Homeland Security Report: Right-Wing Terrorist Threat Growing

Confirming previous reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center on the Rise of Right-Wing Hate Groups, Today Homeland security released a new report (pdf) that indicates that Extremist Right-Wing and Hate Groups have been dramaticaly recruiting since we've entered the "Age of Obama".

[R]ightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

Now it should be noted that this political shift in focus by Homeland Security could simply be the result of the change in administration. Let's recall that during the Bush Administation Peace Activists were targeted, surveilled and flagged as potential terrorists.

Three peace activists were detained at gunpoint in St. Paul yesterday by police who told them their car was on a federal "stop-and-search list." All three are prominent activists who've recently spoken out against Bush, McCain or the war in Iraq. They were held for 30 minutes then released without charge.

Similar targeting of anti-Bush peace groups took place in Maryland, where 53 Non-Violent Activists were added to the terrorist watch list, and in Milwaukee were 37 members of the Peace Action Milwaukee Group - including a priest and nun - were turned away at the gates because there names were included on the "No Fly List".

The path for this was laid out in 2001 an Energy Dept Report : “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat.”

In 2005 DHS issues another similar report that listed various left-wing groups as "dangerous" - yet miraculously failed to include ANY anti-government, supramacist or radical right-wings groups.

So while peace activists and non-violent protesters have been harrased under Bush without reasonable cause or justification - Right-Wing Rhetoric has grown more and more vitriolic, paranoid and dangerous as shown by these highlights from the new report.

Anti-immgration: “Rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.”

Recruiting returning vets: “Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

Gun-related violence: “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms … may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.”

Let's also recall that we don't actually need a "REPORT" to see the danger of the Radical Right-Wing. This is not theoretically - it's already begun to build a bodycount starting with the Anthrax Letters which were mailed to Congress, the FAKE Anthrax attack on progressive TV hosts such as Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart, the shooter in Knoxville Tennesee - James Adkisson.

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

Not to mention the attempted Dirty-Bomber from Maine, and Richard Poplawski the Pittsburgh Cop-Killer who was in terror of an Obama Gun "Round Up".

Ignoring fact and reality, wingnuts who seem determined to play the self-described "Victim" card like Michelle Malkin are already calling this new report a political HIT JOB on Conservatives via Obama's DHS.

Malkin: By contrast, the piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives. And the intent is clear. As the two spokespeople I talked with on the phone today made clear: They both pinpointed the recent "economic downturn" and the "general state of the economy" for stoking "rightwing extremism." One of the spokespeople said he was told that the report has been in the works for a year. My b.s. detector went off the chart, and yours will, too, if you read through the entire report — which asserts with no evidence that an unquantified "resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity" is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and...the historical presidential election.

No evidence? "Oklahoma City" Much? How about the Olympic Park Bombing? And the recent hightening reports of threats coming to the FBI? Typical.
This is what the reports says.

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of "leaderless resistance" and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.

Hey Michelle - how many people has The Sierra Club and Earth First killed? I mean really?

Just imagine how loud these guys will squawk, whine and cry if say - Glenn Beck winds up on the "No Fly List" (Like Al Gore, Nelson Mandela and Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam were), was being "Profiled", stopped and repeatedly SEARCHED simply because of his advocating the overthrow of the U.S. Government and organizing a set of nationwide protests of RABID TAX OUTRAGE against the duly elected President of the United States??

To this criticism DHS officials have responded by pointing out that an report "Left-wing" extremists was released in January.

See that, EQUAL TIME Paranoia. What a change of pace.

Vyan

Open Letter to Terrible Ted: Lessons in EPIC FAIL

Last Sunday Terrible Ted Nugent - the Yosemite Sam of Rock-n-Roll - wrote an Op-ed for the Waco-Tribune Herald, in which he threw in full bore with Rush Limbaugh and against President Obama.

Ted Nugent: Praying for Obama to fail

Observe how the Obama media machine and soulless liberal media jumped on Rush Limbaugh’s comments that he “wanted Obama to fail.”

Anyone with a half a brain knows Rush wants only this: for America to succeed and for anti-American policies to fail.

To leave no doubt where I, your humble Motor City guitarslinger, stands, let me report without ambiguity, that I get down on bended knee daily and pray to God that he does what he can to ensure President Obama fails.

Being a fellow Rock Musician, and yes a fan (of some of his music) I've felt for the last few days that a open-letter to Theodore was needed in response, one which shows the appropriate tone and respect. To wit.

Dear Ted, you ignorant pedaphiliac slut.

When you say that the current duly-elected President of the United states is "Anti-American" - exactly what the fuck does that mean? What is he Canadian? French?

Trust me, I have more than half a brain, and when Rush Limbaugh said he wanted "Obama to Fail" he seems to be under to sad delusion that their is any possible way that Obama might fail, and the rest of the country won't go down too. We are facing challenges to the economy, challenges overseas diplomatically and strategically that are enormous. Let me tell you something Theodore - FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION!

Ok, to be fair - I'm gonna let you answer my question above for yourself, being slightly more than half-brained as I am.



Like Rush, I wouldn’t want Obama to fail if his agenda weren’t built on feeding the gluttonous, unaccountable Fedzilla beast, so clearly the enemy of the free market, of real jobs and proven economic growth.

Since that is Obama’s agenda, however, those of us who believe in a limited federal government and the wondrous wealth-and-job-creating free market should hope, pray and work to ensure Obama’s anti-free market policies fall flat on their face.



So let me get this shit straight, "Obama is feeding the FEDZILLA!"? Ok, he's doing this how? By putting money in the hands of the States with the Stimulus bill? If the FEDZILA was growing under Obama, how exactly are Palin, Jindal and other governors able to even make any arguement that they don't WANT the money? (Even though all of them are taking the money!) Obama wants to put funds in the hands of the people, not into a huge federal byzantine bureacracy that will dictate and control everything. That kind of thing was someone elses gig...

Wasn't it President Bush who instituted the largest growth in Federal Power and Employees of the past 40 years with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? Why, yes it was. Wasn't it Al Gore, during the Clinton administration who reduced the size of all departments of the Federal Government by a an average of 10% in order to produce the first federal surplus in the last half century? Didn't Bush BLOW THROUGH THAT Surplus like a drunken sailor?

Yep, he did.

The guy who implemented a limited government was Clinton, Bush's government simply didn't work - period. The result wasn't a "wondrous wealth-and-job-creating free market" - it was a complete and total meltdown. How's Your 401-K doing Ted? Most people saw their incomes rise under Clinton, then saw them fall under Bush by an average of $2000. We had enforcement of the laws in order to keep criminal corporations for running rampant under Clinton - under Bush we had poison in our food, poison in our rivers, streams and fish, and a bunch of greedy drunken fucking pirates running our corporations like Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Bear-Sterns, Lehman Brothers and AIG deep into the ground.

But then you aren't comparing Obama to Clinton are you - you have another hated Democrat in mind.


A wise man once stated that those who fail to remember the lessons of the past are destined to repeat them. If we can compare President Obama’s economic carnage agenda to anyone in the recent past, it unquestionably would be Jimmy Carter.

Carter’s deranged economic policies in the late 1970s ruined the economy and put America in the worst fiscal shape since the Great Depression.

Remember gas rationing, double-digit interest rates, stagflation?


Ok, let's get serious. Exactly WHAT policies did Carter implement that caused that? What did he do the CREATE inflation? Maybe it wasn't him, maybe it was something else?

How about Vietnam?

You remember the Vietnam War don't you Ted? That was the War that you avoided by spending weeks CRAPPING IN YOUR PANTS (or so you claimed), so you could duck out of the draft. I guess,it's tough for people who don't have few lucky anal cysts handy.

A lot of Carter's problems had to do with the post-Vietnam downturn that usually follows in the wake of a massive ramp-down in defense spending after a war. (The same thing happened in the early 90's as the cold-war ended, and would've happened after WWII if not for the massive domestic investments implemented by Truman and Eisenhower) Don't think so? Ok, look at this chart.



See that first spike of inflation in 1970, and the second in 1973? Who was President then? If you said "Carter" - you Fail!

Think seriously Theodore, the tendency for inflation was already in place. The match was already lit, what happened to Carter was the addition of a few thousand barrell's of gasoline - or rather - Oil. How much of the gas rationing of the 70's had to do with the OPEC Oil embargo of 1973-1974? I think just about all of it. The rise in inflation in the late 70's (under Carter) was clearly related to other factors including the Iran Hostage Crisis, which no one could have anticipated. Even the students who stormed our Embassy didn't know what the hell they were doing at the time, or what would happen as a result. Carter, I think to his credit, avoided letting that situation lead us into a war - but he did so at the cost of his Presidency.

The point here is many of these situations were created by the actions of Nixon, Ford, and U.S. policy going back for decades. Carter inherited all of that inflation mess from those who came before him. In fairness, I would agree that Carter didn't handle things well, but it's not because he implemented policies that created or exacerbated the situation - certainly not by raising taxes which he DIDN'T DO - it because of the opposite. The simple fact is, Carter didn't do enough. He sat on his hands, he was slow in responding - that's what he deserves to be criticized for, not "creating" that situation.

But what-oh-what Teddy, since you were so thoughtful as to dredge all this ancient history up - is it that Obama should do instead of the stagnating "policies" of Carter?



Fast-forward just a few months after American voters fired Carter for his gross incompetence on all levels. America was on the road to a 25-year economic expansion, possibly the longest in our nation’s history.

Recognizing that unfair, punitive high taxes were the road to economic destruction, Ronald Reagan cut taxes and the economy lifted off. Interest rates fell. Inflation was curtailed. Americans went back to work in droves.


It seems to me that taxes were pretty high in the 50s, and in the 60's and the economy was doing just fine. As a matter of fact they were - see the bottom chart number 2, which shows that the top marginal tax rate during that time actually peaked at 92% during the 50's. Somehow, life (and American prosperity) went on...




Yes, Reagan cut taxes for the wealthiest from about 80% all the way down to the low 30's (as the bottom part of the chart shows), but that not really what made the economy take off. He also dramatically increased spending - particularly defense spending.

During the 80's I worked for a defense contractor, and I can tell you from first hand experience - it was a major economy booster, at least until 91' when the cold war ended. People had jobs, with paychecks and they spent their money. On food, on cars, on homes, on travel and vacations. They spent quite a bit, and that defense spending put money in the pockets of lots of people who had nothing to do with the industry.

But it was nowhere near the utopia you paint.

One year after implementing what was then the largest tax cut in history, Reagan immediately implemented the largest tax INCREASE in history (at that time) after his first cut exploded the deficit (Y'know - the FEDZILLA beast you're so a-scared of...? That's Reagan's Beast, not Obama's.)

Oh and don't even play that "It was the Democratic Congress" that wouldn't cut spending game - every budget that Congress approved during Reagan's Presidency SPENT LESS than what he asked for.

The end result of Reaganomics was a massive shift of the tax burden away from those who for decades had easily been able to shoulder the burden onto the backs of those who couldn't. Inflation went down, but then unemployment went up. Some people got rich, other people - particularly Veterans, which obviously doesn't include YOU Teddy - went homeless and untreated for PTSD and other disorders. Reagan talked a great game, really he did, but he ignored those who needed help the most. He demonized them, and hobbled the government from being able to do it's job. He ignored the Vets, he ignored the sick - particularly those suffering from AIDS and drug addition until both became epidemics raging out of control. Nice job Ronnie.

When we were attacked in Beirut - he CUT AND RAN LIKE A SCARED RABBIT!!!!

He not only "Pal'd around with terrorists" he gave them weapons!! And when he got caught, he LIED about it. Whatta Role Model he was.

You wanna talk about the "Free Market"? Hey, don't you remember "JUNK BONDS"? Corporate Raiders whose entire reason to exist was to buy a company only to dismantle it and ship the jobs overseas? Remember Black Friday and the Savings and Loan Crash? Remember Gordon Gekko?



"Greed is Good!" Right Ted? "So what if a few million Americans get trampled in the process, they shouldn't have been laying on the road in the way. Lazy FUCKS!!! They probably need and F-150 up their ass to give 'em some motivation!"

All of that shit either occurred directly on Reagan's watch or as a direct result of his ROB THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH policies, which were repeated and eventually led us to GRAND EPIC FAILURE of the Bush Administration.

And so, that's what you think we need to go back to?

I don't think so.



Remember your history and pray for President Obama to fail. I fear for America if we allow him to succeed.



America will succeed, but it's going to do with Despite You and your feeble self-defeating Prayers Teddy. We can't go back down the road we've been own after decades of Republican leadership. Only under President Clinton have we truly seen some of these massive fuck-ups straightened out, and even he didn't go far enough in ensuring that *everyone* has a decent and fair chance at properity, not just the connected, the lucky and the already rich.

You can pray for what you want - but I'm praying for YOU and Rush and Glenn and all your wingnut syncophats to massively fail - yet again - as your buddy Bush was too clueless and arrogant to pay attention to Bin Laden and failed to stop 9/11, failed to find ANY weapons in Iraq, failed to secure that country after they wrongfully invading it, failed to respond to the Insurgency, failed to understand that a person who trusts you will tell you truth while someone who fears you will tell you anything they think you want to hear, failed to keep the Congress safe from an Anthrax attack, failed after Katrina to rescue the desperate, failed to find, capture or kill Bin Laden, failed to provide us with vaccines to minimize preventable diseased, failed to realize Terry Schiavo was blind and brain-dead, failed to keep the American people safe from anti-freeze in our toothpaste, failed to protect us from poison in our medicine and a insane predatory lending/credit default-swap system of monitized mortgages that nearly brought the entire world economy crashing down around your ears!

Why the FUCK should we listen to you people now!!?

Republicans have done nothing but FAIL for years now. None of us have been praying for it - only praying for it TO BE OVER! Now it finally is. Show some class and eat your failure pie quietly in the corner like a good doddering old irrelevant Rocker. And take Up-Chuck Norris with ya.

If Obama had failed today - the Somali Pirates who had been holding a U.S. Captain hostage for the last several days would have succeeded. But they didn't, Obama succeeded while you were Praying. Against. Him! Good job, but you failed again.

Bottom line: You guys should already know a lot about MASSIVE TOTAL ABJECT FAILURE - it's all you're good at. Obama isn't Carter, and he's isn't Clinton either - he's his own person and the sooner you Wingnut Friedmanomic Luddites recognize that the better off we'll all be.

You're Real Rock friend, sincerely.

Vyan

P.S. If you haven't had enough from this whupping, I'll be happy to Whup your ass on Lead Guitar too, particularly since you haven't learned a new lick in 35 years. Hell, Tommy Shaw from you last credible band Damn Yankees could play circles around you Ted, what were you even there for - Comedy Relief? Haw!

Some may wonder why I bother spending so much time on a irrelevant dim-bulb like Nugent? It's because he's making noise about running for Governor of Michigan in 2010 - that's why! Yes, REALLY! One thing this nation doesn't need is another Palinite Blowhard NitWit Governor, Bow-hunting Deer from a Helicopter...while destroying our collective common sense.

Enough is enough.

Gore Endoreses Obama - We Need Change

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pa-Rvm1Yn8&feature=related


Part2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwimang6lFQ

Unity Takes Two

You can't make a horse drink from water he doesn't want, you can't make someone accept an outstretched hand toward unity if they just plain don't want it, and you can't convince people of facts and realities they just refuse to accept.

Ickes on CNN complaining that Obama Hijacked 4 Delegates from Hillary

In this video Clinton's Campaign Manager Harold Ickes accuses the Obama campaign of theft, and even suggests the Hillary could still win the nomination with the support of the remaining uncommitted delegates. As of now she needs 240 out of the remaining 290 total uncommitted Super and Pledged Delegates.

That's 82.9%

In what bizarro upside-down world is that likely to happen?

Ickes has to know that Hillary can't win this, that everything he's doing and she's going will make the eventual Big Walk Back for her campaign ans supporters harder and harder.

There's only one way to look at this left - they have no intention of walking it back, ever!

All this Sturm und Drang is over 4 Delegates. FOUR. This is the sword they choose to fall on?

The more moderate supporers of Hillary will certain join with the rest of the party but the most rapid of Hillary's Evil Mob knows that this won't be over in another two days. It won't be over in Denver. The Humpty-Dumpty Democratic Party is broken and won't be coming back together despite the clearly noble efforts by Henry Wexler, Karl Levin, Donna Brazile and others this weekend to do exactly that. The most vapid of Hillary's supporters aren't going to listen to the facts or the reality, they aren't going to consider this to be a fair compromise or a generous gesture, they're going to listen Ickes when he says...

Ickes: They Hijacked - they just reached in and took four delegates from Hillary. It's unprecedented. It's unheard of. It's quite incredible.

...

Hillary got 73 delegates (out of Michigan) and Uncommitted got 55. Mr. Obama decided for strategic and tactical reasons to withdraw his name from the ballot. He didn't have to, nobody asked him to. He did it for his own strategic reasons. And now he says "Oh my goodness, I want these Delegates" - not only do I want the 55, but oh, by the way, I want the four of Hillary's

After these kinds of fighting words, accusing Obama of being a craven manipulative thief, they aren't unifying with anyone. Certainly not with Obama supporters and the Democratic Party once he becomes the nominee.

Let's be clear first of all every candidates except Hillary, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel took their names off the ballot, which includes Obama, Biden, Edwards and Richardson. (Kucinich sued to be taken off, but wasn't) They did it because Iowa and New Hampshire asked them to honor the DNC decision. If Ickes wants to call those states "Nobody" - that's his call.

As things stood prior to the RBC meeting - no one was going to get any delegates. Clinton now has 69 more than she did before, but apparently that just isn't enough for her, she wants all 73 and she wants Obama to get ZERO - even ignoring the "Fair Reflection" of 30,000 voters who specifically Wrote Obama's Name In.

Other's have been over this in far better and greater legal detail than I can achieve but the core point is that the RBC decision not only re-instated the votes of those who directly voted for Hillary, but also the 30,000 who specifically voted for Obama even knowing and expecting that their votes wouldn't count. Those 30,000 votes happen to match up fairly directly to the 4 delegates that Ickes says belong to Hillary.

The 30,000 write-in votes, which a Clinton supporter (Ickes, I think) admitted during the meeting were likely mostly for Obama, were over 5% of the total votes cast. They were not counted. Just adding those actually cast votes to Uncommitted (rather than throwing them out, as happened), dilutes Clinton’s percentage of the total enough to knock her down from 74 delegates to 70.45 of 128. Knocking off the extra vote we started with (74 instead of 73), Hillary’s 70.45 translates to 69.45, or about exactly what the R&BC awarded her. Hmmmm.

So whose really trying to steal whose votes and delegates here?

It might be argued that some of those uncommitted votes might have been for Edwards or Biden or Richardson, accept that only Edwards was still in the race at the point and assuming he would have reached the 15% threshold he (and Richardson and Biden have) endorsed Obama - so Obama would get all those delegates even if there had been some way of truly splitting them up accurately.

It's clear that Ickes and Clinton aren't the "Victim" here - they are the ones trying to steal delegates from Obama.

It's naked, it's blatant and that's what it is.

The fact is by not having his people fight for the 64/64 compromise, which he would have narrowly won, Obama put forth a positive gesture and effectively granted Clinton Five Delegates More than she would have had.

We don't have to be afraid that we'll offended the Clintonies by saying this - it's the truth, they need to know it and acknowledge it. Running around on tip-toes isn't going to change that. How many times can you put your hand out in friendship and "unity" only to have it slapped away again and again until you realize the other size doesn't deserve it anymore?

At a certain point, the Democratic party is going to have to rid itself of the Hillacratic Party. We won't have to push them out. They're going to go on their own, some are already effectively gone. Maybe they'll stay home in November with their arms folded clinging bitterly to their preferred losing candidate in a huff, maybe they'll go to a third party candidate like Nader, maybe Bob Barr, maybe to the Republicans. They do seem to certainly like Republican styled campaigning - meanwhile we are moving in a new direction.

They have to face the truth, Hillary has Lost, and so do we.

Hillary is going to win Puerto Rico. She's probably going to win the overall popular vote (as long as you ignore the Caucus States), but then again having the popular vote and $5 will barely get you a Coffee at Starbucks. It certainly didn't do anything for Al Gore.

In fairness, as I have mentioned several times before, Ickes is correct about the Electoral Map favoring Clinton. The latest polls have her leading McCain 327 to 194 on the electoral college. She is leading in eight states that Kerry didn't get in 2004.

In contrast Obama is only leading McCain by 276 to 238 and only picks of a measly fives states that Kerry didn't win. That's what we're arguing over - winning in November by eight states or just five?

His argument is that the path to the White House is easier with Clinton involved. On that point he may be technically correct, but here's the rub. Do we really want to start off a new democratic era by taking the shortest and easier possible path to victory?

Is the Low-Road really the best coarse to take?

Or, do we feel it's worth it to take the Best Road? It may not be as easy, it may not be as fast - we might have to fight with difficult and complex truth instead of easy to understand innuendo and double-talk. We have to take a serious look at whether we want to continue to fall into the old patterns, push the same old buttons, run from the same old fears that we have for generations or do we want to have the courage to do the hard thing? To do the Right Thing?

Wouldn't taking the High Road and Still Winning Be all the Sweeter, all the more worth it?

Do we have the guts to take a stand, and risk the possibility that some of our (soon to be former) Democratic brethren might never seek to join us on that path? That we'll never truly have "Unity" again?

I think we have no choice but to recognize some, like Ickes, and the Old New York Lady yelling at the cloud are simply too far gone, we can't expect and don't need "unity" with the likes of them. Instead we need clarity of direction and the conviction to get where we need to go.

Washington DC. The White House.

With them or without them, we're going to get there. No more Mr. Nice Giaus.

Vyan

An Inconvenient Controversy: Fox & the Wingnuts vs Peace

Today Al Gore Jr. has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize as co-winner with the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. This being one of the few times in the last decade that an American has won the prize one would expect that nearly all of America would be rejoicing the same way that we tend to obsessively count our Olympic medals like a miser.

Oops... we did just lost five of those last week didn't we?

Anywho, it appears that not everyons is that happy for Albert. Just this morning the Fixed News and the Right-wing have begun their attack not just on Al Gore, but on the entire Nobel Peace Prize process claiming that it's all biased, political and anti-Bush because recent winners have included Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA (who told Bush there we're No Nukes in Iraq and Bush - well - didn't listen) and Jimmy Carter (who has said that for foreign policy Bush is the Worst President Ever because like - He Is!).

For a contest these guys weren't even involved in, they sure are sore losers.

Some Conservatives may be shocked and dismayed to hear it, but it really shouldn't be a surprise that George W. Bush, a man who has advocated and implemented perpetual endless War as the solution to just about every major problem he has faced, has not been seriously considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Y'know that thing with "P.E.A.C.E." right there in it's name?

The idea that former Vice-President and 2000 Presidential L.O.S.E.R. Albert Gore Jr. could actually win something - well, y'know, not counting The Oscar and The Emmy - seems have them going slightly over the edge. Again.

Ok, ok... still!

"Look on the bright side: after Arafat, Carter, and Iranian marionette Mohammed ElBaradei, the award couldn’t possibly be more degraded." - Hot Air’s Allahpundit

"Keeping to the trend of politicized awards, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." - National Review’s Jay Richards

"The Nobel Prize committee has basically surrendered to hysterics, mass exaggerators, and liars, most of who are not even climatologists or even any type of scientist." - William Teach at Pirate’s Cove

"I wasn’t even aware that they had a Nobel Prize for deceptive rhetoric." - Confederate Yankee

"This continues the trend of the Peace Prize being awarded, not for achievements in spreading peace, but to highlight the Committee’s political agenda." - James Joyner at Outside The Beltway.

Fortunately for them though, they have lots of low friends in high places including apparently one judge in Britain who just yesterday (wow, what a coincidence) has ruled that Al Gore's film "An Inconventient Truth" can not be shown in English Schools without "Guidance Notes" also being included.

In response to this Fox and Friend's Steve Doocy (the blonde-haired guy who actually is Steve Doocy at least according to Steven Colbert last night) was practically giddy.

Doocy: You know, I’m not a scientist. I don’t know if any of that stuff is true. I don’t think any of it’s true. I just know that my daughter watched the movie last week. ... [She said Gore] took three shots at George Bush. And my daughter, who’s just 18, was turned off by how it was political. So there you go.

See, their big problem is that it was political? - well don't you know that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"? (That is according to one well known Steve Doocy fan - also named Steve.)

Guy who is still Steve Doocy: That crazy Jimmy Carter even has one (A Nobel Peace Prize)

Yeah, that's right because we know that people who believe in striving for Peace as an alternative to like - what was it again, oh yeah, WAR - have to be just plain Koo Koo! Who could ever prefer life and prosperity to suffering and death?

Way to show respect for our former Presidents there Stevey, do we need sick a Senate condemnation on this guy or what?

Somehow they manage to yet again play their well worn victim card and whine that somebody somewhere dared to Disagree with George W. Bush and that automatically makes them a bunch of Political Haters. Hey man, it's not Al Gore's fault that George W. Bush pissed on the Kyoto Treaty like it was a last piece of uncleared brush on his horseless, cowless Crawford "ranch" after a long afternoon knocking back a six-packs of near-beer during Sunday Football.

Despite Fox's obsessive paranoia - this Peace Prize Isn't a Referendum on George W. Bush.

Anyway - at one point they state that the Judge found 11 falsehoods within the film, and then at another point they say there are 9 errors.

Er, What?

Ok, Here's me not being a climatologist, but I was found a sample of the 11 So-called Errors on - you guessed it - Newsbusters.

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Please notice something here - None of these so-called "errors" happens to be the claim that either Global Warming isn't happening or that it isn't largely A Manmade Phenomenon.

The same is true of the "9 Errors" I found noted on ABCNews.com My non-scientific and mildly snarky comments are italicized.

1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.) And this judge has a scientific degree in what exactly?

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.") Not Yet, but not because they haven't been trying

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future...") True, but it has already been changed by the increase of fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps.

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.") He simply pointed out tempertates and Co2 have remained in correlation, scientists agree - what's the problem?

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.") It doesn't have to be mainly attributable, only attributable at all!

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.) However, Global Warming is still listed as one possible factor in the lake's shrinkage - see below)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.") But there has been evidence to suggest that we are experiencing a greater percentage of Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes due to warmer gulf waters - and just what is making the water warmer?

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.") Just because that's all this judge found, doesn't mean that all that there is... see below

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.") Difficult, but not impossible!

Here's the real problem with all of this - the film actually didn't make most of these claims, not exactly - much of this is taken out of context - what the film merely does is quote various sources who had already published studies on the issue, which to this day remain the best available data. Certainly as our understanding of these complex issues increase these views will change and have to be constantly updated, as Mr. Gore has constantly updated his slideshow. Quibbling over the small stuff doesn't change the big picture - which is that Climate Change is Real.

Contrary to this judges claims This is what the film says on it's Science Page (I've included links and quotes from each listed source)

• The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years. (NOT that Katrina's strength was a "One off event")

  Source Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones.

• Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.

  Source: World Health Organization

• The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.

  Source: American Geophysical Union

• At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
• Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.

  Source: World Health Organization

  Measurement of health effects from climate change can only be very approximate. Nevertheless, a WHO quantitative assessment, taking into account only a subset of the possible health impacts, concluded that the effects of the climate change that has occurred since the mid-1970s may have caused over 150 000 deaths in 2000. It also concluded that these impacts are likely to increase in the future.

• Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
  Source: Source the Wapo

  While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries. That indicates that scientists may have underestimated the rate of disintegration they face in the future.

  ...

  The report concludes that a temperature rise of just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit "is likely to lead to extensive coral bleaching," destroying critical fish nurseries in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Too-warm sea temperatures stress corals, causing them to expel symbiotic micro-algae that live in their tissues and provide them with food, and thus making the reefs appear bleached. Bleaching that lasts longer than a week can kill corals. This fall there was widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad that killed broad swaths of corals, in part because ocean temperatures were 2 degrees Fahrenheit above average monthly maximums.

  ...

  Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Gulf Stream), a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this "conveyor belt," which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

• Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.

  Source: Artic Climate Impact Assesment 2004

• More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
  Via Time Magazine

  Scientists have discovered that quiver trees are starting to die off in parts of their traditional range. The species might be in the early stages of moving southward, trying to escape rising temperatures closer to the equator.

  Twenty-six bird species, including this goose, which breeds in the Arctic, are listed by the World Conservation Union as threatened by global warming. Half are seabirds whose food supplies are diminished because of climate changes. The rest are terrestrial species, including several whose coastal habitats are at risk because of rising sea levels.

Also doing my own highly technical search and analysis (using The Google) I found that it's true that a mass evacutation from various Pacific Islands to New Zealands hasn't yet occured, but not because the water isn't rising and threatening their island, it's because New Zealand won't let them all in.

The leaders of Tuvalu—a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia—have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea, announcing that they will abandon their homeland. After being rebuffed by Australia, the Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but it has not agreed to do so.

Lake Chad is definately shrinking as these satelite photos show. An although Global Warming is not the only factor involved in it's shrikage, it is a factor.

Via the BBC.

There is no single cause for the disappearance of Lake Chad.

Global warming is one factor blamed and local people say rainfall has been steadily reducing by about five to 10mm a year.

"This lake has to be saved; we know the benefit; we know how people have suffered; we know what we have lost
Wakil Bakar" Lake Chad Basin Commission

Other factors include irrigation and the damming of rivers feeding the lake for hydro-electric schemes, which have all combined to devastating effect.

"Desertification is moving southwards," said William Bata Ndahi, director of the Lake Chad Research Institute.

"The water is moving further and further away. We believe desertification has contributed most to the demise of Lake Chad."

This judge argues that drowning of polar bears in the artic was attributed to a storm (and according to the Wall Street Journal the fact that they had to swim so much further than they used to since the Arctic Ice Cap is Shrinking) however the Artic Climate Impact Assesment (which was only the result of four years of work by over 300 scientist) seems to disagree with that assesment.

Global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them, according to the most comprehensive international assessment ever done of Arctic climate change.

The thinning of sea ice -- which is projected to shrink by at least half by the end of the century and could disappear altogether, according to some computer models -- could determine the fate of many other key Arctic species, said the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the product of four years of work by more than 300 scientists.

"The Arctic is really warming now," said Robert Corell, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society who chaired the assessment. "These areas provide a bellwether of what's coming to planet Earth."

In Alaska, western Canada and eastern Russia, average winter temperatures have risen as much as four to seven degrees Fahrenheit within the past 50 years, according to the report and are projected to increase an additional seven to 13 degrees over the next century. Winter temperatures have risen faster than summer temperatures, according to Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change programs at the Washington-based Climate Institute, because thin sea ice releases more energy from the ocean into the atmosphere.

It's not like we have clear and concise evidence that the Artic Ice Pack is shrinking at a rate far faster than Scientist have previously projected. Y'know - like pictures and stuff.

Ok, ok, enough!

I'm not going to try and debunk all nine - or does this one go to eleven? - of these arguements because it's pointless. The goal of wingnuts is to keep us in the midst of an endless debate, to keep us arguing and nitpicking over whether or not global warming is the primary cause, or a secondary cause while ignoring that it's still a Cause - whether it was the storm that killed those polar bears or the extra distance they were swimming, or like Both, and ignore the fact that POLAR BEARS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DROWN - EVER - and whether or not chart 18b in scene 24 of "an inconvenient truth" is consistent with chart 32c in scene 41 (Oh look, we got him this time...that liar) instead of taking action, instead of doing something - Anything about the issue. It should be obvious that if a poor little non-scientist like me with an 8-year-old PC can poke this many holes in this judges ruling in an hour and half, he stands practically no chance on appeal.

Take that man-who-is Steve Doocy, and your black-haired sidekick too.

If (most) scientists are correct and humans have the potential the impact climate change and we at least try - where's the harm? It's very likely our economies will boom as a result of new alternative fuels and conservation technologies. Win-Win.

If on the other hand they're wrong - we lose nothing and still gain these new markets, technologies and will live in a clearner world. Still half a win.

But if they're right and we do nothing - the planet slowly dies peice by peice. Even if we are only mildly impacted, it's an unneccesary negative consequence.

Which path makes the most sense?

And by the way, Al Gore still has a Nobel Peace Prize and George W. Bush doesn't.

Vyan

The New Way Backwards in Iraq

So the Petreaus/Crocker Puppet Show (now with New Ultra-Brite Powerpoint Lies) is finally over, and our Dear Deciderer-in-Chief plans to explain to us how our bold New Way Forward, has been so successful that it's time to make gradually make our way backwards to where we were before "The Surge", The Iraq Study Group and the 2006 Elections all began.

Isn't doing the Iraq Hokey-Pokey Fun?

Oh, but wait this just in Sheik Sattar Abu Risha - the too bit petty thug turned hero of the Amazing Anbar Awakening - has just been capped like an upstart rival of Tony Soprano.

Oops.

Guess, we're headed even further backwards than even Dubya thought.

Despite the sad and obvious reality that even the vaunted Al-Anbar province isn't really as safe and secure as it has been touted to be, the likelyhood that todays events will change even a single sentence in the Prez's planned speech tonight hover somewhere inside the infinate span between nil and a cold hole and the hell-hot place.

Tony Snow in his final White House bullshitting session Press Conference said it yesterday.

The idea that you have an unchanging strategy -- only a crazy person would fail to adjust strategy on a regular basis based on the realities on the ground.

Former Shameless Authoritarian Shill Says Wha?

It's really stunning when a tiny nugget of truth falls out of the corner of their mouths when they think you're not looking, isn't it? Kinda like Reverse Tourrettes.

Let's get real for a moment, the position jockeying by both parties on all of this is being played out for political reasons - not for the betterment of either the Iraqi people or U.S. soldiers. Both parties are playing for 2008.

And yet again, Bush has outmaneauvered the Dems. Tonight he'll offer them a taste of exactly what they've been clamoring for in Iraq - a troop withdrawal and redeployment. Just as he done so many times before, after critics had battered his door for month after month on issue after issue - right as their hands start to bleed and they take a moment to bandage themselves, Bush shoves what they've been screaming for out the back-door and claims it was his own idea all along.

Brilliant like a Dumb-Fox he is.

We clamored for Rumseld to resign or be fired for years. And then suddenly - POOF - he's gone. We wanted Gonzales out on his ear. Now he's twitching at the bottom of the stairs Bush threw him down. We wanted Karl Rove's head on a stick like Jeff Dunham's Jalapeno. Now he's auditioning for his new gig as checkout guy for Chipotle.

And still Bush manages to make it seem like Democrats had nothing to do with it? Amazing.

We wanted our troops out of Iraq and suddenly Bush after the "smashing success of the surge" decides to play "uniter" give us what just we wanted - kinda.

It doesn't matter that the troops have to come home anyway since their deployments (which were pushed up from 12 months to 15 months for the surge) are going to run out in April. Never mind the fact that in order to reach June as the President plans to state, he'll have to further extend some of those deployments from 15 to 18 months. Let's not let any factiness get in the way of the gingoism and hero worship for Commander-Guy in Chief, ok? He's gonna talkify to the nation, just sit down and shutup like good little children...

The problem for Democrats is that Bush did this sick Kabuki Dance with the lives of our troops simply to provide political cover for the 7-8 hold-out Republicans in the Senate (not to mention the handful in the House) that can still help sustain a Presidential Veto against any more agressive withdrawal, redeployment or timetable measures from Democrats. As long as those Republicans hold their ground here's nothing Democrats can reasonably do about it.

Yes, yes I know it's been said that they can simply re-submit a Vetoed Bill, but according to the Senate Reference Guide on Veto Procedure (PDF) they can't.

If two-thirds of the Members of the chamber of origin do not agree to override a veto, then the measure dies and the other chamber does not have an opportunity to vote on the question of repassing the bill.

A dead measure can not be reconsidered for a vote, any vote. (Footnote: Except that in the Senate a failed Veto Override can be reconsidered, but the only reason to do that is if you think you might win the Veto Override the second time - which we won't, yet - so why bother?) Despite what Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards have said, you can't simply "send the measure back to the President" again and again. Not without revising it and sending it back through it's original sub-committees, committees, full votes in both chambers, conference committe and second full vote on both houses post conference. This all takes weeks, meanwhile the clock is always ticking on the current appropriations.

The Ultimate Solution that many have suggested, that Dems simply refuse to send the President a measure that he'll only Veto isn't viable. Gingrich tried it on Clinton and although he managed to shutdown the entire government - twice - it didn't work. Because those Dems were able to sustain his Vetos it was Clinton who had his way, not Gingrich.

Yes, I know that a total defense appropriations shutdown - and that is exactly what we're talking about - won't neccesarily mean that the troops will be walking around in loin cloths, but it does mean that all of their logistical support and all of the government contractors who are providing them food and other supplies won't be getting paid. Some - would probably stand down. It would put our troops at risk and it simply a horrid hobson's choice.

"Save the Troops by (Temporarily) Screwing the Troops anyone?"

Hmm... I just don't think that idea is Veto Proof.

Now after cranking up our Troop Level in Iraq and managing to achieve just 3 out of 18 of the goals attempted (which is pretty much an "F" in any class I've ever been in) Bush now says our troops have "done good" and some of them can now come home. His grand Run-Out-The-Clock til 2009 plan is working to perfection.

(Rubbing hands together like Montgomery Burns) "Excellent!"

Yet that still leaves at least another 100,000 U.S. Troops still in country, caught between a set of Sunni Insurgent and Shia Death Squad Rocks and an AQI Hard Place.

Democratic options on Iraq now are a choice between awful and horrific. They don't control foreign policy, the President does, and he can't force the corrupt and dysfunctional Iraqi Parliment to implement complex and difficult legislation any more than it would be reasonable to expect that any foreign nation would be able to force our (relatively) corrupt and dysfuctional congress to adopt some specific legislation to their liking. I mean, it's not like we haven't completley blown-off China over possible trade sanctions, cause they just might threaten to pull all their money out of the country or anything.

Yeah, right - like something like taking a tough and serious diplomatic stance could ever work. Puh-leeze.

Even if the fragile peace in Anbar manages to hold, what does this bode for the rest of the country? Do we begin to actively undermine the prop shell vichy Malaki government we ourselves set in place by continuing to offer de-facto amnesty to other warlords who happen to be willing to do our dirty work for us and exterminate al Qeada the way Sattar did?

How likely would these islamic gang-bangers - now with U.S. backing, support money and weapons they don't even have to even bother to steal from us anymore - be to simply declare their rivals to be "al Qeada" and attack them (as Sattar reportedly did) in order to help consolidate their own powerbase?

Wouldn't the Crips and Bloods like to have a piece of some action like that? "What's that Mr. Officer - You want me to take this gun and shoot that "al Qeada guy" over there for you? Yessir Massah - I'll get right on that."

Exactly which lame horse should we be backing in this pack of nags?

At this point Dems may only be able to play around in the margins, they may be able to ensure that our troops who are being held hostage by this President still have adequate food, water and gear during their continued and extended captivity in Iraq. They might be able to accelerate the De-Surge by implementing some hard-limits on the length of troop deployments and extend rest periods at home as Senator Webb has attempted. They might be able to even bring things down to below pre-surge levels in June as Nancy Pelosi has already begun to demand.

But even if they do all that, we're still going to have far too many troops in Iraq to have them all completely pulled out by next November 2008. It's still going to be an issue for the next Presidential Election and the Next President.

A Democratic Congress, with a Republican President and Lock-Step Republican minority can only do so much. Repubs still have the filibuster and the Veto, so we need to turn our energies toward next election - toward the Next President and the Next Congress.

It's certain that that Congress will be Democratic, but will it be a Super-Majority able to break filibusters? It's certain that we will have a next President (Thank Vishnu), but will it be one of the crypt-keeper twins Giuliani and Thompson or someone who isn't willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper - y'know like a Democrat. Will it be Obama, Hillary, Edwards or God-in-heaven-dare-I-still-have-hope... Al Gore?

Stay tuned, baring zesty Impeachment goodness, this story continued next election cycle.

Vyan

Christ-elyzing the Troops aka Operation Eternal MindF*ck

Hey, I don't mind anyones specific relationship with their own Personal Jesus - but this LA Times Op-ed which describes how the Department of Defense has been openly proselytizing our troops to become the Army of God ™ should scare the Bejeezus out of just about everyone.

Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

It's not like we haven't already seen this taking place on the grounds and surrounding area of the U.S. Air Force Academy (near which Rev. Ted I-was-Gay-until-I-wasn't Haggard's church resides). From the WaPo.

A military study of the religious climate at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs found several examples of religious intolerance, insensitivity and inappropriate proselytizing on the part of Air Force officers and cadets, but a report issued yesterday at the Pentagon concluded that the school is not overtly discriminatory and has made improvements in recent months.

...

The report came after allegations that officers at the academy promoted evangelical Christian beliefs and were insensitive to cadets who were of a different religion or chose not to practice a faith. The allegations spurred a heated debate about the separation of church and state at the federally funded military school and caused a backlash among the chaplain community there.

...

Examples of questionable behavior highlighted in the report included the school's head football coach hanging a "Team Jesus" banner in the locker room in November 2004; the academy's commandant sending out a schoolwide message on the National Day of Prayer and encouraging cadets to use the "J for Jesus" hand signal; and senior school personnel signing on to a Christian advertisement citing scripture in the base newspaper.

These even extended to a full-court press by various Cadets promotion the Mel Gibsom movie "The Passion of the Christ", as well as harrasment against Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians for not taking part in "voluantary" prayer meetings.

Isn't that special?

For those of you not yet familiar with Left Behind: Eternal Forces here's a refresher from a post I made in response to Newt Gingrich's claim that the VA Tech shooters were the result of Liberalism and Violent Video Games.

That is of course unless they're too busy playing "LEFT BEHIND: Eternal Forces" where they act as members of the Tribulation Force intent on either converting or using paramilitary equipment and tactics to kill all non-believers (y'know Catholics and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Gays and stuff) who refuse to accept the teachings of the one and only true JEEZus CHrisT into their hearts and join their brethen in the glory of the Rapture ™ .

The game revolves around New Yorkers who are "left behind" after the rapture. Players scour the streets for converts, training them into a work force to feed, shelter and join a paramilitary resistance against the growing forces of the Antichrist.


Left Behind Games CEO Troy Lyndon, whose company went public in February, says the game’s Christian themes will grab the audience that didn’t mind gore in "The Passion of the Christ." "We’ve thought through how the Christian right and the liberal left will slam us," says Lyndon. "But megachurches are very likely to embrace this game." Though it will be marketed directly to congregations, Forces will also have a secular ad campaign in gaming magazines.

According to Gingrich, violent video games are desensitizing our youth to inhumane cruelty and are driving them away from the lessons of God. Hm... Really?

I think the the fact is, when you look at the amount of violence we have in games that young people play at 7, 8 , 10, 12, 15 years of age, if you look at the dehumanization, if you look at the fact that we refuse to say that we are infact endowed with (sic) our creator, that our rights come from God - if you kill somebody you're committing and act of evil.

So just what is behind distributing a game like Eternal forces to our troops? Is the idea that between firefights in Mosul and Al-Anbar the 82nd Airborne guys are going to get some quality relaxing time pretending to join a group of paramility evangelists crusaders to kill or convert all non-believers in New York City?

Might not these solders gradually become "desensitized" to the idea of randomly killing like - Muslims? Sunni and Shia alike?

Is that the kind of "evil" Gingrich was thinking of?

Anyway, just where did these little care-packages come from?

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department's "America Supports You" program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade.

Thanks to the magic of the Google Cache we an still see what used to be on their site, but even in the cache "Eternal Forces" seems to have gotten to boot.

We send care packages to soldiers on the front lines of the war in Iraq. We call them “Freedom Packets” because the truth will set you free. Included in each “Freedom Packet” is:

* Greeting card
* 75 Minute Phone Card
* White Socks
* Baby Wipes (suggested by Col Oliver North)
* Gideon’s pocket size New Testament
* Extreme Sports “Livin It” DVD
* and an assortment of snacks.

We ship them to Iraq free of charge to soldiers. The approximate cost per package is $50. Two items – phone cards and shipping cost – account for approximately half that total amount. Most of the items were donated at no cost to support our troops. Your donation helps us send a clear message that God cares, including their mind, body and soul.

Apparently the DoD has severed ties with "Operation Straight Up" - Thank God/Jehova/Vishnu/Buddha for small favors - but that isn't their only problem with excessive Christ-y-ness.

Take, for instance, the recent scandal involving Christian Embassy, a group whose expressed purpose is to proselytize to military personnel, diplomats, Capitol Hill staffers and political appointees. In a shocking breach of security, Defense Department officials allowed a Christian Embassy film crew to roam the corridors of the Pentagon unescorted while making a promotional video featuring high-ranking officers and political appointees. (Christian Embassy, which holds prayer meetings weekly at the Pentagon, is so entrenched that Air Force Maj. Gen. John J. Catton Jr. said he'd assumed the organization was a "quasi-federal entity.")

News of the links between Christian Embassy and the Pentagon have alrady reached as far as Turkey and caused some considerable stir where the organization was described as a "radical fundamentalist sect," and irreparably damaging the reputation of Air Force Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, who is the liason to the Turkish Military.

But wait, it gets worse as it appears the Pentagon's top
"Bin Laden hunter" rather than actually do his job instead decided to do on a revival tour - In Uniform.

The Pentagon (Army Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence) in charge of the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in 2003. The same year, Boykin was found to be touring American churches, where he gave speeches -- in uniform -- casting the Iraq war in end-times terms. "We're in is a spiritual battle," he told one congregation in Oregon. "Satan wants to destroy this nation . . . and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army." The story wound up in newspapers, magazines and on "60 Minutes." And, of course, it was reported all over the Muslim world. The Pentagon reacted with a collective shrug.

Praise Geezus and Pass the Ammunition?

God, I hope not.

Once America's armed forces become to be seen as a military extension of the Christian Church, all bets are completely off when it comes to "winning hearts and minds" not just in an Iraq, but with the Billions of Muslims, Jews and Hindus in the world many of whom have armed forces of their own, up to and including nuclear weapons.

Is this an ideological battle we really want to get into, and/or is such a lose-lose confrontation in itself the not so hidden goal of the "end timers"?

Look, I don't begrudge anyone their own personal beliefs, but the point is and has been since the founding of this country that people's right to believe - or not believe - is supposed to be protected. Once the government, particularly the armed portion of the government, begins to show blatant favoritism toward any particularly religion it becomes a clear and present danger to all those who believe differently.


Amen.

Vyan

Juan Williams Defends YearlyKos on Faux - and Wins?

Watch video


Last night on the O'Lielly Factor we had Episode #527.3 in the never ending saga of how the "Far Left Hate-Monger Blogosphere Ultra-Liberals" are leading the Democrat (sic) Party and it's Candidates around by the nose at Yearlykos.

It's something we've seen a thousand times, with the sneering moderator (Michelle Malkin), the firey True Conservative with the wind at their back (Rick Moran) and the weak, mealy mouthed Faux-macrat (Juan Williams) who is preordained to lose every significant point. The script is set and everybody plays their part in laying out their little psycho-drama for the O'Reilly blue-hairs.

But this time something different happened. Williams actually Won.

As Al Franken so wonderfully described in his book "Lies and Lying Liars" watching Faux Noise is a lot like going to a Harlem Globe-Trotters game.

The Conservatives are always the "Home Team" - who always win - while the (usually fake) Democrats high-lighted on Fox are always the Washington Generals who just can't seem to get their act together, fumbling and stumbling while the Trotters dunk, whirl and spin around, through and over them as if they were mired in molasses. Either that or they're weak-kneed surrender monkeys who finally concede whatever fantasitigorimical point the Cons are trying to make.

But Not. This. Time.

It started out normal enough as Malkin tossed the first slow-pitch at Moran (who she also happened to reveal is the comment moderator on her site as well as the head of the Pajamas Media video crew who were "covering" the event).

Malkin: Would you agree that Edwards and Hillary were the "Prom King and Queen" of the Nutroots Convention?

Yeah, that's right, she oh-so-uncleverly slipped in "Nutroots", I listened to it multiple times just to be sure.

Yuk yuk, that Malkin sure is a wit.

A half-wit, but a wit.

Moran himself, did a great job of tripping over himself with his response.

Well, Hillary would certainly like to think so. Certainly Edwards was the most popular - um, uh, - candidate there in terms of the applause meter is concerned.

Ok, Edwards most popular - got it. Except that Moran decided to argue with himself with his next sentence.

I thought Denise Kucinich, the other Far-Left Democrat (as compared to who?) who was there, probably was more popular than Hillary - that was my impression anyway.

Uh, what? Let me get this straight, Hillary thinks she's popular but really isn't compared to Edwards - but then Kucinich is more popular than she is, and I suppose Edwards is, or something.

I guess they haven't completely worked out the Hillary is a Far-Lefty and therefore the Far-Left must love her, except for all the other people they like better - like Obama, Edwards and even Gore!

According to the results of this Dkos Poll on who won the Yearlykos Presidential Debate, currently (after 600 votes) Edwards wins it handily with 37%, Barack is in second with 27%, Hillary is in third with 17% and Kucinich is in a distant fourth with 5%.

It's amazing to me that this guy actually attended Yearlykos and didn't event notice that we don't really like the Hillary very much. Simply stunning.

Just look at some of these diaries.

• Yearly Kos Has Endangered Hillary's Nomination
• Impeach Hillary
• Hillary Nixon.

Now we know that this Moran character isn't exactly the sharpest fork in the drawer if he hasn't noticed the enormous ambivalence for Hillary among the Netroots over her Iraq War Vote. I should know, I've tried to defend her vote here on Kos and it wasn't pretty.

Then you had Malkin's next leading question.

Malkin: Did you see a lot of "9-11 Truth" types, y'know the conspiracy theorists?

Moran: No, no. I've made a point of asking a lot of people - a lot of the bloggers there - these are not really - I wouldn't say radical leftists in the sense that they - uh - they're conspiracy mongerers and so forth. These are the mainstream netroots. Which is still far-left, but not way out there like the truthers,

Malkin: Mmm

Yeah, well that might be because presenting conspiracy theories on Kos is a bannable offense. But let's not belabor - y'know - The FAQ. Nice, sleuthy detective work on your part there - Moran.

They of course, as I expected, had to mention the Sergaent Aguina kerfuffle and announce that the Moran will have an exclusive interview with him on The Factor tomorrow. Oh joy.

Then she, finally, turned to Juan.

Malkin: I take it you don't think it was a mistake for these Presidential Candidates to go to this convention?

Williams: Not at all, gosh, in fact it's part of the media landscape right now. It's part of American politics, what goes on, on the blogosphere. "Michellemalkin.com". In fact, what you see there is often cutting edge in terms of the debate that helps shape the policies and determines who's going to be the winning candidate on both Republican and Democratic tickets this year.

So far so good - in fact, maybe a little too good as Malkin narrowed in.

Malkin: "Cutting edge" is that your euphemism for "Radical and "Hate-Mongering", because in fact if you are a regular consumer of the Kos website you know that that's exactly the stuff that "they traffic in" there?

Oh, brother - here it comes.

Williams: I don't agree. I think that sometimes there are people that are "Hateful", there's an occasional wacko individual but that doesn't necessarily speak to the nature of the entire Dailykos or Yearlykos meeting. I think that they've, to the contrary, I think you see some very serious arguments put forward there. Things that people are forced to respond to, which is why you see serious people - like those who are running for President of the United States - would think that it was worth their time to show up.

Not too bad. Then Malkin got "serious".

Malkin: You think that Markos Moo-litz-os, the founder is a "serious" person. Someone who we've talked about many times (But never had cojones to actually have as a guest!) - the kind of comments that he's made about civilian contractors that were murdered (he apologized for that) and kind of comment that he made about Dick Durbin, where for example, after Dick Durbin apologized or non-apologized, about his comments about the military in Guantanamo Bay, agreed with another fellow liberal blogger that Durbin should quote "F- Himself" - is that "serious" conversation - "serious" policy debate, Juan?

That's when William's calmly turned around, called his shot like the Bambino of old and hit it out of the park.

Williams: Michelle you could say the same thing - about the Vice President on the Floor of the U.S. Senate talking to Pat Leahy! I mean, people are going to sometimes say things that are wrong-headed and profane..

If you heard some loud whopping and hollering at about 1am P.S.T. in Southern California - that was me an my wife sitting BOLT UPRIGHT in bed when we heard that one.

Hello!!

But Malkin wasn't satisfied.

Malkin: He never apologized for that comment, he never retracted it.

Williams: I don't know that Dick Cheney ever apologized either (He didn't), but gosh, let's go to the "parallel universe" to this left-wing blogosphere, let's talk about Right-Wing Radio (DING!) Where you can hear people like Michael Savage say Secretary of State Rice is "an Affirmative Action Hire"...

Malkin ignored his point, arguing that this was "Moral Equivalency", and that there their were right-wing blogs that do not "Traffic" in this sort of thing, in the process ignoring that Williams didn't bring up right-wing blogs - cuz, generally speaking they suck - he brought up Right-Wing Radio and fact that Dick Cheney made the exact same remark on the Floor of the U.S. Senate when Leahy was just being Nice to him - Juan was absolutely on the mark.

But she doesn't try to defend Cheney - cuz she can't - and she doesn't try to defend Savage - because no one can.And let's not even get into Neal Boortz and Dennis Prager and Laura Ingraham... ooh boy.

This following exchange really got me... as Mr. Moran attempted to bolster Michelle's deft duck, deflect and cover maneuver.

Moran: When you're talking about Dailykos and Yearlykos you're talking about the Big Lefty Bloggers (Awww, I thought we weren't as bad the conspiracy nuts just 2 minutes ago? My how times change) and yes, they do in fact traffic in this kind of (searches for the word) - Hate-mongering (Wow, what a surprise!) I guess would be the best way... and y'know the reason it's hate-mongering Juan, is because the left has lowered the bar on what is Hate Speech

If you can, watch the split screen reaction on Juan's face as his eyes widen when Moran says this -- it's just priceless.

Moran: On kos they talk about the Israelis. The Jewish people in general, gassing Joe Lieberman you can't say that kind of stuff and expect to be taken seriously in politics.

Let's again point out that the Moran is the moderator on Malkin's website and it should be noted that in Malkin's illustrious career as a "voice of moderation" she has ...

• Repeatedly claimed she doesn't believe in "Hate Crimes" because they "punish thought" (unless I guess those thoughts are about Joe Lieberman?)
• Defended Don Imus when she called the flap over his "Nappy Headed Hos" comment an attempt to "Blame Whitey"
• Compared Latinos protesting a House bill aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration to "white supremacists and neo-Nazis." (But they didn't commit a Hate crime or nothin')
• Blasted coverage of the Haditha killings by U.S. Troops in the Media claiming that they created "puddles of drool in the offices of the L.A. Times and The New York Times."
• Stated that the proper reaction to suicides occurring at Guantanamo - despite reports that many of those held there are innocent of any terrorist activity - should be "Boo-freakin-hoo.'"

This person has standing to criticize Markos for dropping the F-Bomb? And dropping it on a Democrat no less, I'm surprised she didn't jump up and cheer in a ecstatic fit of shadenfreude.

Anyway, Williams summed it up perfectly.

Williams: I think if you're listening to Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, I mean these guys - these guys use outrageous language and I think what you're seeing there is that people are trying to match it in terms of intensity on the left, given the intensity and the success that we've seen on the right for that kind of language and that kind of rhetoric. I don't think there's any question where that language and rhetoric started - it started on the Right.

No Shit.

Next time some Right-Wing says we're "mean and foul-mouthed" let just say politely - "And you can thank Mr. Cheney and Mr. Savage for setting the standards for political discourse in this country at the absolute Rock Bottom!"

And just for the record Michelle, let me quote one of my favorite comments in this entire O'Reilly/Kos Fued after Dennis Miller came on as BillO's fluffer to revive him after Dodd KO'd him last week.

Fuck Dennis Miller in the ear (8+ / 0-)

Fuck Bill O'Reilly in the other ear

Fuck Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuck

Daily Kos

Fuck

by calipygian on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that your guys little "Ms Manner's spiel" is really making us re-think our approach. Er, not so much. Because for starers - we made you look!

(In Nelson Voice) "HA hah"

Oh, and just to clear out your palate after the Malkin Dumpster Dive, he's part of Gen Clark's Keynote Speech.

Vyan

Right Wing Attacks Live Earth ... and misses by a Planet

Today I wanted to talk about John Conyers on This Week saying the I-Word out loud in reference to the recent ARG poll indicating that well over 50% of the American people favor the Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and the fact that the White House has refused to let Sara Taylor testify in the DOJ hearings pushing Congress one step closer to a Contempt Citation.

I wanted to talk about Bill Kriston admitting that the timing fo the Libby commute was engineered to create a debate over the Clinton pardons, a debate which they happen to be losing badly.

But Instead I'm going to focus yet again on Live Earth and just how freaking desperate and deranged it has began to make the Climate Change Deniers Club ™ .

Now I've had my own criticism's of Live Earth's lineup which I posted yesterday, but I'm not going to revise that debate because in many ways it's beside the point.

What I felt while watching Live Earth is that it really isn't about which bands did and didn't play or what they played. It was about reaching out all across the world and lighting a potential spark inside BILLIONS OF PEOPLE which just might change and save this world from itself.

The shear scope of this event has been staggering. It has shown that we can rise to this challenge even though it may seem daunting and enormous. We can each take steps, take responsibility in our own lives to help make this world cleaner, greener and possible last just a little bit longer.

The fact that they've gotten a person like me, someone who'se been an extremely outspoken and acerbic critic of modern music for the past 15 years to finally put that all that aside - just for moment - with a concert this massive is a stunning accomplishment.

Let me tell you Micheal Mustow has nothing on me when it comes to being a brutal and vicious critic of modern music. If you think political debate can be rough-house knock-down drag-out tussle, just try discussing music with musicians sometime.

In fact, I'm certain that over the years there are people who are flat-out afraid to discuss their favorite (fill-in-the-blank emo/neo-punk/cool hair-cut/pop-tart/rough trade) band with me to this very day because as both a music performer, fan and critic for 20 years I'll probably verbally rip that band into tiny peices of confetti, then burn the confetti without batting an eye.

Today though, I think I'd use those ashes in a compost pile just so I could say they'd finally accomplished something worthwhile.

Anywho... instead of debating matters of musical taste and preference let us turn to the den of scum and villany housing the Climate Change Deniers who I think we should rank along side those who continue to deny the Holocaust, those who continue to deny that Saddam was not the Mastermind of 9/11, and the last remaining 26% percent (Newsweek 7/3) of us who continue to deny that the Sock-Puppet Presidency of George W.Bush and his D/s Top Richard B. "Shooter" Cheney is a Fucking Disastrous Blight on This Nation.

Last night on TFucker Carlson, one of these CCD mouth breathers from the oil and gas lobby powered "Competitive" Enterprise Institute actually said that ....

Al Gore has been looking for a world crisis his own life, where he can come through and "save the world" He wants to be a Superhero Action Figure. Basically he makes this stuff up [about global warming]. There is no scientific support for most his claims.

A Superhero? Y'mean like Commander Guy ™ !?

No Scientific Support?

This guy actually went on National TV - while the Live Earth Concerts were taking place - and said there's No Scientific Support for what Al Gore has been saying about Climate Change?

Is that not dumb as rocks stunning?

I mean most of these guys - like say, trusty ole' Fourthbranch - usually argue that the science is "inconclusive" or that the "debate is still ongoing", but this guy, Myron Ebell, just can't seem to contain himself. He's so full of crap it's coming out of eyes, ears, nose and mouth.

Then he changed tactics and began to actually argue in favor of conservation by claiming that the Live Earth concerts were a bad idea because they use too much energy!

Which side of this mental hopscotch game are these guys playing on?

So let me get this one straight - there's "No Scientific Evidence" to support Gore's Climate Change thesis that the emission of CO² gasses into the atmosphere tend to create a greenhouse effect which is gradually warming our planet and threatening to drastically and radically change our eco-system - yet, you really shouldn't use up all that energy cuz it's like bad, mm,kay?

Has anyone ever taught this nitwit 4th Grade Science where they usually mention, even in your basic Neo-Christian Madrossa in the buckle of the bible belt where some seem to think the Sun revolves around the Earth, that Venus the cloud covered planet is actually hotter than Mercury which is closest to the Sun?

Anyone?

Beuller?

Before I get to the really Stupifying stuff, let's point out that the Live Earth organizers went to agonizing lengths to limit the amount of travel that performers would have to make in order to reach the show.

Live Earth strives to operate in as ecofriendly a way as possible: Several staffers are dedicated entirely to helping artists minimize the environmental impact of getting to and playing the shows, and each artist is given a "Green Handbook" of touring tips, such as where to get biodiesel for their trucks and how to offset carbon emissions. And in London, the team has been discussing a deal with Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic Airlines to reduce the carbon footprint for flights

Not only did they suggest that the artist shift to using bio-deisel for their tour vehicles - which Willie Nelson has been doing for years - they even used bio-deisel generators at the venues where possible. Also LED and compact florescent lights were employed for the show, which only use a fraction of the energy required by normal bulbs.

From the AP.

"This is going to be the greenest event of its kind, ever," former Vice President and Live Earth partner Al Gore told The Associated Press. "The carbon offsets and the innovative practices that are being used to make this a green event, I think, will set the standard for years to come."

The point is not to make the everything perfectly green, but simply to make events such as this - and for that matter most of what we do in our own private lives - greener and greener, as carbon neutral as we can get it bit by bit rather than all at once.

On this point Live Earth dramatically unveiled the lie beneath the rightwings more vicious canard. We don't have to live like Geico's favorite political-correction safe whipping boy - the caveman. We shouldn't be thinking that being Eco-friendly means living under a rock with a machette, a bic lighter and a few pairs of birkenstocks. We can LIVE IT UP and have a great big global party - and still be green. Living green isn't going to be bad for the economy and it isn't going to be bad for business. Well, to be fair, it might be really bad for the brown businesses like the ones who fund Myron and his sociopathic ilk, but then they deserve it don't cha think?

And of course, that's exactly what scares Myron - Sugardaddy Warbucks might have to go on a diet. So naturally he lashes out at those damn dirty liberals who are a threat to his meal ticket.

Global warming is a creation of the left, and the left is all about re-distributing income. We have to become an awful lot poorer, and the people in China have to become a little bit poorer to solve this problem according to the Global Warming Alarmists like Al Gore.

Yeah, we're all going to be in the poor house if we adopt cleaner emissions standards. Oh wait, most of us already are in the po' house - so much so we can't even afford to buy another vowel for the rest of the word. So gee, what's there to really lose then, eh?

And speaking of that completely non-existent Scientific Evidence...

On May 26th, James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute Of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels.

I suggest that a "scientific reticence" is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

And then there's the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change which released three reports.

One on the Science of Global Warming.

In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

One on the Impacts of Global Warming, not only on natural resources but also on our global security.

If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism. There is also domestic reasons. If higher-intensity hurricanes create a lot of damage, that does in some sense have security-implications as well. There is a whole range of factors. Water scarcity is another one. I’m not saying all this translates into direct threats to the U.S., but conflict anywhere has some implication for security in the U.S. As the most powerful and most prosperous nation on Earth, it is for the U.S. to take a global view of what strategically might minimize the possibility of threats to national security.

And a third on the relatively Modest Cost of implementing Green Friendly measures to combat Climate Change.

Humans must make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. report said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said keeping the temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product.

Not that the facts have ever really gotten in the way of chronic deniers like Myron and his pals.

Fox News: "Al Gore’s Global Warming Movie: Could It Destroy Our Economy?"

Rush Limbaugh: "[Liberals] would have us destroy our economy and millions of jobs based on pseudoscience."

James Inhofe: "Global warming is an alarmism. It’s a type of a hoax. The reality is that a cap on carbon is a cap on the economy."

I'm thinking these guys are going to be spending time in the history books being compared to their bestest buddy Ahmadinajad for their incredible level of denial, nigh unto a pathological addiction to bullcrap.

But y'know maybe that's just me.

I'm just saying...

Vyan