the right to judge the calling of others, but I ernestly hope that those who have the gifts of the Holy Spirit would consider the crucial work here at home. It's part of what I have tried to do with this website and with my published writing. I know the thankless nature of it, too.

But then Jesus would get down over the apparent lack of success He had from time to time. We must remember that God works in mysterious ways, and what is hidden may be far greater than what we see.

So to all of you missionaries, Godspeed. Just please remember that there is important work here at home.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1702 words, total size 10 kb.

Pro-gun kid's book becomes bestseller

Jack Kemp forwards this:

Pro-gun children’s book rockets up bestseller list after Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert mock it
Thursday, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:04 PM EST

What happens when Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert mock a children’s book focused on gun safety? It becomes an international bestseller, of course. On Thursday’s Glenn Beck Program, Glenn spoke to authors and Michigan Open Carry, Inc. co-founders Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew about their overnight sensation, My Parents Open Carry.

"They have played Santa Claus and ‘Book Jesus’ for you guys,” Glenn said to Jeffs and Nephew of Maher and Colbert. "They really worked miracles for this book.”
Ironically, the My Parents Open Carry is not actually a new book. Jeffs and Nephew explained they came up with the idea for the book a few years ago, and it was published soon after. It had remained relatively under the radar until Maher stumbled across it last week and chose to highlight it on his HBO program Real Time with Bill Maher. Colbert followed suit, and the rest is history.
"It’s been out for a few years,” Jeffs said. "But since that Bill Maher and Colbert thing, we’re getting interviews around the world. I mean, Germany, Australia, China ran a story on it.”
The book, which offers a day in the life of 13-year-old Brenna Strong as she travels with her parent’s who "lawfully open carry handguns for self-defense,” has rocketed up the Amazon bestseller list. My Parents Open Carry is now number one on the ‘Children’s Government Books’ list and comes in at number 414 for all books on Amazon.
As Glenn explained, the content of the book is quite detailed. Jeffs and Nephew said they recommend it for ages 12 and up – though they have heard from parents who have read the book to children as young as 5.
"Nobody is too young to learn about the Second Amendment, and rights, and self defense,” Jeffs said.
Ultimately, through the book and their non-profit – Michigan Open Carry, Inc. – the men hope to "bring gun ownership out of the closet” and educate people on the realities of open carry.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

By Selwyn Duke

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. "Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an  HYPERLINK "" article about how some young libertarians dubbed the "Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that "social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?
Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

Second, there is no never-land in reality. People in the ’50s would have said that homosexuality will "never” be accepted in the US. And Bill O’Reilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I don’t use the term "gay marriage”) would "never” be accepted in America. Sometimes "never” lasts only a decade or two.

Third, my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about  HYPERLINK "" here, there now is a movement afoot — one that has received "unbiased” mainstream-media news coverage — to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover, it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby, with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are "born that way” and have a " HYPERLINK "" deep-rooted predisposition that does not change,” a film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as "the love that dare not speak its name” and activists saying that lust for children is "normative” and those acting on it are unjustly "demonized.” Why, one Los Angeles Times  HYPERLINK "" article quoted a featured pedophile as saying, "These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed. But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.” My, where have we heard that before?

So, modern millie, as we venture further down the rabbit hole, know that one day you may be among "these people,” these intolerant folks who just can’t understand why "social issues” should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.

I should also point out that a movement  HYPERLINK "" advancing bestiality has also  HYPERLINK "" reared its head, using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.

Of course, I’m sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey, my goat, my choice, right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia, saying that, well, if a child agrees, who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues, as revolting and emotionally charged as they are, are just examples. There are a multitude of others, and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.

After all, what are "social issues”? What are we actually talking about? We’re speaking of moral issues, which, again, thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof — every one.
Eyes may be rolling again, but let’s analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom, stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now, stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless we’re sociopathic, like Aleister Crowley believe "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right, there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe it’s wrong or mandate something because we believe it’s a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all, would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasn’t wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasn’t a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous — genuine tyranny.

There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned, such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isn’t so obvious, such as with speed laws: they’re justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.

Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made, and, were it not for this belief, the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed "war on women”: the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.

Some will now protest, saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree, but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality — it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong, in which case it is merely the imposition of values, which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values, but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality, in Moral Truth, which is objective, that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isn’t the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or, worse still, the imposition of immorality.

So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead, as with those who sloppily bemoan all "judgment,” they’re attacked with a flawed argument, the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would "impose morality.” But what we call "social conservatives” aren’t distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you, modern millie, is that they care about the social issues that society, often tendentiously, currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment. But rest assured that, one day, the moment and "never” will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.

HYPERLINK ""Contact Selwyn Duke, HYPERLINK ""follow him on Twitter or log on to HYPERLINK "

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1229 words, total size 8 kb.

August 08, 2014

In Defense of High Prices

Wil Wirtanen

Here is a defense of higher prices.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:40 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Ann Coulter Nails It!

Jack Kemp
Ebola Doc's Condition Downgraded to 'Idiotic'
Ann Coulter | Aug 06, 2014

I wonder how the Ebola doctor feels now that his humanitarian trip has cost a Christian charity much more than any services he rendered.
What was the point?
Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did in Liberia has now been overwhelmed by the more than $2 million already paid by the Christian charities Samaritan's Purse and SIM USA just to fly him and his nurse home in separate Gulfstream jets, specially equipped with medical tents, and to care for them at one of America's premier hospitals. (This trip may be the first real-world demonstration of the economics of Obamacare.)
There's little danger of an Ebola plague breaking loose from the treatment of these two Americans at the Emory University Hospital. But why do we have to deal with this at all?
Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa? The very first "risk factor" listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola -- an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate -- is: "Travel to Africa."
Can't anyone serve Christ in America anymore?
No -- because we're doing just fine. America, the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, is merely in a pitched battle for its soul.
About 15,000 people are murdered in the U.S. every year. More than 38,000 die of drug overdoses, half of them from prescription drugs. More than 40 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Despite the runaway success of "midnight basketball," a healthy chunk of those children go on to murder other children, rape grandmothers, bury little girls alive -- and then eat a sandwich. A power-mad president has thrown approximately 10 percent of all Americans off their health insurance -- the rest of you to come! All our elite cultural institutions laugh at virginity and celebrate promiscuity.
So no, there's nothing for a Christian to do here.
If Dr. Brantly had practiced at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles and turned one single Hollywood power-broker to Christ, he would have done more good for the entire world than anything he could accomplish in a century spent in Liberia. Ebola kills only the body; the virus of spiritual bankruptcy and moral decadence spread by so many Hollywood movies infects the world.
If he had provided health care for the uninsured editors, writers, videographers and pundits in Gotham and managed to open one set of eyes, he would have done more good than marinating himself in medieval diseases of the Third World.
Of course, if Brantly had evangelized in New York City or Los Angeles, The New York Times would get upset and accuse him of anti-Semitism, until he swore -- as the pope did -- that you don't have to be a Christian to go to heaven. Evangelize in Liberia, and the Times' Nicholas Kristof will be totally impressed.
Which explains why American Christians go on "mission trips" to disease-ridden cesspools. They're tired of fighting the culture war in the U.S., tired of being called homophobes, racists, sexists and bigots. So they slink off to Third World countries, away from American culture to do good works, forgetting that the first rule of life on a riverbank is that any good that one attempts downstream is quickly overtaken by what happens upstream.
America is the most consequential nation on Earth, and in desperate need of God at the moment. If America falls, it will be a thousand years of darkness for the entire planet.
Not only that, but it's our country. Your country is like your family. We're supposed to take care of our own first. The same Bible that commands us to "go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel" also says: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'"
Right there in Texas, near where Dr. Brantly left his wife and children to fly to Liberia and get Ebola, is one of the poorest counties in the nation, Zavala County -- where he wouldn't have risked making his wife a widow and his children fatherless.
But serving the needy in some deadbeat town in Texas wouldn't have been "heroic." We wouldn't hear all the superlatives about Dr. Brantly's "unusual drive to help the less fortunate" or his membership in the "Gold Humanism Honor Society." Leaving his family behind in Texas to help the poor 6,000 miles away -- that's the ticket.
Today's Christians are aces at sacrifice, amazing at serving others, but strangely timid for people who have been given eternal life. They need to buck up, serve their own country, and remind themselves every day of Christ's words: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."
There may be no reason for panic about the Ebola doctor, but there is reason for annoyance at Christian narcissism.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 5 kb.

The hidden “persuaders” of the environmentalist elite

Paul Driessen

We can scarcely imagine the countless ways the ultra-rich Big Green / Big Government movement acts in consort to control our lives – at the behest of the 0.01% of uber-elites ... and at the expense of the 99% of American taxpayers, consumers, workers and citizens. Even worse, just when we think we are beginning to grasp the enormity of the problem, another report emerges to demonstrate that we still don’t know the half of it, or even the fiftieth. In this article, Washington Examiner columnist and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise executive vice president Ron Arnold exposes still more of the dirty little secrets these would-be global dictators strive so mightily to keep hidden.


The hidden "persuaders” of the environmentalist elite

These left-wing billionaires direct and control the environmentalist movement – and your lives

Ron Arnold, Washington Examiner columnist

America’s Big Green environmental agenda is set by elite foundations that decide which activists get the money. They form "affinity groups” to collude with President Obama’s bureaucracy, which funnels tax dollars to Democratic advocates to enforce that agenda.

And they don’t just attempt to develop public policy and persuade Americans to adopt them. They find numerous ways to impose those policies on us – without our advice or consent, and despite the harm they inflict on our economy, national security, jobs, living standards or well-being.

Meet the conservation cash cartel of the uber-rich: the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a veteran organization (founded in 1985) of more than 200 ultra-wealthy foundations now caught in the spotlight of a new 92-page US Senate report exposing Big Green wealth eating away America’s industrial strength.

This is the same EGA that emerged as an issue during Senate confirmation hearings for Rhea Sun Suh, the Interior Department’s new head of national parks and the Fish and Wildlife Service – and a veteran EGA member who invited colleagues to come visit her at Interior any time.

Suh once worked for the Packard Foundation on programs to block oil and gas production in the western United States. Ironically, Packard’s investment portfolio – the profits from which the foundation pays its anti-oil and gas grants – holds more than $350,000 in ExxonMobil shares, and millions in dozens of other lesser-known fossil fuel securities.

Most of the EGA’s foundation members have similar million-dollar dirty little secrets. But of course their tax-exempt activist recipients are not morally conflicted by taking fossil fuel cash and keeping it a secret – as long as the loot furthers their corrosive goals of reducing America’s hydrocarbon use and economic power, and regardless of the impacts their policies inflict on the jobs, living standards, health and welfare of poor, elderly, blue-collar and minority families.

The classic unintentional self-parody displayed by Greenpeace, for example, is fascinating to watch, as it concocts convoluted "ethical” explanations for why its oil-soaked funding is purified by the "lofty” save-the-planet intent of its donors, whenever the funding is exposed.

The new report is titled "The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.” It was produced by the Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under the direction of Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, the committee’s ranking minority member.

Its executive summary states, "an elite group of left-wing millionaires and billionaires, which this report refers to as the ‘Billionaire’s Club,’ directs and controls the far-left environmental movement, which in turn controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Having researched over $80 billion in green grants during the past few decades, I was impressed by the scope and detail of the oversight team’s work, and asked Vitter how he felt about it.

"This report really gets to the core of tracking the money and exposing the collusion,” Vitter told me. "The complicated, layered system is intended to create a lack of transparency. There is an unbelievable amount of money behind the environmental movement, and far too much collusion between far-left environmental groups and the Obama EPA.”

The collusion is like something out of a bad spy movie. For example, Vitter’s oversight team uncovered a June 2009 deal in which the Rockefeller Family Fund offered then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson money to pay for a plant inside the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, to "stake the EPA’s claim there,” and then slip the shill into a pre-arranged EPA job, giving the agency a White House insider on staff –while not coincidentally tightening the Rockefeller Fund’s power grip over the EPA.

Jackson wrote to her chief of staff Diane Thompson, "I think it’s a fine idea and can only help EPA in the long run.”Jackson then used her fake Richard Windsor email account to send the note, in an attempt to prevent exposure of her unethical shenanigans. Thompson replied, "My thoughts exactly. The more inside connections, the better.”

The Rockefeller shill was Shalini Vajjhala, who agreed to leave her minor position at the Washington think tank Resources for the Future for a two-month stint at the CEQ, holding the pretentious title of "deputy associate director for energy and climate.” The EPA then slipped her in as deputy assistant administrator of its Office of International & Tribal Affairs. Vajjhala remained there until her 2011 appointment as EPA’s special representative leading a presidential US-Brazil initiative.

After Vajjhala cycled through the White House and EPA, she got her personal reward in 2012: approval to found and manage a new investment portfolio supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. (This is the original 1913 John D. Rockefeller philanthropy, not the fourth generation’s Family Fund. There are many Rockefeller tentacles, which makes all of this even more confusing.) Vajjhala now contributes to the Huffington Post, funded in part by the wealthy Park Foundation.

EGA foundations are metastasizing into hundreds of far-left funds. The report drills into one of them, the Sea Change Foundation, "a private California foundation, which relies on funding from undisclosed donors and funnels tens of millions of dollars to other foundations and prominent environmental activists who strive to control both policy and politics.”

There is an incredible seedbed of Sea Change front groups. Bill Gates’ foundation gave Sea Change Capital Partners $2.5 million. eBay’s Omidyar Network Fund gave the same partners $2 million. David Rockefeller’s personal foundation gave loads of cash to the Center for Sea Change. Wal-Mart’s foundation gave $500,000 to Strategies for the Global Foundation Sea Change, an international tentacle into the White House.

But it’s not just the environment. The Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit that tracks gun control activists, reported: "On January 8, 2013, the Obama Administration met with 23 large foundations to organize a push for national gun control. They included such organizations as the Open Society Institute, the McCormick Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation” and the MacArthur Foundation.

Foundations appear to be colluding with almost every Executive Branch department in the Obama administration. And it’s not just the Big Green donors. It’s all kinds of left-wing activists and bureaucrats who want to control our lives, liberties and living standards – with no accountability for mistakes they make, intentional harm and emotional distress they intentionally inflict, or damage they cause to millions of American businesses, families and communities.

It’s time for Congress to hear testimony from some of the manipulative foundation program directors and investment managers, as they try to explain their actions to those whose lives they have wrecked and destroyed.


Ron Arnold, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. A version of this article originally appeared in the Examiner. More of his articles can be found at

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:39 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1291 words, total size 9 kb.

August 07, 2014

The Russians are Coming - in Bombers!

Timothy Birdnow

Russia has been indulging in a stealth campaign of violating U.S. airspace for the last two years.

According to Pravda:

"The invasion started roughly 2 years ago, and is a "very slow sort of invasion," a spokesman for the Pentagon announced. The invasion began, when two well made Russian aircraft landed in the United States loaded with food and supplies, as a relief effort from hurricane "Sandy" which hit the east coast of the United States during the late hurricane season. An actual photograph, of the curious Russian made aircraft above, is shown actually landing on the tarmac in the United States.

The spokesman for the Department of Defense stated that they were "surprised" that the Russians actually "had" such well made aircraft, and hoped that the aircraft would return to Russia safely. Meanwhile the United States Air force reported that the Russian aircraft were actually "tracked" by NORAD and they did indeed return to Russian soil at an undisclosed location.

Army Military Intelligence reported that once the food and supplies were "offloaded" from the Russian aircraft, it has disappeared. It was speculated that the food and supplies were sold on the black market. The army spokesman said, "The labels on the can food, written in Russian, may have been "more valuable" as souvenirs, to American citizens than American can food labels. When New York residents were asked what happened to the food and supplies they replied, "They did not recall."

End excerpt.

So the Russians have been quietly probing our defenses for two years. And now...

According to Bill Gertz:

"Russian strategic nuclear bombers conducted at least 16 incursions into northwestern U.S. air defense identification zones over the past 10 days, an unusually sharp increase in aerial penetrations, according to U.S. defense officials.

The numerous flight encounters by Tu-95 Russian Bear H bombers prompted the scrambling of U.S. jet fighters on several occasions, and come amid heightened U.S.-Russia tensions over Ukraine. Also, during one bomber incursion near Alaska, a Russian intelligence-gathering jet was detected along with the bombers'


This is the "greater flexibility" promised to Vlad by Barack Obama. The Russians aren't coming here out of love, yet still Obama does nothing.

What does this mean? It means the Russians can strike us with impugnity with non-nuclear weapons.

Gee, I feel better!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

Sunspots and Climate Change

Timothy Birdnow

Well, well, well; seems the Sun has more to do with the warming climate than we thought.

From the article:

According to Usoskin et al. (2014), the Sun "shows strong variability in its magnetic activity, from Grand minima to Grand maxima, but the nature of the variability is not fully understood, mostly because of the insufficient length of the directly observed solar activity records and of uncertainties related to long-term reconstructions." Now, however, in an attempt to overcome such uncertainties, in a Letter to the Editor published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. "present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity" covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them "to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail."

What was learned
As illustrated in the figure below, the authors report there is "remarkable agreement" among the overlapping years of their reconstruction (solid black line) and the number of sunspots recorded from direct observations since 1610 (red line). Their reconstruction of solar activity also displays several "distinct features," including several "well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD," as well as "the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009)," which they describe as "a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia."

Figure 1. Reconstructed decadal average of sunspot numbers for the period 1150 BC-1950 AD (black line). The 95% confidence interval is shown by the gray shading and directly measured sunspot numbers are shown in red. The horizontal dashed lines demark the bounds of the three suggested modes (Grand Minimum, Regular, and Grand Maximum) as defined by Usoskin et al.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 3 kb.

Social Justice for African Ebola Patients!

Wat Pho and the Reclining Buddha

Timothy Birdnow

Charles Hurt calls for implementation of the BLEED Act, to bring every Ebola patient from Africa to the U.S. for treatment.

Of course he's right; how dare we live here in comfort and security while poor black Africans die horribly? This is not fair and in the interest of social justice and equality we must take action, must spread the suffering so we are all equal.

Might I suggest we house them in San Francisco? Nancy Pelosi is always speaking about San Francisco values, and SF is clearly capable of dealing with infectious diseases. I would suggest the Presidio be turned into a giant Ebola hospital.

San Francisco is known for her famous Golden Gate Bridge, and perhaps it's time to add a new monument to the SF skyline; if New York has the Statue of Liberty San Fran could have the Statue of Fever. Build a four hundred foot tall statue of a prostrate woman bleeding from here orifaces. It could be like the reclining Buddha, giving it an international flair. Think of the publicity that would generate! Imagine the tourism dollars that Frisco will receive!

If America wants the world's tired and poor, why not her sick? Why stop with Ebola; we could bring in those with typhoid, cholera, Lasso, tuberculosis. Oh, wait, they're coming up from old Mexico...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 3 kb.

Why the Liberals Hate Israel

Timothy Birdnow

There is much discussion these days of why the Media and liberals in general are so anti-Israel. It should be obvious to any casual but attentive observer that the media has a bias in favor of the Muslims and in opposition to Israel. Stories about the Gaza war have headlines like "Israel Resumes Gaza Strikes After Cease-Fire Lull - ABC News" or "Israel Resumes Gaza Strikes After Cease-Fire Lull - ABC News" or BBC News - Gaza conflict: UN accuses Israel over Jabaliya attack. In fact, a scan of the headlines suggest that Israel was and is the aggressor, while Hamas was minding it's own business and is only defending itself. This, of course, has the whole conflict completely backwards; Israel was attacked by Hamas when they began firing rockets into populated Israeli territory, and Israel responded in a quite civilized fashion, giving warning shots before destroying buildings used as missile silos and whatnot. Hamas is purposely using civilians as human shields, and the laws of war state that a military may indeed kill such civilians if they are out of uniform. And Hamas violated the cease-fire within under two hours of it's imposition, firing rockets into Israel. Yet the media gives Israel the blame. Why?

Why does the Left hate Israel so much? Why is anti-semitism rising across Europe? Why are the Jews so hated?

There are a number of answers to this question. For one thing, the Jews represent a European type peoples who "invaded" the "peaceful" Islamic culture of Palestine, in the ignorant views of the Left. They represent a new type of Crusader class, only instead of bringing christianity they are bringing a kind of Judeo western commercial culture that liberals believe is at the root of all Western evil, in the minds of the Left. This is nothing new; modern liberals, indoctrinated to hate capitalism in all its forms, see the Israelis as the prime representatives of this supposedly Western idea. Liberals believe Man fell from paradise not through pride but through greed, and it was not an angry God who placed this curse on Man but the white Western culture. Destroy the West and we will see a return to a state of nature, a paradise where all share in the common bounty. Israel represents an infection of Western thinking into a pure non-western culture. And the fact that a "brown" people are being subjegated by a white one (even though those white ones originated in that region of the world and are closely related to the "brown" peoople is immaterial} only fuels their racialist beliefs. The poor, mistreated Palestinians are the natural underdogs in the minds of many of the Progressive Left, and naturally the invading Jews are to blame!

This is nothing new. The Jews have been thought of as an invasive species, as a pox upon the purity of the Folks (as Mr. Obama may say) before. As Mark Musser pointed out, the Nazis hated Jews as an invasive species, one that used commerce to draw Mankind away from the pastoral paradise that was his birthright. According to Musser:

"According to Nazi ideology, the so-called "eternal Jew” is the transcendent Jew who tries to live above Nature through economics and capitalism in the west, or through politics and communism in the east.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler specifically called this process thepacification of Nature. According to Hitler, the Jews try to pacify or tame Nature through international commerce and capitalism on the one hand, or by stressing universal political values like communistic equality on the other hand, both of which rebel against the stern rigid laws of Nature which cannot be overcome. German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, the racist Darwinist who coined the term ‘ecology’ in 1866, posited that the Jewish transcendent view of man over nature made them resistant to evolutionary biological change, and hence the Jews had become a lesser race. While Hitler eschewed some of Haeckel’s political views, he heartily agreed with this particular belief.

To the Nazis, the Jews had become a wandering and threatening invasive species because of their steadfastness to universal transcendent values in opposition to the Social Darwinian evolutionary laws of Nature."

End quote.

And indeed the swastika is rising from the grave like Dracula in some bad horror flick, only instead of it being a hokey and sad joke it is a frightening reality. The American media and the liberal pilgrims are showing their inner brown.

Israel represents everything that is bad to the Left, even while being a very socialistic country, one that should, if anything, be a model for the success of their economic vision.

But there's more to this.

The very existence of Israel is a stench in the nostrils of most liberals, and for good reason; it argues more eloquently for the existence of God and the the truth of the Bible than any philosopher or theologian.

Liberalism was and is a competing religion to Christianity and Judaism. Liberalism is a Christian heresy, a secular worldview that parasites off Judeo-Christian beliefs and imagery. It has its own creation myths (a simple natural world unspoiled by the hand of Man), it's own story of the fall (the coming of human civilization and the eventual rise of industrialism), it's own prophets (Rousseau, Marx, Nietzche, Schopenhaur, Hitler), it's apocalypse (Global Warming, ozone depletion, overpopulation, etc.). It is a religion that places Nature on the throne of the Creator and Man as the Son, the second person of the Humanic Trinity. Reason is the Holy Spirit. Atheism is at the core of liberalism, although they tolerate a kind of religiosity, one that makes God into a happy grandpa, a kind of cosmic Santa Claus and stresses social justice as the ultimate goal of religion. This is very much at odds with Christianity, which sees the salvation of souls as the purpose of life, and with Judaism which sees Jewish suffering as an atonement for Sin and the Mosaic Law as the means to reach out to Yahweh.

Israel is a great rebuke to the Liberal worldview, because Israel's miraculous existence suggests that the Jews and Christians are right, that there is a transcendent God who is actively working on their behalf (or rather that they are working on His). Throughout the great Diaspora the Jews never lost faith, and many Christians believed they would eventually be restored to their land - against all human reason. Israel's seemingly miraculous rise from the grave, and her continued existence in spite of endless hostility on the part of the Islamic world and indeed even in Europe justifies the faith of Jews and Christians and undercuts the belief of liberals. If the Bible was correct in this matter, in what other matters is it correct?

This was the very purpose for God's peculiar people; Israel was intended to be a light shining in the darkness for the world to see. Salvation came first through the Jews, and the suffering of the Jewish people was intended to be a beacon to others, who would see this suffering and see the steadfast resolve of the Jewish People and their ultimate victory and would then know that God does live. That Israel has grown and prospered each time it has been attacked is a great rebuke to the liberal faith and worldview.

So naturally they rage against Israel, and wish it be destroyed. Israel shows the world the bankruptcy of Leftist beliefs.

Do not, oh gentle reader, expect this to decline in the future. Israel is the underdog these days, with her powerful neighbors becoming increasingly more opposed to her, with America turning her back on Israel, with the U.N. condemning Israel in their hallowed halls. There is nothing more vicious than a liberal thwarted, and one can easily see the hatred following the course predicted by John the Divine in the last book of the New Testament. In fact, one should expect it, for it is coming at some point. Of course, the media and the liberal movement scoffs at this notion, but then what do we expect? The fool says in his heart there is no God.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1364 words, total size 9 kb.

August 06, 2014

The Cold North Winds of War; Russia and Ukraine

Timothy Birdnow

It is instructive to read Pravda. The communist rag always told the truth about what the old Soviets were doing by virtue of what they didn't say, and the same holds true now.

I concluded that Russia would invade Georgia back in 2008 based on the hysteria and sabre-rattling of Pravda.

Well, I think we can conclude that Russia may well be preparing to invade Ukraine.

There is this article Claiming the Ukrainians are firing rockets into Russia in similar fashion to Hamas and Israel.

From the article:

"Nine missiles fired by Ukrainian Grad missile launchers have landed in Russian territory, in the Tarasovsky District of Rostov Region, according to the Russian Security Service.

He stated that nine craters from Grad-launched missiles were found in the village of Mityakinskaya, in Rostov region. No casualties were reported but since the conflict began, one Russian has been murdered by Ukrainian shelling and nine have been injured.

The city of Lugansk faces a humanitarian catastrophe as Ukrainian government forces fire indiscriminately into the city. Moscow is showing restraint and patience in the face of such provocations."

End excerpt.

And, just as Israel was forced to respond to Hamas aggression, so too Russia must respond to this outrageous aggression on the part of the Ukrainians, who of course have everything to gain by attacking a country that is 6,592,800 square miles, has a population of 145,500,482, a nuclear arsenal of around 5,000 warheads, and a standing army of 766,000 as of 2013.

The strategy employed by Hamas and the other Islamists against Israel is predicated on the small population, enclosed area, and general compactness of Israel. It is not a strategy that would work on Russia, and the Ukrainians know it. But Russia can claim this is what they are doing and use Israel as a justification; if THEY can do it why can't we?

The Ukrainians ahve nothing to gain and everythingRu to lose by such a tactic.

This smells of a pre-invasion propaganda campaign.

It's interesting to note that Russia is pushing forward with a a gas pipeline to Europe, and an untranslated article in Pravda said they had made a proposal to the E.U. to keep gas flowing at a good price if the E.U. would take sides against Ukraine. This would kill two birds with one stone; move Europe away from Ukraine and at the same time discourage the move towards opening new European gas fields based on hydraulic fracturing.

Russia is baring it's teeth.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

August 05, 2014

Criticism of my article on Central American Violence

Timothy Birdnow

In the comments section on my recent blogpost at American Thinker there was a critical remark made by a person calling himself Lerner (I've seen Lerner - a troll - before.) Lerner made the criticism I knew the liberals would make. Here is his comment and my reply:

Learner • a day ago
This is a deliberately misleading article. You're comparing urban areas within urban areas against whole countries.

There's a very simple rule to remember with jurisdictions designated as 'cities' in many countries (and the US is the worst at this) – 'city' means 'municipality' and 'metro' means 'city'.

The murder rates for the US cities cited are as follows:

Flint ... 16
Detroit ... 11
St. Louis ... 7

East St. Louis is obviously in St. Louis.

Source: FBI, Crime in the United States 2012

Sorry learner but you are mistaken. St. Louis is a free city and not added to crime statistics in St. Louis County. There were 113 murders in the City in 2012, giving it a 35.5% crime rate.

East St. Louis is NOT listed with St. Louis; it is in Illinois and not a part of the city stats. You would know this if you had followed the links I provided.

The point is that the cities in Central America are concentrations of crime, but there are unquestionably better areas and worse. I have never had a single incident of crime in crime-riddled St. Louis. Yes, there are high crime areas, but there are also better areas and why would parents send their children over two thousand miles in the company of strangers when they can no doubt move a few miles to a safer area? The point is the crime is not what is driving this - and that the high crime areas are skewing the national data.

You also seemed to miss that the PEW excerpt showed that crime is dropping and not rising. In El Salvador it dropped from around 70 to 41. So, why are these people coming now?


No doubt Learner will buzz in with another rebuttal. I'll keep everyone posted.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Ebola and the Media

... : The Lloviu virus is similar to the deadly Ebola strain (pictured... :

Timothy Birdnow

Yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show El Rushbo chronicled the mainstream media's mocking of people who worry about Ebola coming into the U.S., and he questioned why they are doing this. Bear in mind nothing happens in the media by accident.

Ebola is an incurable virus, an extremely lethal one. These viruses are known as filoviruses, because they are long snake-like life forms as opposed to the traditional round shape held by most viruses. Scientists describe a brick of ebola as looking like a snake pit, with the viruses slithering around. Sometimes they form unusual shapes, too, like O's or whatnot.

The Ebola strains - Sudan, Zaire, Ivory Coast, and the nonlethal Reston along with their cousin Marburg - kill their victims through hemmorhagic faver, in which the victim bleeds from every oriface and undergoes liquification of internal organs (including the brain). Marburg has a kill rate over 50%, so half of all people infected will die. Ebola Zaire is over 90%, and the victims often go into convulsions, sprreading sputum as they die so as to infect new victims. Ebola is so lethal it has trouble spreading; people die too quickly to pass it on.

What scientists fear is a mutation, perhaps a more "benign" version that passes through the air like flu. An Ebola flu would be, well, think of the Pale Horseman in Revelation.

The Ebola family should not be confused with Crimean-Congo Hemmorhagic Fever, which is symptomatically similar but unrelated. CCH is a form of Bunyaviridae.from the Nairovirus family. Like the Ebola Virus family they are extremely ancient diseases, composed primarily of RNA rather than DNA. CCHF is less lethal at 30%. (Yipee!) It has appeared in the Crimean Peninsula (which is interesting, considering the current conflict there) in past years.

The thing about this is that, with Mr. Obama throwing our southern border wide open, there is a real danger of Ebola or Marburg or Crimean Congo coming into the U.S.

That does not bear thinking about, for if the public is frightened of these diseases (as well they should be) they will demand an end to the madness of King Barry. So the media must mock anyone who is afraid of bringing an infected American into the country as a fool, since we know all about Ebola and can handle it. I heard a health experts actually say we wouldn't have a problem here, as in Africa, because, well, this is the United States.

What does that mean?

If anyone remembers the AIDS epidemic they should remember that we disposed of the traditional quarantine proceedures. It is likely we would try to impose a quarantine of any infected person, but until symptoms show (in 7 to 10 days) it is possible for one person to spread the disease while wandering around. This is just too dangerous an illness.

When Ebola showed up in monkeys in a facility in Reston, Va. (a suburb of Washington) the army took charge, sealing the building and putting a full emergency containment effort into play. They were scared spitless of the dangers of Ebola breaking out into the general public. In fact a couple of workers came down with flu-like illnesses, but recovered, and it was discovered that Ebola Reston was a non-lethal strain of the illness. It could easily have been otherwise.

At any rate, the media is doing what the media always does, which is protect their god at all costs. If some people have to die, that is the price Progressives are willing to pay.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 5 kb.

Obama Close to Victory on Internet Giveaway

Timothy Birdnow

This from Robert Romano and ALG:

"Time running out to stop Internet giveaway

By Robert Romano

Thanks to the efforts of Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), on May 30 the House of Representatives defunded the Obama Internet giveaway in the FY 2015 Commerce Department appropriations bill by a 229 to 178 vote.

However, with the August recess already in full swing, the Senate appears unlikely to pass any appropriations bills this year. After all, it has not passed any yet and the fiscal year ends on September 30.

Now, talk on Capitol Hill has shifted to passing yet another continuing resolution at current funding levels to avoid another government shutdown.

If that happens, it is game, set, match on the Internet giveaway. When Commerce's contract with the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers ends in September 2015, if FY 2015 funding for the Commerce Department is already in place, it may be too late to use the appropriations process to stop the administration.

So, what should be done? House leaders need to include the Duffy defund in the upcoming continuing resolution. Considering the fact that the Senate has not passed its own Commerce appropriations bill, deference on appropriations matters — and their all-important riders — should be granted to the house of Congress that actually did its job.

Everything, including the Internet giveaway defund, needs to be on the table when newly minted House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) sits down with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

This is no trivial matter. Administering the Domain Name System (DNS) is the key function that associates easy-to-remember domain names to numerical Internet Protocol (IP) addresses — the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) — an essential component to making the Internet work.

The Obama administration believes that it can perform the transition without any vote in Congress. Yet, Article IV of the Constitution states, "The Congress shall have power to dispose of … property belonging to the United States."

That ought to include the Internet functions, since under the Commerce Department's current contract with the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) it states, "All deliverables under this contract become the property of the U.S. Government."

The IANA functions themselves revert to the Commerce Department upon termination of the contract: "the Government may terminate the contract for default." The contract even provides for the possibility of IANA being performed by another entity: "In the event the Government selects a successor contractor, the Contractor shall have a plan in place for transitioning each of the IANA functions to ensure an orderly transition while maintaining continuity and security of operations."

Therefore, responsibility for the Internet's names and numbers functions should remain with Commerce Department upon termination of the contract. But, Obama doesn't care. He just wants to just give it away, in the process endangering the free and open Internet that has revolutionized communications and access to information throughout the world.

For, once free of the federal contract, ICANN will no longer be required to abide by the First Amendment, something Shari Steele, Staff Counsel at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned of in 1998: "Internet administration has always guaranteed free speech and due process, since it has been done by U.S. Government contractors who are required to follow the U.S. Constitution. If the New IANA moves Internet administration out from under the U.S. Government, as there is general agreement to do, the public will lose these guarantees."

Steele and the EFF were right then, and now, with the contract expiring in just one year, time is running out.

When the continuing resolution comes up again in September, House leaders need to stand up for the free and open Internet. Once we've lost it, we'll never get it back.

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.


Bill Been

“How” vs “Why”

As an American who values our country second only to God and family, it is difficult to understand why the vast majority of the leaders and spokesmen for our country consistently voice a lack of understanding as to why Barack Obama either does or does not do certain actions that would be viewed as adding value or preserving America. Whether it be elected officials, political experts, talk-radio, or fair and balanced discussions, it seems that the typical responses when asked “Why?” are “I don’t know” or “It is incompetency” or “Obama is inexperienced” or “Obama is just a community organizer” or “inept” or “does not have the will” while ignoring the fact that Barack Obama told America exactly what he was going to do and he is closely following his stated direction. The purpose of this document is not only to demonstrate that the answer to the “Why?” question is very straightforward, but to also demonstrate that the wrong question is being asked further masking the anti-American agenda of Barack Hussein Obama.

My book, Masters of Audacity and Deceit, clearly describes why Barack Obama is acting in a fashion that is opposing America and the fundamental principles upon which America was founded. At the time the book was written, the concerns that are reality today were presented as threats created or supported by the National Democrat Party that need to be understood and confronted by all citizens. These same threats provide the explanation for Barack Obama’s apparent “incompetence” and can be summarized in one statement as follows:

Barack Obama is simply carrying out his transformation objectives and direction that he promised five days prior to his election to the presidency in 2008 by following the ideology and teachings of Cloward & Piven, Carl Marx, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright as interpreted by a host of communists including his mother, Frank Marshall Davis, and the admitted small ’c’ communist Bill Ayers, and far left groups epitomized by the Institute For Policy Studies while drawing financial and ideological support from wealthy liberals led by George Soros and the Soros Democracy Alliance group, the anti-American Progressive groups, and Wall Street executives such as Lloyd Blankfein under the protective cover of a totally compromised Mainstream Media and the corrupted modern day Democrat Party that is populated by leaders who lie, cheat, distort, and politicize events for their self-serving objectives without regard for either America or the American people.

That Barack Obama has succeeded in reaching his objectives is evident from the following list of his “accomplishments” during his first six years:














One special accomplishment that is an active work in process of Obama and his administration is to establish that “America is not a Christian nation” while declaring that Islam was instrumental in the establishment of America. This fallacious and false representation of American history was clearly debunked in a recent Fourth of July sermon that spoke to the charters of the Original Thirteen Colonies and why these people had left their homelands for the freedoms available in the New World. These charters tell the real American story and the success in downplaying this Judeo-Christian heritage is the most repulsive and scandalous accomplishment of Barack Hussein Obama. These charters are presented with the hope being that some people will awaken and come to the rescue of America before Barack Obama and his anti-American allies complete their destruction of the greatest country on earth. Quotes from the charters follow:

Virginia - to help in “propagating of Christian religion…”

Plymouth - “…to advance the enlargement of the Christian religion to the glory of God Almighty.”

Delaware - one purpose is “…the further propagation of the Holy Gospel.”

Maryland – first settlers motivated by “…pious zeal for extending the Christian religion.”

Massachusetts - bring “the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind.”

Rhode Island - “Commits its people to the true Christian faith and worship of God.”

Connecticut - “to help preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

New Hampshire – “…do in the name of Christ and in the sight of God…”

In addition, when the Declaration of Independence was written, the last words were “…under the protection of the Divine Providence.” This was followed some years later by George Washington, after his first inauguration, leading the members of the House and Senate to St. Paul’s Church in New York to seek guidance and to commit America to God.

In conclusion, the answer to the “Why?” question is very simply stated above if one understands the various transformation objectives that Barack Obama has clearly articulated throughout his lifetime. If this is understood, the need for the “Why?” question no longer exists, and the correct question can then be asked which is: “How do current events and crises fit into the Barack Obama transformation objectives and direction?” Without this question being asked and answered, the American people will continue going to the next election never understanding why our great country is being diminished at home and abroad!!!!

William E. Been

July 31, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 962 words, total size 7 kb.

The News Media Now Reports All Weather as "Extreme"

By Alan Caruba

In a desperate effort to keep the global warming hoax alive even though it is now called "climate change”, the meteorologically challenged print and broadcast media is now declaring all weather "extreme” these days.

The Media Research Institute recently analyzed broadcast network transcripts between July 1, 2004 and July 1, 2005, along with those between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014. What it discovered was the network coverage of "extreme weather” had increased nearly one thousand percent!

As Sean Long reported, "during that time, extreme weather was frequently used by the networks to describe heat waves, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storms, and they often included the phrase in onscreen graphics or chyrons during weather stories.”

Thanks to Al Gore who continues to lie about global warming despite the fact that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years, the news media, print and broadcast, now substitutes its latest reincarnation, "climate change”, when reporting the weather. It’s worth noting that the weather is what is outside right now wherever you are and climate is something that is measured in decades and centuries.

The one thing you need to keep in mind is that every form of weather has been around for much of the Earth’s 4.5 billion years. Long before humans were blamed for causing it, they developed ways to adapt and survive, but tornadoes, hurricanes and floods, among other events, still kill humans with the same indifference to them that Mother Nature has always demonstrated.

Gore became a multi-millionaire based on the global warming scam and, along the way; the U.S. wasted an estimated $50 billion on alleged "research” whose sole purpose was to give credence to it. Too many scientists lined their pockets with taxpayer dollars and many government agencies increased their budgets while falsifying their findings.

The entertainment media got into the act by producing films such as Showtime’s "documentary series” called "Years of Living Dangerously.” It has received two nominations for "Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series and Outstanding Writing for Nonfiction Programming.” Its executive producer, Joel Bach, said "Every day, more Americans are experiencing the devastating impacts of a warming world and we had to tell their story.” Except that the world is NOT warming.

The Showtime series featured those noted climatologists and meteorologists, Harrison Ford, Jessica Alba, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Matt Damon among others. The final episode featured President Obama whose climate lies rival Al Gore’s. "Science is science”, said the President. "And there is no doubt that if we burned all the fossil fuel that’s in the ground right now, that the planet’s going to get too hot and the consequences could be dire.”

The real dire consequences people around the world are encountering include frostbite and freezing to death.

In a June article in Forbes magazine, James Taylor, editor of The Heartland Institute's Environmental & Climate News, noted that "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least a decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.” The latest data support the longer cooling cycle that began around 1997.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently announced that "The growing consequences of climate change are putting many of the country’s most iconic and historic sites at risk”, citing Ellis Island, the Everglades, Cape Canaveral and California’s Cesar Chavez National Monument. The UCS said that "we must work to minimize these risks in the future by reducing the carbon emissions that are causing climate change…” This is utter rubbish.

Called a "pollutant” by the Environmental Protection Agency, carbon dioxide is, along with oxygen, a natural gas that is vital to all life on Earth as the "food” on which all vegetation depends.

William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University, told the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that "Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. Our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 parts per million, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 parts per million.”

The Earth would benefit from more, not less, CO2.

How concerned is the public? Not very. In May, a Gallup poll noted that Americans consider unemployment/jobs, government corruption, and the economy as the three "most important” problems facing the nation. "Just 3% of those surveyed listed the environment/pollution as America’s most important problem. From a list of thirteen problems, it was number twelve.

The news media will continue to misrepresent the weather and/or climate and those determined to keep us from accessing and using the USA’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas will continue to lie about it. The good news is that a growing portion ofthe public no longer believes the three decades of lies.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 10 kb.

August 04, 2014

Is Violence Driving the Central American Invasion?

Timothy Birdnow

Violence as a result of drug warfare is blamed for the surge in unaccompanied children to the U.S. I have to question this.

According to the Pew Research Center:

"The three top municipalities sending children to the U.S. are all in Honduras. San Pedro Sula leads the list, with more than 2,200 unaccompanied minors apprehended between January and May of this year, making up at least 5% of all apprehended children since October 1st. Following San Pedro Sula are Tegucigalpa and Juticalpa, both with more than 800 apprehended children during the same period.

The Honduran and Salvadoran child migrants are from some of the most violent regions in those countries. San Pedro Sula in Honduras is the world’s murder capital, with a homicide rate of 187 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013 driven by a surge in gang and drug trafficking violence. For the entire country Honduras’s murder rate was 90 per 100,000 in 2012, the highest in the world. In 2011, El Salvador was not far behind, at 70, ranking second in terms of homicides in Latin America then. Even with a significant drop in the murder rate from 70 in 2011 to 41 in 2012, El Salvador is only surpassed by Honduras, Venezuela and Belize in the entire world."

End excerpts.

These rates are admittedly high - especially the murder rate in San Pedro Sula. But one suspects it is entirely possible to move OUT of San Pedro Sula without leaving Honduras, yet these children are taking a long, long voyage to a foreign land.

Well, is it really that much safer in the foreign land?

Here in my hometown of St. Louis we have our own problems:

Crime index*: 3.63
Population: 320,454
Murder rate (per 100,000): 35.3
Even though it still ranks second on the most dangerous cities list, St. Louis is a lot safer than it used to be. Murders have been cut in half over the past two decades -- as have the numbers for other violent crimes.

Still, at about 35 murders per 100,000 residents in 2011, St. Louis claims the third highest homicide rate of any major city.

End excerpt.

Indeed, the murder rate peaked in St. Louis at 49.7 per 100,000 in 1970, well above current levels and above El Salvador's current 41 per 100,000 number.

The "suburban" city across the Mississippi River from St. Louis - East St. Louis - is even worse, with a violent crime rate of 49.93 per 1,000, and a murder rate of 0.63 per 1000, or 63 per 100,000, putting it well within the range of the El Salvador total for 2011. Yet, strangely East St. Louisans are not immigrating to Central America.

Or take Flint, Michigan, where the murder rate is 0.62 per thousand, or 62 per 100,000. Then there is the Democratic paradise of Detroit, with a rate of 55 per 100,000.

So, the murder rates are higher in these Central American regions, but not THAT much higher to justify a mass exodus. Bear in mind that there are regions in all of these countries where the murder rates are lower, but the overall rate is driven up by the high crime areas, as indeed they are driven up here in St. Louis by a few high crime neighborhoods.

The reality is that people do not send their children on long, dangerous trips unaccompanied by adults frivolously, and the explanation of high murder rates simply doesn't make sense. These parents would try to find a place in their home countries first. Something else is at work.

IF the drug trade is to blame for this, then one must ask what has changed that has led to this explosion of trespassers into the country.

Well, there has been a move to legalize marijuana throughout the country, and this would invariably lead to a more casual attitude toward all drugs.

It should also be pointed out that Manuel Zelaya, the Marxist president of Honduras who attempted a legal coup to alter the nation's constitution and stay in office and who was deposed by the Honduran Supreme Court, was an advocate of legalizing drugs and would likely have done so had he succeeded in staying in office past his term. The Obama Administration was quite angry at his ouster, calling it a coup on the part of the Honduran military and demanding his return.

This only delayed what I suspect was a planned action to overwhelm the U.S. border in the classic Cloward and Piven strategy. See here.

It is interesting to note that this invasion began ramping up shortly after the political pasting the Democrats took in 2010. I suspect it was supposed to start before then, but the unfortunate events in Honduras delayed it. It is interesting to note that American troops have been sent to the countries of interest, and their numbers have been increasing even while the drug wars have been intensifying.

Any way one looks at it, the crime explanation is inadequate. Some important piece of the puzzle is missing. Somewhere a gun is billowing smoke.

Tim blogs at The Aviary

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 865 words, total size 6 kb.

The War We Are In

By Joseph Dalton Leatherwood

The United States of America is in a state of war where one political group through acts of force and malice seeks to compel another to do its will. More to the point, we are in the mists of acounter revolution where the one political group – statist – seeks to nullify the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, subvert the rule of law to accommodate their political views and overthrow the federal republic, which these documents defined and this nation have operated under for over two centuries.

This counter revolution is velvet in nature and based on a long term pincer stratagem of taking over the nation through the electoral process and its institutions through a form of "education.” The electoral process and elections are seen as just another way of waging war (revolution) while the takeover of institutions through infiltration became known as the institutional movement. This stratagem has been in place and underway for well over a century and its actions and progeny have landed us at the current circumstance we are at today - a state of civil war.

The intensity of this counter revolution has ebbed and flowed historically based on the polarity of power between themselves and the opposition. A supplement to the long term pincer stratagem has been the doctrine of polarization. This stratagem is an on-going attempt to purposefully polarize (fragment or balkanize) the people on every issue and on every event. Each is treated as if it is the most important of all time and how it is resolved will determine the permanent direction of the nation. The purpose is to position (propagandize) themselves (the statist) as righteous on the issues and events; while castigating or branding the opposition as extremists, reactionaries, backwards, racists, misogynistic, bigots, etc.

For example, when the political winds have been at their backs they have generally made electoral grains. This is particularly true during times of "crisis,” generally of their own making. The statists as they have famously stated "…never let a crisis go to waste…” when they are in or out of power.

Based on the crisis theory, statists are constantly scheming toratchet up the police powers of the State and its administrators (themselves) at every opportunity. All of this is accomplished under the cover of "law” through various means of interventionism, namely, the use of legislative mechanisms, executive orders, judicial rulings and bureaucratic rule-making. All of these means of interventionism are in the mind of the statist just another means of war and they use their positions of power to codify State power and entrench themselves in power as the administrators.

When they have faced strong head winds, that is, when the polarity of power has been in favor of the opposition, they simply lie low seeking compromise while creating as much mischief, obstruction and chaos as the situation and circumstance will allow.

Contrary to what the vast majority of Americans think, theoverriding instinct of the statists is not what is best for the country or the people, although that is the first pretense emanating from their mouths. Their actions are always cloaked in their "concerns or humanity” for the care of the poor, the oppressed and thedowntrodden; but such is the rhetoric of all demagogues. The reality is their overriding aspiration is the acquisition, maintenance, consolidation and extension of political power. All their actions are dedicated to this aspiration - empowering the State with increased police powers and themselves and their party as the administrators of the State. Actually the use of the term party is too narrow, it is actually the ruling or governing class composed of the statists and neo-statists alike.

The purpose of this revolution is (and has been) to impose the will (vision of order or ideology) of the statist upon the American system of governance and the people. Through the various means of war they seek to render their political opposition, e.g., conservatives, constitutionalists, traditionalists, libertarians, etc., impotent through a maximum application of political force - without limits.

Through the application of political force, which is the central means of war in this type of war, the statist seeks to drive their opposition to the extremes, at least in terms of appearances. That is, if and when the political opposition responds to the acts of force and malice by the statists, their reciprocity is always met with claims of extremism, no matter the response be it defiant or compliant. The statist is relentless in this tactic seeking to coerce the opposition at every opportunity into a situation that places him at the greatest disadvantage. This is an application of the doctrine of polarization.

The object in this war is to disarm the opposition and make him defenseless, at least in the eyes of the public. In this effort, the statist first strives to always be the aggressor in order to dictate the conduct and terms of the war to the opposition and, viz., to alwaysbrand opponents in the most negative light possible (or any other epitaphs they wise to employ as a characterization of the opposition, e.g., extremists, racists, bigot, misogynist, homophobic, chauvinistic, backward, uninformed, misinformed, reactionary, etc.). The statist in this war have taken to openly holding opponents in disdain ridiculing and mocking them openly and directly, which is then put through the echo chamber of the State-media complex.

Secondly, State-media propaganda, parading as news, focuses on the effort to isolate, smear and destroy all opposition to statist actions. The position of the State and the position of the statist, when they are aligned, are always presented as authoritative, authentic and always as the correct and only solution to a problem; as opposed to those who oppose the State or the statist who are framed as non-authoritative, non-authentic and unsophisticated simpletons. Opponents to the State and the statist are oft times mocked by modern day journalists and opinion makers within their "reporting of the news.” In many cases, the State-media complex simply ignore the opposition and their concerns thinking that if theykeep the opposition and their issues out of site, they will be out of mind for the American people.

The ultimate goal of this war, as all wars, is conquest. The statist and his allies (neo-statist) seek to render the enemy powerless and make him and his resources their own. Once political opposition is successfully destroyed, this will leave the resources of the nation in the hands of the conquerors, the masterminds, meaning the complete socialization of capital, incomes, labor and society. We will have arrived at the nirvana of totalitarianism. We are engagedin a state of civil war because the statist and his allies seek to impose this vision of order on America. This is the fundamental transformation "progressives” seek to impose on the nation.

They detest liberty and all its institutions: the free market, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and the rule of law. They believe they know better how a thing should be produced than the producer. They believe they know better what god you should worship and how than you do. They believe that only some speech should be free (mandated) while others ignored or barred all together. They believe they know better about who you should be associated with than you do. They believe they know how to allocate capital better than the banker and the free market. They believe they can better spend your money than you can. They believe they can direct the billions of decisions that makes a society function better than the millions of people who make them.

This is the counter revolution, the reactionary ideology that confronts the American people knowingly or noThe statist and his allies through acts of force and malice seek to compel the anti-statist and his allies to do their will – they seek toconquer him. Conquest underlies all forms of war and the conquest of America means the consolidation of political power under one "party” directed by masterminds as the administrators of government and society. This is the future direction of America if the statist and his allies are allowed to continue their march through the nation and its institutions.

A political group defines it nature and is best understood by its choice of enemies. When a group purposely seeks to nullify the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and subvert the rule of law while conducting a political war against those who believe intheir preservation and the society they have enabled, then you are dealing with a truly reactionary, diabolical force (the statists) thatseeks the destruction of a way of life and a fundamental transformation of society based on the notions of Marx, Lenin, Thomas and Alinsky rather than the ideals of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams. Their victory in this civil war would signal turning back the clock and turn out the light of liberty and mean the embracement of the darkness.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1498 words, total size 9 kb.

<< Page 68 of 540 >>
147kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.1508 seconds.
44 queries taking 0.1044 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.