Its a Danish problem
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/denmark.htm
Something Rotten in Denmark?
by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard
A Muslim group in Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be paid for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews, a threat that garnered wide international notice. Less well known is that this is just one problem associated with Denmark's approximately 200,000 Muslim immigrants. The key issue is that many of them show little desire to fit into their adopted country.
For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:
* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.
* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.
* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.
* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.
Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.
* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."
* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.
Other Europeans (such as the late Pim Fortuyn in Holland) have also grown alarmed about these issues, but Danes were the first to make them the basis for a change in government.
In a momentous election last November, a center-right coalition came to power that - for the first time since 1929 - excluded the socialists. The right broke its 72-year losing streak and won a solid parliamentary majority by promising to handle immigration issues, the electorate's first concern, differently from the socialists.
The next nine months did witness some fine-tuning of procedures: Immigrants now must live seven years in Denmark (rather than three) to become permanent residents. Most non-refugees no longer can collect welfare checks immediately on entering the country. No one can bring into the country an intended spouse under the age of 24. And the state prosecutor is considering a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir for its death threats against Jews.
These minor adjustments prompted howls internationally - with European and U.N. reports condemning Denmark for racism and "Islamophobia," the Washington Post reporting that Muslim immigrants "face habitual discrimination," and a London Guardian headline announcing that "Copenhagen Flirts with Fascism."
In reality, however, the new government barely addressed the existing problems. Nor did it prevent new ones, such as the death threats against Jews or a recent Islamic edict calling on Muslims to drive Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of Copenhagen.
The authorities remain indulgent. The military mulls permitting Muslim soldiers in Denmark's volunteer International Brigade to opt out of actions they don't agree with - a privilege granted to members of no other faith. Mohammed Omar Bakri, the self-proclaimed London-based "eyes, ears and mouth" of Osama bin Laden, won permission to set up a branch of his organization, Al-Muhajiroun.
Contrary to media reports, the real news from Denmark is not flirting with fascism but getting mired in inertia. A government elected specifically to deal with a set of problems has made minimal headway. Its reluctance has potentially profound implications for the West as a whole.
Something Rotten in Denmark?
by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard
A Muslim group in Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be paid for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews, a threat that garnered wide international notice. Less well known is that this is just one problem associated with Denmark's approximately 200,000 Muslim immigrants. The key issue is that many of them show little desire to fit into their adopted country.
For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:
* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.
* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.
* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.
* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.
Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.
* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."
* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.
Other Europeans (such as the late Pim Fortuyn in Holland) have also grown alarmed about these issues, but Danes were the first to make them the basis for a change in government.
In a momentous election last November, a center-right coalition came to power that - for the first time since 1929 - excluded the socialists. The right broke its 72-year losing streak and won a solid parliamentary majority by promising to handle immigration issues, the electorate's first concern, differently from the socialists.
The next nine months did witness some fine-tuning of procedures: Immigrants now must live seven years in Denmark (rather than three) to become permanent residents. Most non-refugees no longer can collect welfare checks immediately on entering the country. No one can bring into the country an intended spouse under the age of 24. And the state prosecutor is considering a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir for its death threats against Jews.
These minor adjustments prompted howls internationally - with European and U.N. reports condemning Denmark for racism and "Islamophobia," the Washington Post reporting that Muslim immigrants "face habitual discrimination," and a London Guardian headline announcing that "Copenhagen Flirts with Fascism."
In reality, however, the new government barely addressed the existing problems. Nor did it prevent new ones, such as the death threats against Jews or a recent Islamic edict calling on Muslims to drive Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of Copenhagen.
The authorities remain indulgent. The military mulls permitting Muslim soldiers in Denmark's volunteer International Brigade to opt out of actions they don't agree with - a privilege granted to members of no other faith. Mohammed Omar Bakri, the self-proclaimed London-based "eyes, ears and mouth" of Osama bin Laden, won permission to set up a branch of his organization, Al-Muhajiroun.
Contrary to media reports, the real news from Denmark is not flirting with fascism but getting mired in inertia. A government elected specifically to deal with a set of problems has made minimal headway. Its reluctance has potentially profound implications for the West as a whole.
Whats good about having Guns?
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of An Individual’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The Supreme Court this week ruled that the District of Columbia’s ban on most gun ownership is unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Heller, more popularly known as the D.C. gun ban case, was the first Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years, and the decision marks the first time in history the Court explicitly acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s fundamental right to gun ownership, rather than just a collective right to serve in state militias.
In February, the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) filed a friend of the court brief in the case. Specifically, CFIF presented two arguments to the Court for recognizing the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms:
1) Contrary to popular myth and gun control advocates' common assertions, the United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment confers only a collective right to keep and bear arms, nor has it somehow rejected an individual right interpretation.
2) The Supreme Court needed to consider the unexpected and chaotic real-world consequences that would result from a collective states' right ruling. For instance, recognizing some sort of collective right of the states to keep and bear arms would contradict other Constitutional provisions, call the National Guard as it presently exists into question and collide with existing federal firearms laws. Furthermore, such an ill-founded ruling would open the federal courts to a sudden flood of litigation by states against federal firearms laws. These inherent contradictions and flaws in the District of Columbia's proposition clearly demonstrate that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights could not have intended anything other than an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.
As CFIF’s Timothy Lee stated at the time of our filing, “The Bill of Rights is almost entirely a declaration of individual rights held by 'the people,' and that term is used throughout the Constitution to confer rights upon individual citizens. As our brief points out, one cannot assert with a straight face that these Amendments somehow protect collective, governmental rights, as opposed to individual rights. In fact, the Second Amendment unequivocally states that, '... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'"
The Court’s decision in Heller makes clear what the Founders intended, which is that the Second Amendment is not unique among the other Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms is just that.
As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, “[W]hatever else [the Second Amendment] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
The Supreme Court this week ruled that the District of Columbia’s ban on most gun ownership is unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Heller, more popularly known as the D.C. gun ban case, was the first Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years, and the decision marks the first time in history the Court explicitly acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual’s fundamental right to gun ownership, rather than just a collective right to serve in state militias.
In February, the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) filed a friend of the court brief in the case. Specifically, CFIF presented two arguments to the Court for recognizing the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms:
1) Contrary to popular myth and gun control advocates' common assertions, the United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment confers only a collective right to keep and bear arms, nor has it somehow rejected an individual right interpretation.
2) The Supreme Court needed to consider the unexpected and chaotic real-world consequences that would result from a collective states' right ruling. For instance, recognizing some sort of collective right of the states to keep and bear arms would contradict other Constitutional provisions, call the National Guard as it presently exists into question and collide with existing federal firearms laws. Furthermore, such an ill-founded ruling would open the federal courts to a sudden flood of litigation by states against federal firearms laws. These inherent contradictions and flaws in the District of Columbia's proposition clearly demonstrate that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights could not have intended anything other than an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.
As CFIF’s Timothy Lee stated at the time of our filing, “The Bill of Rights is almost entirely a declaration of individual rights held by 'the people,' and that term is used throughout the Constitution to confer rights upon individual citizens. As our brief points out, one cannot assert with a straight face that these Amendments somehow protect collective, governmental rights, as opposed to individual rights. In fact, the Second Amendment unequivocally states that, '... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'"
The Court’s decision in Heller makes clear what the Founders intended, which is that the Second Amendment is not unique among the other Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms is just that.
As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion, “[W]hatever else [the Second Amendment] leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
The Green Fleecing of America
Will Malven
June 5, 2008
The American people are constantly being bombarded more and more with piffle and drivel from the lunatic fringe of the “Greens” movement.
Organizations with their own political, social, and economic agendas, like the IPCC and the UN General Assembly present themselves as clearing houses for “scientific information” while placing their own philosophical brand on the findings they report.
The proponents of the “doom and gloom” scenario of man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW) tend to fall into easily recognizable categories:
Climatologists and other scientists whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of the theory that:
a. The planet is warming up, and
b. That man’s activities are the primary driving force behind such a change.
Computer modelers who take current data and construct mathematical models which they then use to confirm their already drawn conclusions about the origin and ultimate results of global warming.
Members of organizations (generally, but not exclusively found on the extreme left-wing of the political spectrum) like the Greens Party, the Sierra Club, and other environmental wacko groups who believe that mankind (and especially American mankind) is basically a toxic presence which infects the planet and that the planet would be better off without him.
Naïve, well intentioned do-gooders who lack the intellect or knowledge to penetrate the fog of jargon with which the global warming alarmists camouflage their intentions and to critically examine the weak, faux science now being presented as fact.
Leftists who understand global warming as the scam is, but see in it, through their cynical, Machiavellian eyes, a useful tool to further government control over the economy and the people.
The average citizen who lack the time, knowledge, or inclination to learn the truth about AGW and the aims of its proponents and who fall victim to the massive propaganda machine in the Leftist controlled mainstream media that tells them tales of a “grim reality” rapidly approaching which can only be prevented by taking draconian measures…IMMEDIATELY!
There have been innumerable “doom and gloom” cults throughout history, but never before have they had such a powerful propaganda weapon as the mass communications apparatus now in place.
That propaganda machine has already catapulted Albert Gore, Jr. from Clinton court jester to superstar status (with commensurate income) and has rendered him immune to cries against his hypocrisy, by excusing his massive “carbon foot print” (as well as those of other celebrity alarmists) as being an unfortunate side effect of the obligation he has to spread the gospel.
Al Gore, the man who flunked out of Divinity School, is presented as an expert in AGW. If he says it, we are to believe it without question. In fact Barbara Boxer quoted Al Gore, Jr. as one of her unimpeachable sources influencing the design of her global warming substitute amendment, a massive government takeover of the American economy.
Al Gore tells us that human generated CO2 is causing global warming and he uses charts derived from ice-core samples to prove it…he even shows us a huge blown up image of a graph of that ice-core data…nevermind that he misrepresents what those data tell us, we must believe him.
Al Gore is the new messiah of the global warming movement.
What a joke!
We already know. Through a close examination of those same data, that increases in CO2 levels lag behind increases of global temperatures by 800 years, not precede it. They occur as a result of increased temperatures and have no causative effect whatsoever.
If, as enviro-mental wacko’s and their naive adherents claim, solar, gravitational, and geophysical effects contribute only a small percentage to the phenomenon of global warming and the accumulation of CO2 (caused by “evil” man) in the atmosphere is the primary causative factor, then there would be little evidence of massive climatological changes occurring on other planets, but there is.
“Long-time greens” (as at least one has presented himself to me), are so twisted in their thinking that they view mankind as (to quote from the movie Matrix) “a virus” which infects our planet.
They willingly adhere to any theory which predicts the imminent destruction of mankind in a sort of convulsive purging of itself by Mother Earth which they believe is a living organism called Gaia (didn’t Bluebonnet or Parkay already do an ad about that?). “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”
The fact that these consummate “neo-Malthusians” are invariably and repeatedly proven wrong by science and by the continued stubbornness of mankind in refusing to “go quietly into that good night,” deters them not one whit.
Apparently reality impinges but little into their world.
Global warming has already stalled for the past decade and last year was the coldest in a decade.
According to the geological record, we are not even close to the warmest temperatures Earth has seen over the past few hundred-thousand years.
In past interglacials, temperatures rose considerably higher than they have in the current inter-glacial…and yes we are still in the midst of an inter-glacial, so periods of warming are to be expected.
If these facts elude you, try reading some works of genuine science instead of these politically motivated diatribes written by people with a social agenda.
One of the more recent observations to send a tremor of fear through the global warming alarmists, is a report that subsurface ocean temperatures, as directly measured by over 3000 robotic probes have shown no rise in global oceanic temperatures. In fact those same probes have shown a small but statistically significant decrease in subsurface oceanic temperatures.
These results were so unexpected that, even now, the little Gorebots are scrambling to alter their models to account for what simply have to be anomalous data.
It is an immutable truth about Liberal dogma that, as they are proven wrong in their pet theories, the tenor of the conversation (such as there is) approaches hysteria. The level of hyperbole and the number of predictions of “doom and gloom” rise.
The fevered pitch of the comments coming from those alarmists and the more and more dire predictions of our approaching demise, serve only to prove their desperation as once more one of their pet theories falls onto the ash-heap of history.
AGW is yesterday’s news and over the next 10-20 years, people in these organizations will be warning us, once again, of an impending ice-age or some other dire prediction, with the requisite imminent end of civilization as we know it.
I am not a part of the “pro-carbon” lobby, I am a part of the pro-science, pro-reality lobby, a voice of sanity standing in defiance of the raging tide of alarmism emanating from the Left. I am a green’s worst nightmare, a Conservative with a strong knowledge of science and the ability to know Leftist BS when I see it.
I am far from being alone. Most individuals of good common sense (mostly Conservatives) see AGW for the con-game it is. The arguments, as put forward by AGW alarmist, offer neither compelling scientific nor logical reasons to react impulsively to each spate of tornadic activity reported on the evening news.
The most compelling scientific evidence and arguments rest with AGW deniers like me.
It is individuals such as those I have described above who, through their blind following of false profits of doom like Rachel Carson (author of one of the deadliest lies in history, the book “Silent Spring”) and Albert Gore, Jr, represent the most pressing danger to the world’s population.
Rachel Carson (after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the 1973 Supreme Court through its ruling in Roe v. Wade) is the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. She and her gullible little army of adherents are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans from malaria. By demanding and achieving the a ban on the manufacture, distribution and use of DDT, one of the most innocuous chemicals ever invented by mankind, they have caused unimaginable suffering by those in developing nations.
That book and the “science” upon which it was based is one of the most horrendous (in consequences) mistakes of the faux scientists in the green movement. Her theories were flawed and the science upon which they were based was bad and, in spite of her full knowledge of this prior to the precipitous actions her work generated, she persisted in her campaign.
The story of Rachel Carson and her egregious error of arrogance should be an object lesson for all who now heed the siren call of the greens in this AGW campaign, but that same arrogance, the arrogance inherent in the Left, will prevent them from paying attention.
AGW is a monstrous scam and any action taken by congress or any government will most certainly have grim unintended consequences, just as all poorly thought out and ill-conceived laws have, throughout our nation’s history.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
June 5, 2008
The American people are constantly being bombarded more and more with piffle and drivel from the lunatic fringe of the “Greens” movement.
Organizations with their own political, social, and economic agendas, like the IPCC and the UN General Assembly present themselves as clearing houses for “scientific information” while placing their own philosophical brand on the findings they report.
The proponents of the “doom and gloom” scenario of man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW) tend to fall into easily recognizable categories:
Climatologists and other scientists whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of the theory that:
a. The planet is warming up, and
b. That man’s activities are the primary driving force behind such a change.
Computer modelers who take current data and construct mathematical models which they then use to confirm their already drawn conclusions about the origin and ultimate results of global warming.
Members of organizations (generally, but not exclusively found on the extreme left-wing of the political spectrum) like the Greens Party, the Sierra Club, and other environmental wacko groups who believe that mankind (and especially American mankind) is basically a toxic presence which infects the planet and that the planet would be better off without him.
Naïve, well intentioned do-gooders who lack the intellect or knowledge to penetrate the fog of jargon with which the global warming alarmists camouflage their intentions and to critically examine the weak, faux science now being presented as fact.
Leftists who understand global warming as the scam is, but see in it, through their cynical, Machiavellian eyes, a useful tool to further government control over the economy and the people.
The average citizen who lack the time, knowledge, or inclination to learn the truth about AGW and the aims of its proponents and who fall victim to the massive propaganda machine in the Leftist controlled mainstream media that tells them tales of a “grim reality” rapidly approaching which can only be prevented by taking draconian measures…IMMEDIATELY!
There have been innumerable “doom and gloom” cults throughout history, but never before have they had such a powerful propaganda weapon as the mass communications apparatus now in place.
That propaganda machine has already catapulted Albert Gore, Jr. from Clinton court jester to superstar status (with commensurate income) and has rendered him immune to cries against his hypocrisy, by excusing his massive “carbon foot print” (as well as those of other celebrity alarmists) as being an unfortunate side effect of the obligation he has to spread the gospel.
Al Gore, the man who flunked out of Divinity School, is presented as an expert in AGW. If he says it, we are to believe it without question. In fact Barbara Boxer quoted Al Gore, Jr. as one of her unimpeachable sources influencing the design of her global warming substitute amendment, a massive government takeover of the American economy.
Al Gore tells us that human generated CO2 is causing global warming and he uses charts derived from ice-core samples to prove it…he even shows us a huge blown up image of a graph of that ice-core data…nevermind that he misrepresents what those data tell us, we must believe him.
Al Gore is the new messiah of the global warming movement.
What a joke!
We already know. Through a close examination of those same data, that increases in CO2 levels lag behind increases of global temperatures by 800 years, not precede it. They occur as a result of increased temperatures and have no causative effect whatsoever.
If, as enviro-mental wacko’s and their naive adherents claim, solar, gravitational, and geophysical effects contribute only a small percentage to the phenomenon of global warming and the accumulation of CO2 (caused by “evil” man) in the atmosphere is the primary causative factor, then there would be little evidence of massive climatological changes occurring on other planets, but there is.
“Long-time greens” (as at least one has presented himself to me), are so twisted in their thinking that they view mankind as (to quote from the movie Matrix) “a virus” which infects our planet.
They willingly adhere to any theory which predicts the imminent destruction of mankind in a sort of convulsive purging of itself by Mother Earth which they believe is a living organism called Gaia (didn’t Bluebonnet or Parkay already do an ad about that?). “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”
The fact that these consummate “neo-Malthusians” are invariably and repeatedly proven wrong by science and by the continued stubbornness of mankind in refusing to “go quietly into that good night,” deters them not one whit.
Apparently reality impinges but little into their world.
Global warming has already stalled for the past decade and last year was the coldest in a decade.
According to the geological record, we are not even close to the warmest temperatures Earth has seen over the past few hundred-thousand years.
In past interglacials, temperatures rose considerably higher than they have in the current inter-glacial…and yes we are still in the midst of an inter-glacial, so periods of warming are to be expected.
If these facts elude you, try reading some works of genuine science instead of these politically motivated diatribes written by people with a social agenda.
One of the more recent observations to send a tremor of fear through the global warming alarmists, is a report that subsurface ocean temperatures, as directly measured by over 3000 robotic probes have shown no rise in global oceanic temperatures. In fact those same probes have shown a small but statistically significant decrease in subsurface oceanic temperatures.
These results were so unexpected that, even now, the little Gorebots are scrambling to alter their models to account for what simply have to be anomalous data.
It is an immutable truth about Liberal dogma that, as they are proven wrong in their pet theories, the tenor of the conversation (such as there is) approaches hysteria. The level of hyperbole and the number of predictions of “doom and gloom” rise.
The fevered pitch of the comments coming from those alarmists and the more and more dire predictions of our approaching demise, serve only to prove their desperation as once more one of their pet theories falls onto the ash-heap of history.
AGW is yesterday’s news and over the next 10-20 years, people in these organizations will be warning us, once again, of an impending ice-age or some other dire prediction, with the requisite imminent end of civilization as we know it.
I am not a part of the “pro-carbon” lobby, I am a part of the pro-science, pro-reality lobby, a voice of sanity standing in defiance of the raging tide of alarmism emanating from the Left. I am a green’s worst nightmare, a Conservative with a strong knowledge of science and the ability to know Leftist BS when I see it.
I am far from being alone. Most individuals of good common sense (mostly Conservatives) see AGW for the con-game it is. The arguments, as put forward by AGW alarmist, offer neither compelling scientific nor logical reasons to react impulsively to each spate of tornadic activity reported on the evening news.
The most compelling scientific evidence and arguments rest with AGW deniers like me.
It is individuals such as those I have described above who, through their blind following of false profits of doom like Rachel Carson (author of one of the deadliest lies in history, the book “Silent Spring”) and Albert Gore, Jr, represent the most pressing danger to the world’s population.
Rachel Carson (after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the 1973 Supreme Court through its ruling in Roe v. Wade) is the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. She and her gullible little army of adherents are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans from malaria. By demanding and achieving the a ban on the manufacture, distribution and use of DDT, one of the most innocuous chemicals ever invented by mankind, they have caused unimaginable suffering by those in developing nations.
That book and the “science” upon which it was based is one of the most horrendous (in consequences) mistakes of the faux scientists in the green movement. Her theories were flawed and the science upon which they were based was bad and, in spite of her full knowledge of this prior to the precipitous actions her work generated, she persisted in her campaign.
The story of Rachel Carson and her egregious error of arrogance should be an object lesson for all who now heed the siren call of the greens in this AGW campaign, but that same arrogance, the arrogance inherent in the Left, will prevent them from paying attention.
AGW is a monstrous scam and any action taken by congress or any government will most certainly have grim unintended consequences, just as all poorly thought out and ill-conceived laws have, throughout our nation’s history.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.
Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.
Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.
Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and pr omises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and Sa n Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandon ing any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.
Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.
Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.
Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and pr omises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and Sa n Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandon ing any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Obama What Else?
Astonishing Obama Video: “I Will Slow Development of Future Combat Systems”
In Video Statement, Senator Obama Inexplicably Pledges to Unilaterally Jeopardize American Military Superiority
When you find yourself in a hole, just keep digging.
That appears to be the logic of Senator Barack Obama, who already finds himself in the proverbial hole on defense and national security issues. At this pace, he’ll reach China by November.
In a strange video address intended to somehow reassure American voters regarding his military bona fides, Senator Obama ends up doing just the opposite.
Among other things, he promises to cut “tens of billions of dollars” from the military budget, at a time when our armed forces are already stretched and in need of new weapon technologies and armor; to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” which in reality have already proven remarkably effective; that he “will not weaponize space” even though other nations such as China do exactly that; to terminate the Iraq war just as the surge proves itself remarkably successful; and he rails against what he calls “unnecessary” military spending. He concludes by promising to remove our inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from what he calls a “hair-trigger alert,” embarrassing himself via his ignorance regarding our deliberate targeting and launch protocol.
Most alarmingly, however, Senator Obama literally promises to “slow development of future combat systems.”
Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment.
Future combat systems are the cornerstone of American military modernization and superiority. As America fights the war on terror and deters potential military aggression by rogue nations cross the world, advanced combat systems provide us with better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communication systems that result in American battlefield domination. Other ascendant nations such as China and Russia seek to match our prowess, but we continue to outpace them.
Current examples include constantly-evolving satellite technology that allows us to pinpoint and eliminate the enemy, unmanned drones that promise amazing advances in battlefield safety and effectiveness, bunker-buster weapons that penetrate deep into the caves in which remote terrorists hide and communications systems that allow lightning-quick troop deployment and rescue missions. Not only do these cutting-edge combat systems allow us to prevail against our enemies, they ultimately protect the lives and health of our troops, just as they protect us.
Despite this, Senator Obama bizarrely pledges to jeopardize our battlefield superiority.
Imagine previous Presidents pledging, as Senator Obama foolishly does, to “slow development of future combat systems.” No more stealth aircraft, which allowed our pilots to penetrate Saddam Hussein’s complex air defense systems with near-impunity. No more precision-guided weaponry, which provide extreme precision and greatly reduce harm to non-combatants. No more Strategic Defense Initiative, which forced Mikhail Gorbachev’s negotiating hand and helped end the Cold War. None of the advanced naval systems that have allowed America’s navy to rule the seas for decades. No P-51 Mustangs or B-29 Superfortresses, which resulted in American air superiority that crippled Germany and Japan during World War II. The examples are endless.
In what realm does Senator Obama’s ideology dwell, that he would expect his promises to somehow endear him to American swing voters?
What makes Senator Obama’s statement most perplexing is the fact that he already faces an uphill battle to convince American voters that he won’t be the second coming of Jimmy Carter in undermining our military forces. It also follows a series of embarrassing gaffes, which undermine Americans’ faith in his ability and commitment to protect the country and our military superiority.
For instance, he promises to meet the leader of Iran, which provides weapons that kill American troops, without preconditions. He extends that same promise of unconditional meetings to North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela as well, yet rebuffs Colombia, which is a critical ally fighting narco-terrorists.
Senator Obama’s statement also follows such eyebrow-raising fiascos as his twenty-year relationship with America-damning Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his association with anti-American domestic terrorist William Ayers and his offensive flag pin comments. Readers will recall that Senator Obama refused in October 2007 to wear an American flag lapel pin because he considered it “a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues.” Asked to explain, his staff replied that “Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol.” Just like that, he thus dismissed reverence to the American flag, to which children pledge allegiance in school, and which draws tears from veterans and everyday citizens during memorial events and sporting events.
Once again, Senator Obama has raised questions about his commitment to defend America and maintain military superiority. Stay tuned to see how he might top this.
In Video Statement, Senator Obama Inexplicably Pledges to Unilaterally Jeopardize American Military Superiority
When you find yourself in a hole, just keep digging.
That appears to be the logic of Senator Barack Obama, who already finds himself in the proverbial hole on defense and national security issues. At this pace, he’ll reach China by November.
In a strange video address intended to somehow reassure American voters regarding his military bona fides, Senator Obama ends up doing just the opposite.
Among other things, he promises to cut “tens of billions of dollars” from the military budget, at a time when our armed forces are already stretched and in need of new weapon technologies and armor; to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” which in reality have already proven remarkably effective; that he “will not weaponize space” even though other nations such as China do exactly that; to terminate the Iraq war just as the surge proves itself remarkably successful; and he rails against what he calls “unnecessary” military spending. He concludes by promising to remove our inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from what he calls a “hair-trigger alert,” embarrassing himself via his ignorance regarding our deliberate targeting and launch protocol.
Most alarmingly, however, Senator Obama literally promises to “slow development of future combat systems.”
Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment.
Future combat systems are the cornerstone of American military modernization and superiority. As America fights the war on terror and deters potential military aggression by rogue nations cross the world, advanced combat systems provide us with better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communication systems that result in American battlefield domination. Other ascendant nations such as China and Russia seek to match our prowess, but we continue to outpace them.
Current examples include constantly-evolving satellite technology that allows us to pinpoint and eliminate the enemy, unmanned drones that promise amazing advances in battlefield safety and effectiveness, bunker-buster weapons that penetrate deep into the caves in which remote terrorists hide and communications systems that allow lightning-quick troop deployment and rescue missions. Not only do these cutting-edge combat systems allow us to prevail against our enemies, they ultimately protect the lives and health of our troops, just as they protect us.
Despite this, Senator Obama bizarrely pledges to jeopardize our battlefield superiority.
Imagine previous Presidents pledging, as Senator Obama foolishly does, to “slow development of future combat systems.” No more stealth aircraft, which allowed our pilots to penetrate Saddam Hussein’s complex air defense systems with near-impunity. No more precision-guided weaponry, which provide extreme precision and greatly reduce harm to non-combatants. No more Strategic Defense Initiative, which forced Mikhail Gorbachev’s negotiating hand and helped end the Cold War. None of the advanced naval systems that have allowed America’s navy to rule the seas for decades. No P-51 Mustangs or B-29 Superfortresses, which resulted in American air superiority that crippled Germany and Japan during World War II. The examples are endless.
In what realm does Senator Obama’s ideology dwell, that he would expect his promises to somehow endear him to American swing voters?
What makes Senator Obama’s statement most perplexing is the fact that he already faces an uphill battle to convince American voters that he won’t be the second coming of Jimmy Carter in undermining our military forces. It also follows a series of embarrassing gaffes, which undermine Americans’ faith in his ability and commitment to protect the country and our military superiority.
For instance, he promises to meet the leader of Iran, which provides weapons that kill American troops, without preconditions. He extends that same promise of unconditional meetings to North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela as well, yet rebuffs Colombia, which is a critical ally fighting narco-terrorists.
Senator Obama’s statement also follows such eyebrow-raising fiascos as his twenty-year relationship with America-damning Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his association with anti-American domestic terrorist William Ayers and his offensive flag pin comments. Readers will recall that Senator Obama refused in October 2007 to wear an American flag lapel pin because he considered it “a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues.” Asked to explain, his staff replied that “Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol.” Just like that, he thus dismissed reverence to the American flag, to which children pledge allegiance in school, and which draws tears from veterans and everyday citizens during memorial events and sporting events.
Once again, Senator Obama has raised questions about his commitment to defend America and maintain military superiority. Stay tuned to see how he might top this.
Read this...
A Gaffe, an Absurdity, and a Policy
WASHINGTON -- When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has gone surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.
Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."
After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.
Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e. preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.
Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?
There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.
Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.
As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?
Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets ...
By Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.
WASHINGTON -- When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has gone surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.
Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."
After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.
Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e. preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.
Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?
There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.
Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.
Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?
During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.
Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?
A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.
As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?
Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets ...
By Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.
Three Quotes Obama-Maniacs need to know
Republicans have enough damaging information against Barack Obama to knock him off the ballot before the November election. Those at the top of the Democratic Party know this by now and voters need to recognize that if they nominate him they are throwing the election. Nothing else can explain why they would allow this disaster to happen.
- Evelyn Pringle
Barack Obama has a long history of working with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and governors of Illinois, including the current Governor Rod Blagojevich, in doling government funding for housing development in Chicago. His history is hardly a model of success, except for the hundred of millions in profits made by the chosen few slumlords. - Evelyn Pringle
Three days after the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Aiham Alsammarae, the former electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq, put up $2.7 million in property to help raise $8.5 million to free Tony Rezko from jail in Chicago, the Times reported that Alsammarae had contributed six times to Obama's presidential campaign.
The April 29, 2008 report also noted that before he escaped from jail in Bagdad in December 2006, and returned to Chicago, Obama's US Senate office had sought information about Alsammarae from the State Department on October 16, 2006 on behalf of Alsammarae's family while he was being held in jail in Iraq. - Evelyn Pringle
- Evelyn Pringle
Barack Obama has a long history of working with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and governors of Illinois, including the current Governor Rod Blagojevich, in doling government funding for housing development in Chicago. His history is hardly a model of success, except for the hundred of millions in profits made by the chosen few slumlords. - Evelyn Pringle
Three days after the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Aiham Alsammarae, the former electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq, put up $2.7 million in property to help raise $8.5 million to free Tony Rezko from jail in Chicago, the Times reported that Alsammarae had contributed six times to Obama's presidential campaign.
The April 29, 2008 report also noted that before he escaped from jail in Bagdad in December 2006, and returned to Chicago, Obama's US Senate office had sought information about Alsammarae from the State Department on October 16, 2006 on behalf of Alsammarae's family while he was being held in jail in Iraq. - Evelyn Pringle
Golden Ratio - know this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zWivbG0RIo
Intelligent Design
Watch the video -Is it the crux of intelligent design? - The belief that thou art god? Stranger in a Strange Land Robert Heinlein type - And we actually hold the higher power within our own flesh and blood. Magnificent design - Intelligent Design!
Intelligent Design
Watch the video -Is it the crux of intelligent design? - The belief that thou art god? Stranger in a Strange Land Robert Heinlein type - And we actually hold the higher power within our own flesh and blood. Magnificent design - Intelligent Design!
Global Poverty Act of 2007
How to Manipulate the Washington old boy system 101
S. 2433 Global Poverty Act of 2007
S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Other Bills with the Same Title – The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.
109th Congress: H.R. 3605Dead
110th Congress: H.R. 1302Passed House
The Global Poverty Act of 2007
Sponsor Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Cosponsors [as of 2008-05-04]
Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Next step of bill has been Sent to committee of foreign relations
---Bold Senators on committee and co-sponsors of bill
Joseph R. Biden -Chairman--
Richard G. Lugar -Ranking Member
Christopher J. Dodd-Connecticut
John F. Kerry-Massachusetts
Russell D. Feingold-Wisconsin
Barbara Boxer-California
Bill Nelson-Florida
Barack Obama-Illinois
Robert Menendez-New Jersey
Benjamin L. Cardin-Maryland
Robert P. Casey Jr.-Pennsylvania
Jim Webb-Virginia
Chuck Hagel-Nebraska
Norm Coleman-Minnesota
Bob Corker-Tennessee
George V. Voinovich-Ohio
Lisa Murkowski-Alaska
Jim DeMint-South Carolina
Johnny Isakson-Georgia
David Vitter-Louisiana
John Barrasso-Wyoming
This piece of legislation would impose a tax on American's which would be used to solve health care and financial problems in other nations, despite the fact that this wealth would be transferred from people who are having health care and financial problems of their own at home. Americans don’t have health care or safeguards for our own poverty stricken – would it be okay to do something to help us instead of tax us more to help others – we already give millions?
S. 2433 Global Poverty Act of 2007
S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007
A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Other Bills with the Same Title – The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.
109th Congress: H.R. 3605Dead
110th Congress: H.R. 1302Passed House
The Global Poverty Act of 2007
Sponsor Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Cosponsors [as of 2008-05-04]
Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN]
Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
Sen. Gordon Smith [R-OR]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Next step of bill has been Sent to committee of foreign relations
---Bold Senators on committee and co-sponsors of bill
Joseph R. Biden -Chairman--
Richard G. Lugar -Ranking Member
Christopher J. Dodd-Connecticut
John F. Kerry-Massachusetts
Russell D. Feingold-Wisconsin
Barbara Boxer-California
Bill Nelson-Florida
Barack Obama-Illinois
Robert Menendez-New Jersey
Benjamin L. Cardin-Maryland
Robert P. Casey Jr.-Pennsylvania
Jim Webb-Virginia
Chuck Hagel-Nebraska
Norm Coleman-Minnesota
Bob Corker-Tennessee
George V. Voinovich-Ohio
Lisa Murkowski-Alaska
Jim DeMint-South Carolina
Johnny Isakson-Georgia
David Vitter-Louisiana
John Barrasso-Wyoming
This piece of legislation would impose a tax on American's which would be used to solve health care and financial problems in other nations, despite the fact that this wealth would be transferred from people who are having health care and financial problems of their own at home. Americans don’t have health care or safeguards for our own poverty stricken – would it be okay to do something to help us instead of tax us more to help others – we already give millions?
Ivory Towers of arrogance
We are at war. It may not seem like it in our ivory tower American life - but the jihad is here and we are the infidels. The Oil fiasco compounding the problem - The money we are giving them will come back at us - it is just a matter of time.
U.S. House Invites OPEC Secretary General to Testify (Update1)
By Tina Seeley April 30 (Bloomberg)
The chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee invited the secretary
general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to testify at a hearing on rising fuel prices. Representative John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, sent a letter inviting Abdalla Salem El-Badri to testify at a May 22 hearing, according to an e-mailed release today from the committee. http://tinyurl.com/4skpkf
The OPEC minister will looked across the democrat controlled House and stated: " We are at war with you infidels. Have been since the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant you haven't even recognized it. You have more missiles, bombs, and technology; so we are fighting with the best weapon we have and extracting on a net basis about $700 billion/year out of your economy.
We will destroy you! Death to the infidels! While I am here I would like to thank you for the following: Not developing your 250-300 year supply of oil shale and tar sands. we know if you did this, it would create millions of jobs for US citizens, expand your engineering capabilities, and keep the wealth in the US instead of sending it to us to finance our war against you bastards.
Thanks for limiting defense dept. purchases of oils ands from your neighbors to the north. We love it when you confuse your allies.
Thanks for over regulating every segment of your economy and thus delaying, by decades, the development of alternate fuel technologies.
Thanks for limiting drilling off your coasts, in Alaska, and anywhere there is a bug, bird, fish, or plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that your people suffer! Glad to see our lobbying efforts have been so effective. Corn based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham program! Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the inside with thses types of policies. This is a gift from Allah, praise his name! We never would have thought of this one! This is better than when you pay your farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use more energy to create less energy, and simultaneously drive food prices through the roof.
Thank you US Congress!!!! And finally, we appreciate you letting us fleece you without end. You will be glad to know we have been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate, and publicly held companies. We also finance a good portion of your debt and now manipulate your markets, currency, and economies to our benefit.
THANK YOU AMERICA!"
U.S. House Invites OPEC Secretary General to Testify (Update1)
By Tina Seeley April 30 (Bloomberg)
The chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee invited the secretary
general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to testify at a hearing on rising fuel prices. Representative John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, sent a letter inviting Abdalla Salem El-Badri to testify at a May 22 hearing, according to an e-mailed release today from the committee. http://tinyurl.com/4skpkf
The OPEC minister will looked across the democrat controlled House and stated: " We are at war with you infidels. Have been since the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant you haven't even recognized it. You have more missiles, bombs, and technology; so we are fighting with the best weapon we have and extracting on a net basis about $700 billion/year out of your economy.
We will destroy you! Death to the infidels! While I am here I would like to thank you for the following: Not developing your 250-300 year supply of oil shale and tar sands. we know if you did this, it would create millions of jobs for US citizens, expand your engineering capabilities, and keep the wealth in the US instead of sending it to us to finance our war against you bastards.
Thanks for limiting defense dept. purchases of oils ands from your neighbors to the north. We love it when you confuse your allies.
Thanks for over regulating every segment of your economy and thus delaying, by decades, the development of alternate fuel technologies.
Thanks for limiting drilling off your coasts, in Alaska, and anywhere there is a bug, bird, fish, or plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that your people suffer! Glad to see our lobbying efforts have been so effective. Corn based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham program! Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the inside with thses types of policies. This is a gift from Allah, praise his name! We never would have thought of this one! This is better than when you pay your farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use more energy to create less energy, and simultaneously drive food prices through the roof.
Thank you US Congress!!!! And finally, we appreciate you letting us fleece you without end. You will be glad to know we have been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate, and publicly held companies. We also finance a good portion of your debt and now manipulate your markets, currency, and economies to our benefit.
THANK YOU AMERICA!"
