Thursday, December 15, 2011

RT: The great climate change swindle: global warming is not manmade

CO2 has ZERO effect on Atmospheric Temperature

Monday, October 03, 2011

The Only Thing We Have to Fear (Is Islamophobia Itself)

The Only Thing We Have to Fear (Is Islamophobia Itself)
NRO published Robert Spencer’s and David Horowitz’s article, “A Rational Fear of Islamism,” in its Sept. 30, 2011 issue. Below we run the original version:

In recent months several reports have appeared to a generally uncritical reception in the press, which purport to expose alleged conspiracies organized by “Islamophobes” against American citizens who mean us no harm. These reports single out for condemnation a dozen prominent conservative figures (and mostly the same dozen) who have publicly criticized the misogyny, bigotry and terrorism promoted by many (but not all) Islamic institutions and religious texts.
The term “Islamophobia” itself was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the political fountainhead of Islamic terror, having spawned al-Qaeda and created Hamas. Not coincidently, the reports themselves have been produced by Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, and jihadist apologists like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But the latest and most elaborate Islamophobia report, transparently derivative of its predecessors, has been issued by the Center for American Progress, which is a brain trust of the Democratic Party. It thus marks a disturbing development in this ugly campaign.
On examination, the term “Islamophobia” is designed to create a modern-day thought crime, while the campaign to suppress it is an effort to abolish the First Amendment where Islam is concerned. The purpose of the suffix – phobia — is to identify any concern about troubling Islamic institutions and actions as irrational, or worse as a dangerous bigotry that should itself be feared.
Is fear of terrorists inspired by Islam irrational? There have been 17,800 terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah since 9/11. Is it unreasonable to be concerned that 30,000 shoulder-ready surface-to-air missiles have been recently gone missing in the Muslim nation of Libya, where both government and rebels the Islamic jihad against America and the West?
Would not a reasonable person be concerned about the attacks plotted and carried out by Muslims in the United States who claim to be inspired by the Koran and who regard themselves as holy warriors in the jihad declared by Osama bin Laden and other Muslim fanatics? These Muslim attacks include the successful massacre of unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Hassan, a self-declared Muslim warrior whose anti-infidel rantings were ignored by the military brass.
These Muslim terrorists include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others.
If the FBI and law enforcement agencies had not had serious fears of Muslim fanatics, had not been possessed by a species of “Islamophobia,” all those would-be terrorist attacks would be successful attacks and carry long lists of dead innocents – infidels – along with their names.
Should those of us who are infidels – and therefore targets — not be concerned by a religion whose followers regard this Qur’anic incitement as the word of God: “Slay the pagans wherever you find them.” (9:5)
Should Jews not be concerned by the Jew-hatred that permeates the sacred texts of this religion, whose prophet has said: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them, until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: O Muslim,  there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 6985).
Should Jews not be concerned that this genocidal incitement is enshrined in the Hamas Charter and defines the agenda of an armed force that is supported by dozens of Muslim states and many factions of the international left?
Should women not fear the expansion of a creed whose God likens a woman to a field men can till: “Your women are a field for you (to cultivate) so go to your field as ye will.” (Qur’an 2:223)? This God has decreed that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man (2:282), that men can marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls (4:3), that a son’s inheritance shall be twice the size of daughter’s (4:11), and that husbands can and should beat their disobedient wives: “Good women are obedient…. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” (4:34). This God sanctions marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4). Islamic law codifies all this and adds from Islamic tradition justification for honor killing, female genital mutilation, and even the prohibition of women leaving their homes without permission from a male guardian.
Gays fare no better. As Sheikh Khalid Yasin, an Islamic preacher sponsored by the Muslim Students Association said in 2005: “God is very straightforward about this — not we Muslims, not subjective, the Sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Koran.” Hossein Alizadeh of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has said that in Iran gays live with “constant fear of execution and persecution and also social stigma associated with homosexuality.” This is true not only in Iran, but in all too many areas of the Islamic world. Is gays’ fear of Islamic institutions and governments irrational? Phobic?
Finally, there is the failure of any Muslim state or authority to condemn the calls of Hizballah chief Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the extermination of America and Israel. The mainstream media constantly assumes that Muslims don’t take their words seriously, and that there exists a large population of moderate Muslims who reject the excesses of these violent leaders. Yet these moderates have maintained their silence in the face of the genocidal calls in the name of their God. They have failed to mount a campaign to condemn and counter the Jew-hatred expressed by their spiritual leaders, and broadcast by their government-sponsored media organizations, and taught in their schools.
What is truly irrational is not the fear of these very real threats, but the fear of those who point out these threats and whom the Muslim Brotherhood and its enablers have demonized as “Islamophobes.” What is irrational is the failure to recognize danger when it stares you in the face, and the attempt to silence those who have the temerity to attempt to warn you before it is too late.
— Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth about Muhammad. David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and author, most recently, of A Point in Time: The Search for Redemption in This Life and the Next.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

U.S. Socialist Leaders Incite Youth Revolutionaries

U.S. Socialist Leaders Incite Youth Revolutionaries: "I posted here on an upcoming national activist 'teach-in' on 'Debt, Austerity and Corporate Greed' being organized by Democratic Socialists of America leaders Frances Fox Piven and Cornel West.

D.S.A. and its youth wing Young Democratic Socialists and their various fronts are getting right behind the event;
To join that movement and escalate the activism planned in the days, weeks and months ahead we are organizing a “National Teach-in on Debt, Austerity and How People Are Fighting Back...”
More than one hundred campuses have signed up to participate in the teach in. Scheduled for April 5th at 2 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Savings Time), the event seeks to counter the drumbeat of right-wing propaganda. Content will be streamed live to teach-ins organized in local communities from the national teach-in at Judson Memorial Church in New York City. The local teach-ins will use the streamed material and add their own speakers that focus on their community. DSA has endorsed this program and is encouraging local groups and YDS chapters to organize local events that connect to the national teach-in. Jobs with Justice, the Student Labor Labor Project, and others are promoting the teach-in...
Now we learn that three other prominent activists will join the 'teach-in.'
    Soros center, Sachs right, NY, May 2008
  • Jeffrey Sachs - One of the most dangerous socialists on the world stage. Sachs is Director of the UN Millennium Project and is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. He is also the Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. Sachs is a long time beneficiary of funding from George Soros controlled organizations. Sachs addresses the Party of European Socialists in Prague , Czech Republic , 6-7 December 2009, calling for higher taxes in the U.S. and worldwide re-distribution of wealth.
  • Heather McGhee - Washington office chief of Demos,a radical New York 'think' closely tied to Democratic Socialists of America and the far left Institute for Policy Studies. Barack Obama was a founding board member of Demos in the early 2000s, while Obama's one time 'Green Jobs Czar' and 'former' communist Van Jones served on the board of Demos a few years later.
  • Richard Trumka, President of the left dominated AFL-CIO and a long time affiliate of Democratic Socialists of America. Poul Rasmussen, leader of the Party of European Socialists and co-chair of the Global Progressive Forum has described Trumka as 'one of the most progressive people in the United States of America'
This is a big deal.

Five of the most influential socialists in the country, are inciting thousands of young college age activists to take to the streets of America.

The same people who gave us Egypt and Libya...

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The Great Global Warming Swindle

An Oldie but a Goodie (Should be renamed The Great Climate Change Swindle)

Friday, February 04, 2011

NTEB: George Soros Openly Discusses the coming New World Order | dotSUB

NTEB: George Soros Openly Discusses the coming New World Order | dotSUB

Egyptian Revolution - Muslim Face, Marxist Brain

Egyptian Revolution - Muslim Face, Marxist Brain: "Many Westerners struggle to understand that radical Islam, is in many ways a tool of the Marxist - Leninist left.

While the two philosophies appear completely at odds, they do share a mutual hatred of "capitalism" and the Western values of individual responsibility and limited, constitutional government.

While many would argue the point, I would go so far as to say, that without a Marxist left to enable and manipulate them, there would be only a very minimal radical Islamic problem

Muslim Brotherhood/ Revolutionary Socialist protest against Egyptian regime, August 14, 2005.

Below are experts from a circa 2008 document by Egyptian Trotskyist Hossam El-Hamalawy, on how his comrades have worked to unite the Egyptian left and to 'court' the Muslim Brotherhood in recent years. This has been a worldwide Trotskyist pattern for more than a decade.

Bear in mind that this document is around three years old.
From campus fistfights in the 1990s to joint demonstrations in 2005–2006, relations between the Muslim Brothers and the radical left in Egypt have come a long way. In settings where the two tendencies operate side by side, like student unions and professional syndicates, overt hostility has vanished, and there is even a small amount of coordination around tactics. Still, the cooperation remains symbolic, and leftists and Islamists have yet to join forces to undertake sustained mass actions against their common foe, the regime of President Husni Mubarak.

The improvement of leftist-Islamist relations can largely be traced to two factors. First is the evolution of a new left in Egypt whose two main pillars are the Revolutionary Socialist Organization and a growing left-leaning human rights community. This new left has different attitudes toward Islamism than those held by the previous “communist waves.” Second is the generational change within both the left and the Brotherhood cadres spurred by the revival of Egyptian street politics, thanks to the second Palestinian intifada.

Most independent leftist organizations in the 1980s and 1990s hewed to a line on political Islam similar to that of the Egyptian Communist Party—the dominant faction inside the “legal left” Tagammu‘ Party—equating Islamist organizations, reformist or radical, with fascism.... As might be expected, the Muslim Brothers did not appreciate the “fascist” label, and they regarded the left with great distrust.

Starting in the late 1980s, small circles of Egyptian students, influenced by Trotskyism, gathered to study, eventually evolving in April 1995 into an organization named the Revolutionary Socialists’ Tendency. In contradistinction to the Stalinist left, these activists put forward the slogan “Sometimes with the Islamists, never with the state” in the literature they distributed on university campuses and elsewhere.
In practice, this slogan translated into taking up the cause of Muslim Brotherhood students on campus when it came to “democratic” issues, as when state security banned Islamist candidates from running in student union elections or expelled Islamist students from school. The “galleries” (ma‘arid)—impromptu broadsheets written on cloth or cardboard and laid out in campus squares—of Revolutionary Socialist students at Cairo and ‘Ayn Shams Universities regularly carried denunciations of military tribunals’ sentences handed down to Muslim Brothers.

As a Revolutionary Socialist member who was active in the 1990s recalls: “We were a kind of leftist the Muslim Brothers hadn’t met before. They couldn’t quite figure us out at the beginning. Anyway, we were still too marginal for them to bother with. We were only a few individuals.” This began to change in 1999. On a few occasions in that year, as one socialist remembers, the Muslim Brotherhood students at Cairo University allowed the Revolutionary Socialist students to speak at rallies held on campus against the US airstrikes on Iraq. The socialist students took this unprecedented opportunity as a sign of the Muslim Brothers’ recognition that they were a force that had to be given a place on the political stage. It was a step in a long, slow process of building trust.

From a handful of members in 1995, the Revolutionary Socialists grew to a couple hundred activists on the eve of the second Palestinian intifada. Their ranks then swelled thanks to their role in the Egyptian movement of solidarity with the Palestinians, at a time when the Muslim Brothers largely abstained from street action. The radicalizing influence of the intifada among youth helped to reawaken the Egyptian tradition of street politics, which had been virtually smothered by the Mubarak regime’s fearsome security services...

Despite the opportunities presented by the ferment on the streets, the Muslim Brotherhood pursued the policy of non-confrontation with the regime it had abided by since the 1995 crackdown on its rank and file, culminating in a series of infamous military tribunals. Not only did Brotherhood students refuse to mobilize on the street, but they also sought on several occasions to curb the militancy of demonstrations. In October 2000, for instance, after the socialists clashed with state security and burned police vans at pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Brothers emerged to denounce “socialist sabotage.” At other times, Islamist students tried to physically restrain students from marching outside campus gates.

The increasingly radicalized political scene created a space for the left to intervene, but also generated pressure on the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership from the organization’s cadre. Leftist activists then at universities recall “naming and shaming” campus Brotherhood activists for their lack of participation in the mass protests. In early April 2002, precisely following the outbreak of the leftist-led, pro-Palestinian riots at Cairo University, members of the Muslim Brothers began turning out for events organized by the Egyptian Popular Committee for the Solidarity with the Palestinian intifada.

On April 5, 2002, a group of young Muslim Brothers published an open letter to Supreme Guide Mustafa Mashhour in the London-based daily al‑Hayat, questioning the group’s acquiescence in security crackdowns and demanding more involvement in the Palestinian solidarity movement...

The Muslim Brothers initially approached Revolutionary Socialist members, regarding them as the “least hostile” among the leftist factions, to suggest that Islamists collaborate with the left in the pro-intifada and anti-war movements. The move triggered a debate among leftist circles. Sympathizers of the Egyptian Communist Party, the People’s Socialist Party, members of the Tagammu‘ bureaucracy and a faction from the human rights organizations refused any form of coordination with Islamists, though they made an exception for Magdi Hussein’s Labor Party, whose brand of Islamism is regarded as somehow “left-leaning.”

The anti-war movement, successor of the pro-intifada movement, evolved again by the end of 2004 into an anti-Mubarak movement, composed of two organizations. One was Kifaya (the Egyptian Movement for Change), a coalition made up primarily of members of the breakaway Nasserist faction Karama, individuals from the liberal al‑Ghad Party, figures from the Egyptian Communist Party and veterans of the 1970s student movement.
The other wing was the Popular Campaign for Change, which was more Marxist in composition, and included the Revolutionary Socialists, left-wing human rights activists and independent leftists. The two organizations more or less fused together in the months to follow. Kifaya’s sometimes quixotic and theatrical street actions attracted public attention, and helped to break taboos in Egypt’s political life by issuing direct challenges—without euphemisms—to the president and his family.

Shortly after a series of Kifaya demonstrations, a group of Muslim Brotherhood activists, notably ‘Ali ‘Abd al‑Fattah of Alexandria, held talks with Revolutionary Socialists and independent leftists, resulting in the launching of the National Alliance for Change in June 2005. The alliance was tactical, and revolved around an anti-Mubarak platform, with emphasis on vigilance against the prospect of vote rigging in that year’s presidential and parliamentary elections...

The rapprochement between Islamists and the left continued when students from the Revolutionary Socialists’ Tendency, Muslim Brothers and some independents formed the Free Student Union (FSU) in November 2005, with the aim of acting as a parallel organization to the government-dominated student unions... Though the FSU is far from achieving the ambition of its organizers—nothing less than a national grassroots student union—the places where the FSU operates have witnessed another great improvement in relations between the Brothers and the radical left...

The backbone of the solidarity actions with the Palestinian intifada has been students in their late teens or early twenties. As political virgins, they do not carry the baggage of the historical fighting between the leftists and Islamists, and among leftist factions.

Today, the majority of factions on the left still stand opposed to (or express caution about) joint actions with the Islamists, most notably the newly evolving Democratic Left (a reformist tendency centered around al‑Busla magazine), the Egyptian Communist Party, the People’s Socialist Party and a faction of the human rights community. But the Brothers and those comrades who will work with them remain engaged in mutual confidence building. The Muslim Brothers’ leadership is staunchly gradualist, and always on the lookout for compromises with the Egyptian regime. That stance will likely impede a further rapprochement with the radical left, unless the Brotherhood’s base of youth attains a greater say in when, and how, their powerful organization bestirs itself.
The picture painted by El Hamalawy is one of a Muslim Brotherhood "old guard" quite happy to collaborate with, or at least tolerate the Mubarak regime, versus more radical and secularized youngsters willing to work with the left in order to overthrow the existing power structures.

I believe that the left, more so than the Muslim Brotherhood, is driving this revolution.

If successful, I think that while the new regime may have a Muslim face, it will mask a Marxist brain.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011


I know I shouldn't post this copyrighted content in its entirety, but it must be shared, and understood!

I strongly suggest you subscribe to To The Point News - The Oasis for Rational  Conservatives ....


Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler   
Thursday, 06 January 2011
If you Google "Cloward-Piven" plus "Obama" you'll get over 53,000 hits.  The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" has been fingered by dozens of conservative academics and pundits as the roadmap Zero is using to drive America to ruin.

In 1966, Richard Cloward and his wife Francis Fox Piven, as hard-core Marxist professors of sociology at Columbia, wrote an article in the premier journal of the left, The Nation, that launched their strategy:  The Weight of the Poor.

That strategy is defined as forcing political change through orchestrated crisisIts goal is to precipitate the replacement of capitalism with Marxist socialism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Sure sounds like exactly what Zero is doing, right?  And sure enough, as we enter 2011, we find the Cloward-Piven Strategy succeeding in spades - antipodally.  

Webster's defines "antipode" as 1) of or relating to diametrically opposite points on the earth's surface (e.g., the antipode of the North Pole is the South Pole), and 2) exactly or diametrically opposite.

That is, Zero, Pelosi & Reid put C-P into effect masterfully, and the result is just what the theory predicted - collapse - except that the revolution this effected was a bourgeois middle-class taxpayer one that is replacing the Democrats' socialism with a renewal of economic liberty and capitalism.  

Cloward & Piven's  impoverished masses - "the workers" - rising up to smash The System turned out to be patriotic God Bless America Tea Partyers!  You just don't get irony better than this.  Call it antipodal irony.

The moonbat mavens of Marxism at The Nation are so enraged by this that they provoked Francis Piven (Cloward died in 2001, she's 78 now and has an academic sinecure at New York's City University) into writing a screed of frustration called Mobilizing the Jobless.

"Where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs?" she asks in perplexed anger, who should be demanding more "massive" government programs and "big new initiatives" from Washington.

The old broad is tripping out on drugs, booze, or senile dementia  -- for last year was filled with just such angry crowds and demonstrations called Tea Party Rallies, and with sit-ins and protests called Townhalls.  Except they were peaceful, not violent (Marxists always want violence), and they demanded less government, not more.  No wonder her brain is addled.

So addled that she dreams of the bloodily violent strikes of students and public workers in Euroweenia, like GreeceFrance, and Britain recently, happening here.  She's 78 but she's still living in the 1960s.  You want a Class War in the US, Francis?  OK, you got it - how about the class war soon to erupt between public and private unions?

Piven thinks the unemployed are going to rise up against the "robber-baron CEOs."  In reality, they are rising up against the robber-baron public unions.  

As the Wall Street Journal (1/04) observes,  40% of ironworkers in New Jersey are out of work, while public union workers are absurdly overemployed.  The president of the State Senate, Steve Sweeney, is a ironworker union organizer, and he is partnering with Gov. Chris Christie to cut public union worker pay and pensions.

Across the Hudson, the construction workers union is cooperating with Gov. Andrew Cuomo to do the same to New York's public union workers.  In state after state, governors and legislators trying to avert bankruptcy by slashing public union pay and pensions are going to find allies in unemployed private union workers.

Doesn't that give you the warm fuzzies, Francis?

The tyrannized and disenfranchised are rising up against their exploitative masters, her dream is coming true before her eyes - but the result will be more individual freedom and less government control, not the Marxist other way around.  

Further, the dream is coming true peacefully, first at Tea Party meetings, then at the ballot box on Nov. 2nd, and now in the 112th Congress and statehouses across the country.  It may not stay peaceful, true, when state after blue-leftie state goes belly up and those mean nasty evil Republicans in Congress refuse to bail them out.

There will be public union violence that will send tingles of excitement up Francis' (and Chrissie Mathews') leg.  But the public unions will get no sympathy from the public, and they will lose.

It certainly won't be rhetorically peaceful in Congress, with railing Dem demagoguery given an ear-splitting megaphone by the Enemedia.  The Dem din will no doubt intimidate some establishment Pub Congressistas - but new firebreathers like Allen West will intimidate them even more into not straying off the tea party path.  After all, these new guys and gals comprise almost 40% of Pubs in the 112th House.

Then again, the leader of all the House Pubs, Speaker Boehner, showed steel in his spine this week.  Five Dem senators sent him (1/03) a sneering letter promising they would block in the Senate any attempt by the Pub-led House to repeal ObamaCare.  He replied the next day:
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

Thank you for reminding us - and the American people - of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,' resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now.  You're welcome.

Speaker-Designate John Boehner 
Well, OK, John!  

The momentum is now so forcefully on our side that Zero is quite likely to accommodate it in his State of the Union speech on January 25.  Don't be surprised if he advocates slashing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the depreciation schedule (allowing full expensing) for capital expenditures of businesses.

Won't that drive the Dems nuts?  Triangulation City.

From now on, the starring roles in the play are the House Republicans and Zero.  The Senate Republicans will play a key supporting role, but the Democrats are only the extras.   

Act One is going to climax in early March.  At the very same time (McConnell, DeMint, and Paul Ryan try to keep a straight face when they say it's a coincidence), the entire federal government runs out of money, and the "debt ceiling" has to be raised or the Treasury Dept. will start defaulting on its T-bill interest payments - at least that's the story.

Zero will want to make a deal that he believes will best help him get re-elected next year. Boehner & Co will want to make a deal that best obliterates Zero's vast expansion of government.  How the political calculus develops between them is going to be a fascinating spectacle.  All the while the Dems in both the House and Senate are going to be onlookers, not players.

Since Boehner & Co have the high cards - they have the power of the purse and are willing to walk away from the game (if the government shuts down or defaults, so be it) - the odds are good that they will get the better of the deal.  But Zero will get something too, and thus part of the credit when the deal is inked.

That's how Act One will end, but there are many acts to follow.  If the Pubs play it well, they could gain whole enchilada in Nov. '12 and be well on their way to achieving Barry's Dream. They could blow it, sure - but the odds are with them.

The odds are with them because America is with them.  America really isn't Euroweenia, as much as the Zeroes and Pivens wish it were.  The Cloward-Piven Strategy could work there, and in many ways it has.  But not here.  

It worked in expanding the federal welfare state to the breaking point - and that was the goal, to reach that breaking point.  The last thing Pliven and her acolytes like Zero expected was their crisis to break against them, for America to recover her freedom and not fail.

Cloward-Piven has succeeded in achieving the exact opposite of its intent.  How antipodal. How American.