#2
Just like you've heard dozens and hundreds of staements on late night talk radio about how the US government was behind 9/11. But nothing about Pakistan or other governments that actually installed the Taliban in Afghanistan.
#7
At the bottom of the linked article is a link to the original source--a wordpress blog.
I don't know if the original poster was trying to be funny, or just had a high fever. But the comments at the blog... it is sad to see the number of people willing to believe this.
#8
they already beamed this story to their target audience's heads, with narration by art bell. Printing it is a security risk as the CIA will find out. Bad form
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/05/2009 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The population of crazytown continues to pour forth. I never knew this many people were that inclined to mass lunacy. Thanks Al Gore!
I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the singular accomplishments of the internet is to make the "deep end" just grow deeper every day.
Insults against West Point by MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews are part of a pattern of left-wing denigrations against Americans serving in uniform. It's a motif indicative of an anti-military mind-set that is as dangerous as it is rude.
Discussing the West Point audience's response to President Obama's speech about Afghanistan, Mr. Matthews quipped on Tuesday: "I saw a lot of, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that the president chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting: He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean that was where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble-rouse the 'we're going to democratize the world' campaign back in '02. So I think it was a strange venue."
So, when did our brave military cadets become "the enemy camp"? If Mr. Bush or Mr. Wolfowitz went to West Point to "rabble-rouse," does that make the cadets a rabble? And why would it ever be a "strange venue" for any president to go to the U.S. Military Academy to talk about a war?
Mr. Matthews at least apologized to cadets for his stupid comments the next day without weasel words, but it's troubling that he even expressed such sentiments - which are shockingly common among some liberal Democrats. In 2006, Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." At another point, the obtuse Mr. Kerry accused American soldiers in Iraq, in the "dead of night," of "terrorizing kids and children, you know, women. . .."
In 2005, Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, compared U.S. treatment of prisoners to that "by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings." In 2006, Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, falsely accused Marines in Haditha of "murder" and said there was "no doubt in my mind" about that judgment. In 2007, there was the notorious "General Betray Us" ad from MoveOn.org criticizing Gen. David H. Petraeus, which continued a leftist routine of verbal assaults on our fighters that goes back to Jane Fonda's slur that our soldiers in Vietnam were war criminals.
To set the record straight for confused Democrats, our armed forces are not criminals and not the enemy. They are heroes. Back to you, Chris ...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You always fear and hate people you have betrayed. That is the reason why Liberals fear and hate the men in the US military. Liberals do not join and serve their country because they believe that is only for the uneducated and the stupid. Liberals hate and fear the Patriotism and the willingness to give your very life for your country.
Only uneducated and stupid people would die for the United States, is the way Liberals see it.
Its their values. Liberals are "citizens of the world"...not of the United States. That is what being a "Progressive" means.
Liberals are "above" being patriotic and flying the flag in the front yard. They dont enlist. They dont wear the Uniform. And the United States to a Liberal is an exploitative and oppressive place with no sensitivity to the poor or the vast masses of mankind.
Liberals tend not to like guns and they dont own them, they dont hunt, they cant dress a Deer and they freeze when it comes time to pull the trigger. They like Perry Como music and the latest fashions and they read the NYT. Liberals go see Michael Moore movies.... and they think they know what is good for the rest of us.
And they will shove it down your throat if you let them. They invented PC and "dont jump to conclusions" that Major Jihad was a Moslem. yeah?
They certainly arent your friends. Some speak French.
#3
OBL declared America to be its enemy well early in the 90s. Even after the bombings of the Embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, most Americans didn't understand - or want to understand - that they were in a war of destruction till it was brought home on 9/11 that it couldn't be ignored. When people declare you their enemy, not just someone they disagree with or have trouble with, they're telling you what they believe. Don't ignore it or pass it off as a 'joke'.
#4
If he wishes to consider us the enemy, then perhaps we shoudl really give him the treatment an enemy deserves. Chrissy, go to Afghanistan, and put on a turban, and someone will oblige you by showing you what it really means to be the enemy of the US military.
#5
Liberals tend not to like guns and they dont own them, they dont hunt, they cant dress a Deer and they freeze when it comes time to pull the trigger. They like Perry Como music and the latest fashions and they read the NYT. Liberals go see Michael Moore movies.... and they think they know what is good for the rest of us.
I do humbly beg your pardon, Angleton9. So many of the items listed above apply to me. I'm sorry that what I thought was mere differences in taste turned out to be categorical instead.
#6
WTF? He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case.
If Matthews thinks West Point is the enemy camp; the guy is so very full of $hit. What a pathetic excuse for a media/talk show person (or what ever the hell he calls himself). He is the perfect idiot. The guy is a traitor to the U.S. much the likes of Jane Fonda and Bill Ayers.
#11
What a disgraceful clown. Sorry, I have caught a cold and am laid up in bed and extremely grouchy. I think a letter to that
"media organiszation" over there is in order...hmm why not?
#3
Abrogation: The Koran, considered perfect as the word of God, isn't chronological, but if two verses conflict, the latter takes precedence. The violent ninth Sura omits the Basmala, but calls for warfare and subjugation of all Jews and Christians. This next-to-last chapter is the last set of instructions Mo left, used as the justification for violent jihad. It is the antithesis of the world's great monotheistic religions.
#4
"The governments of the world should know that...Islam will be be victorious in all the countries of he world, and Islam and the teachings of the Qur'an will prevail all over the world." - Ayatollah Rubollah Khomeini in January 1979
"We must strive to export our Revolution throughout the world." - Ayatollah Khomeini in March 21, 1980
"One bomb is enough to destroy Israel...In due time the Islamic world will ahve a military nuclear device." - Iranian president Rafsajani in December 2001
"If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." - Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on October 23, 2002
"We cll on the Muslim nation...to prepare for the Jihad imposed by Allah and terrorize the enemy by preparing the force necessary. This should include a nuclear force." - Osama bin Laden on May 14, 1998.
"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emporer of power and wealth has started." - Mahamoud Abmadinejad on June 2, 2008 marking the nineteenth anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini.
In a country where over 40 per cent of the population is said to be languishing under the poverty line with families surviving on less than $2 a day, the shameful revelation of the filthy rich getting loans worth over Rs100 billion written-off owing to their formidable clout is shocking the nation. And this shameful list carries some of the biggest names of our power elite.
The names of Ch Shujaat and Ch Pervez Elahi were found among about 1,000 influential businessmen and Army men who got a total of Rs18 billion loans written-off from the government-owned banks during the first three years of the military government. The list was submitted in the NA when Zafarullah Jamali was the prime minister and Shaukat Aziz was the finance minister.
The first loan of Rs70 million was outstanding against the Punjab Sugar Mills and was written off by the National Bank of Pakistan along with the actual loan amount. The mill was owned by Chaudhry Shujaat Husssain, Chaudhry Mansoor Elahi, Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, Chaudhry Gulzar Mohammad, Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain, Chaudhry Sabhat Elahi, Mrs Qisara Elahi (wife of Chaudhry Pervez Elahi), Mrs Kasur Hussain (wife of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain), Mrs Khalida Begum (wife of Gulzar Muhammad).
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
uh, it's south central asia. there's corruiption, big time! they can barely deliver the mail in this part of the world.
Colossal spending and regulatory programs impend, based on the Al Gore conventional hysteria that unreduced carbon emissions will destroy the earth. This will eventually be seen as one of the modern world's most inexplicable descents into public-policy madness. The basic relevant facts are that carbon emissions are not the principal, nor even a measurable, factor in global warming, and despite dire forecasts and ever-increasing carbon emissions in the world -- especially as the economies of China and India, representing 40 percent of the world's population, expand by 6 to 10 percent each year -- the world has not grown a millidegree warmer since the start of this millennium. And the mean temperature rose by only 1 degree Celsius in the 25 years before that.
The greenhouse effect of carbon-dioxide emissions does produce gentle warming if it is not counteracted by unpredictable natural phenomena, but it cannot be measured directly against the volume of such emissions.
The chief source of apparently informed hysteria on this subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has estimated that the mean world temperature will increase by between 1.8 degrees C. (3.2 degrees F.) and 4 degrees C. (7.2 degrees F.) over the course of this century, although the first tenth of that warming has already failed to occur in the last decade. But even if it had occurred, no such fate would remotely justify all the cant and hype that the end of the world is nigh.
Even the IPCC admits that the upper end of its forecast would, in fact, substantially increase world food production. There is no chance of achieving stated, or even (by some countries) committed, emission-reduction targets, nor any reason to believe that the attainment of these targets would accomplish anything useful. Yet the president of the United States has been promising radical progress toward an international covenant in Copenhagen this month to spend trillions of dollars in pursuit of this unattainable, undesirable target.
It would be infinitely more sensible to intensify research and invest, where necessary or advisable, in mitigation, adaptation, and geostrategy, such as the infusion of sulphates into the stratosphere, as happens naturally with volcanic eruptions, to reduce the intensity of the sun and provide countervailing cooling influences without thinning the ozone layer.
We should keep in mind that the IPCC's worst case in its preferred (very negative) scenario is that, in the next hundred years, living standards in what is now the developing or underdeveloped world will improve by only 750 percent, instead of the 850 percent improvement that would allegedly occur if the world's temperature remained constant.
All responsible people want to assist the disadvantaged parts of the world and do what we reasonably can for our own descendants, but not to the point of self-impoverishment now for the sake of a marginal gain against a wildly unproved prognosis a century from now. This is the flimsiest justification imaginable for the mad slogan parroted endlessly by the eco-Zouaves, from Hollywood to the UN to Ducks Unlimited -- "Save the Planet!" -- as they try to force-march the world into biodegradable pastoralism.
Nor is this the grim "tipping point" Al Gore has made scores of millions of dollars and won a Nobel Peace Prize for decrying as the imminent Apocalypse. Gore's scurrilous film, An Inconvenient Truth, is based on no original research and is a teeming rain forest of false and irrelevant claims, such as that the Pacific island country of Tuvalu is losing population because the sea level around it is rising under the relentless pressures of global warming on the polar ice caps; and that, for the same reason, mosquitoes have afflicted Nairobi, Kenya, with a constant epidemic of malaria.
The inconvenience of the truth falls on Gore, not his opponents. Water levels have in fact declined slightly at Tuvalu, and the country's modest population shrinkage is due to economic migration. Malaria was much more prevalent in Nairobi a century ago, and has risen slightly in recent years only because of the ecologists' attack on the use of insecticides. The polar ice caps aren't melting at all; the ice sheets over the oceans are, but the ice over land is actually thickening, so water levels are not being affected.
The much-vaunted British Stern Report is in fact largely rubbish, devised to give the environmental baton to Tony Blair, so he could wave it like a magic wand to placate the Left of the British Labour Party, for whom he delivered nothing else but an indiscriminate increase in public spending. That report warns of a 70 percent decline in world food production this century if its temperature forecasts are met. To get that number, the Stern Report relied exclusively on a study predicting such a decline in the harvest of northern-Indian groundnuts only, not the world's food supply. Stern purported to forecast 200, 300, or 1,000 years ahead, which is nonsense, and warns of the "deaths of hundreds of millions, social upheaval, large-scale conflicts," if $25 trillion is not spent in the next 15 years to reduce carbon emissions by 70 percent (and disemploy scores of millions of people).
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"deaths of hundreds of millions, social upheaval, large-scale conflicts" -- The world has several problems on the burners now that might cause such outcomes, e.g., militant Islam, nuclear proliferation, economic disasters. Global warming ain't one of 'em.
#2
Global warming may be occuring. Or not.
Man may be causing it, or some of it.
Human behavior changes might be able to reduce some of the possible changes.
Lots of uncertainties there.
The thing that is certain is that the laws being considered will not affect anthropogenic climate change.
#3
I like ol' Conrad and agree with most of what he's been writing for the National Review lately. But I'm sorry...the fact that the guy's a currently incarcerated felon kind of detracts from the strength of his message.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
12/05/2009 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Insults against West Point by MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews are part of a pattern of left-wing denigrations against Americans serving in uniform. It's a motif indicative of an anti-military mind-set that is as dangerous as it is rude.
By Conrad Black
