Freedom Corner

December 16, 2011

Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov’t Help Hide Climate Data?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 11:52 am

By Maxim Lott

Published December 16, 2011

| FoxNews.com

University of East Anglia

The Climatic Research Unit, a key climate science facility at the School of Environmental Sciences, a part of the University of East Anglia in the UK.

Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be “Yes.”

The original Climategate emails — correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 — shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Related Stories

Did $16 Stand in the Way of Climate Science?

Climategate 2.0? More Emails Leaked From Climate Researchers

Times Atlas Apologizes for Global-Warming Error

Professor Phil Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection — and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data “has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: “They are happy with me not passing on the station data,” he wrote.

The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can’t trust climate studies unless they see the raw data — and how it has been adjusted.

“In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told FoxNews.com. “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”

Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues — not between him and the DoE.

“What’s missing,” Watts said, “is a … directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but … still under lock and key.”

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.

“So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure,” Horner told FoxNews.com.

“Not with us, it won’t,” he said.

The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner’s request.

When contacted by FoxNews.com, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.

However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.

“I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s,” Hughes noted in his request.

But Tom Boden, of the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that “you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items.”

McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which “I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing.”

“I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach,” he added.

Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told FoxNews.com that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public.

“Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available,” Dunford told FoxNews.com.

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it — statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, “normalize” the data, and potentially highlight certain trends — remain a secret.

“Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product — but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.

“The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies — that’s the issue,” Watts noted. “Replication is the most important tenet of science.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/#ixzz1gjGISxYN

 

Report: Half of American Schools Failed Federal Standards

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 11:49 am

Published December 14, 2011

| Associated Press

ATLANTA –  Nearly half of America’s public schools didn’t meet federal achievement standards this year, marking the largest failure rate since the much-criticized No Child Left Behind Law took effect a decade ago, according to a national report released Thursday.

The Center on Education Policy report shows more than 43,000 schools — or 48 percent — did not make “adequate yearly progress” this year. The failure rates range from a low of 11 percent in Wisconsin to a high of 89 percent in Florida.

The findings are far below the 82 percent failure rate that Education Secretary Arne Duncan predicted earlier this year but still indicate an alarming trend that Duncan hopes to address by granting states relief from the federal law. The law requires states to have every student performing at grade level in math and reading by 2014, which most educators agree is an impossible goal.

“Whether it’s 50 percent, 80 percent or 100 percent of schools being incorrectly labeled as failing, one thing is clear: No Child Left Behind is broken,” Duncan said in a statement Wednesday. “That’s why we’re moving forward with giving states flexibility from the law in exchange for reforms that protect children and drive student success.”

State’s scores varied wildly. For example, in Georgia, 27 percent of schools did not meet targets, compared to 81 percent in Massachusetts and 16 percent in Kansas.

That’s because some states have harder tests or have high numbers of immigrant and low-income children, center officials said. It’s also because the law requires states to raise the bar each year for how many children must pass the test, and some states put off the largest increase until this year to avoid sanctions.

The numbers indicate what federal officials have been saying for more than a year — that the law, which is four years overdue for a rewrite, is “too crude a measure” to accurately depict what’s happening in schools, said Jack Jennings, president of the Washington, D.C.-based center. An overhaul of the law has become mired in the partisan atmosphere in Congress, with lawmakers disagreeing over how to fix it.

“No Child Left Behind is defective,” Jennings told The Associated Press. “It needs to be changed. If Congress can’t do it, then the administration is right to move ahead with waivers.”

Waivers fix the immediate problem but likely will make it much more difficult for parents to understand how schools are rated because progress will no longer be based on just one test score.

Under the 11 waivers already filed, states are asking to use a variety of factors to determine whether they pass muster and to choose how schools will be punished if they don’t improve.

Those factors range from including college-entrance exam scores to adding the performance of students on Advanced Placement tests.

At least 39 states, plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, have said they will file waivers, though it is unclear how many will get approved.

Republicans in Congress say Duncan and President Obama are using the waivers to push a “backdoor education agenda” that will ultimately let schools off the hook.

“The law needs to be fixed and it needs to be fixed in Congress and not by executive action,” House education committee Chairman John Kline, a Republican from Minnesota, said in September after Obama announced the waivers.

Under No Child Left Behind, states that have tough standards are punished and schools that make progress but don’t hit benchmarks get treated the same as schools that see performance dip, Jennings said.

“A lot of educators saw the weaknesses in No Child Left Behind even when it was rolled out — that this day and time would come,” said Georgia schools Superintendent John Barge. “It’s kind of a train wreck that we all see happening.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/14/report-nearly-half-american-schools-failed-federal-standards/#ixzz1gjFaTotV

 

December 9, 2011

ACORN Visits Obama White House

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 2:17 pm

By on 12.8.11 @ 6:08AM

New evidence also reveals that it lobbies the Justice Department to prevent voter fraud enforcement.

Leaders of the resurrected radical group ACORN are lobbying the Obama administration in what appears to be a concerted effort to game the electoral system to help Democrats, new evidence suggests.

At least five Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now leaders have visited the White House this year alone. One of those ACORN officials has been involved in vetting Department of Justice hires who may help to enforce the voter fraud-enabling National Voting Rights Act (NVRA), also known as the Motor-Voter law. The Department has come under fire for refusing to enforce Section 8, which requires states to remove the names of ineligible felons, the dead, and non-residents from voter rolls, while zealously enforcing Section 7, which requires states to register voters at welfare offices.

As I argue in my book published earlier this year, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, those on relief tend to support Democrats, so Section 7 amounts to a taxpayer subsidy for Democratic candidates. Project Vote founder Sanford Newman openly admits his group’s work helps the Left almost exclusively. “While our work is nonpartisan, it is realistic to assume that upward of 90 percent of the people we register on unemployment and other social service distribution lines will oppose politicians who have supported cuts in the programs on which they rely,” he said. “They are likely to vote Democratic in most instances.”

President Obama long ago endorsed the strategy of using welfare recipients to expand the size and scope of government. “All our people must know that politics and voting affects their lives directly,” he said in 1992. “If we’re registering people in public housing, for an example, we talk about aid cuts and who’s responsible.”

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act, former ACORN attorney Estelle H. Rogers, who is now director of advocacy at ACORN-affiliated Project Vote, wrote T. Christian Herren, Chief of the Voting Section in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, recommending three prospective new DOJ employees.

Project Vote is the unit of the ACORN network that President Obama worked for in 1992 when he ran a successful get-out-the-vote drive in Illinois that helped to solidify his reputation as an effective leader and organizer. Obama went on to train ACORN activists and represent ACORN in court as the group’s lawyer. Project Vote’s official position is that voter fraud is a myth invented by Republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters. The group vilifies as a racist anyone who thinks voter ID requirements are a good idea and constantly presses to make voting requirements even more lax than they now are.

In a Feb. 23, 2010 email to DOJ’s Herren, Rogers wrote, “I want to heartily recommend two candidates to you.” (The names of the candidates were redacted.) In a follow-up email dated April 20, 2010, Rogers wrote, “I look forward to continuing to work with you, Chris. And please let me know if you need any more feedback regarding hires.” In an Oct. 21, 2010 email, Herren told Rogers his door was always open. “If you have any issues that come up that you want us to be aware of, please feel free to shoot us an email…”

In a Dec. 7, 2010 email that DOJ redacted heavily before releasing, Rogers wrote, “I’d still love to talk for real, but in the meantime, the main reason I called is that you have an applicant for the [REDACTED] position [REDACTED] qualifies her beautifully for your position, and I hope you will give her every consideration. [REDACTED] So she would be a great fit, and I recommend her without reservation. Please let me know if I can tell you more. And give me a call if you possibly can.”

The DOJ document dump also revealed that “civil rights groups” met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli on March 17, 2011 to discuss Section 7 of NVRA. The groups involved were Project Vote, American Association of People with Disabilities, Demos, League of Women Voters, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Brennan Center for Justice, Fair Elections Legal Network, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Rogers has been working with the Obama administration before it took office on Jan. 20, 2009. She filed what Project Vote called a “voting rights agenda” submission with the Obama-Biden presidential transition team in 2008.

It is now becoming clear what that agenda consists of. Project Vote and allied groups have filed a rash of lawsuits recently in several states in an attempt to pressure state officials into backing off investigations into voter fraud allegations, Kevin Mooney reported last week.

“The lawsuits are coming out of nowhere in multiple states and they are coming fast,” said Anita MonCrief, a former Project Vote employee who has testified in court against Project Vote and ACORN. “This is part of a coordinated effort,” said MonCrief. “These groups are very well-funded, and they have lawyers doing pro bono work.”

Rogers appeared to foreshadow the litigation offensive in a July 13, 2010 email to DOJ’s Herren and DOJ political appointee Julie Fernandes. Rogers wrote that she would be bringing Project Vote election counsel Niyati Shah to a meeting at DOJ. Shah “will be working on a lot of the litigation we’ll be telling you about.” Rogers indicated Nicole Kovite Zeitler, director of Project Vote’s public agency registration project, would also attend the meeting. Zeitler “manages Project Vote’s efforts to advocate for enforcement of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 through technical assistance and litigation across the country,” according to her bio on Project Vote’s website.

According to former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams, author of Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, Fernandes told lawyers in the DOJ’s Voting Section that the Department would not enforce Section 8 of Motor-Voter because it “doesn’t have anything to do with increasing minority turnout.”

It needs to be noted that registering welfare recipients to vote on the public dime is an idea that was heavily promoted by the small-c communists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Not coincidentally, Cloward and Piven were instrumental in designing and lobbying for the Motor-Voter law. Even now Piven is a member of Project Vote’s board of directors.

In a 1983 article titled “Toward a Class-Based Realignment of American Politics: A Movement Strategy,” that ran in ACORN’s magazine, Social Policy, the Marxist duo said “massive numbers of new voters” had to be registered in order to bring “fundamental change” to the nation.

Meanwhile, in addition to collaborating with DOJ officials, Rogers also visited the White House on March 2, 2011, according to the White House visitors database. During that visit she met with Shasti Conrad, a senior aide to Obama uber-adviser Valerie Jarrett, and Jon Carson, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. Carson was previously chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) serving under Van Jones, the self-described communist who was known as Obama’s green jobs czar.

Separately, a group of seven individuals visited the White House on March 22, 2011, meeting with White House policy assistant David Pope. They are Brian Kettenring, Darlene D. Battle, Steven Fletcher, Leigh Dingerson, Charese Jordan Moore, Aaron Brown, and Darren Browning.

At press time the professional and political affiliations of Brown and Browning were unclear.

However, Kettenring was deputy director of national operations for ACORN, working for the group from 1995 to 2009.

Battle was head organizer for ACORN in Philadelphia. She is now executive director of Delawareans for Social and Economic Justice (DSEJ), one of two dozen new ACORN front groups that have sprung up around the nation. ACORN, the shell corporation that ran ACORN’s network of 370 affiliated groups, filed bankruptcy in November 2010 after ordering its state chapters to incorporate themselves separately in order to carry on ACORN’s work. Two of ACORN’s new front groups, Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, and New York Communities for Change, have been deeply involved in organizing and financing the radical Occupy Wall Street movement.

White House visitor Fletcher is the former head organizer for ACORN in Minnesota. He is now executive director of Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change (MNNOC), another new ACORN front group. MNNOC denies any connection to ACORN but the facts suggest otherwise.

According to Judicial Watch research, MNNOC’s chairman of the board is Sunday Alabi. Alabi, who has been involved with ACORN since at least 2000, was also a member of the board of directors of ACORN-affiliated Citizens Services Inc., the company the Obama campaign paid $832,598 to 2008 to work against then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Billie Jean Campbell, who was co-chairman of East St. Paul ACORN, and Steve Nelson, who was the Minneapolis northside ACORN chapter leader, are members of MNNOC’s board. Peter Molenaar, who was Minnesota ACORN chairman, and Sherman Wilburn, who was Minnesota ACORN board chairman, are MNNOC officers.

White House visitor Dingerson worked as a community organizer with ACORN between 1978 and 1982.

White House visitor Moore, who is director of Communities for Excellent Public Schools, does not appear to be affiliated with ACORN. She was, however, deputy director at Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ), a network of Saul Alinsky-inspired activist groups. When IWJ was created in 1996, Roman Catholic Monsignor John J. “Jack” Egan was on the founding board of directors. The socialist priest, who died in 2001, worked closely with Rules for Radicals author Alinsky, who died in 1972. IWJ founder Kim Bobo was a trainer for the Midwest Academy, a school for training radical community organizers. IWF has close ties to the AFL-CIO. Arlene Holt-Baker, executive vice president of AFL-CIO, is on the IWF board.

It is unclear what the seven visitors discussed with Pope, but it seems a safe bet that the Motor-Voter law came up.

About the Author

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative journalist at a conservative watchdog group in Washington, D.C. Vadum is also author of Subversion Inc: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/08/acorn-visits-obama-white-house

Democrat Economic Illiteracy Has Consequences

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 2:14 pm

By on 12.8.11 @ 6:09AM

Obamaworld’s breathtaking ignorance about “the dismal science” is dangerous.

The Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, visited Capitol Hill last week and claimed that the unemployment rate will increase if Congress fails to extend the eligibility period for federal unemployment benefits. My first reaction to this Orwellian assertion was a quiet chuckle. Then it dawned on me that most Democrats will believe this nonsense. These are, after all, people who believed that health care would be made cheaper by a law that increases demand for medical services while reducing the supply of health care providers. Most would agree with the claim, made by journalist-cum-cheerleader Jonathan Alter, that Obama’s economic stimulus package “prevented another Great Depression.” I realized, in other words, that ignorance about economics is so pervasive among Democrats that it is less funny than dangerous.

That Democrats are generally illiterate about basic economics is not a matter of mere conjecture. In 2010, Daniel B. Klein and Zeljka Buturovic analyzed answers provided by a random sample of 4,835 Americans to a list of eight questions about economics. The results, which noted the party affiliation of the respondents, were not flattering to our friends on the left. “Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.” And these were not arcane questions. They involved elementary concepts, like the effect of price controls, covered in any Econ 101 course taught at the lowliest community college and even some of the better high schools. Yet the average Democrat respondent got nearly 60 percent of the answers wrong.

It is precisely this kind of ignorance that led so many Democrats to believe Obamacare would somehow render health care less expensive. One of the first items covered in any introductory economics course is that the price of any good or service will rise if the quantity demanded increases without an accompanying increase in the available supply of that commodity. Nonetheless, it held no message for the average Democrat that the supply side of the equation was ignored by “reform,” though it increased the number of patients in the health system as well as the range of services to which they are entitled. The issue of supply and demand was utterly lost on Obamacare’s Democrat supporters. Thus, at the time of its passage, fully 78 percent of them favored the law. Even now, 52 percent still support it.

Democrat cluelessness notwithstanding, the laws of supply and demand continue to operate. In fact, even the Obama administration has produced a report showing that “reform” will increase health care costs faster than would have been the case in its absence. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently forecast that “Total spending is projected to grow annually by 5.8 percent under Mr. Obama’s Affordable Care Act…. Without the ACA, spending would grow at a slightly slower rate of 5.7 percent annually.” Survey after survey has shown that one of the primary benefits Americans wanted from health reform was lower costs. Due to Democrat illiteracy in economics, however, Congress has produced a “reform” law that actually makes medical care more expensive.

Even if Obamacare didn’t ignore the laws of supply and demand, a rudimentary understanding of economics should have alerted any educated observer that it was going to be disastrous for the country because it creates perverse incentives that discourage job growth. The law arbitrarily increases the cost of hiring and keeping employees. George Will recently provided an example of how this works, citing a California-based business called CKE Restaurants. Obamacare will add about $18 million to its costs: “Obamacare must mean fewer restaurants. And therefore fewer jobs. Each restaurant creates, on average, 25 jobs — and as much as 3.5 times that number of jobs in the community (CKE spends about $1 billion a year on food and paper products, $175 million on advertising, $33 million on maintenance, etc.).”

In other words, the job losses at CKE are accompanied by collateral losses in the communities they serve. This phenomenon is being replicated all across the country. And yet most Democrats seem to be as blissfully unaware of this tragedy as they are of the impotence of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA). Like Obamacare, this legislation is actually producing the opposite of its intended effect. The “stimulus” package is rendering the economy more flaccid than it would be if the law had never been passed. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has now admitted that the additional debt added by ARRA “will reduce output slightly in the long run.” Yet, last week, we witnessed the grotesque spectacle of the President dancing in the end zone because unemployment has at long last dropped below 9 percent.

According to Secretary Solis, this long-overdue decrease in the unemployment number means that “The policies this administration has pursued are adding jobs back into the economy.” Not everyone concurs. NPR reports: “[E]conomists say one reason [the rate] fell isn’t good news — the size of the labor force shrank by 315,000 as more people stopped looking for work because they’re discouraged about the chances of finding a job.” And if you doubt the veracity of those notorious wingnuts at NPR, Gallup also suggests that the “improvement” was illusory : “Job market conditions in the United States were flat in November, as Gallup’s Job Creation Index remained at +14, similar to the range seen since May. This is another indication that Friday’s sharp drop to 8.6% in the government’s U.S. unemployment rate may be overstated.”

Nonetheless, the President, congressional Democrats and most of the “news” media celebrated the modest drop in the official jobless percentage with a level of glee reminiscent of V-E Day. The New York Times, for example, breathlessly announced, “Somehow the American economy appears to be getting better, even as the rest of the world is looking worse.” Predictably, the Times went on to promote the White House party line on the extension of unemployment payments: “Unemployment benefits are believed to have one of the most stimulative effects on the economy, because recipients are likely to spend all of the money they receive quickly and pump more spending through the economy.” The only people who “believe” this are, of course, Democrat supporters of the President and his accomplices in Congress.

In reality, consumer spending doesn’t stimulate the economy. This is a Keynesian canard that was long ago debunked in theory and by actual experience. It is production that stimulates the U.S. or any other economy. This is the inconvenient fact that doomed ARRA and it is what makes the Labor Secretary’s assertion so laughable. Extending the eligibility period for federal unemployment benefits will do nothing for what Democrats and the Media hilariously refer to as the economy. But it will have an effect. Like Obamacare and the “stimulus” package, it will produce the opposite of its intended effect. Another lesson one learns in Econ 101 is that, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. So, if unemployment benefits are extended, it will produce more rather than less unemployment.

And yet our Labor Secretary is by no means the first of Obama’s minions to tell us that unemployment payments somehow create jobs. Last summer White House Press Secretary Jay Carney claimed it would create a million jobs. Solis, Carney, and the Democrats on Capitol Hill who are now singing the same refrain are — one prays — not dumb enough to believe this stuff. But their supporters do, and that’s what makes them dangerous. If their ignorance about economics causes them to give President Obama another four years in the White House, the irresponsible policies of his administration may well convert a severe recession into a worldwide depression that will dwarf the disaster of the 1930s and perhaps even reproduce the horrific consequences that followed thereon.

About the Author

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/08/democrat-economic-illiteracy-h

December 7, 2011

In Praise of Euroskeptics

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 9:24 am

By on 12.7.11 @ 6:07AM

They paid a price for opposing a single currency for Europe, but they were right all along.

LONDON — Europe’s problems may yet spin us towards a depression, but at least they offer a sweet catharsis for “euroskeptics” — those of us who have always thought the euro a misguided project.

Euroskeptics have been through it, both in Britain and elsewhere. The haughty laughter, the insults, the patronizing comments, like “little Englander,” suggesting both stupidity and insularity. Despite the fact, or perhaps because, Margaret Thatcher was the biggest and most famous euroskeptic of the lot, “euroenthusiasts,” among them Tony Blair, took every opportunity to suggest that our argument was based on emotion rather than reason.

In fact the reverse was true. Euroskeptics realized that it was crazy to have a single exchange rate and interest rate applied to somewhere as massive and diverse as the European Union. For unlike Americans we Europeans share no common loyalty to our Union. There is no sense of European nation, and therefore no intrinsic acceptance that our own countries within the Union should be prepared to accept economic hardship for the wider good. Quite the reverse; each country is in it precisely for what it can get out.

To ignore this self-evident reality was Europe’s big mistake, even if it took more than a decade to show just how big. Simply, economic union requires political union. And you can’t sustain that without the will of the people.

Ah yes, how inconvenient for the technocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg that we dastardly voters get in the way of their grand plans. Not that it’s stopped them. If we give a non, nein, or nee to one of the many referenda on closer union, they merely tell us that we’ve chosen “the wrong answer,” and shamelessly ask us to vote again. (Democracy has never been the EU’s strong suit.)

Many American visitors to Europe quickly recognize this disconnect — though often they’re too polite to say so. They see a continent that is a joyous medley of languages, cultures, attitudes and beliefs. Spain is no more like Finland than India is like Iceland. Greece is as different from Germany as the US is from Mexico. Yet would the U.S. ever consider monetary union with its neighbor across the Rio Grande?

If the travails of the euro have taught us one thing (which euroskeptics instinctively knew anyway), it is that you cannot straightjacket hundreds of millions of people. You cannot change the speed or course of the giant, ponderous waves of humanity. They go at their own sweet pace.

Those in favor of the euro ignored this inconvenient reality. They ploughed on, elbowing past human sensibilities, denouncing those who objected. The result? Europe’s biggest crisis since the Second World War.

Now that the euroskeptics have been proved right all along, one or two honorable opponents are eating humble pie. Even Jacques Delors, former European Commission President, one of the chief architects of the euro, and bête noire of British Conservatives, now admits that the euro was flawed from the start. We thank him for this belated candor.

And the editor of the Financial Times between 2001 and 2005, Andrew Gowers, has issued what amounts to a grovelling apology for getting the biggest economic issue of recent decades spectacularly wrong. He declared last month: “All of us paid too little attention to the arguments of those who opposed the project and worried about its viability.” He’s quite right about that, at least. Rather than arguing for the euro on its merits he and his colleagues all too often chose the lazy, insidious route of implying that euroskeptics were irrational and sentimental. Interpreting the motives of those opposed to the euro a decade ago, Philip Stephens, who is still the newspaper’s chief political columnist, oozed condescendingly, “Immaturity is the kind explanation.”

The best known early proposal for a “United States of Europe” was made in 1847 by the pacifist Victor Hugo, and when the European ideal took shape a century later it had at its heart a keen desire that the nations of this continent would never again go to war against each other. But more recently a less lofty ideal took hold: that Europe should unite in ever-closer union to compete on a global stage. Any instinctive reluctance by the peoples of Europe to accept this unity and live happily under one roof, rather than as neighbors, was trumped by theory-wielding economists in Brussels.

Now European leaders are poised to decide whether to forge fiscal as well as monetary union. If they do so, thereby saving the euro, the world will no doubt sigh with relief as short-term catastrophe is avoided.

Yet celebration might be premature. The drive towards ever-closer union has already caused one crisis. The next could be even worse.

About the Author

Robert Taylor is a writer and business columnist in London.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/07/in-praise-of-euroskeptics

Days of Infamy

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 9:20 am

By on 12.7.11 @ 6:10AM

Marking the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, we cannot fail to remember another day of treacherous attack.

Bitterly, the lord admiral put the phone down, using all the self-control for which he was renowned to keep himself from slamming it and cursing out the man he had been listening to, Army General Hideki Tojo, chief of the imperial general staff and as close to a military dictator as was possible in a country that deified its emperor.

“My lord?” His loyal adjutant waited for the order.

At 56, imposing and stern and with the iron discipline of a Japanese naval officer, Isoruku Yamamoto gripped his katana, the sword with which the samurai fight and die. He knew there was no appeal. He had lost out in the councils, the emperor had gone with the war party, and this was, as the Americans said — years at Harvard and in Washington had given him a feel for American English idioms — it.

Let the heavens help us now, he muttered under his breath, then said in a resolute voice: “Plan Z! I want the first wave in the sky within the hour.”

“At your orders, Admiral! What is the code?”

“The code? Ah yes. When the first squadrons meet the enemy, shout: Tiger! Tora! That will inform the second wave to commence its attack formation.”

“It will be as you command, Lord Admiral!”

“Go to it, boy. For the Emperor! For Japan!”

Several thousand miles and several time zones to the east, where it was still December 7, Major General Walter Short, the ranking Army officer on Hawaii, was, once again, discussing contingencies with his Navy counterpart, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. “Don’t know,” he said. “And don’t like.”

“Check. Anything out of Washington?”

“Not much. If they know more than we know, they’re not saying. We can expect more infantry. You expect your transports to reach Manila in what, about a week or two?”

“And then come back for more. The carriers are out there” — he made a vague gesture toward the west — “bringing aircraft to the Marines at Wake and Midway. Idea is to show the Japs we’re serious. Heard the striped pants are meeting with the Jap ambassador today.”

“So what else is new? Well, I’m off to Schofield to read the riot act to some moron of a captain, more interested in his boxing program than defense drills. What do you want, peacetime army.”

“Hey — that your idea to mass the aircraft at the center of runway at Wheeler?”

“Thought it might be a good idea. Protect them from bombardment if they ever sneak some battleships within range.”

“Uh-uh. We ought to review. What if there’s an air attack?”

“Air attack? You gotta be kidding.”

WHY WEREN’T WE PREPARED?

There are answers to the question that every American male has asked at least once, why were we taken by surprise on that morning 70 years ago at Pearl Harbor. And one of the simplest and most vexing is that our radio intercept capabilities were functioning better in Washington, D.C., than at the Hawaii military bases while, ironically, communications between Washington and Admiral Kimmel’s H.Q. were technologically primitive.

Washington knew more about Japanese intentions than did Admiral Kimmel, indeed thanks to advances in code breaking the State and War Departments often read the communications of the Imperial war staff ahead of the Japanese ambassador. Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura, himself a full admiral, was due to meet with Secretary of State Cordell Hull at 1 p.m., and did not know that he was supposed to deliver an ultimatum regarding grievous and, in the argument he was ordered to make, war-justifying differences between the two Pacific powers. In Tokyo, the reasoning was that with the ultimatum delivered, the nearly simultaneous launching of imperial naval air power on Pearl Harbor was legal.

But Hull and Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War, reasoned that after the delivery of the ultimatum, which their specialists had intercepted, they should assume some sort of countdown would begin. Of Plan Z, no one in Washington knew the details, even the name.

As he made his way to Foggy Bottom, Nomura thought he was going for another tense but, still, routine game of diplomatic penny ante with Hull. The latter, who was aware of the ultimatum, was preparing to reject it forcefully and gain a little more time — for he and the president no longer believed America could stay out of the war.

In 1940 President Franklin D. Roosevelt had ordered the Pacific fleet moved to Pearl Harbor naval base on the Hawaiian island of Oahu from San Diego, California, because of rising tensions in the eastern Pacific. Forward defense, you may think with some bitterness considering the result — though think too for a moment of the effect of an attack on San Diego. The Japanese plan, after all, was an early version of Rumsfeldian shock-and-awe. Yamamoto, who knew the U.S. well, did not believe Japan could win a long war. He had opposed a land war in China, the pact with Germany and Italy, and war with the U.S. But my country right or wrong and duty is duty, so he designed the best plan he could. The idea was to hit hard and demoralize the Americans and immediately offer them terms: they would think they were getting a good enough bargain, retain their non-belligerency. More likely, the admiral thought, the destruction of U.S. naval power would give the Empire time to conquer southeast Asia, pushing the Americans out of the Philippines, over-running the British at Singapore and the Dutch in Indonesia, threatening Australia; maybe terms could be offered then. The Japanese militarists, whose leader General Tojo had wrested the premiership in October, like their Nazi counterparts had a low opinion of the fighting spirit in free societies; Yamamoto was not so sure.

Reinforcements were on the way to the Philippines, some 40,000 troops, far fewer than the half-million General Douglas MacArthur said he needed to defend the islands. War news on a daily basis (including rather fanciful news put out by MacArthur) reminded Americans that trouble was coming. Yet as late as September, the year-old America First Committee claimed a million members across a broad range of political opinion that was agreed on the theme of staying out of the war.

Sending the fleet to Pearl could also be seen, let us be fair — Americans are fair — as forward offense, from the Japanese point of view, a signal that we really were intent, as their war party had been insisting, on interfering with the necessary, vital, and legitimate pursuit of their national interests in such places as China, Korea, French Indochina. We, by contrast — in their view — had through our sanctions blocked the normal management of their brutally conquered and administered possessions — scarcely better than slave camps — in Korea beyond, including the renamed Manchukuo where they had installed a puppet ruler who was not the last of the Manchus. We had dared raise our voices in protest at the rape of Nanking, 200,000 massacred, and at their savage behavior generally. The Japs — this was the universal English language term, used in newspaper headlines, and it was not in itself racist — despised all non-Japanese, Asian and Western both.

However, it was also more complicated, as politics and war and greed usually are. The Japanese might be a superior race of destiny, but they had concluded an alliance with the Teutons and the Latins. In all the sheer madness of the totalitarian early decades of the 20th century, none perhaps is more outrageous than the racial claims of Italians and Germans, nations in the middle of other nations, formed by successive invasions and migrations over centuries. But in Japan the fascists — using the term in its popular denotation — did at least have an ally that due to geography had a history of isolation and, in the hateful fantasies that replace political ideology, a claim to ethnic or racial purity, one that surely caused Hitler and Mussolini horrible carpet-chewing, mouth-foaming outbursts of envy. And this meant that any war involving Japan would also involve Germany and Italy. In fact, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill made plans to visit Roosevelt over Christmas to plan the American rescue of Europe.

The war in Europe, two years on, had expanded eastward into Russia and southward into the Middle East and North Africa. Like the Japanese in the Far East, the Germans and Italians coveted territories rich in the raw materials, notably oil, that they needed to sustain their empire-building militarized states. Not insignificantly, in doing this they encountered empires — Dutch, French, British — that employed military power too but whose purposes were primarily commercial not tyrannical and ideological.

This European war, recognized and named global by Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle from the start, was, as a practical matter, linked to the rising tensions between the U.S. and Japan. The Nazis despised the mongrel, as they called it, American nation, “half Jewish and half Negro” in their leaders’ words, and they believed in a coming showdown. In any case, they were well aware that American supplies to Britain and, since the summer, Russia through the Lend-Lease program meant the U.S. was not neutral.

In keeping with the U.S. position of opposing aggressive tyrannical states, there was an embargo on critical materials for Japan, a matter that the latter protested bitterly. It was, in fact, a principal concern of the diplomatic negotiations that had been taking place on and off for years and that now, in the last weeks of 1941, were at a critical pass.

The first sanctions had been imposed following the Japanese occupation of Manchuria and they had been tightened over the years to include aviation fuel (though not oil) and iron. On the political side, the U.S. demanded Japan withdraw from China and cease its military build-up.

As we would say today, the economic sanctions and the political demands amounted to a program for regime change.

WHICH HAS BEEN THE THEME of U.S. foreign policy ever since. The driving idea of the containment doctrine was that Soviet Communism would eventually mellow and desist from aggressive designs, eventually change entirely. The driving idea of American policy in the lands of Islam, at least in their core territories, is that they will respond to various enticements and accept coexistence, eventually friendship, with Western civilization as we still know it.

The enticements we have come up with range from the very friendly, such as allowing oil-producing states in the region to set the terms for the hydrocarbons extraction industry to the very hostile, such as invading Iraq (justified as a pre-emptive strike to deter attacks on ourselves or our allies). What is remarkable is that since 1943, when President Roosevelt met with the tribal leader Abdulaziz Ibn-Saud and got this carrots and sticks game going, we seem to have learned awfully little. There is no other way to explain the utterly befuddled reaction of Western public officials and observers to this past year’s wave of unrest in the Arabo-Islamic world and our nearly perfect cluelessness in the Pashtun lands of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In the first days of September 2001, most Americans thought we had a reasonably secure situation in relation to the rest of the world. We had fought a war with Iraq ten years earlier to restore international order, a position so clear that we had partners in the enterprise from amongst Iraq’s own neighbors as well as our traditional allies. The position now seemed more or less stable, with a containment policy, complete with sanctions, embargos, and no-fly-zones to keep the surviving outlaw Iraqi regime in its place. At the same time we maintained tense, but evidently sustainable, relations with neighboring Iran, which regularly threatened us (and others) with destruction.

On the morning of September 11, as President Bush visited an elementary school, a commando of mainly Saudi terror operatives received the go-ahead from their commander, a man named Osama bin Laden, to launch a long-planned attack on two vital, as well as highly symbolic, centers of American power, the complex in lower Manhattan called the World Trade Center, and the Defense Department headquarters at the Pentagon in Arlington. The plan, like the Japanese one 60 years earlier based on a misreading of the likely American reaction, was that the shock would lead to a deal centered around the end of U.S. influence in the Muslim world.

Why weren’t we prepared?

The short answer is that security measures in civil aviation were inadequate, enabling commercial planes to be hijacked by pirates and used in the attacks. This was despite 30 or more years of experience with airline terrorism. The long answer is that we saw no reasons why Saudis should want to kill us, but to elaborate on this would take us some distance from the memory of Pearl Harbor.

On December 7, 1941 — a Sunday – when the undetected Japanese task force was only 200 miles from Oahu, regular air patrols were not out over the ocean. On the ground, ammunition was lacking for anti-aircraft batteries which were not manned, and the idea of a surprise attack simply was not taken seriously, even if military planners discussed it as a hypothetical possibility. In a painful illustration of this mind-set, an alert forward radio operator in fact spotted the arriving Japanese attack, only to be told that these were American planes that were expected that day.

The first wave, 181 dive bombers and fighters, struck at 8 a.m., exactly on schedule, hitting the great battleships and Wheeler and Bellows air bases where Gen. Short had massed his planes. The second wave struck less than an hour later. The attack was over by 10 a.m. Two thousand four hundred Americans were killed, including over 50 civilians, most of these due to misfired anti-aircraft shells. The worst blow was the hit on the battleship Arizona, with 1,100 crewmen killed when its munitions magazine blew up.

In Washington, Ambassador Nomura was almost as surprised as Secretary Hull, who could not contain himself — the ultimatum he expected, not the attack itself — and yelled at the Japanese diplomat that never had such treachery been seen in the affairs of nations. The ultimatum that Yamamoto had meant to be delivered prior to the attack was still being deciphered at the Japanese embassy. In fact, the botched sequence of events was a shabby legalism and Yamamoto knew very well that he had planned a surprise attack. But he missed all the aircraft carriers, on their way back from Wake and Midway, and they were far more important than battleships in the coming Pacific war. His other mistake was to hold back the third wave, which he believed he needed to protect his carriers and which would have hit the supply depots, notably the oil, and the repair shops. The survival of these facilitated the repairs — all but two of the eight sunken battleships went back into service — and, according to Admiral Chester Nimitz, saved perhaps two years of recovery time.

Which began immediately. The sleepy ex-peacetime army was deluged with volunteers. War was declared with only one dissenting vote. The America First committee dissolved itself and declared the only goal now was victory.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE human nature, and comparing the events those years with those just behind us, we cannot but be struck by the similarities. We kept the dangerousness of the world at bay, at least in our minds, during most of the years that followed the end of the Russian threat in its Soviet Communist guise. The restoration of international borders in the first Iraq war was treated almost as an update of 19th century gunboat diplomacy, play by the rules or else, pal (which in fact has a lot to recommend it), and we paid remarkably little attention to the time bombs, the several time bombs, in the Islamic world.

Still, unlike in the years before World War II, we had a big national security and foreign policy establishment in place at the end of the competition with the Soviets. And we received terrible warnings: there was the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center, there was the assault on the USS Cole (eerily recalling the US gunboat Passan, which the Japanese navy sank in 1937 in the South China sea in an alleged mishap for which Yamamoto apologized), there were murderous aggressions against military and diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, and elsewhere, such as a Marine base in Lebanon in 1983.

The intentions of the Islamic radicals, gradually becoming known as “Islamists” following the French usage to distinguish them from ordinary believers, were broadcast openly, whether they were functioning as freelancers like Bin Laden or as agents of a state sponsor like Lebanon’s Hezbollah. They were just as open in their contempt of us as were the Japanese fascists and the German Nazis. Big wars within Islam, with tens of thousands of victims, such as those in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal and in Algeria in the 1990s, warned us that the world was dangerous as ever.

Nonetheless, it all came as a surprise. And so, too, was America’s response a surprise to our enemies. On September 11 in the evening, EST, President Bush addressed the nation:

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack … Our first priority is to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks. … We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

And a few days later, addressing Congress on September 21, he explained the situation as he understood it:

… Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.

… we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.…

Almost 60 years earlier, on December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt, too, had become a war president and as such addressed Congress:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

… No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

One of the heroes at Pearl Harbor was Doris “Dorie” Miller, cook (and heavyweight boxing champ) on the USS West Virginia (one of the battleships that was sunk but eventually repaired and sent back to the war), who grabbed a fallen anti-aircraft gun and kept firing even as dive bombers were coming at him and putting torpedoes in the ship’s hull. Miller was awarded the Navy Cross by Admiral Nimitz personally, who noted he was the first “member of his race” so honored. He died in action in the Gilberts in 1943, aboard the escort carrier Liscome Bay. Manning Kimmel, the admiral’s son, went down with his submarine off the Philippines island of Palawan.

Men like these made that “absolute victory,” perhaps not inevitable, but most likely, as did the men who went after Osama bin Laden and persisted until they found him and killed him, as they have done to his deputies and his followers. Admiral Yamamoto went down with his aircraft in 1943, ambushed by American fighter planes following a radio intercept. At the crash site he was found gripping his katana.

Today, though, we can give some thoughts to those of our people who were lost on those days of infamy. Nearly 3.000 sailors and soldiers were killed during the two waves of Japanese attacks involving over 300 planes. In the attack on the World Trade Center, 2,600 were killed. Three hundred fifty New York City firefighters and 25 New York City policemen gave their lives to rescue and protect others during the attack. One hundred thirty military personnel and civilian employees were killed at the Pentagon.

We remember the great global war as one in which our nation was united and purposeful, and while this is a fair memory, we should not let the more ambiguous nature of today’s conflict enervate us or undercut our will to prevail against our enemies and preserve the last and best hope for a free civilization on this earth.

About the Author

Roger Kaplan is a writer in Washington, D.C.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/07/days-of-infamy

Illegal Aliens, In-State Tuition and the Law

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 9:00 am

Consider it an illegal fringe benefit for illegal immigrants. Today, 12 states allow individuals who are in the United States illegally to pay the same in-state tuition rates as legal residents of the state without providing the same rates to others in the country who are here legally. And those states are doing it in direct contravention of federal law.

In a new paper, Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson explain that in 1996, Congress passed–and President Bill Clinton signed into law–the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under Section 1623 of the law, state colleges and universities are prohibited from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens “on the basis of residence within the State” unless the same in-state rates are offered to all citizens of the United States.

“By circumventing the requirements of § 1623 these states are violating federal law, and the legal arguments offered to justify such actions are untenable, no matter what other policy arguments are offered in their defense,” von Spakovsky and Stimson write. Which states are on the list? The offenders include California, Texas, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Maryland, and Connecticut.

Despite these violations, the federal government is doing nothing about it, all while the Justice Department has brought action against Arizona and Alabama for assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Meanwhile, President Obama’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement department announced over the summer relaxed standards for pursuing and dismissing immigration cases.

Apart from being illegal, granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens isn’t at all popular with the American people, either. A poll conducted in August shows that 81 percent of voters oppose providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens–and with good reason. For starters, the cost of doing so is breaking an already strained bank. In 2005, the cost of providing in-state tuition in California was between $222.6 million and $289.3 million; in Texas, it was estimated between $80.2 million and $104.4 million. Von Spakovsky and Stimson note that the policy has other serious flaws, as well:

Granting financial preference to illegal aliens also discriminates against otherwise qualified citizen students from outside the state. Furthermore, states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens act as a magnet for more illegal aliens to come to the state. Arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive, and not supported by the facts.
The core issue, though, is the Constitution and the rule of law. And while the United States welcomes immigrants, it is also a country of laws, and there are limits imposed on those who seek citizenship. States cannot cast aside those laws where they see fit, as von Spakovsky and Stimson explain:

Americans take pride in their heritage and this country’s generous policies regarding legal immigration. Yet, as citizens of a sovereign nation, Americans retain the right to decide who can and cannot enter this country—and what terms immigrants and visitors must accept as a condition of residing in the United States. As mandated by the U.S. Constitution, Congress sets America’s immigration policy. State officials have considerable influence in Congress over the crafting of immigration laws, and they may take steps to help enforce federal law. However, state officials cannot act contrary to a congressional statute.
The Supreme Court has held that “The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.” Unfortunately, in offering illegal aliens in-state tuition in violation of federal law, that is exactly what these states are doing. Now it is up to the President and the Attorney General to enforce that law and take action against these 12 states.

Print | Comments | Forward

Islam in a nutshell.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 8:25 am

Good morning,
This email is just to refresh you memory concerning the threat to Western nations that is posed by Islam.  From my perspective, it is not just the radical Islamist s that pose the threat, but also Islam itself.  Look at the current events in Egypt.  In short order the country will come under Sharia Law.  The treaty between Israel and Egypt will be revoke by the Islamist s.  Then Israel will be threatened by Iran on one side and Egypt on the other.  Then there is Hamas.   Lastly, there are the” mental midgets” in the current administration who constantly throw darts at Israel.  Unless we get a President who understands the world situation, a nuclear war might result from the mess in the Middle East.
XXXXX
Islam in a nutshell. ( nuthouse)???? This, not the Chinese or the Russians, represent the greatest threat to the  world and might be the fulfillment of the book of  Revelation in the Holy Bible. (Lord, come quickly!)

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat…Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest  form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and  military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other  components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country  to agitate for their religious privileges.

When  politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse  societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious  privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works:

As  long as the Muslim population remains around or under  2% in any given country, they will be, for the most part, regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States—Muslim 0.6%

Australia—Muslim 1.5%

Canada—Muslim 1.9%

China—Muslim 1.8%

Italy—Muslim 1.5%

Norway—Muslim 1.8%

At  2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major  recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark – Muslim 2%

Germany—Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom—Muslim 2.7%

Spain—Muslim 4%

Thailand—Muslim 4.6%

From  5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal  (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing  food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase  pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France     – Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden – Muslim 5%

Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%

The  Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago  – Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana   – Muslim 10%

India—Muslim 13.4%

Israel –Muslim 16%

Kenya—Muslim 10%

Russia – Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the  burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues,  such as in:

Ethiopia  – Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic  terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia – Muslim 40%

Chad—Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon –Muslim 59.7%

From  60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims),  sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania – Muslim 70%

Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%

Qatar  – Muslim 77.5%

Sudan—Muslim 70%

After  80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some  State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on going  in:

Bangladesh  – Muslim 83%

Egypt—Muslim 90%

Gaza – Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%

Iran – Muslim 98%

Iraq—Muslim 97%

Jordan—Muslim 92%

Morocco—Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan—Muslim  97%

Palestine—Muslim 99%

Syria—Muslim 90%

Tajikistan—Muslim 90%

Turkey—Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%

100%   will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’—the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be  peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word,  such as in:

Afghanistan – Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%

Somalia—Muslim 100%

Yemen—Muslim 100%

Unfortunately,  peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

‘Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life.  It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and   the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.   — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not  integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

Obama appoints two devout Muslims to  Homeland Security posts. Doesn’t this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus ,  Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant…? Just wondering.

Devout  Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions?

Doesn’t this make you feel safer already??

That should make the US homeland much safer, huh!!

Was it not “Devout Muslim men” that flew planes into U.S. buildings 10 years  ago?

Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13  at Fort Hood ?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish.  Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a  friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The   following is his reply:

Theologically – no . . .. Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia

Religiously – no.  Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah  except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

Scripturally – no. Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam  and the Quran.

Geographically – no.   Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially – no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..

Politically – no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and   destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically – no.  Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran  4:34)

Intellectually – no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically – no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression… Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic .

Spiritually – no. Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

Therefore,  after much study and deliberation. … Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. – - – They obviously cannot be both ‘good’  Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish, it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be or our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

Can a Muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Footnote: The  Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.

SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

THE MARINES WANT THIS TO ROLL ALL OVER THE U.S.

December 6, 2011

My Long Strange Journey to Afghanistan

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 1:22 pm

I was almost sent there as a Soviet soldier. Now I am the EU’s ambassador.

By VYGAUDAS USACKAS

In the spring of 1983, I boarded a train for Kazakhstan along with other Lithuanians drafted into the Soviet military. Once there, we were to receive our orders for deployment to Afghanistan, where the Red Army was bogged down in what was to become one of the most notorious wars of the modern age.

As luck would have it, our commanding officer liked a drink, so once we got to Almaty, then Kazakhstan’s capital, we plied him with as much vodka as poorly paid conscripts could afford. He got so drunk that he passed out and didn’t wake up until our transport to Afghanistan was long gone.

We let him sleep, of course, and we never did get sent to fight the Afghans. We sat out the war, which helped bring down the Soviet Union, in Karaganda, far from the fighting.

Almost two decades later, I was sent to Kabul as the European Union’s ambassador to Afghanistan. Every conversation I have with the Afghan people is informed by the intervening years, when I was on the frontline of Lithuania’s fight for independence from the Soviet Union. It is that experience, fighting for the freedom and future of my own country, that helps me understand where Afghanistan finds itself today, on the precipice of despair.

My country, today among the smallest in Europe, was once among the biggest and richest. From the 13th to 15th centuries, it included in its territory Belarus, Ukraine and parts of what are today Poland and Russia. My father comes from a wealthy landowning family, my mother from simple farming folk. Despite representing different ends of the social spectrum, both families faced fierce persecution when the Soviets invaded in 1940. We had a few years’ respite from the communists while the Nazis were in control during World War II. The Soviets re-occupied Lithuania in 1944.

My father and his parents were on the first train of deportees sent to Siberia, and they spent five years in the frozen labor camps between Kasnojarsk and Irkutsk. My mother was shot twice and has carried the bullets in her chest all her life—as souvenirs, we like to say. The family’s land was confiscated.

During my two years as a Soviet soldier, I had to attend regular political indoctrination sessions, where we were told that the war in Afghanistan was one of “liberation.” We had heard that one before, when the Soviets supposedly “liberated” Lithuania after the war.

After returning home, I studied law at Vilnius University, where I discovered Thomas Jefferson, who swore “upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” To this day I keep a picture of the man who drafted the U.S. Declaration of Independence on my desk as a reminder that freedom is everyone’s right.

In 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated, Lithuania became the first Soviet republic to declare independence. But it was almost two years before Washington recognized Lithuania as an independent country. During that time, my colleagues and I feared that it would all unravel, that freedom was for others but not for Lithuanians. History, it turns out, was on our side.

It is my belief that history will also prove to be on Afghanistan’s side. Now, two decades later, we can look back and understand how painful the Soviet war in Afghanistan was, but we can also see that it helped to undermine the Soviet Union. Afghanistan shook the foundations of the communist giant and enabled the Baltics to become free again. It is an achievement Afghan people can be proud of.

They can also be proud of the achievements of the past 10 years, since the Taliban were pushed from power and the Afghan people once more became masters of their own destiny. Many Afghans tell me that they worry their gains will be lost, given the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO combat troops and knowing that violent insurgency will continue for some time after that. One young man, citing the doomsayers, told me that if Afghans are constantly told their situation is hopeless, eventually it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that they will lose hope.

He has no reason to lose hope, but he does need to be vigilant. Only Afghans can determine the type of country they want for themselves and for their children. In pursuing freedom from tyranny, they have the wholehearted support of the international community, and the goodwill of all right-thinking people.

Mr. Usackas is the European Union’s ambassador and special representative to Afghanistan. He previously served as Lithuania’s foreign minister and its ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom.

 

November 30, 2011

“What the hell are we paying you for?”

Filed under: Uncategorized — Puff @ 11:54 am

Does Obama Think It’s Beneath Him to Be President?

By Michael Goodwin

Published November 30, 2011

| FoxNews.com

The words cut like a knife. “What the hell are we paying you for?” Gov. Chris Christie asked of President Obama.

The New Jersey Republican has a gift for getting to the heart of things, and his broadside against the president over the debt bomb is Exhibit A. His assertion, framed as a question, makes the case against Obama better than anything heard from the actual candidates.

Christie’s decision not to run remains a disappointment, but he is a valuable player who can help sharpen the fuzzy aim of Mitt Romney, the man he supports. Christie’s consistent theme is that Obama has defaulted on the responsibility to provide presidential leadership during a national crisis.

Related Stories

President Heads Out to Swing State to Pitch Payroll Tax Cut, His Re-Election

On Monday, the GOP heavyweight called Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office” for ducking the congressional committee charged with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration about the failure of the super committee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved,” Christie said. “Well, then, what the hell are we paying you for? ‘It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved?’ Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

The questions are rhetorical in that we know what the president has been doing and why. He plays golf and campaigns.

Governing is beneath him.

He doesn’t talk much to members of Congress or his own Cabinet.

They’re beneath him.

His connection to the public consists of speeches before large crowds, and he ducks behind the curtain and into the security bubble as soon as he finishes. 

The people are beneath him.

Warped by a sense of entitlement and self-aggrandizement, Obama refuses to take responsibility for finding practical solutions to problems. He prefers the glory of transformation rather than the roll-the-sleeves-up work of reform.

When he can’t get his way, he appoints a czar and ignores Congress.

Democracy is beneath him.

He could have brokered a deficit deal, but doing so would have demolished his campaign slogan that Republicans are to blame for everything. Any deal would give him ownership of the results, and end the fiction that politics are beneath him.

In fact, he’s all politics, all the time. His idea of bipartisanship is that everybody agrees with him.

He’s so bad at the job that the frequent comparisons to Jimmy Carter are unfair to Carter. The former peanut farmer was a terrible president, but he was at least sincere in his starchy disdain for the country.

Obama professes to really, really like America. He just wants to change everything about it.

And when the country says no thanks, he goes off script and the smears come out. We’re “soft” and “lazy” and “bitter” and “cling” to God and guns.

Much ink has been spilled trying to figure out what went wrong after such a brilliant, history-making campaign got him to the White House. Obama smashed the Clinton machine and dispatched John McCain without breaking a sweat. Mount Rushmore was waiting.

But his first day in office marked the peak, and it’s been all downhill since. Deadenders, after blaming George W. Bush, Senate Republicans and the Tea Party, were forced to turn on their own, especially the economic advisers who are gone, Larry Summers and Peter Orszag. They were the problems.

But there are no hiding places in the Oval Office and, after three years, it’s clear who the problem is.

The campaign of 2008 looked brilliant because campaigns showcase Obama’s one real talent — blaming someone else for blocking the way to Utopia.

On that basis, he got the job. But now we know the terrible truth: Actually being president is beneath him, too.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and a New York Post columnist. To continue reading his column on other topics, including Herman Cain’s campaign, click here.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/30/does-obama-think-its-beneath-him-to-be-president/#ixzz1fCo2DLs0

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.