Displaying posts published in

December 2015

Michael Kile Bad Eggs Fluff the Climate Souffle

Infused with hot air and baked in a two-degree oven, this is a dish much favoured by carbon-credit peddlers, careerist bureaucrats and settled scientists lacking the teeth to leave their mark on the red meat of more substantial enquiry

The name is fancy, but preparing a climat-soufflé is easier than you think. The folk at Paris Climat 2015 have a knock-out new recipe. Make this delicious French treat at home in Ten Easy Steps and please everyone on the planet.

Rating: AAA+
Prep Time: 21+ years
Cook Time: 2 weeks at an exotic location at least once a year
Serving Size: 7,300+ million
Chefs de cuisine: 35,000+
Venue 2015: Le Bourget, Paris

Preamble

Preparing soufflé is really just a matter of time; the time gap from the oven to the table.

Le climat-soufflé – aka the Conference of the Parties (COP) global climate-change action treaty – takes a little longer than a plain-vanilla creation. Oceans may be warming and tempers rising, but not le climat-soufflé. Still simmering after 21 years, it remains flat as a pancake or an Aussie flip-flop-flan Plan B.

Attitude is important when in the COP kitchen. To conjure up a grand miracle de cuisine keep your mind on the job, not the dollars in the Green Climate Fund (GCF). But no carnal thoughts. For as the French say: “A woman so happy in love, she burns the soufflé. A woman so unhappy in love, she forgets to turn on the oven.” (Sabrina, 1954).

Keith Windschuttle Multiracialism, yes. Multiculturalism, no

Put the Cronulla violence of ten years ago into its political and social context and the conclusion is clear: it is not race that was and is the problem but culture. Multiracialism has been a huge success in Australia, but multiculturalism an abject failure.
Editor’s note: The tenth anniversary of the Cronulla riot has come and gone, the only casualty being a pig roasted at a commemorative barbecue-cum-protest organised by the flag-draped ratbags of the anti-Islam Party of Freedom, whose original plan to mark the anniversary was foiled by court rulings sought by NSW Police. Worth noting is that no injunctions were ever sought against the Jew haters who have harassed and attempted to ruin the Max Brenner chain’s business. No surprise there, sadly. Any police officer worth his or her salt, not to mention career prospects, knows when and which groups need to be allowed a little slack. Motorists booked for driving a whisker over the speed limit should be so lucky.

Much the same could be said for members of the media, who grasp what to report and how to report to it. Thus do we see, to cite but one example, Channel 9′s delicate omission from its report of the latest Cronulla tensions.

“What happened next sparked days of mob violence that shamed the nation.”
Can you pick the missing word? It’s “Lebanese”, as in “Lebanese mob violence”.

If you couldn’t guess, that is understandable. The yobbos who incited what was, by riot standards a noisy and ugly but rather mild affair, aren’t the sorts your average newsroom habitue knows, likes or understands. They certainly never met anyone like that at university!

Make mention in your report of the rolling caravans of Lebanese thugs who poured in armed convoys out of Sydney’s west to attack random strangers and burn Australian flags and who knows what might happen? Having some ethnic group or other file a complaint with your editor might be the least of it. Why not play it safe and leave readers with the impression that the subsequent violence, far more shocking than the beach melee which prompted it, was also the work of ocker extremists, racists and “right wingers”. If the day ever comes when a job with the ABC is in the offing, the stain of having once being accused of Islamophobia would not enhance employment prospects.

Peter Smith The Prophet’s False Beard

We are witness to the most successful propaganda campaign ever waged. Each barbarity inflicted in the name of Islam provokes the political leaders of those killed and maimed to proclaim Islam as the Religion of Peace
“Dear Marje, I have had a very bad experience. Please tell me how I can guard against being beguiled and let down by foreign moustachioed gentlemen. Yours sincerely, Neville”

Dear Neville, There are two rules you must follow. First rule: don’t be taken in by sweet talkers, foreign or not, moustachioed or not. They are sometimes ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, if you will pardon me quoting scripture. Second rule: remember the first rule.” [Purportedly, this comes from the UK Daily Mirror files of Marjorie Proops, that doyen of agony aunt columnists]

Even Putin the Powerful recently called Islam “a great world religion.” Now, at the time, he was getting stuck into Erdogan for Islamizing Turkey and aiding terrorists so he isn’t totally off beam. Nonetheless, he is eligible to apply for honorary listing alongside most political leaders in the West who have said that Islam is both a great and a peaceful religion. With so much political clout vouchsafing its exalted status in the spiritual life of mankind, Islam must surely be the very model of a modern major theology. If not, then indeed extremely persuasive agitprop is at work in the theatre of politics and the media. And indeed it is.

David Goldman: Separating Violent and Peaceful Islam

Separating violent and peaceful Islam: Spengler
A diabolical logic prompted Donald Trump to propose a travel ban on Muslims: if the US government can’t distinguish between peaceful and violent Muslims, then shut the door to all of them. Trump’s instinct for politicals-as-reality-television buoyed his standing in Republican polls, as Americans put terrorism at the top of their concerns. According to Rasmussen, US voters support Trump’s idea by a 46-40% margin. Among Republicans, the margin is 66%-24%.

http://atimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/crow2.jpgAmericans by and large aren’t bigots, but the outbreak of Instant Jihad Syndrome last week convinced them that something was broken, and that the whole mechanism of Muslim immigration should be mothballed until the problem was fixed. They know perfectly well that some Muslims want to live in peace with non-Muslims and other Muslims want to burn down the world, but they don’t know how to tell the difference. As information about the couple’s longstanding terror connections trickles into the press, the public doesn’ t trust its guardians to tell the difference, either. That was the lesson they learned from the jihadi Bonnie and Clyde of San Bernardino.

THE GLAZOV GANG- NONIE DARWISH MOMENT: HIDING TASHFEEN MALIK’S FACE

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Nonie Darwish Moment. An ex-Muslim who is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know, Nonie focuses on Hiding Tashfeen Malik’s Face, unveiling the sad reasons the photo of the San Bernardino female terrorist was held from the public for a few days.

Don’t miss it!

They’re ‘so nice,’ until they get religion and want to kill us By Paul Sperry

‘We see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people like the Boston Marathon bombers and the San Bernardino killers,” President Obama said while addressing the nation in the wake of the latest homegrown massacre at the hands of Muslims.

But is that really what’s poisoning their minds?

FBI investigators are now operating on the belief that San Bernardino terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were individually “radicalized,” and for “quite some time,” possibly starting as early as 2013 — before the rise of ISIS and its Internet propaganda machine. So it wasn’t ISIS poisoning their minds, as the president suggests.

So what was it? The feds are still scratching their heads, willfully blind to the obvious religious factor.

The demographic scaremongering fraternity Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Demographic scaremongering has played a key role in the sustained campaign to infect Jews with faintheartedness and fatalism, dissuading Jews from settling the Land of Israel, and luring Israel to concede the historically and militarily critical high ground of Judea and Samaria. This campaign preceded Secretary John Kerry’s speech on December 5, 2015, when he stated: “How does Israel possibly maintain its character as a Jewish and democratic state when from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea there would not even be a Jewish majority?”

Historically, policy makers and public opinion molders have issued and employed (and sometime managed) official statistics, in order to advance their agenda, influence public opinion and intensify pressure on their rivals. They have relied on the tendency, by most people and by all governments, to accept official statistics as truism without proper examination.

In March 1898, Theodor Herzl, the founding father of modern political Zionism, was challenged by Simon Dubnow, the leading Jewish historian and demographer, who proposed the establishment of a cultural/social Jewish autonomy in Europe instead of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Dubnow did not consider Jewish immigration (Aliyah) to the Land of Israel a viable proposition and issued demographic projections to support his stance ( Public Letters on Ancient and Modern Judaism, 1897-1907 ): “The reconstruction of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel – with a sizeable Jewish population – is impossible politically, socially and economically…. National Judaism should not be advanced by messianic means in Zion, but by a credible struggle for realistic Jewish interests in the Diaspora…. In one hundred years [1998], the total number of Jews in Palestine will be about 500,000, slightly higher than the population of Kiev…. Will that solve the problem of ten million Jews, who are scattered in the Diaspora?!…. Political Zionism is utopian….”

Sharia Law: “He’ll Take Orders!!” Edward Cline

It is not common knowledge, but Ayn Rand, the novelist/philosopher, described the means and ends of Sharia law, doubtless before she had ever heard of it. She died in 1982, but in one key chapter of The Fountainhead, her archvillain, Ellsworth Toohey, newspaper columnist and power-lusting gadabout, describes to Peter Keating, his protégé in destruction, what he wants to see happen to Howard Roark.

Roark is the architect-hero of the novel. He is scheduled to be tried for blowing up a public housing project. Toohey confronts Keating to obtain a key incriminating piece of evidence that Roark designed the project, not Keating. Roark’s plans were altered by a team of second-handers, which included Keating. Roark subsequently dynamited the half-finished project. Toohey bares his soul to Keating for the first time. Keating is frightened, understanding only now the charming, flattering, but dark motive behind Toohey’s friendship with him.

Keating: “Why do you want to kill Howard?”

Toohey: “I don’t want to kill him. I want him in jail. You understand? In jail. In a cell. Behind bars. Locked, stopped, strapped – and alive. He’ll get up when they tell him to. He’ll eat what they give him. He’ll move when he’s told to move and stop when he’s told. He’ll walk to the jute mill, when he’s told, and he’ll work as he’s told. They’ll push him, if he doesn’t move fast enough, and they’ll slap his face when they feel like it, and they’ll beat him with a rubber hose if he doesn’t obey. And he’ll obey. He’ll take orders. He’ll take orders!”*

Intellectual State of Emergency The Occupied Territories of Progressive Thought by Jacques Tarnero

Who are today’s racists?

A “March for Dignity” recently assembled outraged “anti-racists,” who shouted insults in the name of universal love.

It was in the name of anti-racism that the progressives chanted “death to Jews” at the UN’s Durban conference against racism in 2001.

Every week, the Place de la République has seen the roaring processions of the Sheikh Yassin Collective, inciting the hatred of Jews. Did anyone even care?

These “progressives” were strangely silent while a quarter of a million people were killed in Syria, while Yazidi women were sold into slavery, or when a new Caliph ordered the massacre of thousands in the name of Allah, or the mutilation and murder of Christians who refused to convert. Is that kind of behavior nothing more than bad taste?

ANDREW McCARTHY ON MUSLIMS AND IMMIGRATION…PLEASE SEE THE AUTHOR’S VERY PERTINENT NOTE

AndrewCMcCarthy.com
ANDY’S NOTE: As most readers know, the columnist usually does not write the headlines on the column. That is the case this weekend. Contrary to what the headline on my column says, my proposal is that our immigration laws should screen out ALL Islamists, not “radical” Islamists. I do not use the term “ radical Islamists” because it is redundant — and, indeed, I have written several columns grousing about Washington’s infatuation with “moderate Islamists” because the term is self-contradictory. As the column contends (and as I have contended elsewhere many times), and Islamist is a Muslim who desires to impose sharia’s law, system of governance, and societal framework. That, in and of itself, is radical enough for me.

I appreciate being held in “(otherwise) . . . considerable esteem” by Charles Krauthammer. Not only is the feeling mutual; from my end, I would even omit the “otherwise.” That said, I am dismayed by his specious response to my legal analysis of Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States. I am personally disappointed that Charles has distorted my position, portraying me as a Trump apologist. But that is almost beside the point. His rebuke is counterproductive to the defense of our national security — about which Krauthammer and I both care deeply — because it makes solving a vexing problem that much more difficult.

Dr. Krauthammer fails to address the substantive legal points I made. Instead, I get the back of his hand for explaining that I focused mainly on the “final form” of Trump’s moratorium proposal — the retreat to a temporary ban on foreign Muslims, after Trump initially suggested such a ban on all Muslims. Charles finds this “hilarious” because, he concludes, I am taking Trump’s policymaking process seriously – “as if Trump’s barstool eruptions are painstakingly vetted, and as if anything Trump says about anything is ever final.”

Sigh.

As Dr. K must know (since it is quite apparent from the post he attacks), I am not a Trump supporter, much less a Trump apologist. I confess to not being Trump-obsessed: I just don’t think he is going to be the nominee and life is too short to get that whipped up about him. As I’ve pointed out, I don’t believe even the Republicans are daft enough to nominate a man who has donated more money to Hillary Clinton and the racketeering enterprise also known the Clinton Foundation than most Democrats have combined.