http://edgar1981.blogspot.com.au/2018/04/nazis-then-and-now.html
There is mounting pressure on warmist researchers to come up with arguments, if not evidence, that will stand up in court. As climate models continue to get it wrong, often spectacularly so, the carpetbaggers’ various lawsuits are in dire jeopardy, but that doesn’t mean they won’t stop trying
With the international political, financial and reputational stakes so high, it was only a matter of time before climate change appeared in the dock, handcuffed to its partner in prognostication, the dodgy discipline of extreme weather attribution.
Attribution, n., the art of evaluating the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to a change or an event, according to one’s prejudices.
To make sense of the climate change scene today, it is best to begin with the end game: the orthodoxy’s search for an argument, however abstruse, that will stand up in court. It needs one sufficiently “robust” to ensure developed countries—still effectively on trial in the United Nations, where a protracted “loss and damages” claim awaits resolution—and fossil fuel companies are legally liable to pay multi-billion-dollar “climate reparations” to the alleged victims of “carbon pollution”, be they in the developing world or in the path of a natural disaster.
Indeed, the credibility of the “relatively young science” of extreme weather attribution, the legitimacy of its ambition to “tease out the influence of human-caused climate change from other factors”, the whole alarmist movement and fate of the UN’s Green Climate Fund, all crucially depend on delivering such a legal argument.
How did we get to this point? When the climate change meme was planted successfully in the collective mind a decade ago as the most serious existential threat facing humankind, the orthodoxy wanted it to stay there. A sense of public anxiety had to be maintained, despite the risk of apocalypse fatigue syndrome.
So it created an Attribution of Climate-related Events (ACE) initiative. The international research agenda gradually shifted to the tricky territory of extreme weather attribution.
ACE’s first workshop was held on January 26, 2009, in Boulder, Colorado, at the Pei-designed National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Mesa Lab. Attendees included Myles Allen (Oxford University), Martin Hoerling (NOAA, USA), Peter Stott (UK Met Office, Hadley Centre), Kevin Trenberth (NCAR) and David Karoly (University of Melbourne). Its objective was to:
develop a conceptual framework for attribution activities to be elevated in priority and visibility, leading to substantial increases in resources (funds, people, computers) and both a research activity and a framework for an “operational” activity, that sets forth a goal of providing a lot more concrete information in near real time about what has happened and why in weather and climate.
When the same Home Office that forbade Sister Ban even to enter the country discovered that the young male Iraqi was in Britain, he explained clearly that he had been trained by ISIS. He told the Home Office officials that the group had trained him to kill. The Home Office promptly found him a place to live and study, and treated him as the minor he said he was but most likely was not. He subsequently told a teacher that he had “a duty to hate Britain”.
Last year the Institute of St Anselm (a Catholic training institute for priests and nuns, based in Kent) closed its doors because of problems it had getting the Home Office to grant visa applications for foreign students. One nun last year was apparently denied entry to the UK because she did not have a personal bank account.
So, those who flee ISIS are turned away, while those who are trained by ISIS are welcome.
The behaviour of government departments in charge of immigration and asylum across Europe repeatedly demonstrate the truth of the late Robert Conquest’s maxim — his “third law of politics” — that the simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organisation “is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies”.
Last week it was reported in the Catholic Herald that a nun who was driven out of the town of Qaraqosh, on the Nineveh plains in Iraq, has been forbidden to visit her ill sister in the United Kingdom. Sister Ban Madleen was among those Christians who were forced to flee the largest Christian town in the area when ISIS entered it in 2014. She was among the thousands of Christians who fled the approaching jihadists and found refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. There, she set up kindergartens to look after the children of other refugees who had also sought sanctuary in the Kurdish areas. A letter, seen by the Catholic Herald, from the UK Visa and Immigration division at the UK Home Office, stated that Sister Ban had not given evidence of her earnings as a kindergarten principal or shown enough evidence that her order of nuns would fund her visit.
The UK Home Office noted that Sister Ban had previously travelled to the UK and had on those occasions always complied with the terms of her visa. However, the Home Office pointed out that her visa was issued seven years ago, in 2011, and noted her lack of recent travel to the UK. It shows no understanding of why her recent travel might have been limited. Such as the possibility that events such as the rise of ISIS, the attempted annihilation of Iraq’s Christian community and that community’s quasi-Biblical flight to safety in the Kurdish regions might explain the nun’s otherwise inexplicable absence from the UK?
The international reaction to Hamas’ provocative “March of Return” had its predictable voices mired in typical hypocrisy. The European Union (EU), and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for “an independent and transparent investigation” into Israel’s use of live ammunition to quell the rioting. The United Nations (UN), that “paragon of virtue,” called for an emergency Security Council meeting with the aim of condemning Israel. France called on Israel to “show restraint.” The most blatant attack on Israel came from Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He called Israel’s Prime Minister “a terrorist.”
The EU seems to be interested in investigations only when Israel is involved and when the victims are Palestinians. That is not the case when Israelis are murdered by Palestinian terrorists. The UN, beholden to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is its most powerful component in the General Assembly and other UN institutions, is clearly a biased party. The UN has habitually devoted the lion’s share of its proceedings to condemn Israel. Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the UN observed (12/10/2017): “The UN has outrageously been of the world’s foremost centers of hostility towards Israel.”
Turkey’s President Erdogan exceeded all others in his hypocritical righteous indignation. At a Saturday speech (April 1, 2018) in Istanbul, Erdogan declared: “I strongly condemn the Israeli government over its inhumane attack.” He was referring to the Hamas organized riot called the “March of Return,” in which 15 Palestinians died in clashes with Israeli soldiers. Erdogan added on his social media page, “Israel will get trapped under the oppression it inflicts in Palestine. We will continue to support our Palestinian sisters and brothers in their rightful cause until the very end.”
The following day, Erdogan continued his attack, this time on Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally, calling him “a terrorist.” In a televised speech in Adana, Southern Turkey, he shouted “Hey Netanyahu! You are an occupier. And it is as an occupier that you are on those lands. At the same time you are a terrorist.” Reuters quoted Erdogan the same day as saying (referring to Israel)
“You are a terrorist state. It is known what you have done in Gaza and what you have done in Jerusalem. You have no one that likes you in the world.” This last remark revealed Erdogan’s anti-Semitic disposition.
“Wow! Are you ever nice and tight!”
It sounded like dialogue from some porn video, but the speaker was Dr. Bassam El-Tatari, a physician in Windsor, Ontario. The doctor was addressing one of his Canadian patients during a vaginal exam.
“I was shocked,” the woman told reporters. “I immediately started looking for another doctor.” So did six other patients, who say that the doctor, whose full name is Bassam Mohamed Khalil Darwish El-Tatari, kissed female patients on the lips, squeezed their breasts, played with nipples, and showed excessive interest in women’s vaginal areas.
This activity recalls Dr. Syed K. Zaidi, 41, of Granite Bay, California, a wealthy community near Sacramento. As several of his patients noted, the eager Dr. Zaidi liked to cup their naked buttocks, squeeze their breasts, and show a surge of attention during vaginal examinations. Even so, the California Medical Board did not lift Zaidi’s license and settled instead for five years probation. So far, Canadian authorities are taking sterner measures with Dr. Bassam El-Tatari.
Allegations dating back to 2009 have landed him in court on charges of sexual assault. One woman told the court “I never let him do another female exam again,” and three other victims have testified. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has allowed El-Tatari to retain his medical license but barred him from being alone with patients. The doctor, who trained in the Czech Republic, will face disciplinary hearings that could result in the loss of his license to practice medicine. As this plays out, a much more serious case has yet to reach the courtroom.
In October of 2017, Habibullah Ahmad, 21, attacked Anne Widholm as she strolled on the Ganatchio trail in Windsor, Ontario. The 75-year-old grandmother suffered “the worst skull fractures I’ve seen in my 12 years here in Windsor,” as neurosurgeon Dr. Balraj Jhawar told reporters. The victim’s lacerated scalp, bruised face and fractured neck vertebrae were “among the most brutal things I’ve seen in my career.” The attack, Dr. Jr. Jhawar said, “is not just another assault,” but represents “a new, dark side of Windsor that we can’t let propagate.”
On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, the New Israel Fund announced it signed a partnership agreement with Anne Frank Fonds, the foundation Anne Frank’s father, Otto Frank, established in 1963 to administer the profits from the sales of her diary.
Frank’s diary has sold more than 30 million copies in 60 languages since it was first published in 1947. Its sales and global reach make it the most famous book authored by a Jew aside from the Bible.
The New Israel Fund’s deal with the Anne Frank Foundation is a symbolic expression of the existential struggle being waged in the Jewish world today. That struggle pits the government of Israel against much of the American Jewish leadership. It pits Israel’s public against the justices of the Supreme Court. It pits IDF line soldiers and commanders against the General Staff.
The effective merger of the New Israel Fund with the Anne Frank Foundation is the latest chapter in the theft of Anne Frank’s legacy, which began in the 1950s.
In 1952, a Jewish-American journalist named Meir Levin discovered The Diary of Anne Frank in French translation. Levin recognized that her diary was the ideal vehicle for telling the story of the genocide of European Jewry to the American public.
Frank was a Westernized Jew. Her family wasn’t religious. They were cosmopolitan German Jews who decamped to Amsterdam in 1933 when the Nazis rose to power, and immediately fit right in.
But for the Nazi occupation of Holland in 1940, Anne would likely never have received any Jewish education. But when the Dutch collaborationist government implemented the Nazi race laws, and expelled all Jewish children from public schools, in 1941 her parents were compelled to enroll her in a Jewish school.
” The free press is a threat to freedom of the press, read about it in the mainstream media.”
The media took a brief break from its campaign against the Sinclair Media Group to go after the National Enquirer. The two don’t have anything in common except the perception of being pro-Trump.
In the good old days, going after rival media outlets meant writing nasty things about them. But these days the media doesn’t write nasty things for the sake of writing them. It writes nasty things to get someone fired, investigated or imprisoned. And that’s what its Sinclair and Enquirer stories are about.
CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times had wasted barrels of ink and pixels, to warn that Trump’s criticism of their media outlets represented a grave threat to the First Amendment.
And what better way to protect the First Amendment than by destroying it?
In its story about the FBI raid on Trump’s lawyer, the Times managed to suggest that the Enquirer’s support for the President of the United States might strip it of its First Amendment protection.
The Times tells its readers that the “federal inquiry” poses “thorny questions about A.M.I.’s First Amendment protections, and whether its record in supporting Mr. Trump somehow opens the door to scrutiny usually reserved for political organizations.”
That’s a thorny question alright. And there’s plenty more thorns where that one came from.
In ’08, the New York Times published an op-ed by Obama, but rejected McCain’s response. It just published an editorial titled, “Watch Out, Ted Cruz. Beto is Coming” which appears to have no purpose other than to help Beto O’Rourke raise money from New York Times readers.
The Times has a sharp thorn. So sharp it could punch a hole in it and the entire mainstream media.
Whoever was surprised by the hate-fest against the National Rifle Association and conservative Americans in general that followed the Parkland, FL school shooting must not have been paying attention. Over the past half century, a ruling class formed by our uniformly leftist educational system and occupying the commanding heights of corporate life, governmental bureaucracies, the media, etc. accuses its targets of everything from murder and terrorism to culpable psycho-social disorders (racism, sexism, and so forth).
Leaders, marchers, and rioters speak from identical scripts. They do not try to persuade. They strengthen their own side’s vehemence. They restrict opponents from speaking on their own behalf, and use state and corporate power to push them to society’s margins. While demanding deference to themselves, they mention right-leaning Americans and their causes only to insult and de-legitimize them.
Republican politicians and Fox News grant the respect denied them. They respond with facts and reason. But the Left’s reasoning is war’s reasoning: helping one’s own by hurting the enemy.
Political-war-by-accusation-of-crime is common in the world. As a rule—Charles de Gaulle was not the first to note it—“peoples are moved only by elemental sentiments, violent images, brutal invocations.”
But in America, political war used to be rare. The Federalist Papers begin thus: “it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice.”
Was America ever ruled by reason? For the most part, and relative to the rest of the world, yes it was. How did this come to be? In 1816, Thomas Jefferson answered: “our functionaries have done well, because… if any were [inclined to do otherwise], they feared to show it.” In short, America was exceptional because the American people were exceptional.
Today, Americans seem to be regressing to humanity’s sad norm. “Elemental sentiments, violent images, brutal invocations” have become the currency of American public life. Hence, reasoned arguments about the common good have as much chance of getting attention, never mind of giving pause to persons who hate you, as do pearls cast before swine. In politics as in economics, bad currency drives out good.
As the world marked Yom HaShoah on Thursday, a new poll revealed that nearly half of millennials cannot name one concentration camp out of the more than 40,000 camps and ghettos used during the Holocaust.
The survey from the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany polled adults in the United States ahead of this year’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Seventy percent of those polled said they believe fewer people seem to care about the Holocaust than they used to, while 58 percent said that an atrocity like the Holocaust could happen again.
Thirty-one percent of all Americans polled and 41 percent of millennial-generation respondents believed that 2 million or fewer Jews were killed in the Holocaust — substantially less than the 6 million Jews killed.
Even though knowledge of the Holocaust is lacking — just 20 percent had visited a Holocaust museum — 93 percent agreed students should learn about the Holocaust in school and 80 percent said it was important to continue Holocaust education to ensure history does not repeat itself. CONTINUE AT SITE
In an interview with the Atlantic, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman revealed that Saudi Arabia has financed terrorism. Most people will ignore this. The U.S. left has successfully colluded with jihad against national security. That is also part of Mueller’s mission, to cover up and protect jihadist infiltration, espionage and sabotage during the Clinton-Obama years. See the Awan espionage cell placed in the House Intelligence Committee, with the plausible collusion of Mueller, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper. It was much too obvious not to be noticed, and the House Democrats including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz literally ignored the need for vetting. This was not an accident.
Mohammed bin Salman is trying to modernize and hold down the jihad-sponsoring and paying faction, which apparently involved Walid bin Tallal. However, in Islam there is no such thing as a permanent peace. There is only “hudna,” or a temporary truce with “the enemies of God.” In Turkey, the jihad faction came back when Tayyip Recip Erdogan was allowed to win his first election with the collusion of the EU, which insisted on international recognition of this “election” of a paleo-fascist party, the party of neo-Ottomanism (self-described).
Trump has gotten the Salman faction in SA to turn against the Sunni jihadist faction, but in SA, basically a tribal federation, nothing completely changes. Same as Turkey, etc.
For that reason, exposure of Mohammed bin Salman’s admission of guilt always has to be considered to be tactical. This is not a governing hierarchy, it’s an unstable tribal gang, with a fantasy of conquering the world. The left loves jihad for that reason, and we are facing a left-jihad coalition. Now we know that Facebook and Google have been set up as political players from the start, that they provide shelter for Obama radicals who are constantly plotting to overthrow Trump, and we see the new Soros foundation with something like $50 billion from Soros. We are still seeing a new version of old-style Marxist-Leninist imperialism. Obama is a Third World Socialist. The internet is the natural domain for that style of imperialism, and they don’t disguise their willingness to use AI and planted electronics in individual homes under extranational “laws” to exercise control. Europe is seeing a revolt against this, since Victor Orban and the Hungarians are afraid of Soros, and have seen Soviet imperialism in the memory of living individuals.
Americans are soft targets, they have been told never to believe in political conspiracies, which do exist, and which are in fact the continuation of old infections.
