SM1'S BLOG 4 U: One Citizen Speaking...

Sunday, September 1, 2013

One Citizen Speaking...

Behind those anti-war, anti-racism protests: progressive socialist democrats and communists?

Posted: 31 Aug 2013 11:08 PM PDT

Before you lend any credibility to those anti-war Syria protests around the country, you may wish to consider that they are stated by our enemies and their “useful idiots.”

Not exactly a grassroots organization, but an organization that appears to be run by the hard left, progressive socialist democrats and communists …

<Source: http://www.answercoalition.org/>

Here come our enemies, a fifth-column that has infiltrated the highest reaches of our government and most of our critical infrastructure institutions …

A.N.S.W.E.R.
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), also known as International A.N.S.W.E.R. and the ANSWER Coalition, is a United States-based protest umbrella group consisting of many antiwar and civil rights organizations.http://www.answercoalition.org Formed in the wake of the September 11th attacks, ANSWER has since helped to organize many of the largest anti-war demonstrations in the United States, including demonstrations of hundreds of thousands against the Iraq War.The group has also organized activities around a variety of other issues, ranging from the Israel/Palestine debate to immigrant rights to Social Security to the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles.
ANSWER characterizes itself as anti-imperialist, and its steering committee consists of socialists, civil rights advocates, and left-wing or progressive organizations from the Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, Filipino, Haitian, and Latin American communities. Many of ANSWER's lead organizers had ties to the International Action Center, and Workers World Party at the time of ANSWER's founding. <Source>

A little something from the LA Weekly …

Behind the Placards -- The odd and troubling origins of today’s anti-war movement
Free Mumia. Free the Cuban 5. Free Jamil Al-Amin (that‘s H. Rap Brown, the former Black Panther convicted in March of killing a sheriff’s deputy in 2000). And free Leonard Peltier. Also, defeat Zionism. And, while we‘re at it, let’s bring the capitalist system to a halt.
This was no accident, for the demonstration was essentially organized by the Workers World Party, a small political sect that years ago split from the Socialist Workers Party to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The party advocates socialist revolution and abolishing private property. It is a fan of Fidel Castro‘s regime in Cuba, and it hails North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il for preserving his country’s ”socialist system,“ which, according to the party‘s newspaper, has kept North Korea ”from falling under the sway of the transnational banks and corporations that dictate to most of the world.“ The WWP has campaigned against the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. A recent Workers World editorial declared, ”Iraq has done absolutely nothing wrong.“
Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials -- including spokesperson Brian Becker -- are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER’s protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center.
Read more at http://www.laweekly.com/2002-11-07/news/behind-the-placards/

Bottom line …

Never in the history of the United States have our enemies gained such a powerbase within the government and essential institutions. This fifth column, directed by our enemies, both foreign and domestic, appears to have found a home in the progressive socialist democrat party and among corrupt politicians who are willing to accept laundered funds from suspicious sources.

A little something to consider as we approach the 2014 congressional election cycle and openly socialist politicians are running for reelection. If you need a starting point, consider that all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus appear to have radical roots or espouse a version of Black Liberation Theology, a Marxist creation to create a cadre of race- and class-based victims to serve as fodder for professional agitators.

Time to clean up the government cesspool, starting with those who put themselves and their special interests before America. If this sound racist, consider that is exactly what the politically correct crowd want – people who speak the truth to be demonized, demoralized, or denigrated into silence and irrelevance per Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

-- steve

IS AN ATTACK ON SYRIA AN ATTACK ON IRAN?

Posted: 31 Aug 2013 10:16 PM PDT

Is President Obama’s proposed attack on Syria, a continuation and amplification of the Bush attack plan for keeping Iran from going nuclear?

I am have a great deal of difficulty determining the end-game strategy of President Obama’s willingness to unilaterally commit an act of war by attacking Syria without Congressional approval or international cover.

Part of this difficulty comes from the fact that there is no “apparent” advantage for the United States in pursuing such an attack, and that there is a great deal of “apparent” disadvantage.

One, it does not appear, at least on the surface, that any American interests are at stake. Certainly Syria has not declared war on America and there appears to be no imminent attack plan. The only people that might benefit from such an attack on Syria by the United States are: the opposition with its Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda components; Saudia Arabia who would see another Shia sect, the Alawites, removed from power and possibly be ethnically cleansed by the opposition; and Qatar who wants to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria.

Other than the disadvantage to the United States, Syria would be definitely disadvantaged, our ally Israel would be disadvantaged, Russia would be disadvantaged, and Iran and Hezbollah would be disadvantaged, But, perhaps that the whole point: Iran and Hezbollah would be disadvantaged.

Blame it on former President Bush?

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorized CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. <Source>

Is this the “secret of Benghazi?”

"The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." <Source>

Apparently the Obama Administration, including President Obama himself, is willing to lie to the American public about what happened on the anniversary of the original 9/11 terrorist attack on America in Benghazi, Libya. Could it be that the administration was attempting to hide a covert joint CIA/State Department operation that supplied heavy military weaponry, including anti-aircraft missiles, to known al Qaeda-linked terrorists for use in Syria. And, that this arming of international terrorists could have severe political and criminal ramifications if it was ever “officially” acknowledged. Such arms were to flow through Sunni-majority Turkey; perhaps the reason for Ambassador Stevens last meeting with the Turkish Ambassador.

But there must be a compelling reason for America to strike Syria: the chemical attack on civilians …

Think about it carefully. Assad would be crazy to use chemical weapons against a civilian population. Not only would it draw an immediate reaction from the international community, but it would mark Assad as a potential war criminal to be captured and tried in a military tribunal in an international setting or killed. The opposition would likewise by crazy to use such weapons as they would lose significant support from the international community. It is also unlikely that low-level commanders would use chemical weapons without authorization from Assad as to do so would mark them for instant execution, possibly by their own command with its embedded political operatives.

Which leaves false flag operations.

By definition, a false flag operation is a covert affair that sees on participant mount an offensive act and blame it on the opposition. Because, even under the strictest security, major operational details usually leak with the help of spies or political dissidents “in the know,” it is a very risky maneuver with a high degree of being discovered. Which brings us to a false flag conspiracy theory that may be the real answer or nothing more than a way to increase the audience of certain publications that make a handsome living by “exposing” so-called conspiracy theories.

The theory: The rebels used chemical weapons, ostensibly obtained from an unknown third-party, an attempted to mount a false flag operation to damage Assad by bringing the United States into the conflict to make good President Obama’s “red line” warning and to spare Obama from the political embarrassment of an inept leaders who “leads from behind.”

Did Saudi Intelligence Operatives supply chemical weapons to a third-party to mount a false flag operation to be blamed on Assad?

Part One: Are the Saudis and Qataris bankrolling the opposition and supplying conventional weapons with U.S. Assistance?
Syrian rebels claim receipt of major weapons shipment -- Militia leaders say hundreds of tonnes of ammunition and some light weapons allowed across Turkish border in past three days
Rebel groups in Syria's north say they have received their largest shipment of weapons yet, in a fillip to an anti-government campaign that had stalled for many months.Leaders of militias supported by backers in Saudi Arabia and Qatar say several hundred tonnes of ammunition and a limited supply of light weapons were allowed across the Turkish border in the past three days, in what they said was the first large-scale re-supply since earlier this year.
The weapons are believed to have been sent by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and were warehoused in Turkey for many months. Senior rebel commanders contacted by the Guardian say they did not include anti-aircraft missiles, but several dozen anti-tank rockets were among them. <Source>
Part Two: There are unconfirmed anecdotal reports of chemical weapons being supplied by the Saudis …
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).
Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.
Part Three: Is the source credible?
Caveat: this story was not published under the auspices of the Associated Press and any reference to the Associated Press was used as a means to demonstrate Gavlak’s journalistic credentials.
Dale Gavlak
Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East, contributing to the AP, National Public Radio, BBC and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago.

Anybody can say anything …

It is unknown if Gavlak’s reporting of third-party accounts is credible because anyone can say anything for any particular personal or political motive. But it is known that the New York Times did run a story that indicates that obtaining proof of what chemical weapons were used, what delivery system was used, and who used the weapons is not an easy task.

United States intelligence under the Bush Administration has been wrong before; and, under Obama, might be wrong again …

U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria
The evidence of a massacre is undeniable: the bodies of the dead lined up on hospital floors, those of the living convulsing and writhing in pain and a declaration from a respected international aid group that thousands of Syrians were gassed with chemical weapons last week.
And yet the White House faces steep hurdles as it prepares to make the most important public intelligence presentation since February 2003, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a dramatic and detailed case for war to the United Nations Security Council using intelligence — later discredited — about Iraq’s weapons programs.
More than a decade later, the Obama administration says the information it will make public, most likely on Thursday, will show proof of a large-scale chemical attack perpetrated by Syrian forces, bolstering its case for a retaliatory military strike on Syria.
But with the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval.
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground. <Source>

And even the latest news has positive assertions, but suspicious intelligence sources …

Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.Our classified assessments have been shared with the U.S. Congress and key international partners. To protect sources and methods, we cannot publicly release all available intelligence – but what follows is an unclassified summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s analysis of what took place.

Syrian Government Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21

A large body of independent sources indicates that a chemical weapons attack took place in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. In addition to U.S. intelligence information, there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel; videos; witness accounts; thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area; journalist accounts; and reports from highly credible nongovernmental organizations.

A preliminary U.S. government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children, though this assessment will certainly evolve as we obtain more information.

We assess with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack against opposition elements in the Damascus suburbs on August 21. We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely. The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition.

Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation. We will continue to seek additional information to close gaps in our understanding of what took place.

Translation: The United States intelligence community believes they know what happened, but cannot confirm it. Sort of like the WMD’s in Iraq? Given the pro-Arab, pro-Saudi stance of the Obama Administration and the Director of the CIA, there is something to be concerned about if this issue is really about Syria and not Iran. Notice that the specifics, such as the nerve agent used, is missing and that the quoted “sources” often have an agenda of their own and can be highly unreliable people attached to credible organizations. The fact that the government has a specific count of the victims makes me doubt the credibility of this report.

You will also note that unlike previously declassified intelligence reports, known as NIEs (National Intelligence Estimates), this one is unusually titled “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.”

But one of my big questions: why were the people handling these bodies not wearing protective gear or, at least, respirators with filters?

Bottom line …

I have no clue to what really happened in Syria. But, the one thing that appears to be true is that Iran, a state-sponsor of international terrorism, continues to build its nuclear capability. So, if the United States intelligence agencies know that Iran is close to building a military-grade nuclear weapon, why the subterfuge and covert situational finessing of Syria? Why not just continue to build military assets in the region – in plain sight -- and strike Iran directly. Surprise. Surprise.

-- steve

GLOBAL WARMING: CAN IT BE THAT MAN'S INFLUENCE ON WARMING IS NOT AS GREAT AS WE THOUGHT?

Posted: 30 Aug 2013 06:56 PM PDT

Just a note of relief as we return to science rather than the insane and incomprehensible machinations of President Obama and his fellow travelers who continue to pursue their progressive socialist democrat ideology. – steve

The latest peer-reviewed article that appears to suggest that, whoops, climate change has a natural variability and that the recent pause in the observed global temperature trend is due to “NATURE” and not so much man.

The abstract …

Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling (Yu Kosaka, Shang-Ping Xie)

Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.

Various mechanisms have been proposed for this hiatus in global warming, but their relative importance has not been quantified, hampering observational estimates of climate sensitivity.

Here we show that accounting for recent cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific reconciles climate simulations and observations.

We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.

Although the surface temperature prescription is limited to only 8.2% of the global surface, our model reproduces the annual-mean global temperature remarkably well with correlation coefficient r= 0.97 for 1970–2012 (which includes the current hiatus and a period of accelerated global warming).

Moreover, our simulation captures major seasonal and regional characteristics of the hiatus, including the intensified Walker circulation, the winter cooling in northwestern North America and the prolonged drought in the southern USA.

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

Journal: Nature; Year published: (2013); DOI: doi:10.1038/nature12534; Received: 18 June 2013; Accepted: 08 August 2013; Published online: 28 August 2013

Technical Details: The authors used the GFDL [Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory]coupled global climate model. They conducted three simulations:

A WOW for at least on climate scientist, Judith Curry …

For those who know nothing about Judith Curry’s reputation, she is a well-credentialed climate scientist with an open mind. And, it is often her willingness to consider alternative viewpoints that riles those dogmatic ideologues who are certain that global warming is mostly attributable to human activities and that strong politically-controlled public policies are the prescriptives for preventing a planetary catastrophe. What really bothers the climate ideologues is that Curry apparently believes science is not performed by consensus and that one needs to objectively examine the facts.

Curry has stated that she is troubled by the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review. She has written that climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public and should engage with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. <Source>

From Curry’s blog …

What is mind blowing is Figure 1b, which gives the POGA C simulations (natural internal variability only). The main ’fingerprint’ of AGW has been the detection of a separation between climate model runs with natural plus anthropogenic forcing, versus natural variability only. The detection of AGW has emerged sometime in the late 1970′s , early 1980′s.
Compare the temperature increase between 1975-1998 (main warming period in the latter part of the 20th century) for both POGA H and POGA C:
POGA H: 0.68C (natural plus anthropogenic)
POGA C: 0.4C (natural internal variability only)
I’m not sure how good my eyeball estimates are, and you can pick other start/end dates. But no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming.
Like I said, my mind is blown. I have long argued that the pause was associated with the climate shift in the Pacific Ocean circulation, characterized by the change to the cool phase of the PDO. I have further argued that if this is the case, then the warming since 1976 was heavily juiced by the warm phase of the PDO. I didn’t know how to quantify this, but I thought that it might account for at least half of the observed warming, andhence my questioning of the IPCC’s highly confident attribution of ‘most’ to AGW. Read more athttp://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/pause-tied-to-equatorial-pacific-surface-cooling/

It seems reasonable to believe that if Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is a relatively small factor in the observed global climate trend, and subservient to nature’s normal climate variability, that there is no urgency to implement all of the public policies that are being discussed; especially those that provide an advantage to the government while disadvantaging “we the People.”

Bottom line …

The science is not as settled as the IPCC and their cadre of progressive socialist democrats would have you believe. There is enough reasonable doubt about what is occurring in our environment, if man can detect the signal of climate change amid the noise of natural climate variability, and if man can even affect climate change on a global scale. Especially considering that the global climate is a function of such natural factors as: the Sun’s energy output, the Earth’s Orbital position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s rotational and planetary dynamics; the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics; the thermodynamics of deep ocean currents, and the major greenhouse gas, water vapor, – all of which appear beyond man’s direct control.

And, if one want’s to illustrate the ugly intrusion of politics into science, one needs go no further than the governmental promotion of public policies relating to “cap and trade,” allowing gross polluters to keep polluting the air, water, and land of localities – killing or sickening local populations – in return for purchasing government-sanctioned pollution indulgences from for-profit entities managed by the Wall Street Wizards.

Not to mention the Orwellian doublespeak of the progressive socialist democrats who continue to demonize the life-giving gas, carbon dioxide, as the root of all global warming. In spite of the fact that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in global temperature by 600 – 1000 years (depending on the dataset and time range) and thus cannot be causal. Not only are the beneficial effects of increased carbon dioxide ignored, there are those who will not even consider the most simple explanation for the rise of carbon dioxide, that it is a result of the warming oceans outgassing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Big money has corrupted climate science in a way not seen in other disciplines. Much of the corruption is simply the result of the natural selection of scientific research projects that favors the funding of projects that appear to track the prevailing wisdom of those doing the funding. Few scientists want to buck the trend and appear as contrarians – especially when their funding, promotions, publications, and career are placed on the line. All confirmed by the “Climate-gate” e-mails that saw the covert manipulation of the peer-publishing process and methodology of career destruction actually being discussed between prominent climate researchers whose life-long career work were being challenged by recent findings.

Science will continue to be done. And, not by consensus. But, it remains for all of us to ensure that our corrupt politicians do not use science to change our way of life and reduce our freedom in the name of a international socialist agenda.

And, as a final caution: models are merely by pale imitations of the awesome power and dynamics of natural processes; especially chaotic systems and self-regulating mechanisms.

-- steve