Tell EPA Where to Go!

The EPA is considering green house gas regulations that will cripple the economy and reduce the food supply. We have two choices.

1. Fight the proposed regulations before they are passed into law.
2. Rise up in rebellion; a second American Revolution.

Because I prefer the first choice, I visited the American Energy Alliance and sent an email to the EPA arguing against the Socialist idiocy.

EPA wants to increase the price of gasoline, electricity, and anything that uses oil, coal, or natural gas by regulating eighty-five percent of the energy we use in America. You only have until Friday to let EPA know that you think this plan should be stopped dead in its tracks—click here to send your message.

Here is the text of the stock message, which can be edited on the site.

I am writing in response to EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. EPA should not find that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. To quote EPA Administrator Johnson himself, the Clean Air Act “is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.”

EPA Should Not Find that Greenhouse Gas Endanger Human Health and Welfare

The ANPR seems to presume that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare. There is little evidence for this claim and historical data show the opposite. Over the past 100 years, as temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations have increased, global GDP has increased 18 fold, average life span has doubled, and per capita food supplies have increased even as global population has quadrupled. What is more, these increases in human welfare have been due to economic growth, which necessarily went hand in hand with greenhouse gas emissions. Had such emissions been capped in 1908, human health and welfare would certainly have suffered during the 20th century. EPA should examine actual historical data to put the model projections into their proper context.

EPA argues the Clean Air Act is precautionary in nature. This is true, but EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases without compelling information that they are causing harm to human health and welfare. This information does not exist today.

EPA should be very cautious about inflicting harm on the economy through increased regulation because, as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell argue in their 1999 paper, every additional $15 million in regulatory costs leads to an additional statistical death. This is because regulatory costs impose costs on society that reduce income and in turn reduce expenditures on health and safety.

The regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars, and as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell point out, lead to great harm to human health and welfare.

There is Profound Scientific Uncertainty Concerning the Impact of Increasing Greenhouse Gases on Human Health and Welfare

The science of climate change is far more unsettled than EPA explains in the ANPR. EPA should fully examine the state of climate change science. Here are a few examples of issues EPA needs to address and understand before it can accurately state that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare:

• The leveling off of global temperature. Since 2001, there has not been a statistically significant increase in temperature, even as carbon dioxide levels increased by 4 percent during this period. This leveling-off of global temperatures was not predicted by the global climate models. It is true that the climate is a complex system with many cyclical variations, but each passing year with flat temperatures (in spite of rising greenhouse gas concentrations) renders the most alarming projections less and less credible.
• Heat-related mortality. EPA argues that warmer temperatures will lead to greater heat-related mortality. While this makes intuitive sense, EPA should examine actual data on heat-related mortality. For example, in the United States heat-related morality has decreased even as temperatures increased from the 1970s through the 1990s. EPA fails to consider the countervailing economic and health-related improvements that have caused heat-related mortality to fall as temperatures have increased.
• Worse air quality. EPA argues that "the IPCC projects with virtual certainty" that warming will lead to worse air quality. This is highly unlikely. Instead of relying on the IPCC’s projections on air quality, EPA needs to examine its own air trends website. The website states that, “National average air quality continues to improve as emissions decline through 2007.” These improvements have occurred in spite of increasing population growth, GDP, vehicle-miles traveled, temperature, and greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no reason to believe the air quality trends will reverse.
• Sea level rise. There is nothing new about rising sea levels. Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years—since the end of the last ice age. The real question is whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Recent papers by Holgate, Berge-Nguyen et al., and Unnikrishnan et al. all show no increase in the rate of sea level rise. If increased greenhouse gas levels were driving sea level rise, we should see an increase in the rate of sea level rise, but that has not happened.
• A national solution will not solve a global issue. The Clean Air Act is not an appropriate way to regulate greenhouse gases because greenhouse gases are a global issue, not just an issue for the United States. We could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero, but even this dramatic result would not have much of an impact on global temperatures in the long run. The vast majority of increases in greenhouse gas emissions come from the developing world, not the United States. National policies can give incentives for manufacturers to move their operations to unregulated regions, paradoxically leading to higher emissions to produce the goods in question.
• EPA’s models should be open and transparent. EPA should not use closed-source models for critical projections and modeling. All the models EPA references should be available for public inspection and download. EPA should also detail all of the assumptions and documentation for the models. EPA should not hide key assumptions and projections from the public.
• The ANPR has many legal problems. For example, EPA writes that it has the authority under the Clean Air Act to implement a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases. This claim is unlikely to pass muster with the courts. The DC Circuit, in the recent CAIR decision, ruled that EPA does not have the authority to implement cap-and-trade under the Clean Air Act.

Conclusion: These are just a few of the reasons EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, nor should it make a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Although many climate scientists endorse man’s role in rising temperatures, there is no comparable consensus among economists, medical doctors, and other experts on the impacts such warming may have on human health and welfare. Indeed, poorly designed regulations could cause harms (in lost economic output) that far outweigh the modest benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the footnotes: http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/PDF/EPA_footnotes.pdf

Time is short; please go immediately and tell them off!

Two Weeks From Hell

Today was not a good day.

In the past two weeks, four people--four very dear people--have become seriously ill. Two are family members, one is a former family member and the fourth is a blogging family member.

The youngest is my grandson. He just turned 3 months old. He was losing weight and there was no explanation why. So he was hospitalized for testing. After much prodding and poking, reviewing feeding procedures with my daughter, seeing how well this child ate, they finally came to a preliminary diagnosis. Cerebral Palsy. A very mild form, will not affect him in his mental development, is not expected to become worse over time and will only mildly hamper his motor development.

Next is my nephew. He just turned 15. A Texas boy. A star athlete and always in trouble with his mischief. Last Tuesday, he was playing basketball and hurt his leg in the game. It was still hurting so my sister took him to the doctor. I found out today he has osteosarcoma-bone cancer. My sister is in extreme denial, thinking the surgery next week will be simple and non-invasive. After doing some research tonight, I know it's probably going to be exploratory to determine the size and features of the tumor (calcium malignant, attached at the site) and treatment options. There is a very good chance he will lose part of his leg--if not his life. The exploratory is prior to chemo starting as well.

Then my ex father-in-law. Frankly, I would dance on the graves of my ex and his family. But not him. Out of the entire clan, he was the only one who was ever decent to me. He is in his late 70's and is suffering from heart failure. He's been very ill for quite some time, but he has given up. He has been brought home from the hospital to die, and makes no bones to the grandkids he will be spending Christmas with Santa Clause. He isn't expected to live past Thursday. This once robust, hearty man is a mere shell of himself and it's heartwrenching to see. He's worked his whole life for a family full of ingrates, who always put him down because he wasn't a "book learned" man--although he found a way to put four children through private schools, supported a wife from hell who expected him to cater to her (she refused to even drive a car) while all she could do was denigrate him. He did it quietly, with dignity. When he was out of work from the mines, he worked side jobs and always paid the bills--in cash. He loved his grandchildren, each as they came along. He was the only one in the family to welcome me when I married into it and for that I will always be grateful. While the hellspawn of his family can take a long walk off a high cliff, I do not wish a holiday death on anyone. Having lost both of my parents, it's hard and it will only hit them just how special this man is after he is gone. And it will be too late for them to say a simple "thank you".

Last, but by no means least, is our friend Roger Gardner from Radarsite. He is also fighting for his life, but better bloggers than I have addressed Roger and his trials. However, we have good news on Roger--his prognosis is getting better and better each time we hear from him, and we thank God for that.

Two weeks from hell. Four very dear people, ranging in age from 3 months to early 80's. Obama wants to talk Main Street. I got your Main Street right here. And mine is real--it's not a fantasyland concocted in the wild dreams of a meglomaniac.

Sorry, Stinky--my priorities are far and away more important than your fantasies.

You will just have to wait until you royally screw up--and then you will most definitely hear from me on your so-called change which is nothing more than recycled Clinton. Yeah--you're "green"--green from the stench of decay.

I have my family and friends to worry about. Maybe you should get in touch with real Main Street Americans and what is on our minds--not your ice cream dreams and lollipop sundaes.

Two weeks from hell.

Dr Polarik v Moron Taranto

~Snooper~

Suck on this James Taranto



.

James Taranto, RINOs and Stupid People

~Snooper~

James Taranto is one of those people that seem to think his crap doesn't stink at times. Bully for him.

He has a piece up today in regards to the Obama Birth Certificate and the very tone of the piece reeks of surrendering to the enemy all in the name of playing nice-nice. This is why the GOP is in the position it is in. People are too afraid to press issues because they may seem to look like they are "going along with the in crowd". They and now he makes me sick.

'Natural Born' Baloney
Debunking the urban legend about the Supreme Court and Obama's citizenship.
By JAMES TARANTO

No, the Supreme Court is not going to intervene and stop Barack Obama from becoming president.

Normally this would be "Bottom Story of the Day" material, but lots of crazy rumors have been going around, albeit mostly on blogs and other Web sites of the far-right fringe. Last week, however, David Serchuk of Forbes.com rehearsed one of them, giving us an opportunity to set the record straight. Here's Serchuk:

You've got to hand it to Philip J. Berg: he doesn't give up easily. You might recall that Philadelphia attorney Berg tried, and failed, to halt the presidential election of Barack Obama on the grounds that he is not a native-born citizen. Game over, right? Wrong.

Berg filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in late October, asking that the highest court review the decision of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. The latter court dismissed Berg's claims because he lacked standing to bring them. Standing requires plaintiffs to prove they are directly affected by the issue at hand, with evidence of injury that is concrete and particular. In its decision the district court said Berg "does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact." It also dismissed his claims as frivolous.

Berg takes this in stride. His writ, he says, requires Obama and the Democratic National Council to respond by December 1. . . .

One of the pillars of Berg's argument is that Obama doesn't have a legally-valid U.S. birth certificate because he was born in Kenya . . .

In fairness to Serchuk, he doesn't seem to take this seriously--but he doesn't quite explain why it is nonsense. So, here goes.

In August Berg filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia's federal trial court, alleging that Obama was not a "natural born citizen" and thus constitutionally ineligible to be president. No trial was held; on Oct. 24, the court summarily dismissed Berg v. Obama on the ground that Berg did not have standing to sue. (In fact, the judge who dismissed the case opined that Berg's efforts to establish standing "are frivolous and not worthy of discussion.")

On Oct. 30, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari--in laymen's terms, he asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. (Note that contrary to Berg's language, which Serchuk repeats, one does not "file a writ." One files a petition, and the court decides whether to issue a writ.) On Oct. 31, according to Berg's Web site, he filed a motion asking Justice David Souter for injunctive relief in the form of halting the following week's election.

On Nov. 3, Souter denied the injunction. The next day, the election was held as scheduled. You might have read about it, it was in all the papers.

It is true that Berg's petition for certiorari is still pending before the high court. It is also true that there is a deadline for responses from the defendants (including Obama) of next Monday, Dec. 1. The defendants, however, are under no obligation to respond, and there is no reason to think they will bother.

The probability that the court will actually grant certiorari is, in theory, greater than zero, but it is such a small number as to be incomprehensible to anyone within the ordinary range of intelligence. As Judge Peter Messitte notes in an article for the State Department's eJournalUSA, the justices typically grant such petitions only for cases "raising particularly significant questions of law, and/or those where there is a division of legal authority, as where lower courts have produced conflicting interpretations of constitutional or federal law."

An additional rumor, not repeated by Forbes.com's Serchuk, is that the "response" that Obama is "required" to file next week consists of proof that he is a natural-born citizen. Those who make this claim seem to believe that cert. is two, two, two writs in one. In fact, the only question currently before the high court is whether to hear the appeal at all.

Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that the court does grant certiorari, it almost certainly would consider only the legal issue raised by the lower court's ruling--namely, whether Berg has standing to sue. In the even more vanishingly unlikely event that the justices rule in his favor, the case would be returned to a trial judge for consideration of the factual allegations.

One Leo Denofrio has a pending petition for certiorari in a similar case that was dismissed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. His prospects for success are approximately equal to Berg's, for the same reasons. We devoutly hope this is the last item we will ever have to write on this silly topic.

With all of the evidence mounting, it is no wonder that Taranto and his Band of Sycophants would be afraid of challenging the illegal alien Barack. With "conservatives" like him and them, who in the hell needs enemies?

UN Renews Censorship Demand

I am informed by a press release from UN Watch that the General Assembly adopted the Defamation of Religions Resolution by a vote of 85:50 with 42 abstentions. At the time of this writing, the link to the resolution does not work. The link provided in my previous post on this subject also fails.

UN Watch counts as a gain the shift of 23 votes from support to abstention compared to last year's vote. Big deal. I would consider it a gain if they had voted against the resolution. Abstention displays a lack of conviction and courage, two characteristics vital to the survival of western civilization. Without courage and conviction, our cause is lost and the lamp of liberty will be extinguished.

My most recent post on this subject, Stop Sharia!!!, includes links to previous posts related to this subject and extensive quotes from relevant Islamic law.

The following statement from the resolution was pointed out in the UN Watch press release:

Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

To which feces I respond:

• Is there any deception more egregious than this? No intelligent & sane person who has read the Qur'an & hadith can be fooled by such lies. Terrorism is sanctified by 3:151, mandated by 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26. Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror.
• How in Hell can anyone read the Qur'an's imperatives to genocidal conquest and claim that Islam is not associated with rights violations?
• How in Hell can anyone read the Qur'an's imperative to cast terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
• How in Hell can anyone read Moe's bragging about being made victorious with terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
• How in Hell can anyone have knowledge of Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 11, Paragraph 5 and claim that Islam does not violate human rights?

Ignore the flowery rhetoric and examine exactly what Islam seeks to impose upon us through national & international law as revealed by Reliance of the Traveller.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

-9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Examine the Islamic law as it applies to Dhimmis (that's us after we are conquered by Muslims). Pay close attention to the clauses I have emphasized.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha' is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

Exactly what part of O11.10.5 do you not comprehend? Please expose your full ignorance in the comment section; I will try to help you to understand what they are attempting to impose upon us.

Any negative statement about Allah, his Messenger, his commands or their activities carries the death penalty. Am I a liar? Am I in error? Read the bold red text in the Shariah quotes again, then read the following quote.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The resolution uses broad, amorphous terms without narrow, predefined common meanings, conflating opposition to Islam with racism.

Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;

Expresses its deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief
still in evidence in the world;

In a previous post: You've Been Mooned! I revealed the real intention behind that ambiguity. The Secretary General made remarks condemning FITNA, a short video created by Geert Wilders. Fitna quotes the Qur'an and displays the relationship between its commands, rabble rousing kutbah and riots & terrorism. It is neither false, distorted nor out of context. In FITNA: Supporting Documentation, I listed the ayat cited by Wilders in a speech to the Dutch Parliament, linking each ayat to source and providing tafsir links for many of them. Some but not all of those ayat are cited in the video.

Observe now what Ban Ki-moon said about FITNA.

"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

The only hate speech or incitement to violence contained in FITNA is in the Qur'an and kutbah quoted along with it. Wilders neither expresses hate nor incites violence. The right of free expression is very much at stake:

• Muslim organizations & regimes attempted to suppress the video.
• The Dutch government attempted to suppress the video.
• The Kingdom of Jordan charged Wilders with blasphemy and is demanding his arrest and rendition for trial.

According to Reuters, Ban described FITNA as "offensively anti-Islamic". Now we know the true standard: that laid down in Reliance of the Traveller. Quoting the Qur'an and Jumah Sermons is "offensively anti-Islamic". The same standard would outlaw my blog posts.

• Related petitions:

  • Outlaw Islam!
  • Quit the U.N.!

• Related blog posts:

  • U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context (analysis of influential documents & previous resolutions.)
  • United Nations Ban Criticism of Islam (’07 resolution)
  • More UNHRC AssWholliness (March ‘08 UNHRC resolution)
  • You’ve Been Mooned! (Extremely offensive remarks by the Secy. Genl.)
  • Tolerance (This and the remaining links are to posts in a blog dedicated to exposing lies told by two OIC Ambassadors. Their lies were influential in shaping previous resolutions.)
  • Violence is Alien to Islam
  • Extremism is Integral to Islam
  • Terrorists Don’t Speak for Islam
  • 9/11 Violated Islamic Law
  • Islam Forbids Violence
  • Spread by the Sword

War News Update: Near and Far

~Snooper~

The New Cold War between the commie pinkos in South America and the USA is having difficulties. As JWF states, one has to believe the sources one trusts. Apparently, the socialist Chavez is getting his pee-pee spanked in the recent "selections".

Remember that USA-Israeli joint "raid" in Syria last year? Well, apparently it was a nuclear reactor project. Gee. Who would have thought that?

Evidently, the racial slurs hurled at the Messiah Czarbie by Zawahiri has backfired. It exposed the Arab Slave Trade. Such moral people the democrats support. Then again, the democrats have a very long history supporting slavery, their rhetoric to the contrary not withstanding. Just refer to my Democrats and Terrorists collection.

In previous War News Updates in recent days, I brought to your attention that the British are upset that one of their Jihadi scum citizens was zapped via remote control. Weasel Zippers brings us an update. They are still upset. Too bad and so sad. Rashid Rauf is now running for his life in "paradise"...the virgins he got are gay Rotweillers. By the way, David General Petraeus is responsible for waxing the murderous Brit. Perhaps Mullah Assad is helping him out with that.

When the Brits allow the Jihadi Global Cultural Jihad to grow within their own borders, they deserve everything that comes their way...much like the USA.

In other news, Iran is getting many accolades for participating in terrorist activities. No wonder Code Skanks are in Iran bowing down to the Iranian Trouser Trouts.

Over in the mythical land of Palestine, aka Fallestine, aka Utopia which means Nowhere, Abbas was "elected" President. Nothing like being President of nothing, eh?

By now, we have all heard about the SOFA in Iraq that the Iraqi Legislature is pleased with. It seems that al Sadr isn't all that happy about it and neither is Iran. Too bad. Sadr isn't getting any support from his "fellow Iraqis". The war is won, Mooki. Get over it. Someone needs to let Dingy Reid know as well.

We read in Epoch Times that Al Qaeda is closer to a dirty nuke than originally thought, thanks to the meddling of the Defeatocrats, both Republican and Democrat alike. They were too busy jockeying for political power to pay attention to that which really mattered. Congrats morons. I can hardly wait for the Nuclear 911. and I wouldn't hold my breathe Mr Karzai. Czarbie has "promised" more help and we know how empty his promises are. Just ask the idiots that voted for him. The real help in Afghanistan will come from General David Petraeus.

For a wee bit of humor, check out how CAIR got served in a humiliating and public manner. Kudos to those that pulled that one off. For years these terrorists have been plotting to bring Shar'ia Law to the USA. Screw CAIR.

On a more serious note, drillanwr has a post in regards to the folks thought brought us 911...the Clintons are returning to the White House.

Amy Proctor brings us a report that the Iraqis fear a premature US departure from Iraq. Apparently, the pirates are waiting for Czarbie to lose the war that we have won so they can move in. Czarbie would do that just so he could say something retarded like, "See? Told ya." YWT also brings the report.

In Jpost, we read that a missile and missile equipment shipment to Iran was thwarted stemming and originating in North Korea. And we took them off of the "terrorist" list? Now, why would Iran want such equipment? I know. Dumb question.

For another "funny", it is said that Obama has thrown Osama off of his game. Ja. Sicher.

For something "Rather" unsettling, check out the WND piece of the feminizing of military leaders. I agree. What would Patton do?

We also have conflicting verification of data that may or may not be confirmed or conflicted in regards to whether or not Saudi Arabia offered a Taliban thug asylum and we can now read the Election Tea Leaves in regards to the Middle East and the elections of 2008 as we wait for the Gaza Strip to implode. While we are at it, let the terrorists in Pakistan whine as we send in the drones. Isn't that what Czarbie talked about?

BODS: Bail Out Derangement Syndrome

~Snooper~

This garbage keeps getting more and more pathetic as the folks that make piss-poor business decisions get on the Czarbie Socialist Band Wagon and stick their grubby mitts out for a hand-out. I can hardly blame them though. If the idiots in DC have their heads up their butts, why not take advantage of the mental midgets?

It is said that Obama has sent strong signals from the sidelines and the morally corrupt and the emotionally weak coupled with the mental midgets won't catch the drift. His "strong message" was empty just like everything else he has ever said...nothing to back it up. He has mysteriously stayed clear of the auto maker's welfare plan whose demise was caused by labor unions. I find that "odd" (dripping sarcasm).

Not to be outdone by more socialist welfare give-away programs, the worst ever CONgress has threatened America with another failed stimulus package. Is it any wonder then that Citigroup has been added to the Corporate Welfare Plan? And the libtards thought tax breaks for corporations was corporate welfare? When does all of this stop? When "they" run out of money? And, where in the hell is all this money coming from if we were running out back when the fraud Paulson said that the sky was falling? Feel free to read special commentary at America Needs Me. He calls it Bail Out Porn. Obviously, there were no lessons learned during the Chrysler Corpration quagmire.

I suppose that since the tax money being used to bail out idiots undercut by their own stupidity isn't ours, should we really complain? Relliapundit says that if we are to bail everyone out, we should use vouchers. That is a good plan but that would require accountability and we cannot have any of that...can we?

Home Depot, Starbucks, Blockbuster and others should seek debt relief on their own just like us lowly citizens.

We need for better heads to get involved in all of this and freeze this nonsense now. 70% of Americans say no to the bail outs but that won't matter. We said the same thing back when the sky was crashing down all around us.

Do we really trust CONgress to do anything correctly? Have they done anything correctly? The answer lies within what that idiot Wes Clark said...bailing out the auto makers has everything to do with National Security. I nearly spit for socks up over that remark.

Another answer lies within the verbiage regurgitated by Barney Frank...he said CONgress has the obligation to spend ALL of the tax money as quickly as they can. So far, they are up to close to$7T! I suppose that is what the interest is on the original $700B.

For a nation that ran out of money, we are doing pretty good. The original $700B wasn't really needed for what fraud Paulson said (include Pelosi) seeing that their aren't any "real" toxic mortgages (just like I said MONTHS ago) and the Fed has obviously a lot of money to loan out and are being quite secretive about it all. Just call it the money hole. That sounds a lot like a politician hole, doesn't it?

Some folks are saying that we don't have the resources for all of this but others are saying that the auto makers need all that they can get. Where is it all coming from? Whatever happens, it is going to take 5 years to "get the job done" and not the "short time" Czarbie said.

The Ever Elusive Obama Birth Certificate

~Snooper~

This post was removed from RCP for the obvious reasons.

Someone found it! It is in the vault to the left. If you can, hire a safe cracker and a locksmith and maybe we can find out what's inside. In my cache of articles and other items located here and the posts I have done on this issue located here, one thing is for certain. Obama is hiding something and he just might be trying to do an end-run on the United States Constitution. You know. That document the libtards hate while feigning support of it on their way to shredding it. They will make a lame claim that President Bush shredded it but as usual, they will have nothing to substantiate their idiocy.

Polarik at Townhall has the definitive post on this subject which can also be located at Free Republic, HT to Anti-Mullah. In addition, there is a SCOTUS case (screen shot to left) detailing that which the Obama Camp will try to bypass if the SCOTUS Conference scheduled for 12/5/08 decides to place the issue on the Docket. There is already talk that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution negates the natural born status requirement for Presidential Aspirants. No where in the 14th Amendment is Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 negated or amended to reflect that the "natural born" requirement is no longer in standing. This is Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Founders could not have been more specific. The Ambassador of Kenya could also not have been more specific.

The McNorman blog has a You Tube with a short segment of the radio interview of Peter Ogego and WRIF in Detroit where the Ambassador admitted that Obama was indeed born in Kenya and that his birthplace "is well known". The entire 19+ minute interview can be heard here and we will replay some of that interview on my BTR show today at 1300 hours Central (Texas) time. We will be playing 10:40 of that interview. Political Pistachio conducted a BTR show last week as did Founding Truth and the details therein are a must to have for future reference.

Like I said earlier, we will have our third show on this subject today at 1300 and tomorrow evening on Spin This, we will also be discussing this same subject. This issue is growing feet and legs but there is no telling how far it will go. It all depends on the courage of our political leaders and other leaders and I don't place much confidence in them at all, judging from their past idiocy and PC stupidity.

The evidence is piling on that Barack Hussein Obama is not a United States Citizen which makes him an illegal alien. Barack's refusal to present his birth certificate should be the last nail in the coffin and I did say "should be". Remember, it only takes 4 out of the 9 Justices to agree to take an issue from Conference to Docket. Once the issue is on the Docket, it takes 5 of the 9 to make their "opinion" The Law. There are 4 Good Guy Justices (strict Constitutionalists) and 4 Bad Guy Justices (libtards that Rule from The Bench) and 1 Flake Justice, Kennedy.

Maggie posted to this blog here and urges True American Patriots to write to the SCOTUS demanding that this issue be resolved. You can write SCOTUS as follows:

Justice Clarence Thomas has placed a discussion of Barack Obama's citizenship on the December 5th docket for conference, meaning a discussion of the merit of this particular case.

A commenter at America's Right, who has been the leading source of excellent information on the various lawsuits, is requesting that we write directly to the Supreme Court:

The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407

Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

One commenter said he/she was sending a copy of his letter to each of the nine Justices. Good idea!

Go for it. When the Kenyans are stating that Barack was born in Kenya, then what are we to think about it?

Obama To His Moonbats: Bugger Off!

~Snooper~

So, Obama is going to keep in place the "don't ask don't tell" deal. Lie 1.

Obama said the Bush economy is propelling us to the Great Depression Part 2. Lie 2.

Obama says he isn't a socialist. Lie 3.

Obama promised a Green nation. Lie 4. (at least a Double Standard anyway)

Obama promised Hope and Change. Lie 5.

Obama promised to bomb Pakistan. Lie 6.

Obama said he didn't have any Goons. Lie 7. (no activists or lobbyists?)

Obama said he wasn't a centrist leaner. Lie 8.

Obama promised to tax the hell out of those damn rich people. Lie 9.

Obama promised no crones. Lie 10.

Obama promised to end the war. Lie 11.

Obama promised "new blood" in his Administration. Lie 12.

Obama promised regular folks would shape his Adminstration and policies. Lie 13.

This guy is on a roll baby! See the other Obama Lies here. Yid With Lid has 138 of them.

What we have here is the Last Gasp of The Hippies.

More at Memeorandum...

BDS Is Alive and Well

~Snooper~

I would like to offer first the Rubber Chicken Award to Thers of the pathetic libtard outlet known as SmolderingDribblingSnivel for their continuous contribution to the funny bone. I can only surmise that killing unborn babies is much better than killing animals for food but, that's just me. I put human life on a much higher plane of the food chain. Perhaps when that idiot Czarbie frees the murderous thugs at Club Gitmo, Thers can invite some over for dinner and they can tell the schmuck just how much higher they are on the Moral Plateau.

Anyway, on to some bubbling over BDS. The above was a sampling of the PDS. Some say that I have ODS but there is a difference. Czarbies own words proves our point and all the libtards have is fiction to lambaste President Bush and Sarah Palin. Perhaps if Sarah had murdered her baby they would have liked her at least a little bit. In other news...

Mark Halperin has developed the Chris Matthews disease. They want to subvert the United States Constitution and have President Bush step down and let Czarbie - the illegal alien - step up to the plate and subvert the United States Constitution. I wonder if they share the same tingle...or is that a tinkle. I forget which one they have. Richard Fernandez at PJM also thinks the media, what there is left of it, has gone completely over the edge with BDS. He calls it bad manners but I call it a mental disorder. Constitution? What Constitution? Oh. Wait. They are more than likely referring to the toilet bowl kind of constitution. Silly me. Gail Collins of the NY Slimes did the same thing and Hot Air seems to think that maybe they should eat crow for Thanksgiving and not turkey. It might remind them of Sarah Palin. Gail may need to have her "woman plug" checked.

I don't know what has gotten into the alleged "media elite" but they are obviously out of touch with the Czarbie base. They are in the process of realizing just what a dunce and dunderhead the Czarbie Unit is and he doesn't even give a damn. He used them because he knows that they are easily led by the short hairs because they are too dumb to breathe let alone vote. The folks that put the fraud where he is today have started to turn on him. Again with the vindication. Well, they cannot say that they hadn't been warned. All he wanted was the Power. Now that he has it, his supporters can suck hind teet.

Back to the BDS thing; remember that crack pot in Texas that indicted Cheney? Well, he has made the ultimate fool of himself but that isn't much of a surprise. Your basic moonbat does that naturally. He shouted at the Judge and pounded his tiny fists and had a temper tantrum. Good thing the troll lost his reelection bid. He is a damn criminal himself.

Obama has BDS as well. Without any evidence whatsoever, he said in 2007 that he would have "Bush investigated" and his pick of AG supports that. I love it when moonbats make fools of themselves like this.

To answer JWF's question as to the expiration date of BDS, there isn't any.

And, let us not forget the plethora of Hitler referrals of President Bush when there was no evidence of that whatsoever either but there is plenty to go around for Czarbie. It seems as though there is a moonbat by the name of David Corn (how appropriate is that?) that is whining about the Obama Hitler references and calls it not nice or something like that. And the Hitler references to President Bush was OK? When there isn't any evidence at all? Amazing. Oh. Wait. I forgot about the DNC Double Standard quotient. Silly me.

See more of my BDS collection here.

We Have a President Elect?

~Snooper~

Somebody pinch me. I must have slept right on through the December 5th SCOTUS conference and then I missed their opinion and then I missed the Electoral College meeting to vote for the next President and then I slept through the 111th Congress counting of the Electoral College votes and then I missed the final announcement. Is the inauguration tomorrow already?

Anyway, Google News is reporting that Czarbie is promoting his economic stimulus thing and I saw the video. He does pretty good at not saying anything while his lips are moving and noises are coming from the back of his throat. Just so you will know, he didn't explain anything. Typical libtard.

The LA Slimes has the article and Solo Passion has a few choice things to say about all of that. Suffice it to say that the Zombies will think it sounds just OK fine because they don't have to think about anything because there is nothing in the comments that stirs the imagination. Just more of the same platitudes that mean nothing now and whatever he feels like it means later. Yep. Typical libtard.

War News Update: Additional Data

~Snooper~

Even though Obama the Fraud and Liar has said that he will disarm America so he would retain the votes of the stupid, apparently he isn't going to be able to do that. At least not right away if he makes it to the White House.

In Gen. McCaffrey's Latest AAR from Iraq, he covers all of the bases of the previous buffoonery of the "peace crowds" that we all know as the Peace Thugs. The pdf file is here for those interested enough in reading what is really going on. Only the idiots think we haven't won in Iraq.

Terrorist Ringleader Dies in Latest Airstrike Inside Pakistan. That would be Rashid Rauf, thank you very much to Pakistan for letting the fool slip through their fingers. Oops. And don't let the reports that "civilians" were killed in any raids. That is code-speak for "foreign fighters". You do remember Iraq, correct? Even though the war has been won, there is still some fighting going on with most of it being conducted by Iraqi Forces. Yes. That is correct. The 18 Iraqi Benchmarks have been met much to the chagrin of the idiots that developed the list designed to fail. More of the missile attacks here at Memeorandum...

Some "scholars" are saying that Islam is going to emerge as a World Power. I have to laugh at that one. Wait until they find out that Islam is a fraud! WOW. Their "founder" didn't exist. Folks, I tell ya. That opium is bad stuff.

The War In Afghanistan can be won but the libtards need to stay out of the way. It will take much longer to win - like in Iraq - but it can be won. But the war Israel has been fighting is being fed by the United Nations. It seems as though depicting Israel as Nazis is going to bring about a peace that even Obama doesn't want. One day I am going to wake up and find that someone in DC grew a set of balls and kicked the UN out of NY and sent them to Peking.

In the Glare of a New Administration, Mukasey Defends America's Counter-Terrorism: this is from Maggie's Notebook.

Michael Mukasey, the current U.S. Attorney General, stepped to the podium at a meeting of the Federalist Society to defend Bush 43's strategy to keep America safe after the 9/11 attacks - "a remarkable achievement," he said, despite the "relentless criticism" in the media, in Congress and the "legal academy." This important speech never really reached the light of day as General Mukasey, in a frightening and dramatic moment, slurred his words and fainted on the stage. It was perhaps, only a faint, not a stroke or heart attack, caused by the late hour, the hot lights, and maybe the fact that a Washington State Supreme Court judge yelled loudly from the audience, "Tyrant. You are a Tyrant." Mukasey, obviously unsettled by the shouts, hesitated and then went on with his speech. [...] read the rest and the speech can be studied here

The libtards don't like to hear this but that doesn't make the reality of it vanish. President Bush and our Troops have made it possible that we at home have indeed been safe for at least 7 years now and Czarbie will soon learn this if he doesn't know it already. Then again, he can never make that public even though he is a liar.

More murderous terrorist scum have been "eliminated" and thank God for it. Is allah running out of virgins yet? Oh. Wait. The "prophet" and allah are frauds. I forgot. I guess the Jihadi scum are getting MAJOR surprises. "Why do these virgins look so hideous and they have forked tails and why in the HELL is it so hot in here?" Check the post for all the data in regards to AQ being eliminated in Pakistan.

Interesting. I said at least two years ago that the War would soon be fought in Pakistan. How long has it been now that the War HAS been fought there? Maybe that is why "Pakistan" fears us as much as the Taliban and AQ pukes do. Remember that famous speech that EVERYONE agreed with? "Either you are with us or against us." I believe that is how it was stated.

Anyway, remember those racial slurs that those owners of Higher Morality hurled at Obama just a short time ago? I believe the term they used was House Nigger. Everyone knows that the "N" word is strictly forbidden and rightfully so. So much for that Higher Morality thing. It seems that the American Mooooooozlims have denounced Al Qaeda for not having that Higher Morality deal down very well. We will see how long they take that trail...they just might be classified as apostates as well for it. After all, The Beginning (Al Qaeda) are the primo judges seeing that Shar'ia Law is above all there is to be above and the American Mooooooozlims don't follow that...yet. Well, maybe in Phoenix. More at Memeorandum...

And, get this: Obama is being called a sell-out already by him moron voters. I guess they are finally coming around to knowing what we have known from the very beginning. The guy is a liar. Too much. Catch it at Memeorandum...