An interesting question came up the other day on a British website, when someone asked if the Right would be so worried about the fall of European Christianity if there wasn’t a well-known peaceful religion clawing at the door of western civilisation, ready to replace it ?

The simple answer is that there’s no either/or there. Nature abhors a vacuum. Islam is an opportunistic infection, taking advantage of a body already rotted by Liberalism. Let’s face it – Islam isn’t advancing through the force of the ideology. Islam teaches that people are slaves to a brutal moon god who demands blind obedience even on the most trivial of things. The closest you get to any kind of hopeful message in Islam is the belief that if you kill enough Infidels, you’ll get an invite to Big Mo’s Whorehouse in the sky. Is it any wonder they need to threaten death to anyone who leaves such an inspiring religion ?

But what is it faced with ? The Liberal world view is based upon the idea that we are at a unique moment in human history when now, for the first time ever, a civilisation can get by without the family, a shared narrative, a code of honour, objective truth, a sense of consequences or, well, any of the other 871 things the Left sneers at whenever traditional values are mentioned. Apparently, every civilisation that has existed in the past 5000 years has been a ghastly mistake.

Well, now we’ve got a chance to test that hypothesis. European sophisticates vs deranged savages.

Oops.

The rise of Islam is the perfect barometer of just how sick our civilisation is, proof positive of the essential hollowness of the Liberal ideal of multicultural, omnisexual intellectuals sitting at pavement cafes, discussing trends in post-modern architecture over the lattes. When our civilisation is less inspiring than the rantings of a sociopathic nonce from the 7th century, we’ve got real problems.

Said DJ @ 12:01 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

While much of the country is locked in the coldest winter weather the global warming issue is heating up again in advance of the latest socialist inspired scare report on climate change from the United Nations.

The left is firing on all burners in an attempt to suggest that unless we totally restructure only Western economies now, that the earth is doomed in just a few years. Never mind that all their prior predictions of doom and gloom were wrong. Never mind that prior UN reports deliberately excluded evidence of past warming cycles. Never mind that we cannot forecast the weather more than a few days ahead, but somehow we can predict what will happen to the climate in 10, 30, 100 years?

I recently reread Christopher Monckton’s “Apocalypse Canceled.” It’s 40 pages of the latest scientific data with charts, graphs and references that is a mini-course in climate science and presented in a style accessible to most readers.

Monckton’s reference file was compiled before the release of “Unstoppable Global Warming” a book by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. But both describe the cycles of global warming and cooling which are caused by fluctuations in solar radiation.

Said Mike's America @ 10:15 am Comments (6) | Permalink   

“Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.”

I recently read these three ¹²³ WSJ articles by Charles Murray on education in America. The name “Charles Murray” ring a bell? Maybe because he’s the much-villified author of “The Bell Curve”—a book that noted, among many other things, that there is a very real and measurable difference in “g” between population samples based on easily-noted factors such as sex or race. Oh! The horrors! That the facts and honest science bear out Murray’s conclusions is anathema to politically correct closet racists and anti-reality bigots, hence the plethora of books by people who have often neither read ”The Bell Curve” nor understood its scientific underpinnings (nor cared to).

In the articles linked above, Murray points out three critical ways education in America is failing its citizens and by implication, weakening our society.

In “Intelligence in the Classroom,” Murray’s thesis is clear:
“Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.”

Here, although he doesn’t explicitly make the connection, Murray demolishes the “compassionate conservative” big-government “No Child Gets Ahead” (disingenuously called ‘No Child Left Behind”) mindset where excessive amounts of resources are misapplied to attempt to make children who are intellectually unsuited to the attempt “above average” in accomplishment… ensuring that teachers, students and parents will all know the reality of failure, regardless of failure’s Newspeak relabling as “success”. Mediocrity (and less) relabeled as “excellence,” setting the stage for Harrison Bergeron.

Today’s simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon…

…Our ability to improve the academic accomplishment of students in the lower half of the distribution of intelligence is severely limited. It is a matter of ceilings. Suppose a girl in the 99th percentile of intelligence, corresponding to an IQ of 135, is getting a C in English. She is underachieving, and someone who sets out to raise her performance might be able to get a spectacular result. Now suppose the boy sitting behind her is getting a D, but his IQ is a bit below 100, at the 49th percentile.

We can hope to raise his grade. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough…

Let’s stop pretending that every child can be above average in intellectual accomplishment. All that does is force schools to lower the averages… or cheat.

In the second essay, Murray asks “What’s Wrong With Vocational School?” Indeed. I’m reminded of the quote at the head of my own blog,

“An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”—John Gardner

Murray’s opening paragraphs point out a stunningly obvious truth, one that is anathema to the tailors of the emeperor’s new clothes busily  toiling away in schools of education, government bureaucracies and school administration:

The topic yesterday was education and children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution. Today I turn to the upper half, people with IQs of 100 or higher. Today’s simple truth is that far too many of them are going to four-year colleges.

Begin with those barely into the top half, those with average intelligence. To have an IQ of 100 means that a tough high-school course pushes you about as far as your academic talents will take you. If you are average in math ability, you may struggle with algebra and probably fail a calculus course. If you are average in verbal skills, you often misinterpret complex text and make errors in logic.

These are not devastating shortcomings. You are smart enough to engage in any of hundreds of occupations. You can acquire more knowledge if it is presented in a format commensurate with your intellectual skills. But a genuine college education in the arts and sciences begins where your skills leave off.

“What?!? My kid not suited to a college education?!?!?” echoes across the land. Well, no. Not if they simply do not have the intellectual horsepower to handle intellectual pursuits.

Read the article.

In the last of the three articles, “Aztecs vs. Greeks,” I believe Murray touches briefly on the most significant education issue facing us: how we are mis-educating our brightest. His thesis? “Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise.”

Can anyone doubt that Al Gore and Jean Fraud Kerry do indeed have above average (in fact, perhaps well above average) intelligence? And can any rational person escape the fact that they are each too stupid to pound sand in a rathole? What they lack, far more than intelligence, is the ability to use what native intelligence they have wisely. And so it is for Dan Blather and his ilk among Mass Media Podpeople who regularly spout the most egregious lies as though they had recieved them as wisdom written on stone tablets by the hand of God Himself.

We live in an age when it is unfashionable to talk about the special responsibility of being gifted, because to do so acknowledges inequality of ability, which is elitist, and inequality of responsibilities, which is also elitist. And so children who know they are smarter than the other kids tend, in a most human reaction, to think of themselves as superior to them. Because giftedness is not to be talked about, no one tells high-IQ children explicitly, forcefully and repeatedly that their intellectual talent is a gift. That they are not superior human beings, but lucky ones. That the gift brings with it obligations to be worthy of it. That among those obligations, the most important and most difficult is to aim not just at academic accomplishment, but at wisdom…

The encouragement of wisdom requires mastery of analytical building blocks. The gifted must assimilate the details of grammar and syntax and the details of logical fallacies not because they will need them to communicate in daily life, but because these are indispensable for precise thinking at an advanced level.

The encouragement of wisdom requires being steeped in the study of ethics, starting with Aristotle and Confucius. It is not enough that gifted children learn to be nice. They must know what it means to be good.

Long gone are the days when the logic of grammar was considered important in the teaching of English. Heck, the teaching of English at any level languishes (as I am reminded every time I recall a head of an English department at a major East Coast school who once asked me if my quotation of a famous soliloquy from The Scottish Play was from Faulkner!), let alone the idea of responsible use of one’s gifts. Noblesse oblige is so elitist, don’tcha know…

And so we are steering headlong into the rocks upon which our society must break, as long as our acceptance of “shoddiness in philosophy” is parallelled by our scorn of “excellence in plumbing” is evident in how our young are raised and taught.

The electoral wisdom of the collective common man so necessary to the survival of a democratic republic cannot flourish in a society that has an education system such as ours now is.

Said mnmus @ 12:18 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

From news.com.au

More than 300 militants are dead after a pitched battle against US and Iraqi troops today.Apparently a leader named Ahmed Hassani al-Yemeni had a set to at a checkpoint which turned into an all out firefight….with al-Yemeni eventually running for his life, as his “militants” had the living shit were pounded out of them by a joint fighting force.

One helicopter was lost, with two dead US soldiers, as well as three policemen dead and thirty wounded.

The Iraqi forces stood their ground and fought like lions, this engagement amongst others can only serve to boost their morale and prove that they are ready to take the field themselves. This is their nation, their destiny, and I could not be prouder to see them standing toe to toe with “militants” whose sole objective was to kill as many Iraqis as they could.

In another section of Iraq today, A neighborhood north of Ramadi celebrated the reopening of a school Tuesday.

The school temporarily closed in November for renovations. Tribal leader Sheik Taher, who oversaw the renovations, led the group of military and community leaders on a brief tour of the building after the ribbon cutting.

We’re making progress day after day,” said 1st Lt. Stuart Barnes, civil affairs team leader, Company B, 486th Civil Affairs Battalion. Barnes said school attendance proves the increase in stability there.

The school, which began holding classes again earlier this month, has an estimated 200 to 300 students, Barnes said.

In other news, residents of the Adhamiyah section of eastern Baghdad picked up needed supplies this week following a visit by Soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team and their Iraqi Army counterparts.

U.S. Forces and Iraqi troops cooperated with the Adhamiyah district council to deliver clothes, toys, vitamins and toiletries to more than 500 residents.

“Soccer balls and comic books were especially popular with the children,” said Capt. Drew Corbin, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment. “This would have been impossible without cooperation between both the Iraqi’s and the Americans.

The Iraqi police were very helpful today. They provided security and helped distribute the humanitarian assistance bags.”

And from the MSM…as usual…silence.

In another operation in Tal Afar, students from the Kawla and Darar Primary Schools received an assortment of winter clothing, school supplies, and additional treats from Tal Afar’s Mayor Najim, Iraqi Police officers, and Soldiers of the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, during Operation Warm-Up Jan. 22.

Mayor Najim and the delegation traveled from classroom to classroom, providing the students with winter clothing and Iraqi flags. In addition, the school headmaster at each location received a first-aid kit and instructions for medication.

Oh yeah, silly me…they’re too busy making a big fuss of Hanoi Jane Fonda.

Assholes.

Said Sonnabend @ 4:43 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

Can America ever win another war?

Wars are not won on the battlefield. They are won or lost by the will and resolve of the people of the countries who fight them. Unfortunately the U.S. has been so manipulated by the leftist media and by communist organizations, such as International ANSWER and Code Pink, that it has lost its will and resolve to defend itself, and to win wars.

American has a 60 year record of failing to prevail against strategically significant enemies. Our last victory was World War II.

In 1951 we went to Korea to stop the spread of communism. We left after three years because we lost interest and our will to win. We entered into a truce that today has possible nuclear consequences for this country.

10 years later we went to Vietnam for the same cause – stop the advance of communism, only to withdraw unbeaten, but certainly unvictorious, after 10 years. America simply lost the will to prevail. Millions of innocent Vietnamese were killed in the carnage that followed our exit.

We did vigorously rebound and we demonstrated renewed prowess in the First Gulf War, however, we did not have a decisive victory.

As we now see that Congress is ready to give up once again, it is not unreasonable to ask: Are Americans capable of winning real wars?

Some moderate successes, like Grenada and Panama have been offset by frustration in Kosovo and Somalia. Each conflict was similar. Despite superior materiel, tactics and supplies, we did not have the emotional will to endure battle. War is an unpleasant business.

It wasn’t always so. The Revolutionary War lasted 8 years (1775-1783). George Washington lost every battle except for the last one, yet the Revolutionaries continued the battle, with the support of the colonists, until they won. The will and strength of the American armed forces in the first World War are legendary, as is the unified support of the American people for their men in uniform during both World Wars.

The American Army spent December 1944 resisting a surprise German thrust into its lines – The Battle of the Bulge. Hundreds of thousands of American GI’s spent weeks of freezing nights in a Belgian forest, sleeping in foxholes dug in the snow. Cut off from their supply lines, many lacked coats and even socks. But, knowing that the Nazis were just yards away, most were satisfied with cold, watery soup as long as they got bullets for their rifles. These American soldiers, our “greatest generation,” held on tenaciously, despite suffering 19,000 lives in that battle. They went on to save millions in concentration camps despite enduring much worse conditions in the field than our forces in Iraq today.

What changed in America? Why don’t we have the “stomach” for a fight? This lack of commitment is evidenced in the resistance to an obvious need for a greater force in Iraq. It is displayed in the congressional games that focus on appeasement, surrender and withdrawal for political reasons regardless of the cost to America and the West. It is reflected in citizens of the U.S. who find three deaths per day repulsive, while ignorant that the freedoms they enjoy were won in battles with casualty reports that rounded off daily deaths to the nearest thousand.

That may be the problem. Americans, who have forgotten the pain and shock of 9-11, have also forgotten that once there was no America, and that its birth came at a price. And that the preservation of America and all that it stands for has also come at a price.

General Douglas MacArthur made this profound statement to the cadets at West Point, ““Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory; that if you lose, the nation will be destroyed.”

Ronald Reagan said, ““Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

We have to strengthen and re-toughen the calluses that our ancestors developed while building this nation. We have to not succumb to the requests for surrender and appeasement that the media, and the Left, want us to accept.

Our enemies are ruthless and committed. If we don’t learn how to fight – and win, we will soon be reminded of that.

Said Bear to the Right @ 2:00 pm Comments (5) | Permalink   

Clueless Robert Young Pelton used the picture below of Jack Idema in his book without permission. Being that Pelton doesn’t know or understand what exactly this picture represents, he allows his ghostwriter and Ed Artis to fill in the blanks regarding Idema. If Pelton is looking for some kind of validation for what he’s written, he’s not going to get it here. We have to look at the larger picture and content of the entire book, which seems to be taken from the point of view of someone who doesn’t think much of the military, and question that he would sneer at the kind of work Billy Waugh did for over 40 years, and Idema has done for over 25.

To me, this picture is the epitome of what the definition of a Green Beret is: they train and lead indigenous guerillas in enemy territory. And there he is, doing what he does. This is one of my favorite pictures of Idema, for that very reason. And if Pelton had bothered to delve deeper, he would have discovered that Idema has 27 years of experience in Counter terrorism operations, and is an expert in HUMINT, or human intelligence. But no, Pelton didn’t bother to find any of that out; instead he jumped on that clueless party of individuals like Cafasso, Artis, Tracy-Paul Warrington and others like Bob Morris, who should know better. But what’s funny to me is his choice of using this picture. First, because he didn’t bother to contact Polaris Images to do it properly, and second, because it refutes the entire chapter that’s in his book on Idema. If Idema is a fraud, then why show him in a picture leading an indigenous army in Afghanistan?

And now, I’m looking at the age and circumstances of Billy Waugh and I just have to wonder if it’s the same story as these individuals taking advantage of Robin Moore who has Parkinson’s disease. It seems to be a very similar scenario to me.

We’re not talking about just a few defamatory comments regarding Idema what Pelton wrote in this book about Idema is complete fiction . And for those thinking that the publisher made their buck off me, they didn’t. I bought this book used, and the sucker who originally paid the publisher for it got reimbursed. Where it really belongs is on a salvation army book table for 50 cents.

It turns out that Random House, Crown publisher’s parent company, was fully aware of the questionable nature of Joe Cafasso aka Gerry Blackwood, Robert C. Morris, William John Hagler, Ed Artis and other sources who were used to research and write Pelton’s what appears to be fictional characterization of “hired guns in the war on terror”. So how did this happen?

They not only used this photograph pictured above without permission, without licensing it from Polaris Images, but Random House had physical prima facie evidence of all the frauds used as sources in this book and went ahead with its publication, anyway. Random House and the world knew Cafasso had scammed people with a false military background, for starters. But they also knew Artis had fraudulently worn Silver Stars and Bronze Star awards for valor in combat (awards he admitted under oath he never received from the US Military), that it was Robert Morris who tried to rewrite the Hunt For Bin Laden, not Robin Moore, that Hagler was a convicted drug dealer, and all these people had been sued for illegal conduct.

Joseph Cafasso, William (”Bill”) Hagler, Robert C. Morris, Edward Artis and Tracy-Paul Warrington, engineered the total fabrication of Mariah Blake’s Columbia Journalism Review story called “Tin Soldier”, and Stacy Sullivan’s New York Magazine Article entitled “Operation Desert Fraud”. Each of these men were the sources for Sullivan and Blake’s articles, and then they worked together to falsify their identities and backgrounds and fabricate events for Pelton and Crown.

Pelton even had the audacity to mention this in his book on page 246:

“Idema didn’t know it, but his rash of threats, lawsuits, and betrayals had created a rapidly growning cabal of former friends who were bound and determined to shut him down. He no longer had to be unjustifiably paranoid about a conspiracy out to get him, since he had forced the situation. A private investigator he screwed out of 15 percent from the proceeds of a successful lawsuit*,

*William (”Bill”) Hagler is the ‘private investigator’ Pelton cites who claimed he was a detective-falsifying a story of how Idema owed him 15% of a mult-million dollar lawsuit, when in reality, Hagler testified under oath the amount was closer to $800,

a humanitarian he’d conned*,

*Artis is the ‘humanitarian’, representing Knightsbridge International, who claimed to be a Vatican Knight, a Green Beret, a Navy SEAL and he admitted under oath that all of this was false,

an author he’d destroyed*,

Do they really want the true story of how they threatened Robin Moore to come out? I mean how stupid are these people? Here is an elderly man, sick with Parkinson’s disease, who these people took advantage of in their rabid quest of destroying Idema and the Hunt for Bin Laden.

an army officer who’d been used*;

*Bob Morris claimed to be a Special Forces war hero, a Green Beret and Ranger who saw combat in Grenada (at least he actually was in the army) - all false;

the list goes on:

You bet it does, that’s one thing that Pelton got right.

*Cafasso claimed he was a Special Forces Colonel with three Silver Star medals-the Delta Force hero of Desert One;

*Blackwood was an identity fabricated by Cafasso (and Morris and Artis) and was supposed to be a Colonel who was working for the CIA and was on the White House staff-a hero who lost his men during a heated battle in Vietnam, despite the fact that Cafasso was only 12 years old at the time;

click here to see Blackwood’s ridiculous fictional resume in its entirety. That “Yankee White clearance” claim, all by itself should get Cafasso picked up by the Secret Service. The “Center Lane” reference is equally as comical; that was abandoned pretty quickly and only a handful of people was involved. Although both of those would probably have impressed the hell out of Kathryn Cramer, and obviously, Robert Young Pelton fell for it, too.

all developed a covert network to share documents and information designed to expose Ideman’s true nature. Several US government agencies, the military, and the media were also investigating Jack’s activities, through he was unaware of the gathering storm.”

*Tracy-Paul Warrington is another, who claimed to be the commander of a secret counter-terrorist team, but he had never met a terrorist, or been to Iraq or Afghanistan.

These were ALL fabrications for personal gain, fame, and profit, and while not all were acting as CROWN sources, they spent their time in Internet chat rooms writing lie after lie under false names and dozens of fake email addresses.

Apparently that rabid quest to pursue Idema is still very much present; as Pelton’s feverish haste to publish this book without dotting his i’s and crossing their t’s attests. The Wikipedia entry on Jack seems to have been written and edited by members of this group; and some of the comments here left by “Ghostwriter” (Cafasso) and “Mr Potato Head” (one part in Pelton’s book on Idema is entitled “Mr. Potatohead” on page 232) demonstrate to me that Pelton’s collaborators have been very active in burying any other point of view on Idema other than the fabricated lies they’d been spreading, resorting to threats and other underhanded tactics to keep it under wraps.

The Jack Idema section in Pelton’s book entitled “An Army of One” is completely fictional. The rest of the book’s content should be seriously questioned as well. If you’re going to propel one chapter packed with lies, then why would the rest be based on fact?

One lie binds them all.

In the back of the book, Pelton thanks all those who share his “devotion to the truth”. Laughable.

Well, I took Idema’s story on over a year ago, because I was disappointed in the lies of the media and young journalism students without a clue. I haven’t wavered, I haven’t taken my eye off the ball, and Cafasso and Pelton and the rest of the Stuporpatriots are totally busted. Let’s watch and see how long it is before they start turning on each other; from what I’ve been able to see, even though Artis has sent emails which easily refute what he’s saying now, his story is changing, and he’s beginning to claim that he was ‘conned’ by Cafasso. Comical! So their eating their own has already begun. Good luck, Joe Cafasso!

I couldn’t resist, knowing that Robert Young Pelton’s fan club has been trying to pull his pathetic attempt at writing about PMC’s out of the depths of failure, so I made a little trip to Amazon to see what the buzz was. Lo and behold, what did I find? At the top of the list, from some brilliant fellow in Peoria, Illinois by the name of Rusty Graham, a review:

After reading this book I’m not sure what he was trying to do? He really does not provide a day to day view of the contracters. He seems to globe trot through 20 years of PMC’s that point at how dangerous this industry is to the world. Yet all he provides is a few people that have given it a black eye. He has an entire chapter on a guy named Idema who is not even a PMC!!! Yet he uses him as a point to show how dangerous this industry is. One of the first few chapters goes into the authors version of how the evil Bush and his inner circle suckered america into this war. After a couple pages I just skipped this chapter cause I wanted to read about PMCs!!! He goes into detail to show that most PMCs are hired by people who’s only interest is for economic reasons. I guess he hasn’t studied US military history since the war of 1812? Cause just about every war the US has been in had roots in economics. Then when some Blackwater contracters and one marine are surrounded and engaging the enemy. Pelton focuses on the fact that a PMC was giving orders to a marine! How dangerous it is for a civilian to be ordering around military troops in a combat zone!!! ewwww aahhh… The order was for him to open fire cause the enemy was going to over run their building and kill them! hahahaa The best thing I can say about the author is he did travel around the world and interview a lot of people. He went to locations that are very dangerous. But if you want to read a book about PMCs then pick up A Bloody Business. Gives alot more detail and specifics of the industry and what these people do on a daily bases in Iraq. Unless you want an overview on how paid armed civilians in a combat zone is a threat to the world. Then read License to Kill.

It’s kind of interesting that Pelton makes a political statement in the book that is not only against PMC’s, but against the military. What it is even more astonishing is the statement that civilians should keep out of military affairs when the Secretary of Defense is a civilian, the President of the United States is a civilian, and is in fact, the Commander-In-Chief over all of the military.

But I guess we shouldn’t expect that Pelton would have much respect for the military, because in his view, journalists know better than the military does:

Here’s Bluto on Robert Young Pelton:

The history of IraqSlogger co-founder Robert Young Pelton (apparently, the “RYP” who has been commenting about IraqSlogger at various blogs) isn’t confidence-inspiring, either. In 2002 he told Salon that al Qaeda is a “bogeyman,” and that the 9/11 terrorists were really a “Mickey Mouse operation.”

And he also made this incredible statement:

And basically since the Vietnam War, the military realizes that the press is the enemy, because the press is actually faster and more intelligent than the military is. They can assess a military situation long before the military figures it out.

Pelton has found the reason why so many journalists go on to successful careers as generals. Not.

This is in two posts at Cao’s blog, but I thought I’d put them up as one here at TWA.

Said Cao @ 2:29 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

The BBC (along with the rest of MSM, it must be said) are busy cheering for the assorted moonbats who paraded through Washington yesterday. Here’s a sample of their reporting:

Tens of thousands of protesters have demonstrated in Washington to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
[…]
[Jane] Fonda was joined by fellow actors Sean Penn and Tim Robbins.
Robbins said: “What we need is courage, courage and conviction and we need people to represent the voice of the American people, a very clear voice last November, a voice that said: ‘We’re done with this war’.”

Robbins also said that GW would end his Presidency in a bunker, like Hitler. But, since that statement makes him sound like a raving madman, it’s easy to see why the BBC chose not to pick up on it.

Still, the relevant point is — What? That since the Treason Party seized control of Congress, support for the anti-war movement has grown? Certainly, this is what the BBC would like us to believe (they were leading broadcast versions of this story with the words ‘the momentum appears to be building’), but, if true, you’d really think the numbers would bear such an assessment out. They don’t. >> Read more

Said RottyPup @ 11:47 am Comments (0) | Permalink   

The entire title of Darwin’s work is: The Origin of Species, Preservation of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life. That’s the entire title of his work; the basis for the theory of evolution, and a fact that evolutionists and leftists are slow to admit, because, after all, they accuse US of being the racists, even though the KKK was a wing of the democratic party. On closer examination, though, that rarely acknowledged little factoid makes more and more sense.

Too many of the proponents of this ideology have missed reading their Marx or Engels, it’s the communist ideology and that of Hitler that merges the terms race with species; read what they wrote! The bible, however, declares us ‘all of one blood’.

ENGELS: NATIVE BLACKS DUMBER THAN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD

Engels. “Notes to Anti-Duehring”: “On the other hand, modern natural science has extended the principle of the origin of all thought content from experience in a way that breaks down its old metaphysical limitation and formulation. By recognising the inheritance of acquired characters, it extends the subject of experience from the individual to the genus; the single individual that must have experienced is no longer necessary, its individual experience can be replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experiences of a number of its ancestors. If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of “accumulated inheritance.” It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro”.

Context here

That’s funny; the writers of the manifesto were racists. But only if you read what they wrote; lol, which the optimistic egalatiarians are not bright enough to do, I guess. Either that or they’re really not interested in really knowing about and understanding the ideology they represent; it sounds much better, more warm and fuzzy to sing along with John Lennon: “Give peace a chance”.

CAPACITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPENDS ON RACE

Capital, vol. 3, chapter 47: “The possibility is here presented for definite economic development taking place, depending, of course, upon favourable circumstances, inborn racial characteristics, etc.”

Context here

Engels was indeed a socialist/racist just like Hitler, Stalin and the rest.

ENGELS ADVOCATED CONTEMPT AND RIDICULE IN ARGUMENT

Engels to Eduard Bernstein, 12 March 1881: “The paper must carry this fresh air to Germany, and the best way to do that is to treat the opponent with contempt and ridicule.”

Context here

So leftists should congratulations themselves when engaging in their Naom Chomsky-esque attacks, their ridiculing us is a direct suggestion from Engels, and when they do so, they’re merely identifying themselves on the extreme left hand side of the aisle.

Engels and Marx numerous times made mention of the fact that black people are ‘inferior’, it is part of why Hitler had an ethnic cleansing program; it was why he was trying to create a ‘master race’. His euthanasia program was comprised of murdering people in mental hospitals, deformed infants and others. It was all about creating the perfect Aryan race, which some of us learned in school.

In fact, the lady who started Planned Parenthhood, Margaret Sanger, a self-described communist, was all about focusing sterilization and abortion on poor black people, and she was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They wanted to reduce the black population and they shared Hitler’s view that Jews were genetically inferior — opposing moves to allow into the USA Jews fleeing from Hitler. So if Hitler’s eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were Leftists and feminists, rather than conservatives.

The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.

Emily Taft Douglas, Margaret Sanger; Pioneer of the Future, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, N.Y., 1970, p. 192.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone, the KKK was a leftwing part of the democratic party, one of the remnants still living is Robert KKK Byrd. Isn’t it interesting how all of this is popping up on the EXTREME left hand side of the sphere, while we’re being called nazis and racists. Affirmative action, in fact, is a racist concept and whose idea is that? And doesn’t it somehow push the idea that people of other races are somehow inferior and so in order to level the playing field they need to do it by artificial means? That means that if you’re of a certain ethnic group, you can get into college without achieving the necessary test scores. That means, even if you’re not qualified, if you belong to a certain ethnic group, it’s possible to pass over qualified white applicants and secure a job.

It is the admirers of Darwin and the rest of his band of 18th century weirdos who daftly subscribe to Evolution, an 18th century myth which promotes racism doesn’t recognize God or Christianity, and because of that, takes away our being created in God’s image. All this, while simultaneously labelling all others who don’t buy into it, ‘uneducated’. I would imagine that they think the world is flat, too, or else they just pick and choose what they to believe to fall in line with their despot heroes who were evolutionists, too (Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, etc.).

Biology shows complexity; mutations delete information. This evidences itself in mutations in humans which cause birth defects like Downs Syndrome and Spina Bifida. A Downs Syndrome child is actually MISSING a chromosome. There is absolutely no evidence that a fish can turn into a dog can turn into a human. Even after millions of years, a donkey will never turn into a giraffe; genetics have taught us that. But modern day science was not in the vision of our friend Charles Darwin, and neither is it available today to the adherents of the myth. Textbooks still cling to the four-winged fruitfly, vestigial organs, the speckled moth, and Piltdown Man’s skull, all of which have been debunked as frauds. But, unfortunately, that hasn’t been revealed in either the textbooks or the classroom.

Said Cao @ 8:40 am Comments (14) | Permalink   

As reported by the Pakistan Daily Times, speaking to an international audience in Davos, Switzerland today, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) blasted the United States by calling it “…a sort of international pariah.”

The statement came as the Democrat lawmaker responded to a question about whether the US government had failed to adequately engage Iran’s government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues, speaking during a World Economic Forum panel discussion that also included Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s more moderate predecessor as Iranian president. “When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don’t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,” Kerry said. “So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East _ in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”

Kerry further stated:

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”

I don’t what other lens the Senator would like us to see the world through.

When an American speaks out against the United States during time of war on foreign soil that used to be called treason. Sen. Kerry dishonors himself and his country.

The dictionary definition of treason is:

trea·son Pronunciation (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If this doesn’t rise to the level of treason, at the very least it can be considered disloyalty to one’s country.

Let’s take some action by requesting the Senate to censure Sen. Kerry. If the Democratic Senate won’t censure, then let’s get a Republican Senator to introduce a resolution of censure.

Cross-posted at Bear to the Right

Said Bear to the Right @ 7:01 am Comments (1) | Permalink   

The public’s reaction to the response from Bargan Suppliers at Discount-Mats.com (I wrote about it here)has been nothing short of stupendous, perhaps even “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” But, it has also engendered the “What do you have against Free Speech” from the left.

Of course, the left has no idea of what free speech is, they try to squelch it as often as possible. In point of fact, the looney left (not all are members of the Democratic Party, some are just plain ole loonies) wouldn’t recognize the free speech of others if it slapped them in the face like a wet fish.

Wisconson seems to have their fair share (maybe more?….ed!) of loonies, especially in the “peace movement.” You know the peace movement don’t you, that sub-set of raggamuffins who think that if we stop the war in Iraq, bring our troops home that the islamofacsists will say “Oh, gee, we can stop trying to destroy the Great Satan now! Let’s all hold hands and sing Kumbayah!” Yeah, and I have a chance to live another 20,000 years!

But, I digress, one member of the WLL (Wisconson Looney Left), one Julie Enslow was quoted as follows:

This is a matter of free speech,” said Julie Enslow, an organizer with Peace Action Wisconsin in Milwaukee. “It is totally irresponsible for radio stations and bloggers to attack a person for his personal political views.”

[In addition]Othman Atta, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, said he would fault the worker for his lack of tact but defended his right to speak his mind.”

Now, I ask you, can any rational, clear thinking individual not see the disconnect here? No, some of my leftish readers? OK, let Uncle GM explain it for you.

Free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It says very clearly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Need more help? OK, here it is… “CONGRESS HAS NOT PASSED A LAW RESPECTING THE ‘ABRIDGEMENT’ OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.” Clear enough? No? OK, try this on for size. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE IDJIT DIDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NASTY THINGS TO SGT. HESS. His free speech is intact, he is free to send Sgt. Hess more emails saying all kinds of things. He can say “No blood for oil.” He can say “Baby Killers.” He can even say “If you don’t get an education, you could end up in Iraq.” But we can also respond because Ms. Enslow, we also have free speech.

I don’t get it, the Democrats are already trying to reinstate that failed policy called the “Fairness Doctrine” because liberal talk radio always falls flat on its face or, am I mistaken and Air America is a powerhouse with tens and tens of millions of listeners; and Mario Cuomo has the number one talk show in radio and even Prairie Home Companion is still drawing the listeners. Nope, none of those are operative. But, again I digress. Liberals just can’t stand it when conservatives or others exercise their rights to free speech. They call it censorship to call an obnoxious emailer on his crap. The owner of the company (well, the putative owner) one Faisal Khetani is “upset” (yeah, that’s putting it mildly…ed!) that he has received thousands of emails and phone calls castigating him for his employees stance. Granted some of those were doubtlessly over the top and are not only inappropriate, but undeserved as well. Be that as it may, each writer, caller was exercising HIS rights to free speech as well. It works both ways. What Mr. Khetani wants is free political speech without any consequences. It damn sure doesn’t work that way sir!

When the left learns that free speech (and I don’t mean threats to injure or harm) means that political speech has consequences, then they will be well on their way to understanding what the 1^st Amendment really is all about. Until then, do not expect to be able to say outrageous things and not have any feedback. Got it?

Cross posted at GM’s Corner

Said GM @ 4:24 pm Comments (1) | Permalink   

No, no one has said we’re gonna move to the “Papers! Give me YOUR PAPERS!” type of society but….how can it not be so?

I spend time and enjoy working from concepts to the “implementation” of things. Usually it’s something to do with electronics or computers, but once in a while, other topic areas pop up.

So, we are entangled in a great debate on what to do with some (estimated) 12M illegal immigrants in the Nation. “Something” is most definitely an answer just about everyone would give. The “something” is of concern to me. Right now, the tide seems to be in favor of being compassionate towards those who have come here and the solution is to (use what you want, but I choose) find a fast track to citizenship. While that gets under my skin, I think the preliminary “solutions” will have unintended consequences for “the rest of us.”

Follow me here: Solution: Give out “visiting workers visas” that make sure we know who is here, in a legalized status. Those “work passes” have already been discussed as containing specific, personally identifying data, so the person checking this person out knows it’s not a card passed onto someone else. Included, so far, I have heard that fingerprints and retinal scan data will be digitally embedded in the cards. Good. One card for a single person, with a very difficult to alter set of data. Coupled with this, as clearly stated by the President in the State of the Union speech a few days ago, would be the tools to allow employers to know if the person they were about to hire is legally able to become an employee.

Still good. Add the next layer of defense: BIG fines for employers who hire illegals. Ok…Looks like the bases are covered!

Not so fast. Think for a minute that not all illegals in the country are of one nationality or cultural/racial type. They come from all around the world, in larger, or smaller proportions, and yes, some look very much like those in the majority of the population in the US….On top of that, there are legal citizens, born and naturalized, that “look that way” and may be confused with those who are not here with permission.

So, you’re an employer. You run on tight margins, or you’re a large corporation, and you have shareholders who would frown on you breaking the law, maybe not so much for who you hired, but for risking their investments with you and your staff causes a huge fine from the Feds….

When anyone walks in to apply for a position, what will you do? Guess what? Only the formerly illegals trying become legal, available workers will have “The Card” (you know, the “don’t leave home without it” one) that can, thanks to the magic of technology that will result in swipe scanners being sold by the gross box loads, and (get ready for this one) a master, centralized database, to include fingerprint data and retinal scans (who knows, maybe they’ll toss DNA in, just in case a crime is committed, and “they” want to know who did it) of all the people with work visas……This means you can protect yourself from running afoul of the Federal laws easily.

But what if the person standing in front of you claims they are just an average, hard working American, born on the 4th of July in Baltimore Harbor, state of Maryland, not a few miles from Ft. McHenry. Uh, oh….if this person is lying, you could find yourself wrecking the “bottom line.” You ask for proof, proof that says for sure you are you, not some crumpled small sheet of paper with a footprint of a just born infant and no picture.

>> Read more

Said xformed @ 12:01 pm Comments (0) | Permalink   

More evidence has come to light of Jimmy Carter’s anti-semitism. In addition to writing a book of lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods about Israel, Jimmy Carter’s anti-semitism was evident in the 1970’s as well.

World Net Daily has an article by Aaron Klein who reports that, according to Monroe Freedman who was a founder of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., Carter thought there were “too many Jews” on the Board, and made other anti-semitic comments.

Former President Jimmy Carter once complained there were “too many Jews” on the government’s Holocaust Memorial Council, Monroe Freedman, the council’s former executive director, told WND in an exclusive interview.

Freedman, who served on the council during Carter’s term as President, also revealed a noted Holocaust scholar who was a Presbyterian Christian was rejected from the council’s board by Carter’s office because the scholar’s name “sounded too Jewish.”

Freedman, now a professor of law at Hofstra University, was picked by the council’s chairman, author Elie Weisel, to serve as executive director in 1980. The council, created by the Carter White House, went on to establish the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Freedman says he was tasked with creating a board for the council and with making recommendations to the White House on how best to memorialize the Holocaust.

He told WND he sent a memo to Carter’s office containing recommendations for council board members.

He said his memo was returned with a note on the upper right hand corner that stated, “Too many Jews.”

The note, Freedman said, was written in Carter’s handwriting and was initialed by Carter.

“I got a phone call from our liaison at the White House saying this particular historian whose name sounded Jewish would not do. The liaison said he would not even take the time to present Carter with the possibility of including the historian on the board because he knew Carter would think the name sounded too Jewish. I explained the historian is Presbyterian, but the liaison said it wouldn’t matter to Carter.”

Freedman said he was “outraged by this absurdity.”

“If I was memorializing Martin Luther King, I would expect a significant number of board members to be African American. If I was memorializing Native American figures I’d expect a lot of Native Americans to be on the board.

“I do not for a moment consider it inappropriate to build a Holocaust council with a significant majority of the board being Jewish,” Freedman stated.

Read the whole article here.

Further, Kenneth W. Stein, writing in the Spring 2007 issue of The Middle East Quarterly talks about why he has a problem with Jimmy Carter’s book.

Jimmy Carter’s engagement in foreign affairs as a former president is unprecedented in U.S. history. Because he regards the Arab-Israeli conflict as among Washington’s most important foreign policy topics, he has written more than two dozen articles and commentaries about the conflict, eight in the past year alone. In these publications, Carter uses his credibility as a former president, Nobel laureate, and key player in the September 1978 Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty to unfold his set of truths and often to criticize U.S. policy. He relishes the role of elder statesman and believes that with his accrued wisdom and experience, he can contribute to solutions.

But Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter’s twenty-first book and his second to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, is deficient. He does what no non-fiction author should ever do: He allows ideology or opinion to get in the way of facts. While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel’s supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. Falsehoods, when repeated and backed by the prestige of Carter’s credentials, can comprise an erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing attitudes and policymaking. Rather than bring peace, they can further fuel hostilities, encourage retrenchment, and hamper peacemaking.

This is an excellent essay, well-documented with extensive footnotes and references, by someone who had a relationship with Jimmy Carter, about Carter and his relationship to Israel and Palestine, the root of his anger, his animosity toward Menachem Begin, and his distrust and dislike of the American Jewish Community.

Some Excerpts:

Carter’s grievance list against Israel is long: He believes the Israeli government’s failure to withdraw fully from the West Bank is illegal and immoral; he condemns settlement construction; and he lambastes its current human rights abuse in the West Bank, which he labels “one of the worst examples of human rights abuse I know.” From the time he was president, he has criticized Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian land, usurpation of water rights, and retaliatory bulldozing of Palestinian houses. Such policies, he has argued, are responsible for the moribund Palestinian economy. Carter holds particular animus toward the security barrier, first proposed by the late prime minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yitzhak Rabin, as the latest example of what he believes to be a policy of de facto annexation of the West Bank.

Carter sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the root of both U.S. unpopularity in the region and the wider problem of Middle East instability. Once the historic injustice done to the Palestinians is resolved, he believes, other issues plaguing U.S. foreign policy will dissipate, if not disappear.

Carter’s distrust of the U.S. Jewish community and other supporters of Israel runs deep. According to former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Carter’s feelings on Israel were always ambivalent. On the one hand, he felt Israel was being intransigent; on the other, he genuinely had an attachment to the country as the ‘land of the Bible.’”

Carter’s animosity toward Begin has grown with time. He blames Begin for refusing to negotiate over the West Bank. Not only did this deny Carter a more complete peace deal, but, Carter believes, it also institutionalized itself in Israeli policymaking, worsening the Palestinians’ plight. Since Begin took office on May 17, 1977, ending the Labor movement’s hegemony in Israeli political life, Carter has repeatedly blasted Israeli prime ministers for what he terms the creation of a “horrible” and “terrible” state of affairs for the Palestinians in areas of east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Read this essay. It is very informative about who Jimmy Carter really is.

Cross-posted at Bear to the Right

Said Bear to the Right @ 9:36 pm Comments (6) | Permalink   

Wince, we’re having a discussion in comments about the environmentalists and Global warming, and leftists are coming out of the woodwork with their usual incomprehensible objections, I thought I’d do a post in part as a rebuttal.  As usual, I refer to the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. I am naturally ridiculed, as leftists start with their wailing using some communist’s words about Christianity being the opiate of the people, and that ICR’s PHDs can’t be considered scientists because they utter the word “God” and quote the Bible.

Romans 12:2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. - King James Version

How little people recall of history. I referred in three separate posts, back in 2004 when I first started blogging, to an article written by Joseph Wolverton II, called “the Founders and the Classics“. In part, Wolverton discusses the magnitude of what they learned; and the intensity of their studies, what was stressed that learned at a very young age, including the Bible, at the Ivy League Schools so many of them attended.

Alexander Hamilton’s alma mater, King’s College (now Columbia), had similarly stringent prerequisites for prospective students. Applicants were required to “give a rational account of the Greek and Latin grammars, read three orations of Cicero and three books of Virgil’s Aeneid, and translate the first 10 chapters of John from Greek into Latin.”

Can you imagine? Columbia University, in the 1700’s, taught the Bible.

Our founders’ curriculum was stunning in comparison to what students today carry in terms of a workload in the classroom, but let me point out a couple of things. First, the founders supported the use of the Bible in public schools as a text book.

The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools. [T]he Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . [It] should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.[56]

Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. I have examined all [religions]… and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.

John Adams

[T]he Bible…. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all nations and… [is] a necessary part of a polite education.

Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress; U.S. Diplomat; Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention

The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world.

Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence

To a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, but altogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible . . . “it is not so much praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it.”

John Quincy Adams

And secondly, they themselves studied the bible and could translate it back and forth between the original texts and English and back again, and in different tenses. The Bible, in fact, was used as a text book in public schools until the 60’s, and about 10 years later, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of emotional disorders. And it wasn’t because of newly discovered science to the contrary, it was because of lobbying gay activists.

Leftists, unfortunately, are not interested at all in facts or history, they’re just interested in their attacks on us as though that’s going to force us to shut up. We should send them some polish so they can shine up their jackboots.

This environmental bs began with the scare over nuclear weapons around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, we were probably the closest ever to nuclear war between the superpowers, but a year later, the US and Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban prohibiting all nuclear tests in the atmosphere and oceans. This could be the first international law ever passed that prohibited environmental pollution.

During the ’60’s, the fusing of the civil rights and peace movements with environmental activism took place; it wasn’t just a ‘revolution’ because the Beatles sang about it. Victor Scheffer points out that there is a natural affinity between peace and civil rights activists and the environmental movement, because both movements appeal to people with strong egalitarian sympathies.

e·gal·i·tar·i·an /ɪˌgælɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation[i-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] –adjective
1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.

In other words, the egalitarians believe in artificially ‘evening’ the playing field through taxation ande other means in order to promote what George Soros would call an “open society”. We’ve seen what these ideas promote in other countries; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and although they’ve miserably failed elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to stop these people from pushing this onto those who they think they can control and rule over. We conservatives, on the other hand, believe in equality in terms of hard work; if you put in your time, you’ll get the reward; unlike communism which takes the incentive for hard work away because you never see the fruits of your labor.

It drifted from ‘conservation’ to ‘environmentalism’: First, in the late 60’s and early 70’s, peace and civil rights movements and the second in the late 80’s and it continues into the present. Militant environmental lobbying groups including Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, were born in the 60’s, and old line conservation groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Audubon Society fell in line with the radicalization. During the 70’s, environmentalists began to voice their interest in other issues when environmental issues waned.

The activism inspired by the real possibility of a nuclear holoaust served as the training ground for what we see now; the apocalyptic environmentalists who scream that the sky is falling with this crap over global warming.

“The politicization of science; the revolving doors between government agencies in charge of environmental affairs and environmental advocacy groups; the symbiotic relationship among activists, the press, and politicians, all of whom thrive on a crisis atmosphere; the massive propaganda campaigns involving public schools, church organizations and civic clubs, the call for massive government intervention and international control–all were policies and strategies developed and refined first by antinuclear and peace activists.

For instance, New Left peace activism and environmentalism were combined in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS emerged from a one-day research strike and teach-in at MIT in March 1969. During the MIT strike, faculty and students discussed the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War, and the world food crisis. The UCS’s founding ‘faculty document’ called on scientists and engineers to ‘devise means for turning research applications away from the present overemphasis on military technolgoy towards the solution of pressing environmental and social problems’.”

EcoScam, The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, by Ronald Bailey, pages 34 and 35.

It just goes to show that what’s happening today is just an extension of what has been at work for a long time in engineering and science; which my dad, who is an MIT-educated engineer, is fully aware.

Hell, Michael Moore is a self-proclaimed GREEN activist, and he put together Fahrenheit 9/11, the shlockumentary about the Iraq war.

The “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer; greenhouses keep warm by preventing outside breezes from cooling the air inside them, not by trapping and reradiating heat.

Ecoscam, page 143.

“Attempting to predict the behavior of the earth’s climate, some climatologists have created complicated computer models, called General Circulation Models (CCMs). Today, the leading climate models calculate that doubling carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million should increase average global temperatures between 1.5C and 4.5C degrees (2.2f and 8.1F degrees). Note that the higher figure is very close to the values calculated by Arrhenius a century earlier. However, recent projections made by German and British GGMs lowered predicted global warming to only 1.8 to 3.4 (1 to 1.9C) degrees.

The models are far from perfect-they must be ‘tuned’ in order to achieve global warming.

Ecoscam, page 145.

So there’s plenty of evidence from a lot of scientists that question the theory of global warming, and the impact it would make if we would stop contributing the evil ‘greenhouse gases’ they’re screaming about. It’s not only the ICR scientists, but it’s all scientists who are interested in science, and who aren’t being paid government grant money to skew results so they can get more government money. We’ve moved over into a time when people who know the right people or who do the right thing are rewarded with amazing sums of money and cars, and government-paid vacations. We have entered the time when honesty in politics is something that we don’t even expect. And unfortunately, we’ve also entered a time when the word ‘progressive’ in terms of taxes and other things, is commonplace, even though some of us know that communism and socialism can’t be sold by their brand names yet. Progressive is synonymous with socialism and/or communism. And please, don’t correct me, because as Marx and Engels pointed out, socialism is a predecessor to communism; that’s the plan. And what’s also the plan is that the democrats would work alongside them to accomplish their goals.

X posted at Cao’s blog 

Said Cao @ 5:10 am Comments (58) | Permalink   

Unions belong in the past. They are an anachronism from the time of limited suffrage and exist now to screw employers over. Even when the employer is the public sector I find the unions involved to be contemptible.

This week we have the PCS union planning strikes because civil servant jobs are being transferred to the “private” sector.

The BBC tries a slight of hand in its reporting (since edited in true al-Beeb style but here is the link anyway) and informs readers of it’s website that the action was carried in ballot “with a majority of almost 62%”. Of course when the BBC writes this I immediately get suspicious. First of all the two numbers (for and against) added result in 61.29% in favour of the walkout, so it should be “just over 61%” but that is mere small fry.

The “majority” is not 62%, that is the total who voted for it in the ballot. But then the BBC also helpfully tells us that the union balloted 280,000 members. Less than half (100,311) could be bothered to return their papers and when it comes to straight questions like this I tend to assume the question is so insignificant to them they cannot be bothered to complete and return.

The actual percentage of the total balloted membership who have voted to take industrial action is a little under 22%. That is less than one in four union members who were asked were worried enough about job transfers to put a cross in a box and return it in a pre-paid envelope.

Now the £150,000pa fat-cat union bosses have taken a break from complaining about how much senior managers are paid in private firms to announce a one-day strike. All union members will be obliged to forgo a day’s pay so that the local shop-stewards can stand round a tin-can fire holding placards.

What is the union gripe? That transferring to the private sector will result in job cuts, cuts in pay and loss of “employment conditions and benefits”.

Think about that for a second.

We have always said that Government employees have it easy because they are paid from the public purse. This has to be true because we now have a union that is publicly saying that it believes its members will be disadvantaged if subject to standard market conditions.

Clearly if a private employer were to cut salaries and benefits, laying some off in the process, then this is the market’s way of telling the bloated public sector that it is overmanned, over paid and under employed.

This is why unions are the most damaging force in British business. They seek to gain undeserved perks and benefits for their members with little thought for the business. In their mind it is better that the factory went under and laid off all the workers because it had crippling staffing costs than for union members to be in continued employment at a lower wage to help the business survive. In the government a union simply sees the public purse (paid for by the poorest in our society at a basic tax rate of 33%) as a cash cow.

But of course higher wages means higher union contributions from those wages means pay rise for the union bosses. Trebles all round then!!!

Said RfS @ 1:00 pm Comments (2) | Permalink   

Said Richard Nixon @ 11:54 am Comments (0) | Permalink