>You will by now have seen Rosie O’Donnell’s latest insane rant in which she outs herself as a 9/11 Nutjob on her TV show The View. In case you’ve missed it here’s the video:
Popular Mechanics profoundly debunked all of the major claims that the Nutjobs make about 9/11 last year and took the time to respond to O’Donnell on their website.
Here’s another clip of Rosie commenting on the State of the Union, which shows that in the kitchen drawer of life she is, at best, an intellectual butter knife.
The modern day Left would be quite unrecognisable to JFK, as it has been lurching leftwards since the McGovern days of the mid-1970s. Its members would have trouble recognising themselves as such but it has become the natural home for those who reject reason in favour of emotion, demonstrate remarkable fascistic instincts, are disturbingly racist and, as long as they’re attacking the Right, or society’s exceptional achievers, don’t care that they don’t have facts to support their arguments.
Have a look at those in control of the Democratic Party and you see that O’Donnell is very well represented by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean etc, not to forget the most prominent of the Left’s opinion-as-truth crowd, Michael Moore. Then have a look through the diaries at DailyKos, including the tone of the comments, or go over and check out what passes as truth at Huffington Post. These are the people that the leading Democratic presidential candidates are taking their cues from. They all spout exactly the same rubbish as Rosie O’Donnell.
I have commented before that on the Right we look on in bewilderment at the hate-filled vitriol spewing forth from the Left and their spectacular inability to articulate their positions using hard facts. Who isn’t bewildered watching O’Donnell rant on in the way she does? She’s completely unhinged.
There is nobody on the Right that mirrors the Rosie O’Donnells of this world. When Ann Coulter uses the word ‘faggot’ in a bad taste joke about the Edward’s campaign the whole world drops out of the sky to criticise her – including a huge number on the Right! Where are those on the Left pointing out that O’Donnell does not represent them? Nowhere. Let me tell you something for free. Supporters of the great Democratic Presidents of years gone by would be quick to condemn her lunatic statements. The modern day Left truly is a far cry from its classical liberal predecessor.
>Just as the enviro-socialists use the term Denier to refer to climate skeptics, and in the same spirit, I am applying the term Climate Fascist to those individuals that either exaggerate the science or outright lie about the consequences of climate change. They can be scientists, politicians, bloggers or anyone else whose gives their opinion to the public and who refer to their opponents as Deniers.
I’ve decided to keep a list of notable Climate Fascists. Feel free to send me candidates, including links to what they’ve stated that supports the nomination and the organisation they work for or their blog. Here’s a list to start building upon:
- Al Gore – Inconvenient Truth ignorer
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger – Introducing his own carbon trading scheme
- Brenda Ekwurzel – Concerned Scientist not concerned with truth
- Climate Models – Never been right before and won’t be right in the future until they work out hot to factor in water vapour and solar activity (How can models be included? By being a collection of its Climate Fascist creators)
- David Miliband – Bus conducting wannabe now UK Environment Secretary of State
- Ellen Goodman – Boston Globe non-science reporter credited with coming up with the term Denier to describe the skeptics
- Gavin Schmidt – Climate modelling Nostradamus
- George Monbiot – The Guardian’s own Climate Goebbels
- George Negus – Dateline presenter and socialist ninny
- Dr James Hansen – NASA’s apparently silenced but hugely noisy flip-flopper
- James Lovelock – Gaia loving environmentalist
- Professor John Quiggin – Australian economist who thinks Kyoto is a “sensible policy response”
- Kevin Rudd – Australia’s opposition leader and purveyor of a 60% reduction in CO2 by 2050
- Leonard Di Caprio – apparently credible climate spokesman
- Michael Mann & The Team – Creators of the now discredited Hockey Stick
- Nicholas Stern – Overestimate impact, underestimate cost
- Peter Garrett – Former Midnight Oil frontman turned Australian Labor Party Environment Spokesman
- Richard Littlemore – DeSmogBlog’s Unapologetic Climate Fascist
- Richard Somerville – Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s public teat parasite
- Steven H Schnieder – “…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”
- Dr Tim Flannery – Australian of the Year and serial exaggerator
- Professor Tony McMichael – ANU’s IPCC near-term catastrophist
>Two articles from the UK’s loopy left The Guardian newspaper caught my eye today. One is surprisingly moderate while the other demonstrates the cultural malaise that has descended upon Western Europe and the depths to which intellectual honesty have fallen.
Timothy Garton Ash has a piece Europe must show real solidarity in which he begins:
Last week, while the European Union celebrated 50 years of peace, freedom and solidarity, 15 Europeans were kidnapped from Iraqi territorial waters by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. As I write, those 14 European men and one European woman have been held at an undisclosed location for nearly a week, interrogated, denied consular access, but shown on Iranian television, with one of them making a staged “confession”, clearly under duress. So if Europe is as it claims to be, what’s it going to do about it? Where’s the solidarity? Where’s the action?
That’s exactly the point. Why aren’t Germany and France as a minimum condemning in the strongest possible language what Iran has done and letting the world know that it stands alongside its European partner even to the point of saying they’re prepared to join them in whatever military action needs to be taken?
Even if you regard the Anglo-American presence in Iraq as foolish and illegitimate, and the American seizure of Iranians in Iraq as an escalation of this illegitimate folly, that would not for a moment excuse the Iranian action. The British forces were operating as part of a multinational force under an explicit UN mandate, to protect oil installations and prevent the smuggling of guns into Iraq – guns with which more Iraqis would otherwise be killed. According to the sophisticated GPS instruments which the British service personnel had with them, they were more than three kilometres inside Iraqi territorial waters when they went to search a suspect vessel.
That’s right, folks, they were part of a multinational force operating under an explicit United Nations mandate. The anti-West Left will be tying itself in knots trying to work out how to blame firstly the UK and then the US and maybe even Israel for Iran’s provocative act of war.
But there is something Europe should do: flex its economic muscles. The EU is by far Iran’s biggest trading partner. More than 40% of its imports come from, and more than a quarter of its exports go to, the EU. Remarkably, this trade has grown strongly in the last years of looming crisis. Much of it is underpinned by export credit guarantees given by European governments, notably those of Germany, France and Italy. According to the most recent figures available from the German economics ministry, Iran is Germany’s third-largest beneficiary of export credit guarantees, outdone only by Russia and China. Iran comes second to none in terms of the proportion of German exports – in recent years up to 65% – underwritten by the German government.
Ahhhhhhhh, there’s the reason those countries are silent. See? At the end of the day, national self interest trumps European Union solidarity. One would expect nothing else from the world’s worst country, France, but from Germany and Italy it is somewhat disappointing.
So here’s a challenge for the German presidency of the European Union: will you put your money where your mouth is? Or are all your Sunday speeches about European solidarity in the cause of peace and freedom not even worth the paper they are written on?
Is that a rhetorical question? Seriously. Is it?
On the other hand, Robert Tait has a truly disgusting blame Britain first piece A Bitter Legacy, the intro to which is:
The seizure of 15 British sailors by Iran is only the latest incident in a long and troubled history between the two countries. As Robert Tait reports from Tehran, most Iranians see Britain as an old colonial power that’s still meddling in their affairs
And he begins:
If the 15 British sailors currently held by Iran’s revolutionary guards are shocked by the hostility to Britain shown by their captors, it will be less surprising to British diplomats engaged in the delicate process of securing their release. Hostility to all things British is, as every foreign office mandarin knows, the default mode of Iran’s staunchly anti-western political leadership. From its perspective, Britain – along with America – is in the vanguard of “global arrogance”, Iranian political shorthand for the contemporary western interventionism whose alleged goal is to dominate and control the resources of developing nations such as Iran.
But this is not just President Ahmadinejad. The antipathy goes back to colonial times, and the long and tortured history of British intervention in Iran.
It has been many years since the 1979 Iranian Revolution that ushered in one of the world’s most despicable regimes and, in the process, erased the political positioning of every country hitherto involved with it. For Tait to make a connection between colonial antipathy and modern Iran is an incredible failure of logic and reality.
This anti-British sentiment is shared by ordinary Iranians. Its resonance defies boundaries of age, education, social class or political affiliation. In the eyes of a broad cross-section of the population, Britain – as much, or even more than, the US – is the real enemy. Four decades after the sun set on its imperial might, the Machiavellian instincts of the “old coloniser” are believed to be alive, well and still acting against the interests of Iran. For every mishap – whether a bombing, rising living costs or simply the advent of an unpopular government – a hidden British hand is often thought to be at work.
I first became aware of this conviction 18 months ago on a visit to Ahvaz, capital of the south-western province of Khuzestan. A bomb attack – the latest in a series – had killed six people in the city’s main street. The incident seemed to be linked to Arab separatists in the mainly Arabic-speaking province, but the Iranian authorities blamed Britain, pointing to the British military presence across the border in southern Iraq. Eulogists at public mourning ceremonies organised by the revolutionary guards railed against “criminal England”.
When I visited Ali Narimousayi, whose 20-year-old daughter, Ghazaleh, had been blown up in the blast, it became clear that the message carried a wider currency. “We know they want to come here and take our oil for free and we won’t let them,” he said. “Why is Britain so against our nuclear programme? Have we ever mistreated their ambassador or their people? What have we ever done to them? Go back to Britain and tell [the politicians] to be in good relations with Iran.”
Did Tait discuss the reality of the supposed oil theft or does it comport so strongly with his own belief that he accepted it as reality? Did he ask about why Iran needed nuclear weapons and about Ahmadinejad’s threat to blow Israel off the map?
So Iran’s taking of 15 hostages is rooted in some colonial humiliation, is it? That’s what Tait has written if you boil it all down.
Do people in Britain actually believe this stuff? Is there so little truth telling in the media now that Tait can write such rubbish and not get called on it by anyone? For a society that supposedly believes in freedom of expression there seems to be remarkably little free political debate going on at all in Europe.
>Former leftie Evan Sayet’s presentation to the Heritage Foundation titled How Modern Liberals Think is must see viewing. Make sure that you show it to at least one of your leftie friends and see whether they recognise any of their own positions in what Evan is saying.
You’ll notice quite a few similarities to what I’ve been saying even though I haven’t read the books he refers to. The opening few minutes, in which he refers to himself as being a “9/13 Republican” are quite powerful.
>1. Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters
2. HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters
3. Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters
4. After UK points this out, Iran provides corrected position, now within Iranian waters
Britain has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Iran’s capture of 15 sailors occurred in Iraqi waters, a point that Iran mistakenly confirmed initially as shown in the diagram above.
The capture was undertaken by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and, thus, were operating under the direct instruction of Supreme Leader Khatemi.
There has been much discussion about what should be done and the British government seems to be using the hitherto untried (in my memory) political tactic of embarrassing the Iranians into returning the sailors because they can prove they were taken in Iraqi waters.
Iran, and her supporters, aren’t that nuanced. They knew what they were doing and they allowed for the charge that Britain has made. Their response has been predictable – denial – the standard response to any accusation in the Middle East.
There is, though, a very simple way to achieve a positive outcome – start sinking Iranian naval vessels until they’re all gone and tell the Iranians that once they run out of boats Britain will start destroying Iran’s oilfields.
Iran’s economy has been run into the ground by the regime. There is a theory that by creating a major incident such as they have that Britain will over-react and the increased tension will force up the price of oil, filling the coffers of an empty treasury. Be that as it may, a threat by Britain to blow up the oilfields and deny Iran access to any benefit derived from a higher price kills that idea quick smart.
Olmert undeniably did a poor job in his overall management of the recent conflict in Lebanon. He was accused by all of the usual suspects of using disproportionate force. However, Hezbollah is now nowhere near the threat it was before it attacked Israel at that time so there’s a strong argument to be made for a speedy and forceful response to any provocation.
Britain’s tepid response to Iran’s act of war will be seen as proof in the Middle East of the West’s weakness when provoked. I hope that those wiser heads in Whitehall see the error of their ways sooner rather than later and respond in the sort of cold, calculated manner that will make everyone in the region think twice before doing the same sort of thing again.
>Here’s a crowd that I reckon most of you will never have heard of – The International Organization for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination; EOFORD by way of acronym. If all you heard was the name then you’d think that it was probably an organisation with a broad focus on ending racial discrimination, and maybe somewhat left-leaning. EOFORD is an organisation that makes many submissions to the United Nations with most being to the Human Rights Council.
Here’s the text of their latest submission:
Terrorism, Mr Chairman, in the minds of many is manifested by acts of violence. But that is not the only case. Foreign occupation is a major and illegal act of terrorism. And it becomes total terrorism when it creates suffocating situations that make all the rights of the people under occupation at the whim of the occupier, with the intention of killing all means of resisting occupation and regaining freedom.
Resistance to foreign occupation is a natural and legal right, recognized throughout history. This resistance expresses the right of self-defense, and it is not terrorism. It is natural and lawful for the Palestinians and Iraqis to resist foreign occupation of their countries, and the terrorism is the presence of the occupiers. Therefore, there should be no confusion between resistance and terrorism.
Terrorism is an act, which has no moral or legal justification. Its aim is just to cause harm to others who have not caused harm to the perpetrator of terrorism. Some states seem to think that they have a God-given right to occupy the homelands of others, and resistance to that is utterly unacceptable and condemnable. Such states should ask themselves the question: why have they been the targets of acts of terrorism, and why other countries have not been targeted! This in no way is intended to justify or condone the killing of innocent civilians. But it is a question very relevant to the issue of terrorism.
You can call me slow, but what does that have to do with ending racial discrimination? It seems to me that they’re saying Israel and the United States are terrorists while those that get on crowded buses and blow themselves up are simply practising legitimate resistance. Methinks that perhaps there is more to EOFORD than meets the eye. And I’d be right. At their website they have a handy list of their submissions to the UN, which I list below in reverse date order from September 2006 back to the start of 2004:
- Comments on Pope’s Speech at the University of Regensburg
- Israeli Attack on Lebanon Violates International Humanitarian Law
- The Only Solution for the Future of Israel is the One Reached by Ending Apartheid in South Africa
- The Need to Activate the General Assembly And International Criminal System, First: The Crime of Aggression on Lebanon
- Standards of a Negotiated Settlement to End the Israeli Occupation; Third: Commitments of Other Countries and the United Nations
- Standards of a Negotiated Settlement to End the Israeli Occupation; Second: Legitimacy of a Negotiated Settlement
- Standards of a Negotiated Settlement to End the Israeli Occupation; First: Exchange of Prisoners
- People will triumph over the racist leaderships that show total ignorance of human history
- Racist Trends have nothing to do with Democracy and Freedom of Speech
- Lessons From Palestinian History
- Contemporary Forms of Slavery
- The Fort of the People — Now and in the Future — is the United Nations
- The 1st Anniversary of the Ruling of the International Court of Justice
- Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
- Is it Apartheid?
- There is a Way to Peace: The International Court of Justice
- The Problem of the American Veto
- Peace Through Justice in Palestine
- The Crucial Condition for Global Justice: The Independence of the International Criminal Court
- “Palestine Reconsidered”
- The Roles of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court
- The Influence of the Media
- The Policy of Double-Standards
- Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Palestine
- The Apartheid Wall in Palestine
- The violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine
For an international organisation concerned with ending racial discrimination they sure do bang on a lot about Israel and Palestine. I wonder if that would indicate some sort of bias? Seems to be the case; 21 of those 26 submissions are anti-Israel, anti-Zionism, anti-US and/or pro-Palestine. They manage to weave ‘racism’ into them every so often but it’s hardly ever the main theme. I encourage you to read the one on the influence of the media; it is completely deranged. Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change is simply a bash America hit piece and seems to be remarkably disconnected with ending racial discrimination.
So, who are the authors of these racial discrimination ending papers?
Dr. Abdelaziz Nouaydi
Dr. Anis Al-Qasem
Prof. Dr. Turkkaya Ataov
The rat I started smelling earlier is putrefying under my very nose.
Far from being concerned with ending racial discrimination, the grandly titled International Organization for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination is, in fact, one of the most rabidly racist organisations on the face of the earth. If they called themselves ‘Arab Doctors for an end to Israel’ and published the drivel that they do then nobody could care less but to use the cloak of racial discrimination is a bit much.
If you take the time to read through some of their submissions then you’ll discover what a truly fact-challenged group they are. Their piece Is it Apartheid is typical of the Arab world’s inability to separate truth from fiction; a reality that will prevent them from integrating into a globalised economy any time soon. If people want to compare Israel to South Africa then how do they explain the presence of Arabs in Israel’s parliament, and an Arab Deputy President, and the complete absence of blacks in the parliament of apartheid South Africa?
Unfortunately, EOFORD is the type of organisation whose submissions align well with that most morally bankrupt piece of the United Nations’ – the Human Rights Council – which since changing from its old name a year ago has only condemned one country – Israel. People are being slaughtered in Sudan and Somalia and nary a peep from the HRC; Robert Mugabe sends Zimbabwe down the toilet, kidnapping and murdering his opponents along the way and the HRC says nothing; Hugo Chavez removes people’s right to free speech, association and ownership of assets in a Latin American attempt to replay Zimbabwe and the HRC could care less. In fact, he’s their new favourite dictator.
Can you imagine how the Human Rights Council would react to a submission from, say, the American Jewish Congress condemning suicide attacks by terrorists? There’d be a resolution condemning Israel quicker than you could blink. In fact, you don’t have to just imagine how they’d react to criticism, you can watch for yourself:
>This is the 91st post since Kerplunk began and in that time I’m reasonably sure that I haven’t used a swear word. I might have, but can’t remember.
However, after listening to Cimate Fascist and British ‘economist’ Nicholas Stern’s prescription for Australia today I am sorely tempted to try and outdo not only those previous 90 posts but the entire swear count of the Pulp Fiction script, as well.
As reported by Reuters:
Australia needs to urgently ratify the Kyoto Protocol and slash its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 percent by 2050 to help fight global warming, says British climate economist Nicholas Stern.
The former World Bank chief economist, speaking in Canberra, said the cost of inaction could be catastrophic, but rich countries were recognising the problem of global warming with firm emissions targets now set by Britain, France, California and the European Union.
As I pointed out a few days ago, setting 1990 as the base date significantly advantages Britain and France, as they were in the process of moving away from coal at that time and it was the worst year on record in Europe for all sorts of pollution. California has been signing a number of death warrants for itself in recent years, which have seen business flee the state in search of less burdensome tax and regulatory environments. The EU is simply a rule-making body that recently announced it intended to set a vehicle carbon emission limit somewhere only slightly above that of a Toyota Prius – a move that, if ratified, would kill 90% of European car manufacturers and take motor racing with it along the way.
Australia, though, alongside the United States, has refused to ratify the Kyoto pact, which sets goals for lowering the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warning, and has refused to impose binding targets on carbon emissions.
“What Australia can do now … is set a target for reductions by 2050 of at least 60 percent as part of a rich world responsibility,” Stern told Australia’s National Press Club.
Canberra’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol had held up international collaboration on climate change, he said.
Australia’s gross CO2 output is globally insignificant. How is it that we’re holding up ‘international collaboration’? They could simply treat Australia like India or China. Doesn’t hold up anything. If ‘international collaboration’ was the goal then why not press for every country in the world to sign up? The argument is as retarded as his own Review.
If Australia ratified the Kyoto protocol, the country would be put at a competitive disadvantage compared to countries which lacked a strong resources sector, Howard added.
And that’s the problem with Kyoto – the end-user should pay the cost of the production of CO2 but that would damage Europe so they put the kibosh on that when we raised that issue some years ago.
During his visit to Australia, Stern has met Howard and centre-left Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd, who has promised to ratify Kyoto if he wins elections due late this year.
There is no greater reason to vote against Labor than its feverish desire to rush, lemming-like, into the economic abyss of the Kyoto Protocol.
After six years of drought across much of Australia, and with water shortages in the country’s major cities, climate change is shaping up as a key election issue.
If people think that drought and water shortages are caused by climate change then that shouldn’t be the key election issue – education should – so that people can understand that an El Nino causes the droughts we experience and that it’s unaffected by climate change. Our current water crisis has been caused by hopelessly incompetent state government management of water that has seen no new capacity added to the system in over 30 years, a time in which populations have risen by more than 50%.
Stern said rich nations needed to commit to curb greenhouse emissions by between 60 and 90 percent by 2050, with many countries starting to recognise the need for urgent action.
Seriously? 60-90 percent? How is that going to happen? All of our power will be nuclear. We’ll have no cars and everyone will go to what jobs are still available in mass transport. Note that I say ‘still available’ because the unavailability of personal transport will kill off many businesses. Aircraft will run on what? Nuclear power? How will the greenies feel about that? Or are we all meant to go by boat, shackled to the oars like the days of old?
The U.S. state of California has set an 80 percent reduction target by 2050, Britain has agreed to cut its emissions by at least 60 percent, while the European Union will cut emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020.
Everyone agrees to targets but the fact is that nearly everyone is missing them. The terribly onerous penalty imposed has been to allow the targets to be reworked.
“There’s starting to be a realistic judgment on the kinds of ambitions that the rich countries have to set themselves,” Stern said. “And I think there is a growing recognition in the poor countries as well.”
There certainly is a growing recognition in poor countries – that the world’s Leftist elites are very happy for them to wallow in their existing turgid economic condition for the rest of eternity.
In a far-ranging report released last year, Stern said that stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would cost about 1 percent of global output by 2050, but failure to act could cost 20 times that amount.
We need to cut CO2 emission by 60-90% and that’s only going to cost 1% of GDP? No wonder the economics of the Stern Report have been so profoundly debunked. It’s hard to understand why anyone listens to the man anymore.
I can understand that he’s cranky about the English cricket team losing The Ashes 5-0 last summer but consigning Australia to economic calamity by signing Kyoto seems a somewhat cruel and unjust punishment. No wonder I want to let go with a bit of colourful language.