Monday, September 30, 2013

The Reality of the Enemy Within: Up-Date #3



The National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho is coming to the conclusion that home-grown pyro-terrorists are setting wildfires!  As the 2013 season of devastating wildfires continues to rage across the American West, this question of arson as a form of major terrorism is being seriously raised.

Already this year, 35,440 reported fires have burned a total of 3.9 million acres, with a quarter-million acres scorched in the iconic Yosemite National Park ( right ). Large blazes continue to burn in several states, with six alive in Idaho, five each in California and Montana, and one each in Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas and Washington. This time last year, 45,278 fires had burned 7.9 million acres, and in 2011, there were 55,619 fires devastating 7.2 million acres.

In July, 2012, William (Bill) Scott  ( below, left ), a former National Security Agency official and Aviation Week editor, was first to tell the American Center for Democracy that terrorists are using fire as a tactical weapon of war. ''Perhaps the most simple form of economic warfare is wild land arson,'' Scott said in his ''Fire Wars'' presentation. ''That's just setting fires in the U.S. forests and grasslands. For any terrorists that are determined to inflict significant damage with very little investment or risk, fire is an extremely high-leverage weapon of mass effect.''  Scott explained that after U.S. Navy SEALS killed al-Qaida chief, Osama bin Laden, they ''captured a treasure trove of material that provided some unprecedented insight into the al-Qaida plans. And one of those was a detailed campaign for starting fires throughout the American West. U.S. officials have pretty much determined that some of the fires that burned in California [in 2011] were ignited by al-Qaida operatives.''

An editorial in June by the Washington Examiner noted, ''Those trying to downplay the threat of terrorism have dismissed such a possibility as paranoid. As Americans have learned in 2001, and again as recently as 2012 in Benghazi and 2013 with the Boston Marathon bombing, terrorist threats are not something to take lightly.'' This year's wildfire in Yosemite started August 17th in the Stanislaus National Forest, but authorities believe it was not an act of terror. They said a hunter's illegal fire swept out of control, torching 394 square miles of timber,, meadows and sensitive wildlife habitat. It cost more than $89 million to fight, and officials say it will cost tens of millions of dollars more to repair the environmental damage alone.

In June of this year, an Islamic expert on Islamic terrorism believes a wildfire that ravaged the outskirts of Colorado Springs, killing two people and destroying more than 500 homes, should be examined by terror investigators. That blaze caused more than $85 million in damage, but that figure is expected to rise to possibly $120 million. Sheriff Terry Maketa at the time said, ''The causes for most forest fires are limited to electrical problems, camp fires or grills, accidents such as a car fire and sparks from chain saws. Those causes, to an expert investigator, are readilty identifiable. Our firefighters have ruled out natural causes and I can't really go any further on that, but I can say we are sure it was not a lightening strike.'' 

At the American Center for Democracy, noted terror funding expert Rachel Ehrenfeld (whose book Funding Evil exposes Saudi links to terrorism) mentioned that Bill Scott revealed he found in al-Qaida's English -language online magazine, Inspire, a published article called ''It is of Your Freedom to ignite a Firebomb,'' which featured instructions on how to build an incendiary bomb to light forests on fire. She explained that Russia's security chief, Aleksandr Bortnikov, has also warned, ''Al-Qaida was complicit in recent forest fires in Europe as part of these terrorists strategy of a thousand cuts.'' Since then, more fatwas advocating that ''fire is a cheap, easy and effective tool for economic warfare'' have been issued. Ehrenfeld wrote, ''They've included detailed instructions for constructing remote-controlled 'ember bombs', and how to set fires without leaving a trace.'' The press reported Don Smurthwaite, a Bureau of Land Management spokesman, ''downplayed'' Ehrenfeld's ideas, ''but he didn't dismiss the notion outright.''

The Way I See It......when you even have the Christian Broadcasting Network reporting that al-Qaida was advising would-be pyro-terrorists how to best burn America, I would be taking this ''notion'' very seriously. The CBNetwork revealed the terror group's magazine included pictures, diagrams and explanations on how to start fires to obtain the most damage. CBN analyst Erick Stakelbeck said the extreme detail provides reason for concern. The information is ''all designed to cause the maximum amount of carnage and death.''

I have seen an Arabic-language jihadi website that posted a message purporting to be ''al-Qaida's plan of economic attack'' on the United States that includes proposals to turn the nation's forests into raging infernos. A senior al-Qaida detainee told FBI interrogators he planned to spark multiple, catastrophic wildfires simultaneously in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming to strike a blow to the U.S. economy. This fits in nicely with documents uncovered during an operation in a remote area along the Pakistan border that revealed that bin Laden wanted al-Qaida home-grown operatives to launch a ''global fireball'' by lighting forest fires in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and South America. As I said in previous postings, the infiltration of al-Qaida scum and home-grown sympathizers is the most worrying that the world is facing right now. 



The Reality of the Islamic Enemy Within: Up-Date #2


Here we go again!  Western politicians appeasing Islamic sensibilities to curry favour and support.   Most alarming is not that the Grand Mufti of Australia wrote this but that Labor officials leaked the email, presumably to stop union leader Paul Howes from running for a Sydney seat with a big Muslim minority.

Last week, Australia's senior Islamic cleric threatened to withdraw community support for federal Labor in Western Sydney if Paul Howes replaced Bob Carr in the Senate. The email, written on behalf of the Grand Mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed (right), by his chief political adviser because even though Dr Ibrahim has lived in Australia for 20 years he still hasn't made the effort to learn English. This email accused Mr Howes of a ''blind bias for Israel'' and said that if he was appointed to the Senate, community support for Labor that was mustered for the federal election would be withdrawn.

The email says that....Mr Howes has had a repeated pattern of blind bias toward Israel. His appointment would not at all help the engagement effort between the ALP and the wider Muslim community.'' It went on to say, ''As you know we have worked very hard to marshal our community to support and successfully retain the majority of ALP seats in Western Sydney against all odds, and the choice of Paul will threaten our efforts to maintain this momentum, especially if new elections are called I the next year.''  Mr Howes, the national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, announced he will withdraw from the contest (left).


I, and my fellow citizens would like to know how much has Labor, thanks to ass-kissers like Bob Carr and Sam Dastyari, prostituted Labor policy and the national interest to win votes of the Muslim community - or at least those votes influenced by the likes of the Mufti?  That Labor would listen to the Mufti is a serious worry, given his links to extremists!

How about the Grand Mufti meeting with Hamas officials in Gaza? This included Prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and has been met with deep concern from Jewish community leaders. TV footage from December 26th, translated by MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), quotes Dr. Mohammed as saying, ''We came here in order to learn from Gaza. We will make the stones, trees and people of Gaza talk in order to learn steadfastness, sacrifice, and the defence of one's rights from them. We are on Cloud Nine!'' This comment was particularly disturbing: ''I express my happiness at being in Gaza, the land of pride and martyrdom. I am pleased to stand on this land of jihad to learn from its sons.''

Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) executive director Colin Rubenstein (below) said, ''Hamas is a terrorist organization, subject to Australian financial sanctions, engaged in war crimes and is rife with extreme anti-Semitism, and is dedicated, in word and deed, to the violent destruction of a friendly state. It is incomprehensible that anyone with pretensions of moral authority would hold up Hamas-led Gaza as a model from which Australians can learn from.''
Nor did Mr Rubenstein think it was helpful for the Mufti to describe Australian soldiers in Afghanistan as agents of oppression who could inflame passions among Australian Muslims.

The Way I See It.....the linking of Australian foreign policy to reprisals by Muslims here may sound like an explanation to some but a threat to others -- or a legitimisation. He actually suggested there was a real relationship between Western foreign policy and the homegrown threat. He elaborated by saying, ''it is the nature of mankind that if there is any oppression upon any nation that our emotions start to move and react.''  I ask...doesn't that give us the right to get emotional about Muslim treatment meted out to Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi and Indonesian Christians? Watch out when we have had enough and react to your oppressive ideology.

And, as I mentioned, after so many years here, what does it say that even the well-educated Mufti has felt no need to learn more than the most basic English? What example is he setting? Are Muslims here immigrating or COLONISING?  It is causing some to question his ability to fulfil the role of mufti. And this is the man calling for more mosques to be built in Australia as well as the man Labor takes its tips from in deciding whether the talented Howes may stand for election -- or actually not. Something is obviously very sick when politicians sell our country out to non-assimilators.

NOTE: In countries such as Australia where the office of Grand Mufti receives no official seal of government imprimatur, clerics can be elected to the position by one segment of the Islamic community in that country and yet not be recognised by other Muslim communities in that country.


Sunday, September 29, 2013

The Reality of the Islamic Enemy Within: Up-Date !


Some information has come to me which shows the sharp reality what I brought out in my previous posting of the same title and the book, Muslim Mafia - Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamise America, I recommended to all people living in the freedom loving West where there is Muslim enemy infiltration. This best selling book exposes CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) as a secret network organization that supports Hamas and other terrorist groups the promote Islamic jihad against western countries, especially the United States. The book is the story of well-financed ''terrorists in suits'' that want to destroy American society ''from within.''


I've just heard that the father-son authors, David and Chris Gaubatz, are being sued by this radical Hamas front group and are even trying to trump up criminal charges against them in an attempt to have them sent to jail. The leadership of CAIR is known to have an army of lawyers working to financially destroy the authors so as to use this case to scare off any other patriot American who might tell the truth about CAIR and its treacherous schemes. Once again, I indict the mainstream media and the elected officials who have been hiding behind political correctness in failing to keep the public informed about this ''religious crime syndicate.''

CAIR wants everyone to think of them and their 31 affiliates as a harmless non-profit organization that serves as a civil rights advocate for U.S. Muslims. The name sounds innocent enough and that is exactly why the founders of CAIR picked that name back in 1994. I my last posting, I pointed out the grim reality that CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to support Islamic terrorism and import deadly jihad and Islamic fascism to America. CAIR actually bears a striking resemblance to the Communist front organizations that were active in the United Stats fifty and sixty years ago. Like the Commie front groups, CAIR publically espouses friendship, tolerance and understanding...while the groups CAIR aligns itself with behind closed doors call for ''death to America.''

CAIR wants all the copies of Muslim Mafia destroyed because the book contains facts and evidence that could lead to the criminal prosecution of them on numerous charges. CAIR's lawsuit does not challenge the ''facts'' in the book because these facts are all true and not in dispute. CAIR has already been named as an ''unindicted co-conspirator'' in a federal trial involving a group that was convicted on al 108 counts of fundraising on behalf of the terrorist group, HAMAS. CAIR is obviously using this lawsuit as a shot-across-the-bow of conservative authors, TV hosts and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage not to speak publicly about CAIR again. A CAIR victory in this lawsuit will set a precedent that will enable even more high-dollar litigation against these and critics of those giving into Islamic pressure.

Muslim Brotherhood Insignia
David Gaubatz is a 20 year military veteran who spent 12 years with the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations working on ''black projects'' in the Middle East. He is an expert on the Arab culture and was the first U.S. civilian federal agent deployed into Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq War. While there, he led the rescue of the family of Mohammed Al-Rehaief, the Iraqi lawyer who helped rescue Pfc. Jessica Lynch, a POW. When David left the government, he started a consulting firm to train law enforcement in Arabic language and customs and he found himself working alongside CAIR officials. Like many, he assumed CAIR was a moderate group and invited its speakers to join his lecture series and they did. But after federal prosecutors named CAIR as n unindicted co-conspirator in that major terrorism-financing case, David realized he'd been working with the enemy and he decided that CAIR deserved closer investigation.

David's so, Chris, worked as his father's chief field investigator for the book. He was instrumental in gathering and collating the research for the Muslim Mafia. Here are just a few of David and Chris' explosive revelations that were learned from their investigation:
--CAIR officials are secretly coaching terrorism suspects and witnesses to withhold information from FBI investigators.
--CAIR tried to obtain the prison release of one of their former HQ officials who trained for jihad with the Pakistani group that massacred 150 people in Mumbai, India in 2008.
--CAIR has previously unreported ties to al-Qaida, in addition to Hamas, and has worked closely with al-Qaida field commanders inside America.
--CAIR donated thousands of dollars to the legal defence fund of a Muslim cop killer.
--CAIR is running an influence operation against members of Homeland Security committees and planted spies in Congressional offices.
--CAIR and the Commie-leaning American Civil Liberties Union have formed a strategic partnership to target the FBI with ''ethnicity related'' civil rights complaints.
--CAIR is lobbying the Justice Department and local law enforcement to exempt Muslim wife-beaters from laws against domestic violence.
--CAIR executives travel regularly to the Middle East to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars from Saudi princes even though they claim to receive no foreign support.
--CAIR has partnered with Arab investors to finance a buying up of an alarming number of real estate parcels in downtown Washington, DC.

The Way I See It.....the Muslim Mafia reads like a Tom Clancy novel but you don't have to take my word for it. Here is a well-known national booksellers description of the book:
       Muslim Mafia is an undercover expose' of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations that resulted in the collection of thousands of pages of smoking-gun documents from this terror-supporting front group for the dangerous, mob-like Muslim Brotherhood. This is what Muslim Mafia delivers. It has all the elements of a top-flight mystery novel, but the situations and conversations are real.
        The book's frightening allegations are supported by more than 12,000 pages of confidential CAIR documents and hundreds of hours of video captured in an unprecedented undercover operation. This trail of information reveals the seditious and well-funded efforts of the Brotherhood under the non-profit guise of CAIR to support the international jihad against the U.S.. This is a book that needs to be read and passed on to as many people as possible. before freedom of speech is dead.

Monday, September 23, 2013

The Reality of the Islamic Enemy Within !


I had word coming from the Kenya shopping mall terror attack that three of the attackers were American citizens (of Somali background) and the Australian Federal Police revealing last week that ten Australians of middle-eastern backgrounds have joined the Syrian rebel jihadists. Now it is also revealed that al-Shabab has a recruiting video on Facebook directed at young Somali men living in the Somali enclave in Minneapolis, Minnesota area. It is safe to say that there is a growing underground of anti-western Muslims living among us that we and the authorities must take very seriously.

It always amazes me, how many people in the West would happily compromise the foundations of  entire civilisation to appease religious fascism. I find it disturbing that they would care so little about their children's future, even if they are to complacent, na├»ve or politically blinkered to care about their own. One of the most disturbing questions I'm asked by people like this is, Why do you hate Muslims? It's disconcerting because anyone who's been reading my postings knows very well that I've never expressed hatred for anyone. My job is to take a jaundiced eye on the Islamic religion.

Now it's often claimed that many people in the West are converting to Islam and it's true that some are, but it's also true that many Muslims in the West are leaving Islam, but you don't hear much about them for obvious reasons. Some of them have been brave enough to make themselves known and reach out to help other Muslims who want to escape the tyranny of their religion and like them, its the religion I have a problem with, not the people. So no....I don't hate Muslims, I wish them well, even the fanatics who stand by the roadside with their dopey little signs with bulging eyeballs shouting ''Death to the West!''  I even wish those boneheads well...I wish them good mental health, if that's too wildly optimistic.

And of course, I know there's lots of moderate, peaceful Muslims, indeed, so many of them are so moderate, and peaceful, they're invisible and silent -- and that is part of the problem. Just because there's lots of peaceful Muslims doesn't mean the religion is a fascist ideology that threatens all our freedoms. Nor does it mean Western governments are falling over themselves to make excuses for it, pretending Islam has nothing to do with violence, inspired and sanctioned by scripture repeatedly carried out in its name.

Just look at the craven behaviour that allowed the massacre at Fort Hood to take place. We know it could have been prevented, but due to Political Correctness in the American Army, all the warning signs were ignored, in case somebody got offended. All reference to Islam has been airbrushed out of the Official Pentagon Report, even though this scumbag, Nidal Hasan, expressed anti-American views, handed out copies of the Koran before the murders and shouted ''Ali Akbar !!! as he fatally shot 13 young soldiers and wounded 30 others. It was described as a ''workplace altercation'' by President Obama. I'm surprised the officers who shot him haven't been already accused of Islamophobia. It was nice to hear that Hasan was forcibly shaved of his scruffy beard before he was to appear in court (as is the rule). It was also nice to hear he was sentenced to death, but unfortunately this sentence set off an automatic and lengthy appeals process that could take a minimum of four year.

All over the western world we've given the Islamic supremacists the impression that they have every right to be outraged, insulted and offended by everything we do and say, and some of us have come to believe it ourselves. That is the real core of this problem. Mark Twain said, ''Faith is believing what you know ain't so.''  What Political Correctness is doing what you know ain't right. In every western country Islamic extremists are allowed to exploit religious privilege for political ends by claiming to represent all Muslims and the media always treats them as they do. These groups give themselves official sounding titles and talk a smooth line about community harmony, while doing all they can to prevent integration, to keep Muslims apart and ghettoise in a separate society with a separate identity, separate rules and standards. In other words, they exist to cause division in society.

Take for example the ratbag Council on American-Islamic RelationsCAIR ) that implies a meeting of equal ideologies, equal points of view that need to find common ground. When in fact, all that's needed is the Muslim immigrants to adapt to the American way of life, or the Australian, British, or Canadian way of life or not go there. One must respect the laws and customs, like everybody else, and not try and change them to Islamic ones and especially not define oneself as a separate group deserving special status. That's where it should Begin and End! There is no debate, no common ground to find, there is no American-Islamic relations needed and there is no need for some self-appointed council of Sharia advocates, and Hamas-linked religious deadshits to oversee it.

SHARIA in the West is like piss in a waterhole, any amount is too much! Sharia dehumanizes women, it threatens the freedom and dignity of every woman in the Western World. It discriminates in such a fundamental way; there's no way around it. There's no compromise......misogyny runs through it like a dye and that should be more than enough reason for us to banish it as aggressively and thoroughly as we banish anything with Rabies. Get on the anti-CAIR  website to keep abreast of their latest incursions: www.anti-cair-net-org.

The Way I See It.....anyone of you living in one of the freedom-loving Western countries need to seriously read ''The Muslim Mafia''. If you read only one book this year, make it this one, for your sake and the sake of your children, especially the female ones. This book is the result of an undercover investigation, that reveals the bear-knuckle truth about the Muslim Brotherhood and the extensive network and fanatics who've eaten their way into American society like termites and who seek to undermine and destroy it from within. It provides substantial documentary proof that Islamists have penetrated the highest levels of American politics and law-enforcement in their quest to impose Sharia law and get rid of the Constitution.

This has all been aided and abetted by the most cowardly and shameful Political Correctness in government, in the media and especially in the F.B.I., who seem to think it's more important to be culturally sensitive than to defend national security. This is an important book, which is why the American media is so assiduously ignoring it. In publishing it, the authors have done more for their country and the civilized world than all the politicians on Capital Hill combined will have achieved in their entire careers. Political Islam is a threat to all civilized people of any faith or persuasion and if America falls....we all do. Stay smart, stay safe and stay well informed.

Sunday, September 22, 2013

The AGE Cries for Warmist Alarmists it Should Hold to Account !


The real good news from last week was Professor Tim Flannery had been sacked by the newly installed Abbott Government from his $180,000 a year (3 days a week) Chief Climate Commissioner position with the agency he runs to be dismantled immediately. Environment Minister Greg Hunt called Flannery to tell him a letter formally ending his employment was in the mail.  All other climate commissioners, including  Professor Will Steffen, Professor Lesley Hughes and notorious adviser Professor David Karoly, will also be sacked with the move to save more than $500,00 this financial year and $1,2 million next financial year. The Coalition will now take advice on climate from the Department of Environment. This does not merely save taxpayers money, but closes a warmist propaganda unit that has spread so much baseless harm.

Here's highlights of Flannery's CV:
            Firstly, Professor Flannery is nowhere near being a qualified climatologist. He was trained as a  mammalogist and a palaeontologist before involving himself as an activist in the environmental movement. Before he became Climate Commissioner and getting the undeserved Australian of the Year award in 2007. He warned that the Arctic Ocean could be ice free by 2013 (Arctic Sea Ice increased 60% instead). He stated, ''Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall'' (there's actually been more rain) and ''Perth will be the 21st century's first ghost metropolis''  (Perth is now headed for its wettest September in 40 years).

More seriously, Flannery in 2007 emphatically said global warming had hit Australia so hard that without desalination plants Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane could be out of water by 2009. ''Even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems!'' Instead, floods filled dams in Sydney and Brisbane, and the expensive desalination plants hurriedly built in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are now all mothballed or scheduled to be.

Professor Will Steffen
Under Flannery, the Climate Commission similarly leaped on any sign that the planet might be warming, and played down the growing evidence it wasn't. It blamed global warming for the Murry Darling Basin drought, despite admitting earlier there was no obvious link. Grasping at straws, his Commission even issued an alarmist report on ''Australia's Angry Summer'', hyping warm temperatures in Australia while ignoring low ones in the United States. Just as Bloomberg and the Al Goreites got mileage out of blaming Hurricane Sandy as a sign of the terrible warming effects to come. Flannery never came close to admitting that the climate wasn't heating up even though CO2 was creeping up to the so-called ''tipping point'' 400pm, which should've had him pulling his hair out!

The deceptively titled ''carbon economy editor'' of The Age newspaper asked our warming alarmists to explain how terrible the Abbott Government was to scrap the Climate Commission, their publicly-funded pulpit.
First, Will Steffen:
                    ''It's really important that the Australia public have access to authoritative, independent accurate information on climate change, and that's what we at the Climate Commission did. Unfortunately, the science has been sucked into a vortex of a highly politicised approach to climate change.''

What? Authoritative?  Accurate?  Not politicised? The Age fails to mention the Commission's cherry-picking reports with alarmist titles such as ''The Angry Summer'' and the disgraceful hyping of fear over one hot Australian summer without noting there's been no global warming for 15 years. It fails to note how the Climate Commission savaged critics who pointed out its errors. It fails to note Steffen helped blow up a conversation about kangaroo culling into a death threat by a sceptic against climate scientists. He feels it's beneath him to discuss climate change with sceptics, ''it's just infantile!'' The shear arrogance of the man is amazing to behold.

Second, Tim Flannery:
                     ''Given the highly contested and political nature of climate change and warming, you need a body that's trustworthy.''

Trustworthy?  The Age fails to mention his numerous dud predictions for one who wasn't even qualified to express such predictions. Warning us on how the seas will rise significantly in the next 30 years and yet buying a large riverfront home and property on the Hawksberry River with his fat $180,000 government salary is what really got up people's noses, as well as his bizarre Gaian theory.

The Way I See It.....with the IPCC now unable to convincingly explain the recent stall in warming (with a slight cooling seen), the fact that they are forced to actually recognize reality and make changes in their upcoming report -- possibly reducing the lower bounds for future warming, thus reducing the range of climate sensitivity -- is going to be quite momentous. Nothing stands in the way of a popular theory (e.g. global warming) better than failed forecasts. We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming has crashed into the hard reality of observations. I'm looking forward to Friday and seeing them eating their words....if not a good bit of ''crow''.

There is None so Blind as Those that Will not See !


That saying, attributed to John Heywood (1546) paraphrasing Jeremiah 5:21 so aptly puts the reality of the Global Warming hoax as it stands today. The biggest story in global warming today is the lack of it!  There has now been 15 and half years of no warming of our atmosphere even as the culprit in this scenario, CO2, rose 100ppm over those years. And yet, Australia saw visiting eco-extremist David Suzuki on the ABC's Morning Show yesterday preaching his message of doom. And to add insult to our intelligence, the Australia Broadcasting Corp has welcomed him as an oracle onto to the set of the Q & A Show this Monday evening! As former ABC chairman Maurice Newman correctly observed: ''The ABC is not being frank and truthful about the way global warming is portrayed and the sense of imbalance is becoming more overt, I feel.... Like the BBC, there are signs that small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change.'' And warmist idiot, Tony Jones will be hosting the show.

So how credible is he?  Here's just some fact-checking:
          He was quoted three times, two days ago, on warmist devastation in The Age, who complemented his message with this picture (left, below): 
 ''Half the coral on the Great Barrier Reef has disappeared in the past 27 years and its size could halve again in the next decade with the increasing frequency of cyclones.''

Reality: Australian Bureau of Meteorology states ''Trends in tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region...show that the total number of cyclones has decreased in recent decades. Two recent CSIRO studies show a significant decrease in tropical cyclone numbers.''
               Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: ''Coral reefs can cope with natural disturbances like floods and cyclones.''
                Australian Coral Reef Studies (James Cook University) ''A number of coastal reefs have been obliterated by run-off sediment, dredging and pollution.''

           Suzuki: ''For more than 20 years the insurance industry has been telling us we have been paying more for changes in the climate. Why aren't we listening to these insurers?

Reality: Roger Pielke Jr., Professor Environmental Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder states: ''After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long term there is no climate signal of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.''

           Again: ''In British Columbia, where I live, a warming climate has allowed insects to destroy $65 billion worth of pine trees in just over a decade. For millennia the Mountain Pine Beetle has been kept in check by our minus 35 degree winter temperatures.

Reality:  Suzuki is cherry-picking because he has admitted elsewhere that poor forestry practices, monocultures and suppression of fires, not just warm weather, created an overabundance of the older trees those beetles love to eat, hence the population explosion.

           Again: ''This pine tree devastation event is unlike anything recorded in North American history, but it's not been enough to galvanise our government to get serious about acting on climate change.''


A Slight Cooling of Global Temperature over Last 2 Years
Reality:  Unprecedented? What about the blight that killed all the North American chestnut trees in just a few decades, starting around the turn of the last century?  Anyway, according to Scientific American, the plague is running out of steam, with the last two years seeing dramatic decreases in infestations. David, if you want to be a climate-change authority, you just have to keep up with the literature!

The Way I See It.....for years, most journalists in the mainstream media haven't just failed to question the global warming fear campaign. They have refused to even listen to any evidence against it, even from dissenting climate scientists, and have howled down those who dared present it soberly. This has been the most shameful collective failure of journalism in the past 20 years. Media journalists became propagandists, even witchhunters. The biggest Whore-to-Warmism, The Age, with its environmental writers and Gaia-loving editors, repeatedly tried to discredit Lord Christopher Monckton when he lectured here in Australia and now give credence to the industrial-grade fertiliser that is Suzuki's stock in trade.

But the warming pause (actually cooling in the past 2 years) kept going, and is now so undeniable and so contrary to global warming theory that it has blown up this stifling ''consensus''.  Many journalists must be taken-to-task by some publishing authority and asked why they never questioned an apocalyptic faith that thankfully is collapsing. There is a newspaper that is still actively promoting this obscene denialism, The Age, that now has a scientist-in-residence, a warmist, who Age staff have been encouraged to consult when reporting on the release this Friday of the IPCC's report. What's the odds that any truthful reporting will get through the Age filters?

         

Monday, September 16, 2013

Revealed: Brits Sold Nerve Gas Ingredients To Syria !


Furious politicians have demanded Prime Minister David Cameron explain why chemical export licenses were granted to firms last January -- 10 months after the Syrian uprising began!  That's right, the Sunday Mail revealed that Britain allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride (the same poisons foolishly put into many cities water supply erroneously to stop dental decay) were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemicals are capable of being used to make weapons such as Sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children.

President Bashar al-Assad's forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West. I ask: What about the surrounding Muslim states doing something about it. During the past month, President Obama's remark about ''crossing a red line has consequences'' fell on deaf ears with British MPs voting against joining America in a punitive strike. Now the with President Putin's gambit to deflect a military strike with his proposal to take Assad's poison gas stash away, the Congress is off the hook in after saying it couldn't support Obama's plans for action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable's Department for Business, Innovation & Skills last January. They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad's regime. Besides the politicians, anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister Cameron to explain why the licences were granted in the first place. Labour MP Thomas Docherty ( left ), who sits on the House of Commons Arms Export Controls committee said in a TV interview, ''At best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that could have been used to create chemical weapons. It's bad enough we gave the Syrian rebels a 20 million pounds weapons gift with no way of knowing into whose hands they ended up with.''

Mark Bitel of the Campaign Against Arms Trading (Scotland) said: ''The UK Government claims to have an ethical policy on arms exports, but when it comes down to practice the reality is very different. The government is hypocritical to talk about chemical weapons if it's granting licences to companies to export to regimes such as Syria. We saw David Cameron, in the wake of the Arab Spring, rushing off to the Middle East with companies to promote business.''  Some details emerged in July of the UK's sale of the chemicals to Syria but crucial dates of the exports were withheld.  The Government have refused to identify the licence holders or say whether the licences were issued to one or two companies.

The chemicals are in powder form and highly toxic. The licences specified that they should be used for making aluminium structures. Professor Alastair Hay, ( photo right ) an expert in environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said: ''They have a variety of industrial uses, but it is ludicrous as an avenue for human consumption via drinking water. When you're making a nerve agent, the addition of a fluoride element gives it its toxic properties. Fluoride is key to making these munitions and whether these elements were used by Syria to make nerve agents is something only subsequent investigation will reveal.''

Business Secretary Mr Cable said: ''The UK Government operates one of the most rigorous arms export control regimes in the world. An export licence would not be granted where we assess there is a clear risk the goods might be used for internal repression, provoking or prolonging conflict within a country, or be used aggressively against another country or risk our own national security. When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can and do revoke licences where the exportation is not consistent with the criteria.''  U.N. weapons inspectors investigating the atrocity have since left Damascus and flew to the HQ of the Organisation for the prevention of Chemical Weapons with samples taken from victims of the attack, as well as from water, soil and shrapnel.

The Way I See It.....Ban Ki Moon has just let it slip, in a closed meeting, that the chemical test results are positive for Assad's use of chemical weapons. Russian president Vladimir Putin attacked Obama's stance on military action and in an Op-Ed in the New York Times last Thursday, in a classic case of one-upmanship, proposed to get Assad to relinquish his chemical stockpile without further punishment. ( see previous blog posting )  Russia and Iran are Syria's staunchest allies. The Russians have given arms and military backing to Assad during the civil war; a war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives so far.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Putin Pokes Powerful Presumptions at the President !


Thanks to Barack Obama's astonishingly weak and vacillating leadership over the Syrian civil war, Russia's Vladimir Putin now poses as the real leader in world affairs, presuming to lecture the United States and challenged Obama through the pages of the New York Times three days ago. Reaction came swiftly from politicians from both the left and right slamming Moscow's strong man for lecturing the U.S. about human rights, among other things. But all sides agreed it was a stunning propaganda coup for Putin with the Times itself saying that the 60 year old former KGB chief is now clearly the most powerful leader in the world.

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin said it was no surprise that Putin had used the leftist New York Times to get his points across. ''It's galling for this strong man (Russia's head Bully-boy) to be wagging his finger at America about peace and international law,'' she said. New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez told CNN, ''I worry when someone who came up through the ranks of the brutal KGB tells us what's in our national interest and what is not,'' then he described the editorial as ''very much in-your-face.''  Fox Network legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said, ''Joseph Stalin is smiling from the grave today, his disciple Putin did a full-throated attack on our president and our country.'' The New York Post's headline read, ''Putin twists knife in outfoxed Obama''.

The Russian president's sanctimonious op-ed arguing against American intervention in Syria contained many false, misleading and hypocritical statements. Here are seven (7) of them.
  1. ''No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the U.N. and take military action without Security Council authorization.''
Hypocrisy:   Putin led attacks against Georgia and Chechnya without United Nations approval.

     2.  ''A strike.....could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.''

Hypocrisy:   Russia has been supplying Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with weapons and has been helping Iran with its nuclear program. Putin seems less concerned that these actions would destabilize the region and ''throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.''

      3.  ''This internal conflict, fuelled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition is one of the bloodiest in the world.''

Hypocrisy:  Again, he complains about foreign weapons going to the opposition while he supplies Assad with tons of weapons.

      4.  ''From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a  compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.''

Misleading:  In public statements Putin has indeed advocated peaceful dialogue. In his actions, though, Putin is doing everything he cab to help Assad win. He blocks any action by the U.N. Security Council and continues to supply the regime with a wide-range of arms.

      5.  ''The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defence or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the U.N.'s charter and would constitute an act of aggression.''

Hypocrisy:  Putin, indeed, does not follow international law when he does not like it, and has used his veto in the Security Council to prevent it from doing anything about Assad's violations of international law after Assad's army killed his own innocent civilians.

      6.  "No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.''

False:  Every organization that has investigated this atrocity has concluded that it was the Syrian Army that used chemical weapons. Plus Putin himself acknowledges that Syria has chemical weapons.

      7.  '' I studied (Obama's) address to the nation on Tuesday. And I disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is what 'makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional.'  It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.''

Hypocrisy:  During the ten plus years in his leadership, Putin has tried to build a greater sense of national pride among his people. He wants Russians to view themselves as exceptional while criticizing Americans for doing the same.

The Way I See It......Putin's dismissal of American exceptionalism was ignorant and tone-deaf.  He doesn't seem to grasp the ultimate kudos and respectful standing the United States has in the world. Read my lips Mr Putin: The United States brought the first DEMOCRATIC government into the modern world!  That is what makes it and keeps it exceptional, even though it seems President Obama barely believes in the idea and no doubt threw that into his speech the way he often throws things like that in at the end: He thinks Americans like. After 5 years into his ''imperial'' presidency you would think he would be proud to pronounce this to his people and the world. He must remind the world that America attempts to be a force for good in the world because it is exceptional!

The top dogs in Congress have been howling with indignation over Vladimir's gloating op-ed article, where lectures to U.S. on its true place in the world (behind Mother Russia). This is the risible, hypocritical sound of the U.S. Congress starting to confront the mess of their own making. A mess that Mr Putin, as if house-training puppies, has certainly enjoyed rubbing their noses in. Because while Barack Obama's handling of the Syrian crisis has been startlingly inept, the fact is that Congress, by making clear it would not support him and cutting the President's leg off when he asked for backing, has created a world in which '' CZAR'' Vladimir Putin ( picture above left )  gets to run the show. I detect a new chill in the air for some time to come.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

At this point, Benghazi DOES Matter and So Does Trust !


Republican Jeff Duncan (right) of the House of Representatives said it a Congressional Hearing on the Syrian issue to Secretary of State John Kerry, ''This Obama Administration has a serious credibility issue with the American people. I can't discuss the possibility of U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war without also talking about Benghazi. There are questions still surrounding the Benghazi terrorist attack almost a year later. When you factor in the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Associated Press issue, Fast and Furious, and the NSA spying programs, the bottom line here is the need for accountability and trust building from this administration. To paraphrase Friedrich Nietzsche, he said, 'I'm not upset over you not telling me the truth. I'm upset because from now on, I can't believe you.' In my opinion, Benghazi is germane to the discussions about Syria, because as you stated Mr. Secretary, the world was and is watching for our response.''

Most people know the infamous line Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton shouted at the Congressmen running the hearing about the cause for the murderous attack that killed the U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and 4 Security personnel; ''At this point, what difference does it make now?''  Many of us were in shock for days over her callous statement, not to mention the outright lies she and all the others of this feckless administration, from top to bottom, showered upon the us for over a month before a crack of truth inconveniently leaked out. Of course the president lied like Pinocchio with a willing CNN accomplice in the debate for president and really never admitted to Benghazi being a terrorist attack (reminds me of the Fort Hood shooting termed ''work place violence''). (See posting ''Obama Denies Fort Hood Attack Was Terrorism!'' Oct. 30, 2012)

Rep Duncan added, holding up a photo of one of those killed, ''Mr Secretary, this is a picture of Tyrone Woods given to me by his father. The Woods family and Americans deserve answers before we send another man or woman into harm's way, especially in a civil war when there's no indication that there is an imminent threat to the U.S.A.'' He made it clear that until Americans get answers to Benghazi, Team Obama has no truth in accountability. It obviously shows that the president and his Cabinet have more outrage for the lives of foreigners than its own citizens. Duncan further reiterated with, ''How can we trust him with more of America's finest if they get caught in a perilous situation, like one of Syria's missiles hitting a U.S. destroyer. Limited and proportional strikes without an aim to change the projector of the civil war isn't a strategy we can trust. This is going to end badly.''

Kerry's condescending response to Rep Duncan was a clear variation of Hillary's reply...as in move along, nothing to see here. ''This is not about getting into Syria's civil war, this is about enforcing the principle that people shouldn't be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity!''  He stressed, ''Let's draw the proper distinction here, congressman, we don't deserve to drag this into another Benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up to international norms!''  Kerry doesn't get it. Benghazi matters now more than ever. The credibility of  President Obama and the United States by default is a stake because he did nothing to back up his words that ''those that perpetrated this will be brought to justice.'' Yet a year later, insiders say he has done nothing. Those in his government that told the truth have been threatened because the truth matters and it will shatter his fairy tale. And on seeing this blatant disregard for justice, his enemies are emboldened. Words don't matter, actions do.

The Way I See It....if President Obama can't bring the full might of the U.S. of A. to bring to justice those whom his intelligence agency knows killed the Ambassador and the four other brave men who tried to save his life, what does that say to the world at large? That he speaks loudly and carries a small stick; he's impotent?  His words and fist shaking mean absolutely nothing. The terrorists and despicable dictators will carry on without impunity, since Bad-Ass Barry has only empty words and an unsharpened sword. Red lines have and will get crossed without repercussion and all the world's a stage for his mockery. His line-in-the-sand is purely political to take the heat off the growing scandals and debt ceiling debate which surely came from his cronies headed by David Axelrod.

Now California Democrat Loretta Sanchez strongly stressed to her fellow Congressmen, ''The minute that one of those cruise missiles lands in there, we are in the Syrian war. It's a civil war and we are taking sides with the rebels, so many of whom are still associated with al-Qaeda, and other groups that mean to undermine us around the world.''  Today, in what looks like an off-the-cuff blunder, Secretary of State Kerry might have accidently given Russian President Vladimir Putin the opportunity to muddy the international diplomatic waters. Kerry said that Assad could avoid American air strikes by giving up all his chemical weapons. Within hours, the State Department was forced to walk Kerry's new red line with Obama saying it could be a genuine option and be ''a potential breakthrough.''  With this, Putin pounces on his dithering, slamming Obama, saying '' he is someone who drew a 'red line' and then was embarrassed when it was crossed'', after which he announces that he'll talk with Assad.......thereby buying his Syrian friends some time.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Obama, Syria, Iraq and Afganistan: Any End But Victory !


Only now -- more than two years into Syria's civil war -- have the United States and some allies decided to Do Something. Strangely, they didn't have to Do Something while 100,000 Syrians were blown up, shot, beheaded or raped to death. And where the hell are the Muslim states that live in the neighbourhood of this pitiful conflict?  They just seem content to accept the thousands of Syrian refugees that had the wherewithal to leave, that's all -- no getting tough with a fellow dictator or reigning in the Islamic scum trying to topple Bashar Assad. But apparently we in the West have a reason to act, now that 1500 more have been killed in a chemical weapons attack that can be blamed on the Syrian government. The U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama now wants to kill a few Syrians himself to send a message that killing people with is bad!

House Speaker John Boehner called on the president to deliver a specific rationale for using U.S. military force against Syria as a growing number of congressional Republicans and Democrats expressed concerns about war with a Mideast nation. More than 100 lawmakers -- 97 Republicans and 18 Democrats -- signed a letter spearheaded by Rep Scott Rigell that urged Obama to seek Congressional authorization before any strike. The speaker also pressed the president to provide a legal justification for any U.S. military action. He said, ''Simply lashing out with military force under the banner of 'doing something' will not secure\our interests in Syria.'' The Congress are fully aware that Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron went to hid Parliament to ask for permission to join Obama and was refused.

The plans being floated by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry for this growing unpopular military intervention in Syria are incoherent on any number of levels. Rather than identify an enemy and seek the enemy's defeat, the essential requirement for using military force, the Administration is unwilling to declare the toppling of the Assad regime as a goal -- despite Obama's own proclamation two years ago this month that ''for the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.'' Instead, according to one unnamed ''U.S. official'' quoted by the LA Times, the Administration wants a military strike ''just muscular enough not to get mocked.''  Churchillian, this is not.

Nor is it in line with what Obama, Biden and Kerry used to claim to believe. Once upon a time, Obama's expressed willingness to meet leaders like Assad made him popular in Syria. Then-Senator Obama argued in the 2008 campaign that ''the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation'' (Senator Biden agreed). That's when he was ''sticking it'' to President Bush. Now, as in Libya, Obama had no interest in asking for Congressional approval, but it looks like the Congress is not going to let him get away with it this time. Obama and Kerry once venerated the need to get UN and international approval for the use of force.

 There are many good reasons to wish to be rid of the brutal Assad regime, long an Iranian proxy, sponsor of Hezbollah, supporter of the insurgency against the U.S, in Iraq, shelterer (and maybe even backer) of the culprits in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 Marines, oppressor of Lebanon and assassin of its prime minister, enemy of Israel and perpetrator of serial massacres against his own people. But it seems increasingly likely that the alternatives to Assad would be even worse, ranging from domination of Syria by Al Qaeda and its Sunni extremist allies to splintering into an anarchic failed state. As it stands, the Syrian civil war is a proxy battle between Assad's backers (Iran and Russia) and the backers of the rebel resistance (Saudi Arabia and Turkey).

What Syria and its people don't need is more combatants who intend to show up, lob in a bunch of missiles and leave without resolving anything, and for the U.S. to control the post-Assad situation to its advantage would require a huge and for many reasons infeasible commitment of ground troops. The West should leave the locals to resolve these things themselves. Recent experiences in Egypt and Libya show that the public in the region hungers for change and a greater voice in how their countries are governed, but hardly inspire confidence that the results will be less anti-American or more respectful of individual liberty.

The Way I See It.....the sole peg on which Obama's Administration and its apologists rest the defensibility of a halfway military strike is the idea Assad should be punished for using chemical weapons against his own people -- just as Saddam Hussein once did. In my view, this is misguided as a sole casus belli (Latin meaning the justification for acts of war): the problem of rogue regimes is the regimes, not their choice of weaponry. I repeat: Why aren't the surrounding states being asked to wear the mantle of ''punisher ''rather than the West?  I suspect they are afraid of it spreading over their borders, so let the West act as al Qaeda's air force and strike from ships out at sea.

This let-the-U.S.-do-it attitude was true in Iraq, and it's a ridiculous argument coming from the same people who told us that this was no justification for the Iraq War. It's consistent with idea that the problem of gun crime is guns, not criminals -- another of this Administration's pet delusions. In fact, it does not appear that Obama can assure us that his planned strikes would disarm Assad of the weapons in question. We apparently plan to shoot at the king but carefully avoid killing him! Senator Jim Inhofe doubts that Congress will approve the use of military force and charged Obama with retreating on the issue. ''If you're going to huff and puff about it, you've got to back it up, and this president clearly has retreated from the position he took a week ago when he talked about a red line has been crossed. He's thrown this hot potato to Congress to decide so he doesn't get burned if things go bad,'' Inhofe said.

UPDATE:  It seems some Republicans are now in favour of Obama's intentions and are forgetting President Reagan's iconic motto ''peace-through-strength.''  Peace through strength means making sure the world knows if they mess with the United States it can wipe them out because of its strength. This does not mean firing missiles into Syria while signalling (1) American has no intention of ousting Assad and (2) it's not calling it an act of war. Right now, all the world sees is an effete liberal President and a Congress trying to help him save himself from further embarrassment. As a senior GOP aide commented, ''If we have to bomb Syria to show the world we are strong, the world already knows we are weak. If we are bombing Syria, it needs to be in our national security interest -- a real interest, not just to show the world our President dresses up at Halloween as Barry-Bad-Ass!  He knows from a recent poll that 80+% of Americans don't want this kind of action.''