November 2009 Archives


The American media gave some notice to the massacre of 57 in the Philippines this past week.The New York Times did its usual best at not reporting the real news, as shown by this article that appeared in Saturday's Times.

What is really going on here?

The locale of the massacre is on the Philippine island of Mindanao, which is largely in the hands of Muslims, some of whom play ball with the national parties in the mostly Roman Catholic country. Other Muslims have been waging an insurgent war for decades to make the Philippines totally Islamic, starting with Mindanao.

One of the Muslim clans which rules in the Mindanao province of Maguindanao with the support of the national government did not like the idea of a fellow Muslim mounting a challenge for governor in next year's election. As the challenger's supporters were driving to the provincial capital to file his election certificate in a six-car convoy (which included the candidate's wife), they were ambushed by about 100 supporters of the ruling Ampatuan clan or tribe. Those in the convoy and two other cars that happened to be following the convoy were taken a couple of miles off the road and all 57 captives were brutally maimed and murdered. Army and police alerted to the ambush by witnesses located the massacre site before the Ampatua family had finished the job. Using a provincial government back-hoe, three massive holes in the ground had been dug for the bodies and vehicles and some had been filled and covered, but 22 bodies will still on the ground when the authorities arrived. The attackers had been warned by cell phone and had fled the scene.

Of the 57 victims, about 16 were women and 30 were journalists who joined the convoy to report on the filing of the electoral challenge.

Later, some participants in the massacre, who had pangs of conscience, reported to authorities what had happened, which led to the arrest of the son of the provincial governor.

A Philippine TV station posted a timeline on the internet, which can be accessed by clicking here.

Details are still coming out, as in the Times story linked, which fails to note the Islamic culture of vicious violence that is embedded in Mindanao. The late Harvard historian Samuel P. Huntington, in advancing his theory in the early 1990s that the future would be marked by a "clash of civilizations," specifically referred to the "bloody borders" of Islam. Islam breeds not only a readiness to violence against infidels, but against "the other," including fellow Muslims of a different tribe or sect.

Read the Times piece and think about the brutality involved perpetrated by men who didn't even know their victims, including some who just happened to be in cars behind the official convoy of the challenger. There is what to a westerner appears to be a sick but gleeful use of violence deployed in the massacre, a terrorist warning to all who would challenge the clan that ugly things will happen to them and their followers should they even try.

Was it terrorism, the national government wonders. Of course it was. It is the stock and trade of true Islam that more and more is being revived as the teachings of what the Koran and Mohammed really mean are spread throughout the world by Saudi oil billions.

Mark Steyn is the business of making sensible observations -- often in hilarious fashion -- on the strange turnings of the world.

This weekend he goes even farther, doing investigative reporting that the "lamestream" media fails or refuses to do about the fraudulent global warming scam being perpetrated by Al Gore-type profiteers and governmental organizations eager to expand their reach and control for the riches that are sure to follow.

In this case, Steyn "connects the dots" linking two of the leading global warming "scientist" fraudsters exposed in the internet posting of the damning Unversity of East Anglia emails to a leading "science" reporter for the New York Times Andrew Revkin. The Times leads the chorus in intoning the climate warming dirges of impending world disaster.

The tight little circle of academic "peer-reviewers" who peer-review their "peer-reviewed" colleagues are at the heart of the scam. "Science reporters such as Revkin bestow legitimacy. They support those who create the fraud and benefit those eager to cash in on the fraud for money and power.

Where will it all lead?

As the UN conferees gather in Copenhagen, Steyn quotes the new president of the European Union "an eager proponent of the ecopalypse," who confidently calls 2009 "the first year of global governance."

Global government, huh? I wonder where you go to vote them out of office.

November 28, 2009

CRU's Tree-Ring Circus
Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?

By Mark Steyn at National Review Online

My favorite moment in the Climategate/Climaquiddick scandal currently roiling the "climate change" racket was Stuart Varney's interview on Fox News with the actor Ed Begley Jr. -- star of the 1980s medical drama St. Elsewhere but latterly better known, as is the fashion with members of the thespian community, as an "activist." He's currently in a competition with Bill Nye ("the Science Guy") to see who can have the lowest "carbon footprint." Pistols at dawn would seem the quickest way of resolving that one, but presumably you couldn't get a reality series out of it. Anyway, Ed was relaxed about the mountain of documents recently leaked from Britain's Climate Research Unit in which the world's leading climate-change warm-mongers e-mail each other back and forth on how to "hide the decline" and other interesting matters.

Nothing to worry about, folks. "We'll go down the path and see what happens in peer-reviewed studies," said Ed airily. "Those are the key words here, Stuart. 'Peer-reviewed studies.'"

Hang on. Could you say that again more slowly so I can write it down? Not to worry. Ed said it every 12 seconds, as if it were the magic charm that could make all the bad publicity go away. He wore an open-necked shirt, and, although I don't have a 76" inch HDTV, I wouldn't have been surprised to find a talismanic peer-reviewed amulet nestling in his chest hair for additional protection. "If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it," insisted Ed. "Don't get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. 'Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes out in peer-reviewed studies . . . "

Got it: Pier-reviewed studies. You stand on the pier and you notice the tide seems to be coming in a little higher than it used to and you wonder if it's something to do with incandescent light bulbs killing the polar bears? Is that how it works?

No, no, peer-reviewed studies. "Peer-reviewed studies. Go to Science magazine, folks. Go to Nature," babbled Ed. "Read peer-reviewed studies. That's all you need to do. Don't get it from you or me."

Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you!

Read on. . .


| 1 Comment

COLUMBUS, Ohio November 16, 2009 --Dozens of Christian activists descended on Columbus Monday morning to rally in the name of Rifqa Barry, the central Ohio teenager who converted from Islam to Christianity. Bary fled to Florida during the summer, saying she feared her father would kill her because of her conversion. Would she be another "honor killing" victim in the U.S. or in Sri Lanka, should she be sent back by her family to their Muslim relatives back home?

Bary is now back in Ohio under foster care. Her case is moving through the legal system. A hearing scheduled for Monday was postponed until December 22.

Rally-goers said they are worried about Bary's safety if she is returned to her parents.

"There is the larger question of, 'Is Aamerica going to protect religious freedom at this time and allow this girl to make a choice in conscience to be a Christian, rather than a Muslim," asked Robert Spencer, a co-organizer of the rally.

Spencer was interviewed at the rally about the threat of Islam, which has two aspects of concern to America: violent jihad and stealth jihad. The Fort Hood murderer Major Nidal Hasan is a violent jihadist killing "infidels" in the name of Islam. Those Muslims who constantly seek special privileges for Islamic practices or to silence all criticism of Islam as "racist" are examples of stealth jihadists. The ultimate goal of jihad is universal rule of Islam in the world, including Islamic law replacing the Constitution in the United States.

The interviewer of Robert Spencer in the video clip below is an ex-Muslim Nabil Qureshi. Spencer is one of the most knowledgeable students of Islam in the world.

Political correctness and multiculturalism are major obstacles in the battle to preserve Western civilization.

There is no greater expert on the inadequacy and perils of bringing criminal charges against enemy combatants in civilian courts than Andrew McCarthy. McCarthy is the chief government attorney who successfully prosecuted the blind shiekh behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. As McCarthy recounts in his book Willful Blindness, many collaborators of the blind shiekh were not prosecuted because certain evidence could not be used against them without disclosing national security investigative secrets to the public, including our enemies at large.

McCarthy now details how maliciously wrong and contemptible and dangerous for American security the Obama/Holder decision is to try Khalid Mohammed in a civilian court in New York.

It is dangerous because of the heightened terrorist risk New York City will be exposed to.

It is dangerous because of the risk of exposing national security secrets to the defendants and their terrorist collaborators still on the loose and free to kill Americans.

It is malicious because the only reason for staging this trial in civilian court where it is impossible to limit discovery of national security information is to provide the "transnational left" with material to seek war crime trials in Europe against officials of the Bush Administration who developed and carried out the counterterrorism strategy that kept America safe since 9/11.

The dismantling of the nation's defenses against Islamic terrorism under Obama is already evident in the re-opening of the investigation of the actions of CIA employees who had already been investigated and cleared. It is evident in the Obama Administration instructions forbidding reference to "Islamic terrorism" and "war on terror." It is evident in the President's message at Fort Hood, calling the terrorist murder a "tragedy" and "incomprehensible" when to any unbiased observer it was was the first successful Islamic massacre on American soil since 9/11.

Now the Obama/Holder plan is to go even further and provide our Islamic enemies with information that will, in the words of Andrew McCarthy, "make our enemies more efficient at killing us."

November 16, 2009, 0:00 a.m.

Trial and Terror
The Left gets its reckoning.

By Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review Online

The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.

The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. Plus, the Obama administration is continuing the commission system for other enemy combatants accused of war crimes. If we are going to have military commissions for any war criminals, it is senseless not to have them for the worst war criminals. In sum, there is no good legal or policy rationale for transferring these barbarians to the civilian justice system. Doing so will prompt a hugely costly three-ring circus of a trial, provide a soapbox for al-Qaeda's anti-American bile, and create a public-safety nightmare for New York City.

There is, however, a patent political rationale behind Obama's decision.

Continue reading . . .

Dr. Thomas Sowell of Stanford's Hoover Institution expresses his disgust and exasperation with Obama's betrayal.

Why is he endangering Americans?

The president is worse than a "jackass."

He is a danger to every American.

Deepest Bow Is Reserved For World Opinion

Posted 07:32 PM ET

In the string of amazing decisions made during the first year of the Obama administration, nothing seems more like sheer insanity than the decision to try foreign terrorists, who have committed acts of war against the United States, in federal court, as if they were American citizens accused of crimes.

Terrorists are not even entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, much less the Constitution of the United States. Terrorists have never observed, nor even claimed to have observed, the Geneva Conventions, nor are they among those covered by it.

But over and above the utter inconsistency of what is being done is the utter recklessness it represents.

The last time an attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a matter of domestic criminal justice was after a bomb was exploded there in 1993. Under the rules of American criminal law, the prosecution had to turn over all sorts of information to the defense -- information that told the al-Qaida international terrorist network what we knew about them and how we knew it.

This was nothing more and nothing less than giving away military secrets to an enemy in wartime -- something for which people have been executed, as they should have been.

Secrecy in warfare is a matter of life and death. Lives were risked and lost during World War II to prevent Nazi Germany from discovering that Britain had broken its supposedly unbreakable Enigma code and could read their military plans that were being radioed in that code.

"Loose lips sink ships" was the World War II motto in the United States. But loose lips are mandated under the rules of criminal prosecutions.

Tragically, this administration seems hell-bent to avoid seeing acts of terrorism against the United States as acts of war. The very phrase "war on terrorism" is avoided, as if that will stop the terrorists' war on us.

The mind-set of the left behind such thinking was spelled out in a San Francisco Chronicle editorial, which said that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, will be tried the right way -- the American way, in a federal courtroom where the world will see both his guilt and the nation's adherence to the rule of law."

This is not the rule of law, but the application of laws to situations for which they were not designed.

How many Americans may pay with their lives for the intelligence secrets and methods that can be forced to be disclosed to al-Qaida was not mentioned. Nor was there mention of how many foreign nations and individuals whose cooperation with us in the war on terror has been involved in countering al-Qaida -- nor how many foreign nations and individuals will have to think twice now, before cooperating with us again, when their role can be revealed in court to our enemies, who can exact revenge on them.

Behind this decision and others is the notion that we have to demonstrate our good faith to other nations, sometimes called "world opinion." Just who are these saintly nations whose favor we must curry, at the risk of American lives and the national security of the United States?

Internationally, the law of the jungle ultimately prevails, despite pious talk about "the international community" and "world opinion," or the pompous and corrupt farce of the United Nations. Yet this is the gallery to which Barack Obama has been playing, both before and after becoming president of the United States.

In the wake of the obscenity of a trial of terrorists in federal court for an act of war -- and the worldwide propaganda platform it will give them -- it may seem to be a small thing that President Obama has been photographed yet again bowing deeply to a foreign ruler. But how large or small an act is depends on its actual consequences, not on whether the politically correct intelligentsia think it is no big deal.

As a private citizen, Barack Obama has a right to make as big a jackass of himself as he wants to. But as president of the United States, his actions not only denigrate a nation that other nations rely on for survival, but raise questions about how reliable our judgment and resolve are -- which in turn raises questions about whether those nations will consider themselves better off to make the best deal they can with our enemies.

We used to wonder what Obama was up to. Now we must wonder why.

Once again he is taking action that endangers all American citiziens.

He is putting on trial in an American courtroom the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, who, with his collaborators in prison at Guantanamo, asked to be executed. Andrew McCarthy, who successfully prosecuted those behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, outlines the damage that Obama is doing:

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder -- and his boss [Barack Obama] -- had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution.

The continuing of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign.

It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses -- intelligence sources -- must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence.

That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and -- depending on what judge catches the case -- they are likely to be given a lot of it.

The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see -- in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts.

And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.


Is Mark Steyn the only sane person writing about jihadism who will bluntly describe the insanity he sees and hears in this diversity and multiculturally plagued society?

Who else has the spine to call Army Chief of Staff General Casey "brain-addled" for his incredibly appalling and and morally bankrupt statement that if Fort Hood turns out to be a setback for diversity it would a worse outcome that the massacre itrself?.

Mark quotes his fellow warrior in the fight for freedom of speech in Canada Ezra Levant who made this chilling observation:

Ezra Levant, my comrade in a long battle to restore freedom of speech to Canada, likes to say that the Danish cartoons crisis may one day be seen as a more critical event than 9/11. Not, obviously, in the comparative death tolls but in what each revealed about the state of Western civilization. After 9/11, we fought back, hit hard, rolled up the Afghan camps; after the cartoons, we weaseled and equivocated and appeased and signaled that we were willing to trade core Western values for a quiet life. Watching the decadence and denial on display this past week, I think in years to come Fort Hood will be seen in a similar light. What happened is not a "tragedy" but a national scandal, already fading from view.

Mark in full.

Mark Steyn: A jihadist hiding in plain sight
By MARK STEYN in the Orange County Register
2009-11-13 11:55:01
Shortly after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about how no one would ever hijack an American airliner ever again - not because of new security arrangements but because an alert citizenry was on the case: We were hip to their jive. The point appeared to be proved three months later on a U.S.-bound Air France flight. The "Shoebomber" attempted to light his footwear, and the flight attendants and passengers pounced. As the more boorish commentators could not resist pointing out, even the French guys walloped him.

But the years go by, and the mood shifts. You didn't have to be "alert" to spot Maj. Nidal Hasan. He'd spent most of the past half-decade walking around with a big neon sign on his head saying "JIHADIST. STAND WELL BACK." But we (that's to say, almost all of us; and certainly almost anyone who matters in national security and the broader political culture) are now reflexively conditioned to ignore the flashing neon sign. Like those apocryphal Victorian ladies discreetly draping the lasciviously curved legs of their pianos, if a glimpse of hard unpleasant reality peeps through we simply veil it in another layer of fluffy illusions.

Continue reading . . .

Here is an electricfying bolt of truth from the Chief Rabbi of London:

"Where today in European culture with its consumerism and instant gratification - because you're worth it - where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born?

"Europe, at least the indigenous population of Europe, is dying."

Chief Rabbi.bmp

Selfishness, instant gratification rules.

Europeans too selfish to have children, says Chief Rabbi

"In a head-to-head contest between a moral relativist and a fundamentalist, who wins? The fundamentalist must win because he is sure he's right, and you are not sure he's wrong."

Europe is "dying'' because its secular residents are too selfish to have children, according to Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi.

Published: 12:02PM GMT 05 Nov 2009 Telegraph, London

Lord Sacks: The Chief Rabbi's provocative comments came as he delivered the annual lecture for theology think-tank Theos in central London

The leader of Britain's Jewish community claimed the continent's population is in decline because people care more about shopping than the sacrifice involved in parenthood.

He blamed atheist "neo-Darwinians" for Europe's low birth rate and said religious people of all denominations are more likely to have large families.

The Chief Rabbi, who entered the House of Lords last week, made his comments in a lecture on religion in the 21st century hosted by Theos, the public theology think-tank, on Wednesday night.

Lord Sacks said that faith had survived so far because it could provide answers to mankind's eternal search for meaning in life - unlike the market, the state, science or philosophy, which underpin modern liberal democracies.

He claimed religion could continue to play an important role worldwide in the future, by engaging in debate with scientists, by campaigning on issues such as global poverty or the environment, and by discussing the nature of the common good with humanists.

The Chief Rabbi warned that secular Europe is at risk, however, because its moral relativism can easily be defeated by fundamentalists.

And he claimed that its population is also in decline, compared with every other part of the world, because non-believers lack shared values of family and community that religions have.

Lord Sacks said: "Parenthood involves massive sacrifice of money, attention, time and emotional energy.

"Where today in European culture with its consumerism and instant gratification - because you're worth it - where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born?

"Europe, at least the indigenous population of Europe, is dying."

"That is one of the unsayable truths of our time. We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it.

"Albert Camus once said, 'The only serious philosophical question is why should I not commit suicide?'.

"I think he was wrong. The only serious philosophical question is, why should I have a child? Our culture is not giving an easy answer to that question."

He added: "Wherever you turn today - Jewish, Christian or Muslim - the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.

"The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians.''

Discussing the popular secular idea that there are no absolute moral values, he said: "You cannot defend a civilisation on the basis of moral relativism.

"In a head-to-head contest between a moral relativist and a fundamentalist, who wins? The fundamentalist must win because he is sure he's right, and you are not sure he's wrong."

He said that although the war on terror had been portrayed by Western politicians as a "battle of ideas", there is little hope that Islamists who believe they owe allegiance to God would be swayed by talk of freedom or democracy.

"The place for religion is in civil society, where it achieves many things essential to liberal democratic freedom. It sanctifies marriage and the family and the obligations of parenthood, and it safeguards the non-relativist moral principles on which Western freedom is based.

"It may not be religion that is dying, it may be liberal democratic Europe that is in danger, demographically and in its ability to defend its own values."

Lord Sacks, who has been Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth since 1991, described the modern phenomenon of "angry atheists" as the "intellectual equivalent of road rage".

Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday, November 1, 2009

Obama is "immature," "childish" and a danger to America.

Asked if he had but one question to ask of Obama, what would it be, LImbaugh said, Why are you doing this to America? What is it you don't like about America that you want to inflct this kind of damage on America?




Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from November 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

October 2009 is the previous archive.

December 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.