Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Chris Kylie Is Still A Hero And Jesse Ventura Is Still A Scumbag

Former Minn. Gov/Professional Conspiracy theorist/Scumbag Jesse Ventura couldn't resist taking one more shot at the late Chris Kyle saying one of the reasons he wouldn't see "American Sniper" was that Kyle is a liar.

Jesse Ventura may be the only ex-Navy Frogman launched a defamation suit against the estate of a Former seal who was a war hero, over a incident mentioned in the hero's book. The hero being Chris Kyle, the most lethal sniper in U.S. Military History, and the incident related in his book American sniper doesn't even mention the self-serving creep. In the end he won the suit and Ventura who doesn't need the cash took $1.8 million from the widow of a war hero.

Ventura seen above wearing a boa like the clown he is, told the Associated Press he won't see the film partly because Kyle is no hero to him:
"A hero must be honorable, must have honor. And you can't have honor if you're a liar. There is no honor in lying," Ventura told The Associated Press from his winter home in Baja California, Mexico. He also noted that the movie isn't playing there.

Ventura also dismissed the movie as propaganda because it conveys the false idea that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. "It's as authentic as 'Dirty Harry,'" he said, referring to fictional movie series starring Clint Eastwood, the director of "American Sniper."
How would he know if he hasn't seen the movie?

In the end it doesn't mention because a decade from now Chris Kyle will still be recognized as a hero, and Jesse Ventura will be remembered as a clown, and a low-life scumbag who took almost $2 Million from the widow of a war hero, and then continue to try and disparage his memory.

One of Taliban 5 Traded For Bergdahl Returns To Conflict (But Hillary Said They Weren't Threat)

It's probably the first of many. CNN is reporting that one of the Taliban leaders traded for Sgt Bowe Bergdahl has returned to the fight directly under the nose of the Qatar govt. supposedly monitoring them. The development has led to an ongoing debate inside the administration about whether there is a new threat from this man, and potentially the other four.
Several U.S. officials across different agencies and branches of the U.S. government have confirmed key details to CNN. The White House referred CNN to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon has declined to comment on the matter.

The officials would not say which of the five men is suspected. But an ongoing U.S. intelligence program to secretly intercept and monitor all of their communications in Qatar turned up evidence in recent months that one of them has "reached out" to try to encourage militant activity, one official said. The official would offer no further details. Under current law, this act placed the man in the category of being "suspected" of re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities. However several officials say there is now a debate inside the administration that the intelligence may be stronger than the "suspected" classification. Some elements of the intelligence community believe the information is strong enough to classify the man as "confirmed" for returning to illegal activities. One official told CNN all five men are having their communications even more closely monitored right now, but the belief is there is no current threat.

Under intelligence laws, the definition of "confirmed" for returning to militant activity is that there is a " preponderance of information which identifies a specific former GITMO detainee as directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. The definition of 'suspected" is that there is "plausible but unverified or single-source reporting indicating a specific former GITMO detainee is directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities."
Personally I find this report hard to believe after all didn't Hillary Clinton say the Taliban 5 was no threat to the U.S.? Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president.  And we all know the Democrats would never nominate a candidate with a naive view of terrorism and threats to America....Oh wait a second.

Back in June she said on The Today Show "These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.”

Scientist Explains Why It's Not Warming Like The Computers Predict -->It's A Fluke

Well they have finally done it.  For years the forces behind the climate change hypothesis have been trying to explain why all their computer models say its supposed to be getting warmer when the real climate hasn't changed in over 18 years.  Their's a fluke.  Their models are perfect..and the pause is just chance occurance. No really that's what they are  saying.

An article called "Are climate models really reliable?" on the Deutsche Welle (DW) website claims, "For years, meteorologists have been observing a discrepancy between climate models and global warming in the real world. But an international team of researchers claims this is just a fluke."
There was a specific problem that puzzled Marotzke [Jochem Marotzke, director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg] and his British colleague Piers M. Forster.

"We knew that the surface temperature of the earth has been stagnant for 15 years, whereas the models show progressive warming," said Marotzke, referring to the problem.

Were the current climate models therefore wrong? Was there a systematic error in the models? Is global warming just a nightmare? Jochem Marotzke didn't start this research to prove or disprove anything.

"We just wanted to grasp where this discrepancy between models and observations is coming from," explained the meteorologist, when asked about the motivation for his most recent study.

Just a fluke?

The research team has just published his results in the journal Nature. With the help of a multi-step calculation, Marotzke and Forster ruled out systematic errors in the models. Instead, the researchers now blamed serendipity for the current lull in global warming. On the basis of their calculations, they say there is no reason to doubt current forecasts detailing strong global warming.

For laymen this may sound overly simplistic. Are the scientists just blaming chance because they can't find another explanation? Marotzke has no problem with his latest findings.

"As meteorologists, we know that chance and chaos dominate the weather. You have to face the fact that chance plays a big role here."

"It's important that you can clearly distinguish between what happens randomly and what can be explained - which also improves our models," he added.

Marotzke is certain that climate models do not overestimate man-made climate change. In his opinion, this means that global warming will have reached a grave magnitude by the end of this century, if massive climate policy measures are not taken.

In this respect, Marotzke is quite happy after all that his research findings are noted and find their way into public debate.
I hope Mr Marotzke doesn't get caught committing a crime, "Gee Officer, I didn't really kill that guy, it was a fluke."
Here's the truth. Instead of admitting the model is wrong and the possibility that the climate change hypothesis has multiple holes in his logic, Mr. Marotzke says it was a fluke to cover up his errors. I can't wait till he investigates how one sock disappears when I dry my laundry.

Obama Launches Another Anti-Israel Blitz Via New York Times

President Obama's latest "punishment" of Benjamin Netanyahu for agreeing to speak to a joint session of congress in March was a Thursday hit piece in the progressive's favorite media tool, The New York Times. This time instead of targeting the Prime Minister, the administration used The Times targeted his closest adviser, Israel's ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer.

Taking its off the record hits from a White House official who "would not be named" [note to Harry Potter fans it's wasn't Voldemort], the Times report takes cheap-shots at both Dermer and Netanyahu while placing blame for the Bibi speech blind-siding of Obama squarely at the feet of Dermer.
The outrage the episode has incited within President Obama’s inner circle became clear in unusually sharp criticism by a senior administration official who said that the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, who helped orchestrate the invitation, had repeatedly placed Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes above the relationship between Israel and the United States.
Echoing most liberal critics of the Netanyahu Congressional visit this piece ignores the fact that a nuclear Iran is not a political issue in Israel it's an existential threat. In fact Netanyahu has been warning about Iranian nukes since he first took over as Likud Party leader in 1992. And considering the fact that Russia just sold long range missiles to Iran, the Obama Administration would be well advised to see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat to the United States.

In the past Chief-of Staff Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes deputy national security adviser have accused Dermer of lobbying members of Congress against President Barack Obama's positions, it is likely one of the two (or someone in their staffs) is Voldemort-like official who "would not be named." Many suspect Rhodes was the WH behind the Bibi is "chickenshit" comment to Jeff Goldberg, and last week's Bibi "Spit in the face"of the administration comment to Ha'aretz.

The Times goes on to suggest that Dermer's role with Netanyahu is similar to what progressives suggested Dick Cheney's role was with Bush #43, that Dermer is known as Bibi's brain.

They pointed out that Dermer is a former GOP operative which is true. In 1994 just out of college, Dermer took a job with his former professor and GOP pollster, Frank Luntz and helped design the “Contract with America," which Republicans rode to a House majority in that year's midterms. But understand the Time's only purpose in raising Dermer's former job was to discredit Bibi's trip and the sanctions effort as being partisan, another falsehood perpetuated by the "Grey Lady" as well as must of the liberal media.

On Thursday the Senate Banking Committee passed a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran by a vote of 18-4. If nothing changes, when the bill is brought to the Senate floor in late March it will have the 68 votes it needs for a veto-proof majority, 16 of those votes will be Democratic Senators. The Democratic 16 include the 10 who earlier this week sent a letter to Obama informing them of their support of additional sanctions (Menendez, Schumer, Blumenthal, Peters, Casey, Cardin, Coons, Manchin, Donnelly, Stabenow), the two not on the letter who supported the bill in Thursday's committee vote (Tester, Heitkamp Warner), and three who cosponsored the same bill when it was proposed by the Senate in the previous Congress.

Truth be told ever since Dermer took over as ambassador Democrats trying to protect their president have blamed him for the problems in U.S./Israeli relations. In Dec. 2013 only two months after he took office, POLITICO reported:

Among the White House’s inner circle—Denis McDonough, Ben Rhodes—Dermer is a red flag,” says Barak Ravid, Haaretz’s political correspondent, referring respectively to the White House chief of staff and deputy national security adviser. “They see him as the guy who incited Congress and Jewish organizations against Obama.”

It’s a reputation that Dermer’s defenders say is unfair—it does not take into account missteps by Obama and his team, and understates Netanyahu’s determinative role in shaping relations with Washington. But it is a reputation that continues to dog Dermer nonetheless. When I asked about him, a Democratic source on the Hill who is close to Jewish groups blamed Dermer for distributing talking points on Iran, critical of the White House, to Republican members of Congress. Asked for evidence, the source said, “Who else?”
Dermer critics forget that during the tenure of the previous ambassador Michael Oren, this President's relationship with Israel was just as bad as it is today.

The Times finishes its hit piece by quoting "neutral" experts to slam Dermer. One expert was Daniel C. Kurtzer who worked on Middle East policy under Secretary of State James Baker in the administration of Bush #41. Baker led what some believe was the most anti-Israel foreign policy in history (until this one). The other expert was J-Street the faux pro-Israel group formed by George Soros.

Dermer has a tough job. Faced with the most aggressively anti-Israel Administration since Kurtzer worked for Baker has had to be just as scrappy in the service of his country to prevent the ineffectual Obama administration from naively negotiating an agreement that will fail at preventing Iranian nuclear weapons.

As for the NY Times, it has fulfilled its usual role as "state-controlled" newspaper of the progressive movement, and the Obama Administration's favorite mouth piece for leaks.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Greg Gutfeld And Self-Censorship By The Islamophobic Al Jazeera

Greg Gutfeld has a way with logic. It may not be the kind of logic someone with a lesser snark factor might come up with, but it really works.  Take Wednesday's The Five on FNC. According to Gutfeld, Al Jazeera is Islamophobic and you know, he's right.

It began with  a Tuesday morning email to the staff of Al Jazeera English sent under the heading of "Terrorists, Militants, Fighters and then some" by Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek. He was telling staffers what words they can't use.

Revealed by National Review Online, the email echoes the words of terrorist apologists such as the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR:
(...) van Meek warned the network’s journalists against the use of terms including “terrorist,” “militant,” “Islamist” and “jihad.”

“One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” the Al Jazeera executive wrote.

The word “extremist” was labeled off-limits. “Avoid characterizing people,” van Meek said. “Often their actions do the work for the viewer.”

“Do not use,” van Meek’s said of the term “Islamist.” He described it as “a simplistic label.”

According to van Meek’s instructions, Al Jazeera English employees are not to use the Arabic term “jihad.”

“Strictly speaking, jihad means an inner spiritual struggle, not a holy war,” he said. “It is not by tradition a negative term. It also means the struggle to defend Islam against things challenging it.”
Like its parent company Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera English is funded by the government of Qatar which has been accused of funding terrorist organizations such as Hamas and ISIS. Mr. van Meek's email may be a result of pressure from the parent organization.

Now that you understand the background, watch Gutfeld's brilliant monologue (and the full internal Al Jazeera email follows below the video.

From: Carlos Van Meek
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:06 AM
To: AJE-Newsdesk; AJE-Output; AJE-DC-Newsroom
Subject: Terrorists, Militants, Fighters and then some… 

All: We manage our words carefully around here. So I’d like to bring to your attention some key words that have a tendency of tripping us up. This is straight out of our Style Guide. All media outlets have one of those. So do we. If you’d like to amend, change, tweak.. pls write to Dan Hawaleshka direct who is compiling the updates to the Style Guide and they will be considered based on merit. No mass replies to this email, pls. 

EXTREMIST – Do not use. Avoid characterizing people. Often their actions do the work for the viewer. Could write ‘violent group’ if we’re reporting on Boko Haram agreeing to negotiate with the government. In other words, reporting on a violent group that’s in the news for a non-violent reason.
TERRORISM/TERRORISTS – One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. We will not use these terms unless attributed to a source/person.

ISLAMIST – Do not use. We will continue to describe groups and individuals, by talking about their previous actions and current aims to give viewers the context they require, rather than use a simplistic label.

NOTE: Naturally many of our guests will use the word Islamist in the course of their answers. It is absolutely fine to include these answers in our output. There is no blanket ban on the word.
JIHAD – Do not use the Arabic term. Strictly speaking, jihad means an inner spiritual struggle, not a holy war. It is not by tradition a negative term. It also means the struggle to defend Islam against things challenging it. Again, an Arabic term that we do not use.
FIGHTERS – We do not use words such as militants, radicals, insurgents. We will stick with fighters. However, these terms are allowed when quoting other people using them. 

MILITANT – We can use this term to describe individuals who favour confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause. For example, we can use the term to describe Norwegian mass-killer Andres Behring Breivik or Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. But please note: we will not use it to describe a group of people, as in ‘militants’ or ‘militant groups’ etc.