Monday, December 7, 2009

While preparing to sternly lecture the general public about carbon emissions, globalists descend on Copenhagen in record numbers of private jets and stretch limos Paul Joseph Watson Prison Monday, December 7, 2009

Caviar Scoffing, CO2 Belching, Prostitute Molesting Climate Crooks Convene For The Mass Raping 071209top

Record numbers of stretch limos and private jets are descending on Copenhagen as thousands of CO2 belching, caviar scoffing, prostitute molesting, hypocritical climate crooks prepare to orchestrate the next round of mass raping in pursuit of their much cherished world government and its handmaiden, a global tax on carbon emissions.

In another stark reminder that these globalists couldn’t give a damn about CO2 emissions, only eviscerating economies and the middle class, their own behavior is completely at odds with how they are indignantly demanding other people live their lives.

A London Telegraph report reveals how the combined CO2 footprint of the conference will amount to no less than 41,000 tons, equal to that produced by an African country over the same period.

Despite the fact that the climate crooks constantly berate and browbeat Joe Public about not driving hybrid vehicles and taking two holidays a year via commercial airliners, the Copenhagen criminals are arriving in luxurious private jets before whizzing around town in gas-guzzling stretch limos.

“We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company told the Telegraph. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

“Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

“And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen.”

While readying speeches about how the middle class will be forced to lower their living standards, pay higher taxes on all forms of travel, and make personal sacrifices in order to save the planet from the alleged menace of CO2, Copenhagen globalists will be relaxing on the 140 extra private jets that are being forced to drop off attendees in Copenhagen and then fly back to other airports and even other countries just to park due to the lack of spaces.

Elitists will scoff scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges, while lecturing the general public about how eating meat is harming the earth.

And while the climate crooks wag their finger at you for having the audacity to own an SUV, they will be running up a bill of over $200 million dollars, and guess who is going to be picking up the tab?

“According to an analysis by the Taxpayer’s Alliance, a conservative cost of Copenhagen is £130million.

It includes £6.3million on flights, £20million on hotels and £3.3million on food,” reports the Daily Mail.

“The figure also includes the salaries for delegates and the contribution from the Danish government of £37 million. Most of the money will come from taxpayers.”

Meanwhile, eco-fascism has proven it’s still very much alive and well with the news that “56 major newspapers in 45 countries are today publishing a shared editorial calling on politicians and negotiators gathering in Copenhagen to strike an ambitious deal on combating climate change.”

Of course, behind the contrived grandstanding on behalf of such publications that they are somehow speaking with one united voice in the interests of humankind, all this really shows is that the same establishment attempting to bang the last few nails in the coffin of freedom, by taxing carbon dioxide, the life-giving gas that humans exhale and trees absorb, also happen to own and control the vast majority of the global media.

Far from being an upstanding act of benign advocacy, as it is being framed, the fact that 56 major world newspapers are all spewing the same propaganda, especially in light of the Climategate scandal that most of them have failed to even acknowledge in any depth whatsoever, smacks of the kind of editorial control the Nazis exercised in 1930’s Germany or Joseph Stalin enjoyed in Communist Russia.

Meanwhile, according to an article in Spiegel Online, prostitutes are preparing for globalists to descend on Copenhagen by offering free sex. The Mayor of Copenhagen attempted to limit the expected deluge of summit attendees enjoying the use of prostitutes by sending a letter to hotels across the city urging delegates and guests at the conference, “Be sustainable, don’t buy sex.” Prostitutes responded by offering free sex to any Copenhagen attendee who produces the Mayor’s letter.

Summits of this size are routinely accompanied by a huge spike in the sex trade in whatever city they happen to be taking place. While servants of the global elite and their masters lecture us about our moral imperatives, half of them are out committing adultery on a nightly basis during the same global conferences at which they habitually pose with righteous indignation.

Make sure you have plenty of vomit bags on standby over the next couple of weeks, because you are going to be endlessly lectured by a gaggle of amoral, money-grubbing, control freak thugs who couldn’t care less about the environment unless they can invoke it as a pretext for taxing you out of existence while declaring the very particles that you breathe to be a deadly poison.

The summit began with a filmed plea from children, and a welcome from Denmark's PM

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss".

Opening the two-week conference in the Danish capital, he told delegates from 192 countries a "strong and ambitious climate change agreement" was needed.

About 100 leaders are to attend the meeting, which is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The UN says an unprecedented number of countries have promised emissions cuts.

Mr Rasmussen told delegates that the world was looking to the conference to safeguard humanity.

"For the next two weeks," he said, "Copenhagen will be Hopenhagen. By the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted us here today: hope for a better future."

Later, Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), criticised the "climategate" affair - the recent publication of e-mails among scientists assessing global warming at Britain's University of East Anglia.

He said the breaches showed "that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC".

On Sunday, UN climate convention head Yvo de Boer expressed optimism about cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so many pledges," he told the BBC.

Mr de Boer said offers of finance for clean technology for poor countries were also coming through and that talks were progressing on a long-term vision of massive carbon cuts by 2050.

Tougher targets?

On Monday, South Africa became the latest country to make an offer - saying it would cut by one-third the growth of its carbon emissions over the next decade, subject to getting more funding and technological help from wealthier countries.

In July, the G8 bloc of industrialised countries and some major developing countries adopted a target of keeping the global average temperature rise since pre-industrial times to 2C.

However now the G77/China bloc - which speaks on behalf of developing countries - is discussing whether to demand a much tougher target of 1.5C

A number of African delegations are backing the argument made by small island states that 2C will bring major impacts to their countries.

BBC environment correspondent Richard Black says this would raise a huge obstacle, because none of the industrialised countries have put forward emission cuts in the range that would be required to meet a 1.5C target.

Meanwhile, a new poll commissioned by the BBC suggests that public concern over climate change is growing across the world.

In the survey, by Globescan, 64% of people questioned said that they considered global warming a very serious problem - up 20% from a 1998 poll.

To stress the importance of the summit, 56 newspapers in 45 countries are publishing the same editorial on Monday, warning that climate change will "ravage our planet" unless action is agreed, the London-based Guardian reported.

The editorial - to be published in 20 languages - has been thrashed out by editors ahead of the Copenhagen talks, the newspaper said.

"At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world," the editorial says.

Environmental activists are planning to hold protests in Copenhagen and around the world on 12 December to encourage delegates to reach the strongest possible deal.

'Long-term goal'

Any agreement made at Copenhagen is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012.

World leaders who have pledged to attend include US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The main areas for discussion include:

  • Targets to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in particular by developed countries
  • Financial support for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change by developing countries
  • A carbon trading scheme aimed at ending the destruction of the world's forests by 2030

Outlining his ambitions for the summit, Mr de Boer said: "I think what we will see coming out of Copenhagen is a package of decisions that define a long-term goal.

"Then, first of all, what will rich countries do to reduce their emissions. Secondly, what will major developing countries do to limit the growth of their emissions and thirdly prompt finance that will allow developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change."
AT THE SCENE - Richard Black, BBC environment correspondent

Even before the talks officially opened, fault lines between the various blocs here appeared to be widening.

Although UN climate convention head Yvo de Boer said things were in "excellent shape", with more countries than ever before proposing emission cuts, two big questions hang over these proposals: will they be acceptable to the developing world, and are they enough to prevent "dangerous" climate change?

At this stage, the answers appear to be "no" and "maybe". The UN Environment Programme calculates that cuts on the table are nearly enough if every country turns its most ambitious pledges into action.

But other analyses suggest there is still a significant gap between what scientists say is necessary and what is on offer politically.

That is of great concern to governments that feel themselves on the "front line" of climate impacts. More from Richard Black

Copenhagen Summit: On The Road To The Dark Age

Amidst the climategate scandal of e-mails that hackers have revealed in the e-mail communications of "scientists" of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University in Great Britain , the summit will go ahead as scheduled. In October this year, Presideny Gloria M. Arroyo signed into law Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 that would enable the country to better respond to disasters spawned by climate change. This law which is also known as R.A. 9729, seeks to influence climate change policy into the formulation of government agenda by setting up a National Framework Strategy and Program on Climate Change along with the creation of the Climate Change Commission that will coordinate, monitor and evaluate the government's programs and actions to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Like other countries riding the bandwagon of climate change, it seems that the globalists are succeeding in their effort for world governance in which depopulation is the centerpiece. Why do we say this? The following quotes from the movers of the global warming scare, will give light as to why we are caught riding the bandwagon on the road to the dark age. The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s.The "original" goal was to use it to achieve global governance and fund it through a global carbon tax.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.
EPA about to declare CO2 dangerous – ssshhh! – Don’t tell the trees
I can’t find the words to describe the illogic behind the EPA with this ruling. Perhaps it is best to say that bureaucrats don’t understand anything but regulations and leave it at that.
Climategate: the Russian distraction
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is blaming Climategate on a fiendish Russian plot. Well he would, wouldn’t he?

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 with a view to reaching an agreement on Global Warming. The debate on Climate Change focuses on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and measures to reduce manmade CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol: The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977) Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war.” (Eco News) The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability.

The U.N.’s decision this week to investigate whether some of its climate change research had been manipulated constitutes a “direct rebuke” of the Obama administration, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Friday.
By GREG HITT and JANET ADAMY, December 7, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Democrats wrestled with a new proposal on a government health-insurance plan that would give private entities a central role in running the program, in a bid for compromise on one of the health bill's most divisive issues.

The talks came as President Barack Obama traveled to Capitol Hill Sunday to urge party unity among Senate Democrats considering the measure.

Mr. Obama, escorted by the Sergeant of Arms of the Senate Terrance Gainer, arrives at the Senate Democratic caucus meeting on health care overhaul on Capitol Hill.
Obama Health Care
Obama Health Care

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) held the chamber in session over the weekend to debate the legislation that would extend health insurance to tens of millions of Americans not now covered.

The government-run plan remained a sticking point. In closed-door negotiations Sunday, Democrats on both sides of the issue who were assigned by Sen. Reid to find a compromise were nearing agreement on an alternative that would empower the government's Office of Personnel Management to run a new national health plan, congressional aides said. The office already oversees the federal employee health plan, and administration officials have pointed to it as an example of how the government can successfully run a health-insurance program.

Under the proposal, the office would negotiate terms of the plan with private insurers, and contract with nonprofit entities set up by the private sector to run the program, aides said. One senior Democratic Senate aide suggested the idea is now the "leading proposal" among Democrats. A key issue remained demands by liberals for additional steps to widen coverage and ease costs for consumers, and one option under consideration was a further expansion of Medicaid, the health program for the poor.

"We're finding a good deal of the give-and-take that leads to common ground," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a negotiator on the issue. Sen. Schumer said no deals had been reached, and that talks on the issue would reconvene Monday afternoon.

Mr. Obama said party lawmakers should put aside their differences and focus on fundamental goals.

White House spokesman Bill Burton said the president called on senators to seize "this historic opportunity, " which would make good on a major Democratic promise of the 2008 campaign. "If we don't deliver, we've got a problem," added Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) during an appearance Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Republicans said the president missed an opportunity to push a bipartisan bill that would attract well more than the 60 votes needed for passage. "The only way they can get to 60 is with all of this deal making," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), pointing to the Democrats' closed-door negotiations.

Mr. McConnell said Republicans were ready to work with Democrats on a more incremental bill, but "all of that has been lost."

Democratic leaders, who want to leave town before Christmas, are raising pressure on fence-sitting Democrats to reach final compromises early this week. That's because of the crush of competing priorities that the Senate also must act on by the end of the year, including a must-pass increase in the nation's borrowing authority.

Also, Democratic leaders recognize that after any amendments to the bill, it will take several days for the new version to be analyzed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Another week or more of parliamentary wrangling may be needed to shut off debate and bring the legislation to a final vote.

Mr. Obama worked through the weekend, and met privately with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) on Saturday. Sen. Snowe voted for the health-overhaul bill produced by the Senate Finance Committee, and Democrats are stepping up efforts to secure her support on the Senate floor. Her support could be especially important if Democrats aren't able to maintain party unity.

Both the health bill passed last month by the House and the current version of the Senate bill call for creating a public plan. Backers of the idea say it will help expand coverage and stir competition among insurers that would lower costs for consumers.

But a handful of Democrats, as well as independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, remain unconvinced. They say the public plan would take the government too deeply into the private market.

Sen. Snowe called the talk of expanding the federal health benefits program "a positive development" but wouldn't say whether she saw it as the best compromise on the public plan. Supporters suggested the idea would allow liberals to say that they had created a nationally available health plan, while letting centrists stress the plan would be run by the private sector.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, emerging from the meeting between Democrats and the president, said she is "very optimistic" Democrats will get the 60 votes needed to pass a bill.

In fear of 'Eurabia'?

By Mark LeVine, December 03, 2009

The posters encouraging people to vote for the ban, showed a niqab-wearing Muslim woman [EPA]

The images were clearly intended to get out the vote, and judging by the 57 per cent "yes" vote to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland on Sunday, they worked all too well.

They included the depiction of minarets piercing through the Swiss flag; minarets on top of the flag, with a menacing, niqab-wearing Muslim woman in the foreground.

One could be forgiven for imagining that the Muslims were at the gates of Vienna, or even Lucerne, threatening to overrun Christian Europe. And of course, for the proponents of the ban, that is precisely the situation Europe faces today.

For centuries, the peoples of Europe have defined their continental identity against the threat of Islam. So much so that it is hard to imagine a European identity that does not have Islam as its foil.

There are, of course, good historical reasons for this.

From the eighth century Europe was in fact surrounded by Muslims to the East and South, who ruled much of the Eastern continent for the next millennium.

Of course, except in the wildest dreams of jihadists, Europe will not be taken down by Muslim swords today. But for right-wing fear mongers, the contemporary Muslim threat is just as nefarious, only the weapon is different.

The ultimate 'other'

That Muslim woman in the now infamous poster is not just the ultimate 'other' - totally impenetrable to the Western gaze in a social space where topless women are de rigeur on billboards, magazines, TV commercials and the beach - but, the niqab or burka-wearing Muslim woman is believed to stand for all Muslim women, who, it is assumed, possess little or no control over their own bodies.

And because of this, she is as dangerous as the H1N1 virus currently scaring people across the continent. Underneath her niqab lies a human bomb - not a suicide vest, but a baby; lots of babies, if you believe the hype.

All these Muslims babies threaten to transform the fundamental identity of Europe as a "Western," "modern," "secular-yet- Christian" space - the very antithesis of what most Europeans imagine Muslims to be.

In some sense, of course, the return of a robust Muslim presence in Europe would be a return to history, to a time when a good share of Europe was Muslim. But that is a history few Europeans hearken to. In fact, Europe's first post-Cold War conflict, in the Balkans, was driven in good measure by just this fear.

Beneath the fear, however, lies that undeniable reality that the combination in Europe of very low indigenous (meaning white and Christian) birth rates and increasing immigration of Muslims with higher birth rates means that the percentage of Muslims will continue to grow.

They will not, however, become a majority in Europe under any conceivable scenario in the coming decades.

In fact, the actual demographic trends show a decline in birth rates by Muslim women as they become settled into Europe, which corresponds to the declining birth rates across the Muslim world (many of whose governments have initiated aggressive family planning programmes).

Indeed, as Muslim women live in Europe, learn the languages, get educated and join the workforce, they become more "European" - or more accurately, like women globally, who, if they have the resources and freedom to control their reproduction, choose to have smaller families.

Of course, if they are marginalised and, along with their male counterparts, not given sufficient chance to become a functioning part of their new societies, this process will happen more slowly, if at all, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of recrimination and disintegration.

From Europe to 'Eurabia'?

Either way, it is clear that Europe is going to become more Muslim in the coming decades. The question is whether in the process it will become more Islamic - that is, publicly religious and impacted by Muslim religious symbols and practices - and which version of Islam will define the emerging European Islam.

Will it be a "Euro-Islam" that respects core liberal values of tolerance, openness and respect for the rule of law, or a "Ghetto Islam" that produces subcultures that are largely isolated and hostile to the European self-image (one which, it must be remembered, largely excludes Muslims in the first place)?

The fear mongers behind the rising tide of Islamophobia in Europe argue that the continent is on the way to becoming "Eurabia" - that is, taken over by a Muslim tide and losing its core Europeanness in the process.

It is hard to know how many Europeans buy into this argument. But, while it is rarely a good idea to generalise, the majority would likely prefer Muslims to assimilate into their host societies, to shed the outward appearances of difference, and not integrate - a process that inevitably changes the host culture as well, as it takes on elements of the newer arrival and, inevitably, loses some of its traditions in the process.

Picture-postcard Europe

It is not surprising that in Switzerland the focus would be on minarets.

more than most countries, Switzerland defines itself by its visual aesthetic. It is the picture postcard of Europe, with nothing out of place, the quintessential European destination.

Never mind that Swiss Muslims are among the least conservative in Europe and that the call to prayer is already banned in Switzerland; the presence of more minarets would call out to the Swiss, saying: "We are here and we're not going anywhere. And we're not just going to assimilate to your culture. We intend to keep core parts of ours as well."

There are just four minarets in Switzerland

at present [EPA]
Thus the referendum slogans calling for a halt to the "Islamisation of Switzerland" . The minaret, as a highly visible sign of Islam's presence, becomes a "spearhead" of that Islamisation, "the symbol of political-societal power claim of Islam" as the website of the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the party behind the vote, describes it.

Never mind that most of the claims by the minaret ban's backers about Islam and the demographic threat are inaccurate. Islam, in their view, cannot exist without asserting unique claims to social and ultimately political power, which is why it is an existential threat by its very presence.

Muslims cannot just be; they have to convert others, and the voice of the muezzin "proclaiming down from the minaret" is the most powerful manifestation of this. Or so the backers of the minaret ban imagine.

Even Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Switzerland' s justice minister, admitted that the result "reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies," as if one cannot be Islamic without being fundamentalist.

This is the underlying problem in the debate over minarets, hijabs, or yet more troubling, attempts by European Muslims to establish separate courts and laws aligned with their interpretation of sharia to cover personal status issues.

It best, it says Muslims are willing to integrate, not assimilate into European society.

Comparisons to anti-Semitism

In the aftermath of Sunday's vote, many commentators, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are comparing Islamophobia in Europe today to the anti-Semitism that plagued the continent in the first half of the 20th century.

While understandable, such comparisons miss the fundamental difference between the position of Jews in Europe then and Muslims in Europe today.

Jews had lived in Europe for centuries and, despite anti-Jewish sentiments among huge swaths of Europe's population, were very much a part of their societies' cultures, economies, and increasingly politics.

Indeed, in Germany it was precisely the increasing full participation of Jews in so many parts of national life that made them such an existential threat.

They were Europe's most intimate 'other', inside the very fabric of European identity and increasingly, impossible to tell from "real" Europeans.

As such they became a lethal virus that, in the Nazi logic, had to be eradicated to restore the purity of the race.

The situation for Muslims today is very different.

Muslims are still relatively new to most European societies; at most a couple of generations old. As one Fox news report put it after a riot in Muslim neighbourhoods of the Swedish town of Malmö, they are "outsiders who are already inside" European societies.

What is worrying is that as a new generation of European Muslims come of age and move deeper inside European culture, economies and politics, the fears and prejudices against them will surely grow, especially if, as in Germany of the 1930s, the economic situation continues to deteriorate.

Mass violence against Muslims comparable to that visited against Jews is unimaginable. But as Muslims become, welcomed or not, part of the European fabric, the prejudices against them could begin to take on some of the form of the anti-Semitism that plagued pre-war Europe.

The larger picture

Ultimately, the vote to ban minarets, like other anti-Islamic legislation, is a symptom of a larger problem within contemporary European societies.

It is not just that Europeans are increasingly inhospitable to Muslims and other immigrants. These sentiments reflect the fraying of the social fabric of Europe more broadly, particularly of countries that have had strong recent traditions of social solidarity and welfare.

The larger implications have not been touched on in most of the commentary and reporting in the multi-lingual Swiss media, or the European press more broadly.

Instead, papers such as the German language Neue Zürcher Zeitung, described the vote as a revolt of "the people over the elites" and emphasised the need for rulers to "listen to the people" (a terminology which, in German at least, has alarming historical connotations) .

The French language Le Temps questioned: "How can you dialogue when you're crushed by the weight of stereotypes? "

The answer is that people are increasingly scared that their social safety nets are fraying and that life is inexorably going to become harder. And they want quick solutions, not long and complicated dialogues.

And herein lies the real problem underlying the vote. It is not merely about Islam. It is also about the solidification of neo-liberalism economically and conservatism politically across the continent, and ultimately, about globalisation more broadly.

Those in favour of the ban argued minarets represented the Islamification of Europe [AFP]

Together, the political, economic and social dynamics are creating a situation in which governments are less able to deliver the high level of services that post-war Europeans have gotten used to, at the moment that ideologically, people are increasingly unwilling to look out for their fellow citizens' welfare as they did previously - when, of course, they also happened to look, speak and act much more like them.

Sweden, where I'm currently living, has long had one of Europe's most generous welfare states, which is coming under severe strain just as the Muslim population is growing rapidly.

But as a priest who works with immigrants pointed out to me, the unwillingness of Swedes in the wealthy town of Vellinge (to cite one example), to allow a home for child war refugees from Muslim countries in their town owes not merely to a fear or loathing against Muslims.

In the "new" and increasingly inegalitarian Sweden, the emerging wealthy class living comfortably in low tax areas like Vellinge are equally unwilling to pay high taxes to support their fellow Swedes.

Of course, it is much easier to blame it on the Muslims and to continue to push them away even as they find their way inside Europe.

But if history is any guide, Europeans will start out blaming the 'inside other' for their problems, but it will not be too long before their anger, and violence, turns on each other.

Terrorists Inside U.S. Planning To Strike, Says DHS Secretary: Are You Prepared?

By Matthew Harwood

Home-based terrorists are currently inside the United States and are looking to strike targets here and abroad, the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said in a speech last night.

“Home-based terrorism is here. And like violent extremism abroad, it is now part of the threat picture that we must confront,” Napolitano told the America-Israel Friendship League in New York City, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press release.

Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post called Napolitano's statements last night her "bluntest assessments yet of terror threats within the country" a night after President Obama announced he will send an additional 30,000 U.S. service members to Afghanistan to fight Taliban militants and al Qaeda terrorists in an effort to stabilize the war-torn country.

According to Hsu, Napolitano listed two recent cases to support her statement that jihadist radicalization has gained traction inside the United States.

Napolitano cited the case of Najibullah Zazi, a Denver airport shuttle driver arrested in September after allegedly training with al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Zazi allegedly tested homemade bombs, styled after those used in the 2004 Madrid transit bombings, before driving cross-country to New York from Denver. He faces charges of conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.

Separately, U.S. prosecutors in October accused David C. Headley, a Chicago businessman, of conspiring with members of Lashkar-i-Taiba, an extremist Islamic group in Pakistan allied with al-Qaeda, to plot attacks in Denmark and India.

It's a thesis also put forward recently by terrorism expert Peter Bergen, a fellow at The New America Foundation, after the alleged shooting rampage of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian. Surveying the many foiled terrorism plots over the past few years, Bergen concludes:

The constellation of terrorism cases that surfaced during the second Bush term and during Obama's first year in office suggests that a small minority of American Muslims are not immune to the al Qaeda ideological virus. And quite a number of those terrorism cases were more operational than aspirational, unlike many of the domestic terror cases that had preceded them after 9/11. The jihadists in these cases were not just talking about violent acts to a government informant but had actually traveled to an al Qaeda training camp; fought in an overseas jihad; purchased guns or explosives; cased targets; and, in a couple of the cases, actually killed Americans.

According to the DHS press release, Napolitano also spoke about DHS' commitment to sharing information with its federal, state, local, and tribal partners through fusion centers and Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

The secretary's speech last night was the second in two days that explored the threat of domestic terrorism. Two days ago, Napolitano outlined the threat of terrorists using improvised explosive devices on U.S. soil at Interagency Council for Applied Homeland Security Technology's Counter-IED Symposium.

Bioweapons Could Catch U.S. Cities Off Guard A December 2008 report issued by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism concluded that terrorists will be more likely to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one in a future attack on the United States. As disquieting as it is to hear, the materials to construct a bioweapon aren’t difficult to obtain, even in a post-9-11 world. The level of technological expertise needed to manufacture a bioweapon isn’t high, said the World At Risk report. And the materials needed to make such a weapon aren’t all closely monitored. Many of the pathogens are readily available — in nature, in sick people and in laboratories. The key to mitigating the long-term terrorism value of a bioweapon is rapid response, recognition and recovery — and recovery includes having therapeutics available ASAP for those exposed and vaccines to prevent the spread. "The point of terrorism is not just to claim victims but to terrorize everyone around them," said Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adviser to the Baker-Hamilton Commission of the U.S. Institute of Peace. The impact of a dirty bomb or a biological weapon going off somewhere in the United States wouldn’t be confined to the number of people killed or exposed to the pathogen or radiological agent, he said...

Speaking to the America-Israel friendship league in New York, the secretary said the spate of recent terrorism arrests left no doubt that extremists are inside the country. "We are seeing young Americans who are inspired by Al Qaeda and radical ideology," she said. Napolitano cited the case of Najibullah Zazi, the Denver airport shuttle bus driver who was arrested in September after allegedly training in Pakistan. Zazi, an American resident who was in court Thursday as more charges were considered, is part of a growing body of evidence that Americans are being radicalized. "We are seeing increasing links between Al Qaeda and these citizens for purposes of planning terrorist attacks," she said. Those bold statements about terrorism were in stark contrast to comments she made to a group of fire fighters in March. "If you think about both from the man-caused and non man-caused incidents, but particularly on the man-caused, the weapon of mass destruction involving a hazardous chemical or biological weapon is very high up on the scenarios that we are seeing and the scenarios that we need to be prepared for."

79 percent of the American public is in favor of auditing the Fed, according to a new poll by Rassumussen. Because another 14% are not sure, that leaves only 7% opposed to an audit. And as Rassumussen, the support for auditing the Fed is nonpartisan and very widespread:

Unlike many issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports, there is virtually no partisan disagreement on the issue of auditing the Fed.

Similarly, investors and non-investors are equally supportive of the idea. Generally speaking, there is overwhelming support for such auditing across all demographic categories.

Another poll by Rassumussen shows that only 21 percent of Americans favor confirming Bernanke for another term as Fed chairman.

Rasumussen also points out:

Americans continue to be critical of another key player on the economic front, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say Geithner has done a poor job handling the credit crisis and federal bailout programs. Twenty percent (20%) rate Geithner’s performance in these areas as good or excellent.

Consumer confidence as measured by the Rasmussen Consumer Index has fallen to a four-month low.

Small Businesses Have Lost Confidence Also

You might assume that – despite the public’s lack of confidence in Bernanke, Geithner and the economy – at least businesses are confident.

However, as Rassumussen notes:

After three months of gains, the Rasmussen Employment Index dropped more than four points in November to its lowest level since July. Just 14% of workers now say their employers are hiring, the lowest total since February.

Economic confidence among America’s small business owners in the Discover (R) Small Business Watch(SM) index plummeted in November, as more owners cited serious concerns about cash flow and saw economic conditions for their own businesses getting worse.

Specifically, Discover reports:

Economic confidence among America’s small business owners plummeted in November, as more owners cited serious concerns about cash flow and saw economic conditions for their own businesses getting worse. The Discover Small Business Watch index fell 12 points in November to 76.5 from 88.5 in October…

The mood of small business owners generally has soured in November for three straight years, as economic confidence dropped from October to November in 2007 and 2008. The November 2008 index of 67.5 is the low point for the Watch since it started in August 2006. 52 percent of owners say they have experienced cash flow issues in the past 90 days, up from 44 percent in October. Forty-one percent of owners say they have not experienced cash flow issues, which is the lowest response in this category since the Watch began. The remaining 6 percent said they weren’t sure. 53 percent of small business owners see conditions getting worse in the next six months, up from 43 percent in October; while 19 percent report that conditions are improving, a sharp decline from 29 percent in October; 23 percent see conditions as the same, and 5 percent weren’t sure. 62 percent of small business owners rate the economy as poor, an increase from 55 percent in October; 30 percent rate it as fair, and 8 percent say it is good or excellent. 53 percent of small business owners think the overall economy is getting worse, up from 44 percent in October but still significantly lower than the 69 percent of owners who felt that way in February 2009, the last time the Watch index was this low. For November; 28 percent say the economy is getting better, down from 35 percent in October; 16 percent see it staying the same, and 3 percent are not sure.

Wall Street might believe that everything is grand, but small businesses are the engines which create job growth in America, and if they are pessimistic, they won’t hire.

The Economy Cannot Recover Until Bernanke and Geithner are replaced

As I have repeatedly written, the economy cannot fundamentally stabilize until trust is restored.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote that Wall Street’s biggest problem right now is the collapse of trust:

The problem is, government bailouts, subsidies, and insurance aren’t really helping Wall Street. The Street’s fundamental problem isn’t lack of capital. It’s lack of trust. And without trust, Wall Street might as well fold up its fancy tents.

A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviews the research on trust and economics:

Trust … plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country’s institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.

Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled “The Economics of Trust”. The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:

Imagine going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that the refrigerator is locked. When you’ve persuaded the shopkeeper to retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether you’re going to hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange. A little taste of life in a world without trust–now imagine trying to arrange a mortgage.

Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but economists are starting to believe that it’s rather more important than that. Trust is about more than whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest countries and the poorest.

“If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia,” ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country’s income. ***

Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth. ***

Economists distinguish between the personal, informal trust that comes from being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal, institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out over the Internet.

Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, Ph.D. wrote in 2008:

Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up.

Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine won’t move.

Trust is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent returns (since they haven’t).

And two professors of finance write:

The drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating economic conditions. To demonstrate its importance, we launched the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index. Our first set of data—based on interviews conducted at the end of December 2008—shows that between September and December, 52 percent of Americans lost trust in the banks. Similarly, 65 percent lost trust in the stock market. A BBB/Gallup poll that surveyed a similar sample of Americans last April confirms this dramatic drop. At that time, 42 percent of Americans trusted financial institutions, versus 34 percent in our survey today, while 53 percent said they trusted U.S. companies, versus just 12 percent today.

As trust declines, so does Americans’ willingness to invest their money in the financial system. Our data show that trust in the stock market affects people’s intention to buy stocks, even after accounting for expectations of future stock-market performance. Similarly, a person’s trust in banks predicts the likelihood that he will make a run on his bank in a moment of crisis: 25 percent of those who don’t trust banks withdrew their deposits and stored them as cash last fall, compared with only 3 percent of those who said they still trusted the banks. Thus, trust in financial institutions is a key factor for the smooth functioning of capital markets and, by extension, the economy. Changes in trust matter.

They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:

“Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,” writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods, it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic system.

Although it is easy to demonstrate that Bernanke and Geithner’s actions have harmed the economy, it is not even necessary to show what a poor job they have done economically.

America knows that Bernanke and Geithner have acted in the interests of the largest banks, and have done too little to help Main street and the American people.

Trust will not be restored until Bernanke and Geithner are replaced with people whose loyalty is to the American public and small businesses, rather than the Wall Street giants, and whose track record demonstrates that they will put the American people and entire economy as a whole – rather than the big boys – first.

Bin Laden's Location Unknown For 'Years:' US

The United States does not know where Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden is and has lacked reliable information on his whereabouts for years, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said. The revelation from Gates, speaking in an interview with the ABC News "This Week" program to be aired Sunday, comes days after US President Barack Obama announced he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Asked if Pakistan was doing enough to apprehend Bin Laden, Gates answered: "Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him." Referring to the last time US intelligence had a fix on Bin Laden's whereabouts, Gates said: "I think it's been years." Bin Laden is believed to have escaped from Afghanistan into Pakistan in late 2001. In excerpts of the interview released ahead of the broadcast, Gates also could not confirm reports about a detainee in Pakistan who claimed he had information on where Bin Laden was earlier this year.

‘I’m Guess I’m a Racist’: What Really Motivates Opponents of ObamaCare?
“Apparently a lot of people in this country are racist.” YouTube

Is CIA Terror-War Expert 'Graymailing' The US Government?

The in-depth Vanity Fair profile of the infamous owner of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is remarkable on many levels--not least among them that Prince appeared to give the story's author, former CIA lawyer Adam Ciralsky, unprecedented access to information about sensitive, classified and lethal operations not only of Prince's forces, but Prince himself. In the article, Prince is revealed not just as owner of a company that covertly provided contractors to the CIA for drone bombings and targeted assassinations, but as an actual CIA asset himself. While the story appears to be simply a profile of Prince, it might actually be the world's most famous mercenary's insurance policy against future criminal prosecution. The term of art for what Prince appears to be doing in the VF interview is graymail: a legal tactic that has been used for years by intelligence operatives or assets who are facing prosecution or fear they soon will be. In short, these operatives or assets threaten to reveal details of sensitive or classified operations in order to ward off indictments or criminal charges, based on the belief that the government would not want these details revealed. "The only reason Prince would do this [interview] is that he feels he is in very serious jeopardy of criminal charges," says Scott Horton, a prominent national security and military law expert. "He absolutely would not do these things otherwise."

Tycoon, Contractor, Soldier, Spy: Mr. Fix-It In The Terror War

Erik Prince, recently outed as a participant in a C.I.A. assassination program, has gained notoriety as head of the military-contractin g juggernaut Blackwater, a company dogged by a grand-jury investigation, bribery accusations, and the voluntary-manslaugh ter trial of five ex-employees, set for next month. Lashing back at his critics, the wealthy former navy seal takes the author inside his operation in the U.S. and Afghanistan, revealing the role he’s been playing in America’s war on terror. But the truth about Prince may be orders of magnitude stranger than fiction. For the past six years, he appears to have led an astonishing double life. Publicly, he has served as Blackwater’s C.E.O. and chairman. Privately, and secretly, he has been doing the C.I.A.’s bidding, helping to craft, fund, and execute operations ranging from inserting personnel into “denied areas”—places U.S. intelligence has trouble penetrating—to assembling hit teams targeting al-Qaeda members and their allies. Prince, according to sources with knowledge of his activities, has been working as a C.I.A. asset: in a word, as a spy. While his company was busy gleaning more than $1.5 billion in government contracts between 2001 and 2009—by acting, among other things, as an overseas Praetorian guard for C.I.A. and State Department officials—Prince became a Mr. Fix-It in the war on terror.

James 5:1-3: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days."

To get on Pastor Mike's Watcher's List, write, call or email and pledge any amount a month. Every month you will receive the Watchman video broadcasts, church sermons, plus all new dvd's he has made, and more.
Bethel Church
1233 American Legion Dr.
Festus, MO 63028
info@kingjamescode. org

Pentagon: Zombie Pigs First, Then Hibernating Soldiers

Around half of U.S. troop fatalities are caused by blood loss from battlefield injuries. Now, with another 30,000 troops deploying to Afghanistan, the Pentagon is pushing for medical advances that can save more lives during combat. The Defense Department’s latest research idea: Stop bleeding injuries by turning pigs into the semi-undead. If it works out, we humans could be the next ones to be zombified. Military’s mad-science arm Darpa has awarded $9.9 million to the Texas A&M Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS), to develop treatments that can extend a “golden period” when injured war fighters have the best chance of coming back from massive blood loss. Odds of survival plummet after an hour — during combat, that kind of quick evacuation, triage and treatment is often impossible. The institute’s research will be based on previous Darpa-funded efforts. One project, at Stanford University, hypothesized that humans could one day mimic the hibernation abilities of squirrels — who emerge from winter months no worse for wear — using a pancreatic enzyme we have in common with the critters. The other, led by Dr. Mark Roth at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, used nematode worms and rats to test how hydrogen sulfide could block the body’s ability to use oxygen — creating a kind of “suspended animation” where hearts stop beating and wounds don’t bleed. After removing 60 percent of the rat’s blood, Dr. Roth managed to keep the critters alive for 10 hours using his hydrogen sulfide cocktail.


World News

Astronomers spot tsunami on the sun

Scientists have discovered a new phenomenon on the sun: towering waves that race across its face tsunami-style.

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory provided a tantalising glimpse of a solar wave about 12 years ago, but it took the three-dimensional view from NASA's STEREO solar probes to nail it.

"It came as a surprise to us when we started seeing these waves expanding," says Joseph Gurman, a solar physicist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center .

The waves, which are comprised of plasma, appear at the base of the corona, a couple of thousand kilometres above the surface of the sun. They rise quickly from a central point and spread out in a circular pattern millions of kilometres in circumference.

Scientists using the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) confirmed the existence of solar waves in February 2009 when a sunspot erupted, sending a cloud of gas into space and a 100,000-kilometre-high tsunami sprinting across the surface of the sun at about 900,000 kilometres per hour.

The twin STEREO satellites recorded the wave from two positions, giving researchers a three-dimensional view of what had happened.

"(The satellites) allowed us... to determine without doubt the true nature of the wave," lead researcher Assistant Professor Spiros Patsourakos, with George Mason University, writes in a paper published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Plasma burst

The waves are associated with flares and solar storms known as coronal mass ejections, which spew billions of tons of plasma and embedded magnetic fields from the sun's corona into interplanetary space.

Plasma that encounters earth's magnetosphere can trigger powerful geomagnetic storms that can interfere with Global Positioning System radio signals, satellites and other technologies.

Studying how the waves grow and travel should give scientists fresh insights into the sun's magnetic environment, Gurman adds.

"Magnetic field strength tends to be the dominant structure at this level," he says.

Monitoring for waves also should allow solar physicists to pinpoint the source of coronal mass ejections that may be heading toward earth, says Simon Plunkett, with the US Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC.

"It's not clear from coronagraph observations alone whether a CME is coming toward you or going away from you. It looks almost the same in both directions," says Plunkett.

Scientists had debated whether the tsunami-like feature was actually a magnetic wave propagating through the solar atmosphere, or a footprint of a coronal mass ejection.

Plunkett believes the new study should end that discussion

"It's like a supersonic aircraft during a shock wave ahead of it. The CME is the driving and it's pushing the wave out in front of it."

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Has the Mystery of Uranus' Tilt Been Solved?

One of the most enduring mysteries of the Solar System may be a step closer to being solved.

Although the general consensus is that Uranus was involved in some kind of cosmic hit-and-run, two researchers from Paris think the gas giant may have gradually wobbled over millions of years, eventually tipping due to the presence of a large moon.

It is well known that Uranus is an oddball, orbiting around the sun on its side, but little is known how the huge planet came to be this way.

Usually the planets orbit the sun upright, with the axis of rotation perpendicular to the solar system's plane (i.e. in relation to Earth, pointing "north"). That is, apart from Venus and Uranus. Venus, however, is a more extreme case, where the entire planet was turned upside down, causing it to rotate in an opposite fashion to Earth.

Uranus is tilted 97 degrees to the vertical. The Earth's tilt is a little over 23 degrees, and it is this tilt that gives our planet seasons. Needless to say, the seasons on Uranus are a little more extreme than ours; each Uranian hemisphere experiences 42 years of continuous sunlight (a year on Uranus is 84 Earth years).

This is all very interesting, but how did Uranus come to be this way? After all, the planet is really big (14.5 times the mass of Earth), it would take some kind of cataclysmic event to knock it on its side (it is impossible for the planet to be "born" this way, it should have an upright axis like all the other planets).

Generally it is assumed that another planet must have collided with Uranus, pushing it off-kilter, but new computer models suggest a scenario that is far more elegant.

Gwenaël Boué and Jacques Laskar from the Paris Observatory in France started out with the idea that Uranus may have once had a very large moon, approximately one percent of the gas giant's mass. Through the gravitational "tugging" by the large moon's mass, over the course of 2 million years Uranus may have wobbled to such an extent that it was pulled onto its side.

However, the researchers admit that such a large moon may not be plausible as current satellite formation models don't allow moons of this size. As indicated in their unpublished paper's conclusions, a smaller satellite of only 0.1 percent the mass of Uranus may be sufficient to pull the planet on its side over a longer period.

But what happened to this moon? It is not uncommon that planets disrupt (or even steal) other planet's moons, so the gravitational influences of the other massive gas giants may be a factor. For example, Neptune's large moon Triton is thought to have been "kidnapped" from the Kuiper Belt as it has a retrograde orbit (i.e. it orbits the "wrong way" when compared with the other Neptunian moons) and it has a similar composition to the dwarf planet Pluto.

Perhaps a massive moon orbited Uranus long enough to wobble the planet onto its side, only for the satellite itself to be kicked out of orbit by a passing planet.

Although the jury is likely to be out for the foreseeable future as to the mechanism that knocked Uranus onto its side, this collisionless scenario is a fresh look at an old mystery that will continue to fox astronomers for some time yet.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'

Global warming is caused by radiation from the sun, according to a leading scientist speaking out at an alternative ‘sceptics conference’ in Copenhagen.

As the world gathered in the Danish capital for the UN Climate Change Conference, more than 50 scientists, businessmen and lobby groups met to discuss the arguments against man made global warming.

Although the meeting was considerably smaller than the official gathering of 15,000 people meeting down the road, the organisers claimed it could change the course of negotiations.

Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

He said the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle.

Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea level rise has also been exaggerated by the “climate alarmists” using computer models.

He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.

Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.

Professor Ian Plimer, from the University of Adelaide, claimed carbon dioxide from volcanoes rather than humans is driving warming as part of a natural process.

The meeting was organised by Danish group Climate Sense and the lobby group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, admitted the organisation have taken funding from Exxon Mobil in the past but pointed out that many environmental groups are also receiving funding from major corporations.

Graham Capper of Climate Sense said manmade global warming was a myth and scientists who said otherwise were lying. :

"There are people who know they are lying and do it simply for money and others who think they are doing good," he said. "But they not good scientists."

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he was speaking to delegations from the US and Canada about question marks over the science.

He said a recent poll by the Telegraph, that shows only one in two people accept man made climate change, show people are questioning the consensus being pushed by the UN summit.

“As anybody knows who follows the opinion polls in Britain and Australia and the US, in the last few weeks and months there has been a rapid collapse in the global warming chimera so while we still have our freedom, let us speak out.”

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

No comments: