- Behind those anti-war, anti-racism protests: progressive socialist democrats and communists?
- IS AN ATTACK ON SYRIA AN ATTACK ON IRAN?
- GLOBAL WARMING: CAN IT BE THAT MAN'S INFLUENCE ON WARMING IS NOT AS GREAT AS WE THOUGHT?
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 little something from the LA Weekly …
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?
Is this the “secret of Benghazi?”
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?
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 …
And even the latest news has positive assertions, but suspicious intelligence sources …
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 …
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.
From Curry’s blog …
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  |
