Birdblog

A conservative news and views blog.

Name:
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, United States

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Romney Strong in Debate but...

Timothy Birdnow The first debate is over and the analysis/spin has now begun. As always I have my own thoughts on the matter and present them as I see them. What can I say? Romney did well, but he did not knock Obama out. He could have; several times Obama was set up for the K.O. and Romney let him escape, largely, I am sure, do to his consultants who told him not to go after the President "personally". This fear of offending the few undecided voters with the truth is another term for cowardice, and is part of why the GOP has not become the majority party in America. The Democrats have no such compunction. As a result, I would call this debate a draw, or perhaps even a narrow Obama victory. Even if one does not believe the polls (and I don't) the best we can say is that it is nip-and-tuck and the President has the natural advantage because he gets free advertising from the media and, well, he's the sitting president. That counts for a lot. Romney needed a big win today. This should have been his best debate, being on domestic issues. Obama is most vulnerable on domestic issues. Romney did well in this, but failed to deliver the knock-out punch. First, let us praise Caesar before burying him. Romney's first challenge was overcoming a duplicitous moderator. Jim Lehrer is a PBS icon and a staunch liberal, and Lehrer tried very hard to move to new topics AFTER any Obama response, thus depriving Romney of rebuttal. Yes, he let the debate get out of hand, but it got outof hand because of it's fundamental structural problems, and those problems stemmed from Jim Lehrer. It was Lehrer who chose the questions, and it was Lehrer who controlled the tempo of the debate. Lehrer seemed happy to allow Obama to filibuster, and quick to move along when Romney refused to allow the President to commit serial lying. Romney did well in this, demanding rebuttal time. One thing that any Republican must learn to do is not allow the media to control the terms of any discussion because they will twist that discussion against them. The GOP should never have allowed Lehrer or other mainstream media types to moderate the debates, but since they did it was up to Romney to prevent them from abusing that privilege. He did it quite well. Romney also challenged the president directly on several occasions, and managed to do so with a look of bemusement - even while being challenged. Obama often scowled or smirked during the debate, and in that regard Romney came across as more adult than Obama, who frequently looked petulent or angry. Romney at one point said Obama was entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts, an oldie but a goodie. But he kept letting Obama off the hook when it came to details - and Obama capitalized on that, saying Romney seemed to always be a man with an unclear plan. The discussion of energy was a great example; Romney had a winning hand here, yet he managed to blow it. He started by saying he was a big fan of "green" energy - something he should never have conceded. Green energy is a boondoggle, a hopeless failure destined to remain a failure. It was DESIGNED to be a failure, because the real goal is not to provide as much energy as we need but to power America down. It was a scam devised to reduce America's energy usage, and Romney did not necessarily have to come right out and say that but his accepting the "green energy" premise automatically damaged his credibility. Romney did tap dance around Obama's failures in energy, but studiously avoided bringing out the big guns. Why didn't he mention the Administration's stoppage of oil drilling in the Gulf, and that the Administration directly disobeyed a court order to resume? The Administration was found IN CONTEMPT OF COURT and yet Romney did not mention this minor detail. Why not? He said "I like coal" (and that will be on a new commercial for Obama I assure you) but didn't explain that the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal - and that Mr. Obama actually said in a speech that he would bankrupt anyone trying to build coal-fired generators. http://www.freemarketamerica.org/web/media-2/blog/76-obama-s-plan-to-bankrupt-and-block-coal-is-doing-fine.html He did not mention that Bill Clinton tied up our clean coal in the Grand Staricase Escalante National Monument and suggest that we should revisit this issue. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/724170/postsHe did touch on Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline, but did not pursue it. And he spoke nary a wit about hydraulic fracturing - something the Administration has been slow to embrace. Romney did mention the fact that our gasoline prices have doubled but did not drive the point home. He could have explained how high fuel prices drive up prices of all things, and how this slows job growth. He blew it here. Romney listened to the advice of the geniuses with their gigantic brains in the GOP who told him to be nice and not attack Obama personally. Telling the truth is an attack, so Romney had to skip over this lightly. When asked about the roll of government Obama said its first duty is to protect the citizenry. Romney had a gift there; he could have spoken about the failure of the Administration in Benghazi, letting American citizens be killed when intel suggested an attack was coming. He failed to discuss Fast and Furious, which led to the deaths of American citizens and a very large number of Mexicans. Those kind of mistakes are inexcusable; Obama was teed up, ready to be sliced. Then Romney flubbed the question as well. He began by pointing to the U.S. Constitution, and I thought a brief lecture on the enumerated powers would be forthcoming. Nope. He began speaking about the Declaration of Independence instead, obviously confusing the two documents. The Declaration has at best a sentimental value to how we perceive the roll of government; its the Constitution that actually defines the roll and scope. The Constitution was a perfect bludgeon for Romney to use as Obama has gone around it repeatedly. Romney should have mentioned Obama's many Czars, which is his way of appointing radicals to power who would not pass Congressional advice-and-consent. In fact, Obama once said he doesn't like the Constitution because it only says what government can't do to people and he wanted a huge expansion of the document so that it would say what government must do FOR people. Romney should have nailed him with this. Romney should have nailed Obama on making an end run around Congress in his war against Khadaffi in Libya, too. Once again, he blew it. Not to say Obama didn't tell some tall tails. I knew he was lying from the very beginning because his lips were moving. Obama reiterated at one point the nonsense about Abraham Lincoln and land grant colleges http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/pbs_alters_transcript_to_hide_obama_gaffe.html and his nonsense about Lincoln and the transcontinental railroad (a project started long before Lincoln). But these gaffes are minor compared with the general arguments being made by Mr. Obama. The problems with the national debt presented an interesting challenge; Obama put forward the unsupported accusation that Romney had no budget plan other than to cut taxes for the wealthy, and Romney was maneuvered into the position of defending himself with "no-uh!" because how does one rebut a sneer? He knew this was coming, and should not have played this game. He should have attacked, attacked, attacked. Obama has spent more money than any President in U.S. history and Romney should have demanded Obama account for this. Romney ended up in the classic "have you stopped beating your wife" defense; he shouldn't have. Romney should have asked why his party refused to pass a budget when they ran Congress, why the budget Obama presented was DOA even among Democrats. He did a good job of pointing out that the President was a staunch opponent of eliminating the Bush-era tax cuts before he supported their repeal, much like John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it". But Romney just never seemed too upset by anything the President did, and he should be; the man is wrecking the country. Therein lies one of Romney's problems; he is a man without passion. He seemed bemused by the whole thing, when he should have shown some anger. Not rage, or off-putting anger, but he should make it clear that he wants to be president because America is driving over a cliff. Obama used that very analogy about the GOP, and Romney could have thrown it back in his face. On healthcare my heart broke; Romney could not possibly dispute the individual mandate as an act of tyranny. This would have been a slam dunk with any other candidate, because they could also point out that the SCOTUS will be firmly in the hands of Obama if he is re-elected and they have already ruled Obamacare constitutional. Oh, and Romney could have pointed out that the Administration argued this was a tax, thus breaking the pledge of not raising taxes. it is, in fact, a HUGE tax. Romney missed his opportunity. The problem with this whole debate was that we did not get a contrast of kind but of degree. Romney and Obama agreed in principle on everything, just not how fast or how far to go. We were treated to two Progressive candidates, two dogs arguing over the same bone. The public may well think the devil they know is better than the devil they don't, and if we are going to get the same programs either way then why not go with the more open Prog? What we did not hear from Romney was that we need a fundamental change. That is absolutely critical, but he failed. Many people understand the mortal peril the Republic faces, but many more only sense it intuitively. What was needed last night was for Romney to put a face on the dangers, to speak to the nagging fears in the public perception. People know something is terribly wrong, but many don't know exactly what it is. Most people understand that the country is spending far more than it can afford, but they don't understand why and they don't understand how long we can continue. Romney never once gave a figure on how much time we have left. He let Obama claim social security is fundamentally sound - a preposterous claim http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html as it will begin going bankrupt next year. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/22/the-social-security-trust-fund-will-start-going-bankrupt-in-2013/ Yet Romney let Obama skate on this ridiculous claim. We are getting a rerun of McCain's lamentable campaign from Mr. Romney. Frankly, Little Bo Peep should have been able to skunk the President, who is unpopular and has done a miserable job. He is lazy an inattentive, too, and Romney never once uttered the word "golf" or spoke about lavish vacations taken by the Bride of Bullwinkle, Michelle. Why not? Obama has tried to paint Romney as the moneybags on the monopoly board, yet Obama is infinitely easier to charicature. How about that Spanish vacation, in which the First Empress booked 600 rooms in a five star hotel? How about Obama's flying in the owner of the pizzaria PI from St. Louis because he had a yen for faux New York pizza (PI isn't even decent St. Louis style pizza). How about the use of private jets by Mooch? Oh, but we mustn't attack Obama personally! Frankly, I'm tired of this. This election is about getting out the base, and it will turn on partisan turnouot, not the last-minute decisions of the few empty headed people who can't make up their minds. Granted, we don't want to scare them off, but we don't want to make their vote the only one that matters. What about the military vote? Obama has been systematically disenfranchising military voters, and Romney never mentioned THAT. It's all about turnout. Mitt Romney didn't screw up, but he didn't bring it either. He has got to up his game. To do that he needs to stop listening to the RINO consultants he has surrounded himself with and start going after Obama. He needs to take pride in the accomplishments of the past. (He never once mentioned Ronald Reagan, not even when Obama said that cutting taxes has been tried in the past and failed; he could have mentioned Reagan and even John F. Kennedy). And he never mentioned Obama's radical associations. Nor the fact that Obama's Administration is lousy with former employees of Goldman Sachs, nor that he has been heavily influenced by George Soros. Obama is the billionaire's candidate, not Romney, and Romney should have made that plain. Mitt Romney is campaigning in a manner that we all feared. If he doesn't come to his senses and change course he will lose - and America will die. It really is that simple. This election is far too important to dismiss as a gentleman's disagreement, a normal part of the election cycle. It's for all the marbles.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Is George Soros Behind the Wave of Violence against American Embassies?

Timothy Birdnow The riots in Benghazi and Cairo have now spilled over into numerous other countries in the Middle East, and the American public - and the Obama Administration - seem puzzled by events. We have attacks throughout the region, in Tunisia, in Yemen, in Lebanon and even outside the region with protests in Indonesia and even India. All over a short Youtube movie made by an amateur and readily available on the internet. Something is amiss here; how did this situation erupt? I don't believe this is a spontaneous uprising, and I have written in previous posts that this has the makings of a dandy October Surprise. The question must be asked; who is doing the surprising? Is it Al-Qaeda? The Administration? Where do the threads lead? The threads lead not to a tapestry of home-grown Jihadists engaging in military operations; they have had plenty of time for that, and they aren't hitting in the usual places where Jihad is ripe. No. These riots started in two peculiar places. First there is Egypt. Let me refresh everyone's memory about Egypt; the "Arab Spring" blossomed in Egypt not through purely local entities but with considerable aid from the West. First there is Wael Ghonim. http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2011/02/11/wael-ghonim-is-a-hero-says-facebook-vp/ Ghonim was a executive at the notoriously liberal Google and very friendly with the folks at Twitter. When protests broke out Ghonim became a hero in Egypt and helped the uprising swell and metastasize by using the computer networking systems he helped run. Interestingly enough, Ghonim the American supported an Islamist for president in the Egyptian elections. http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/05/01/googles-wael-ghanim-supports-islamist-in-egyptian-race/ Interestingly enough, it was Ghonim and Muhammad Elbaradei, who had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (the current rulers of Egypt) who were the two public faces of the Egyptian revolution. Elbaradei sat on the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group along with George Soros. http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/263533/ So, a Google executive and a crony of George Soros fostered a revolution. There are more ties to George Soros. Read this excerpt: "http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html " "A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington." The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED): "The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. " George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations. In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported: "It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month. These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED funded Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground." Soros own ICG http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977 "One of the more significant beneficiaries of George Soros's funding is the International Crisis Group (ICG), a nonprofit organization that makes policy recommendations ostensibly designed to foster goodwill among nations.86 In 2008, the Open Society Institute gave a whopping $5 million to this entity,87 on whose executive committee Soros himself sits.88 One of ICG's leading figures is its Mideast director, Robert Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer who in 2007 was named as a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. Obama has long held Malley, who formerly served in the Clinton administration, in high regard as a policy analyst. Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.89 These views are of a piece with George Soros's “open society” ideal, whose moral relativism leads inescapably to the conclusion that one man's terrorist is indeed another man's freedom fighter¯and, by logical extension, that no nation should be so proud as to be unwilling to conduct diplomacy with its foes. In mid-2008, however, the Obama campaign severed its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that the ICG official had quietly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.90" End excerpt. So, american money and training went into the making of the Egyptian revolution, and behind much of this was - you guessed it - George Soros! But there's more. And the New York Times agrees: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1 "Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/November/20081120122321eaifas0.3440363.html End excerpt. So, what have we learned? The "Arab Spring" in Egypt was fostered and directed by people with close ties to American leftists, particularly George Soros. And the same holds true for the Libyan uprising. Consider: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda#ixzz26UnV1GAM " "In the United States, the offensive was instigated by liberal interventionists: notably three women, starting with Samantha Power, who runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights in Barack Obama's National Security Council. She's an Irish American, 41 years old, who made her name back in the Bush years with her book A Problem from Hell, a study of the US foreign-policy response to genocide, and the failure of the Clinton administration to react forcefully to the Rwandan massacres. She had to resign from her advisory position on the Obama campaign in April of 2008, after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with the Scotsman, but was restored to good grace after Obama's election, and the monster in her sights is now Gaddafi. America's UN ambassador is Susan Rice, the first African-American woman to be named to that post. She's long been an ardent interventionist. In 1996, as part of the Clinton administration, she supported the multinational force that invaded Zaire from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrew dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that, "Anything's better than Mobutu". [...] So much for the instigators of intervention in the US. In France the intervention author is the intellectual dandy and "new philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, familiarly known to his admirers and detractors as BHL. As described by Larry Portis in our CounterPunch newsletter, BHL arrived in Benghazi on March 3. Two days later BHL was interviewed on various television networks. He appeared before the camera in his habitual uniform – immaculate white shirt with upturned collar, black suit coat, and disheveled hair." End excerpt. Hillary Clinton was the third Liberal woman to foster the Libyan war. Bear in mind that Hillary was a devotee of the revolutionary leftist Saul Alinsky and tried to ram a health industry takeover down the throats of America when her husband was President. Samantha Powers has close ties to George Soros. According to this report from Fox Nation: Soros fingerprints all over libyan bombing http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2011/03/23/soros-fingerprints-libya-bombing Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights. Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions." http://frontpagemag.com/2011/rick-moran/libya-and-the-soros-doctrine/ End excerpt. Rice has close ties www.brookings.edu/experts/rices to the leftist Brookings Institute, another Soros funded operation. www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 So the grubby paws of George Soros were all over both the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. I find it very curious that the current mayhem had it's beginnings in Egypt and Libya. Yes, Al Qaeda was in eastern Libya, the source of the revolution that overthrew Khadaffi. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda#ixzz26Un7Udri But where did the funding come from? Where did the rebels get equipment, training, intel, assistance of every kind? Recently George Soros suggested that a collapse of the U.S. economy would spark street violence here in the states. http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/Soros-US-Economy-Violence/2012/01/23/id/425096 Soros should know about such things; in 1998 he manipulated the Russian markets in such a way as to cause a crash that sent the still fragile Russian economy into a tailspin. (Jim Leach, head of the House Banking Committee, called Soros' actions; "one of the greatest social robberies in human history".) Soros made out nicely and managed to cement the neo-fascism of he so admires into place in Russia. He previously did this in Britain where he is known today as "the Man who broke the Bank of England". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/229012.stm And he tried with Germany. http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2010/06/29/soros-wants-to-collapse-german-economy-with-debt/ In fact, Soros has ruined economies over large swaths of the globe, and used their ruin to call for "a third way" between Marxism and Capitalism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html (Strange; the dictator Peron in Argentina call his fascist economic system a "third way".) And Soros tried to do this in 2008 when a small cabal of "mystery investors" pulled $550 billion out of the market in just a couple of hours. It strongly smells of an attempt to collapse the U.S. economy, and it is exactly the tactic that Soros has employed in other countries. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21772 So, we have a plutocrat who is more than willing to overthrow whole national economies, who finances innumerable left-wing action groups and who has had a hand in both the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. I must ask if there is any connection between Soros' involvement in the region just one year ago and the attacks on the U.S. embassies? Why do this? I have been predicting war should it appear Obama may lose, and surprisingly there is now a state of war - although our wayward student Mr. Obama is dragging his feet in calling it such - and in acting as if it were true. Wars are usually game changers for presidents in close elections. NOT for presidents who have fought long, protracted stalemated wars, but ones where the attack is a surprise and the war is fresh. Americans rally behind the Commander-in-Chief at such times, and so wars are quite attractive tools for vote getting. Remember when Bill Clinton launched attacks on aspirin factories in the Sudan on the eve of his impeachment? This is a common strategy. It's definitely a strategy that Saul Alinsky would approve, as I have pointed out in this website. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/alinsky_in_cairo_and_benghazi Obama is steeped in Alinsky-esque tactics. So, one must wonder who started this outrage, and why. Was it Obama himself? I think not; I suspect that there are forces at work seeking to support Obama but the clueless empty chair isn't taking advantage. Some strong action - even if in the end it is meaningless - could win the support of many average Americans. Al Qaeda certainly knows this, and I have little doubt that they do not want Mitt Romney taking charge. Al Qaeda endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, for instance, and have little reason to oppose him now, as he has gutted the U.S. military, pulled out of Iraq, and generally left the U.S. defenseless. Mr. Obama DID kill Osama, but that only fired up the Egyptian crowd who defiantly crowed "we are all Osama!" And Rush Limbaugh wondered on-air if Al Qaeda didn't actually give Bin Laden up to help Obama's re-election chances. There is something to that, although one need not believe that to believe Al Qaeda would want Obama to have a second term. Remember Obama's words to outgoing Russian president Medvedev; "after the elections I'll have more flexibility". Does that not speak to the Islamists as well as the Russians? Remember, too, that Al Qaeda launched attacks in Spain to influence the presidential elections in that country, and it worked. Why not influence them here? And then there is Cloward and Piven, the leftists who propposed the "Cloward-Piven strategy" which calls for overwhelming the system. How does one overwhelm the system? A community organizer would understand this. Certainly attacks on America worldwide would go a long way to doing precisely that. And there is the fear of Obama declaring martial law, something that looms over the entire election in the face of an all-out war with the Islamic world. I have theorized that the Administration would do precisely that. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/reichstag_fire_dry_run Even if the President would not have the nerve, many in his Administration and his fellow travelers certainly would. Coinsider the likes of Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, William Ayers, etc. Power is the first principle to these people. These are devotees of Saul Alinsky, who said: ""The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24 "The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26 " End excerpts. If this bunch believes in the teachings of Alinsky, would they not be willing to foment murder and mayhem? Does anyone doubt that George Soros is capable of inciting the type of violence we have seen sweeping the Islamic world? Does anyone doubt that Cass Sunstein or Van Jones are capable of such things? Who are the puppet masters behind what is happening? I suspect if we look hard enough we'll see the palsied hands of the plutocrats and leftists who are feverishly working to remake America.

Is George Soros Behind the Wave of Violence against American Embassies?

Timothy Birdnow The riots in Benghazi and Cairo have now spilled over into numerous other countries in the Middle East, and the American public - and the Obama Administration - seem puzzled by events. We have attacks throughout the region, in Tunisia, in Yemen, in Lebanon and even outside the region with protests in Indonesia and even India. All over a short Youtube movie made by an amateur and readily available on the internet. Something is amiss here; how did this situation erupt? I don't believe this is a spontaneous uprising, and I have written in previous posts that this has the makings of a dandy October Surprise. The question must be asked; who is doing the surprising? Is it Al-Qaeda? The Administration? Where do the threads lead? The threads lead not to a tapestry of home-grown Jihadists engaging in military operations; they have had plenty of time for that, and they aren't hitting in the usual places where Jihad is ripe. No. These riots started in two peculiar places. First there is Egypt. Let me refresh everyone's memory about Egypt; the "Arab Spring" blossomed in Egypt not through purely local entities but with considerable aid from the West. First there is Wael Ghonim. http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2011/02/11/wael-ghonim-is-a-hero-says-facebook-vp/ Ghonim was a executive at the notoriously liberal Google and very friendly with the folks at Twitter. When protests broke out Ghonim became a hero in Egypt and helped the uprising swell and metastasize by using the computer networking systems he helped run. Interestingly enough, Ghonim the American supported an Islamist for president in the Egyptian elections. http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/05/01/googles-wael-ghanim-supports-islamist-in-egyptian-race/ Interestingly enough, it was Ghonim and Muhammad Elbaradei, who had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (the current rulers of Egypt) who were the two public faces of the Egyptian revolution. Elbaradei sat on the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group along with George Soros. http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/263533/ So, a Google executive and a crony of George Soros fostered a revolution. There are more ties to George Soros. Read this excerpt: "http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html " "A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington." The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED): "The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. " George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations. In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported: "It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month. These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED funded Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground." Soros own ICG http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977 "One of the more significant beneficiaries of George Soros's funding is the International Crisis Group (ICG), a nonprofit organization that makes policy recommendations ostensibly designed to foster goodwill among nations.86 In 2008, the Open Society Institute gave a whopping $5 million to this entity,87 on whose executive committee Soros himself sits.88 One of ICG's leading figures is its Mideast director, Robert Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer who in 2007 was named as a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. Obama has long held Malley, who formerly served in the Clinton administration, in high regard as a policy analyst. Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.89 These views are of a piece with George Soros's “open society” ideal, whose moral relativism leads inescapably to the conclusion that one man's terrorist is indeed another man's freedom fighter¯and, by logical extension, that no nation should be so proud as to be unwilling to conduct diplomacy with its foes. In mid-2008, however, the Obama campaign severed its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that the ICG official had quietly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.90" End excerpt. So, american money and training went into the making of the Egyptian revolution, and behind much of this was - you guessed it - George Soros! But there's more. And the New York Times agrees: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1 "Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/November/20081120122321eaifas0.3440363.html End excerpt. So, what have we learned? The "Arab Spring" in Egypt was fostered and directed by people with close ties to American leftists, particularly George Soros. And the same holds true for the Libyan uprising. Consider: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda#ixzz26UnV1GAM " "In the United States, the offensive was instigated by liberal interventionists: notably three women, starting with Samantha Power, who runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights in Barack Obama's National Security Council. She's an Irish American, 41 years old, who made her name back in the Bush years with her book A Problem from Hell, a study of the US foreign-policy response to genocide, and the failure of the Clinton administration to react forcefully to the Rwandan massacres. She had to resign from her advisory position on the Obama campaign in April of 2008, after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with the Scotsman, but was restored to good grace after Obama's election, and the monster in her sights is now Gaddafi. America's UN ambassador is Susan Rice, the first African-American woman to be named to that post. She's long been an ardent interventionist. In 1996, as part of the Clinton administration, she supported the multinational force that invaded Zaire from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrew dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that, "Anything's better than Mobutu". [...] So much for the instigators of intervention in the US. In France the intervention author is the intellectual dandy and "new philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, familiarly known to his admirers and detractors as BHL. As described by Larry Portis in our CounterPunch newsletter, BHL arrived in Benghazi on March 3. Two days later BHL was interviewed on various television networks. He appeared before the camera in his habitual uniform – immaculate white shirt with upturned collar, black suit coat, and disheveled hair." End excerpt. Hillary Clinton was the third Liberal woman to foster the Libyan war. Bear in mind that Hillary was a devotee of the revolutionary leftist Saul Alinsky and tried to ram a health industry takeover down the throats of America when her husband was President. Samantha Powers has close ties to George Soros. According to this report from Fox Nation: Soros fingerprints all over libyan bombing http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2011/03/23/soros-fingerprints-libya-bombing Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights. Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions." http://frontpagemag.com/2011/rick-moran/libya-and-the-soros-doctrine/ End excerpt. Rice has close ties www.brookings.edu/experts/rices to the leftist Brookings Institute, another Soros funded operation. www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 So the grubby paws of George Soros were all over both the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. I find it very curious that the current mayhem had it's beginnings in Egypt and Libya. Yes, Al Qaeda was in eastern Libya, the source of the revolution that overthrew Khadaffi. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda#ixzz26Un7Udri But where did the funding come from? Where did the rebels get equipment, training, intel, assistance of every kind? Recently George Soros suggested that a collapse of the U.S. economy would spark street violence here in the states. http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/Soros-US-Economy-Violence/2012/01/23/id/425096 Soros should know about such things; in 1998 he manipulated the Russian markets in such a way as to cause a crash that sent the still fragile Russian economy into a tailspin. (Jim Leach, head of the House Banking Committee, called Soros' actions; "one of the greatest social robberies in human history".) Soros made out nicely and managed to cement the neo-fascism of he so admires into place in Russia. He previously did this in Britain where he is known today as "the Man who broke the Bank of England". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/229012.stm And he tried with Germany. http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2010/06/29/soros-wants-to-collapse-german-economy-with-debt/ In fact, Soros has ruined economies over large swaths of the globe, and used their ruin to call for "a third way" between Marxism and Capitalism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html (Strange; the dictator Peron in Argentina call his fascist economic system a "third way".) And Soros tried to do this in 2008 when a small cabal of "mystery investors" pulled $550 billion out of the market in just a couple of hours. It strongly smells of an attempt to collapse the U.S. economy, and it is exactly the tactic that Soros has employed in other countries. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21772 So, we have a plutocrat who is more than willing to overthrow whole national economies, who finances innumerable left-wing action groups and who has had a hand in both the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. I must ask if there is any connection between Soros' involvement in the region just one year ago and the attacks on the U.S. embassies? Why do this? I have been predicting war should it appear Obama may lose, and surprisingly there is now a state of war - although our wayward student Mr. Obama is dragging his feet in calling it such - and in acting as if it were true. Wars are usually game changers for presidents in close elections. NOT for presidents who have fought long, protracted stalemated wars, but ones where the attack is a surprise and the war is fresh. Americans rally behind the Commander-in-Chief at such times, and so wars are quite attractive tools for vote getting. Remember when Bill Clinton launched attacks on aspirin factories in the Sudan on the eve of his impeachment? This is a common strategy. It's definitely a strategy that Saul Alinsky would approve, as I have pointed out in this website. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/alinsky_in_cairo_and_benghazi Obama is steeped in Alinsky-esque tactics. So, one must wonder who started this outrage, and why. Was it Obama himself? I think not; I suspect that there are forces at work seeking to support Obama but the clueless empty chair isn't taking advantage. Some strong action - even if in the end it is meaningless - could win the support of many average Americans. Al Qaeda certainly knows this, and I have little doubt that they do not want Mitt Romney taking charge. Al Qaeda endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, for instance, and have little reason to oppose him now, as he has gutted the U.S. military, pulled out of Iraq, and generally left the U.S. defenseless. Mr. Obama DID kill Osama, but that only fired up the Egyptian crowd who defiantly crowed "we are all Osama!" And Rush Limbaugh wondered on-air if Al Qaeda didn't actually give Bin Laden up to help Obama's re-election chances. There is something to that, although one need not believe that to believe Al Qaeda would want Obama to have a second term. Remember Obama's words to outgoing Russian president Medvedev; "after the elections I'll have more flexibility". Does that not speak to the Islamists as well as the Russians? Remember, too, that Al Qaeda launched attacks in Spain to influence the presidential elections in that country, and it worked. Why not influence them here? And then there is Cloward and Piven, the leftists who propposed the "Cloward-Piven strategy" which calls for overwhelming the system. How does one overwhelm the system? A community organizer would understand this. Certainly attacks on America worldwide would go a long way to doing precisely that. And there is the fear of Obama declaring martial law, something that looms over the entire election in the face of an all-out war with the Islamic world. I have theorized that the Administration would do precisely that. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/reichstag_fire_dry_run Even if the President would not have the nerve, many in his Administration and his fellow travelers certainly would. Coinsider the likes of Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, William Ayers, etc. Power is the first principle to these people. These are devotees of Saul Alinsky, who said: ""The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24 "The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26 " End excerpts. If this bunch believes in the teachings of Alinsky, would they not be willing to foment murder and mayhem? Does anyone doubt that George Soros is capable of inciting the type of violence we have seen sweeping the Islamic world? Does anyone doubt that Cass Sunstein or Van Jones are capable of such things? Who are the puppet masters behind what is happening? I suspect if we look hard enough we'll see the palsied hands of the plutocrats and leftists who are feverishly working to remake America.

Is George Soros Behind the Wave of Violence against American E

Timothy Birdnow The riots in Benghazi and Cairo have now spilled over into numerous other countries in the Middle East, and the American public - and the Obama Administration - seem puzzled by events. We have attacks throughout the region, in Tunisia, in Yemen, in Lebanon and even outside the region with protests in Indonesia and even India. All over a short Youtube movie made by an amateur and readily available on the internet. Something is amiss here; how did this situation erupt? I don't believe this is a spontaneous uprising, and I have written in previous posts that this has the makings of a dandy October Surprise. The question must be asked; who is doing the surprising? Is it Al-Qaeda? The Administration? Where do the threads lead? The threads lead not to a tapestry of home-grown Jihadists engaging in military operations; they have had plenty of time for that, and they aren't hitting in the usual places where Jihad is ripe. No. These riots started in two peculiar places. First there is Egypt. Let me refresh everyone's memory about Egypt; the "Arab Spring" blossomed in Egypt not through purely local entities but with considerable aid from the West. First there is Wael Ghonim. http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2011/02/11/wael-ghonim-is-a-hero-says-facebook-vp/ Ghonim was a executive at the notoriously liberal Google and very friendly with the folks at Twitter. When protests broke out Ghonim became a hero in Egypt and helped the uprising swell and metastasize by using the computer networking systems he helped run. Interestingly enough, Ghonim the American supported an Islamist for president in the Egyptian elections. http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/05/01/googles-wael-ghanim-supports-islamist-in-egyptian-race/ Interestingly enough, it was Ghonim and Muhammad Elbaradei, who had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (the current rulers of Egypt) who were the two public faces of the Egyptian revolution. Elbaradei sat on the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group along with George Soros. http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/263533/ So, a Google executive and a crony of George Soros fostered a revolution. There are more ties to George Soros. Read this excerpt: "http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html " "A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington." The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED): "The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. " George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations. In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported: "It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month. These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED funded Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground." Soros own ICG http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977 "One of the more significant beneficiaries of George Soros's funding is the International Crisis Group (ICG), a nonprofit organization that makes policy recommendations ostensibly designed to foster goodwill among nations.86 In 2008, the Open Society Institute gave a whopping $5 million to this entity,87 on whose executive committee Soros himself sits.88 One of ICG's leading figures is its Mideast director, Robert Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer who in 2007 was named as a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. Obama has long held Malley, who formerly served in the Clinton administration, in high regard as a policy analyst. Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.89 These views are of a piece with George Soros's “open society” ideal, whose moral relativism leads inescapably to the conclusion that one man's terrorist is indeed another man's freedom fighter¯and, by logical extension, that no nation should be so proud as to be unwilling to conduct diplomacy with its foes. In mid-2008, however, the Obama campaign severed its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that the ICG official had quietly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.90" End excerpt. So, american money and training went into the making of the Egyptian revolution, and behind much of this was - you guessed it - George Soros! But there's more. And the New York Times agrees: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1 "Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/November/20081120122321eaifas0.3440363.html End excerpt. So, what have we learned? The "Arab Spring" in Egypt was fostered and directed by people with close ties to American leftists, particularly George Soros. And the same holds true for the Libyan uprising. Consider: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda#ixzz26UnV1GAM " "In the United States, the offensive was instigated by liberal interventionists: notably three women, starting with Samantha Power, who runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights in Barack Obama's National Security Council. She's an Irish American, 41 years old, who made her name back in the Bush years with her book A Problem from Hell, a study of the US foreign-policy response to genocide, and the failure of the Clinton administration to react forcefully to the Rwandan massacres. She had to resign from her advisory position on the Obama campaign in April of 2008, after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with the Scotsman, but was restored to good grace after Obama's election, and the monster in her sights is now Gaddafi. America's UN ambassador is Susan Rice, the first African-American woman to be named to that post. She's long been an ardent interventionist. In 1996, as part of the Clinton administration, she supported the multinational force that invaded Zaire from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrew dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that, "Anything's better than Mobutu". [...] So much for the instigators of intervention in the US. In France the intervention author is the intellectual dandy and "new philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, familiarly known to his admirers and detractors as BHL. As described by Larry Portis in our CounterPunch newsletter, BHL arrived in Benghazi on March 3. Two days later BHL was interviewed on various television networks. He appeared before the camera in his habitual uniform – immaculate white shirt with upturned collar, black suit coat, and disheveled hair." End excerpt. Hillary Clinton was the third Liberal woman to foster the Libyan war. Bear in mind that Hillary was a devotee of the revolutionary leftist Saul Alinsky and tried to ram a health industry takeover down the throats of America when her husband was President. Samantha Powers has close ties to George Soros. According to this report from Fox Nation: Soros fingerprints all over libyan bombing http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2011/03/23/soros-fingerprints-libya-bombing Also, the Soros-funded global group that promotes Responsibility to Protect is closely tied to Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights. Power has been a champion of the doctrine and is, herself, deeply tied to the doctrine's founder. According to reports, Power was instrumental in convincing Obama to act against Libya. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been described by its founders and proponents, including Soros, as promoting global governance while allowing the international community to penetrate a nation state's borders under certain conditions." http://frontpagemag.com/2011/rick-moran/libya-and-the-soros-doctrine/ End excerpt. Rice has close ties www.brookings.edu/experts/rices to the leftist Brookings Institute, another Soros funded operation. www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 So the grubby paws of George Soros were all over both the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. I find it very curious that the current mayhem had it's beginnings in Egypt and Libya. Yes, Al Qaeda was in eastern Libya, the source of the revolution that overthrew Khadaffi. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6801/libya-rebels-gaddafi-could-be-right-about-al-qaeda#ixzz26Un7Udri But where did the funding come from? Where did the rebels get equipment, training, intel, assistance of every kind? Recently George Soros suggested that a collapse of the U.S. economy would spark street violence here in the states. http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/Soros-US-Economy-Violence/2012/01/23/id/425096 Soros should know about such things; in 1998 he manipulated the Russian markets in such a way as to cause a crash that sent the still fragile Russian economy into a tailspin. (Jim Leach, head of the House Banking Committee, called Soros' actions; "one of the greatest social robberies in human history".) Soros made out nicely and managed to cement the neo-fascism of he so admires into place in Russia. He previously did this in Britain where he is known today as "the Man who broke the Bank of England". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/229012.stm And he tried with Germany. http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2010/06/29/soros-wants-to-collapse-german-economy-with-debt/ In fact, Soros has ruined economies over large swaths of the globe, and used their ruin to call for "a third way" between Marxism and Capitalism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/george_soros_and_the_alchemy_o.html (Strange; the dictator Peron in Argentina call his fascist economic system a "third way".) And Soros tried to do this in 2008 when a small cabal of "mystery investors" pulled $550 billion out of the market in just a couple of hours. It strongly smells of an attempt to collapse the U.S. economy, and it is exactly the tactic that Soros has employed in other countries. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21772 So, we have a plutocrat who is more than willing to overthrow whole national economies, who finances innumerable left-wing action groups and who has had a hand in both the uprisings in Egypt and Libya. I must ask if there is any connection between Soros' involvement in the region just one year ago and the attacks on the U.S. embassies? Why do this? I have been predicting war should it appear Obama may lose, and surprisingly there is now a state of war - although our wayward student Mr. Obama is dragging his feet in calling it such - and in acting as if it were true. Wars are usually game changers for presidents in close elections. NOT for presidents who have fought long, protracted stalemated wars, but ones where the attack is a surprise and the war is fresh. Americans rally behind the Commander-in-Chief at such times, and so wars are quite attractive tools for vote getting. Remember when Bill Clinton launched attacks on aspirin factories in the Sudan on the eve of his impeachment? This is a common strategy. It's definitely a strategy that Saul Alinsky would approve, as I have pointed out in this website. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/alinsky_in_cairo_and_benghazi Obama is steeped in Alinsky-esque tactics. So, one must wonder who started this outrage, and why. Was it Obama himself? I think not; I suspect that there are forces at work seeking to support Obama but the clueless empty chair isn't taking advantage. Some strong action - even if in the end it is meaningless - could win the support of many average Americans. Al Qaeda certainly knows this, and I have little doubt that they do not want Mitt Romney taking charge. Al Qaeda endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, for instance, and have little reason to oppose him now, as he has gutted the U.S. military, pulled out of Iraq, and generally left the U.S. defenseless. Mr. Obama DID kill Osama, but that only fired up the Egyptian crowd who defiantly crowed "we are all Osama!" And Rush Limbaugh wondered on-air if Al Qaeda didn't actually give Bin Laden up to help Obama's re-election chances. There is something to that, although one need not believe that to believe Al Qaeda would want Obama to have a second term. Remember Obama's words to outgoing Russian president Medvedev; "after the elections I'll have more flexibility". Does that not speak to the Islamists as well as the Russians? Remember, too, that Al Qaeda launched attacks in Spain to influence the presidential elections in that country, and it worked. Why not influence them here? And then there is Cloward and Piven, the leftists who propposed the "Cloward-Piven strategy" which calls for overwhelming the system. How does one overwhelm the system? A community organizer would understand this. Certainly attacks on America worldwide would go a long way to doing precisely that. And there is the fear of Obama declaring martial law, something that looms over the entire election in the face of an all-out war with the Islamic world. I have theorized that the Administration would do precisely that. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/reichstag_fire_dry_run Even if the President would not have the nerve, many in his Administration and his fellow travelers certainly would. Coinsider the likes of Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, William Ayers, etc. Power is the first principle to these people. These are devotees of Saul Alinsky, who said: ""The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24 "The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26 " End excerpts. If this bunch believes in the teachings of Alinsky, would they not be willing to foment murder and mayhem? Does anyone doubt that George Soros is capable of inciting the type of violence we have seen sweeping the Islamic world? Does anyone doubt that Cass Sunstein or Van Jones are capable of such things? Who are the puppet masters behind what is happening? I suspect if we look hard enough we'll see the palsied hands of the plutocrats and leftists who are feverishly working to remake America.

Monday, August 27, 2012

A False Flag Plot

Timothy Birdnow One of the cornerstones of the Obama power grab has been the definition of political enemies as terrorists. They tried it with the Missouri fusion center report http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/missouri_police_given_chilling.html, with the Department of Homeland Security report, and have tried to re-inforce this numerous times, claiming the attack on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was an act of domestic terrorism spawned by Tea Party "hate speech". The Southern Poverty Law Center has been particularly vociferous in its charges against "right wing hate groups" and attacks on the Tea Party and lovers of liberty - such as Ron Paul supporters, returning vets, pro-lifers, etc. have become standard fare among Democrats. There is method behind this madness; it's intended to create a paradigm from which certain issues can be framed and which can justify certain actions against American citizens. The TSA's disgraceful behavior is but one example justified by the "domestic terrorist" shibboleth. Another is the purchasing of tens of thousands of rounds of hollow point bullets by groups like NOAA and the Social Security Administration. The Department of Homeland Security has pursued this posthaste http://www.infowars.com/war-on-terrors-new-targets-veterans-tea-partiers-anti-fed-activists/ and there has been a concerted effort to claim the attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/dhs/all/ was Tea Party related. (In point of fact the guilty party had been in psyops for the U.S. military years before - suggesting he may be working covertly with the government. There was no shred of evidence he had any relations to the Tea Party.) With the general elections to be held in just a couple of months and with Mr. Obama running neck-in-neck (which, given the abyssmal economy and general malaise of the times really means Mr. Obama is in real trouble) there is need for a game-changer. That game changer must have certain things that it can accomplish; it must impugn the President's political enemies, give the President grounds for strongarm actions against those who oppose him, and perhaps even justify suspending the election - something that a growing number of reasonable people fear Mr. Obama may well try. Here it is. http://www.newser.com/story/152934/obama-assassination-plot-troops-called-selves-fear.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united According to government officials a cabal U.S. soldiers planned to assassinate Barack Obama and overthrow the government of the United States. The comically named group (called Forever Enduring Always Faithful or FEAR) planned to take over Fort Steward, bomb a dam, and assassinate the President. It appears that a sargent was one of the leaders. According to the article: "•Aguigui reportedly funded the militia using $500,000 in insurance and benefit payments from the death of his pregnant wife a year ago. Aguigui was not charged in his wife's death, but the prosecutor told the judge her death was "highly suspicious." •In addition to using the money to buy $87,000 worth of semiautomatic assault rifles, other guns, and bomb components, he also used the insurance payments to buy land for his militia group in Washington state, said the prosecutor." End excerpt. How insidious! He actually used insurance money to buy guns and land! But what does this have to do with the "Domestic Terrorist" business, and how is it intended to empower Obama and his supporters? The article had this to say: "•Aguigui called himself "the nicest cold-blooded murderer you will ever meet." And also a former Republican? Gawker reports that Aguigui appears to have attended the 2008 Republican National Convention as a page. •Militia members wore distinctive tattoos that resemble an anarchy symbol." End excerpt. See, Aguigui was a Republican! Proof postive that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the DHS memo were correct all along! But what of the anarchy symbols? Anarchy is not generally associated with conservatives, Tea Partiers, or any of the alleged evil radical right. Anarchy is generally associated with the socialists, who believe they must destroy the corrupt and depraved society by violence to usher in a new age, a socialist utopia. It is the Occupy Crowd that advocates anarchy, not the Tea Party, not Pro-Lifers, not Ron Paul people. But this could be used much as the Nazis used the Reichstag fire to justify the creation of the Third Reich, and one must wonder if there really was such a cabal as FEAR at all, or was this a black op, the creation of a bogus terrorist group by order of the Commander in Chief. This has such drama; a right-wing extremist attempt to murder our brave and noble President shortly before the elections (why didn't they just wait to see what happened in November?) This can stoke sympathy for the President, justify a crackdown on the Tea Party, perhaps even justify suspending elections or suspending the transition of power. Interestingly enough, this very actions was predicted. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46516 According to Doug Hagmann: "According to this insider, the Trayvon Martin case is just the tip of the iceberg. “You certainly don’t have to be a genius to understand how Obama and his team played the public on this issue, and it’s far from over. But that’s not the sole element of what we’ll see this summer.” “Remember the shots fired at the White House not too long ago?” asked my source. There was an element of outrage that was squandered, according to ‘team Obama.’ In fact, Obama and some of his closest advisors, especially [Valerie] Jarrett were incredibly angered that the outrage was seemingly tempered. It should have been an opportunity to use our force against the Tea Parties, the gun clingers, the Constitutionalists, and everyone who has complained about Obama. DHS should have stepped in right then, and used that event to start the clampdown,” this source stated about White House comments. This source stated that from that point on, the DHS must become more responsive and aggressive. Watch for a false flag event against Obama or his family, something that will outrage ‘black America.’ It will be carefully choreographed, but executed in a manner that will evoke the ugliest of reactions and create racial chaos in this country that will make the Watts riots, 1968 and the Rodney King riots pale in comparison. That’s the third leg in this.” End excerpt. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see more of this as the election draws near, and probably something quite shocking will emerge. Don't believe any of this; it's theater, a plot indeed, but not one by "right wing nutjobs" but rather by the very people who will then step in to "save America". If these soldiers can be used to justify tightening the screws they will be. Doubtless this is something that will loom quite large in days to come. Strange how this story broke when the Republicans were holding their convention... The Republic faces dangers like never before in its history. The checks and balances no longer work, because for too long timid men cowered in the face of the tyrants. Republicans want nothing more than to bend their knees to keep what power they have, and the Courts were long ago overrun by liberal ideologues. There is nothing standing in the way of tyranny but the American citizens. This is aimed at stopping the ones who get it - and who will resist. It's been the Obama Administration plan all along. "

Our SimCity government

Paul Driessen The similarities between the popular SimCity game and our increasingly unpopular governments are uncanny … and troubling. My op-ed this week with climatology professor David Legates explores this disturbing trend. As it observes, the SimCity game has intruded into our real world. In fact, it is being replicated in our real world, at the local, state and especially federal level. Far too many politicians, planners, bureaucrats and judges see themselves as intellectually gifted rulers, who know what’s best for us citizens. They treat communities, businesses, families and people like let’s-pretend virtual realities in a SimCity, SimState or SimNation – helpless, ill-prepared to make our own decisions, and in need of constant, pervasive “guidance.” What America needs today is LibertyCity – as a game to teach the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and free and responsible citizenship. Indeed, we need LibertyCity in reality too – at all levels of our society and government, to replace the nanny state that seeks to rule every aspect of our lives and livelihoods. Governments treat us like Sim-citizens: with fewer rights for us and no accountability for them Paul Driessen and David Legates Back in 1983, during the information processing Cretaceous Period, Maxis developed a new genre of educational, yet entertaining computer games. The latest version will be released next year. SimCity allows players to build virtual cities by zoning land, adding buildings to enhance the needs and desires of Sim-citizens, adjusting tax rates, building power and transportation networks, and making other municipal decisions. Players don’t win or lose. They employ their knowledge of city life and urban planning to determine whether their SimCities thrive – or become uninhabitable urban deserts. Sim-citizens are essentially helpless. They don’t populate your city unless you, the benevolent dictator or mayor, give them what they need and want. You can zone land residential, but citizens cannot live there unless you create commercial land nearby, so that a supermarket can be built. They can’t get to the supermarket until you build a road. Now they are happy but have nowhere to work. So you zone more commercial land and create jobs, by establishing businesses, highways and rail lines. To keep them happy, you, the all-seeing, all-knowing mayor, build stadiums and parks. And on and on it goes. The beauty of SimCity is threefold. First, players get to be overseers of growing virtual communities, calling the shots and having the citizenry respond to their decisions. They really can tell their Sim-citizens, “If you are successful, it’s because I invested in roads and bridges, and created this Sim-system that allowed you to thrive. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. I made it happen!” Second, the lives of every Sim-citizen are completely dependent on the actions of the players/mayors, who succeed only if they are intelligent, thoughtful and responsible. However, no matter what happens, the virtual citizenry can’t assemble, protest or vote them out of office. Third, even if players make monumental mistakes, create a fetid urban cesspool, or even kill off their virtual populations, they just start over, without accountability or penalty. After all, it’s only a game. The problem with SimCity game theory is likewise threefold. First, it has intruded into our real world. Far too many politicians, planners, bureaucrats and judges see themselves as intellectually gifted rulers, who know what’s best for us citizens. They treat communities, businesses, families and people like let’s-pretend virtual realities in a SimCity, SimState or SimNation – helpless, ill-prepared to make our own decisions, and in need of constant, pervasive “guidance.” They live in a theoretical world, in which their actions have only hypothetical consequences on virtual people. Instead of limited government focused on real needs, problems and priorities, we now have massive, intrusive government deciding and regulating every facet of human life and behavior. Instead of free, responsible people making free, responsible decisions, so long as they do not harm others, supposedly omniscient, benevolent governing elites seek to control energy and transportation systems; what people may eat, drink and even say; what kinds of cars they may drive, toilets they may flush, and shopping bags they may use; even what kinds of views they may hold if they want permission to open a business. Government of, by and for the people has almost “perished from the Earth.” Instead, government by fiat presents us with 2,700-page laws drafted by legislators who “know what’s good for us,” coercively enacted so that “we can learn what’s in them” – and turned over to unelected, unaccountable, equally omniscient and benevolent technocrats who convert the laws into 27,000 pages of new regulations and 270 new criminal sanctions. Second, SimCity methods too often substitute for the real world. Our ruling elites increasingly use computer models to create virtual reality energy, economies and businesses, and “observe,” “measure,” forecast and govern the real world outside their windows. Too often, the models are based on erroneous or politicized assumptions, compounded by outdated or incorrect data – and yet are used to produce GIGO analyses and conclusions that determine and justify agendas, decisions, taxes, laws and regulations. If predictive models say we are depleting our oil and gas reserves, we should ignore new exploration, drilling and production technologies that are dramatically increasing petroleum output. If hockey stick models say rising carbon dioxide causes catastrophic global warming, we should discount actual global temperature trends and past weather and climate events of equal magnitude and duration. If Keynesian models conclude that higher taxes and deficit spending will bring prosperity, then 8.3% unemployment and 1.7% growth simply mean we need even more taxes, regulations and “stimulus.” A spinoff program, SimEarth, purported to model the climate and allow players to regulate climate conditions by adjusting atmospheric gases, continental drift, reproductive rates of various life forms, topography, solar output and other factors (which is more than most IPCC climate models consider). Players could also create oxygen generators and other technologies, to fine-tune their planets’ atmosphere, climate and evolutionary processes. An unfortunate legacy of SimEarth is the fallacy that humans really can centrally-manage our Real Earth’s climate – a belief that is seen clearly in today’s energy and climate change policies and the almost religious belief in climate model prognostications. Third, under SimCity rules, politicians and bureaucrats steadily acquire, and constantly seek, more power and control over the businesses, lives and livelihoods of more people. They seem to forget that Americans are not virtual Sim-citizens, but real breathing people, with real families, businesses, needs, homes, hopes and dreams that are buffeted, punished and sometimes destroyed by excessive laws and regulations. Worse, the ruling classes too often exempt themselves from the rules and penalties they inflict on everyone else. They want decision-making power, the right to spend billions in taxpayer money, the authority to impose regulations and penalties on companies and citizens. But they refuse to accept responsibility, conduct due diligence or be held accountable when they make monumental blunders that cost people their businesses, livelihoods, homes or lives. To them, it seems, it’s only a game. Thus, members of Congress impose Obamacare but can’t be bothered to pass a budget or rein in runaway bureaucracies. Energy Department officials responsible for Solyndra and other “green” bankruptcies keep their jobs and keep pouring billions of OPM (other people’s money) into new crony-corporatist schemes. An ATF official deeply involved in the “Fast and Furious” debacle that got agent Brian Terry killed goes on “extended leave” but keeps his six-figure salary, fattens his government pension and double-dips at J.P. Morgan. The modelers and scientists implicated in ClimateGate and other highly questionable activities get more billions to advance an hydrocarbon eradication agenda. And on and on it goes. When playing SimCity, it’s always tempting to seek more control – to be able to say to Sim-citizens: “You need to live next to that industrial complex” or “You have to move into that 10-story housing complex that has apartments of 800 square feet per family.” It worked under communism; it should be an option in the game. For that matter, SimCity dictators should be able to raise Sim-citizen taxes and hire jack-booted thugs to rough up Sim-recalcitrants who refuse to obey. Claiming victory would be so much easier, even if the outcome was a dismal failure – just as under real world totalitarian governments. The United States cannot and must not operate under SimCity rules. It is the people – not the government – who innovate, improve the world, care most deeply about their fellow citizens. It is the people who create businesses and jobs, provide goods and services, and allow free, responsible, hard-working fellow citizens to achieve more than they ever could on their own. As President Obama suggested, government can and should help facilitate this. But too often it throws obstacles in the way, and functions as a not-so-benevolent SimCity dictator. What we need is a LibertyCity game. It would be like SimCity, and players would still be mayors, but citizens would enjoy and be responsible for government of, by and for the people. Make taxes oppressive, and you get replaced. Squander money by padding the pockets of your friends, and you land in jail. Invest in fly-by-night enterprises like Solyndra or Fisker Automotive, and you are out of office. Turn into a heavy-handed dictator, and you get kicked out of your own game, and the 13-year-old down the street takes over. Maybe then both you and the kid would learn how government is supposed to work. In fact, we need LibertyCity in real life too – right here, once again, in the United States. Maybe in 2013, we can play LibertyCity, instead of laboring four more years under arrogant SimCity centralized government control. Actually, that’s what the November 6 election is really all about. ___________ Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. David Legates is a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware.

Forgetting Bad War Memories – Possible Today?

Jack Kemp In “Jarhead,” the classic book about Gulf War I, a group of Marine veterans travel to Michigan to attend the funeral of one of their former war buddies named Troy who died in a civilian automobile accident. With the Marines drinking constantly, only slowing down hours before they had to lift Troy’s casket at the cemetery, they decide a day after the funeral to visit the favorite bar of their late buddy. The story then tells how one of the Marines then voiced is anguish to a female bartender, saying “that if she could get him so f***ed up that he forgot Troy was dead, he’d give her $100.” The problem is that even if the bartender had some drink strong enough to make the Marine forget his buddy’s death, its effects wouldn’t last into the next day. But that young Marine’s wish, of wanting to quickly (or instantly) overcome his grief, is shared by every sober doctor and psychologist who works to relieve Post Traumatic Stress, be it military and/or civilian in origin. Researchers studying the chemical composition of memory processing, especially repeatedly occurring bad memories that cause frequent nightmares, have yielded some results, small victories. A January 2012 article at NPR’s website explains: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/16/144672190/ending-nightmares-caused-by-ptsd?sc=fb&cc=fp BEGIN QUOTE Scientists wanted to find out the reason why people with PTSD can't sleep and dream normally. One theory comes from Matthew Walker, a psychology researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. His particular interest lies in rapid eye movement, or REM. It's the time during sleep when a lot of dreaming occurs. It's also a time when the chemistry of the brain actually changes. Levels of norepinephrine — a kind of adrenaline — drop out completely. REM sleep is the only time of day when this happens. That struck Walker as a mystery. "Why would rapid eye movement sleep suppress this neurochemical?" he asks. "Is there any function to that?" Walker found that in healthy people, REM sleep is kind of like therapy. It's an adrenaline-free environment where the brain can process its memories while sort of stripping off their sharp, emotional edges. "You come back the next day, and it doesn't trigger that same visceral reaction that you had at the time of learning." SECTION OMITTED Walker's theory suggests that in people with PTSD, REM sleep is broken. The adrenaline doesn't go away like it's supposed to. The brain can't process tough memories, so it just cycles through them, again and again. END QUOTE A “diversion” here from the article’s discussion will explain a relationship not often mentioned in pieces for a general readership, but significant as background information. Ironically, this same adrenaline is what the Mahdi militia used to raise their bodies and psyches to superhuman levels by way of ingesting large amounts of American epinephrine pills at the battles of Fallujah and some other clashes with U.S. Forces in Iraq. These pills kept the Mahdi insurgents hearts pumping and fighting even after their arms could no longer hold the weapons shot away from them. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001531.html Of course that meant American soldiers and Marines, whether facing the Mahdi militia or other fighters, had to develop their own heightened level of adrenaline-induced awareness to overcome them, whether the insurgents were taking these pills or not. Returning to the topic of the NPR article’s discussion of the brain’s processing of hyper-vigilant traumas, it further notes what doctors have recently found to regulate a brain’s nighttime adrenaline-induced hyper state: BEGIN QUOTE So, what if you could make the adrenaline just go away? Enter prazosin.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000625/ Pfizer Inc. introduced the drug under the brand name Minipress in the 1970s to treat high blood pressure. Dr. Murray Raskind http://www.va.gov/providerinfo/PUGETSOUND/detail.asp?providerid=1756, a VA psychiatrist in Seattle, says the drug, now generic, can cost anywhere between 5 and 15 cents. And, actually, it's not terribly effective as a blood pressure medication, he says. But what prazosin does do is make people less sensitive to adrenaline. About a decade ago, Raskind starting giving prazosin to some of his PTSD patients, including one Vietnam War veteran. "He had this recurrent nightmare of being trapped by the Vietcong forces in a landing zone and having his best friend killed in front of his eyes by a mortar round," Raskind says. After a few weeks of treatment with prazosin, the veteran came in for a follow-up appointment. Raskind says the veteran told him that he wasn't sure the medication was working. He was still having the same dream over and over — just about something else. He told Raskind that in the new dream he was in his fifth grade classroom and there was a test. If he didn't pass the test, he wasn't going to be promoted to the next grade. But he never even got the assignment. "I said, 'That's my nightmare!' " Raskind says. Indeed, the veteran's new dream was the stress dream of a healthy brain trying to work things out, Raskind says. This year, the VA is expected to finish up its trial for prazosin. It's already prescribing the drug to about 15 percent of its PTSD patients. Raskind, of course, would like to see that number rise. END QUOTE As positive and promising as prazosin is, notice that the article still says the Veterans’ Affairs/Administration doctors thought it was only appropriate for one in seven cases of PTSD under their care. Without saying it directly, we are being told that despite our modern high tech computer and drug era research, we are still only in the early days of understanding human memory processing. The situation is somewhat analogous to just after Pasteur developed the germ theory – but before others had developed the quinine cure for malaria and the streptomycin cure for tuberculosis. But prazosin is one of the first effective ways of managing – and possibly curing – PTSD. Before finishing, another well known old “home remedy” for lowering blood pressure and stress is definitely worth mentioning. It is one that WebMD states has nearly twenty-five years of research showing its effectiveness in lessening anxiety and high blood pressure. http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets Technically called “pet therapy,” it is simply owning a dog. American soldiers at distant battlefields have adopted stray dogs for generations. A recent book, “From Baghdad with Love” and its sequel, “From Baghdad to America,” http://www.amazon.com/From-Baghdad-America-Marine-Rescued/dp/1602397430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346028363&sr=8-1&keywords=from+baghdad+to+america tell of how a stray pup kept one Marine officer in touch normal life and “his humanity” - even in the chaos of fighting house to house in Fallujah. Further evidence of how effective this “home remedy” can be was recently brought to my attention when YouTube presented me with a video recommendation based on my past searches. In it, a former U.S. Airman stationed in the Middle East credits a shelter dog with saving his life after his Stateside PTSD developed. If you watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTyEcBi_n4&feature=g-vrec and listen closely, you will hear the significance of what he is saying. The dog doesn’t judge him. The serviceman feels he can obviously tell his concerns to the dog without worrying that the animal will repeat his stories and embarrass him in front of military and civilian friends, and his family. The serviceman appears to have initially judged himself as not capable of companionship with others after returning Stateside, yet his new dog broke through that self-fulfilling (and self-defeating) thought pattern, unconditionally accepting him and leading him to believe that whatever happened during his deployment overseas, he is still able to be a companion to this dog. And that new reality lead to his believing he could once again be a companion to his friends and family. The term “home remedy” has gained a double meaning here. The dog has made the Airman’s residence a home once again – and that is a significant initial step towards a remedy. There are other, more sophisticated accounts of dealing with Post Traumatic Stress way beyond the scope of this small article - and of this writer. What is presented here just touches the surface of this issue and yet will hopefully be of benefit to some readers. I should have more to say next month concerning two books on PTSD, one published and one about to be published, both written by professionals who also served in combat zones and later worked assisting other veterans for many decades.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

The Neurobiology of Obama Supporters

Timothy Birdnow Medical researchers have discovered the key to the electoral success of Barack Obama and other Democrats. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-brain-gullibility-center.html "The ventromedial area of the prefrontal cortex of the brain—a softball-sized lobe in the front of your head, just above your eyes—appears to be responsible for allowing you to pause after hearing or reading something and consider whether it's true, according to a study published recently in the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience."

Global Warming Alarmism - Then and Now

Timothy Birdnow Fear of Global Warming in the Arctic - in 1947! http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/1947-international-agency-needed-to-stop-the-arctic-meltdown/ Here is the 1947 article: "ARCTIC PHENOMENON Warming Of Climate Causes Concern LOS ANGELES, May 30. – The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climatic phenomenon was discussed yesterday by Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a noted Swedish geophysicist at the University of California Geophysical Institute. A mysterious warming of the climate was slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, Dr. Ahlmann said, and, if the Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland ice cap should reduce at the same rate as the present melting in the Arctic, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions and people living in the lowlands along their shores would be inundated. He said that temperatures in the Arctic had increased 10deg. Fahrenheit since 1900—an "enormous" rise from a scientific standpoint. The waters in the Spitsbergen area in the same period had risen three to five degrees in temperature and one to one and a half millimeters yearly in level. "The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study the conditions on a global basis," he added. He pointed out that whereas in 1910 the navigable season along western Spitsbergen lasted three months it now lasted eight months." End excerpt. This at a time well before the sharp rise in carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere. Please note; this Dr. Ahlman of the UC Geophysical Institute is calling for an international governing body. It seems the media was just as alarmist and hysterical then as now. And it seems that they were just as wrong-headed to push apocalyptic change. So if global warming is caused by Man, what caused the global warming that Dr. Ahlman worried about? Cookfires and human flatulence?

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Obamarica; Ripe for Reichhood

Timothy Birdnow The TSA has been showing up at Republican campaign events. Yes, the Transportation Safety Administration has been sending armed agents to campaign events run by the opposition party. According to this article at Conservative HQ: "About 18 months ago, TSA chief John Pistole (pictured, with President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano) told USA Today he wanted to "take the TSA to the next level," building it into a "national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts." Since that time, the TSA has been showing-up at all kinds of locations, mostly transportation-related mind you, and conducting VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) sweeps, which target public transit related places." [...] "What is truly remarkable about these security sweeps, Servatius noted, is that they don't just involve federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The TSA brings in squads of bureaucrats from state and federal agencies as well -- everything from transportation departments to departments of natural resources -- and they don't need a specific threat or probable cause to do it, reporters have been told. Having the TSA cover train stations, bus terminals and other transportation-related facilities has a certain big government logic to it, even to those (like us) who think the mere existence of the TSA is a gross invasion of privacy and a violation of the Constitution. However, swarming the campaign events of the opposition party -- particularly when the candidate has questioned the need for the TSA -- is another matter. The TSA is not the apolitical organization the Secret Service strives to be. It is a thoroughly politicized bureaucracy fighting to expand its reach, and a few Republicans in Congress are all that have stood in its way." End excerpt. Couple this with the gargantuan amount of ammunition being ordered by such agencies as NOAA and the Social Security Administration (against all logic), and the recent war gaming of a military action against "Tea Party Terrorists", the drawing up of "refugee camp" plans throughout the country, the National Defense Authorization Act giving Obama the power to round up U.S. citizens and detain them indefinitely, etc. and you have a chilling political atmosphere. This better befits the Third Reich than America. There are some who claim we are in the planning stage to suspend the elections. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46516 It's happened before in world history. There is no reason to believe America is somehow immune to falling under the heel of a dictator. What has prevented it here is the U.S. Constitution and an armed, informed public willing to defend that Constitution. We still have the document but nobody pays it any mind, and the public really doesn't care about defending it - or even knows what is in it. This country is ripe for Reichhood.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

The Science of Rape Pregnancy Statistics

Timothy Birdnow Representative Todd Akin caused a firestorm with his rape comments, particularly his use of the phrase "legitimate rape" and his claims (he said doctors have told him this, not that he had read the literature or done the research himself) that a woman's body can "shut it down" meaning they are less apt to get pregnant. The firestorm over this has been a glittering jewel of ignorance on display, as Akin's comments have been paraphrased in every conceivable fashion. People claim Akin said a woman CANNOT get pregnant, or that he said rape is illigitimate in most cases, etc. Most people did not actually read his statement. One of the criticisms being made everywhere of Akin is that, according to research, 5% of rape victims get pregnant - a higher percentage than women who engage in consensual sex. Akin has been called an idiot by many, the claim being that a simple Google search shows how terribly wrong Akin's comment was. I decided to repeat the experiment; I Googled it. Yes, the search results were chock full of publications, many including science journals, that verified the 5% number. But when I tried to find the research that gave that 5% number I kept coming back to the same New England Journal of Medicine paper by Melissa Holmes et. al. "Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women". This number which is now accepted as Gospel on the internet has come entirely from one 1996 research study. This makes no sense; I know that other researches must have tried to duplicate the results, yet there is nothing to be found on the internet. I even tried switching to several science search engines and found nothing. Zip. Only this study, and a study of women raped in Yugoslavia conducted by the U.N. (and I give the U.N. about as much credibility as Jerry Springer). Nothing on Google suggests that the authors of the NEJOM piece were particularly biased, but that proves nothing. I find this quite disturbing. Also, I could only gain access to the abstract for this paper, the "meat" of it being behind a pay wall. I wanted to see the methodology employed. Here is the abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8765248 The abstract describes the methodology thusly: "STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes." End excerpt. So, this was a survey of women who had reported being raped. My question; how did this survey actually determine the particulars? Did they differentiate types of rape, such as staturory? How did they determine if the women were telling the truth? I imagine they adopted the "women do not lie about these things" outlook, but a realistic person knows that, yes, women sometimes do lie about such things (as do men) and while from a legal or moral or spiritual position we should give the benefit of the doubt to the woman, in a scientific research study we need stricter controls to actually determine what is true. I looked at another study done by Dr. Holmes; the abstract stated that the participants were surveyed over the telephone. If she used that methodology there, did she (and PhD's Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG, Best CL.)use it here? How accurate is a survey conducted over the telephone, especially about so intimate and personal a subject? Here are the results as determined by Holmes et al: "RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion. CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization." End excerpt. I find this high level of confidence to be dubious. Why aren't there corroborating studies online? Did the study verify the actual dates of the rapes and calculate the pregnancy term to verify that the woman became pregnant from the rape? Were DNA test results checked where available? This does not seem to me to be good science. I may be wrong; as I said, I couldn't get past the pay wall. Also, I may be missing out on a good deal of the literature. But if that is the case, it is damning to the search engines; why is it so difficult to find this literature on the internet? We know Google is a left-wing operation, as is Yahoo, but still I can find things on them that Google or Yahoo do not want to make generally known. They bury things but do not censor them usually. The fact that this was about the only study - and that I couldn't find any others even using research search engines - suggests that this is the only one of its kind. It's as though the entire global warming debate hinged only on the 2007 IPCC report. Nobody would accept that, yet it is being accepted here. I suspect we have not the foggiest idea of how many women get pregnant with a rapist's child. Over at Tea Party Nation Judson Phillips - a former prosecutor - admitted that his experience was that few rape victims became pregnant. In his experience, that is. He was not making a blanket statement but simply stating his personal experience. Cortisol and adrenelin disrupt the harmonal balance during a traumatic incident like a rape, and the hormonal balance is often critical to conception. Also, in single incidents the rapist may find it difficult to actually penetrate into the woman's womb. Of course, a captive woman may be repeatedly penetrated and each act increases the chances of pregnancy. In the cases of such things as incestuous rape the woman is violated not just one day but over the course of months or even years. Make no mistake about it; women do get pregnant as a result of rape. I am not trying to suggest otherwise, nor was Todd Akin. And Akin should have had the sense to avoid this portion of the comment as it was not germain to the central point (which he made) that the baby was not at fault for the crime. As for "legitimate rape", the source of the firestorm? There have been instances - many of them - of women who have falsely accused men of this heinous crime. Consider the case of Brian Banks http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/brian-banks-accuser-money-wanetta-gibson.html, who spent five years in prison due to a false rape charge (the alleged victim friended him on facebook and asked for his forgiveness while he languished in prison). Consider the case of Jawara Brockett and Darrell Dula, who were prosecuted by Brooklyn authorities despite a recantation by the victim http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/brooklyn-das-office-woman-rape-accusation-jawara-brockett-darrell-dula_n_1434981.html. Or what of William McCaffrey who spent three years on a false charge? http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/woman-recants-false-rape-charge-freeing-man-after-3-years-in-prison/ What of the Duke Lacross players? Yes, women DO occasionally lie about such things. And this is "illigitimate rape" from a statistical standpoint. So too is a statutory rape charge when the boy is 17 and his girlfriend 15. He has broken the law and should be punished, but this incident should not be lumped into the "legitimate rape" category. But we no longer worry about what is true in America but what sounds kind. Akin made the fatal error of sounding hard-hearted. During the 1990's many feminists were arguing (among themselves) that the use of accusations of rape empower women. "All sex is rape" according to feminist Andrea Dworkin, and if that is the case any sexual activity opens a man to accusations of rape. http://reason.com/archives/2005/04/19/womans-hating Now Dworkin was a radical and hate-filled woman, and does not represent the majority of women. But it does represent a certain viewpoint, one that was quite active during the 1990's (until Bill Clinton destroyed it.) Remember the accusations against Clarence Thomas? Anita Hill followed him from job to job, and then accuses him of sexual misconduct. And we were supposed to believe "women don't lie about this". As I say, most don't. And make no mistake; rape is a terrible, evil crime. But we must return to the basic question; was Todd Akin wrong? I don't think we can answer this question in any meaningful way. But I don't think we can claim unequivocally he is wrong. But he was unsympathetic. In the touchy-feely postmodern America that is far worse.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com