Bernie Sanders, ox, gets gored

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

So, Sanders voters…

Tell us again how vote fraud is just something that Republicans make up.


Of course, this is not the first time that a party’s corrupt Establishment wing has done this.


Share this post!

Green Watch January 2016: Kitzhaber and Hayes, “Greens” vs. Transparency: How do environmentalist politicians protect themselves from being held accountable?

Kitzhaber and Hayes: “Greens” vs. Transparency
How do environmentalist politicians protect themselves from being held accountable?  [PDF here] [This is Part 3. Click HERE for Part 1. Click HERE for Part 2.]
By Steven J. Allen

Summary: In Parts 1 and 2, we reported on the tangled web of power-hungry and greedy special interests—environmentalists, business people, and government officials (including White House advisors and governors of other states)—that was exposed in the scandal that forced the governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber (D), to resign.  In this final installment on the Kitzhaber-Hayes affair, we examine the ways the scandal is tied to key goals of the environmental Left.  One key goal: making it much, much harder for voters to hold “green” politicians accountable for the disastrous results of their policies.

This month, in Part 3 of our look at the scandals that forced Oregon Gov. Kitzhaber to resign, we examine a trip to Shangri-La (well, Bhutan) … the ways in which billionaires want to measure your happiness … how British Columbia took a “climate” stand, along with Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia … how Walmart cashed in on paper-drying … and how Oregon First Lady Cylvia Hayes, after being advised on how to avoid the appearance of impropriety, just couldn’t take a hint.

Warming is coming. Run!
In last month’s issue of Green Watch, we were introduced to Kate Gordon, who was listed as a board member of the Clean Economy Development Center (the shadowy group that provided a “fellowship” to Oregon’s then-First Lady Cylvia Hayes). Gordon links billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer to the concept of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which we’ll get to in a moment.

Some background: To the “green” Left, cost-benefit analysis is a problem. Even some environmentalists admit that many supposed anti-Warming measures would do real harm to the economy, especially to poor and working-class people—greater harm than the Warming itself. To get around that problem, activists have worked to build up the current and future threat of Warming. It’s been blamed for everything from the spread of AIDS to the future extinction of coffee beans and red-headed humans, from bumpy plane rides to the loss of people’s sex drives to a rise in the pitch of the croak of the coqui frog of Puerto Rico. [See Green Watch August 2014.] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a recent Democratic presidential debate that “In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.”

Summing up all the Warming harm is hard work, and work to which billionaire Steyer has turned his attention. In February 2014, Anne C. Mulkern of E&E [Energy and Environment] reported:

High-profile billionaire and environmental activist Tom Steyer held center stage at an event here [in Santa Barbara, California] . . . In his final minutes, Steyer announced that he planned to launch an effort to quantify what inaction on climate change could cost the country. When a reporter afterward raced for Steyer, he begged off questions, waving for his aide, Kate Gordon.

[For the rest of the article, click HERE.]

Share this post!

Not letting ethics get in the way of a good science story or irreproducibility in the way of a good study

 [Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Due diligence in press coverage of scientific studies? Most of the time, reporters can’t be bothered.

Any journalist who writes a first-generation story based on a scientific study is attesting to the fact that he or she (a) has read the study and (b) has concluded independently that the study is, in all probability, valid—that the study was actually conducted as the study’s author claimed, that proper scientific procedures were followed as the study was carried out, and that the results were fairly analyzed.

(“First-generation” means that the story is the first one to report on the results of the study, or is among the first wave of such stories. Requiring the same of every journalist who later cites a study-based story would be an impossible standard to meet, but even second-generation and later stories should display appropriate skepticism.)

The journalistic standard is: “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.” Yet, when it comes to their stories based on supposed scientific studies, reporters almost never bother to read the studies.

Here’s an example. In September 2014, hundreds of newspapers published a version of this story (  ):

The Baltimore oriole will probably no longer live in Maryland, the common loon might leave Minnesota, and the trumpeter swan could be entirely gone.

Those are some of the grim prospects outlined in a report released on Monday by the National Audubon Society, which found that climate change is likely to so alter the bird population of North America that about half of the approximately 650 species will be driven to smaller spaces or forced to find new places to live, feed and breed over the next 65 years. If they do not — and for several dozen it will be very difficult — they could become extinct.

The four Audubon Society scientists who wrote the report projected in it that 21.4 percent of existing bird species studied will lose “more than half of the current climactic range by 2050 without the potential to make up losses by moving to other areas.” An additional 32 percent will be in the same predicament by 2080, they said.

Politico considered its version of the story so important that, in its print edition, it placed the story on the front page above the name of the publication.

The stories about the Audubon report shared one important characteristic: Not a single one of them was written by a reporter who had read the report. How do I know that? Because the report wasn’t finished. It was, at the time of the press coverage, in the process of being reviewed for publication. (The New York Times article had a link that appeared to lead to the study, but it was actually to an Audubon Society webpage that contained a cartoon explaining the study.) A scientific study that hasn’t completed the peer-review process isn’t a real study that can be cited, as has been noted by Global Warming activist and Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes.

Only a few news stories about the Audubon study mentioned that it wasn’t actually finished yet. One exception: Michele Berger’s piece on the Weather Channel website ( ), which noted: “Though the work hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, [the lead author] said two manuscripts are in the late stages of the process and a third is about to be submitted.”

The news stories about the Audubon report were based not on the study itself, but on the press release about the report, or on other news reports about the Audubon report, or, perhaps, on that cartoon on the Audubon website.

The next time you see an article based on a scientific study, try to find a copy of the study. Often, it’s nowhere to be found, or it’s behind a paywall, which keeps out any reporter who can’t or won’t pay $20 or $30 or whatever the fee is. (That’s pretty much all reporters.)

Even if a reporter can find a copy, that wouldn’t help much in most cases. As is clear from coverage of Global Warming, the percentage of reporters who are competent on matters of science—who can read a scientific study and make an informed judgment about its validity—is very small.

With any scientific study, there are questions about whether the study was well designed, and whether it was well conducted, and whether the resulting data were interpreted reasonably. The key, as it is in all science, is replicability (reproducibility). (A magazine of science-related satire is named The Journal of Irreproducible Results.)

The key question is: If someone else does the same research or conducts the same experiment, will he or she get the same result?

If it’s not replicable, it’s not science.

Often, it’s not replicable.

Consider a recent effort by The Reproducibility Project.

Smithsonian magazine ( ) reported on an effort to replicate studies in peer-reviewed psychology journals.

According to work presented today in Science, fewer than half [actually, almost 60 percent] of 100 studies published in 2008 in three top psychology journals could be replicated successfully. The international effort included 270 scientists who re-ran other people’s studies as part of The Reproducibility Project: Psychology, led by Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia.

The eye-opening results don’t necessarily mean that those original findings were incorrect or that the scientific process is flawed. When one study finds an effect that a second study can’t replicate, there are several possible reasons, says co-author Cody Christopherson of Southern Oregon University. Study A’s result may be false, or Study B’s results may be false—or there may be some subtle differences in the way the two studies were conducted that impacted the results.

“This project is not evidence that anything is broken. Rather, it’s an example of science doing what science does,” says Christopherson. “It’s impossible to be wrong in a final sense in science. You have to be temporarily wrong, perhaps many times, before you are ever right.”

Across the sciences, research is considered reproducible when an independent team can conduct a published experiment, following the original methods as closely as possible, and get the same results. It’s one key part of the process for building evidence to support theories. Even today, 100 years after Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity, scientists regularly repeat tests of its predictions and look for cases where his famous description of gravity does not apply.

“Scientific evidence does not rely on trusting the authority of the person who made the discovery,” team member Angela Attwood, a psychology professor at the University of Bristol, said in a statement “Rather, credibility accumulates through independent replication and elaboration of the ideas and evidence.”

Digital Journal described the replication effort this way ( ):

Good science needs to be repeatable. Sometimes claims made in journals cannot be replicated. One of the reasons for publishing science papers is so another qualified scientist can replicate the research. The experimental claims made don’t always stack up. One group from Stanford University recently attempted to a reproduce the findings of 100 psychology papers. They only managed to achieve similar results for 39 of the studies, meaning that around 60 percent of the described studies were so poorly constructed they could not be proven.

It’s a growing scandal in science, that a lot of science—particularly with regard to controversial political issues—isn’t actually science. About which, more in a subsequent column.


Share this post!

Shocked—shocked!—at bias going on in Paris

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

2015’s best (worst?) demonstration of media bias on environmental issues:

As politicians completed their work on the Paris Treaty (the one on Global Warming), Miranda Johnson, environment correspondent for the London-based The Economist (one of the world’s top newsmagazines), likened the air of excitement in the pressroom to that among spectators at a classic soccer game.



When the Treaty was finalized, Johnson celebrated by posting cellphone video showing the jubilation among her fellow journalists.


image006  image008  image010

For the rest of our lives, whenever we need to cite an example of journalistic ineptitude, ignorance, extremism, and general kookery… well, we’ll always have Paris.

Share this post!

Filthy dirty “clean energy”

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

There was a time when the protection of our natural resources was a noble cause—a time when environmentalists, or conservationists as they were known then, were the good guys.

Today, conservation/environmentalism has devolved into a scam, a con game at a level that’s beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp. The Powerball jackpot and the grosses from the new Star Wars are nothing compared to the money that’s being made from Global Warming and related causes.

Those feeding from the trough include academics and journalists, “climate science” activists and bureaucrats, politicians and, increasingly, crony-capitalist business people who want to get their hands on some portion of the trillions of dollars that, if the “greens” have their way (and they probably will), is to be pickpocketed from the world’s poor and from the American working class/small business class.

Let’s take one small example of a “green” con, the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard in Oregon. [Keep in mind that, in Oregon, Governor John Kitzhaber was recently forced to resign in a scandal involving his girlfriend/First Lady/environmental advisor Cylvia Hayes, who was mysteriously on the payroll of environmentalists. See Green Watch November 2015 at and December 2015 at , plus the January 2016 issue to be posted next week.]


The Low-Carbon fraud

Oregon has had an LCFS law since 2009, but it was set to expire in 2015 without reaching its long-term goals.  Two attempts by Kitzhaber to eliminate the expiration date had failed.  Then, in the aftermath of the Governor’s resignation, lawmakers extended the program.  It passed the state senate on the governor’s last full day in office.

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Labor Watch January 2016: Working Class Heroes: Today, the heroes are those who stand up to corrupt and useless unions

Working Class Heroes
Today, the heroes are those who stand up to corrupt and useless unions [PDF here]
By Steven J. Allen

Summary: From a lift-truck driver for a cold-storage warehouse, to a worker at a peach farm, to an autoworker-turned-activist, to a teacher who helped create a local-only union—in workplaces across the country—Americans are waking up and taking power into their own hands, no longer standing idly by while unions abuse their power.

Today, more and more workers are discovering that, yes, they can stand up to unions that waste their dues money on big salaries or on providing support to politicians.
Here are some stories of people who’ve fought back, with varying degrees of success.

Karen Cox
Karen Cox is a lift-truck operator who works for Americold Logistics in Rochelle, Illinois. Based in Atlanta, Americold operates more than 175 temperature-controlled warehouses around the world.

Cox came to work one day and discovered, to her surprise, that she was now a member of a union—specifically, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. RWDSU is a semi-autonomous division of the United Food and Commercial Workers that represents service, clerical, sales, and maintenance workers, as well as employees in the citrus, food processing, tobacco, jewelry, and novelty and toy industries.

This was the union’s third attempt at the plant. A union representative, Roger Grobstich, said, “We have some workers there who were part of previous attempts to organize. They stayed at Americold despite opportunities for great jobs elsewhere. We have a leader there who said he was going to stay at Americold until they had a union there, and that’s what has happened.”

The 111 workers at the facility were unionized using “card check,” a process in which workers are asked to sign cards supporting a union.

Often, a worker will sign under pressure, or will sign because he or she has been misled about the effect of signing the card, or will sign based on the belief that the collection of signatures will result, at most, in an election to decide whether the workplace is unionized. In fact, the cards can be used to unionize a workplace without an election.

“It was like spring of 2012, and rumors started going around about union trying to come in,” Cox said. “I didn’t take that seriously because my co-workers that I knew, we were all pretty content with our jobs. I came into work one day and the union was just there. A lot of people that signed those cards were told that by signing they are just going to get information about the union that is, you know, possibly going to be representing them.

“A lot of people didn’t know that if the union got enough of those signatures—50 percent plus one—that the company could recognize them and they come in [Click HERE for the rest of the story]

Share this post!

Giving it to bin Laden


[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

On November 13, terrorists killed 130 people in a series of coordinated attacks in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. The terrorists were from the Islamic State (ISIS), a spinoff of Al Qaeda.

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, at which officials were to finalize an international agreement on Global Warming, was scheduled to begin in Paris 17 days later. Some suggested that the meeting be postponed, but President Obama would have none of that: “What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be,” he said, “when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children.”

The conference went forward as planned, and, as its final product, produced a world climate reparations program of the sort that had been demanded by Al Qaeda’s late founder, Osama bin Laden.

A powerful rebuke to the terrorists, indeed!


Global Warming, you may have heard, causes terrorism such as the Paris attacks.

ISIS supporters have a different view, of course. They believe they’re fighting for God, as Muslims see Him. They believe that, as a prelude to the ultimate battle between Christians and Muslims, they have reestablished the caliphate (a government to which all Muslims owe allegiance, ruled by a successor to, and descendant of, Muhammad), in the region that includes Dabiq—the Islamic counterpart to Armageddon—where a Muslim victory over the Christians will mark the beginning of the end of the world. (This is a central idea to ISISites, the reason they named their online magazine Dabiq.)

But, hey, what do ISIS supporters know about their own beliefs? After all, they may think they’re Muslims, but they’re not, as our President and a certain prospective president keep pointing out. (President Obama: “Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL [ISIS] is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state.” And Secretary Clinton declared, “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”)

No, the ISIS folks are obviously confused about their identity. They just think they’re fulfilling ancient writings and conquering the planet.

Unconfused is Prince Charles who, a few days after the Paris attacks, addressed the issue, as reported by Reuters ( ):

Britain’s Prince Charles has pointed to the world’s failure to tackle climate change as a root cause of the civil war in Syria, terrorism and the consequent refugee crisis engulfing Europe. The heir to the British throne is due to give a keynote speech at the opening of a global climate summit in Paris next week where 118 leaders will gather to try to nail down a deal to limit rising greenhouse gas emissions. . . .

Asked in the interview, which Sky [News] said was filmed three weeks ago, whether there was direct link between climate change, conflict and terrorism, Charles said: “Absolutely.”

“We never deal with the underlying root cause which regrettably is what we’re doing to our natural environment,” he said, noting that far greater problems lay ahead if climate change was not addressed immediately.

Also unconfused is Senator Bernie Sanders, who brought it up in the debates. From “PolitiFact” ( ):

The Democratic debate in Iowa began with a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris terror attacks before pivoting to a discussion on how to address terrorism.

Bernie Sanders, who vowed to “rid our planet” of ISIS in his opening statement, also said at a previous debate that the greatest threat to national security is climate change. A day after the terrorist attacks, did he, asked moderator John Dickerson, still believe that?

“Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” Sanders said on Nov. 14. “If we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re gonna see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

A day later on CBS’ Face the Nation, Sanders doubled down on his statement, elaborating, “When people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al-Qaida and ISIS are using right now.”

Then there’s one of the Left’s favorite scientists, Bill Nye, who is a scientist by virtue of having played “The Science Guy” on a children’s program. (Got questions about dinosaurs? I’m sure Barney is available to answer them.) Here’s a report from the Huffington Post ( ):

President Obama made headlines Monday when he said during his remarks at COP21 that the climate change conference taking place in Paris is an “act of defiance” against terrorists who attacked the city earlier this month. Later on the same day, Bill Nye took that link a step further, explaining to HuffPost Live that the brutality in Paris was “a result of climate change.”

“You can make a very reasonable argument that climate change is not that indirectly related to terrorism,” said Nye, who discusses global warming at length in his new book Unstoppable. “This is just the start of things. The more we let [climate change] go on, the more trouble there’s going to be.”

Nye’s reasoning hinges on a water shortage in Syria, which researchers have blamed on climate change. As Nye explained, the shortage has stunted farming and pushed young people to look for work in more densely populated areas.

“Young people have gone to big cities looking for work. There’s not enough work for everybody, so the disaffected youths, as we say—the young people who don’t believe in the system, believe the system has failed, don’t believe in the economy—are more easily engaged and more easily recruited by terrorist organizations, and then they end up part way around the world in Paris shooting people,” Nye said.

For the record, even many Warmers admit that the change in earth’s temperatures since the Little Ice Age (which ended in the first half of the 19th Century) has been too small to cause major disruptions, and that it is impossible to link any current weather patterns to human activity rather than to naturally occurring patterns.

Man-made “climate change” doesn’t cause terrorism. But the idea of catastrophic, man-made climate change gives the terrorists ammunition for their campaign against the relatively free countries of the West.


Warmism (my term for anti-science “climate change” ideology) is one of the bases for the resentment that fuels anti-American extremism. The idea is that the Western countries, the U.S. in particular, have gotten rich by unfairly exploiting the poor countries; that that exploitation has changed the climate to the poor countries’ detriment; and that the “developing world” is owed reparations by the “developed world.”

That’s why Warmism is part of the school curriculum in countries like the Dominican Republic, South Africa, Vietnam, Kenya, and Mauritius, as well as in self-hating Western countries like France and Germany.  From a piece by Warmist writer Catherine Rampell in the Washington Post ( ):

Take Emmy-Noether-Schule, an 800-student secondary school in east Berlin I visited recently. Educators there consider climate change so pressing that they integrate it into just about every class you can think of (including, when the instructor is so inclined, Latin). About a quarter of the content in the 10th-grade English textbook, for example, is about threats to planet Earth. That means when kids learn to use the conditional mood in English, their grammar exercises rely on sentences like this: “If we don’t do something about global warming, more polar ice will start to melt.” Likewise, in an 11th-grade geography class dedicated entirely to sustainability, students write poetry about klimawandel (climate change). My favorite couplet, from an ode by student Hannah Carsted: “The water level rises/ The fish are in a crisis.”

The worldwide propaganda campaign by the Warmers has been astonishingly successful. It gives governments in poor countries a ready-made excuse for failing to improve their peoples’ living standards, and justifies their demands for money and other resources from wealthier countries.

Last July, the Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences tied the issue directly to religion ( ):

Human beings could cause the ending of life on the planet, says a group of Islamic scholars − and countries round the world, particularly the rich ones, must face up to their responsibilities. Climate change, they say, is induced by human beings: “As we are woven into the fabric of the natural world, its gifts are for us to savour – but we have abused these gifts to the extent that climate change is upon us.” The views of the scholars – some of the strongest yet expressed on climate from within the Muslim community – are contained in a draft declaration on climate change to be launched officially at a major Islamic symposium in Istanbul in mid-August. Allah, says the declaration, created the world in mizan (balance), but through fasad (corruption), human beings have caused climate change, together with a range of negative effects on the environment that include deforestation, the destruction of biodiversity, and pollution of the oceans and of water systems.

Demands for reparations are to be fulfilled through the Green Climate Fund, to which you, as a taxpayer, will “contribute.” Here’s how the fund was described by three environmentalist professors in the Washington newspaper The Hill ( ):

This fund will help developing countries build resilience to climate-related disasters and reduce the carbon pollution that drives climate change. Our contribution to the Green Climate Fund is an investment, and the return is stability for vulnerable countries facing a changing climate.

Both Republicans and Democrats have long recognized the value of climate-related assistance to poor countries. Former President George H.W. Bush negotiated the original United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and created the Global Environment Facility, the first international fund to support climate change assistance to developing countries. Former President George W. Bush, along with other Group of Eight leaders, created the Climate Investment Funds in 2008. The Climate Investment Funds were explicitly intended as the pilot for a larger, future fund, and they are slated to sunset as the Green Climate Fund becomes operational.

Why would there be such widespread, bipartisan support for funding climate-related assistance overseas? Because it is in our national interest. When poor, vulnerable countries pursue climate-resilient growth, they are better able to cope with extreme weather events and experience fewer disasters. And when emerging economies build out more clean energy infrastructure, we all avoid the worst of climate change in the first place. The result is a more secure and stable world, benefiting our nation and all countries.

Prior to the Paris “climate change” summit, the Washington Times editorialized ( ):

In December, nearly 200 nations will meet in Paris to complete details of the globalists’ holy grail: the Green Climate Fund, which they expect to collect $100 billion a year from developed nations by 2020 to help wean the worldwide victims of unrestrained development of fossil fuels. This will be the most successful robbery since the Jesse James gang made life miserable for the railroads of Missouri.

. . . [T]he schemes to punish the purveyors of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel are fraught with fraud. Russia and Ukraine are suspected of selling bogus credits for 600 million tons worth of carbon-dioxide emissions on the European Union Emissions Trading System, according to the Stockholm Environment Institute. Europe’s cap-and-trade system obligates electric utilities to either reduce their emissions or purchase credits from other producers. Verification of reductions has been lax, enabling companies to falsely claim clean-energy progress and sell their credits. Fraudsters have hacked the EU’s online emissions marketplace, and in 2011 collected $41 million in undeserved credits.

If Europe’s dodgy carbon taxing scheme provides a juicy target for chicanery, the U.N.’s $100 billion Green Climate Fund is likely to attract more treasure hunters than seekers of the crown jewels of England. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has a hard time keeping a straight face dispensing high-minded nonsense to hector nations to chip in.

Foreign aid, they say, is taking from poor people in rich countries and giving to rich people in poor countries.

CNS News reported on the fund ( ):

The GCF is the core of a 2009 agreement by Obama and other leaders to raise – from 2020 onwards – $100 billion each year from public and private sources to help developing countries deal with climate change. As of early November, 38 countries have pledged a total of $10.2 billion for the GCF, with Obama’s pledge of $3 billion accounting for 29 percent of the total. The next biggest pledges have come from Japan ($1.5 bn), Britain ($1.2 bn) and Germany ($1.003 bn). Broader climate finance mobilized from public and private sources so far has been estimated at $62 billion, according to a recent OECD study. The U.N. Environmental Program has argued that $100 billion a year will not be nearly enough to help the world to adapt to global warming.

At least we can count on those tight-fisted Republicans to block the fund, right? Oh, I guess not. ( )

In a victory for the Obama administration, the spending package released by congressional leaders on Wednesday [December 16, 2015] won’t block American financial contributions to an international climate fund for poorer nations.

The bill, greens and Democrats say, doesn’t explicitly appropriate funding for President Obama’s pledged contribution to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). But since the legislation doesn’t formally block money for the GCF either, Obama is expected to be able to use current discretionary funding streams to send American money to it. “Based on what we have reviewed so far, there are no restrictions on our ability to make good on the president’s pledge to contribute to the Green Climate Fund,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Wednesday.

The GFC is a pot of public and private money designed to help poorer nations prepare for climate change. Obama pledged last year to spend $3 billion on the fund by 2020, and he asked Congress to appropriate up to $500 million for it in 2016.


What, you may ask, does this have to do with Osama bin Laden?

Such a reparations program was a major goal of the Al Qaeda founder, as he stated clearly and repeatedly in the months before his death.

For example, in January 2010, bin Laden declared ( ):

This is a message to the whole world about those who cause climate change and its dangers – intentionally or unintentionally – and what we must do.

Talk of climate change isn’t extravagant speculation: it is a tangible fact which is not diminished by its being muddled by some greedy heads of major corporations. The effects of global warming have spread to all continents of the world. Drought, desertification and sands are advancing on one front, while on another front, torrential floods and huge storms the likes of which only used to be seen once every few decades now reoccur every few years. That’s in addition to the islands which are quietly and calmly sinking under the waters of the oceans. And the pattern is accelerating, and reports by organizations dealing with the affairs of displaced people estimate the displacement of as many as a billion humans during the next four decades as a result of this.

I am not about to talk here about partial solutions which merely lessen the harmful effects of global warming. Rather, I am going to talk about looking for a solution to the crisis at its roots. In front of the world are the records which show the huge numbers of victims of climate change, some of whom died of hunger and others of whom died of drowning.

In the same year in which [James E.] Hansen, NASA’s senior expert, confirmed the seriousness of global warming, 140,000 died and 24 million were displaced in floods in Bangladesh alone; and the caravan of victims of climate change hasn’t stopped since, so those behind it must be identified and a way of dealing with them specified. All industrialized countries, especially the major ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis, except that most of them have called on each other to commit to the Kyoto Protocol and have agreed to reduce emissions of harmful gases. However, Bush Junior – and prior to him, Congress – rejected this agreement in order to please the major corporations. . . .

Hansen spoke out and warned Americans about the seriousness of global warming in 1988, but they didn’t respond to him. As for conferences, the Kyoto conference [on climate change] took place at the end of the last century, but they didn’t respond to it. And as for demonstrations, not even the largest of them – much less the smaller ones – were able to deter them from their greed and tyranny.

. . .  The policies of the world today are not being steered with the power of superior intellects to serve the interest of the people; but rather, with the power of the motivation and greed of oil-robbers and warmongers, the beasts of predatory capitalism. Noam Chomsky was right when he pointed to a similarity between American policies and the policies of Mafia gangs. So they are the real terrorists, and drastic and decisive solutions are required to restrain and subdue them: restrain them from their sin and subdue their savagery . . .

Bin Laden followed up nine months later with a tape in which he complained about food shortages, particular in Muslim countries, caused by Global Warming. Noting that there were now more victims of climate change than of war, he called for a “huge transformation” in the delivery of relief. CNN reported on bin Laden’s remarks that he “said the effects of climate change need to be studied in populated areas near rivers and valleys in Muslim nations, and cited what happened recently when flooding hit the Saudi city of Jeddah. He mentioned the need for other projects to tackle famine, poverty, and disaster relief.”

In response to bin Laden’s remarks, the Washington Times editorialized ( ):

[Bin Laden said,] “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global-warming crisis.” That line easily could have been written by Al Gore.

In 2007, bin Laden warned that “all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations,” and that this was causing “the death and displacement of millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa.” As early as 2002, in a letter to the American people, bin Laden explained that one of the reasons he was waging war on the United States was that Americans “have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history.” In other words, the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers were brought down because America lacked adequate carbon emission controls.

According to documents recovered from his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan where he was killed, bin Laden remained interested in the issue until his last days, admonishing a deputy to pay more attention to how climate change might affect Somalia. One message included this: “Attached is a report about climate change, especially the floods in Pakistan. Please send to Al-Jazeera.” That’s the left-wing, Qatar-backed news service.

Commenting on bin Laden’s position on the climate change issue, Foreign Affairs magazine managed to work in insults at both Global Warming skeptics and so-called fundamentalists (a term that leftists use as a general insult directed at religious people without regard to the actual definition of the term): “It may seem surprising that one of the most extreme fundamentalist groups in the world is more open minded about science than some in the United States, but it is not actually all that shocking, considering that for centuries, the Islamic world was a wellspring of scientific and technological achievement.” (Well, no, not really. See )

In a similar vein to the comments in Foreign Affairs, blogger Scott Sutton posted last May that bin Laden’s comments “sound like progressive lines of thought on climate change—or at least in line with scientific consensus. One might think that those [be] positions held by, say, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,” who was then Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). “Could it be that a murderous terrorist clinging to fundamentalist religious ideals was more progressive when it came to climate change than the U.S. senator that heads the Environment and Public Works Committee?”

Another blogger, Chris Graham: “Your average Republican will tell you climate change is bunk. Osama bin Laden, otherwise stuck in the sixth century, conceded the 21st century reality. . . . [B]in Laden wasn’t trying to win election in Fox News America.”

In one document discovered after bin Laden’s death, a letter marking Ramadan, he referred to “climate changes” as judgment from Allah. “The [Western] secularists maintain that these are natural disasters we must confront. In other words, they are saying, we are able to stand up to Allah and confront His judgment . . . ”

Bin Laden spoke of the obligation of the West and of Muslim countries to come to the aid of the poor harmed by the changes, among which he included groundwater depletion. Countries could divert funds from their defense budgets to climate change disaster relief, he mused. And he suggested the creation of “a distinct relief organization,” an arm of Al Qaeda to distribute aid.

Indeed, as noted by Vice News ( ):

Bin Laden’s concern with climate change in the “Islamic World” tracks a stark reality: Many of the nations that are most vulnerable to a warming world are also home to huge Muslim populations, according to the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index (ND-GAIN). The index not only looks at nations’ risk of natural disaster, but also their “readiness to actually take on new investments and [their] readiness to adapt” to climate change, says Joyce Coffee, a managing director at ND-GAIN.

“The index points out relative risk, as well as opportunity,” Joyce told VICE News. She added that the degree of climate exposure for each nation is based on their economic, social, and governmental stability, in addition to their geography. Flood-prone, majority Muslim nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh are nearer to the bottom of the ND-GAIN. Bin Laden’s references to flooding in Pakistan were a response to destructive monsoons in 2010, which the World Meteorological Organization attributed to higher temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean. . . .  Bin Laden wrote that his hypothetical relief organization should study how flood-prone Muslim communities could adapt.

Yemen, Sudan, and Chad, three nations at the bottom of the ND-GAIN’s list — with Chad dead last among countries where data was available — were also explicitly mentioned by bin Laden. All three currently face some potent mix of cataclysmic drought, water shortages, famine, population increase, and civil societies under collapse from war and faltering economies.

The implication is that any worldwide “climate change relief” effort would benefit Muslim nations disproportionately. Luckily, we U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for that Green Climate Fund, so that’s taken care of.

You’re welcome, Osama.


Share this post!

The rising threat of Islamophobiaphobia

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

On December 5, the Daily News published this column by the hate-spewing columnist Linda Stasi.

sja deception blog Linda Stasi of NYDailyNews blames victim He's a Jew and a Christian and a political conservative 151208

…which she promoted on Twitter.

sja deception blog Linda Stasi NewYorkDailyNews Terrorism victim deserved it 151214

Here’s what she wrote:

They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

There were 14 people killed by the terrorists. Stasi wrote that “13 innocent people are dead”—which means that, in her opinion, one of the people killed was not “innocent.”

His name was Nicholas Thalasinos. How was he not innocent? He was a Messianic Jew—that is, a Jew who saw Jesus as his Messiah. And he was a political conservative who, Stasi wrote, supported the NRA, joked about making Ann Coulter the secretary of homeland security, opposed Planned Parenthood, and was “the male equivalent of Pamela Geller.” Planned Parenthood, which gets more than half a billion dollars a year in taxpayers’ money, backs partial-birth abortion, which is seen by almost all Americans, including most liberals, as the killing of children; Geller is a human rights activist who is critical of mainstream Islam’s opposition to freedom of the press and its overall record on human rights.

He was a Jew (by heritage and by his own identification), he was a Christian, and he was a political conservative who supported human rights. To the neo-Klansmen at the Daily News, Nicholas Thalasinos hit the trifecta of hate.

Stasi wrote that Thalasinos—

was a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew, who also connected with his future wife online and had traveled across the country to meet her. The killer, however, became half of an Islamic Bonnie & Clyde, while the other died as the male equivalent of Pamela Geller. The killers deserve every disgusting adjective thrown at them. And more. But the victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man.

Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot. . . . Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security.

He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran. His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry. Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs.

So he was against anti-Semitic politicians. He wanted “Hashem” (God) to blow up the terrorist state of Iran. And he noted sarcastically the Democratic Party’s reliance on the abortion industry.*

Per Stasi, he was opposed to the Muslim Million Man march and, due to his bigoted Islamophobia, linked the Million Muslim March (misidentified by Stasi as the “Muslim Million Man march”) to the 9/11 attack. How could he not be a hater when he posted this?

sja deception blog Meme posted on Facebook by San Bernardino shooting victim about Truthers 151208 1240109_10201304854316264_237370237_n


But there’s a problem with pointing to that graphic as proof of hatred of Muslims: The Million Muslim March had nothing to do with Islam. Although said to have been organized by the American Muslim Political Action Committee of Kansas City, Missouri, the actual event featured 25 “9/11 Truthers,” most non-Muslims, who believed that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks or knew about them in advance. Among the speakers: left-wing college professor Cornel West. The characterization of the event as Muslim was sufficiently misleading that the event and the characterization were denounced by the left-wing Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

An earlier “news” article in the Daily News with three credited authors suggested that Thalasinos’s opposition to the Million Muslim March. Counting Stasi, that means that four people at the News couldn’t be bothered to Google the march and read its Wikipedia entry. Perhaps they didn’t care. Remember: The News is a paper that tried to blame the National Rifle Association for the San Bernardino attack. (See )


The current world war isn’t between Muslims and non-Muslins.

It’s between, on one side, Islamofascists and their political allies and apologists, and on the other, all those who support freedom and constitutional democracy (i.e., democracy in which governmental powers are strictly limited).

The latter group—the good guys—includes Muslims who, often at great personal risk, oppose practices that are systematic in much of the Muslim world, including the subjugation and sexual mutilation of women, the imprisonment and execution of homosexuals, and the denial of the universal human rights that, as it happens, were first codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I’ve worked with pro-freedom Muslims for more than 30 years, going back to the Cold War, and I was recruited by a Muslim to the taxpayers’ movement, which evolved into the Tea Party movement. Pro-freedom Muslims deserve all the help we can give them. They are in the minority among their co-religionists. The vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of the world’s people as a whole, stay out of international politics and human rights controversies, but, among those who take a stand, more support terrorism than support freedom.

Of the 30 countries with the highest Muslim percentage of the population, only two (Morocco and Turkey) are rated even moderately free. Saudi Arabia, location of the religion’s holiest sites, was the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and of the operation’s financiers; it’s a country in which women are not allowed to drive and in which opposition to the government is strictly prohibited.

Then there’s Iran, with 75 million people, which is 99.7% Muslim because other religious groups have been eliminated. That’s the country that, thanks to President Obama and Secretary Clinton, is on track to get nukes (and just violated U.N. Security Council resolutions by testing 2000-kilometer nuclear-capable missiles). Remember this? ( )

Vilified as a Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorism and a backer of Iraqi insurgents, the president of Iran was actually able to make New Yorkers burst into laughter – though he did not intend to. “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University last night in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay men there. “In Iran we do not have this phenomenon,” he continued. “I do not know who has told you we have it.”

See the video (at 3:43):

The reaction of the Left to the very real threat of Islamofascism is, in a word, suicidal. They are collaborating in an effort by the Islamofascists and their supporters to stigmatize human rights activists and national-security realists as “racists,” and to discourage people from following the call “If you see something, say something.” After the reaction to the “clock boy”—see —and the $15 million lawsuit in that case, what do you think will happen the next time, when the bomb is real?

Islamofascist agents sometimes conduct “probing attacks,” in which simulated threats are used to hide real ones, or to make people think twice before responding appropriately.

  • Need to take photographs of potential targets? Encourage lots of people of stereotypically Muslim appearance to go out on a given day and take pictures of landmarks; the actual terrorist planners will be lost among the ones who are simply taking pictures. If anyone expresses concerns about Muslim-appearing people taking pictures of landmark, shout “Islamophobe!”
  • Want to see how security works on board airplanes? Stage disruptions in which people of stereotypically Muslim appearance act obnoxiously on a plane, and see how far you can push things before getting a strong response. If you get a strong response, claim discrimination and get some money out of the airline.

Punish military officers enough for acts that are questionably Islamophobic, and others in their position will keep their suspicions about Nidal Hissan to themselves. Ridicule people as Islamophobes, take them to court for “profiling,” and others will keep quiet when they see neighbors Tashfeen and Syed amassing an arms cache in their garage.

Twenty-eight people died in the two attacks after people failed to pass along their suspicions to the authorities. For the Islamophobiaphobes, it’s Mission: Accomplished!



* I don’t know why the word “Democrats” is in parentheses in Stasi’s account. I suspect that Stasi was paraphrasing, but I can’t find the original Facebook post by Thalasinos. I would appreciate any help from readers in finding the original post.


Share this post!

Green Watch December 2015: Kitzhaber, Hayes, Steyer, and the Green Web: What happens when fake science meets greed and lust for power, in Oregon and across the country?

Kitzhaber, Hayes, Steyer, and the Green Web
What happens when fake science meets greed and lust for power, in Oregon and across the country? [PDF here] [This is Part 2. Click HERE for Part 1.]
by Steven J. Allen

Global Warming beliefs corrupt.

If you’re saving the planet, what aren’t you allowed to do?

The real scandal of Kitzhaber and Hayes isn’t about the two of them. It’s about the lengths and depths to which people will go when the end justifies the means, and the means can make people powerful and rich.

It’s about the networks designed accidentally and on purpose to hide the true motivations underlying the policies that affect our lives in dramatic ways.
The Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial in February that “the Hayes-Kitzhaber operation exposes the underside of the big-money, insider politics that has come to dominate the environmental movement. The modern green machine is a network of wealthy foundations and consultant groups that finance activists who promote and advise sympathetic politicians. Putting or keeping people on the payroll who are close to influential politicians is their stock in trade.”

As noted in our November issue, Cylvia Hayes, usually through her consulting firm 3E Strategies, was paid by environmental interests while her romantic partner, John Kitzhaber, was governor of Oregon. Those interests included the Clean Economy Development Center, an organization called Resource Media, a think tank and advocacy group named Demos, and—most importantly—the individuals and organizations that funded the organizations that funded Hayes. Often, money from one group was actually from another group, which received money from a third group. Where did the flow begin, and where did it end?

“Dan’s concept”
Let’s start with Dan Carol.

It was Carol who arranged for Hayes’ “fellowship” with an organization based in Washington, D.C., the Clean Economy Development Center (CEDC). Then he was hired as a Kitzhaber staff member—indeed, by far the highest paid member of the governor’s staff at more than $165,000 a year.

Carol has been a board member of the Tides Center [about which, see our sister publication Foundation Watch, October 2010]. According to his biographical information from NDN (New Democrat Network), where he was a senior fellow, Carol served as the Content & Issues Director for the Obama for President campaign and “guided the launch” of [Click HERE for the rest of the article.]

[This is Part 2. Click HERE for Part 1.]

Share this post!

أضحك بصوت عالٍ، أقهقه, or, That sound from Raqqah

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

The Obama/Clinton people, working with their allies in the news media, spent days trying to make us think, contrary to every piece of evidence, that the San Bernardino attack in which Islamofascist terrorists killed 14 people was a case of workplace violence, just like the “workplace violence” (as they characterized it) that happened at Fort Hood, where an Islamofascist terrorist killed 14 people, counting an unborn baby.  Now the Obama/Clintonites have unveiled their plan for dealing with the Al Qaeda spinoff ISIS:

Keep doing what the U.S. government has been doing in the Middle East. How serious is that effort? Barry Shaw of the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies wrote in November ( ) that “When Israel was forced to respond to thousands of missiles and rockets fired by Hamas last year, they flew 5500 air sorties over Gaza during the fifty-five days of the conflict. US planes have barely flown 1500 sorties in over a year against ISIS. This, to any military chief, is not serious.” And, as of last July, twice as many planes were returning with their ordnance due to a lack of available targets as compared to sorties at a similar point in the Afghan war (35 percent as of July vs. ISIS, versus 17 percent in Afghanistan in 2012).

In September, we learned ( ) that—

 A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the Islamic State has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified. “We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee . . .

Lest you be sickened by this astonishing waste of effort and taxpayers’ dollars, rest assured that our brilliant president saw it coming ( ).

When “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft asked about this spectacular failure [in October], Obama replied that he always knew it wouldn’t work. “Steve, this is why I’ve been skeptical from the get-go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,” Obama said.

Crack down on speech that the government considers anti-Islamic or “Islamophobic.” David French wrote in National Review Online ( ):

There is now a “wonderful opportunity and wonderful moment to really make significant change,” [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch declared the day after 14 innocent Americans were murdered and 23 injured at the hands of a Muslim couple who’d reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS. And what is this change? New gun-control measures, of course, including stripping the constitutional rights (without due process) of Americans often arbitrarily placed on the vastly over-inclusive terror watch list. Lynch addressed the Muslim Advocate’s tenth-anniversary dinner and declared that she is concerned about an “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric . . . that fear is my greatest fear.” Her greatest fear is—not terrorism—but a nonexistent Islamophobic backlash? ISIS has demonstrated that it can bring down passenger jets, strike the heart of a great Western capitol with urban assault teams, and inspire horrible carnage in California. We also know that ISIS has pledged to keep attacking the U.S. and possesses chemical weapons. Yet it’s politically incorrect speech that strikes fear into the heart of our attorney general.

Keep in mind that Obama, Clinton, and their allies have characterized as anti-Islamic such expressions, protected by the First Amendment, as drawing cartoons of Mohammed and criticizing Islam in a YouTube video. As President Obama told the United Nations: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Among the vast majority of Muslims, denying the status of Mohammed as the prophet of the One True Religion is considered “slander.”

By the way, we now know that both the Fort Hood and San Bernardino shootings might have been prevented except that people chose not to come forward with their suspicions, out of fear of being labeled racist. So the good news is that the anti-Islamophobia campaign is working!


Do not use religious tests for refugees.  …even when the law and common decency demand it. U.S. law requires the use of a so-called “religious test” when considering the plight of refugees, to ensure that the government prioritizes groups, such as Yazidis and Middle Eastern Christians, that are the target of enslavement and genocide.

A century ago, Christians were 14-20 percent of the population of the Middle East; now it’s four percent, and falling. In some places, almost-2,000-year-old Christian communities are vanishing. In Syria, Christians were, until the current conflict, ten percent of the population, but, according to the most recent figures, have made up only 2.6 percent of the Syrians allowed into the U.S. (The number of Yazidis: one. Not one percent—one person.) Among Christians and Yazidis and other non-Muslims, females lucky or unlucky enough to survive an ISIS attack and come into the group’s custody are sold as slaves, often sex slaves passed from one ISISite to another. Ten-year-olds fetch the best prices.

Said Mr. Obama: “[J]ust as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans, of every faith, to reject discrimination. It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It’s our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.” The Obama administration, like the Roosevelt administration in the case of the MS/SS St. Louis—Jews fleeing Hitler—is using religious neutrality as an excuse to look the other way. If you stand up for human rights, you’re a “bigot” and a subject of ridicule by Obama & Co.


Outlaw certain types of guns. These are guns that leftists sometimes refer to as “assault weapons” (a category of firearm that does not exist) and sometimes as assault rifles (a type of gun that has been illegal in the U.S., except in extremely rare cases, for 70 years). During the lifetime of President Obama, no legally-purchased assault rifle has been used in a crime in the United States. The guns used by the San Bernardino terrorists were the most popular type of handgun in the world and the most popular type of rifle in the U.S.; neither the handguns nor the rifles were automatic weapons like machine guns.

And California already has laws banning various weapons that the Left wrongly calls “assault weapons.” The Left calls California-type gun laws “commonsense” and “sensible.” Last week, following the murder of 14 in San Bernardino, California, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) declared that “the fact is, sensible gun laws work. We’ve proven it in California.”


Take away a person’s right to buy a gun if he or she is on the “no-fly” list. That’s a secret list of supposedly suspicious people that has included Weekly Standard/Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes, Timothy Noah of Slate (now of Politico), and the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts). According to a recent Inspector General report, the larger, similar Terror Watch List includes 72 staffers at the Obama administration’s Department of Homeland Security. The San Bernardino terrorists were on no such list. (Tashfeen Malik, in fact, passed the U.S. government’s careful, intense vetting process while using a fake address on  her visa application.)

The list is made up largely of people who are deemed suspicious because of their connections with Muslim groups, which, as the President and his allies point out, have nothing to do with terrorism. (Clinton: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”) The no-fly list is something that the Obama people used to count among the civil liberties violations perpetrated by a man they consider both an evil mastermind and an idiot, George W. Bush.

Georgetown Law professor Laura Donohue wrote that the no-fly list came to the attention of the public when “prominent antiwar activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordan, and political opponents of the Bush administration, such as Senator Edward Kennedy and the civil rights attorney David Cole, found themselves included.”

The New York Times noted that “A 2007 audit found that more than half of the 71,000 names then on the no-fly list were wrongly included.”

Remember Cat Stevens? He was the honored guest at that big Washington rally led by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, an event that was styled as a parody of a Tea Party rally. Lee Smith wrote in the Weekly Standard in 2010 ( ):

When Cat Stevens was introduced at Jon Stewart’s recent “Rally to Restore Sanity,” the musician also known by his Muslim name Yusuf Islam was greeted with warm applause and howls of approval. It was a strange reception coming from a culturally savvy, mostly twentysomething audience, for while Stevens’s songs are a staple in the 1970s schlock-folk canon, he is best known these days for having supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa demanding the execution of novelist Salman Rushdie.

Stevens has tried to whitewash his record over the years, without ever acknowledging or apologizing for his comments, including his response to a British interviewer’s question as to whether he would attend a demonstration to burn an effigy of the writer; Stevens answered glibly that he “hoped that it’d be the real thing.” “I don’t know why no one in that crowd booed Stevens, or heckled him when he was introduced,” says the British author Nick Cohen, who was in contact with Rushdie after the rally. “Rushdie phoned Stewart, who said he was sorry if it upset him, but it was clear Stewart didn’t really care.”

Presumably what mattered to Stewart and the rally’s cosponsor Stephen Colbert was less Stevens’s willingness to join in the bloodlust of the Islamic Republic of Iran (the fatwa has been reaffirmed by Iran’s current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei) than the fact that Stevens/Islam had been put on a no-fly list by the Bush administration. Never mind that the folk singer had been identified as having donated to a Muslim charity with ties to Hamas; anyone considered unfriendly by Bush is an ally.


Or course, leftists jump at every opportunity to push new laws related to guns. It’s their fetish, their knee-jerk solution for every problem, akin to Republicans’ tendency to propose tax cuts as a cure-all for economic problems (not that taxes shouldn’t be cut, of course). Leftists run to the podium with their pre-fab proposals every time there’s a rash of shootings (not counting gang-related shootings of African-Americans or Latinos, about which leftists couldn’t care less).

Leftists can’t do anything about dangerously insane people wandering the streets (because the Left, largely through the ACLU, made it nearly impossible to lock them up); they can’t do anything about the gun-free zones that attract terrorists and crazies alike (because Starbucks-drinking liberals like gun-free zones); they can’t do anything about the news media coverage that glorifies glory-seeking mass-shooters and primes the pump for the next shootings (because they need the coverage in order to strike fear in people’s hearts and make the National Rifle Association into villains). But they have down-to-a-science the process for demanding gun laws that have absolutely nothing to do with people’s safety and everything to do with politics.


…and the final element of their plan for dealing with ISIS:

Stop praying. ’Cause praying is the problem.

sja deception blog NYDailyNews and two congressmen attack prayer 151207 prayer-shaming

That’s the front page of the New York Daily News, along with tweets from Zack Ford of ThinkProgress, which is an arm of the Clinton organization, and from Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut).

“Stop thinking”? Thanks for the advice, Zack.




Another thing…

Here’s another front page from the bigoted New York Daily News. Can you spot the trick?

sja deception blog NYDailyNews Wayne LaPierre Holmes et al as terrorists 151207 Screen-Shot-2015-12-04-at-8.33.45-AM


No, the trick is not just that Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association is branded a terrorist (lower right), presumably for his support of Article 2 of the Bill of Rights. (For those who came in late, LaPierre supports Americans’ right to possess guns for hunting animals or defending themselves from criminals, which means that, as far as the kooks are concerned, he’s responsible for the acts of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik—because, I suppose, the terrorist couple, who amassed some 7,000 rounds of ammunition and 15 pipe bombs, would not have been able to arm themselves if those “common sense gun safety laws” the President talks about had been in effect.)

Look at the pictures. See the trick?

The trick is that the Daily News includes, on a list of terrorists, the mass-shooters from Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado, both of whom were out of their minds and not terrorists. (A terrorist is someone who uses violence against civilians to instill fear among the populace, in pursuit of political or religious objectives, or is affiliated with a group that uses such a strategy.) The News also lists the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooter as a terrorist, which remains to be seen, depending mostly on whether he was rational enough to formulate a motive.

By characterizing the Newtown and Aurora shooters, along with political activist LaPierre, as terrorists, the Daily News deliberately and methodically attempts to confuse people about the threat of terrorism. Likewise, the New York Times, in an editorial Saturday, lied, “Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.”

The Obamaite media downplay the threat, and line themselves up with the President, who may believe that more attacks are on the way and is desperate to make his political adversaries somehow responsible for the horror to come.

The President falsely claimed during the 2012 campaign that Al Qaeda was “on the run” (see ). He falsely characterized ISIS as a “Jayvee team”—not a serious threat—and he claimed, a few hours before the Paris attack, that ISIS had been “contained.” Now he and his allies are trying to turn the fight against ISIS into a fight against Republicans and the NRA.

That sound you hear is the laughter of a man named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.





Share this post!