The national news media, acting as the Palace Guard for "Dear Leader" Barack Obama, is fiercely protective of Obama's image. Facts about Obama's religious upbringing as a Muslim have been censored and attacked. The media tells us that it is perfectly okay for any American to be a Muslim. Our Constitution forbids any religious test for anyone to serve in government. But it is not acceptable to the media to inform the country about President Obama's Muslim roots as a child, and who they voted for.
On February 27, 2007, Barack Hussein Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," in an interview with Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times. Obama's comment is especially odd
because no one forced to listen to the "Adhan" would call the screeching song 'pretty' without enormous indoctrination into Islam. Obama also told Kristoff how he was once caught making a face at a classmate during Koran study classes.
Even more astonishing, Obama then sang perfectly the entire Muslim call to prayer to Nicholas Kristof "with a first-class [Arabic] accent." Not only had Obama memorized the call to prayer precisely, but his long years of experience in singing it to melody was so extensive that his Arabic accent was 'flawless.'
According to Islamic scholars, reciting this Muslim declaration of faith makes one a Muslim. The words express a Muslim's complete acceptance of, and total commitment to, the message of Islam. The opening lines chanted by Obama say: "Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet! " Having attended Islamic religion classes, Obama knows this.
Recent events have now revived questions about Obama's allegiances. On April 14, to deliver another speech on the economy, the President demanded that Georgetown University cover up the name of
Jesus in a campus hall before Obama gave a speech there. (The speech was widely interpreted as an attempt to defuse the tea parties scheduled for April 15.)
The gold "IHS" monogram inscribed high on the wall was covered over by a piece of black-painted plywood, and remained covered over the next day, CNSNews.com reported. Georgetown University confirmed this to the Washington Times. "IHS" is a "Christogram" derived from the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus. "IHS" is also sometimes said to mean Iesus Hominum Salvator ("Jesus, Savior of men" in Latin).
So why would someone claiming to be a Christian first choose a private Catholic University as the location for a speech to appeal to conservatives on the eve of tea parties, but then demand that Christian symbols be covered up? Why didn't Obama, as a professed Christian, want pictures of him speaking below the Christian symbol "IHS" visible in the Muslim world?
Meanwhile, another event this week in Kenya brought this taboo topic to attention once again. Obama's grandmother, Sarah Obama had arranged to be baptized to become a Christian in a large evangelistic revival in Kisumu, Kenya. The event led by Australian evangelist John Jeremic filled the Jomo Kenyatta Sports Ground for
several days.
When the van arrived to bring Obama's grandmother to the Christian service, her son Saidi Obama refused to let her go, insisting that Obama's Grandmother is a Muslim. Her son said: "I did not understand why they were asking her to attend a Christian ceremony, yet she is a Muslim." Her son described this as the
decision of most of her family. However, two of Sarah's sisters-in-law had previously accompanied Mama Sarah to earlier sessions of the evangelistic crusade, and had taken her to the Christian Church for the previous three weeks.
This incident confirms that (a) Barack Obama's Kenyan family is largely Muslim, and strongly so, opposing grandmother Sarah's desire to convert to Christianity, and (b) Barack Obama's Kenyan Grandmother does not believe she is yet a Christian and was preparing to become a Christian through baptism at the event.
At the G-20 summit of the world's 20 largest economies, President Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah.. By contrast,
Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height, standing straight..
Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Therefore, a Muslim would instinctively give reverence to His Majesty, the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques." By contrast, the British Monarch is technically the head of the Church of England. Obama did not bow to the royal queen who is guardian of the world's first and oldest Protestant Christian Church.
Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was diplomatically incorrect. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with equal respect no less than he received. Then, continuing his
tour into Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation.
Most Muslims do not recognize the possibility that a Muslim can ever leave the Islamic faith. Islamic converts to Christianity are put to death around the world, in accordance with Islamic teaching, sometimes by their own families in "honor killings."
It is undeniable that Barack Obama was raised as a Muslim. Obama's biological father was a Muslim, as is most of Obama's extended family in Kenya even today. Obama wrote in his auto-biography that his father had lost faith in religion. However, Muslim communities do not accept this concept of a non-practicing Muslim. "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim" is their approach. Therefore, Obama's extended family and neighbors would have demanded the son's regular attendance at a local Mosque with the entire community.
Obama's mother later re-married to Lolo Sotero (or Soetero), also a Muslim, and an Indonesian citizen. In Indonesia, Lolo enrolled their son, then "Barry Sotero," in school. Obama's step-father had to identify Barry's religion, since religious instruction is a required part of education in Indonesia. "Islam," wrote his father.
This choice determined which religious instruction the future President was enrolled in: Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian. Obama's identification as a Muslim is documented by his school registration papers in that country, first obtained by a citizen journalist "Israel Insider."
Thus it is beyond dispute that Barack Obama, then Barry Sotero, was trained as a Muslim in his youth. He was presented to all other Muslims in the school and community as a fellow Muslim, by his participation in Islamic classes. That would compel him to attend Mosque with his classmates and his Muslim father Lolo. In Islam, one is automatically a Muslim if the father is a Muslim. One of his classmates Emirsyah Satar, now CEO of Garuda Indonesia, said: "He (Obama)
was often in the prayer room wearing a 'sarong', at that time," and "He was quite religious in Islam...."
It must be said that rumors during the campaign that Obama attended a "Madrassah" as a youth were false. A "Madrassah" is essentially a form of child abuse, in which young boys are taught nothing but memorization of the Koran. Not only are Madrassah students indoctrinated in extreme, militant views of Islam, but they emerge with
no skills or useful education with which to get a job to support themselves. Their lack of options further pushes them into Islamic Jihad. While a great many mysteries remain unexplored about Obama, the news media leapt into action, flying reporters to Indonesia, to prove that Obama's school there was not a Madrassah. But Obama's enrollment in the school as a Muslim was confirmed (though buried).
Nevertheless, Obama presented his unusual, international childhood as his main qualification in foreign affairs for the Presidency. Early in the campaign, we were told that because Obama had lived overseas, he could understand and relate to other countries. Because he had been trained as a Muslim, he could reach out to the
Muslim world and understand their mindset. Working as a community organizer in Chicago did not provide experience in foreign affairs, so his campaign depended upon his international childhood. But it has now become taboo to mention it, just as mentioning his middle name "Hussein" is harshly criticized. (Since Obama changed
his name back from Barry Sotero, he could have legally removed the "Hussein" in the process had he wished to. He did not.)
However, Barack Obama professes to have converted to Christianity approximately 20 years ago in Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, under the leadership of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. It is certainly common for Americans to change religions, and well-accepted. Many insist that a person's claim to be a Christian should
never be questioned. The very idea of doubting a person's professed choice of religion is offensive to many. Many of various religions demand that if Obama claims to be a Christian, his declaration cannot be questioned.
However, many other Christians place great importance on the authenticity of conversion, citing the many warnings of Jesus about people who will believe they are followers of Jesus, but on Judgement Day Jesus will tell even those who performed miracles in Jesus' name "I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness."
Matthew 7:23. They warn that a clear understanding of who Jesus is and what salvation means is vitally important. Without a clear understanding, a person may falsely believe they are a Christian, leading to personal tragedy. Also, Jesus spent a great deal of His Ministry challenging the depth and reality of people's
relationship with God.
Adding to doubts is Obama's claim that Christianity is only one of many alternate paths to God. According to columnist Cal Thomas, Obama gave an interview in 2004 to Chicago Sun-Times religion editor Cathleen Falsani for her book, "The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People." Obama told Falsani: "I believe there
are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people." According to Falsani, Obama thinks that "all people of faith — Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone — know the same God." Falsani adds, "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to
hell. But he's not sure he'll be going to heaven, either."
However, Jesus explicitly stated that there is no other way to God without Him. See John 14:6. Jesus also warned against false prophets who would come after Him, and commanded Christians not to listen to them. Matthew 24:11-24. And the essence of
salvation through Jesus Christ involves absolute certainty -- that is, faith -- that one will go to heaven because of what Jesus did for us on the cross (not at all based on our own worth or works).
On June 28, 2006, Obama sarcastically mocked the Bible at the Call to Renewal Conference, implying that the Bible could not be trusted, while taking Biblical quotes out of context.
In an ABC News interview, Obama said that "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith." Only when George Stephanopolous corrected him, did Obama change "Muslim" to "Christian."
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama described how he had visited 57 of the 58 States. While slip-ups on the campaign trail are not new, in fact there are 57 States in the Organization of Islamic Conference.. So the number of Islamic OIC States appears to have sprung more readily to Obama's mind than the 50 States of the U.S.A.
Does membership in Rev. Wright's church mean Obama became a Christian? On February 15, 2008, Usama K. Dakdok, President of The Straight Way of Grace Ministry called Trinity United Church of Christ and reported the following conversation: " I then asked the person who answered what I needed to do to join. She told me that I needed to attend two Sunday School classes in a row and then I would walk the aisle. I replied, "That sounds easy. One last question please. If I am Muslim and I believe in the Prophet Mohammed, peace be unto him and I also believe in Jesus, peace be unto him, do I have to give up my Islamic faith to be a member in your church? She answered: "No, we have many Muslim members in our church."
Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church does not inspire confidence for those wondering about the authenticity of Obama's introduction to Christianity and conversion. Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have been little more than a left-wing political club. From what we can tell, Jesus was rarely mentioned, and then only in his guise
as just a moral teacher. So was Barack Obama confronted with the true identity of Jesus Christ as Creator of the Universe (see John 1), God
Incarnate, and Savior, and explained the complete meaning of the gospel and Jesus' death on the cross? Obama attacked Black pastors who preach the Bible, while praising Wright.
So could a Muslim attend a Christian Church for 20 years? Actually, yes. Muslims honor Jesus very strongly as a great prophet of God, really the second greatest prophet to Mohammed himself. Islam teaches that Jesus Himself will stand up at the end of the world and confirm that Mohammed is the true Prophet of Allah. Most Muslims have a higher opinion of Jesus than many casual pop Christians in America. However, Muslims adamantly deny that Jesus
Christ is God or that Jesus died on any cross. They believe that God swapped Jesus for someone else at the last minute, and it was a murderer who died on the cross instead. Since Islam denies that Jesus is God, they view it as an outrageous idea that God would pick some random man to die for mankind. Islam teaches that Jesus was a Muslim (as was Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Moses, King David, etc.)
So a Muslim could feel comfortable sitting in a "social gospel" liberal church that presents Jesus as only a good teacher, and never preaches Jesus as being God Incarnate or the Savior who died for our sins. Obama was exposed mainly to political speeches from the pulpit with a little bit of Jesus-as-just-a-good-man thrown in.
Joining Rev. Wright's African-American mega-church was surely no accident. For any Black man interested in a political career in Chicago, membership at Trinity United Church of Christ was almost a requirement. Black churches play a very major role in the Black community, and Wright's mega-church more than most. Wright's highly-poltical, "Jesus-lite" brand of almost-Christianity attracted visits and speeches from politicians all over the area. Wright's politics-heavy church was the perfect place for Obama to make his early political contacts, get noticed, and get connected for his later runs for office. (Note that Wright's church is unusual
and very different from most Black churches. Many Black churches are vastly more sincere, devout, serious, deep and profound in Christianity than the typical White church.)
So did Obama convert to Christianity in Obama's church? Or did he simply make a career move by professing to join Trinity United Church of Christ? Even if Obama thought he was learning about the real Jesus, did Rev. Wright's brand of anti-American politics starve and deprive Obama from an encounter with the real Christ? Could Obama have truly wanted to know Jesus, but was cheated with a counterfeit Christ instead? Does Obama not even realize that he does not yet know God?
But would a Muslim sit through Rev. Wright's sermons for 20 years? Islamic teaching encourages strategic deception, when necessary, to advance Islam throughout the world. It is possible that a Muslim could intentionally pose as a convert, in a church that talked about Jesus as only a moral teacher, as Muslims already believe.
Of course, everyone must seek out God and find Him. It is reported that President Abraham Lincoln, one of our two greatest Presidents, received salvation through Jesus only very late in his Presidency. After many years of quoting the Bible, as deep analysis of the nation's crises and as great encouragement, Lincoln himself came to realize he had never actually been "saved." Lincoln had only an intellectual education in the Bible, but not a personal faith or experience. It is reported that one evening the President -- all alone -- knocked on the door of a pastor in Washington, D.C. After they talked for a few hours, the pastor led Lincoln in praying the sinner's prayer and giving his life to Jesus. Obama likes to compare himself with Lincoln also of Illinois.
Likewise, perhaps God may also lead Obama to understand that there is more than Obama has yet found, and bring Obama to salvation at the right time.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Global Warming's Astronomical Origins
Last week, former Vice President and Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore testified in Congress to encourage massive "cap and trade" regulation by which the government would effectively seize state control of the nation's economy.
Having been previously stung by snowstorms and freezing cold snaps whenever Al Gore speaks, the Congressional hearings were scheduled in late April and avoided a dramatic rebuttal by Mother Nature. However, the Earth's cooling that began in 1998 continues to challenge the global warming theory.
The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is working with 30,000 scientists who oppose the idea that global warming is caused by man's activities. Coleman plans to sue Al Gore for fraud to finally get some forum in which to debate the theory.
In January, Japan's prestigious Society of Energy and Resources gave an "astonishing rebuke" to scientists promoting the idea of man-made global warming. JSER, a government advisory board, compared global warming theories to "ancient astrology." JSER noted that the Earth stopped warming in 2001 (other say 1998), but in general the Earth has merely been recovering naturally from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred between around 1400 and 1800.
The Japanese scientists criticized over-reliance on inherently-unreliable computer models, without real-world testing of the hypothesis. JSER concluded that cycles in the sun's activities cause variation in the Earth's climate: "Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer
are affected."
Poland's Academy of Sciences recently published a document that rejects man-made global warming, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The Polish Academy notes that over the history of the Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures. This data decisively proves that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Global warming comes first. Then carbon dioxide increased later. (Most likely dissolved CO2 evaporated from warming oceans.)
The Academy also noted that global temperatures have been higher than today in Earth's past. And the Academy explained that temperature monitoring of the Earth is very spotty, starting only 200 years ago. Even today only 28% of the world is represented by temperature monitoring, and far less of the Earth was measured as we look back through older, historical records. Measurement of the vast oceans is only about 40 years old.
The Academy pointed out that urban growth has encroached upon and surrounded the weather stations that were previously in the countryside. Today's measurements from those stations are hotter because of the heat effect of asphalt and concrete of the cities, while readings from those same stations thirty years ago were then in the
countryside. Therefore, we are measuring not increased global temperatures, but the "heat effect" of the concrete jungle expanding to surround the weather stations.
In one case, a U.S. investigator for the website "Watts Up with That" discovered that a weather station at an airport was catching the hot jet exhaust from jet airplanes on
the runway! (Meanwhile, note that Russians and East Europeans are often far-superior theoretical scientists to those in the West, sometimes holding multiple Ph.D's. Their economy manufactured junk due to political interference in the marketplace. But their scientists have traditionally been better-educated.)
Now, recent scientific analysis is coming out of hiding that precisely identifies the strongest driving factors in the Earth's climate: It is the sun. The sun goes through a number of powerful cycles. The sun's 11-year sunspot cycle is fairly well known. However, the sun also goes through much longer cycles as well, including one
of approximately 180 years, and one of approximately 1,000 years.
As a result of these cycles, the sun in 2004 was measured as being the hottest it has been in 1,000 years. However, measurements can be difficult because the sun emits energy across a broad spectrum, including in the charged particles known as the solar wind, not only in visible light. Energy can be transferred through the solar wind alone. There are conflicting opinions about the sun's energy output varying.
Cycles in the sun's energy output are apparently linked to the movements of the solar system. Russia's Pravda reports that "Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles."
We learn in school only a simple, approximation of the complexities of the sun and the solar system. Actually, the sun wobbles around a point representing the center of mass of the solar system. The sun does not stay still, but circles an invisible spot.
This is like two children holding hands and whirling around. They "orbit" an imaginary spot between them. In the same way, the planets do not technically orbit around the sun, but the sun and the planets orbit around each other like the two children holding hands. Because the sun is unimaginably massive compared to the planets, the gravitational center of the solar system is close to the sun's center. But not precisely there.
As a result, the sun circles and orbits the solar system's center of gravity. This causes the sun to move in a circle on a complex cycle of 178 years, with oscillations every 11 years and every 70 years. In fact, this is the technique which astronomers are using to detect planets around distant stars. They observe a star wobbling (or partly eclipsed when a planet crosses in front of it), and conclude that there is a large planet circling it.
However, the sun is not solid. It is gas compressed by gravity to the point of acting like a liquid (plasma). So just like taking a bowl of water and swirling it around, the sun's motion causes movement in the liquid substance of the sun. Because the sun is orbiting the solar system's center of gravity, this motion creates waves, oscillations, and disturbance in the sun's plasma. The sun's orbit creates torque (spinning forces) that are different throughout the cycles of the planets' motions around the sun.
The astronomical cycles involved match the cycles in the sun's activity. There is a 178 year cycle in sunspot activity which matches the sun's complex orbit around the system center of mass every 178 years. The effect changes because the various planets are circling at different times. Every now and then, when Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune -- the heaviest planets -- are on the same side of the solar system, they swing the sun differently than when they are scattered about the solar system.
The orbital torque of the sun changes during this 178 year cycle, which affects the pressures and conditions in the sun's core. Although the effect is tiny compared to the overall power of the sun, it is enough to cause slight increases and decreases in the energy output and activity of the sun.
The biggest planets line up on the same side of the solar system at various times. Jupiter orbits the sun every 11.8 years, very similar to the 11 year sunspot cycle. Saturn orbits every 29.5 years, Uranus circles every 84 years, and Neptune in 165 years.
Pioneering work was performed by Dr Theodor Landscheidt, in papers like "Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle and Climatic Change" and "Solar Rotation, Impulses of the Torque in the Sun's Motion, and Climactic Variation." Dr. Landscheidt's work -- overwhelmingly ignored -- predicted the current minimum in the sun's activity that is currently puzzling the world's scientists.
The BBC, like many news outlets, reported last week: "'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers: The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century." This very-recent downturn in solar activity may be the reason that the Earth stopped cooling in 1998. What is being called the "Landscheidt Minimum" might produce an unusually-quiet sun for as long as 70 years (not an absence of sunspots, but fewer than usual). If the sun-drives-climate theorists are right, this could produce a significant cooling of the Earth reminiscent of the "Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800, or perhaps only the slight cooling experienced from 1945 to 1970.
Cyclical changes affect the activity of the sun, including the magnetic field (which affects the temperature on Earth), sunspot activity (related to the magnetic field), and energy output. The most visible evidence of these cycles is the change in the number of sunspots.
The 11-year sunspot cycle is caused by dramatic changes in the sun's immensely powerful magnetic field. Just as the Earth's molten-iron core generates a weak magnetic field, that makes a compass work, the sun's boiling mass of electrically-charged particles generates a magnetic field of incomprehensible power. Not only is the strength of the sun's magnetic field staggering, but the sun is a liquid ball -- actually plasma made of compressed gases at high pressure. The boiling motion of this plasma creates an irregular, extremely complex, and constantly-changing magnetic field.
In fact, the sun's magnetic field actually reverses every 22 years! Magnetic North becomes South and vice versa. The sunspot minimums every 11 years occur at the point of reversal. Sunspots are created when irregularities in the magnetic field pull the sun's plasma downward. Heat moving to the surface is restrained, so the surface
becomes cooler than the surrounding sun (though still very hot).
The presence of sunspots indicates a boiling, active sun -- primarily in a turbulent magnetic field. The same irregularities in the magnetic field can also push plasma upward, creating gigantic solar flares leaping toward space above the sun, and coronal mass ejections -- enormous "burps" of the sun's matter spit out into space.
The absence of sunspots indicates a less-energetic sun, particularly in terms of its magnetic field.
Changes in the sun's magnetic field can affect the Earth in many ways. Bombardment of the Earth by solar wind (high-energy charged particles spit out of the sun) is an additional mode of energy transfer from the sun to the Earth, and one which varies substantially during the sunspot cycle. Similarly, a new theory pioneered by Dr.
Svensmark has found that when the sun's magnetic field is strong, it shields the Earth from cosmic rays -- charged particles from outside the solar system. When the magnetic field is weaker (especially when it is reversing) more cosmic rays get through. These cosmic rays stimulate cloud formation in the Earth's atmosphere,
changing the Earth's temperature.
Having been previously stung by snowstorms and freezing cold snaps whenever Al Gore speaks, the Congressional hearings were scheduled in late April and avoided a dramatic rebuttal by Mother Nature. However, the Earth's cooling that began in 1998 continues to challenge the global warming theory.
The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is working with 30,000 scientists who oppose the idea that global warming is caused by man's activities. Coleman plans to sue Al Gore for fraud to finally get some forum in which to debate the theory.
In January, Japan's prestigious Society of Energy and Resources gave an "astonishing rebuke" to scientists promoting the idea of man-made global warming. JSER, a government advisory board, compared global warming theories to "ancient astrology." JSER noted that the Earth stopped warming in 2001 (other say 1998), but in general the Earth has merely been recovering naturally from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred between around 1400 and 1800.
The Japanese scientists criticized over-reliance on inherently-unreliable computer models, without real-world testing of the hypothesis. JSER concluded that cycles in the sun's activities cause variation in the Earth's climate: "Through the 11 year sunspot cycle, ultraviolet rays vary considerably, the ionosphere and ozone layer
are affected."
Poland's Academy of Sciences recently published a document that rejects man-made global warming, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The Polish Academy notes that over the history of the Earth, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased an average of 800 years AFTER warmer temperatures. This data decisively proves that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Global warming comes first. Then carbon dioxide increased later. (Most likely dissolved CO2 evaporated from warming oceans.)
The Academy also noted that global temperatures have been higher than today in Earth's past. And the Academy explained that temperature monitoring of the Earth is very spotty, starting only 200 years ago. Even today only 28% of the world is represented by temperature monitoring, and far less of the Earth was measured as we look back through older, historical records. Measurement of the vast oceans is only about 40 years old.
The Academy pointed out that urban growth has encroached upon and surrounded the weather stations that were previously in the countryside. Today's measurements from those stations are hotter because of the heat effect of asphalt and concrete of the cities, while readings from those same stations thirty years ago were then in the
countryside. Therefore, we are measuring not increased global temperatures, but the "heat effect" of the concrete jungle expanding to surround the weather stations.
In one case, a U.S. investigator for the website "Watts Up with That" discovered that a weather station at an airport was catching the hot jet exhaust from jet airplanes on
the runway! (Meanwhile, note that Russians and East Europeans are often far-superior theoretical scientists to those in the West, sometimes holding multiple Ph.D's. Their economy manufactured junk due to political interference in the marketplace. But their scientists have traditionally been better-educated.)
Now, recent scientific analysis is coming out of hiding that precisely identifies the strongest driving factors in the Earth's climate: It is the sun. The sun goes through a number of powerful cycles. The sun's 11-year sunspot cycle is fairly well known. However, the sun also goes through much longer cycles as well, including one
of approximately 180 years, and one of approximately 1,000 years.
As a result of these cycles, the sun in 2004 was measured as being the hottest it has been in 1,000 years. However, measurements can be difficult because the sun emits energy across a broad spectrum, including in the charged particles known as the solar wind, not only in visible light. Energy can be transferred through the solar wind alone. There are conflicting opinions about the sun's energy output varying.
Cycles in the sun's energy output are apparently linked to the movements of the solar system. Russia's Pravda reports that "Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles."
We learn in school only a simple, approximation of the complexities of the sun and the solar system. Actually, the sun wobbles around a point representing the center of mass of the solar system. The sun does not stay still, but circles an invisible spot.
This is like two children holding hands and whirling around. They "orbit" an imaginary spot between them. In the same way, the planets do not technically orbit around the sun, but the sun and the planets orbit around each other like the two children holding hands. Because the sun is unimaginably massive compared to the planets, the gravitational center of the solar system is close to the sun's center. But not precisely there.
As a result, the sun circles and orbits the solar system's center of gravity. This causes the sun to move in a circle on a complex cycle of 178 years, with oscillations every 11 years and every 70 years. In fact, this is the technique which astronomers are using to detect planets around distant stars. They observe a star wobbling (or partly eclipsed when a planet crosses in front of it), and conclude that there is a large planet circling it.
However, the sun is not solid. It is gas compressed by gravity to the point of acting like a liquid (plasma). So just like taking a bowl of water and swirling it around, the sun's motion causes movement in the liquid substance of the sun. Because the sun is orbiting the solar system's center of gravity, this motion creates waves, oscillations, and disturbance in the sun's plasma. The sun's orbit creates torque (spinning forces) that are different throughout the cycles of the planets' motions around the sun.
The astronomical cycles involved match the cycles in the sun's activity. There is a 178 year cycle in sunspot activity which matches the sun's complex orbit around the system center of mass every 178 years. The effect changes because the various planets are circling at different times. Every now and then, when Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune -- the heaviest planets -- are on the same side of the solar system, they swing the sun differently than when they are scattered about the solar system.
The orbital torque of the sun changes during this 178 year cycle, which affects the pressures and conditions in the sun's core. Although the effect is tiny compared to the overall power of the sun, it is enough to cause slight increases and decreases in the energy output and activity of the sun.
The biggest planets line up on the same side of the solar system at various times. Jupiter orbits the sun every 11.8 years, very similar to the 11 year sunspot cycle. Saturn orbits every 29.5 years, Uranus circles every 84 years, and Neptune in 165 years.
Pioneering work was performed by Dr Theodor Landscheidt, in papers like "Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle and Climatic Change" and "Solar Rotation, Impulses of the Torque in the Sun's Motion, and Climactic Variation." Dr. Landscheidt's work -- overwhelmingly ignored -- predicted the current minimum in the sun's activity that is currently puzzling the world's scientists.
The BBC, like many news outlets, reported last week: "'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers: The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century." This very-recent downturn in solar activity may be the reason that the Earth stopped cooling in 1998. What is being called the "Landscheidt Minimum" might produce an unusually-quiet sun for as long as 70 years (not an absence of sunspots, but fewer than usual). If the sun-drives-climate theorists are right, this could produce a significant cooling of the Earth reminiscent of the "Little Ice Age" from 1400 to 1800, or perhaps only the slight cooling experienced from 1945 to 1970.
Cyclical changes affect the activity of the sun, including the magnetic field (which affects the temperature on Earth), sunspot activity (related to the magnetic field), and energy output. The most visible evidence of these cycles is the change in the number of sunspots.
The 11-year sunspot cycle is caused by dramatic changes in the sun's immensely powerful magnetic field. Just as the Earth's molten-iron core generates a weak magnetic field, that makes a compass work, the sun's boiling mass of electrically-charged particles generates a magnetic field of incomprehensible power. Not only is the strength of the sun's magnetic field staggering, but the sun is a liquid ball -- actually plasma made of compressed gases at high pressure. The boiling motion of this plasma creates an irregular, extremely complex, and constantly-changing magnetic field.
In fact, the sun's magnetic field actually reverses every 22 years! Magnetic North becomes South and vice versa. The sunspot minimums every 11 years occur at the point of reversal. Sunspots are created when irregularities in the magnetic field pull the sun's plasma downward. Heat moving to the surface is restrained, so the surface
becomes cooler than the surrounding sun (though still very hot).
The presence of sunspots indicates a boiling, active sun -- primarily in a turbulent magnetic field. The same irregularities in the magnetic field can also push plasma upward, creating gigantic solar flares leaping toward space above the sun, and coronal mass ejections -- enormous "burps" of the sun's matter spit out into space.
The absence of sunspots indicates a less-energetic sun, particularly in terms of its magnetic field.
Changes in the sun's magnetic field can affect the Earth in many ways. Bombardment of the Earth by solar wind (high-energy charged particles spit out of the sun) is an additional mode of energy transfer from the sun to the Earth, and one which varies substantially during the sunspot cycle. Similarly, a new theory pioneered by Dr.
Svensmark has found that when the sun's magnetic field is strong, it shields the Earth from cosmic rays -- charged particles from outside the solar system. When the magnetic field is weaker (especially when it is reversing) more cosmic rays get through. These cosmic rays stimulate cloud formation in the Earth's atmosphere,
changing the Earth's temperature.
Bye, Bye Specter, You Won't Be Missed
This week's political shocker is Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he is switching parties to join the Democrats. With his current term almost up he will run in the Democrat primaries next Spring for re-election.
Liberals are crowing that this is a humiliating blow to the Republican Party, already on the ropes after losing both the White House and the Congress in last year's election. This has encouraged President Obama's supporters in pursuing his statist agenda.
However, Specter's betrayal is actually a blessing in disguise... at least long-term. This development may enable Republicans to place an actual Republican in Specter's Senate seat for the first time in decades. Conservatives are determined to flush out of the GOP Party-crashers known as R.I.N.O.'s -- Republicans in Name Only.
Conservatives are extremely concerned that allowing liberal candidates to represent the GOP has destroyed and distorted conservatives' image in the country. It may take decades to re-establish what it means to be a true conservative in the minds of the voters. In 2006 and 2008, conservatives withheld their volunteer work from the
Republican Party, arguing that failed Democrat President Jimmy Carter led to the election of conservative Ronald Reagan. Specter's departure has removed another liberal Party-crasher from the GOP.
Specter's votes in the Senate will not change. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats now have 60 votes as a filibuster-proof majority. So Democrats can now pass whatever legislation they wish. That assumes that the stubborn and egotistical Specter will change his votes. Observers assume Specter will now vote for legislation he would have voted against earlier. The truth is that left-leaning Specter would have voted for much of Obama's far-left agenda anyway. At least if the mainstream media approves, Sen. Specter will seek to please the liberal media consensus. Any legislation he might support under a "D" label he would have voted for anyway. His votes are unlikely to be any different.
Meanwhile, Specter is unlikely to win re-election. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrat Party came only 13 days after former Congressman Pat Toomey announced his bid to wrestle the baton away from Specter in the Republican primary. Toomey also challenged Specter in 2004,losing the GOP nomination by only 1.7% of the vote. Many
mainstream news sources openly acknowledge that Specter is switching parties because he cannot win in the upcoming Republican primary.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, Specter is viewed unfavorably by 55% of Pennsylvania Republicans. According to a Quinnipiac University poll, Specter has a higher approval rating in Pennsylvania among Democrats than among Republicans, and 43% of voters believe Specter should not be re-elected. Sen. Specter trailed Pat
Toomey 47% to 29% among Republicans. This and similar polls probably drove the Senator's defection. So, Specter's switch is a move of desperation.
Specter's long-shot "Hail Mary" pass will probably be a serious blunder. He apparently assumes that Pennsylvania voters will continue to 'pull the lever' for his familiar name. This is a gamble. Most of those who vote on habits are punching the "R" button reflexively out of loyalty to the Republican Party. Upon seeing an actual Republican on the ballot, they are likely to vote the "R" not the man. Unlike politicians who have gone independent, Specter will appear with an actual "D" next to his name.
Other voters who decide from more in-depth study of the news will feel angry betrayal. Specter is no longer "Our flawed, imperfect candidate" but 'Benedict Arlen' who has slapped Republican voters in the face.
Earlier arguments that President Bush needed Republican votes in Congress will no longer wash. So, Specter's assumption that people will keep voting for him out of habit may prove questionable.
Meanwhile, most Democrat voters in the Keystone State are in the habit of voting against Specter and for their own Democrat candidates, over many election cycles. Liberals are accustomed to demonizing Specter as more conservative than he really is, to try to get a Democrat elected. They may not trust a recent convert. Also
Specter will be 80 years old in 2010, and may not have the same appeal to youthful voters as Obama.
Most analysis of Specter's prospects in 2010 assume Democrats will vote to keep the seat in Democrat hands. That is, only election day itself matters. In fact, over the long process of a campaign, fund-raising and the labor of campaign workers are crucial. The foot soldiers of the far Left will face a situation similar to conservatives, who held their nose to vote for liberal John McCain. Liberals may have difficulty summoning the necessary enthusiasm for an ex-Republican.
Specter voted with the Republican Party 67.1% of the time in 2007 according to "On The Issues." Specter has been rated highly by a variety of pro-business and pro-free trade organizations.
However, the Senator voted for the controversial bill to give "amnesty" to illegal aliens and in favor of Federal funding for "sanctuary cities" who refuse to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with the Federal government.
In May 2006, Specter voted to allow illegal aliens to participate in social security. The organization U.S. Border Control, which opposes illegal-immigration rated Specter's voting record with only 16% approval, reflecting Specter's support for amnesty of illegal aliens. Specter has earned a 0% rating by the National Right
to Life Committee, with a life-time record of 42% from the American Conservative Union, but a 60% rating by the ACLU. Specter has received a 61% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Predicting Republican primaries can be hazardous business, as the 2008 Presidential election demonstrated. Likely candidates to send Specter off to writing his memoirs are former Congressman Pat Toomey and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.
Three-term Congressman Toomey is the favorite of many conservatives who were angered by Santorum's party-loyalty campaigning for Specter. Toomey has a 97% favorable rating from the American Conservative Union. In 2004, Toomey had challenged Specter and lost in the primary by only 1.7% of the vote after President George Bush endorsed incumbent Specter and GOP leaders like Rick Santorum campaigned for Specter. Conservatives feel Toomey could have won the primary if not for misguided loyalty to the Party over principle. Unlike Santorum, however, Toomey has never won a State-wide race in Pennsylvania. Toomey points to his victories in a liberal Congressional district to argue that he could win State-wide.
Santorum, charismatic, handsome, and well-spoken, has kept in the public eye with frequent appearances on cable television news networks like Fox. Santorum has a life-time rating by the American Conservative Union of 88 compared to Specter's 42. Having already been elected to the U.S. Senate by the entire State of Pennsylvania,
Santorum could instantly steal the previous voter-loyalty voters from Specter. Voters who reflexively vote the Party slate will support a recognized former GOP Senator.
Santorum served in the House of Representatives after defeating a Democrat in a Democrat-leaning district in 1990. In 1994 and again in 2000, he won election to the U.S. Senate. He served as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. In 2006, Santorum lost re-election to the son of popular governor Robert Casey, Sr., a
strong conservative Democrat, State Treasurer Bob Casey. Unlike Specter, Casey shared Santorum's opposition to abortion, thus removing Santorum's Pro-Life record as a factor. In a match-up with liberal, pro-abortion Specter, Santorum would not suffer that difficulty. Ironically, Santorum also suffered considerable anger from
conservatives for his misguided Party loyalty (with many others) of supporting none other than Arlen Specter in 2004.
So far, only Toomey has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. Santorum has been discussed as a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Toomey may end up as the unchallenged Republican nominee for the Senate.
Liberals are crowing that this is a humiliating blow to the Republican Party, already on the ropes after losing both the White House and the Congress in last year's election. This has encouraged President Obama's supporters in pursuing his statist agenda.
However, Specter's betrayal is actually a blessing in disguise... at least long-term. This development may enable Republicans to place an actual Republican in Specter's Senate seat for the first time in decades. Conservatives are determined to flush out of the GOP Party-crashers known as R.I.N.O.'s -- Republicans in Name Only.
Conservatives are extremely concerned that allowing liberal candidates to represent the GOP has destroyed and distorted conservatives' image in the country. It may take decades to re-establish what it means to be a true conservative in the minds of the voters. In 2006 and 2008, conservatives withheld their volunteer work from the
Republican Party, arguing that failed Democrat President Jimmy Carter led to the election of conservative Ronald Reagan. Specter's departure has removed another liberal Party-crasher from the GOP.
Specter's votes in the Senate will not change. Conventional wisdom says that the Democrats now have 60 votes as a filibuster-proof majority. So Democrats can now pass whatever legislation they wish. That assumes that the stubborn and egotistical Specter will change his votes. Observers assume Specter will now vote for legislation he would have voted against earlier. The truth is that left-leaning Specter would have voted for much of Obama's far-left agenda anyway. At least if the mainstream media approves, Sen. Specter will seek to please the liberal media consensus. Any legislation he might support under a "D" label he would have voted for anyway. His votes are unlikely to be any different.
Meanwhile, Specter is unlikely to win re-election. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrat Party came only 13 days after former Congressman Pat Toomey announced his bid to wrestle the baton away from Specter in the Republican primary. Toomey also challenged Specter in 2004,losing the GOP nomination by only 1.7% of the vote. Many
mainstream news sources openly acknowledge that Specter is switching parties because he cannot win in the upcoming Republican primary.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, Specter is viewed unfavorably by 55% of Pennsylvania Republicans. According to a Quinnipiac University poll, Specter has a higher approval rating in Pennsylvania among Democrats than among Republicans, and 43% of voters believe Specter should not be re-elected. Sen. Specter trailed Pat
Toomey 47% to 29% among Republicans. This and similar polls probably drove the Senator's defection. So, Specter's switch is a move of desperation.
Specter's long-shot "Hail Mary" pass will probably be a serious blunder. He apparently assumes that Pennsylvania voters will continue to 'pull the lever' for his familiar name. This is a gamble. Most of those who vote on habits are punching the "R" button reflexively out of loyalty to the Republican Party. Upon seeing an actual Republican on the ballot, they are likely to vote the "R" not the man. Unlike politicians who have gone independent, Specter will appear with an actual "D" next to his name.
Other voters who decide from more in-depth study of the news will feel angry betrayal. Specter is no longer "Our flawed, imperfect candidate" but 'Benedict Arlen' who has slapped Republican voters in the face.
Earlier arguments that President Bush needed Republican votes in Congress will no longer wash. So, Specter's assumption that people will keep voting for him out of habit may prove questionable.
Meanwhile, most Democrat voters in the Keystone State are in the habit of voting against Specter and for their own Democrat candidates, over many election cycles. Liberals are accustomed to demonizing Specter as more conservative than he really is, to try to get a Democrat elected. They may not trust a recent convert. Also
Specter will be 80 years old in 2010, and may not have the same appeal to youthful voters as Obama.
Most analysis of Specter's prospects in 2010 assume Democrats will vote to keep the seat in Democrat hands. That is, only election day itself matters. In fact, over the long process of a campaign, fund-raising and the labor of campaign workers are crucial. The foot soldiers of the far Left will face a situation similar to conservatives, who held their nose to vote for liberal John McCain. Liberals may have difficulty summoning the necessary enthusiasm for an ex-Republican.
Specter voted with the Republican Party 67.1% of the time in 2007 according to "On The Issues." Specter has been rated highly by a variety of pro-business and pro-free trade organizations.
However, the Senator voted for the controversial bill to give "amnesty" to illegal aliens and in favor of Federal funding for "sanctuary cities" who refuse to enforce immigration laws or cooperate with the Federal government.
In May 2006, Specter voted to allow illegal aliens to participate in social security. The organization U.S. Border Control, which opposes illegal-immigration rated Specter's voting record with only 16% approval, reflecting Specter's support for amnesty of illegal aliens. Specter has earned a 0% rating by the National Right
to Life Committee, with a life-time record of 42% from the American Conservative Union, but a 60% rating by the ACLU. Specter has received a 61% rating from the AFL-CIO.
Predicting Republican primaries can be hazardous business, as the 2008 Presidential election demonstrated. Likely candidates to send Specter off to writing his memoirs are former Congressman Pat Toomey and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.
Three-term Congressman Toomey is the favorite of many conservatives who were angered by Santorum's party-loyalty campaigning for Specter. Toomey has a 97% favorable rating from the American Conservative Union. In 2004, Toomey had challenged Specter and lost in the primary by only 1.7% of the vote after President George Bush endorsed incumbent Specter and GOP leaders like Rick Santorum campaigned for Specter. Conservatives feel Toomey could have won the primary if not for misguided loyalty to the Party over principle. Unlike Santorum, however, Toomey has never won a State-wide race in Pennsylvania. Toomey points to his victories in a liberal Congressional district to argue that he could win State-wide.
Santorum, charismatic, handsome, and well-spoken, has kept in the public eye with frequent appearances on cable television news networks like Fox. Santorum has a life-time rating by the American Conservative Union of 88 compared to Specter's 42. Having already been elected to the U.S. Senate by the entire State of Pennsylvania,
Santorum could instantly steal the previous voter-loyalty voters from Specter. Voters who reflexively vote the Party slate will support a recognized former GOP Senator.
Santorum served in the House of Representatives after defeating a Democrat in a Democrat-leaning district in 1990. In 1994 and again in 2000, he won election to the U.S. Senate. He served as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. In 2006, Santorum lost re-election to the son of popular governor Robert Casey, Sr., a
strong conservative Democrat, State Treasurer Bob Casey. Unlike Specter, Casey shared Santorum's opposition to abortion, thus removing Santorum's Pro-Life record as a factor. In a match-up with liberal, pro-abortion Specter, Santorum would not suffer that difficulty. Ironically, Santorum also suffered considerable anger from
conservatives for his misguided Party loyalty (with many others) of supporting none other than Arlen Specter in 2004.
So far, only Toomey has announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. Santorum has been discussed as a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. Therefore, Toomey may end up as the unchallenged Republican nominee for the Senate.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Geneva Convention Does Not Protect Terrorists
In April, President Obama released Bush Administration legal memoranda from around 2002 which approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." The nation's left-leaning mainstream media, and commentators the world over, are attacking these so-called "Torture Memos" from the Bush Administration. Activist groups, including many funded by George Soros, are calling for criminal prosecutions of Bush Administration officials for having approved "torture."
However, calls for investigations lost momentum on Capitol Hill. Republicans aggressively documented how Democrat Congressional leaders were briefed on the interrogation techniques over the years. Democrats had approved or at least raised no objection. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reduced to quibbling over whether she had been briefed only about waterboarding as an approved technique or about when the military actually start using it. Democrats waved off questions about their own involvement in approving the techniques by protesting that the briefings are still classified.
Accusations that the Geneva Convention was violated might allow prosecutions of Bush Administration officials and U.S. soldiers in the International Criminal Court in the Hague with accusations of war crimes. Already, a Spanish court agreed to consider a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington; Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee.
As reported in the POLITICO, Senate Leader Harry Reid offered one of the most curious quotes in Congressional history: “I think it would very unwise from my perspective to start having commissions, boards, tribunals until we find out what the facts are." Normally, finding out what the facts are is the reason for holding commissions, boards, and tribunals. Thus, Sen. Reid apparently suggested that the Democrat-controlled Senate would hold commissions, boards, and tribunals with pre-determined outcomes, after deciding behind closed doors in advance what facts those bodies would be organized to "find."
Initially it must be said that no actual "torture memos" exist. The released Bush Administration memos analyze what interrogation techniques are NOT torture. The memos identify techniques that are lawful and approved for US interrogation of captured terrorists and detained combatants. So technically the memos are "not torture memos."
The actual content of the "not torture" memos has been routinely ignored in favor of sensationalized myths and misconceptions. In fact, the disparity is significant, with approved interrogation techniques including putting a harmless caterpillar in a known terrorist's prison cell, reading Harry Potter books to a terrorist, and playing Celine Dion' records to a terrorist.
This causes wonder if someone might one day call in a "caterpillar scare" at the U.S. Capitol, warning that somewhere in the Congress a caterpillar is loose. Would there be an evacuation, or would everyone admit that caterpillars are really not all that scary? Might a protestor someday disrupt a Congressional hearing by singing Dion's "Near, Far, Wherever you are..." from Titanic?
Even the practice of "walling" turned out to involve a fake, harmless, soft "nerf" wall. The technique was to make a terrorist believe he was going to be slammed against a wall, but it was actually a soft, flexible fake. All the techniques required medical supervision to ensure safety.
However, one of the most important parts of this issue is whether the Bush-approved interrogation techniques violated the Geneva Convention. This is especially troubling, because left-leaning, generally anti-American bureaucrats in Europe, the United Nations, and around the world have a great deal of influence in redefining the meaning of the Geneva Convention and related protocols. There is no precise meaning of "international law" because there is no ultimate authority like America's Supreme Court. Therefore, international bureaucrats have enormous opportunities to bend and shape such concepts to their liking, and against America's interests.
As Cliff May, President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, explains, U.S. detainees are "not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention." In fact, Cliff May was quoting from Eric Holder, now Obama's Attorney General. Holder said those words on CNN in January 2002. Attorney General Holder explained in that 2002 interview that if Al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta had "survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention defines "prisoners of war" as either members of the armed forces of a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention (which does not apply) or --
"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
However, the terrorists and unlawful combatants detained by the United States military do not fall within this definition. They do not belong to a "Party" (a signatory to the Geneva Convention). In fact, they are attempting to overthrow the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The terrorists do not operate under the command of a responsible officer, but independently as decentralized cells. They do not have a distinctive sign -- that is a uniform or insignia -- recognizable at a distance. They do not carry arms openly, but conceal themselves as civilians hiding among the civilian population. And they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
These conditions are extremely important because they are intended, in part, to protect civilians. Fighters who are disguised as civilians -- not wearing uniforms or "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" -- endanger the civilian population. The Geneva Convention was designed to punish those who act in this way by depriving them of its protections. A recent example was the battle in Gaza, in which Hamas used hospitals as military command posts and Hamas leaders dressed up as doctors.
Therefore, it is imperative that unlawful combatants be deprived of the rights of the Geneva Convention. There must be consequnces for fighters who endanger civilian populations. There must be a clear difference between how fighters are treated when they obey "the laws and customs of war" and when they do not. Any failure to punish those who hide among and behind civilians is as dangerous as failing to enforce the Convention. It is vitally important that combatants who violate its terms and endanger civilians must feel the consequences of losing their rights under the Convention.
To extend the Geneva Convention's protections to the terrorists places civilians in grave danger, by encouraging combatants to hide among them and behind them. Thus, ironically, attempts to extend the Geneva Convention to irregular combatants like the Taliban or terrorists threatens the Geneva Convention itself. Allowing irregular combatants to violate the laws of war and yet suffer no consequences, undercuts the Convention in general. The proposed expansion of the General Convention to cover the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists who do not abide by the Convention's requirements, encourages non-compliance with the Convention and international law.
However, calls for investigations lost momentum on Capitol Hill. Republicans aggressively documented how Democrat Congressional leaders were briefed on the interrogation techniques over the years. Democrats had approved or at least raised no objection. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reduced to quibbling over whether she had been briefed only about waterboarding as an approved technique or about when the military actually start using it. Democrats waved off questions about their own involvement in approving the techniques by protesting that the briefings are still classified.
Accusations that the Geneva Convention was violated might allow prosecutions of Bush Administration officials and U.S. soldiers in the International Criminal Court in the Hague with accusations of war crimes. Already, a Spanish court agreed to consider a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington; Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee.
As reported in the POLITICO, Senate Leader Harry Reid offered one of the most curious quotes in Congressional history: “I think it would very unwise from my perspective to start having commissions, boards, tribunals until we find out what the facts are." Normally, finding out what the facts are is the reason for holding commissions, boards, and tribunals. Thus, Sen. Reid apparently suggested that the Democrat-controlled Senate would hold commissions, boards, and tribunals with pre-determined outcomes, after deciding behind closed doors in advance what facts those bodies would be organized to "find."
Initially it must be said that no actual "torture memos" exist. The released Bush Administration memos analyze what interrogation techniques are NOT torture. The memos identify techniques that are lawful and approved for US interrogation of captured terrorists and detained combatants. So technically the memos are "not torture memos."
The actual content of the "not torture" memos has been routinely ignored in favor of sensationalized myths and misconceptions. In fact, the disparity is significant, with approved interrogation techniques including putting a harmless caterpillar in a known terrorist's prison cell, reading Harry Potter books to a terrorist, and playing Celine Dion' records to a terrorist.
This causes wonder if someone might one day call in a "caterpillar scare" at the U.S. Capitol, warning that somewhere in the Congress a caterpillar is loose. Would there be an evacuation, or would everyone admit that caterpillars are really not all that scary? Might a protestor someday disrupt a Congressional hearing by singing Dion's "Near, Far, Wherever you are..." from Titanic?
Even the practice of "walling" turned out to involve a fake, harmless, soft "nerf" wall. The technique was to make a terrorist believe he was going to be slammed against a wall, but it was actually a soft, flexible fake. All the techniques required medical supervision to ensure safety.
However, one of the most important parts of this issue is whether the Bush-approved interrogation techniques violated the Geneva Convention. This is especially troubling, because left-leaning, generally anti-American bureaucrats in Europe, the United Nations, and around the world have a great deal of influence in redefining the meaning of the Geneva Convention and related protocols. There is no precise meaning of "international law" because there is no ultimate authority like America's Supreme Court. Therefore, international bureaucrats have enormous opportunities to bend and shape such concepts to their liking, and against America's interests.
As Cliff May, President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, explains, U.S. detainees are "not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention." In fact, Cliff May was quoting from Eric Holder, now Obama's Attorney General. Holder said those words on CNN in January 2002. Attorney General Holder explained in that 2002 interview that if Al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta had "survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention defines "prisoners of war" as either members of the armed forces of a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention (which does not apply) or --
"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
However, the terrorists and unlawful combatants detained by the United States military do not fall within this definition. They do not belong to a "Party" (a signatory to the Geneva Convention). In fact, they are attempting to overthrow the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The terrorists do not operate under the command of a responsible officer, but independently as decentralized cells. They do not have a distinctive sign -- that is a uniform or insignia -- recognizable at a distance. They do not carry arms openly, but conceal themselves as civilians hiding among the civilian population. And they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
These conditions are extremely important because they are intended, in part, to protect civilians. Fighters who are disguised as civilians -- not wearing uniforms or "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" -- endanger the civilian population. The Geneva Convention was designed to punish those who act in this way by depriving them of its protections. A recent example was the battle in Gaza, in which Hamas used hospitals as military command posts and Hamas leaders dressed up as doctors.
Therefore, it is imperative that unlawful combatants be deprived of the rights of the Geneva Convention. There must be consequnces for fighters who endanger civilian populations. There must be a clear difference between how fighters are treated when they obey "the laws and customs of war" and when they do not. Any failure to punish those who hide among and behind civilians is as dangerous as failing to enforce the Convention. It is vitally important that combatants who violate its terms and endanger civilians must feel the consequences of losing their rights under the Convention.
To extend the Geneva Convention's protections to the terrorists places civilians in grave danger, by encouraging combatants to hide among them and behind them. Thus, ironically, attempts to extend the Geneva Convention to irregular combatants like the Taliban or terrorists threatens the Geneva Convention itself. Allowing irregular combatants to violate the laws of war and yet suffer no consequences, undercuts the Convention in general. The proposed expansion of the General Convention to cover the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists who do not abide by the Convention's requirements, encourages non-compliance with the Convention and international law.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Torturing The Word "Torture"
Last week, President Obama released Bush Administration legal opinions from 2002 which had analyzed the legality of "aggressive interrogation techniques." Most of these techniques were revealed before, yet the memos were trumpeted as an expose, amidst calls for criminal prosecutions of Bush, Cheney, and past officials.
There are four things we can say for sure: (1) The United States should not engage in torture. (2) Terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Convention, which covers only soldiers fighting in uniform (3) Nothing that the Bush Administration did qualifies as "torture." And (4) there is no limit to the lies and distortions which liberals and America haters will engage in to bash the United States.
Trouble is, the definition of "torture" has changed. In fact, American politics is facing a crisis of confusion by re-definition of key words. Many actions are rough, unpleasant, nasty, or humiliating yet still not "torture." Using a new, altered definition, the national news media, liberals, Democrats in Congress, and international organizations have trumpeted charges that the USA engaged in "torture. Then, liberal officials in government and those pandering to the news media have joined in the chorus.
So a giant "echo chamber" has been created in which several million words have been written world-wide merely assuming that the USA used torture. Did we? Or is this just "The Big Lie?"
The only new information Obama "exposed" was about plans to put a caterpillar in a small cell with terrorist Abu Zubaydah who has a fear of insects. (The tough guy has killed or arranged the murder of hundreds of human beings.) Then we also learned how many times Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded, around 200 times each. We also learned details about the medical supervision of interrogations mandated by the Bush Justice Department to ensure that subjects remained safe at all times.
Most Americans, however, naturally believe that if interrogation does not involve any physical injury, it does not qualify as torture. Simply knowing that there is a caterpillar in the room is not what most people call 'torture.' (In fact some therapists might recommend that as a cure for getting over Zubaydah's fear of bugs.) Nasty? Perhaps. But it simply does not meet the definition of "torture." One may oppose such techniques without calling them torture.
Most Americans believe that if an activity is regularly practiced by cheerleaders or part of the annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, it should not properly be termed torture. So creating human pyramids, wearing underwear on heads, having a leash harmlessly around one's necks, and being half-naked are events we can see both at Abu Ghraib prison and also in the streets of San Francisco during the annual parade celebrating homosexuality.
Most Americans feel that living conditions that U.S. soldiers must regularly endure should not be called torture. One technique involved keeping prison cells cold. Yet if our U.S. troops in the field have to endure cold, bad food, cramped conditions, and hard ground as a bed, or stay awake for days in a battle, well then, doggone it, terrorists can share the same conditions. Anything that our U.S. military has to put up with is good enough for the terrorists who were trying to kill our troops and who have murdered hundreds or thousands of people.
One of the oddest revelations -- in terms of liberal reaction -- was the Associated Press report that a female interrogator read "Harry Potter" books to a terrorist for hours. When a person reads books to a bed-ridden elderly patient, this is considered an act of kindness. But in "Liberal Land," reading the wildly-popular "Harry Potter" books to an inmate at Guantanamo Bay is now "torture."
Similarly, US interrogators "tortured" prisoners by playing Celine Dion records ad nauseum. When the film "Titanic" was released, those who heard the theme song by Dion played a hundred times a day for months, may well be tempted to call this torture. But we should leave such analysis to the film critics.
Some techniques which liberals claim was torture included yelling at the terrorist, using nasty words, lying to the terrorist about handing him over to the Mossad or the Saudis, leading a terrorist to believe that he might suffer bodily injury or be killed, or forcing a Muslim man to be in the same room with a woman.
However unpleasant an act may be, perhaps if it is advertised on "Craigs List" as as a paid erotic service, maybe "torture" is not the right word for it. Disgusting, yes. Inappropriate... absolutely. But "torture?" Not quite. At Abu Ghraib, being in the same room with a woman, being half-naked, wearing kinky outfits, or even being spanked . possibly aren't "torture" if people pay real money for these same acts by kinky escorts through ads in the "City Paper."
One of the most curious techniques used, reading between the lines, was to take photographs of terrorists half-naked with a female soldier. Interrogators would then threaten to send the photographs to the terrorists' Islamic hometown. This was apparently done to blackmail terrorists into talking. This technique involves no actual harm whatsoever, especially if the threat is never carried out. On the other hand, blackmail certainly does seem under-handed and troubling. This might be unethical, but torture it is not.
Nearly all the aggressive interrogation techniques were "old news," such as sleep deprivation. Prisoners were sometimes deprived of solid food. This brings to mind those TV ads for "Slim Fast" diet drinks. This author has fasted for a week with no food at all. Several pastors I know have fasted for 40 days without any food at all. This can be pure misery. Surely it would be uncomfortable, especially for a plump man like Khalikh Sheikh Mohammed who probably loves his food. But can we call it "torture" when we have diet companies selling liquid diets on television?
Interrogators were authorized to keep a prisoner awake for no more than 180 hours (8 days). During this author's fraternity initiation "hell week" I stayed awake for just under one week. And that included going to classes in college, and functioning as a student despite having no sleep. Terrorist detainees just sat in their cells, kept awake. Calling what fraternity pledges do voluntarily torture is a bit of a stretch.
Some inmates were kept naked. That is embarrassing, especially for a Muslim if women are around. But let's put things in perspective. Nudist colonies charge money for allowing a lifestyle of nakedness. It might not be everyone's taste. But if people pay money to walk around naked all day, can we really classify that as torture? Humiliating, yes. But "torture" is a different word.
As described by the USA TODAY from a Justice Department release, some of the other methods approved for "aggressive interrogation" by the Bush Administration did also include some rougher treatment. But even these are being misrepresented.
Perhaps the most disturbing technique was the practice of "walling" -- until we understand what it is. USA Today describes walling as: "A fake, flexible wall is built, and the suspect is pulled forward and 'then quickly and firmly' pushed against the wall. 'The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is.'"
But pay careful attention: An inmate is thrown into a FAKE wall, specially constructed for the purpose. This was a FLEXIBLE -- soft -- wall, designed to be HARMLESS. The idea is to make the terrorist believe he is going to be hurt... but in fact he is not hurt at all. This is a "Nerf wall!"
Another approved method that might trouble Americans includes stress positions: This included "kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle" and "sitting on the floor with legs extended out in front of him with his arms raised above his head." This is one method that seems questionable and over the line, and might bother many people. Yet no actual injury is involved.
There were a few approved methods more of what we expect in rough interrogation: Attention grasp: "Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the shirt collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion." Facial grasp: "Used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face." Insult slap: "The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise and/or humiliation."
Similarly, there is cramped confinement: The suspect is placed in a confined space that "is usually dark." Some spaces allow a subject only to sit down. Such confinement "lasts for no more than two hours."
Then there is Wall standing: Subjects are forced to lean with only their fingers for support against a wall 4 to 5 feet away from their bodies in a tactic "used to induce muscle fatigue."
And finally, of course, there is the now famous waterboarding: As described by the Justice Department release: "The subject is placed on a board with a cloth covering his nose and mouth. The cloth is saturated with water to simulate drowning. It creates "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.' " The reason that the technique works is that terrorists do not know if the interrogator will go too far.
Among the released memos is one from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding "will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm." Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations "if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Despite the world-wide hysteria about waterboarding, the reality is a bit of a let-down. It should be well-known by now that US troops endure waterboarding as part of their training. The internet news outlet "Bleepin' Truth" held a live demonstration of waterboarding in Tampa, Florida. It was broadcast by Bay News 9 television news.
This demonstration was different from others in that an actual, trained military interrogator reproduced the technique accurately.
There is no question that the experience is very unpleasant. That is the whole point. But we see videos of hundreds of people who walk away afterwards, and talk normally to camera. YouTube contains dozens of demonstrations.
To put this into context, we might do well to visit a Florida swimming pool and talk to rough-housing boys who regularly push each other under the water. If being submerged under water -- and held there -- with the sensation that one is about to drown is "waterboarding" then it is happening a hundred times a week somewhere in Florida's swimming pools by rough-housing boys.
This author was diving in the Bahamas, 40 feet below the water, with no air, when our "Aquanut" air pump suddenly ran out of gas. It took several seconds to realize why it was suddenly so quiet, and then take a breath and find no air coming in. Struggling for the surface, my lungs were bursting, like a thousand pins all through my lungs. This was certainly unpleasant, but you could not call it torture. I was back down in the water again within ten minutes.
In order to have meaningful decisions on national policies, we must have clear and unchanging definitions of key concepts. We must not allow this liberal scam of changing the meaning of words in order to hijack national policy. The definition of words can control the entire direction of a nation.
There are four things we can say for sure: (1) The United States should not engage in torture. (2) Terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Convention, which covers only soldiers fighting in uniform (3) Nothing that the Bush Administration did qualifies as "torture." And (4) there is no limit to the lies and distortions which liberals and America haters will engage in to bash the United States.
Trouble is, the definition of "torture" has changed. In fact, American politics is facing a crisis of confusion by re-definition of key words. Many actions are rough, unpleasant, nasty, or humiliating yet still not "torture." Using a new, altered definition, the national news media, liberals, Democrats in Congress, and international organizations have trumpeted charges that the USA engaged in "torture. Then, liberal officials in government and those pandering to the news media have joined in the chorus.
So a giant "echo chamber" has been created in which several million words have been written world-wide merely assuming that the USA used torture. Did we? Or is this just "The Big Lie?"
The only new information Obama "exposed" was about plans to put a caterpillar in a small cell with terrorist Abu Zubaydah who has a fear of insects. (The tough guy has killed or arranged the murder of hundreds of human beings.) Then we also learned how many times Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded, around 200 times each. We also learned details about the medical supervision of interrogations mandated by the Bush Justice Department to ensure that subjects remained safe at all times.
Most Americans, however, naturally believe that if interrogation does not involve any physical injury, it does not qualify as torture. Simply knowing that there is a caterpillar in the room is not what most people call 'torture.' (In fact some therapists might recommend that as a cure for getting over Zubaydah's fear of bugs.) Nasty? Perhaps. But it simply does not meet the definition of "torture." One may oppose such techniques without calling them torture.
Most Americans believe that if an activity is regularly practiced by cheerleaders or part of the annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, it should not properly be termed torture. So creating human pyramids, wearing underwear on heads, having a leash harmlessly around one's necks, and being half-naked are events we can see both at Abu Ghraib prison and also in the streets of San Francisco during the annual parade celebrating homosexuality.
Most Americans feel that living conditions that U.S. soldiers must regularly endure should not be called torture. One technique involved keeping prison cells cold. Yet if our U.S. troops in the field have to endure cold, bad food, cramped conditions, and hard ground as a bed, or stay awake for days in a battle, well then, doggone it, terrorists can share the same conditions. Anything that our U.S. military has to put up with is good enough for the terrorists who were trying to kill our troops and who have murdered hundreds or thousands of people.
One of the oddest revelations -- in terms of liberal reaction -- was the Associated Press report that a female interrogator read "Harry Potter" books to a terrorist for hours. When a person reads books to a bed-ridden elderly patient, this is considered an act of kindness. But in "Liberal Land," reading the wildly-popular "Harry Potter" books to an inmate at Guantanamo Bay is now "torture."
Similarly, US interrogators "tortured" prisoners by playing Celine Dion records ad nauseum. When the film "Titanic" was released, those who heard the theme song by Dion played a hundred times a day for months, may well be tempted to call this torture. But we should leave such analysis to the film critics.
Some techniques which liberals claim was torture included yelling at the terrorist, using nasty words, lying to the terrorist about handing him over to the Mossad or the Saudis, leading a terrorist to believe that he might suffer bodily injury or be killed, or forcing a Muslim man to be in the same room with a woman.
However unpleasant an act may be, perhaps if it is advertised on "Craigs List" as as a paid erotic service, maybe "torture" is not the right word for it. Disgusting, yes. Inappropriate... absolutely. But "torture?" Not quite. At Abu Ghraib, being in the same room with a woman, being half-naked, wearing kinky outfits, or even being spanked . possibly aren't "torture" if people pay real money for these same acts by kinky escorts through ads in the "City Paper."
One of the most curious techniques used, reading between the lines, was to take photographs of terrorists half-naked with a female soldier. Interrogators would then threaten to send the photographs to the terrorists' Islamic hometown. This was apparently done to blackmail terrorists into talking. This technique involves no actual harm whatsoever, especially if the threat is never carried out. On the other hand, blackmail certainly does seem under-handed and troubling. This might be unethical, but torture it is not.
Nearly all the aggressive interrogation techniques were "old news," such as sleep deprivation. Prisoners were sometimes deprived of solid food. This brings to mind those TV ads for "Slim Fast" diet drinks. This author has fasted for a week with no food at all. Several pastors I know have fasted for 40 days without any food at all. This can be pure misery. Surely it would be uncomfortable, especially for a plump man like Khalikh Sheikh Mohammed who probably loves his food. But can we call it "torture" when we have diet companies selling liquid diets on television?
Interrogators were authorized to keep a prisoner awake for no more than 180 hours (8 days). During this author's fraternity initiation "hell week" I stayed awake for just under one week. And that included going to classes in college, and functioning as a student despite having no sleep. Terrorist detainees just sat in their cells, kept awake. Calling what fraternity pledges do voluntarily torture is a bit of a stretch.
Some inmates were kept naked. That is embarrassing, especially for a Muslim if women are around. But let's put things in perspective. Nudist colonies charge money for allowing a lifestyle of nakedness. It might not be everyone's taste. But if people pay money to walk around naked all day, can we really classify that as torture? Humiliating, yes. But "torture" is a different word.
As described by the USA TODAY from a Justice Department release, some of the other methods approved for "aggressive interrogation" by the Bush Administration did also include some rougher treatment. But even these are being misrepresented.
Perhaps the most disturbing technique was the practice of "walling" -- until we understand what it is. USA Today describes walling as: "A fake, flexible wall is built, and the suspect is pulled forward and 'then quickly and firmly' pushed against the wall. 'The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is.'"
But pay careful attention: An inmate is thrown into a FAKE wall, specially constructed for the purpose. This was a FLEXIBLE -- soft -- wall, designed to be HARMLESS. The idea is to make the terrorist believe he is going to be hurt... but in fact he is not hurt at all. This is a "Nerf wall!"
Another approved method that might trouble Americans includes stress positions: This included "kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle" and "sitting on the floor with legs extended out in front of him with his arms raised above his head." This is one method that seems questionable and over the line, and might bother many people. Yet no actual injury is involved.
There were a few approved methods more of what we expect in rough interrogation: Attention grasp: "Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the shirt collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion." Facial grasp: "Used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face." Insult slap: "The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise and/or humiliation."
Similarly, there is cramped confinement: The suspect is placed in a confined space that "is usually dark." Some spaces allow a subject only to sit down. Such confinement "lasts for no more than two hours."
Then there is Wall standing: Subjects are forced to lean with only their fingers for support against a wall 4 to 5 feet away from their bodies in a tactic "used to induce muscle fatigue."
And finally, of course, there is the now famous waterboarding: As described by the Justice Department release: "The subject is placed on a board with a cloth covering his nose and mouth. The cloth is saturated with water to simulate drowning. It creates "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.' " The reason that the technique works is that terrorists do not know if the interrogator will go too far.
Among the released memos is one from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding "will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm." Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations "if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Despite the world-wide hysteria about waterboarding, the reality is a bit of a let-down. It should be well-known by now that US troops endure waterboarding as part of their training. The internet news outlet "Bleepin' Truth" held a live demonstration of waterboarding in Tampa, Florida. It was broadcast by Bay News 9 television news.
This demonstration was different from others in that an actual, trained military interrogator reproduced the technique accurately.
There is no question that the experience is very unpleasant. That is the whole point. But we see videos of hundreds of people who walk away afterwards, and talk normally to camera. YouTube contains dozens of demonstrations.
To put this into context, we might do well to visit a Florida swimming pool and talk to rough-housing boys who regularly push each other under the water. If being submerged under water -- and held there -- with the sensation that one is about to drown is "waterboarding" then it is happening a hundred times a week somewhere in Florida's swimming pools by rough-housing boys.
This author was diving in the Bahamas, 40 feet below the water, with no air, when our "Aquanut" air pump suddenly ran out of gas. It took several seconds to realize why it was suddenly so quiet, and then take a breath and find no air coming in. Struggling for the surface, my lungs were bursting, like a thousand pins all through my lungs. This was certainly unpleasant, but you could not call it torture. I was back down in the water again within ten minutes.
In order to have meaningful decisions on national policies, we must have clear and unchanging definitions of key concepts. We must not allow this liberal scam of changing the meaning of words in order to hijack national policy. The definition of words can control the entire direction of a nation.
Monday, April 20, 2009
MSNBC Olbermann Attacks Tea Parties
Keith Olbermann, hosting his “Countdown” show on MSNBC on April 14, smeared the nation-wide movement Tea Parties by comparing it with a sexual act usually associated with homosexual culture. MSNBC generally and Olbermann in particular have been criticized for a continuing descent into becoming a biased propaganda arm for the radical far left.
Readers should be warned that it is impossible to report Keith Olbermann’s grossly offensive reporting without discussing his offensive content. On April 15, Rush Limbaugh broadcast a similar discussion of the same smear made on-air by CNN’S Anderson Coooper without giving such a warning (which he normally gives), and Rush read from an urban dictionary to make his point.
Invoking the historical example of the “Boston Tea Party” which helped spark the American Revolution, a tsunami of spontaneous grassroots protest has swept across the nation. Americans of many different political views are protesting against government’s over-spending, bailouts, and refusal to listen to the people on such issues as illegal immigration.
The first modern “Boston Tea Party” was a spontaneous event in Seattle, Washington, on February 16, 2009. Then on February 19, financial reporter Rick Santelli gave his famous “rant heard round the world” on CNBC in which Santelli suggested holding a Chicago Tea Party in July and throwing tea into Lake Michigan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA] To some extent, the enormous public opposition to the massive bank and corporate bailouts starting last Fall has evolved into the tea party movement.
Public sentiment against both George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s bailouts of mind-numbing size, using borrowed money, have swamped the Congressional switchboard at several points since last Fall. One of the most poignant scenes of the tea parties is a very young girl holding up a sign “Sorry, Daddy, I don’t have a trillion dollars to loan you.”
The idea of holding tea parties on tax day, April 15, emerged as too obvious to ignore. Following this example, hundreds of conservative organizations and tens of thousands of individuals seized on this very obvious opportunity to protest. With the internet and talk radio making the organization inexpensive and easy, hundreds of rallies were scheduled. Some of the tea parties are so spontaneous that conflicting rallies have been scheduled at the same time without coordination. Tea parties in Fairfax, Virginia, were scheduled for both the Merrifield Post Office and a nearby Reston shopping mall in conflict with each other.
However, Keith Olbermann used every opportunity – on national cable television – to compare the tea parties to a sexual act most Americans would consider perversion. “Teabagging” is street jargon that is impossible to explain on these pages with the remotest level of decency. The term originated within the homosexual community.
In fact, no one in the tea party movement has ever used the terms “teabagging” or “teabaggers.” Indeed, most of the modern tea parties have not involved any actual tea at all, and have not focused on either tea or tea bags. (The tea in the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was in crates.) The one defect of the modern tea parties is their distinct lack of any tea. (The EPA might object if tea were thrown into lakes or rivers these days.) Therefore, not only has the term never been used by the tea parties, but tea bags play little or no role in these re-enactment of a pivotal event in American history.
Olbermann admitted that his many double entrendres were intentional. Olbermann laughed “That’s the only thing that wasn’t intentional in the last five minutes,” after his British guest expressed discomfort at being an Englishmen asked about tea parties. Later, Olbermman then again explicitly mentioned double entrendres about tea parties, such as “Dick Armey teabagging the nation" and asked if Howard Stern had invented the protests.
His segment was aired over the titles: “GOP bones up on teabagging" and “Teabaggers’ seminal moment." Olbermann claimed that Republican talking heads like Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging “down the throats of the original teabaggers.” He claimed that “Cincinnati teabaggers were down in the mouth about taxes.” He predicted that the teabagger movement would blow up in Fox’s face. According to Rush Limbaugh, CNN’s Cooper Anderson made a similar comment that “It is hard to speak while you’re teabagging.”
Olbermann managed to get almost every fact wrong in his report, showing incompetence as a journalist. Olbermann claimed that the tea parties were started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul. In fact, the initial promoters of tea parties, following Rick Santelli’s on-air rant, were Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, American Solutions, and Americans for Prosperity.
The “Countdown” report falsely portrayed the movement as manufactured by corporate interests and the Republican National Committee. Most of Olbermann’s interview with British MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe focused on fantasizing about what might happen if the tea parties were a flop because people don’t show up.
He falsely portrayed the tea party movement as involving Republican officials such as John Boehner and Dick Armey. In fact, some tea parties have banned elected officials from participating. While it is true that many elected officials and political leader have tried to “run out in front of the parade” and become part of the action, a hallmark of the tea party movement has been disgust with every level of government regardless of party. Complaints include the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of both massive over-spending borrowing money from our children and ignoring the voice of the people. Some are even discussing the creation of an independent political party based on the tea party rallies. Much will depend now on what happens on July 4, Independence Day, and whether the protest movement can again marshall a strong voice on July 4th.
Readers should be warned that it is impossible to report Keith Olbermann’s grossly offensive reporting without discussing his offensive content. On April 15, Rush Limbaugh broadcast a similar discussion of the same smear made on-air by CNN’S Anderson Coooper without giving such a warning (which he normally gives), and Rush read from an urban dictionary to make his point.
Invoking the historical example of the “Boston Tea Party” which helped spark the American Revolution, a tsunami of spontaneous grassroots protest has swept across the nation. Americans of many different political views are protesting against government’s over-spending, bailouts, and refusal to listen to the people on such issues as illegal immigration.
The first modern “Boston Tea Party” was a spontaneous event in Seattle, Washington, on February 16, 2009. Then on February 19, financial reporter Rick Santelli gave his famous “rant heard round the world” on CNBC in which Santelli suggested holding a Chicago Tea Party in July and throwing tea into Lake Michigan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA] To some extent, the enormous public opposition to the massive bank and corporate bailouts starting last Fall has evolved into the tea party movement.
Public sentiment against both George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s bailouts of mind-numbing size, using borrowed money, have swamped the Congressional switchboard at several points since last Fall. One of the most poignant scenes of the tea parties is a very young girl holding up a sign “Sorry, Daddy, I don’t have a trillion dollars to loan you.”
The idea of holding tea parties on tax day, April 15, emerged as too obvious to ignore. Following this example, hundreds of conservative organizations and tens of thousands of individuals seized on this very obvious opportunity to protest. With the internet and talk radio making the organization inexpensive and easy, hundreds of rallies were scheduled. Some of the tea parties are so spontaneous that conflicting rallies have been scheduled at the same time without coordination. Tea parties in Fairfax, Virginia, were scheduled for both the Merrifield Post Office and a nearby Reston shopping mall in conflict with each other.
However, Keith Olbermann used every opportunity – on national cable television – to compare the tea parties to a sexual act most Americans would consider perversion. “Teabagging” is street jargon that is impossible to explain on these pages with the remotest level of decency. The term originated within the homosexual community.
In fact, no one in the tea party movement has ever used the terms “teabagging” or “teabaggers.” Indeed, most of the modern tea parties have not involved any actual tea at all, and have not focused on either tea or tea bags. (The tea in the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was in crates.) The one defect of the modern tea parties is their distinct lack of any tea. (The EPA might object if tea were thrown into lakes or rivers these days.) Therefore, not only has the term never been used by the tea parties, but tea bags play little or no role in these re-enactment of a pivotal event in American history.
Olbermann admitted that his many double entrendres were intentional. Olbermann laughed “That’s the only thing that wasn’t intentional in the last five minutes,” after his British guest expressed discomfort at being an Englishmen asked about tea parties. Later, Olbermman then again explicitly mentioned double entrendres about tea parties, such as “Dick Armey teabagging the nation" and asked if Howard Stern had invented the protests.
His segment was aired over the titles: “GOP bones up on teabagging" and “Teabaggers’ seminal moment." Olbermann claimed that Republican talking heads like Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging “down the throats of the original teabaggers.” He claimed that “Cincinnati teabaggers were down in the mouth about taxes.” He predicted that the teabagger movement would blow up in Fox’s face. According to Rush Limbaugh, CNN’s Cooper Anderson made a similar comment that “It is hard to speak while you’re teabagging.”
Olbermann managed to get almost every fact wrong in his report, showing incompetence as a journalist. Olbermann claimed that the tea parties were started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul. In fact, the initial promoters of tea parties, following Rick Santelli’s on-air rant, were Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, American Solutions, and Americans for Prosperity.
The “Countdown” report falsely portrayed the movement as manufactured by corporate interests and the Republican National Committee. Most of Olbermann’s interview with British MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe focused on fantasizing about what might happen if the tea parties were a flop because people don’t show up.
He falsely portrayed the tea party movement as involving Republican officials such as John Boehner and Dick Armey. In fact, some tea parties have banned elected officials from participating. While it is true that many elected officials and political leader have tried to “run out in front of the parade” and become part of the action, a hallmark of the tea party movement has been disgust with every level of government regardless of party. Complaints include the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of both massive over-spending borrowing money from our children and ignoring the voice of the people. Some are even discussing the creation of an independent political party based on the tea party rallies. Much will depend now on what happens on July 4, Independence Day, and whether the protest movement can again marshall a strong voice on July 4th.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama Apologies, While World Picks His Pockets
President Obama's diplomatic tour through Europe, Turkey, and Iraq is being loudly trumpeted as a great success by the mainstream media. However, Obama's "success" came mainly from embarrassing America and surrendering American interests, to the great delight of America's opponents. Concessions to other countries and signs of American weakness were well-received by other countries, yet not rewarded.
In what conservatives are calling his "Apologizing for America Tour," Obama took an astonishing 500 White House staffers and security personnel on a European tour. Obama traveled to London to attend the "G-20" summit of the 20 largest economies, seeking to develop a global, coordinated response to the economic crisis. Expanded from the previous G-7 series of summits, the G-20 summit was the largest meeting of heads of state since World War II.
The G-20 produced agreement on massive government spending, but also vast, new regulations. A new international board will have authority to intervene in U.S. corporations, including approving or disapproving business management decisions and executive salaries. There were vague promises for reform of the International Monetary Fund. However, the G-20 floated plans to turn the IMF into a one-world government "national" bank similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States. The IMF has agreed to sell gold to finance stimulus loans. Some actions could led to a global currency.
Obama announced to the world's leaders in Strasbourg that the United States has been arrogant. Obama confessed that America has had a "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" and a failure to "celebrate" the European Union and partner with the EU. Obama refused to visit the graves of U.S. soldiers who liberated Europe in World War II, to avoid upsetting the Germans. By contrast, no other world leader apologized for his or her country.
In fact, Europe's refusal to take on any leadership role has dominated world affairs. America's attempts to work together with Europe have been met with frustration. The USA has had to shoulder the burden of crises inside and near Europe chronically ignored by European leaders, such as Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sierre Leone, the Sudan, Darfur, and Afghanistan. During the Cold War, the U.S.A. spent trillions of dollars extending its military umbrella over Europe, allowing Europe to freeload and develop their civilian economies at America's expense.
In Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation. Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. Obama again apologized to Turkey for America's attitude.
During the Coalition invasion of Iraq, Turkey agreed to allow US troops to unload in Turkish ports and cross into Iraq. Then Turkey changed its mind in the middle of the operation, throwing U.S. war plans into chaos. Half of America's invasion force had to climb back onto ships, steam the long way around to Kuwait, and get in line behind other troops entering from the South. Weapons depots in the North were left unprotected, and fell into the hands of terrorists and insurgents. The North was not secured as planned. As a direct result of Turkey's betrayal, the war lasted years longer than it should have and thousands of US soldiers died. The original plan would have kept massive ammunition dumps out of the hands of the Jihadists and would have quickly controlled the North.
At the G-20, Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related]. This reinforced suspicions of Obama critics that he retains his religious training as a Muslim from his youth. By contrast, Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow&feature=related]
Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was both shocking and diplomatically wrong. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with the same respect as Obama gave. Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Meanwhile, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 in 2001 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has pretended to be America's friend, but Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorists are primarily funded by Saudi oil princes.
As a student in Indonesia, Obama was enrolled by his then-father Lolo Sotero in religious training as a Muslim, according to school transcripts. Doubts have persisted whether Obama has entirely left behind his Muslim roots. Since Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet -- just not as a Savior or as God in human form -- Obama's attendance at Rev. Wright's church is compatible with a continuing Islamic faith. Wright's Chicago church focused mainly on politics, and rarely if ever preach Jesus as being God or the Savior. (During the election, Obama claimed he had campaigned in 57 of the 58 States. There are 57 States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Obama seemed more familiar with the world's Islamic States than the United States.)
At the G-20, Obama's overtures were not rewarded. Europe refused to share the responsibility of rebuilding and securing Afghanistan. (Europe's shocking neglect of Afghanistan's crisis in the 1990's led to its domination by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.)
North Korea delivered Obama a slap in the face by launching a test missile across Japanese territory toward Alaska. Though claimed to be a satellite launch, the rocket was plainly a prototype for an intercontinental missile capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States. North Korea has already developed and tested nuclear weapons. Obama's apologies for America and diplomatic efforts were met with embarrasment.
Russia immediately sabotaged Obama, rather than rewarding Obama's olive branch, by announcing that Iran poses no threat to the United States. This diplomatic bomb seriously prejudices upcoming talks, as Obama prepares to meet with Iran's President Ahmadinejad to negotiate. Russia has already declared that the U.S. has no legitimate interest to pursue in the talks. Thus, Obama's outreach to the world has been a dismal failure. Rather than earning respect, world powers have seized on his weakness to sabotage U.S. goals.
Muslim pirates from Somalia hijacked a U.S.-run ship for the first time, indicating that appeasement and apologies do not incresae respect for U.S. interests. The Arab League announced solidarity with the Sudanese government engaging in genocide in Darfur and the Sudan.
Since the world's nations mostly want to take advantage at the USA's expense, if they are completely happy, something is wrong. Major nations have their own goals, aims, pressures, and desires. There will inevitably be tensions and clashes of interests. Therefore, if other nations are thrilled with the American President, he is failing to stand up for America's interests. Even married couples and friends must compromise on what movie to see or what restaurant to eat at tonight. Obama came across as the friend who never has any opinion of his own, and does whatever he is told.
If giving away the store, or preparing to, is success, then Obama very effectively displayed America's weakness and lack of resolve and invited other countries to trample on American interests.
America's enemies and "frenemies" (enemies who pretend to be friends) applauded Obama's performance. One would expect when America's President is emptying out his pockets, bowing down, and giving away America's glbal interests, the world will be pleased.
In what conservatives are calling his "Apologizing for America Tour," Obama took an astonishing 500 White House staffers and security personnel on a European tour. Obama traveled to London to attend the "G-20" summit of the 20 largest economies, seeking to develop a global, coordinated response to the economic crisis. Expanded from the previous G-7 series of summits, the G-20 summit was the largest meeting of heads of state since World War II.
The G-20 produced agreement on massive government spending, but also vast, new regulations. A new international board will have authority to intervene in U.S. corporations, including approving or disapproving business management decisions and executive salaries. There were vague promises for reform of the International Monetary Fund. However, the G-20 floated plans to turn the IMF into a one-world government "national" bank similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States. The IMF has agreed to sell gold to finance stimulus loans. Some actions could led to a global currency.
Obama announced to the world's leaders in Strasbourg that the United States has been arrogant. Obama confessed that America has had a "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" and a failure to "celebrate" the European Union and partner with the EU. Obama refused to visit the graves of U.S. soldiers who liberated Europe in World War II, to avoid upsetting the Germans. By contrast, no other world leader apologized for his or her country.
In fact, Europe's refusal to take on any leadership role has dominated world affairs. America's attempts to work together with Europe have been met with frustration. The USA has had to shoulder the burden of crises inside and near Europe chronically ignored by European leaders, such as Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sierre Leone, the Sudan, Darfur, and Afghanistan. During the Cold War, the U.S.A. spent trillions of dollars extending its military umbrella over Europe, allowing Europe to freeload and develop their civilian economies at America's expense.
In Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation. Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. Obama again apologized to Turkey for America's attitude.
During the Coalition invasion of Iraq, Turkey agreed to allow US troops to unload in Turkish ports and cross into Iraq. Then Turkey changed its mind in the middle of the operation, throwing U.S. war plans into chaos. Half of America's invasion force had to climb back onto ships, steam the long way around to Kuwait, and get in line behind other troops entering from the South. Weapons depots in the North were left unprotected, and fell into the hands of terrorists and insurgents. The North was not secured as planned. As a direct result of Turkey's betrayal, the war lasted years longer than it should have and thousands of US soldiers died. The original plan would have kept massive ammunition dumps out of the hands of the Jihadists and would have quickly controlled the North.
At the G-20, Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related]. This reinforced suspicions of Obama critics that he retains his religious training as a Muslim from his youth. By contrast, Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow&feature=related]
Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was both shocking and diplomatically wrong. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with the same respect as Obama gave. Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Meanwhile, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 in 2001 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has pretended to be America's friend, but Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorists are primarily funded by Saudi oil princes.
As a student in Indonesia, Obama was enrolled by his then-father Lolo Sotero in religious training as a Muslim, according to school transcripts. Doubts have persisted whether Obama has entirely left behind his Muslim roots. Since Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet -- just not as a Savior or as God in human form -- Obama's attendance at Rev. Wright's church is compatible with a continuing Islamic faith. Wright's Chicago church focused mainly on politics, and rarely if ever preach Jesus as being God or the Savior. (During the election, Obama claimed he had campaigned in 57 of the 58 States. There are 57 States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Obama seemed more familiar with the world's Islamic States than the United States.)
At the G-20, Obama's overtures were not rewarded. Europe refused to share the responsibility of rebuilding and securing Afghanistan. (Europe's shocking neglect of Afghanistan's crisis in the 1990's led to its domination by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.)
North Korea delivered Obama a slap in the face by launching a test missile across Japanese territory toward Alaska. Though claimed to be a satellite launch, the rocket was plainly a prototype for an intercontinental missile capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States. North Korea has already developed and tested nuclear weapons. Obama's apologies for America and diplomatic efforts were met with embarrasment.
Russia immediately sabotaged Obama, rather than rewarding Obama's olive branch, by announcing that Iran poses no threat to the United States. This diplomatic bomb seriously prejudices upcoming talks, as Obama prepares to meet with Iran's President Ahmadinejad to negotiate. Russia has already declared that the U.S. has no legitimate interest to pursue in the talks. Thus, Obama's outreach to the world has been a dismal failure. Rather than earning respect, world powers have seized on his weakness to sabotage U.S. goals.
Muslim pirates from Somalia hijacked a U.S.-run ship for the first time, indicating that appeasement and apologies do not incresae respect for U.S. interests. The Arab League announced solidarity with the Sudanese government engaging in genocide in Darfur and the Sudan.
Since the world's nations mostly want to take advantage at the USA's expense, if they are completely happy, something is wrong. Major nations have their own goals, aims, pressures, and desires. There will inevitably be tensions and clashes of interests. Therefore, if other nations are thrilled with the American President, he is failing to stand up for America's interests. Even married couples and friends must compromise on what movie to see or what restaurant to eat at tonight. Obama came across as the friend who never has any opinion of his own, and does whatever he is told.
If giving away the store, or preparing to, is success, then Obama very effectively displayed America's weakness and lack of resolve and invited other countries to trample on American interests.
America's enemies and "frenemies" (enemies who pretend to be friends) applauded Obama's performance. One would expect when America's President is emptying out his pockets, bowing down, and giving away America's glbal interests, the world will be pleased.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
"TEA PARTY" Protestors Couldn't Wait For Tax Day
Taxpayers couldn't wait to protest for April 15 to arrive here in Wilmington, North Carolina. Catching the growing "tax day" revolt, approximately 700 angry citizens rallied at the Federal Building in Wilmington on April 7. Across the nation, almost 2,000 modern "Boston Tea Parties" are now expected on April 15. The intensity and number of events suggests a massive groundswell continuing to build. Leaders are urging Americans to "Party like it's 1776," to take back America.
The favorite chant of the crowd on the steps of Wilmington's Federal building was "Throw the bums out," along with "Who do you work for? WE THE PEOPLE!" The crowd was filled with yellow Colonial flags -- large and small -- proclaiming "Don't Tread on Me" along with many American flags. A gentleman dressed as a Colonial officer of the Revolutionary War waved an enormous Red, White, and Blue flag.
Hundreds of home-made signs attacked out-of-control spending, socialism, taxes, bail-outs and Obama policies. One sign simply said "NYET !" over the hammer-and-sickle sign of the Soviet Union (Russian for "No"). Many signs are becoming standard tea party items, such as one saying "Obama Motors" crossed through and another spelling out "OBAMA" as an acronym for "One Big A** Mistake America." Others decried the burden of debt imposed on children and grandchildren. Another proclaimed "If you like socialism, move to Europe."
However, a major theme of the protest here in Wilmington and nationwide is the arrogance of elected officials who simply don't listen to the voters. More than any particular issue, the crowd was infuriated by the general attitude of Washington and local politicians in seizing people's rights and money without caring what the voters want. This anger is directed at all levels of government: Federal, State, and local.
In Wilmington, the crowd marched from the Federal building to the City Council building, where they accidentally caught the Mayor, Bill Saffo, walking out the front entrance. The surprised Mayor, looking like a deer caught in headlights, was forced to cheerfully acknowledge the angry, yelling voters before racing back inside. Then their chants on the front steps could be clearly heard by the City Council meeting going on inside. The crowd broke out singing "God Bless America," after being informed that the City Council could hear them. Chants of "Throw the bums out" then resumed.
Dozens of organizations are calling for a national day of protest on April 15 -- the deadline for filing Federal tax returns. The protests invoke the memory of the famous tax protest of the Massachussetts Colony against the British as a key moment in American history. In 1773, Colonists fed up with the many taxes imposed by the English King, threw British tea into Boston harbor, rather than pay the tax on the tea. (The protestors disguised their identities by dressing as Indians, but announced that they were in fact Masschusetts Colonialists.)
Today, the massive tea party movement is being "organized" by almost every conservative or libertarian political group imaginable, of every kind. There are so many unrelated organizations involved that essentially no one is actually organizing this movement. The idea materalized after a now-famous, impromptu "rant" by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k] on February 19, when he called for a Chicago Tea Party throwing tea into Lake Michigan.
At first, a coalition led by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union staged tea parties in February. They were tracking plans for 170 more on April 15. Then Don Wildmon's American Family Association upped the ante by promising to organize 1,000 more. Soon afterward, almost every organization that exists jumped on board the movement. Organizations that normally never talk to each other, or don't even know the other exists, were suddenly working together to set up tax-day tea parties. Now, tracking of events suggests the total will approach 2,000 events on April 15.
The Wilmington event was sponsored by half-a-dozen groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Fair Taxation (Fairtax.org). However, local talk show host Curtis Wright turned out many listeners not connected with any organization. Such spontaneous involvement by citizens is often hoped for, but rarely achieved. This time, the movement appears to be a chain reaction exploding nation-wide. Even beyond April 15, tea parties are already being discussed for tea party rallies on July 4 -- Independence Day.
The favorite chant of the crowd on the steps of Wilmington's Federal building was "Throw the bums out," along with "Who do you work for? WE THE PEOPLE!" The crowd was filled with yellow Colonial flags -- large and small -- proclaiming "Don't Tread on Me" along with many American flags. A gentleman dressed as a Colonial officer of the Revolutionary War waved an enormous Red, White, and Blue flag.
Hundreds of home-made signs attacked out-of-control spending, socialism, taxes, bail-outs and Obama policies. One sign simply said "NYET !" over the hammer-and-sickle sign of the Soviet Union (Russian for "No"). Many signs are becoming standard tea party items, such as one saying "Obama Motors" crossed through and another spelling out "OBAMA" as an acronym for "One Big A** Mistake America." Others decried the burden of debt imposed on children and grandchildren. Another proclaimed "If you like socialism, move to Europe."
However, a major theme of the protest here in Wilmington and nationwide is the arrogance of elected officials who simply don't listen to the voters. More than any particular issue, the crowd was infuriated by the general attitude of Washington and local politicians in seizing people's rights and money without caring what the voters want. This anger is directed at all levels of government: Federal, State, and local.
In Wilmington, the crowd marched from the Federal building to the City Council building, where they accidentally caught the Mayor, Bill Saffo, walking out the front entrance. The surprised Mayor, looking like a deer caught in headlights, was forced to cheerfully acknowledge the angry, yelling voters before racing back inside. Then their chants on the front steps could be clearly heard by the City Council meeting going on inside. The crowd broke out singing "God Bless America," after being informed that the City Council could hear them. Chants of "Throw the bums out" then resumed.
Dozens of organizations are calling for a national day of protest on April 15 -- the deadline for filing Federal tax returns. The protests invoke the memory of the famous tax protest of the Massachussetts Colony against the British as a key moment in American history. In 1773, Colonists fed up with the many taxes imposed by the English King, threw British tea into Boston harbor, rather than pay the tax on the tea. (The protestors disguised their identities by dressing as Indians, but announced that they were in fact Masschusetts Colonialists.)
Today, the massive tea party movement is being "organized" by almost every conservative or libertarian political group imaginable, of every kind. There are so many unrelated organizations involved that essentially no one is actually organizing this movement. The idea materalized after a now-famous, impromptu "rant" by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k] on February 19, when he called for a Chicago Tea Party throwing tea into Lake Michigan.
At first, a coalition led by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union staged tea parties in February. They were tracking plans for 170 more on April 15. Then Don Wildmon's American Family Association upped the ante by promising to organize 1,000 more. Soon afterward, almost every organization that exists jumped on board the movement. Organizations that normally never talk to each other, or don't even know the other exists, were suddenly working together to set up tax-day tea parties. Now, tracking of events suggests the total will approach 2,000 events on April 15.
The Wilmington event was sponsored by half-a-dozen groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Fair Taxation (Fairtax.org). However, local talk show host Curtis Wright turned out many listeners not connected with any organization. Such spontaneous involvement by citizens is often hoped for, but rarely achieved. This time, the movement appears to be a chain reaction exploding nation-wide. Even beyond April 15, tea parties are already being discussed for tea party rallies on July 4 -- Independence Day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
