Have you heard of Matthew Alexander? Unless you follow the debate over terrorist suspects and "enhanced interrogation techniques" very closely, the answer is probably no. Yet Alexander is one of the most influential voices in the deliberations over what to do with the U.S. terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Major Matthew Alexander, who has actually interrogated al Qaeda suspects in Iraq, attributes half of the deaths of Americans in Iraq to the detention abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo," Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin said on "Meet the Press" Sunday. "Continuing Guantanamo, unfortunately, makes our troops less safe."
A moment later, moderator David Gregory asked Durbin for evidence to support President Obama's assertion that "the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained." Durbin's answer? "I just gave it to you: Major Matthew Alexander."
It is widely asserted that Guantanamo has been a key recruiting tool for terrorists around the world. Indeed, it has been asserted so often that the assertion has become conventional wisdom. But what is the source of the conventional wisdom? To hear Sen. Durbin and some of his allies in the Guantanamo debate tell it, the source is Matthew Alexander.
Here's the interesting part: Nobody knows who he is...
[Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The anonymous accuser of Guantanamo
State Department's love affair with Islamists
With the United States battling Islamist extremists, making America's case to Muslims around the world has never been more of a priority for policymakers. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to take a counterproductive approach: serving as a veritable infomercial promoting Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) while giving the back of the hand to the very anti-jihadist Muslims that Washington should be cultivating.
The latest example is a State Department booklet issued in March titled "Being Muslim in America." Unfortunately, the booklet perpetuates the mythology that American Muslims are united in the belief that law enforcement and the public are willing to flout innocent Muslims' civil rights post-September 11, describing American Muslim reactions to the attacks as follows:"A new, truly American Islam is emerging, shaped by American freedoms, but also by the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks - planned and executed by non-Americans - [which] raised suspicions among other Americans whose immediate responses, racial profiling among them, triggered in return a measure of Muslim-American alienation."
This is an extremely tendentious, even intellectually dishonest, description. From reading it, one would have no idea that there have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas on terrorism-related charges since September 11 that involved Muslims living in the United States. This includes terrorist plots to attack the military base at Fort Dix, New Jersey, to create a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon and to attack US military and Jewish targets in California.
THE BOOKLET makes no mention of the fact that organizations like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were listed by the government as unindicted coconspirators in the successful Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF).
But from reading this passage in "Being Muslim in America," one would get the impression that public concern about Islamist terror has no basis in reality and is merely the result of backward Americans' "discrimination and resentment."
READ MORE
'Welcome Pelosi. Pay close attention to human rights
House Speaker Nancy has flown from one human rights controversy (waterboarding) right into another one (the fight for democracy in China).(Snip)So far, Pelosi has publicly declined to discuss the issue of free speech or Tibet explicitly on the trip -- or during the surreal Capitol press conference on Friday, where she dodged the question.
READ MORE
China says rich nations must cut emissions by 40 pct
China confirmed Thursday that it will demand [?] rich nations cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 in upcoming global climate change negotiations. In a position paper published for negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December.
China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, did not commit to any legally binding reductions...
[They're not stupid.]
READ MORE
Bipartisan Team to Destroy Sanctity of Contracts
As if any more proof were needed, here's further evidence that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is practically nil in many parts of the country.
The St. Louis Business Journal reported on Friday, Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Kit Bond (R-MO) have sent a joint letter to President Obama "seeking answers to concerns raised by Chrysler and General Motors dealerships in Missouri that learned last week their contracts will be terminated."
There is no doubt that Dealership Agreements (contracts) between dealers and automobile manufacturers include specific bilateral termination provisions. If those termination provisions were violated by either the dealer or the manufacturer, or even if one party cared to challenge the validity of termination, the remedy is litigation NOT whining to politicians.
Frankly, it is no surprise that Democrats would miss this point but for the distinguished Republican Senator from Missouri to join the error is jaw-dropping.
Note to Dealerships: If you've got a legal leg, file suit.
[From CEOs groveling in congressional 'hearings' to dealership owners with contracts, our 'captains' of industry have become girlie men - and all such deserve what they get for not having the grandies to forcefully reject government interference and remind our 'representatives' that that they works for us, and not the other way around.
We've an epidemic of cowardliness in the country which is empowering an overreaching government to just keep expanding.]
READ MORE
Here We Go Again: This Time Gov't. Is Trying to Shaft Unsecured GM Bondholders
[AKA: 'ENT: Enhanced Negotiation Techniques'...]
According to a Wednesday Reuters report, offering secured bondholders a much better deal than the 29 cents on the dollar Chrysler's secured creditors have been offered. Chrysler's "non-TARP secured lenders," after what they allege with much evidential support was a campaign of threats and intimidation by President Obama and the White House, abandoned their efforts to have their first-lien rights recognized in bankruptcy court. [again our 'captains of industry' prove to be wimps]
But Indiana pension funds holding some of that secured debt representing teachers, police, and other workers have taken legal action objecting to the terms of the Chrysler bankruptcy that don’t give first-lien lenders their proper and legal due.
It thus appears, despite a chest-thumping May 2 assertion in the New York Times that the White House's Chrysler hardball might have taught GM lenders a "lesson," that Obama and his car guys don't have the stomach for riding roughshod over the rights of GM's secured bondholders and ending up in a regular federal district court.
Now what? Well, if you're Team Obama, you instead try to put the screws to GM's unsecured bondholders -- to the benefit of the United Auto Workers' Voluntary Employee Benefits Association (VEBA) trust...
[Read to learn the mechanism of how corporations are stolen in America...> ]
READ MORE
"The Future of Capitalism."
The topic: "The Future of Capitalism." To discuss this, Time magazine assembled a "stellar cast." One such "honoree" works as a Public Broadcasting Service/National Public Radio host. The tax dollars produced by the capitalism he criticizes help pay his salary. (The irony was apparently lost.)"I don't think that left to its own devices," ..."capitalism moves along smoothly and everyone gets treated fairly in the process. Capitalism is like a child: If you want the child to grow up free and productive, somebody's got to look over the shoulder of that child."
Good grief.
Every dollar spent by government is one less dollar spent by taxpayers. Money comes from somewhere — taxes, borrowing (taxes on layaway) or printing, which, if not offset by productivity, causes inflation, a stealth tax on everyone.
Who can spend, save or invest more efficiently and humanely, you or some tenured bureaucrat in D.C. who's never run so much as a hot dog stand or lent himself out as a United Way volunteer?
Private enterprise is the most proficient job- and wealth-creating "system" ever designed. Obama's anti-capitalist, Big Government, command-and-control economic vision exceeds mere "childishness." It is dangerous...
READ MORE
Broadcast Networks 'Hail' Obama Auto Fuel Efficiency Standard
After 120 days of the new presidency, the automobile industry provides some of the best evidence of an administration that favors the heavy hand of government meddling in the private sector. And as is the case with mostcoverage of President Obama and his policies, criticism of his automotive tinkering has been sparse.
On May 19, Obama announced a 30-percent increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which would come to a 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) average for both cars and light trucks.
Across the board, the announcement the federal government would be dictating what automobiles would be manufactured in the United States received lots of fanfare and very little criticism on the three evening network broadcasts.
During the May 18 evening newscasts and the May 19 morning show coverage, the networks featured the comments of pro-CAFE standard experts by a margin of 6-to-1 over skeptics... [snip]
ABC's Jake Tapper did say increased CAFÉ standards would bring added costs for consumers."This will mean the cars will cost more to manufacture and therefore to buy - an average of $1,300 a car more by 2016," ... "But the president said that cost would be more than made up for by savings at pump."
However, Nick Loris explained on The Heritage Foundation's blog that these cost-savings in the name of bettering the environment are a fallacy.
"Although touted as a measure to curb global warming, fuel efficiency standards have very little environmental impact. Newer vehicles with better efficiency standards may emit less carbon dioxide per mile, but increased fuel efficiency often leads to more driving and new cars ‘constitute a miniscule source of overall carbon dioxide emissions.'"
"But will the cars be as safe? That's an open question for automakers, if they're being given enough time to meet these requirements. In the late '70s, the U.S. pushed for better fuel efficiency very quickly. The result: Cars like the Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto."
An editorial in the May 20 Wall Street Journal also mocked this government-mandated path to prosperity by pointing out that this is folly even by the standards of traditional socialists.
"The auto industry is in full-fledged collapse, and what does Washington decide to do? We're going to put in some new CAFE standards on it - to fight global warming or whatever they're calling it these days," ... "The government isn't content with just firing car company's CEOs and then slashing advertising budgets. It's now telling the American people that they need to spend between $1,300 and $7,000 extra [that's you truck drivers] to drive a car that is likely to be less safe."
"We wish these folks luck ‘working together' with the Obama auto-design team. One thing seems certain by 2016: Taxpayers will be paying Detroit to make the cars Americans don't want, and then they will pay again either through (trust us) a gas tax or with a purchase subsidy. Even the French must think we're nuts."[That stung.]
READ MORE
It's not going to be pretty
Obama's plan to get us all into small cars is going to cost lives. It is the blood for oil tradeoff we always heard about for Bush, brought to life by Obama.
Doug Ross looks into the safety of the Smart Car, those little two-seaters. There haven't been enough of them driving around yet to generate impressive safety stats, but the laws of physics, and some confirming pictures suggest that EMTs are going to be dealing with more and more gruesome crash scenes.
Doug does a masterful job of explaining through pictures. This is a visually arresting presentation.
READ MORE
A preview of Obamacare
For a truly frightening preview of our future under Obamacare, Peter Simpson of The Daily Telegraph informs us of the real life conditions of socialized medicine as practiced in Great Britain and Scandinavia--countries often touted as role models for health the US should follow and admire.
To cut down on long waiting lists for knee surgery, mostly on the elderly, an English clinic imported "flying doctors" from Scandinavia. These doctors fly in, skim the reports on the patients' medical condition, perform the surgery and whoosh! fly home again, with little follow up.
The results were predictable.
Dozens of elderly people were left in pain and requiring further surgery after botched work by Scandinavian surgeons brought in to reduce NHS waiting lists, an investigation has found. (snip) Now, an audit of more than 200 patients who underwent knee surgery between 2004 and 2006 has revealed that the number of operations which were botched was ten times the national average.
And why was there such a long waiting list and why was it necessary for England to import these doctors?
Doctors and other medical personnel and institutions basically operate on a regular business schedule rather than having extended hours and shifts as is common here. The number of English trained doctors has fallen, necessitating the importation of doctors from other countries who work there with minimal competence in English and little knowledge of their clinical skills.
So, no matter how the American policy wonks oh so sincerely protest, the same--and worse--would happen here if government sponsored, single payer" healthcare infests our country. Why, they may even long for the bad old days of healthcare circa 2009.
READ MORE
Calif. could run out of cash in 2 months
SACRAMENTO -- California will run out of cash in two months unless lawmakers act swiftly to close a widening deficit and pass a budget, two state finance officials warned Friday.
Failure to balance the state's books quickly will trigger a financial storm much greater than the one the state endured this past winter, when it stopped infrastructure projects and delayed payments to vendors and refunds for taxpayers...
[Unbelievably {sadly, 'not'}, all indications are we'll actually have to tell them to cut spending now - they're still in delusion...]
READ MORE
The Coming California Bailout
[HT:LD: "Next up on Obama's "I break you, I own you" agenda.]
California, the sunny incubator of America's future, has relished its role as a leading indicator of political trends. Tuesday it became what it thinks it should be, the center of attention, but not in the way it wants to be... [snip]
Now California's mostly Democratic political class will petition Washington for a bailout to nourish the public sector that is suffocating the state's dwindling -- and departing -- private sector. The Obama administration, which rewarded the United Auto Workers by giving it considerable control over two companies it helped reduce to commercial rubble, will serve the interests of California's unionized public employees and others largely responsible for reducing the state to mendicancy.
These factions will flourish if the state becomes a federal poodle on a short leash held by the president. He might make aid conditional on the state doing things that California Democrats and their union allies would love to be "compelled" to do: eliminate the requirements of two-thirds majorities of both houses of the legislature to raise taxes and pass budgets, and repeal Proposition 13, which voters passed in 1978 to limit property taxes.
These changes would enable the legislature (job approval rating: 14 percent) to siphon away an ever-larger share of taxpayers' wealth and transfer it to public employees. Such as prison guards, whose potent union is one reason California's cost-per-inmate (about $49,000) is twice the national average.
California's voters are complicit in their state's collapse. They elect and reelect the legislators off whom public employees unions batten...
[Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Bushes receive award for promoting AIDS awareness
Baylor International Pediatric AIDS Initiative honored former President George W. Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush with the 2009 Leadership Award.
Since its creation in 2003, PEPFAR has saved more than 1.1 million lives in countries across sub- Saharan Africa...
READ MORE
New Animated Series on ABC to Lampoon Environmentalists
The new animated television series ‘The Goode Family’ is a send-up of a clan of environmentalists who live by the words ‘What would Al Gore do?’ Gerald and Helen Goode want nothing more than to minimize their carbon footprint. They feed their dog, Che, only veggies (much to the pet's dismay) and Mr. Goode dutifully separates sheets of toilet paper when his wife accidentally buys two-ply. And, of course, the family drives a hybrid.
READ MORE
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
N. Korea Conducts 'Successful' Underground Nuclear Test
.
[HT:LD: "Not good news on a holiday morning. Korea gives world
a one hour warning. Didn't John Bolton say
this was going to happen?]
READ MORE
What John Bolton knew
The underground nuclear test announced by North Korea appears to come as something of a surprise to the Obama administration. Yet the Obama administration has acted with nothing but complacency about the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. In a May 20 Wall Street Journal column, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted:The curtain is about to rise again on the long-running nuclear tragicomedy, "North Korea Outwits the United States." Despite Kim Jong Il's explicit threats of another nuclear test, U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth said last week that the Obama administration is "relatively relaxed" and that "there is not a sense of crisis." They're certainly smiling in Pyongyang.
Ambassador Bolton found that Bosworth and his colleagues were providing the North Koreans with nothing but encouragement:Despite Pyongyang's aggression, Mr. Bosworth has reiterated that the U.S. is "committed to dialogue" and is "obviously interested in returning to a negotiating table as soon as we can." This is precisely what the North wants: America in a conciliatory mode, eager to bargain, just as Mr. Bush was after the 2006 test.
I think it's safe to say they're smiling in Tehran (or should I say "the Islamic Republic of Iran"?) too.
READ MORE
Is Obama Another Jimmy Carter
During the U.S. Presidential primaries last year, I had expressed my misgivings that Barack Obama might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, whose confused thinking and soft image paved the way for the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Jimmy Carter took a little over three years to create the image of the U.S. as a confused and soft power. Obama is bidding fair to create that image even in his first year in office. The North Korean defiance is the first result of this perceived soft image.
After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea's policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.
A series of actions taken by the Obama administration have created an impression in Iran, the "Af-Pak" region, China and North Korea that Obama does not have the political will to retaliate decisively to acts that are detrimental to U.S. interests, and to international peace and security.
There will be more surprises for the U.S. and the international community to follow if Obama and his aides do not embark on corrective actions before it is too late...
[Personally I think Russia will take greatest advantage of this weakness by annexing Ukraine and thereby securing nearly all power available to Europe.
Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Newsweek Editor: Iran Wants Nukes...But Only for Civilian Uses
I'm not sure what's scarier: the fact that Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria wants us to believe that Iran seeks nuclear power only for peaceful purposes or that President Obama might be seriously buying into this guy's delusions by reading his book, The Post-American World.
Zakaria wants us to put away our fears of a nuclear Iran by making the case in his Newsweek article that that nation has no interest in weaponizing nukes:Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were "un-Islamic." The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them.
And what about the threats of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's to "wipe Israel off the map?" Zakaria conveniently overlooks this and places the map wiping threat blame on Israel... [snip]
Zakaria concludes with his "solution" for the current crises. Allow Iran to enrich uranium...but only under international supervision [despite all evidence that there is no such thing]. He does admit that they could (gasp) cheat but it would be worth the risk [to Israel?]... [snip]
And remember, Obama is actually taking Zakaria seriously judging by his taste in books. Could this be one reason why Obama couldn't even look Israeli President Netanyahu in the face while speaking during their joint press briefing last week?
[Truly alarming given our president's proven susceptibility to radical ideology [socialism {government control}, collectivism {'spread the wealth'}, racism {black theology} to name a few.]
READ MORE
Ahmadinejad Says Nuclear Issue ‘Over,’ Iran to Pursue Program
Tehran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who faces re-election next month, said he considers the dispute over his country’s nuclear program ''over.''
The Iranian people ''won’t allow negotiations to take place outside the framework of the IAEA''
READ MORE
FLASHBACKs >
UN: Iran blocking IAEA from verifying its nuclear ambitions
''I regret that we are still not in a position to achieve full clarity regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,''
Iranian Nuclear Program Remains In Full Flow
the West's silliness in hiding behind the incompetent skirts of the IAEA is leading to war - Israel {rightly} will not allow Iran to get nukes - we need apply any & all pressure now to prevent that eventuality or share the blame for having set the predictable stage for it
ALL "IAEA" FLASHBACKs
.
Sacrificing Israel
Linking US action against Iran with freezing settlement building, destroying Jewish communities and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state [Jordan is the first, but it changed its name from Arab Palestine to Trans Jordan, in an effort to ask 'where Palestine?' which dupes the historically ignorant] is a set-up for Israel's demonization and destruction.
For President Obama, it's a win-win. No matter what happens, Israel will be blamed.
Pres. Obama knows that short of military intervention nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Making Israeli concessions the key to stopping Iran, therefore allows Obama a perfect excuse: Israel didn't do enough; it's Israel's fault... [snip]
Pushing Israel against the wall is a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism away from American and European investments and interests. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they'll refrain from attacking, keep oil prices low and keep oil flowing.
Iran will make cosmetic adjustments so that Obama can claim victory; the crisis defused. And Israel will pay the price...
READ MORE
'1 in 4 Israelis would consider leaving country if Iran gets nukes'
Some 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University.
Some 85 percent of respondents said they feared the Islamic Republic would obtain an atomic bomb, 57 percent believed the new U.S. initiative to engage in dialogue with Tehran would fail and 41 percent believed Israel should strike Iran's nuclear installations without waiting to see whether or how the talks develop...
[It isn't a political game to them.]
READ MORE
'If Israel doesn't remove Iranian threat, no one will'
If Israel does not eliminate the Iranian threat, no one will, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday. ''Israel is not like other countries,'' Netanyahu told his Likud faction in a meeting which came one week after his meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House.''We are faced with security challenges that no other country faces, and our need to provide a response to these is critical, and we are answering the call.''
[Yet the 'international community' will be claim surprise/shock/outrage when it occurs.]
READ MORE
Palestinians mark 'catastrophe' of Israel
Ramallah - Thousands of Palestinians have marked the 61st anniversary of the Naqba, the ''catastrophe'' that sparked an exodus of hundreds of thousands of refugees after Israel was created in 1948.''The right of return is sacred'', ''No peace without the right of return''
proclaimed banners held by the marchers...
[This is the poster-child example of Arab, with Western duplicity, maleficence toward Israel. Both exoduses ('48, '67) were a few Arabs expelled due to sympathetic suspicions ('48 war, '67 war) and the vast majority who left voluntarily to avoid and ease the expected genocide against Israelis.
The 'proof' of this is that in both cases nearly as many Arabs (as permitted by Israelis) remained in Israel.
Now, the 'Palestinians' demand that the "descendants" of those that abandoned Israel in her hours of need be allowed to migrate 'back' (although virtually all have never been) into the country - despite there being no meaningful way to identify who that might (and might not) be.
I.e., it's a transparent ploy to allow the infiltration of untold numbers of radical muslims into Israel where they could destroy it from within using the same civilians as shields they use elsewhere.
Better plan: why can't they be given homesteads by their 'muslim brethren' in Jordan, or Syria, or Egypt or the scores of other muslim countries surrounding Israel comprising hundreds of times the land of tiny Israel (recall; it's smaller than New Jersey)?
A: They don't want peace, nor the 'conflict' (assault on Israel's right to exist) to end.
When will the West own up to that fact and that we're all being played for suckers {that one's rhetorical}]
READ MORE
IDF Preparing Troops to Fight Arab Fifth Column in Wartime
[HT:DT]
The IDF is training troops to fight against Arab Israeli citizens, if they rise up during wartime as they did in 2000*. According to Maariv/NRG, the army is training infantry battalions to seize control of the strategic Wadi Ara (Nachal Eeron) road in wartime, should the need arise.
The battalions are currently employed in routine security in Judea and Samaria. However, should a northern war front develop, they will be attached to the Home Front Command and sent to Umm El Fahm to beat back any attempts by the Arabs there to block the road. They have been trained in urban warfare for this purpose and have been acquainted with the methods for carrying out this “sensitive” mission.
[*The 'Palestinian's' right-of-return is little more than a ploy to inundate Israel with hostile muslims to destroy it from within.]
READ MORE
Venezuela sends uranium to Iran
Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to a secret Israeli government report obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The two South American countries are known to have close ties with Iran, but this is the first allegation that they are involved in the development of Iran's nuclear program.
The Israeli government report also charges that the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America. It says Venezuela has issued permits that allow Iranian residents to travel freely in South America.
The report concludes, "Since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of 'bringing America to its knees.'"
[GWOT]
READ MORE
A Closer Look at Climate Change
The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the Vice Chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “… more threatened by cold than by global warming” ?
IPCC press releases warn about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”
A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.” [snip]
To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable 'latitude' to modify the scientific reports. Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the 'policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails...
Here is a specific example...
[We're being duped. Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
Revisiting Hayek
Friedrich Hayek was an Austrian economist, philosopher and intellectual considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics for his pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations.2 Hayek's work has influenced world leaders for decades however, at this present time in our history, it is more important than ever to remind the public about the lessons and logic he had to offer.To many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious, but in the (Western) democracies the majority of people still believe that socialism and freedom can be combined. They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different - the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said: ‘What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven.' - F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom1
Revisiting Hayek's work informs us of how the dramatic actions being taken by the current administration will lead us down a road that ultimately ends in the destruction of this democracy along with the freedoms and liberties we take for granted... [snip]
President Obama laid out his historic budget proposal in a manuscript entitled A New Era of Responsibility -- Renewing America's Promise. Unfortunately, his budget proposal is anything but responsible and broadly expands on plans by his predecessors which have already set us down "the road to serfdom." The growth rate of government spending for entitlement programs has increased 110% faster than that of the economy over the last two decades (figure 1).4,5 Entitlement programs or transfer payments to individuals currently account for 70% of total government spending.6
Still the President and his team try to sell the American people on the argument that the government hasn't done enough - it hasn't done enough to protect and expand the power of labor unions, to provide ALL Americans with healthcare, a college education, a comfortable retirement, security for individuals against unsustainable mortgage and credit card debt, security from risky investments, security for banks and businesses against irresponsible spending and lending, and finally security against climate change. According to the logic of the administration, more government spending is required to return America to prosperity... [snip]
Hayek recognized the threat from the inevitable expansion of government spending and entitlement programs and wrote in his famous work, The Constitution of Liberty,
"It has been well said that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them. The difference is that, while in former times the social evils were gradually disappearing with the growth of wealth, the remedies we have introduced are beginning to threaten the continuance of that growth of wealth on which all future improvement depends."13
How can a government continue to promise more while its actions are simultaneously decreasing economic output?
The answer in the short-term is obvious; it will raise taxes and borrow money...
[Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
The Obamacare to Come
Dems’ health-care plans do not provide the reform most Americans seek.
Drip by painful drip, the details of the Democratic health-care-reform plan have been leaking out. And from what we can see so far, it looks like bad news for American taxpayers, health-care providers, and, most important, patients.
The plan would not initially create a government-run, single-payer system such as those in Canada and Britain. Private insurance would still exist, at least for a time. But it would be reduced to little more than a public utility, operating much like the electric company, with the government regulating every aspect of its operation.
It would be mandated both that employers offer coverage and that individuals buy it. A government-run plan, similar to Medicare, would be set up to compete with private insurers. The government would undertake comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness research, and use the results to impose practice guidelines on providers.
Private insurance would face a host of new regulations, including a requirement to insure all applicants and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk. Subsidies would be extended to help middle earners purchase insurance. And the government would subsidize and manage the development of a national system of electronic medical records.
The net result would be an unprecedented level of government control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and over some of the most important, personal, and private decisions in Americans’ lives.
Let’s look at some of the most troubling ideas in detail...
READ MORE
Pa. middle school expels teen with eyebrow shaver
PENN HILLS,PA-A Pittsburgh-area teenager has been suspended from middle school when a random search turned up an eyebrow shaver in her handbag.
Officials at Linton Middle School in Penn Hills recommended at a Wednesday disciplinary hearing that 15-year-old be expelled for the rest of this year and 45 days next year.
The teen said she doesn't consider the eyebrow trimmer a weapon. She fears expulsion will hurt her chances of becoming a nurse...
[We need universal vouchers and the privatization of our education system.]
READ MORE
Hate Crimes and the Sedition Act of 2009
HR 1913, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and its companion bill S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act threaten us with targeted censorship, attacks on religious freedom, and outrageous protections for pedophilia and other deviant behavior. Even prominent gay activists like Andrew Sullivan say that this legislation is unnecessary and dishonest. But if these arguments aren't enough to cause you to grab a pitchfork and march on Washington (or at least call your Senators), then perhaps you need a bigger perspective about what's really at stake.
The legislation contains provisions that will increase the penalties for acts committed against certain protected groups, punishing motives [thought, as determined by others] as well as acts, and giving special legal stature to homosexuals and those with sexually-related "disabilities".
The language of the bill undermines Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection of the law," making some groups more equal than others. Pedophiles are elevated to a protected class, but a mother who slaps a child rapist can go to jail for a hate crime. Rep. Alcee Hastings was even so brazen as to align the purpose of the bill with acts of sexual deviancy, saying that it is time to protect "‘philias and fetishes.'"
At the same time, amendments that would have protected faith-based groups from antagonistic prosecution were voted down. This has caused many advocates of religious expression to fear this legislation, drawing on examples of hate crimes laws in Britain and Canada where pastors and other persons of faith have been arrested for religious speech in public places.
These are all good reasons to oppose this bill.
But S. 909 must be stopped for reasons that go far beyond the issues attached to this particular legislation. This proposed law will set a precedent that can be broadened to encompass potentially any idea, belief, or viewpoint.
Today hate, tomorrow fill in the blank...
READ MORE
[then ACT NOW > As a reminder, the bill has been passed in the House, and is now in process in the Senate...
"OPPOSE S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act"
Senate-Reid: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
YOUR Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
or: Speed Message them with your personal distribution list...
A Rising Anti-Government Tide
Americans should look carefully at the anti-politician, anti-government mood exhibited in California this week. Just as Proposition 13 and the anti-tax movement of 1978 were the forerunners of the Reagan presidential victory, so the results of Tuesday's vote are a harbinger of things to come.
The repudiation of the California establishment in the series of initiative defeats could hardly have been more decisive. Five taxing and spending measures were rejected by 62.6 to 66.4 percent of the voters. That is a consistent majority of enormous potential. An even larger majority, 73.9 percent, approved the proposition limiting elected officials' salaries when there is a deficit.
This vote is the second great signal that the American people are getting fed up with corrupt politicians, arrogant bureaucrats, greedy interests and incompetent, destructive government. The elites ridiculed or ignored the first harbinger of rebellion, the recent tea parties.
While it will be harder to ignore this massive anti-tax, anti-spending vote, they will attempt to do just that. Watch Sacramento politicians and interest groups work to overrule the people of California. Watch the arrogance of the elites in Washington as they impose their costs and special deals on the American people.
Then look again at the 62 percent-plus majority in California in favor of smaller government and lower taxes...
READ MORE
California Paper Bashes Anti-Tax Hike Voters, Then Scrubs It
On Wednesday, a California newspaper created an editorial harshly criticizing voters for overwhelmingly defeating ballot initiatives that would have raised taxes to pay for exploding budget deficits.
After the Sacramento Bee received numerous complaints in the comments section at its website, the original piece was removed and replaced with one pointing fingers at elected officials...
[Guess someone pointed out the above 62% majority. But note the natural inclination of our liberal press to blame voters first... the sentiment will be back.]
READ MORE
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama Blames Bush
.
While insisting "we need to focus on the future," President Obama devoted much of his speech on terrorist detainees today to denouncing the policies of President Bush's administration.
He faulted everyone in Washington for "pointing fingers at one another," yet pointed his own finger frequently, and critically, at the Bush administration. Obama said America's problems won't be solved "unless we solve them together"-- in a divisive and partisan speech certain to alienate Republicans and conservatives...
[He referred to the Bush administration, all with negative connotation, 28 times in the course of his speech. Good thing it was all forward looking non-fingerpointing.
Seriously, he can (and has, again and again) so blatantly say one thing while doing another because the MSM covers for him by reporting only the points he wants conveyed and never his glaring contradictions.]
READ MORE
McConnell rips Obama's 'flowery' security speech
.
Speaking to a Senate press conference, McConnell (Ky.) suggested Obama was ignoring the Bush administration’s success in preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was dangerously close to putting his overseas popularity over America’s security...
READ MORE
Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch
I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way. This sentence was revealing: "On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004."
"Opposed the release"? Doesn't he mean "decided not to permit the release"? He's president. He's not just a guy participating in a debate. But he's more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions.
Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices...
READ MORE
RAW DATA:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute addressing the critical issues of national security and providing a blueprint for keeping American safe in the future.
SPECIAL PREVIEW. The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard
.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that, far from being “the Bermuda Triangle of human rights” that Human Rights Watch’s Wendy Patten had dubbed it, Gitmo was in full compliance with the humane-treatment provisions of the Geneva Convention.
Meanwhile, the military commissions, which Human Rights Watch and others groups had denounced as a travesty of justice, were only being suspended for 120 days, pending a review—and, indeed, following that review, will be reinstated almost exactly as they were before.
If one adds to this mix:
• the twelve separate inquiries into the abuses alleged by critics and former detainees at Gitmo that found no evidence of those abuses taking place;
• the revelation during the release earlier this year of the so-called “torture memos” that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques had been applied to exactly three suspects in the course of eight years and had never been standard operating practice at Gitmo;
• the evaluation by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point that 73 percent of Gitmo detainees were “a demonstrated threat” to Americans;
• and, finally, the fact that the detention facility was created in the wake of a declaration by Congress in September 2001 that “all necessary and appropriate force” should be used “against those nations, organizations, or persons” [emphasis added] responsible for the attacks of September 11;
—one may be permitted to wonder why, exactly, the pressure to close the prison facility has been so intense and long-lasting--
The standard argument is that the public shift in attitude toward Gitmo was gradual, and reflected a growing disillusionment with the war on terror .
What this account and others like it fail to take into consideration are the aggressive and unending efforts of a cadre of lawyers, activists, left-leaning Democrats in Congress, and civil libertarians against the facility, its purpose, its goal, and its existence... [snip]
The enemies of Bush and Gitmo have succeeded brilliantly.
But in so doing, they have done grave violence to the truth about the Guantánamo Bay facility, have aided in the release of prisoners who have since committed acts of terrorism outside the United States, and may yet succeed in having Barack Obama’s government release young men with terrifying ambitions for murder and mass destruction onto the soil of the United States.
[Long, Highly Recommended > ]
READ MORE
NBC's 'Today': Not Fair to Pit Deeply Disliked Cheney Against Popular Obama
"Today" reporter Chuck Todd on Thursday spun the dueling speeches of President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney as not "a fair fight." Speaking of the two May 21 addresses on the subject of terrorism, the NBC correspondent proclaimed,
"Our latest poll indicates it's the most popular member of the Democratic Party facing off against one of the most unpopular members of the Republican Party." [?]
In a follow-up interview with Republican strategist Nicolle Wallace and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, host Matt Lauer asserted that with regards to issues like closing Guantanamo Bay and the use of enhanced interrogation, "this debate has been settled."
[No debate - where have I heard that before?
Listen, if you didn't do so above, do yourself a favor and read the below - it's long, but ask yourself if it makes sense, and if so, what that says about its opposition...
.
Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise
(CNN) — The same day Dick Cheney delivered a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.
In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.
The survey’s release came just a few hours before Cheney spoke out Thursday on the war against terror during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington based think tank.
The former vice president defended the Bush Administration’s handling of the war on terror and challenged the Obama Administration’s attempt to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
[This before yesterday's speech is noteworthy, given the overwhelmingly positive reception of it. Citizens know our enemies haven't gone away and we're only at the beginning of the long war - only made longer by half measures and appeasements.]
READ MORE
How the Old Media Creates a False Attack
Can you remember any report by any Old Media outlet that excoriated Al Gore for his constant, wild-eyed, screaming fits against the Bush administration for the last 8 years?
Where was the Old Media tsk tsking Gore for, say, his 2004 appearance where he screamed at the top of his lungs that Bush "betrayed this country," and that "he played on our fears"? (Audio here)
Why is Cheney a big meanie as far as the media is concerned for commenting on Obama, yet Al Gore was never reproached even once for attacking Bush and Cheney?
READ MORE
New York Terror Suspects Wanted to 'Commit Jihad' in Synagogue Bomb Plot
Four men sought to wage a holy war against America when they plotted to bomb two New York City synagogues and shoot down military planes in upstate New York — and they were dismayed that a better target had already been hit, authorities said Thursday.
Accused terrorists James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen of Newburgh, N.Y., were disappointed that the World Trade Center was no longer around to attack ...
[G.W.O.T.]
READ MORE
Oh, and Incidentally . . .
You gotta’ love the New York Times and its hyper-politically correct sensitivities about revealing the ethnic or religious backgrounds of criminal suspects. Thus we have today’s front-pager: “4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues.”
Who were these four, I wondered? Could they be Chrysler shareholders upset that they are getting stiffed in bailout proceedings? ACLU lawyers mad that President Obama has refused to release interrogation photos? Possibly Greenwich hedge-fund managers furious about plans to regulate their industries? Or maybe just random nuts who like to set off bombs for the fun of it?
Nope. It turns out–get ready for it–the suspects were… Muslims. The reveal didn’t occur until after the jump:Law enforcement officials identified the four men arrested as James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, all of Newburgh. Some of the men were of Arabic descent, and one is of Haitian descent, according to law enforcement officials. At least three were United States citizens, according to officials. They are all Muslim, a law enforcement official said.
Of course if the Times front-page headline had screamed, “American Muslims Plot to Bomb NYC Synagogues,” it might have given its readers the wrong idea. It might even have convinced some that there really is a war of terror and we really are under siege. But that can’t possibly be true. Everyone on the Upper West Side knows such claims are merely the product of Dick Cheney’s sick imagination...
READ MORE
1 in 7 freed Gitmo detainees go back to terrorism: Pentagon report
.
[HT:BS; This should prove to anyone with a mind open enough to grasp it that basing national security decisions on other nation's perceptions of our actions is suicide.]
READ MORE
House rejects probe into Pelosi CIA claims
House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects.
The House voted 252-172 to block the measure that would have created a bipartisan congressional panel...
[Excuse me, the charge is that our Central Intelligence Agency lied to our duly elected representatives. Forget it being a felony, if true we've a powerful rogue agency operating without civilian supervision - how can we not investigate such an allegation coming from the Speaker of the House of Representative?
Isn't this the same bunch that was trying to bring anyone and everyone associated with the Bush administration up on charges for something (anything)?
When are we allowed to become insulted by these folk's conduct? Ever?]
READ MORE
Face of Defense: Maintainer’s Idea Earns Big Bucks
Air Force Staff Sgt. Jerome Latham, an engine craftsman with the 35th Maintenance Squadron, suggested a technical order change that resulted in validated, tangible savings and was approved for implementation throughout the Air Force.
Latham's idea involved extending the divergent flap wear limit on the exhaust nozzle of the F110-GE-129 aircraft engine.
"We do regular inspections, and these parts were supposed to be replaced," he said. "The wear limits were minimal, and we were throwing them away all the time ... There was a lot of paperwork that needed to be submitted, but I knew I had the evidence," Latham said. "It was a long process, but it paid off in the end."
Latham was notified recently that his idea was approved and his suggestion would be added to the new technical order. Air Force Col. Robert Craig, 35th Fighter Wing vice commander, presented Latham with the $10,000 check in his work center.READ MORE
Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (May 25 in 2009). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War (it is celebrated near the day of reunification after the civil war), it was expanded after World War I to include American casualties of any war or military action.
Many people observe this holiday by visiting cemeteries and memorials. A national moment of remembrance takes place at 3 p.m. Eastern Time. Another tradition is to fly the flag of the United States at half-staff from dawn until noon local time. Volunteers often place American flags on each gravesite at National Cemeteries. Many Americans also use Memorial Day to honor other family members who have died.
Members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars take donations[2] for poppies in the days leading up to Memorial Day; the poppy's significance to Memorial Day is the result of the John McCrae poem "In Flanders Fields."
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
