Pamela Geller, Frontpage Magazine Interview: Obama’s Landscape of Anti-Semitism

Here's an excerpt, but do read the whole thing:

FP: What explains this hatred of Israel in Obama’s administration? What is it that is motivating Obama and these anti-Semites around him?

Geller: Obama’s anti-Semitic associations go all the way back to the beginning of his career: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who worked with Louis Farrakhan and gave him an award from Trinity United Church of Christ; Bill Ayers, whose Communist rhetoric from the 1960s – the Weather Underground manifesto Prairie Fire — was full of anti-Semitic attacks on Israel; and others. Israel has always been an ally of the United States and was an enemy of the Soviet Union and socialist internationalists. Barack Obama is a socialist internationalist, as are the people he has surrounded himself with. It’s no surprise in light of that that his administration would be so anti-Israel.

Little attention is paid to Obama’s childhood study of Islam and his Koranic studies in Indonesia. Knowing what we know about Islamic anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred in the Koran, it may have been a powerful influence on Obama’s attitudes towards the Jewish homeland.

FP: What are the consequences of this landscape of Jew-hate in the Obama administration?

Geller: The main consequence is that Israel is on its own to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, and the U.S. may even try to stop Israel from doing anything about that threat. A nuclear Iran threatens the entire free world, not just Israel, but no one in the Obama administration seems very concerned about that. They’ve even opposed new sanctions on Iran.

When the cop walks off the beat, thugs go wild. With a weak Islamophilic President in the White House, there is a vacuum, a void — one that evil is only too happy to fill. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently called on the Iranian mullahs to stop their uranium enrichment activities. Two days after that, showing how much they fear the wrath of the U.N. and Barack Hussein Obama, the mullahs okayed a plan to build ten new uranium enrichment plants.

This is the same IAEA whose chief, Mohamed Mostafa ElBaradei, said in October that “Israel is number one threat to Middle East.” The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has given covert cover to jihad nuclear weaponization for decades. Would we be in this predicament if the UN had even tried to do its job? Yet even this lapdog called out the Iranians, and not surprisingly, they laughed at him.

And all this comes after Iran defiantly rejected a deal that the UN brokered on its nuke program – although Obama has been mum about the rejection for understandable reasons. He knows what it will show about his determination to negotiate with the Iranians “without preconditions.” One colossal failure after another. All hail O-blunder.

But what did he expect? Why would Iran have endorsed this deal? Would Hitler have stopped in the Thirties? Did handing over Czechoslovakia satiate Germany’s bloodlust?

There is a weak leader installed in the Oval Office. It’s not hard to fool the invertebrate in the White House. He wants to be conned. The Islamic Republic of Iran is counting on it. Iran’s rogue regime has been unimaginably successful in achieving its goals while spitting in the face of the world. Why stop now?

For Iran, it’s all systems go.

Report: Spanish Security Officials Say Sharia Courts Including Saudi-Style Islamic Morality Police On The Rise...

Click on title above for the whole story.

The virus spreads....

Cheney: Obama "More Radical" Than Any Other Dem President, His Failure to Understand "American Exceptionalism is Deeply Disturbing"....

Once again, Cheney pins Obama to the wall and proceeds to beat the ever-living-fuck out of him with his superior intellect (that should drive the left insane)....

President Barack Obama, bowing to other leaders of the world, fails to understand the concept of "American exceptionalism,'' former Vice President Dick Cheney contends.

"There's never been a nation like the United States of America in world history, and yet when you have a president who goes around and bows to his hosts and then proceeds to apologize profusely for the United States, I find that deeply disturbing,'' Cheney says in an interview that FOX News will air tonight. "That says to me this is a guy who doesn't fully understand or share that view of American exceptionalism that I think most of us believe in."

The Republican also contends that Obama is a "more radical'' Democrat than he first appeared to be - yet stops short of calling Obama, as some critics have, a socialist: "I don't want to use that kind of a label."

"I saw him when he got elected as a liberal Democrat, but conventional in the sense of sort of falling within the parameters of the national Democratic Party,'' Cheney says in the interview with FOX's Sean Hannity airing tonight at 9 pm EST and again tomorrow, same time. "I think he's demonstrated pretty conclusively now during his first year in office that he's more radical than that, that he's farther outside the parameters if you will of what we've traditionally had in Democratic presidents in years past."

Mick Jagger

Harlem Shuffle

Santa's Gifts to Obama Kids Revealed!

The NY Slimes reports that they have it on good authority The Big Guy plans to leave Malia an Ipod loaded with Michelle's greatest rants and scoldings and Sasha will receive a replica helicopter of Marine One and a Burqa Barbie from The White House Gift Shop.

Obama's "Non-Religious" White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids

Pamela has a very good point here.

From Atlas Shrugs:

He is off the wall. Mad with power. Even if you think this, if you are President of the United States, you don't say it. Read this story and then consider the gala event he held at the White House for Ramadan; I covered it here. And remember Obama's cancellation of the national day of prayer.

Obama Plan 'Non-Religious Christmas' at WH FOX

President Obama and the First Family were planning a “non-religious
Christmas,” according to Social Secretary Desiree Rogers. Ms. Rogers reportedly told a gathering of former social secretaries that the Obamas did not intend on putting the Nativity scene on display – a longtime East Room tradition.

The account was reported in the Fashion and Style section of The New York Times. The White House confirmed to the Times that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive – but in the end – tradition won out – and the Nativity scene is once again in its traditional East Room spot.

Did you know that Obama does not celebrate Christmas? Obama Leaves the Gifting to Santa

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tells People magazine in the issue out Friday that he and his wife, Michelle, do not give Christmas or birthday presents to their two young daughters.

Obama tells the magazine’s Sandra Sobieraj Westfall in a seven-page cover story that he and his wife follow the unusual practice because they “want to teach some limits.”

In the interview earlier this summer, Obama noted that they do spend “hundreds” of dollars on birthday slumber parties.

Michelle Obama told People: “Malia says, ‘I know there is a Santa because there’s no way you’d buy me all that stuff.’ ”

UPDATE: Jesus nearly banned at the White House Inn

Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress

UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF POST

Why is it the British papers seem to understand Obama better than the American rags?

From Gerald Warner in the Telegraph:

Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

Back in February of 2009, when the EPA first announced its intention to look into whether to regulate CO2 and other "Greenhouse Gases", the New York Times predicted EPA findings would have an effect on Copenhagen:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

But, if the EPA decision to crackdown on Carbon was to, as the NYT says, "form a basis for the U.S. negotiating position" at Copenhagen, then why did they wait until the very day of the start of the Copenhagen summit?

I BELIEVE THIS IS BECAUSE OBAMA IS, AS GERALD WARNER IS SAYING ABOVE, ATTEMPTING TO SUBVERT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

As was revealed yesterday, rich countries are being encouraged to provide financing for poor ones at the Copenhagen summt.

I think it is safe to assume Obama knew of this agenda going into the summit.

But, if he was aware that rich countries would be asked to pony up funds for the poor countries, where did he expect to get the money?

Did he think Congress would vote to give American taxpayer's money to the United Nations?

No, I don't think Obama believed that was a possibility.

Instead, I believe Obama intends to fine businesses who violate the EPA's regulations on "Greenhouse Gases", and use the money from those fines as booty for "developing countries".

As Reliapundit wrote yesterday, Copenhagen is all about Socialism.

IT'S ABOUT SOCIALISM ON A WORLDWIDE LEVEL.

Obama knows American voters would not approve.

He knows Congress would be unlikely to vote for Worldwide Socialism given the huge uproar that would come from American taxpayers/voters.

So, he is going to just steal the money from the corporations that are the engine of our economy.

And, he is going to hand American money over to third world countries.

Or, so he thinks.

It will be more than interesting to see how this plays out.

UPDATE:

OH YEAH? WHERE DOES HE PLAN TO GET THE MONEY?

Obama, in Shift, Expects Climate Deal at Summit

WASHINGTON -- The White House said late Friday that President Barack Obama now expects a "meaningful" climate deal at a United Nations summit in Copenhagen, possibly involving a commitment for rich nations to provide $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing countries fight climate change.

The White House said the U.S. is prepared to pay its "fair share" of the $10 billion.

Reliapundit points out that the EPA can not write a check to the UN.

That is true.

But, that does not take away from the fact that Obama, somehow, believes he is going to be able to pony up this money.

Once again, I point back to the EPA ruling. That's where Obama thinks he's he's getting the money from.

After all, it's not taxes. It's only fines. Therefore, it does not belong to taxpayers.

That's how Obama thinks.

5 TERRORISTS ARRESTED IN COPENHAGEN

From the Astute Bloggers:

Breaking: A 25 yr old American on international wanted-list, a 35 yr old Morrocan born Danish citizen, and a 27 yr. old stateless palestinian were arrested this morning by police in Copenhagen. Two women were arrested after searches were conducted at 2 separate addresses.

A sucdcessful attack upon COP15 would be a wet dream come true for al Qaeda. Stay tuned...

Krauthammer: Environmentalism is the New Socialism, EPA Regulating CO2 Could Spark Revolution Vs. Obama....

Maybe Gates Didn't Get The Memo. . .

Offer valid through July 2011 only. Certain restrictions apply. See your local insurgent for details. In the event of bowing groveling or apologizing on by the leader of the Free World (such as it is) to persons formerly known as enemies this offer may be withdrawn without notice.

No purchase necessary. The U.S. will pick up the bill.

Newsmax:

Gates Reaffirms U.S. Commitment to Afghans
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 4:21 AM

KABUL, Afghanistan – U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that the Afghan security force needs to be strengthened and more soldiers and police need to be recruited to battle militants, but he added that the U.S. is committed to help Afghanistan for the long haul.

Gates, who met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the presidential palace in Kabul, is the first member of President Barack Obama's Cabinet to visit since Obama announced last week that he is sending 30,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan, but intends to pare down the U.S. role in July 2011. The defense secretary and other administration officials have described the 2011 date as just the beginning, with the process likely take at least two or three years to complete.

Finding ways to strengthen and increase recruiting in the beleaguered Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police was among the topics Gates and Karzai discussed. At a joint news conference, Karzai said it would be 15 years before Afghanistan would be able to pay the cost of maintaining the Afghan security forces.

Karzai also reaffirmed his commitment to fight corruption. The president, who won re-election to a second term in a ballot marred by fraud, is expected to announce his new Cabinet in the next several days. It will be the first test of Karzai's willingness to meet his pledge to reform the government.

He is under intense pressure from the international community to nominate a slate of reformists to help rid his government of bribery and graft.

Despite lawmakers' demand that Karzai submit a full slate of ministers for approval, Karzai said he will send parliament 40 percent of his Cabinet list in the coming days. He said those ministers who have proven track records of service will remain in the Cabinet, although he did not say if they would stay in their same posts.

Karzai has repeatedly argued that while there is corruption in the Afghan government, there is also corruption within international contracting processes.

Gates also said he had talked with the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and the commander of NATO and U.S. forces about how to improve monitoring and rein in corruption among contractors working on projects funded by the international community.

During his visit, Gates is meeting with troops, but the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is in Washington to testify about the new U.S. war plan.

En route to Kabul, Gates told reporters he believes the U.S. mistakenly abandoned Afghanistan in 1989 as it fought the Soviets and understands Afghan concerns that they will be left alone against the Taliban. Gates said he wants to assure Karzai and his advisers "that we are not going to repeat the situation in 1989" and that "we intend to be their partner for a long time to come."

He also said he will press Karzai and Afghan Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak on efforts to recruit and train more Afghan soldiers and police officers. McChrystal has set the goal of building the Afghan security force to 400,000 by 2013. There are roughly 94,000 Afghan police officers and 97,000 soldiers today.

The SIns of the Government Fathers Should be Visited Upon The Sons, Even Unto the Fifth Generation

or something like that. . .

Newsmax:

Obama: U.S. Must Spend Itself Out of Recession
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 10:51 AM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama outlined major new government stimulus and jobs proposals on Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this recession."
Without giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient.

"We avoided the depression many feared," Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But, he added, "Our work is far from done."

For the third time in a week, Obama sought to focus on job creation, noting that the jobless rate continues in double digits and that "a staggering" 7 million Americans have lost jobs since the recession began in December 2007.

While his proposal did not include the kind of direct federal public works jobs that were created in the 1930s, he said government could set the stage for more job creation by private businesses.

Obama did not characterize his proposals as another stimulus program, like the $787 billion version passed earlier this year, but Republican critics have called it just that and have said it will increase a federal deficit that is already at a record level.

Obama included sharp criticism for Republicans in his speech, accusing them of opposing economic stimulus efforts and his health care overhaul while supporting tax cuts and spending that have ballooned the deficit.

He said that soon after taking office, he and congressional Democrats took "a series of difficult steps" to try to stabilize the financial system and pull the economy out of a deep recession.

"And we were forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve."

Obama did not say how much his proposals would cost, although congressional Democrats are eyeing a $70 billion package to help create jobs and to provide aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. Administration aides suggested that the part of the package dealing with roads, bridges and other infrastructure could total about $50 billion.

While acknowledging increasing concerns in Congress and among the public over the nation's growing debt, Obama said critics present a "false choice" between paying down deficits and investing in job creation and economic growth.

To pay for the new programs, the administration is citing the Treasury Department's report on Monday that it expects to get back $200 billion in taxpayer-approved bank bailout funds faster than expected.

Obama suggested this windfall would both help the government spend money on job creation while also paying down the nation's $12 trillion debt.

Tuesday Nooner!

Bela Bartok

Romanian Folk Dance

Hopenchangein Dopenhagen is Just the Beginning

Front Page Mag:

Obama for World President? – by David Gutmann

Rookie Democratic congressmen are reportedly afraid that Obama will stubbornly press ahead with his unpopular plans for Health Reform, even if they, his unwilling Kamikazes, get voted out of office in 2010 as a result. As a dedicated Obama watcher, I for one am not surprised by this development. In fact, I am now betting even money that our president is not particularly concerned about his own re-election in 2012, and that he will enact as many of his programs in health reform, energy conservation, arms reduction and income redistribution as he can before his current term expires, and then try for higher goals. My hunch is that he is already getting restless in his present job, and that he seeks a promotion to an even greater status.

My sensitivities, sharpened by years of Obama watching, take note of the following pieces of evidence, and have gone to Condition Red:

Obama’s seeming restlessness is a matter of record. Until recently he was routinely charged with throwing outworn sponsors, including his old mentor the Rev. Wright, “under the bus.” And as a Chicago politician, he used wealthy, influential backers (mainly women), discarding them as better prospects hove into view.

Just four years ago he was a backbencher in the Illinois legislature, but since then he has served a partial term in the U.S. Senate, where he spent most of his tenure campaigning for the next giant step in his upward mobility, to the Oval Office. He has never in any office run for re-election, but has instead used any current position as a boost platform for his next installation.

Observers of his presidency have been puzzled by the continuing pattern: Obama is still in campaign mode, spending a good deal of time giving major policy speeches, not only in the states, but around the globe. “What office is he running for now?” One can ask.

Tackling that question, we note that Obama is an enormously ambitious, audacious man, and – as his gritty record in Chicago politics demonstrates – an enormously competitive and at times ruthless one. Coupled with his formidable intelligence, plus the evident grandiosity revealed most blatantly in his victory speech after winning the Democratic nomination, (“This is the night when the oceans start to recede”), we glimpse a personality constellation that we have known before, notably in Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte: that of the would-be world conqueror.

If this is indeed Obama’s fantasy, then it is shared by a sizeable portion of the world’s population: a poll taken in Sept. ’09 by the BBC indicated , at that time, that a large proportion of the global sample favored Obama as world president; and my Google search of “Obama, world President,” turns up more than120, 000,000 posts.

So here is my answer to questions concerning Obama’s electoral ambitions: he aims to fill an as yet unformed position, that of World President, and – as in the past – he uses his current presidency as a launching pad toward that more grandiose goal.

Barack Hussein Obama was raised abroad, and – possibly for global electioneering purposes – he keeps his foreign name. In addition, it becomes increasingly evident that our exotic president has bought into the alien, Third-World view of the US as a dangerous bully: a prime source of pollution, a nation too powerful, and too undisciplined in the use of power, and as such a leading danger to Humanity. Thus, campaigning as the “Good American,” Obama apologizes around the world for America’s sins, he genuflects before Saudi and Chinese tyrants, he negotiates with our sworn enemies while down-grading our allies, he weakens the U.S. militarily and economically while permitting the Iranians to construct nukes, and he builds up the prestige of the heretofore discredited, America-bashing UN.

This is the Audacity of Defeat: Obama is engaged in a redistribution of power, though now on a global rather than a domestic scale. Thus, he gives away pieces of America’s prestige, in his eyes to detoxify it, and to build up the as yet unrealized world coalition that he hopes one day to lead.

As Napoleon discovered in the snows of the Russian winter, grandiose dreams of world dominion are never realized. However, those who pursue that hectic fantasy can cause terrible trouble before they are stopped. In this age of proliferating nukes, we cannot afford such dreamers. This should be the winter of Obama’s discontent.

Fistgate II: High School Students Given “Fisting Kits” At Kevin Jennings’ GLSEN Conference

Will Obama's daughters receive them too? Jennings should mail them their own set - all in the name of tolerance, of course.

From Gateway Pundit (click on the title above to get the whole story):

Photo: This kit for fisting was distributed by Planned Parenthood at Fistgate II. (Mass News) At Kevin Jennings’ 2001 GLSEN Conference an estimated 400 student attendees were given their own “fisting kit.”

Again, Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar organized and sponsored this conference as executive director of GLSEN. His organization later pushed filthy books on America’s children.
Today he’s running the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the US Department of Education.
Do you feel safe now?

There’s more to come.

This was cross-posted at Big Government.

Related Posts:
** Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List
** Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List (Part II)
** Breaking: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s Question to 14 Year Olds: “Spit vs. Swallow?… Is it Rude?” (audio-video)
** Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Promoted “Fisting” to Children (Video)

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story

From Canada Free Press (thanks to Gramfan):

Good news to know that the truth will always out—even when you’re Barack Obama.

“Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress” is a FOXNews story by Ed Barnes. In short, “While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.”

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

And that’s only the beginning of this tawdry tale, Mr. Barnes.

The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself—the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Strong, the silent partner, is a man whose name often draws a blank on the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of an Oil-for-Food beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the United States. That’s because he spends most of his time in China where he he has been working to make the communist country the world’s next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is the big cheese in the underworld of climate change and is one of the main architects of the failing Kyoto Protocol.

Full credit for the expose on the business partnership of Strong and Gore in the cap-and-trade reduction scheme should go to the investigative acumen of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of “An Inconvenient Truth” travelled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste. Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

“Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day,” wrote EIR. “First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm’s registered lobbyist, and Gore’s former top Senate aide.”

(Fast-forward to the present day and ask yourself why it is that every time someone picks up another Senate rock, another serpent comes slithering out).

“Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers’ cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

“With Al Gore’s Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal’s stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers—including Maurice strong—sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996—a Sunday—the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

“On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share. By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong’s role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

In 1997, Strong went on to accept from Tongsun Park, who was found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

These are the leaders in the Man-made Global Warming Movement, who three years later were to be funded by the man who was to become President of the United States of America.

If we follow the time line on where Obama was during the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, he was still a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law, with his law license becoming inactive a year later in 2002.

It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives. John is the brother of William Ayers.

What a flap when it was discovered that the senator from Chicago had nursed on Saul Alinsky’s milk, had his political career launched at a coffee party held by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and sat for 20 years, uncomplaining in front of the “God-dam-America pulpit of resentment-challenged Jeremiah Wright.

Folk were naturally outraged that the empty suit who would go on to become TOTUS was spawned from such anti-American activism.

But the media should have been hollering, “Stop Thief!” instead.

The same Chicago Climate Exchange promoting public rip-off was funded by Obama before he was POTUS.

Even as man-made global warming is being exposed as a money-generating hoax, Obama is working feverishly to push the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme through Congress.

Obama was never the character he created for himself in the fairy-tale version in “Dreams of My Father”. He’s the agent of Change and Hope for cohorts making money down at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The Barbarians are pushing at the gate of the Global Warming fraud, and to borrow a line from children playing Hide and Seek, Here they come, ready or not!

The Obama Brand

Columbia Daily Tribune:

Supplies with Obama logo surprise school
By Jonathon Braden

Pencils and notebooks resembling President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign ads have been sold in at least one Columbia school and other public schools, causing the company that distributes the materials to travel around the state yanking the supplies out of machines.

“Don’t be mad at us,” said Greg Jones, a sales representative with Pencil Wholesale. “It was a total accident.”

Pencil Wholesale distributes supplies to six Columbia schools: Parkade Elementary, Cedar Ridge Elementary, Paxton Keeley Elementary, Mill Creek Elementary, Smithton Middle School and Hickman High School, said Linda Quinley, the district’s chief financial officer.

At Mill Creek, at least one pencil and a notebook with designs similar to Obama campaign advertisements have been sold out of a supply machine. Two families have complained about the politically tinged materials.

Three Missouri schools have contacted Jones since the beginning of the school year asking that the materials be removed, and Mill Creek Principal Mary Sue Gibson this week said she also planned to call Pencil Wholesale.

“I just don’t want to get into that political arena at all,” she said.

The bound three-ring notebook bears a photo of literal change — pennies, quarters, dimes and nickels stacked into piles. Above the photo, white text reads “CHANGE” over a navy background.

Below the photo, “WE CAN BELIEVE IN” sits above a logo similar to Obama’s campaign image — three red stripes separated by white stripes in front of a white circle with a blue background arching over the circle.

The supplies were designed by the art department of Harcourt Pencil Co., based in Milroy, Ind., Jones said.

“The art department was trying to be cutesy,” he said.

There was no response this morning to a phone message to Harcourt.

Jones delivers the supplies to about 800 schools. He remembers seeing the Obama-esque notebook when it was first designed, but “I didn’t think one thing about it,” he said.

Jones has agreed to go to schools that might have received the supplies and remove them.

“I wish I could do it over,” he said. “But, for now, I can just make it right.”

Harcourt plans to give Jones a refund on the supplies as well, he said.

But first, Jones has to find the supplies. Out of a case of 72 notebooks, three of the controversial notebooks can be found, he said.

“It’s turned out to be really ugly,” Jones said. “We’re trying to get them out of the schools as fast as we can.”

He also wants to be clear that neither he nor his company created the design. In fact, he said, he’s a registered Republican who voted for John McCain in last year’s presidential election.

“It’s a total nightmare,” Jones said.

Taliban's Counter Strategy is based on declared US Strategy

Walid Phares at Counterterrorismblog:

Now that we know the administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan, what is the Taliban strategy against the United States?

Such a question is warranted to be able to project the clash between the two strategies and assess the accuracy of present U.S. policies in the confrontation with the forces it is fighting against in that part of the world.

So, how would the Taliban/al-Qaida war room counter NATO and the Afghan Government based on the Obama Administration's battle plan?

Strategic Perceptions

The jihadi war room is now aware that the administration has narrowed its scope to defeat the so-called al-Qaida organization while limiting its goal to depriving the Taliban from achieving full victory, i.e. depriving them "from the momentum." In strategic wording this means that the administration won’t give the time and the means, let alone the necessary long term commitment to fully defeat the Taliban as a militia and militant network.

The jihadist strategists now understand that Washington’s advisers still recommend talking to the Taliban, the entire Taliban, but only after the latter would feel weak and pushed back enough to seek such talks. Underneath this perception, the Salafi Islamists’ analysts realize that present American analysis concludes that al-Qaida and the Taliban are two different things, and that it is possible to defeat the first and eventually engage the second.

Such a jihadist understanding of U.S. defective perceptions will give the Taliban and al-Qaida a first advantage: knowing that your enemy, the United States, isn’t seeing you as you really are.

Strategic Engagement

The US has reconfirmed that the goal of the mission in Afghanistan is to destroy al-Qaida, train the Afghan armed forces but not to engage in nation-building. Unlike previous American commitments, which weren’t very successful anyway, the current strategy officially ignores the ideological battle.

Hence the Taliban understands that their lifeline to further recruitment based on madrassas graduations is wide open. Washington’s efforts and dollars won’t touch the ideological factory of jihadism, which is the strategic depth of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Hence, the jihadi network in Afghanistan will continue and further develop its indoctrination structures, untouched and un-bothered by American military escalation. The Marines and other NATO allies will be fighting today’s Taliban, while tomorrow’s jihadists will be receiving their instruction in full tranquility.

By the time the US deadline to withdraw would be reached, in 2011, 2012, or even beyond, the future forces of the enemy will be ready to be deployed. One wave of terrorists will be weakened by the action of the U.S. and NATO armed forces, while the next wave will be prepared to take over later.

Deadly Deadline

The administration’s plan included a timeline for withdrawal from the central Asian country (although reinterpreted as beginning of withdrawal). Basing their assessment on the notion of “no open ended engagement,” the shapers of the new Afghanistan strategy have told the enemy’s war room on camera that America’s time in Afghanistan is until 2013 maximum, after which it will be Taliban time again.

As many analysts have concluded, all the jihadists war planners have to do is to wait out the hurricane of escalation. The deadly deadline proposed in the strategy has no precedent in the history of confrontation with totalitarian forces. The Taliban waited out eight years, what are two, three or eight more years, if the U.S.-led coalition's action is not qualitatively (not just quantitatively) different?

A Surge to Exit

As presented to the Afghan people, the administration's new plan for the battlefield is seen as a last surge before the general exit of the country. The Taliban’s war room has understood the equation. Thirty thousand more U.S. troops will deploy with their heavy equipment, backed by another 5,000 to 10,000 allied forces. Offensives will take place in Helmund and other areas. Special forces will move to multiple places and shelling will harass the Islamist militias as long as two years or more.

The Taliban will incur losses and al-Qaida's operatives will be put under heavier pressure: All that is noted in Mullah Umar’s book and saved on Zawahiri’s laptop. Then what?

Then the time for exit is up and U.S and NATO forces begin their withdrawal. When that happens, the surviving Taliban, plus the new wave just graduating from madrassas, or the jihadi volunteers sent from the four corners of the virtual “Caliphate” will have a choice to make: Either they will accept the U.S. negotiators' offer to join the Afghan government or — depending on their assessment then — will reject the offer and shell the "infidel troops" as they pull out.

In a nutshell, the new strategy is convenient to that Taliban war room: They now can figure it all out until the Mayan year of 2012 — and way beyond.

All that it takes for democracies to offer the totalitarians victories is to not understand the latter’s long-term goals. And we’ve just done that, so far.

Coordinated Blasts in Baghdad Kill at Least 112

Fox:

Coordinated Blasts in Baghdad Kill at Least 112

BAGHDAD — A series of coordinated attacks struck Baghdad Tuesday, including three car bombs that blew up near government sites. At least 112 were killed and 197 wounded in the worst wave of violence in the capital in more than a month, authorities told Reuters.

A total of four attacks, which also included a homicide car bomb on a police patrol, showed the ability of insurgents to strike high-profile targets in the heart of Baghdad. It was another embarrassment to Iraqi forces in their expanding role as front-line security as U.S. forces plan their withdrawal.

The blasts came as Iraqi officials prepared to announced the date for next year's parliamentary elections — a move the security forces worry could bring an escalation in attacks seeking to discredit the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The core of the attacks hit central Baghdad with three bomb-rigged cars exploding in the span of a few minutes.

The targets were the latest assaults directed at Iraqi authorities: the Labor Ministry building, a court complex near the Iraqi-protected Green Zone and the new site of the Finance Ministry after its previous building was destroyed in major attacks in August.

An official for Iraq's Interior Ministry told The Assocaited Press at least 90 people were killed in those three car bombs and at least 115 injured. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give information to media.

About an hour before the Baghdad blasts, a suicide car bomber struck a police patrol in the mostly Sunni district of Dora in southern Baghdad, killing at least three policemen and one civilian and injuring five people, said a police official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to media.

"What crime have we committed? Children and women were buried under debris. Why did they (Iraqi troops) let this car bomb pass!" cried Ahmed Jabbar as he staggered through the debris near the new Finance Ministry building.

The blast tore through a nearby market and toppled at least one building nearby. Rescue teams — some using construction cranes — tried to pull away the rubble to seek for survivors.

The bombings marked the most serious spate of violence in Baghdad since twin car bombs on Oct. 25 struck outside Baghdad administration offices, killing at least 155 people.

The breakdown of casualties among the sites was not immediately clear, but the most serious bloodshed had been reported outside the new Finance Ministry building.

In August, suicide bombers hit the finance and foreign ministries, killing more than 100 people.

Overall violence has dropped sharply around Iraq in the past year, but insurgents have stepped up attacks at government sites.

Iraqi officials blamed the October attacks on loyalists to Saddam Hussein's banned Baathist Party — even bringing out three suspects on national television who gave what officials termed confessions.

But there are questions whether Iraqi leaders seek to shift attention away from a possible resurgence of Sunni insurgents led by Al Qaeda in Iraq. A rise in insurgent power could be a serious blow to the government's credibility before national elections, which are now expected to be held in late February. A decision on the final election date — originally scheduled for Jan. 16 — was possible as early as Tuesday.

Un-Arguments For Health Care Reform

One of the odd features of the 'healthcare' debate is that certain arguments for nationalized health care/health care 'reform' are actually backwards and run counter to the thing being argued for. None more so than this argument: "We pay way too much for health care compared to other countries!" Pro-'reform' folks love this argument. The idea, I guess, is supposed to be that I should be so mad about how much "we" pay on health care (for some reason I, and my medical bills, have been lumped into some "we"..) that I should embrace the 'reform'.

Which even seems to make sense, as long as you don't, like, think about it.

Because here is what is really being said: "We" pay too much, so let's spend a freaking trillion more dollars on it and sign ourselves up for who knows how much more in entitlements.

Also: You should be mad about how much "we" pay, it means you're getting a raw deal. So support me as I raise your taxes, and force you to spend more money, and penalize you if you don't.

And finally: It's a travesty that some (but not all) peoples' health care in the U.S. is rationed (i.e. those who are destitute thus fall under Medicaid, or who go to the ER for care thus have to wait in line). That's so inhumane! So join me in my effort to get us all on government rationing.

Do any of these arguments make sense? Do they work as sales pitches for the thing being advocated? No, they do not.

I don't know whether it's just that health care 'reform' advocates lack basic logic skills or something deeper is going on, but these arguments just don't work on the face of them. They aren't even arguments, they are un-arguments. I can't even tell whether these folks genuinely believe that, say, spending more money is a method of saving money; or that raising my taxes/levying penalties on me is a way of giving me a better 'deal'. Perhaps they are just pretending to believe it. Perhaps they don't really care deep down and just need rhetorical sticks with which to beat back their opponents, and these are the best talking-points that their side has been distributing to its foot soldiers. Who knows.

What I do know is that no one with a brain can take these un-arguments seriously.

[from Rhymes With Cars & Girls]

A Clever Post

A take off on The Screwtape Letters. Excerpt:

My dear Slugtail,

In the year since you have been elected, you have managed to make impressive headway in destroying the constitutional republic of the United States and turning it into a socialist regime that will make Hugo Chavez envious. I would suggest that you stop acting like such a moron (publicly, at any rate) and for Satan's sake, stop bowing every two seconds! It's never a good thing when Saturday Night Live pans you.

Anyway, to the matter at hand: getting the government healthcare takeover bill through the Senate. This looks promising...

Read it all.

The Most Basic Right of All

Obama Emanuel Holder Napolitano Pelosi Reid Boxer Schumer Feinstein Feingold would have denied this woman the right to own the shotgun that saved her life. Would have denied her the right to shoot and kill the intruder who threatened her. Would have suggested she wait and sit tight until the cops arrived. Would suggest a can of pepper spray would have been the better alternative. Would paint her as a paranoid gun weilding right wing whacko.

But listen to the call. She doesn't want to have to kill this man, or anyone. But she knows it's either her or him and is determined to survive. You can hear it in her voice as she's describing the man trying to get in, the threats he is shouting, actually breaking in and you can hear it after she fires the shots that end the attack, the sadness and horror at taking, at being forced to take, another life to save her own.

And that's what they don't understand, or rather, what they don't want you to understand. That we're not crazed individuals hoping waiting looking for the chance to shoot someone.

That Smith & Wesson .357 on your hip, the PPK by the computer, the Remington 870 leaning in the corner of the bedroom, the Winchester 30-30 carbine by the wall in the family room, are there to insure that, should it come to it, you live another day to hug your kids again, kiss your wife again. Not to re-enact the O.K. Corral first chance you get.

I've been there, dreaded what I might have to do but was fully ready to do it. Fortunately, I didn't have to pull the trigger.

This woman will have to live with this the rest of her life. And I hope she comes to understand she had no choice, she has no reason to feel guilty. She defended herself against someone who would have denied her the most basic right of all. Instead of ending up a statistic.

h/t In Mary's Image:

Dr Bulldog actually has the full story along with the full 32 minute audio of the call.

32 minutes waiting for the police to arrive.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Time for Keith Briffa and Phil Jones to Go Directly to Jail

From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
.... The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! [Emphasis added]
Cheers
Phil [Jones]
====
How even more deliciously ironic

would it be if, in their lustful, Dr. Hendronsian2 self-aggrandizing rush to be the first to save the planet from the Neomalthusian horrors of free market economies, Phil Jones and Keith Briffa have stunted the world into inaction and indecision by disastrously overplaying their hand and, in the unlikely event that the Earth's climate is in fact characterized by unchecked positive feedback systems, thus doomed the human race. -- Eulogy? | finem respice

As " href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/12/025087.php">Power Line puts it in Skeptical, For Better or Worse

We've covered the Climategate scandal extensively. It is the most important scandal of our time. Climate alarmists are trying to impoverish the world, ostensibly in order to cool it down but really, in my view, to achieve the liberal holy grail of government control over everything. The scandal comes along at a critical moment to cast doubt on whether the "scientists" behind the global warming scare are doing science at all. Rather, their own words suggest that they are engaging in a combination of politics and fraud.

Flight 297 Passenger: Incident Bigger Than AirTran Claims

Take note, the man quoted in this article is Brent C. Brown, CEO of Chesley-Brown International.

In the body of this article, AirTran claims,

"Because of privacy laws, the airline would not identify any of the men involved in the November incident."

They should clarify that they have no intention of identifying any ME men involved since AirTran had no problem calling Petruna a liar by name!

From WSBTV:

ATLANTA -- Rumors continued to circulate Monday via e-mail and the Internet about what exactly happened on an AirTran flight at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport in November.

At the time, AirTran told Channel 2 Action News that an unruly passenger on a cell phone forced the pilot to take the plane back to the gate. Monday, a passenger said the situation went well beyond that.

“It was extremely intense. I’ve never experienced anything like that,” said passenger Brent Brown.

Brown runs a security consultant company and is a frequent flier. But even for him, he said the events of Flight 297 were disturbing and frightening. As the Houston-bound flight taxied to the runway, several in a group of about a dozen men of Middle Eastern descent started walking the aisles and using their cell phones, Brown said.

Brown said he could tell from the flight attendants' actions that the situation was more than just a single passenger misbehaving.

"This was a big step ahead of that. You could tell that they were distressed and that they were getting very much uncooperative people in the back," said Brown. "So when the pilot turned the plane around, not only was I not surprised I was proud that he had made that effort to secure the cabin."

Back at the gate, Brown said the situation did not improve. He said he was sitting toward the front and he never saw law enforcement enter the plane. He also said that no one informed passengers of what was going on.

"They weren't speaking to us. And they didn't speak to us at all for at least an hour. Our only interaction was with the crew that was already upset at the way they were obviously being handled," said Brown.

Within days, the incident went viral on the Internet which prompted news coverage. Internet rumor control sites seemingly couldn’t make heads or tails of the incident. AirTran responded by posting an article that called most of the claims an "urban myth."

"And then after the fact, when (AirTran) apparently issued a statement that says, in effect, that this was a customer service issue or someone was on the phone...they're dead wrong," said Brown.

The crew, including the pilots, decided not to continue with the flight. Brown said AirTran put about 10 of the 12-man group back on the plane with a new crew. Most of the original passengers chose not to re-board and instead got on a different flight.

Because of privacy laws, the airline would not identify any of the men involved in the November incident.

An AirTran spokesman called the incident "isolated" and said the airline considers the case closed.

RAW VIDEO: Flight 297 Passenger, Brent Brown Talks About AirTran Incident

Click here to watch the video. (If anyone could upload it to YouTube, that would be a help.)

Thanks to HRW for the transcript:

9:42 RAW VIDEO: Flight 297 Passenger, Brent Brown Talks About AirTran Incident

rough transcript:

Reporter: First of all, your reaction to how this story has taken on a life of it's own since

the actual flight.

Brent: Well, it's incredible. You kind of expect this in the time of the internet but you never

know where it's going to come from. But after coming home and not seeing much about it, kinda thought it was over with. So, it's pretty incredible.

Reporter: It's been what? A couple of weeks now?

Brent: Two and a half

Reporter: Do you still think about it? Is it something that still bothers you?

Brent: Well, I still think that the uh, AirTran company, the officials were dead wrong in what they did in over-riding the crew. I think they mishandled it

from the get go - um - and I would like to hear some real responses from them. So, I think

about it from that respect and I think about it because people are starting to call because they found out that I was on that flight.

Reporter: What about it, air transportation bothers you most?

Brent: Well, when the officials starting getting on the plane, you gotta realize I about five feet from the door, basically, so I can hear and see all the action. But they weren't speaking to us. They didn't speak to us at all for at least an hour. Our only interaction was with the crew that was already upset at the way they were obviously being handled. And then after the fact, they apparently issue a statement that says in effect that this is nothing more than a customer service issue over someone who was on the phone. Then they're dead wrong. The captain did the right thing and should be commended for doing it. That's all I want them to do. Acknowledge that.

Reporter: You've read all the crazies. . .is there. . .the truth I'm sure lies somewhere between what AirTran said and these crazy e-mails out there. Um, what did you first see that raised your, piqued your interest?

Brent: Well, I saw the folks that were on the plane that were of obvious middle eastern descent, which in and of itself doesn't concern me. I fly a lot. They were spread throughout the cabin. I was in business class. What I would refer to as the leader of the group was just one row up and to my left. But I was also right on the edge of the coach section where I can see where some of the people were getting up and down the aisles and looks like they were interacting with each other. There were cell phones or some type of electronic device. That was unsettling, you know.when you can tell that. Also, you are watching, engaging the look of the flight attendants faces. We've all been on flights when someone makes a mistake and stands up or unbuckles during taxi and they come on the intercom and they say take your seats or we can't move the plane. This was a big step ahead of that. You could tell that they were distressed and that they were getting pretty much very uncooperative people in the back.

Reporter: um, and theres all these e-mails people were dancing and singing and they were doing everything. You said it's untrue. Did you see them taking pictures or any . .?

Brent: Nah, from my vantage point I couldn't see that. I was close enough to one of the people in the back, uh, the back compartment, that I could see that one them had come from further in the back to that other person and was interacting with him because I saw the flight attendant tell him to take his seat. Beyond that, and some of the people writing e-mails making themselves heros - obviously they live in a fantasy world and I would challenge whether they were even on the plane. But if they were, the action that they said they took, they would have had to walk right past me and they would have been part of the problem. So, and people making claims that they knew that they were dancing and taking pictures in there, from the vantage point of the business class compartment - it's just simply not true. What they did was concerning enough. The story doesn't need to be embellished.

Reporter: Just the fact that they were walking around interacting

Brent: Walking around, refusing to cooperate, you got to stay in your seat when you taxi out.

Using electronic devices , um, we can argue whether that's a real issue in a flight take off. But that's a rule, an FAA rule they have to contend with. And they were obviously refusing with that. And uh, so when the pilot turned the plane around, not only was I not surprised, I was proud that he had made that effort to secure the cabin.

Reporter: You mentioned especially with the lack of interaction for that hour you got tense.

Brent: It was extremely tense . I've never experienced anything like that. After flying, for company reasons, for more than twenty years now, you can imagine, pretty much everything has happened on a flight . . .and some pretty hair raising experiences. This was like nothing else I've ever experienced. After having been in law enforcement, obviously in the security industry, this was tension at its highest. And I had to make some very real decisions myself, on whether or not I was going to continue the flight.

Reporter: Then you decided to

Brent: I did. What made me decide that was, after two hours of being on the ground, they, um, the rumor was that they were going to put the folks back on the flight. And they did. It appeared that the two biggest problems within the group were not allowed back on the plane. I felt like they had probably, hopefully screened them enough to know that it was at least safe. There also was a mass exodus of the regular passengers getting off the plane. So, I kinda felt like, with fewer passengers we might be able to control things if something were to get out of hand. And frankly, when other AirTran captains that were dead heading to Houston got on board the plane, I talked to a couple of them and one in particular, I said, do you feel safe flying this plane? -flying on this plane? And he said yes, they've done everything they could possibly do now. It's probably the safest plane leaving. So I made the decision to stay on.

Reporter: um, was this any sort of dry run for terrorist activity?

Brent: You never know, but I don't think so. I think it was some people that were probably not just the best citizens for flights. Maybe there was a language barrier. I find that a little difficult to believe that someone flying all the way into this country hasn't flown enough now to know the proper procedures. Um, in the security business we might consider it somewhat of a dry run or test to see what the reaction would be. Um, I still think it's a little far fetched to say that's exactly what it was.

Reporter: And , last question I guess . .. what lesson are we to take out of - not only what happened on that flight - but how it's been handled and become a (???) - does that make any sense?

Brent: It does. First of all I would encourage everyone to stand up for themselves and let their voice be known. That sounds like a simple statement but if um, all those passengers that didn't feel comfortable flying - that exited the plane did exactly the right thing. And uh, you shouldn't be forced to do something you are uncomfortable with. In the security business we tell people all the time, if you don't feel comfortable about something that's part of your security plan - then don't do it. And post Fort Hood I think that we all need to be extremely in tune to how political correctness jeopardizes our security day to day. And uh, be aware of it and figure out what we are going to do about that. You know, I don't want any group singled out - but if there is a security risk - let's not look at it from a pc standpoint. Let's look at it from a security standpoint. Um, beyond that I would tell people that if you're going to embellish a real story - be careful where you post it. Because in this day and environment that's never going to change now - it's going to get out there and you're going to be embarrased that you have embellished something that is already an incredible story.

Reporter : (uninteligible) What would you tell AirTran

8:32

Brent: Well, first and foremost I would tell AirTran that when they have a security situation - have security officials board the plane. The most startling thing that I saw was when the captain turns us around and comes on the intercom and says we have a security situation - and I didn't see a single uniformed law enforcement officer or anyone that I would classify as law enforcement board the plane. I think that's first and foremost. From a customer relations standpoint - you've got to communicate. You can not stand, literally feet away from people that you are affecting their lives, in more ways than just their time, you're affecting and possibly jeopardising their lives and you're not speaking to us. You've got to say something . And when you say something, be honest and accurate. Don't fill us with a bunch of hooey because most of the people that fly, especially at that time of day when it's mostly business passengers , know a little bit more than the basic flight standard. So, talk to us. We can understand delays but you got to tell us what's going on.

"Peer Review": More Magical Than Jesus

A fascinating symptom of the climate-change religion is the Believer who comes down with a case of something approaching holy worship of the phrase "peer review". Magic, magic "peer review" - all-powerful and truth-finding. Listen to any Believer, there is nothing "peer review" can't accomplish. Whatever has been "peer reviewed" is double-plus yestruth. Whatever has not been "peer reviewed" is void and nothingness.

This "peer review" worship is especially intense among Believers who know nothing about science, have never participated in science, have never written a scientific paper, and of course, it goes without saying, have never themselves been one of those vaunted "peer reviewers" they worship so much. Like I have.

There is a paradox, however. If "peer reviewers" are so infallible, and I've been a "peer reviewer", and yet I reject the Global Warming religion, shouldn't a climate-change Believer's head explode?

[Originally posted at Rhymes With Cars & Girls]

The Climategate Effect

It's dawning on me just how damaging ClimateGate really is. At first I thought it would come and go, a minor blip in the steadfast march toward Controlling Us All In The Name Of Saving Us All.

But here's the thing. The more I think about ClimateGate, the more I realize something: because of it, I literally don't trust a damn thing that comes out of the climate science community anymore. Not one damn thing. This is unexpected.

You might think 'big deal, you're a right-wing skeptic anti-science zealot, so what else is new'. Not so. For one thing, I worked briefly in climate science. More to the point, I used to accept the standard view on global warming. Don't believe me?

Let me clarify something: there's global warming and there's Global Warming. The first one, global warming, might just be the following statement: "the earth has gotten a bit warmer on average recently". It's only the second that says "and it's our fault, and it's going to be a disaster, and we must Do Something, and and and...", and in its extreme form escalates the whole thing to a religion, a modern-day Armageddon story.

So yes, I used to believe in global warming. After all, as far as I knew (=what other climate scientists told me), the temperature record was pretty unequivocal in showing a warming trend the past 100+ years. I had no reason to doubt them. I mean, data is data. Who can argue with data? Not me. So yes, I used to believe in global warming. Sure. What I didn't believe in was Global Warming - the dire predictions about the future, and the implication that various taxes and controls were necessary. But yes, I did accept the basic account of the history of the temperature. Sure.

You know what? Now I don't. I try to think of a single reason that I should believe the statement "the earth has gotten warmer recently" and I cannot. What? You're going to say "well, Scientists say so"? That might have been sufficient for me two weeks ago. In fact, it was sufficient.

Now it is not. "Scientists" my ass. "Science" is full of self-important dishonest arrogant dishonest pricks just as much as - if not more so than - any other human institution. This, I already knew, to some extent. But now we have proof that a lot of supposed data was being cooked by said pricks.

As a result, I simply don't believe a single. damn. piece. of. data. that I have not verified and confirmed, myself, to my own satisfaction. You say you have a graph? Show me the data. You say this data is real? Show me where you got it. You say the data had to be 'corrected' for this or that? Show me your formulas and assumptions. You say you didn't correct the data for known effects? Justify that.

Climate science has lost the benefit of the doubt. It has lost the right speak with authority. It has lost my trust.

"But this was only one group of bad actors", you say? Like hell. This was a group of bad actors that all the other brilliant Scientists in their field - their peers, their peer reviewers - either failed to catch or didn't want to catch (the difference is academic - like asking did the Taliban approve of Al Qaeda or just fail to stop them?).

Remember how that vaunted 'peer review' is supposed to work? It is supposed to catch mistakes and lies precisely like these. So everyone who ever peer reviewed any of these jerks' papers and let them go through, for whatever reason, is culpable. The point is that it's not merely a group of bad actors, it's the entire process and field that is broken - and thus the results they spit out simply cannot be trusted.

To win back trust climate science needs to start from scratch. Throw out all corrupted data and piggybacked research and start from scratch, with primary sources, and data as raw as can be found. Unless and until that happens, you can go ahead and call me a Denier. I deny that it's worthwhile wasting my time listening to dishonest creeps and/or inept fools any longer.

That has been the effect of Climategate on me.

[Originally posted at Rhymes With Cars And Girls]

Walking In A Winter Wonderland

A beautiful new version of the classic Christmas song, by the band Gold Frapp.

The Andrews Sisters

Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B

What Would Jesus Do?

Jesus 4 Sharia

Sharia loving Muslims of the UK, will just not give up. Their new approach is to challenge Christian and Jews on whether the true message of Jesus was Islamic Law. According to the Islamic scriptures, Jesus will come back and destroy Christianity. Then he will place the world under Islamic Law. Muslims are going to be in for the shock of their lives!

"Death To America", Huh?

From Bosch Fawstin: