Counterculture Con HQ

January 31, 2010

Fortress America: Last Man Standing

A speech by Dutch MP Geert Wilders who is currently on trial for “hate speech” in the Netherlands.  This one is too important to excerpt.

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me.  I come to America with a mission.  All is not well in the old world.  There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic.  We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe.  This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West.  The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

The Europe you know is changing.  You have probably seen the landmarks.  But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world.  It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen.  And if they are, they might regret it.  This goes for the police as well.  It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children.  With mosques on many street corners.  The shops have signs you and I cannot read.  You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics.  These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are  mushrooming in every city across Europe.  These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe.  With larger congregations than there are in churches.  And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region.  Clearly, the signal is: we rule.  Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden.  In many cities the majority of the  under-18 population is Muslim.  Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods.  Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many  cities.

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.  Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils.  In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims.  Non-Muslim women routinely hear ‘whore, whore’.  Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and  Diderot; the same is increasingly true of  Darwin.  The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.  In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system.  Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves.  Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run from the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II.  French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel.  I could go on forever with stories like this.  Stories about Islamization.  A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe.  San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now.  Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers.  And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate.  But there are few signs of that.  The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France.  One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks.  The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate.  Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’.  And this is how we give them respect.  We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority.  We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.  Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots.  Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus.  I call the perpetrators ‘settlers’.  Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam.  Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries.  Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet.  His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized.  Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.  But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time.  Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed.  Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.  If it is good for Islam, it is good.  If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion.  Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins.  But in its essence Islam is a political ideology.  It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person.  Islam wants to dictate every aspect of  life.  Islam means ‘submission’.  Islam is not compatible with freedom and  democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.  If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam ‘the most retrograde force in the world’, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.  The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor.  I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times.  I support Israel.  First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first  line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance.  Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia.  Israel is simply in the way.  The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.  The war against Israel is not a war against Israel.  It is a war against the West.  It is jihad.  Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us.  If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest.  Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of  abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities.  But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values.  On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam.  They would, and rightly so, see  the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed.  The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning.  It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination.  If they can get Israel, they can get everything.  So-called  journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’.  In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass  immigration of Muslims as the number one policy  mistake since World War II.  And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat.   Yet there is a danger greater than terrorist attacks; the scenario of  America as the last man standing.  The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine.  An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America  – as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs.  With an Islamic Europe,  it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts.  My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter by people who fought for it with their lives.  All throughout Europe, American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish.  My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians.  We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us.  We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams.  Future generations would never forgive us.  We cannot squander our liberties.  We simply do not have the right to do so.

Trying Terrorists in Civilian Court is a Wonderful Thing…

Try KSM in an ordinary federal court in New York City?  It’s a wonderful idea… for our enemies.  John Yoo calls this a “bonanza” for al-Qaeda.  But he sees change in Obama since his Oslo acceptance speech; a slow transformation as he gets mugged by reality.

January 30, 2010

Terrorism Goes Green

Osama Bin Laden calls for green jihad:

CAIRO (AP) – Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.

In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

He blamed Western industrialized nations for hunger, desertification and floods across the globe, and called for “drastic solutions” to global warming, and “not solutions that partially reduce the effect of climate change.”

Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.

The al-Qaida leader also targeted the U.S. economy in the recording, calling for a boycott of American products and an end to the dollar’s domination as a world currency.

“We should stop dealings with the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible,” he said. “I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America.”

He argued that such steps would also hamper Washington’s war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, because Osama is such an “environmentalist.” A regular tree-hugging greenie, that one.

It seems everybody has their own little private little pet reasons for jumping on the global warming bandwagon.  Osama is just a little more upfront with it than most.

David Shuster Makes FNC’s Red Eye

Filed under: Media Bias — Tags: — Jesusland @ 11:32

Humour is the best antidote.

Inquiry: Scientists in stolen E-mail scandal hid climate data

Scientists at the University of East Anglia were encouraged to delete emails concerning claims that man-made emissions were causing global warming

More news you won’t be hearing about in the U.S. media.  They have a narrative to protect, and Obama has an energy tax bill to pass.  From the Daily Mail UK:

Scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.  The Information Commissioner’s office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.

But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.

The revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes for climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are too secretive and too arrogant.  It will pile pressure on the director of the university’s climate change unit, Professor Phil Jones, who has stood aside while an investigation is carried out, and make it harder for him to return.

‘All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,’ he said. ‘We are not trying to show that human beings don’t affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.’

Climate change sceptics welcomed the ruling and called for the Climategate inquiry to be made public. Lord Lawson, head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said it should also investigate whether the CRU denied opportunities to scientists trying to publish dissenting views.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years. Critics have also accused it of exaggerating the risk of tropical storms and hurricanes.  Earlier this week, Britain’s chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, called on climate scientists to be more honest about the uncertainties of global warming.


If they can’t be prosecuted, these scientists should be stripped of their credentials for the taxpayers money they have wasted and for the careers they have attempted to destroy.  This should be front page news here in the U.S.  But since the utterly corrupt Establishment Media is run by Liberals these stories will simply die.  Here in the U.S. the big story is James O’Keefe and “Watergate Jr.”

January 29, 2010

Obama and the Nobel Peace Paradigm

Light and dark: the power of paradigms

Barack Obama is under tremendous pressure to be the “peace president.”  He has, in my view, transcended those expectations for the most part.  Now he’s doing it again.  This won’t sit well with his adoring base.  Not with the honest ones at least.


Barack Obama has allocated £4.3billion to spend on maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile – £370million more than what was budgeted by George Bush.  The budget will also be increased by more than £3.1billion over the next five years.

The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.  And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

Yup.  Barry’s a warmonger!

Obama, it appears, can spend money on our nuclear arsenal, even upping the amount spent by Bush because it’s for all the right reasons.  Of course!  That goes without saying.  Meanwhile, the Right spends money on our military arsenal because they are partners in crime with some vast military industrial complex. It’s a big money-making con job on the American people.  Their motives are evil.  That is an inviolable truth and premise.  Ah, the power of paradigms!  And paradigms must never be questioned.

Survey Says Libs not nearly as smart as they think they are

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.

~Ronald Reagan


When it comes to the goings-on in the news, some folks are more knowledgeable than others, with Republicans and older Americans scoring better on a current-events quiz.

In fact, out of the 12 multiple-choice questions asked in a Pew Research Center phone survey of more than 1,000 adults, Republicans answered an average of about 6 questions correctly compared with 5 for Democrats. (The survey was conducted between Jan. 14 and Jan. 17, and included cell phones and landlines.)

These political-party differences are partly a reflection of the demographics, with Republicans tending to be older, well-educated and male – all factors associated with political and economic knowledge. Even after accounting for these factors, however, Pew scientists found a gap.

But Dems can’t take all the blame for national ignorance. Just 2 percent of the public answered all questions correctly, while 6 percent failed to answer a single question right. On average, Americans got just 5 out of 12 correct.

Even so, many people still talk the talk. For instance, even though respondents consistently expressed strong interest in the health care debate, just 32 percent knew the Senate passed its version of the legislation without a single Republican vote. And, in what proved to be the most difficult question on the quiz, just 26 percent knew that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate and force a vote on a bill.

(The survey was conducted before Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown won a special election to the Senate on Jan. 19; Brown’s election means Senate Democrats can no longer count on a 60-vote majority once he takes office.)

One of the largest gaps between political parties showed up in a question of who leads the U.S. Senate. About half of Republicans could identify Nevada Senator Harry Reid as the current majority leader, while only a third of Democrats could do the same, even though Reid is their own party’s Senate leader.

Republicans trounced Democrats on a question about the percent of U.S. imports of oil that we consume. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans knew the answer to be two-thirds, while just over half of Democrats got that one correct.

Nearly 60 percent of Democrats knew that more than one woman serves on the U.S. Supreme Court, compared with 50 percent of Republicans. While the Democratic Party is made up of more women than men, gender didn’t seem to account for the party gap, Pew researchers say.

And as in the past, older Americans generally did better than young people. Respondents age 50 and older answered about 6 questions correctly on average, compared with just under 4 for those under 50.


The Left hasn’t yet made up it’s mind about you reichwingers.  On a good day, you are no better than ignorant, know-nothing rubes.  If on the other hand they happen to wake up ill-tempered and grumpy, you are all evil and devious geniuses capable of concocting all sorts of unlikely conspiracies to conquer the globe.  Or maybe it just depends which strawman they happen to be arguing with at the moment.  Who knows.  But I guess this survey finally settles it– you’re not stupid, just evil.

The Angry Left and the politics of intellectual contempt

At CCHQ we don’t like to deal in the currency of party politics because little to nothing can be learned from it.  For every boneheaded move by the Dims there’s an equally boneheaded move by the rethugs.  They both cancel each other out.  Nothing is proved.  But when it comes to the topic of cultural elitism, between the Dims and the rethugs there is no contest.  It is strictly a domain of the Left.  There are socio-historical reasons for that, but we’ll set that aside for a later date.  The cultural elitism of the modern Liberal is always on full display during elections.  When you, the America people, hand them a victory, they love you.  Suddenly the American people are overflowing with “hope” and “passion” and “optimism.”  You find redemption in their eyes.  But when they lose?  hoo boy!  You wouldn’t like them when they’re angry.  When you hand them a defeat, all the nasty things they say about you behind closed doors are laid bare for all to see.  You are “small” and “angry” and “racist.”  That same sneering elitism was displayed loud and clear when Scott Brown (R) won in Massachusetts.

Last week Boston Globe columnist Renee Loth described the election of Scott Brown as “a collective primal scream.” It’s an old trope, reminiscent of the late Peter Jennings’s classic declaration after the 1994 election:

Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any 2-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled 2-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. . . . Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry 2-year-old.

Echoing this view of the voters as angry, unreasoning and immature is Time’s Joe Klein, who in the headline of a blog post describes Americans as “Too Dumb to Thrive”:

Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 [sic] stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it’s been wasted on them. . . .

This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed…and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.

It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don’t make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you’re a nation of dodos.

Hey, wait! Didn’t this nation of dodos elect Barack Obama not 15 months ago? Why yes it did, and Pete Wehner digs into Klein’s archives to find that back then the Time scribe had a much higher opinion of his fellow Americans:

Klein is the same fellow who, in the aftermath of Obama’s victory, said of America: “It may no longer be as dominant, economically or diplomatically, as it once was. But it is younger, more optimistic, less cynical. It is a country that retains its ability to startle the world–and in a good way, with our freedom.” And who wrote, after Obama was sworn in as president, that his ascension to power “could force everyone to argue more carefully, to think twice before casting aspersions.”

It turns out the Wehner trick works with other commentators too.  Here’s the New York Times’s Charles Blow reacting to the Massachusetts special election:

Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust. . . . It seems as if Obama and the Democrats made the mistake of believing that a heart once won was forever won, that people would be patient, and that the mob would accept their reasoning for lack of results.

They were wrong. The mob is fickle. And it’s back with a vengeance.

Here was Blow on May 23, 2009:

In 1984, Ronald Reagan won every Northeastern state. Since then, the leadership of the G.O.P. has systematically shed its idealists in favor of ideologues, reducing itself to the current Cheney-Limbaugh illusionati whose strategy is to exploit faith and ignorance by fanning fear and hatred.

But, Northeasterners are not so easily duped. Voters there tend to be wealthier, better educated, less religious and more progressive than those in other regions.

Is it even possible that Massachusetts–the quintessential Northeastern state–underwent such a transformation of attitudes in a scant eight months? Is there any way the American electorate could have been as smart as Klein thought in 2008-09 and as stupid as he thinks now? Or are these guys the ones who are fickle, angry, unreasoning and immature?

You won’t find many politicians directly casting aspersions on the voters the way these angry pundits do. But this politics of contempt is of a piece with what one might call the Obama administration’s politics of condescension. The New York Times quotes White House aide David Axelrod, who argued on “This Week” that Congress should ignore the voters’ clear rejection of ObamaCare:

With House and Senate leaders trying to figure out how to proceed legislatively, Mr. Axelrod also issued a warning to Democrats who were reconsidering their support for the health care measure.

“As a political matter, the foolish thing to do would be for anybody else who supported this to walk away from it,” he said. He added, “The underlying elements of it are popular and important, and people will never know what’s in that bill until we pass it, the president signs it and they have a whole new range of protections they never had before.”

“People will never know” is gentler than “a nation of dodos,” but the underlying message isn’t that different. Axelrod, speaking of the president, tells the Washington Post: “This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” That’s got to be a joke, but the message is clear: President Obama and his men are a lot smarter than the average voter.

It is likely that this is true. Shockingly, half of all Americans have IQs below the median. But intelligence is not the same thing as wisdom or sense. Very intelligent people have been known to advance very compelling arguments on behalf of very bad ideas.

What’s more, there is a particular type of stupidity to which intelligent people are uniquely prone: intellectual snobbery, or the tendency to cultivate an attitude of contempt toward those who are not as bright. This may appeal to New York Times readers or voters in, say, Hyde Park–that is, to people who think they’re better than everyone else too. But it may prove Barack Obama’s undoing as a national politician.

I’ve been on both sides, gentle readers, and the contemp the Left has for the American people is strictly a Lefty thing. You know it.  You feel it.  I was a first hand witness to it.  It always rears its ugly head when they lose elections, like they did in Massachusetts.  I’ve not seen anything like it on the Right, not even when we lose an election.  When the Right loses an election it’s because you’ve been conned by the crafty Libs.  But our inate faith in the American people remains.  When the Left loses, on the other hand, it’s proof you are morons.  It’s not that we’re more graceful in defeat than they are.  I don’t think that’s it.  Although there is something distinctly adolescent about the Left.  It has more to do with how the Left view themselves vis a vis the American people.  Unlike the Right, they see themselves in contradistinction to you.  To them, you are the masses they are tasked with elevating from your lowly status.  They are reaching down to you from the rarified heights.  Because you are “commoners”, uneducated, uncultured, boorish, untravelled, racist, individualistic (greedy), white, christianist, etc., I could go on.   Basically you are a nation of Sarah Palins.  Ever wondered why they hold her in such incomprehensibly visceral contempt?  Now you know why.  Keep in mind that self-professed Liberals–the cultural elite’s real constituency– number no more than 20% of the country’s total population. The rest of you are the people they’re trying to convince to give them the power.   So when you hand them an electoral victory, you are redeemed from all that in their eyes.  You have risen above your inate Sarah Palin and are evolving towards their “New Man.”  But that only lasts until you hand them their next defeat.  Then you’re Sarah Palin again.  And you know how they feel about Sarah Palin.

Whoulda Thunk, More I.P.C.C. Global Warming Fraud

Amazon jungle breathing that "pollutant", CO2.

First the glaciers, now the AMAZON.   The science is settled!


A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under new attack for yet another instance of what its critics say is sloppy science — adding to a growing scandal that has undermined the credibility of scientists and policymakers who back the U.N.’s  findings about global warming.

In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.

But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming — and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.

The IPCC report states that “up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” — highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that “it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems … such as tropical savannas.”

EUReferendum, a blog skeptical of global warming, uncovered the WWF association. It noted that the original “40 percent” figure came from a letter published in the journal Nature that discussed harmful logging activities — and again had  nothing to do with global warming.

“If it is true that IPCC has indeed faked numbers regarding the Amazon, or used unsubstantiated facts, then it is the third nail in the IPCC coffin in less than three months,” Andrew Wheeler, former staff director for the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, told “For years, we have been told that the IPCC peer review process is the gold standard in scientific review. It now appears it is more of a fool’s gold process.”

The U.N. did not return calls seeking comment on the scandal.

McKitrick said this is needed because the U.N. acknowledged the inaccuracy of the data only now that its shortcomings have been exposed. “They are admitting what they did only because they were caught,” he told “The fact that so many IPCC authors kept silent all this time shows how monumental has been the breach of trust.”

Science!  gentle readers, Science! It’s settled and the debate is over.  Don’t question it, just accept it! lol  This is the kind of global warming news breaking overseas that the U.S. media is actively and intentionally doing everything in its power to cover up (except for Fox News, of course).  After all, President Obama has an energy bill to pass.

January 28, 2010

MSNBC: James O’Keefe is “Watergate Jr.”, ACORN Pure as Driven Snow

Andrew Breitbart Takes On MSNBC Over O’Keefe Scandal

Shuster: Andrew, how much did James O’Keefe make as a salary of yours, and if he is convicted, and if he does plead guilty will he no longer be one of your employees and no longer get money from you?

Breitbart: How much money does MSNBC get from Obama’s stimulus money, I believe it’s in the billions.

Believe it or not, gentle readers, David Shuster is a news anchor, not a commentator a la Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman.  He is a “journalist.”  It’s really hard to tell the difference when their guard is down, isn’t it?   Bias?  What bias!  Not even trying to pretend anymore.

UPDATE: Andrew Breitbart:  Shuster flat-out lied to book me as a guest, said “No horse in this race.”

NYTimes: James O’Keefe a Huge Story, ACORN Not So Much

These people are so easy, gentle readers.  Like the sun rising in the east, setting in the west–so predictable.  The arrest of guerrilla journalist James O’Keefe–notorious for exposing ACORN corruption for all the world to see–was instant headlines at the New York Times; the same paper of record that could hardly bring itself to report on O’Keefe’s davastating footage of ACORN giving child prostitution advice and tax fraud tips to clients until weeks later, and only because it was shamed into doing so by Fox News.  And even then portraying the scandal as much ado about nothing.  Presumably, nobody’s ever heard of ACORN so exposing the rot at its core wasn’t really a story, I guess.  But following O’Keefe’s arrest late last Monday, the New York Times wasted no time in rushing the story to print for Wednesday morning. And while the mainstream media tells us we “must not jump to conclusions” about jihadis shouting “Allahu Ackbar” as they massacre our GIs in Ft. Hood, no amount of speculation is off limits to the MSM about what O’Keefe was really up to, and how far the net can be cast to implicate as many people on the Right as possible.  So.  Utterly.  Predictable.

And we’re not done with them yet.  Now the same MSM that tells us never to jump to inconvenient conclusions (inconvenient to their general narrative) was just forced to run this correction for doing just that–jumping to conclusions about James O’Keefe’s arrest:

Earlier versions of this story incorrectly reported that James O’Keefe faced charges in an alleged plot to bug the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The charges were related to an alleged plot to tamper with a phone system. The headline incorrectly referred to a plot to bug the phone and a caption incorrectly referred to an alleged wiretap scheme.

It seems then that their wishful thinking got the best of them. Bias?  What bias!  lol  And now from law enforcement:

A law enforcement official says the four men arrested for attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) were not trying to intercept or wiretap the calls.

THERE WAS NO INTENT TO WIRETAP.  Got it?   This utter FAIL by the MSM is not an accident, gentle readers.  It was carelessness on their part, yes, but not an accident.  And it was carelessness driven by their bias and their crack-like addiction to scooping the evil rightwing.  There are no coincidences in politics.  Folks, I called this one, not because I’m some sort of a genius, but because these people are so utterly predictable.  This is how the MSM operates, and have been operating for decades.  It’s a MIRACLE the GOP can even stay competitive in this kind of media environment.  It’s a testament to YOU–the regular slobs the elites sneer down their noses at, the sheeple they think you are–that this country even remains a two-party system.  You just aren’t buying it.  Bravo!

Thanks: Patterico via Jawa.

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

Himalayan glacier.

I apologize for yet another global warming post, but they’re coming fast and furious now.  We were told the glaciers were melting, but the only thing melting is the sham perpetrated on us by the IPCC.  More eco-hoaxism below.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’  In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’  When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.

Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.  Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

The damage to the IPCC’s reputation, already tarnished by last year’s ‘Warmergate’ leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable.  Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’.


And the U.S. media still refuses to cover this.  Yet President Obama pledged that if he was elected President he would restore science to its rightful place because, as we were told ad nauseaum, science had been hijacked by Bush’s wingers and theocrats.  So CCHQ challenges President Obama to make due on his promise: to call out the unscientific U.N. IPCC bureaucracy and restore science to its rightful place–back with the scientists, and out of the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.

Torture, Waterboarding and Moral Purity

The Left is abuzz.  From the Huffington Post.


Well, it’s official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Kiriakou, a 15-year veteran of the agency’s intelligence analysis and operations directorates, electrified the hand-wringing national debate over torture in December 2007 when he told ABC’s Brian Ross and Richard Esposito  in a much ballyhooed, exclusive interview that senior al Qaeda commando Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the face cloth and water.

“What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts,” he writes. “I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence.”  But never mind, he says now.  “I wasn’t there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I’d heard and read inside the agency at the time.” In a word, it was hearsay, water-cooler talk.  “Now we know,” Kiriakou goes on, “that Zubaydah was waterboarded eighty-three times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied.”


According to Kiriakou, waterboarding saved lives.  But his account is discredited because he lied about witnessing this fact personally, instead he relied on other CIA insiders.   Let’s assume that he’s only a secondary source, and that the information came to him from other primary sources who were actual witnesses.  Does that disprove his original premise that waterboarding produced reliable, actionable information and may have saved American lives?  I don’t believe it logically does.  Unless you believe he’s now lying about hearing it from CIA insider sources, just as he lied about being a direct witness.  Fair enough.  But one doesn’t necessarily follow from the other, and that too is a fair conclusion.  If he heard it from other primary sources, can we not reach the same conclusions about waterboarding than the ones we did when he was an alleged direct witness?  For why would his CIA insider sources have lied to him, a fellow insider?  There’s no reason at all why they should have.  Thus the “clarification” seized upon by the Huffington Post from Kiriakous’s book has no real bearing on the effectiveness of waterboarding, only upon Kiriakou’s veracity about how close he was to the events.

But let’s assume for argument’s sake that waterboarding doesn’t work.  Wouldn’t that explain why it has only been used on three terrorists, but is no longer being used?  I’m pretty sure the CIA is only using the interrogation techniques they believe are effective, and not waterboarding people just to get their rocks off.  But if it did in fact work, and did in fact save lives–as Kiriakou claims CIA insiders told him–and they’re no longer using that technique because of political pressure, isn’t that a greater scandal than the fact Kiriakou lied about being a first hand witness?

CCHQ does not celebrate torture, nor even waterboarding.  But it does revel in saving innocent American lives.  IF waterboarding doesn’t work, then it shouldn’t be used.  Period.  And we’re happy it was scrapped.  If, on the other hand, it did work as Kiriakou claims, then isn’t it a greater shame (than Kiriakou’s white lie) that American lives may in the future be lost because we aren’t allowed to use waterboarding on these terrorists, and in fact are giving them 5th amendment rights to remain silent?  Whether waterboarding works or not is a legitimate point of contention.  Whether waterboarding is torture is also a legitimate argument to have.  But at least for the former, I’d rather our intelligence services be the judge of that.  If they aren’t currently using the practice–and we have no reason to believe they are–then I hope it’s because they determined it simply doesn’t work, and not because they were forced to table it because of political pressure.

As for the latter–whether waterboarding is torture–I suspect the objection will be the following: waterboarding, whether it works or not, is torture.  And torture should never be used under any circumstance.  Fair enough.  In which case the issue of whether Kiriakous is a first-hand witness or not becomes moot.  It never mattered to you in the first place because you’ve already rejected waterboarding as a tactic no matter what the results.  Yet the only reason Kiriakous’s account is relevant as a story is because it spoke to the effectiveness of waterboarding; and if the effectiveness of waterboarding as a tactic is irrelevant to you–as somebody who opposes waterboarding no matter how impressive the results–then why are Huffpo’s recent revelations about Kiriakous’s account even relevant?

I don’t believe waterboarding descends to the level of torture.  If it did, we wouldn’t be using it on our own military; and in fact waterboarding our soldiers would probably have been subject to all sorts of lawsuits and congressional hearings long ago if indeed it were torture.  But it hasn’t because it simply does not rise to that level.  But whether waterboarding is torture or not is something we can agree to disagree about for now.  We have bigger fish to fry here.  I want to go even further with this.  The larger question I’d like to put to you, gentle readers, is whether there are situations that do condone torture.

I know what many of you are thinking.  Torture?  Never!  Because in your heart of hearts you are absolutely, positively certain that torture can never be condoned.  I applaud you for that.  It’s a good default position from which to start.  But are you really as set against it as you think you are?  Ask yourself one question:  if your child were kidnapped and held prisoner in a dungeon would you torture the serial killer who took him in order to get him back alive?  Remember, the clock is ticking and time is limited.  What are you going to do?  Let your child die?  Or are you going to do whatever it takes to save your child’s life.  Everything you believe about torture hinges on the answer to that question.  Those innocent American lives of which I speak–people you’ve never met–are as important to somebody else as your child is to you, and time is running out.  This is the ticking bomb scenario.  What do we do?  Are you willing to sacrifice the lives of those innocent Americans for the sake of your moral purity?  CCHQ believes some situations simply do not allow us the luxury of this kind of moral posturing.  That is false morality.  And I believe the debate surrounding waterboarding is neck deep in it.

Matthews On Obama: “I Forgot He Was Black Tonight”

Filed under: Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama, Race — Tags: — Jesusland @ 00:05

Chris Matthews: I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

LOL.  Race-obsessed Libs projecting their baggage onto us, gentle readers.  For one hour they managed to forget Barack was their “magical negro.”

January 27, 2010

Fox News Leads For Trust

For those who agree with White House senior adviser, David Axelrod, who said that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news,” this must come as especially troubling news.

Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News. Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.


So America loves Fox News.  But to the cultural elitists, this isn’t proof that maybe Fox News, Faux Noise, Pox News, etc., what have you, is doing something right, no.  It just comfirms what they’ve always believed about YOU, America, the common man–you are morons.

Hitler Reacts to Citizens United vs Federal Elections Commission

He makes a good point; the notion that corporations are “people” and therefore have rights to free speech just as real human beings is patently absurd and is a disservice to our democracy, even though that’s been the constitutional standard for decades.

But the same absurdity is being applied to unions and PACs.  And if you outlaw speech for corporations but not unions and PACs, well, that’s absurd too.  Corporations have shareholders just as unions and PACs have members.  It would be an unequal application of the 1st Ammendment.   The only solution that doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment is to silence everybody who isn’t a real human being– corporations, PACs, and unions– otherwise you’d be favoring one party over another.  But that’s never going to happen.  So how do we counter the unequal weight of corporations in the marketplace of free speech?  Well, I guess that’s what unions and PACs are for.  But the reality is, there is never going to be an equal voice for everybody in the free speech marketplace.  That’s a utopian ideal.  After all, do you have the same voice as your average Hollywood celebrity when they spout off ad nauseaum in support of their causes?  Of course not.  Nobody gives a rat’s @ss what you think, because you aren’t rich and famous.  Should they be banned from speaking on the grounds their voice has a greater weight in the marketplace of ideas than yours?  What about the corporation known as the NYTimes? Should their editorial pages be banned?  That would be the logical conclusion if we ban corporate speech on the grounds they have “more speech” than the rest of us.  Keep in mind also, that this does not affect the amount corporations are allowed to donate to candidates.  That remains unaffected by Citizens United.

Second Pregnant “Man” Due To Give Birth

Pregnant "man".

I know, you just threw up a little bit in your mouth.  A sign of the times below.


A transgender couple have revealed they are expecting their first baby in a month’s time.  Scott Moore – thought to be only the second ‘pregnant man’ to go public – is due to give birth to a boy in February, with husband Thomas by his side. The couple were both born girls and have undergone surgery to transform their sex. Scott, 30, who is legally married to Thomas because he still has a female birth certificate, says he is eagerly looking forward to giving birth.  They have decided to call the child ‘Miles’.  ‘We know some people will criticise us but we are blissfully happy and not ashamed,’ Scott said.

The couple, from California, already have two children – Gregg, 12, and Logan, 10 – who Thomas had with a previous female partner.  The case is similar to that of Thomas Beatie, from Oregon, who made headlines around the world in 2008 when he gave birth to a girl. Scott, who started out in life as a girl named Jessica, first realised he wanted to be a man when he hit puberty aged 11.  ‘When I told my family they thought I was crazy but they gradually realised I was serious and allowed me to start taking male hormones when I was 16 years old,’ he said.

His parents paid £4,600 for Scott to have his 36DDD chest removed. However, he could not afford the gender surgery, so still has female organs.  Thomas, who used to be called Laura, had a hysterectomy and gender reassignment surgery last year.  They met in 2005 at a support group meeting for transgender men but lost touch – but saw each other again in 2007.  ‘We knew we had to be together,’ Scott said. ‘Two months later I gave up my job to live with Thomas and the boys.

‘Now they call me “dad two”.’The couple, who live in a four-bedroom house, decided in December 2008 to try for a baby.  Scott was inseminated with the sperm of a male friend and fell pregnant in June 2009.  ‘We were so happy we did what all gay men do when they get excited – we went shopping,’ Thomas said.  The couple have dismissed concerns that Miles might be teased at school, saying they are confident they can deal with it.  ‘We’ve been through it already,’ Thomas said.  ‘My son Logan was bullied but now he just says to teasers: “You may have a problem with my two dads but I don’t so you’re not hurting me”.’

Scott plans to have a natural birth at their local hospital. Their doctor and obstetrician have told the medics at the local hospital.  ‘We didn’t want everyone to be shocked when a man turns up to give birth,’ Scott said.‘We found it very difficult to get a doctor and midwife at first. It was hard when people didn’t want to treat me.  ‘No pregnant person should be denied healthcare just because they are a man.’ But he added: ‘I’m looking forward to giving birth now. With Thomas at my side everything will be just fine.’  Thomas said: ‘We want to show the world that trans-families can be healthy, loving and nurturing.’


Is this a bit creepy?  Then you must be a homophobe.  That, or something is very wrong with this picture.  The perception shapers in the mainstream media would have you believe the former–that you are a hater for thinking this is wack.  Notice how they refer to him/her as a ‘man’, but without the quotes because we are expected to accept it as a given–he’s a man.  Even though she’s actually a woman.  If this had been reported merely as “Lesbian couple who look like men give birth to child” I might have overlooked it.  The secular progressives have been entirely successful in desensitizing me to the ghey.  But that’s not how they reported it.  They push it even further here.  It’s a Man baby! giving birth.  No quotes around Man.  Which sounds like more of that of secular progressive runaway train thingy trying to normalize the fringe and make it mainstream.  Because she’s not a man, she’s a woman.  That’s why she’s giving birth!  I’m not asking for these disturbed people to be demonized and attacked.  I pity them, I don’t hate them.  Jesus was full of grace.  And He is the standard here at CCHQ.  But he had no tolerance for sin either.  So my question is this:  what would Jesus think?  How would he react to this?  Is normalizing of the fringe and everything dysfunctional in society for the sake of the disturbed few something we must simply accept here?  Is that what grace looks like?  And if not, how should we view this.

2010: Year the global warming died

Himalayan glaciers: not melting

This isn’t the way things were supposed to happen.  With Barack Obama’s election and a Democratic supermajority sweeping into Congress on his coattails, 2010 was supposed to be the moment we’d look back upon when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.  Now it just seems like the wheels are falling off this peace train.


The bloggers are all over the UN IPCC 2007 report, the bible of global warming, which predicted all manner of dire outcomes for our planet unless we got a grip on rising temperatures — and it seems to be crumbling in some pretty significant areas.

The dam began to crack towards the end of last year when leaked e-mails from one of the temples of global warming, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, suggested that a few sleights of hand were being deployed to hide facts inconvenient to the global warming case. An official investigation into these e-mails is on-going.

But the flood gates really opened after the IPCC had to withdraw its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would likely all have melted by 2035, maybe even sooner.This turned out to have no basis in scientific fact, even though everything the IPCC produces is meant to be rigorously peer-reviewed, but simply an error recycled by the WWF, which the IPCC swallowed whole.

The truth, as seen by India’s leading expert in glaciers, is that “Himalayan glaciers have not in anyway exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.”

Then at the weekend another howler was exposed. The IPCC 2007 report claimed that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods. Like its claims about the glaciers, this was also based on an unpublished report which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny — indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it.

The author, who didn’t actually finish his work until a year after the IPCC had used his research, has now repudiated what he sees has its misuse of his work.

His conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence to claim a statistical link between global warming and catastrophe loss.”

Yet it was because of this — now unproved — link that the British government signed up to a $100 billion transfer from rich to poor countries to help them cope with a supposed increase in floods and hurricanes. It was also central to many of the calculations in Britain’s Stern Report, which might now need to be substantially revised.

Now after Climate-gate, Glacier-gate and Hurricane-gate — how many “gates” can one report contain? — comes Amazon-gate. The IPCC claimed that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests were risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by “tropical savannas” if temperatures continued to rise.

This claim is backed up by a scientific-looking reference but on closer investigation turns out to be yet another non-peer reviewed piece of work from the WWF.  Indeed the two authors are not even scientists or specialists on the Amazon: one is an Australian policy analyst, the other a freelance journalist for the Guardian and a green activist.

Every time I have questioned our politicians about global warming they have fallen back on the mantra that “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”, referring to the vast numbers supposedly behind the IPCC consensus.

But it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.

They may — or may not — still be right or wrong but what has become clear in the past couple of months is that, contrary to what many leaders have claimed, the science as promulgated by the IPCC is very far from “settled” and that there are important questions still to ask. The mainstream media has been slow to do this.


It’s not looking too good for the warmists right now.  Their efforts appear to be stalling, despite the full support of the mainstream media, policy elites, and even corporate interests that have been jumping on the bandwagon. Thank God for the internet.

January 26, 2010

ACORN Exposer Arrested by FBI

James O'Keefe: boneheaded move

All ACORN’s dreams have come true.

NEW ORLEANS – A hero of conservatives who bruised the liberal group ACORN by posing as a pimp on hidden camera is now accused of orchestrating an attempt to tamper with phone lines at Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office inside a federal building. It’s not clear what James O’Keefe, 25, and three other suspects were trying to accomplish Monday at the New Orleans office of Landrieu, who has been criticized for securing more Medicaid benefits for her state in exchange for her support on health care legislation.

It sounded like a Watergate-style operation, but federal officials have not yet said why the men wanted to interfere with Landrieu’s phones, whether they were successful, or even if the goal was political espionage. All four have been involved in conservative politics in the past.  A staff member in the office told the FBI that two of the suspects, including the son of an acting U.S. Attorney, wore white hard harts, tool belts and flourescent vests and said they needed to fix a problem with the phone system.  According to an FBI affidavit, O’Keefe was already sitting in the waiting area and recorded the men on his cell phone when they walked in.

A federal law enforcement official said one of the suspects was picked up in a car a couple of blocks away with a listening device that could pick up transmissions. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the information was not part of the FBI affidavit.  As he got into a cab outside the jail, O’Keefe said, “The truth shall set me free.”  His biography on a Web site where he blogs says he works at, though that Web site does not currently work.  The fourth suspect, Robert Flanagan, the son of Shreveport-based acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan, was released earlier Tuesday. His father’s office declined comment.

All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Only Flanagan lives in Louisiana. Basel is from Minnesota; O’Keefe, New Jersey; and Dai, the D.C-Virginia area.

Dems finally catch a break.

Talk about a bad call.  Clearly a case of youthful overzealousness and stupidity.  Although the MSM did everything in their power to overlook James O’Keefe’s existence when he was airing out ACORN’s dirty laundry for all to see, this isn’t a story they’re going to ignore.  On the contrary, I suspect they’re licking their chops over this one.  Let’s keep tabs on this in the weeks to come and see how much airtime they give this one compared to the “non-story” that was ACORN.

Liberals Fighting Terrorism, LOL

This would be funny if it weren’t all so infuriating.  Below, how the Left deals with our enemies.


Intending to die in the act of destroying a jetliner, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab instead landed alive in Detroit as a kind of message in a bottle from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He knew more about its recruiting, training and operations than anyone who is ever likely to fall into our arms babbling like a scared 23-year-old.

But the Obama administration shut him down. It didn’t go so far as to tell the Customs and Border Protection officers to cover their ears and try not to listen when Abdulmutallab made incriminating statements on the initial ride to the hospital, but it came close. It had an FBI team inform Abdulmutallab of his right to remain silent, after which he predictably remained silent.

This is brazen self-sabotage. We are in a war of intelligence. People risk their lives every day to get the information to understand the terror networks arrayed against us and identify specific threats. Why would we pre-emptively silence a priceless source of timely intelligence?

It literally didn’t even occur to the administration to do otherwise. Top terrorism officials weren’t consulted. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the director of National Intelligence, the FBI director and the secretary of Homeland Security were all out of the loop. Some as-yet-unidentified top Justice Department official, who probably is known around the office as “general,” made the call.

According to an Associated Press account, after Abdulmutallab chatted with customs officials about his plot, FBI agents showed up and talked to him for about 50 minutes. He told them he’d worked with al Qaeda. The agents didn’t Mirandize him, relying on an exception in cases involving an imminent threat to public safety. Then, a new FBI team arrived with instructions from Washington to read Abdulmutallab his rights. It’s the last we’ve heard from him.


Terrorism is not a crime.  It’s an act of war.  But above is what the war on “man-caused disasters” looks like when terrorism is treated as a crime, and terrorists as mere criminals.  This is what the war on terror looks like by people who in their deepest heart of hearts believe the war on terror is all just a big farce and that even if terrorism is real we probably “have it coming to us.”  This attitude is perfectly displayed by how unseriously they deal with the threat, preferring the moral posturing of miranda warnings, lawyers, and civilian trials to the hard reality of war.  This approach will without a doubt lead to the death of innocent Americans in the future.

Older Posts »