Saturday, October 10, 2009

"Before Islam made them stupid..." Pakistani President Musharraf has said Islamic countries will remain backward unless they concentrate more on..."

Source: Plancks Constant

Number of Jews who have received the Nobel Prize

By Bernie on 09 Oct 2009

Since 1901 there were 106 years in which Nobel Prizes were awarded. At least one Jew has won in 73 of those years. That is, Jews have won in over 68% of all award years.

As of today, 800 individuals have been awarded a Nobel Prize (including the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science). Of those, 178 (of which 8 were Peace Prizes) went to Jews (22.25% of all recipients). If measured by percent of world population, less than 2 Jews should have been awarded any prizes. Similarly, by percent of world population, Arabs should have garnered 44 Nobel Prizes but only 5 (of which 3 were Peace Prizes) actually did.

Even more telling, by percent of world population, Muslims should have garnered 200 Nobel Prizes but only 8 (of which 5 were Peace Prizes) actually did.

Before Islam made them stupid, before Islam hobbled their minds, before Islam stifled their creativity, Arabs were inquisitive, smart, inventive, clever fellows who made great contributions to civilization. That is to say, they were just like their Semite cousins the Jews.

If I were an honest Muslim I would shamefacedly admit that the Islamic world is presently living in darkness. I would say to my fellow Muslims: "Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race."

I know it sounds harsh, that to the American ear it sounds so stereotypical, so biased, so unfair, but before you attack me as a bigot or Islamophobe, let me admit to plagiarism; those were not really my words:

BBC News, Musharraf berates Muslim world

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said Islamic countries will remain backward unless they concentrate more on scientific and technological development.


General Musharraf made his comments in an address to a conference of science and technology attended by ministers from Muslim countries.

President Musharraf said the time had come for Islamic nations to take part in collective self-criticism.

Once such an assessment is made, it would not be difficult to realise that the entire Islamic world was far behind the developed world, he argued.

'The most unhealthy'

The Muslim Ummah, or the Islamic world, he said was presently living in darkness.

"Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race," he told the delegates.

Source: For the most comprehensive list of Arab and Jewish Nobel winners on the 'net, see my article Muslim Inventions - Nobel Prizes.

Disclaimer: Yes I know that Arabs were doing great things under Islamic rule, however, it took many years for Islam to actually start implementing all the stultifying facets of the religion that would ultimately paralyze all creativity and striving for learning. Unfortunately Muslims now believe that if it's not in the Quran it's not important and if it is in the Quran it is redundant.

Now here's a thought....A Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Background and justification

Source: Pedestrian Infidel

Thursday, February 08, 2007

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Many thanks to Scott for authoring this and submitting to our inbox.

UPDATE- Some of our 'fans' out there have noted a couple of language errors with this post, which have now been corrected. Thank you kindly for your support!

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Process...OK, who was the dummy that nominated the dummy?

Was it this guy?
Now watch the video below and see what Secondtraitor Kissinger (sorry I can't spell Secretary) says regarding the New World Order. Remember, this was recorded way back (a ways back!) in George Bush's term.

Now tell me things are not happening as planned.

Process of Nomination and Selection

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for the selection of eligible candidates and the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. The Committee is composed of five members appointed by the Storting (Norwegian parliament). The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway, not in Stockholm, Sweden, where the Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and the Economics Prize are awarded.

Who is eligible for the Prize

The candidates eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize are those nominated by qualified individuals. See Qualified Nominators. » No one can nominate him- or herself.

How are the Nobel Laureates selected?

nomination process

Below is a brief description of the process involved in selecting the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

SeptemberInvitation letters are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

FebruaryDeadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year's discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.

February-MarchShort list. The Committee assesses the candidates' work and prepares a short list.

March-AugustAdviser review. The short list is reviewed by permanent advisers and advisers specially recruited for their knowledge of specific candidates. The advisers do not directly evaluate nominations nor give explicit recommendations.

OctoberNobel Laureates are chosen. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced.

DecemberNobel Laureates receive their prize. The Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony takes place on 10 December in Oslo, Norway, where the Nobel Laureates receive their Nobel Prize, which consists of a Nobel Medal and Diploma, and a document confirming the prize amount.

Are the nominations made public?

The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize.

This just in...straight from the horse's (now I wouldn't fool ya now)

----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: link removed
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 4:43 AM
Subject: circle flies

A cowboy from Texas attends a social function where Barack Obama is trying to gather more support for his Health Plan. Once he discovers the cowboy is from President Bushs home area, he starts to belittle him by imitating a Southern drawl and using single syllable words.

As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says, "You havin' some problem with them circle flies?"

Obama stopped talking and said, "Well, yes, if that's what they're called, but I've never heard of circle flies."

"Well Sir," the cowboy replies, "circle flies hang around ranches. They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."

"Oh," Obama replies as he goes back to rambling.......... But, a moment later he stops and bluntly asks, "Are you calling me a horse's ass?"

"No, Sir," the cowboy replies, "I have too much respect for the citizens of this country to call their President a horse's ass."

"That's a good thing," Obama responds and begins rambling on once more.

After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says, "Hard to fool them flies, though."


Advertise Here

Nobel Peace Prize...for EXTRAORDINARY efforts !

Click on picture to enlarge.
Advertise Here

The Name Game...only it's not a game!

What's In A Name
Cross posted from Pedestrian Infidel

I recently went through the process of legally changing my name from a very Muslim name to a, well, Western/Christian name. There are many reasons that I changed my name. One of the reasons is that I don’t, in any way, want to be associated with Islam. I don’t know how many of you here know this but my family ‘claims’ to be direct descendants of Mohammed. Now, I think that’s a load of crap seeing that Mohammed didn’t have any sons (he had 3 sons born to him but all of them died in their infancy) but Muslims hold the status of being Mohammed’s descendants in very high regard. Anyway, because of that ‘claim’ my last name was very blatantly Arabic/Persian and very blatantly and unmistakably Muslim—it’s a last name that you are generally born with and are usually proud of. Well, I changed not only my last name but my whole name and made it so Western/Christian (and a little Jewish) that it resulted in a lot of eye-brows raised at the Pakistani consulate.

It was a very long process—the end result being: My name has officially and legally changed without me getting arrested! I don’t know about you but I see that as another victory for this infidel in particular and for all infidels in general. However, this is not the point that I am writing this article for. What I want to stress on is that one’s name is very important. It is seen as your identity. Your name is what people know you by. Without your name, you’re a mere ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ and nothing else. Now that my name’s changed to a Western/Christian one, whenever people meet me, their first reaction won’t be, “oh, you’re an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity?! Attack!!!!” if they are wondering about my religious affiliation. It makes a huge difference.

Along the same lines, I recently read Geert Wilers’ speech in which he said that one of the most common boy names in Europe is “Mohammed”. It’s not surprising that so many boys are named Mohammed in Europe seeing the number of Muslim births and number of Muslims admitted into Europe is sky high. What’s surprising is that Mohammed is not even the most common boy name in the UAE or Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia. Muslims in these countries don’t usually name their children after the murdering bastard known as Mohammed, the prophet of Muslims. The most common names here are Ali or Hassan or Hussein or Ahmed. However, in Europe, by naming their children Mohammed, Muslims are reinforcing a point, “we are Muslims, we are here and there ain’t a thing you can do about it” and it also shows that they are NOT assimilating.

This brings us to a bigger point. When will America and the west realize that they are fighting “Islam” and not “rogue individuals who misunderstand Islam, the religion of peace”? Yes, we have to name the enemy and we have to name it out loud. Islam’s the enemy and Islam is what needs to be eradicated as a political and religious ideology. You can’t snipe one Muslim terrorist and think, “oh, yeah, one less to worry about!” because tomorrow another one’s going to take his place. There is an ideology out there that vows to stop at nothing short of dominating the world and forcing everyone to bow down to it—that ideology goes by the ‘name’ Islam. Unless we name our enemy and put that name on the board with a pin affixed in it to remind ourselves who our enemy is, we won’t win this war. Not only would we not win this war but we are going to lose this war and not even know who we lost it to.

I hope our leaders realize soon that we are at war and willingly fight it. I hope voters realize that this war needs to be fought and that soldiers that give up their lives are giving up those lives willingly (they signed up to be soldiers, to protect their country and its values NOT to be fed chow 3 times a day, sleep, wake up, exercise and do the whole routine every day of the year) and for a bigger purpose…

What scares me the most is that most of the people in the west are going to wake up one day and see an Islamic flag flying over their congress/parliament and then it will be too late to grow a pair!

Friday, October 9, 2009

The Nobel Prize ...may have got a bigger prize, the U. S. of A.

H-T to Gerry Charlotte Phelps

I should have known the Socialist New World Order Clan was behind the Obama award.

"So, Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country - or one continent. It must dominate worldwide or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality and it makes Obama’s election as president of the United States all the more welcome."

I take this opportunity to re-emphasize my earlier warnings to all freedom loving Americans that we have to take our country back from these left-wing nut jobs that have lied and schemed their way into leadship positions. One way in which to start is with the 2010 elections...if we don't get them then we may very well be headed into a dictatorship (if we're not already there).

Remember we must empty the U.S. House of Representatives of ALL INCUMBENTS and replace them with ordinary citizens who value freedom more than anything else. ~ N. Hooben

The Peace Prize - EU's Bid to Re-Colonize U.S.

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann

Whether it was rewarding Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Iraq War or supporting Al Gore in his crusade against global warming, the Norwegian Parliament - which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize - has sought to use the award as a political tool to influence American politic s. Its prestige and moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of the colossus beyond the seas that controls a quarter of the world’s economy and most of its military power.

Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe.

European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States. If the European Union has high taxes and the US keeps its levies low, business and brains will flow to America. If the EU’s labor standards require long vacations, high benefits, and proscribe layoffs and ours’ do not, employers will migrate across the ocean to do their business in the States. If the Old World curbs ambition by taxation, regulation, and social opprobrium, the ambitious will flock to the New World as they have done for four hundred years.

So, Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country - or one continent. It must dominate worldwide or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality and it makes Obama’s election as president of the United States all the more welcome.

The Nobel Prize is really Obama’s payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations. Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding.

Does the United States let its entrepreneurs run wild, coming up with fanciful new ideas and making billions from them? Obama will regulate and subdue business just like they do in Europe. Do U.S. businesses compete by slashing prices, aggressively pursuing markets, and jockeying for market share? Obama will make them behave themselves and stay in line just like European companies do. Do Americans work hard and push aggressively to make as much money as they can? Obama will raise taxes, emphasize community values, and narcotize their ambition by offering government largesse.

And does the United States still believe in a sloppy, contrarian democracy in which ordinary people can directly affect their government, states have powers, and courts can reel in executive authority? Obama will use his rubber stamp majority in Congress to pass new laws regardless of public opinion and make us obey.

In foreign policy, is the United States still willing to stand up, alone if necessary, to protect human rights in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan? Obama will curb this unruly independence and mold it within the fabric of appeasement that has dominated Europe for the past half a century.

All this heavy lifting, this conversion of America into a European state, deserves a reward. And what is a more fitting one than to give Obama than the Nobel Peace Prize? He obviously doesn’t deserve the award for economics or, given his health care ideas, for medicine. But the Peace Prize expresses Europe’s longing: to take back the nation its overly ambitious and uppity children founded.

Global Warming...It's Officially Stopped! Get ready to freeze your tootsies! (aah, we may change that decision next week)

Holdren: Ice age will kill 1 billion
Obama's science chief blames man-made carbon emissions

Posted: October 09, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

John Holdren

White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature."

Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming

would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.

Holdren and Ehrlich had previously articulated the theory in their 1973 textbook "Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions" in which they argued on page 198 that the main effect of carbon-dioxide-induced global warming "might be to speed up circulation patterns and to bring arctic cold farther south and Antarctic cold farther north."

In their 1970s textbook, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren together with co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."

Equivocating between whether human-caused global warming or global cooling were the more likely future trend, the authors concluded that, either way, any rapid climate change would produce an eco-disaster because any rapid change in climate, regardless whether toward global warming or global cooling, would produce hazardous effects upon agriculture and food production.

Still, worrying that human-caused climate changes either toward global warming or global cooling would be rapid, the authors concluded "there is no leeway in the world situation to absorb a significant climate-induced drop in production over broad areas of the world."

"Whatever adjustments in crop characteristics and cultivation patterns might eventually be made in response to rapid climate change would come too late to save hundreds of millions from famine," the authors argued on page 688. (Emphasis in original text.)

On page 377, the authors returned to their constant theme: The only way to control a foreseen increasing global food crisis was to control population.

Noting that a 1967 presidential science advisory commission had concluded that the solution to the "world food problem" likely after 1985 "demands that programs of population control be initiated now." (Emphasis in original text.)

Commenting on the conclusions of the 1967 presidential advisory report, the authors wrote, "We emphatically agreed then, and the situation is even more urgent today."

Biofuels and world hunger

Examining Holdren's extensive publications, WND does not find him balancing his concern that anthropomorphic-induced climate change will cause world hunger with a concern that the production of biofuels to reduce carbon emissions could itself be a source of global famine.

WND has reported that, ironically, a major cause of world famine has not been climate change but the increased cost of basic food products including corn caused by the production of biofuels such as ethanol.

A controversial report released earlier this month by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, documented that the increasing demand for corn to produce ethanol contributed between 10 to 15 percent to an overall 5.1 percent increase in the price of food from April 2007 to April 2008, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

"Producing ethanol for use in motor fuels increases the demand for corn, which ultimately raises the prices that consumers pay for a wide variety of foods at grocery stores, ranging from corn syrup sweeteners found in soft drinks to meat, dairy and poultry products," the CBO concluded.

An International Monetary Fund assessment was even more pessimistic.

"With respect to food, biofuels policies in some advanced economies are spilling over to the price of key food items, particularly corn and soybeans," John Lipsky, first managing director of the IMF, told the Council on Foreign Relations May 8, 2008. "IMF estimates suggest increased demand for biofuels accounts for 70 percent of the increase in corn prices and 40 percent of the increase in soybean prices."

In an article entitled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," published in the Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs magazine for May/June 2007, economists C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer concluded that if the prices of staple foods increase because of the demand for biofuels, "the number of food-insecure people in the world would rise by over 16 million for every percentage point in the real prices of staple foods."

Runge and Senauer projected that as many as 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025, with 600 million more than previously projected, with the increase being due to the production of biofuels.

And you're proud to be a Democrat...well at least we know one thing, you're not a proud American.

‘Kiss My Gay Ass’: CA Lawmaker Heckles Gov. Schwarzenegger

Is this what our country is coming to?

I think we're already there...


Advertise here...

Alarming News! Obama Wins Noble Peace Prize! as he leads us into WW III

"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast; and
they worshipped the beast, saying, 'Who is like unto the beast?
Who is able to make war with him?'"
(Revelation 13:4)

Obama, the usurper in the White House, who has caused more damage to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America than any who have gone before him has just won the previously prestigious Noble Peace Prize. While accomplishing nothing but division amongst the peoples of America and his attraction to those who would destroy America's principles and who would want nothing more than to see the country totally destroyed and replaced by one world government under the most corrupt organization ever devised my man, the United Nations!
The actions taken by the committee that awarded the prize combined with the actions of Obama since his arrival on the world scene can only lead the world to further conflict. If this is not a stab in the back of freedom then it is certainly a signal to the people to prepare for worse things to come...and it's coming! ~ Norman E. Hooben
Note: You should know that these things are all pre-planned. Names have to be submitted well in advance (see news item below) in order to decide the merits of each nominee. Obama was in office for two weeks when his name was submitted (what did he accomplish in two weeks...daaahh).

Citing his outreach to the Muslim world, and his attempts to curb nuclear proliferation, The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama. He becomes the 3rd sitting U.S. President to win the award. (Oct. 9)
The following from Russia Today

Barack Obama is the surprise winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.The Committee praised what it called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy".The American president, in power just 9 months, was chosen over the 204 other people on this year's record length shortlist.

Recall news item from last February....

[In the case of Barack Husein Obama how can you nominate someone for what they have not done]

Record 205 Nominees For 2009 Nobel Peace Prize


February 28th, 2009

OSLO - A record number of nominations, in all 205, have been made for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Institute said Friday.

The tally includes 172 individuals and 33 organisations, besting the 2005 number of 199 nominations.

Public broadcaster NRK reported that US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were among the nominees.

The nomination number was released a day after the five-member Nobel committee held its first session. Two of the members, including Norwegian parliament Speaker Thorbjorn Jagland who heads the committee, were new elects.

Jagland, a Social Democrat, has also held the posts of prime minister and foreign minister. Last year he said he was leaving Norwegian politics.

The 2008 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari who was recognised for mediating in a number of international conflicts.

The Norwegian Nobel Institute was set up in 1904 to aid the Nobel Committee to vet candidates. The Nobel Committee advises nominators not to announce their proposals. However, there are no rules against the procedure allowing plenty of speculation before the announcement, normally in mid-October.

Among names mentioned in recent years are former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng, Israeli nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, as well as the Austrian-based relief organization SOS Children’s Villages and the European Union.

Among those who have the right to nominate candidates for the coveted award are parliamentarians, academics, former peace prize laureates as well as current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

The Peace Prize is one of the prizes endowed by Swedish industrialist and dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel.


and this interpretation from Atlas Shrugs

Barack Obama, the perfect recipient

Awarding BHO the prize is at once shocking and depraved. Ayn Rand predicted it all.
Robert Tracinski's commentary best sums it up.

The Nobel Prize for Moral Posturing

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Is a Joke

by Robert Tracinski

The news announcement came over my cell phone this morning—I thought it was a joke at first, a headline from The Onion instead of the New York Times—that the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize is Barack Obama.

For what? What has Obama ever accomplished for the cause of world peace?

The Nobel Committee says the prize is "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Which Obama has accomplished by—what exactly? Giving a speech at the UN?

Are they giving Obama the prize because he is withdrawing US troops from Iraq? But that drawdown began under the previous administration and is possible only because of choices made by George Bush. Obama has merely continued the natural course of the Bush policies.

Is it because he has closed down the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo? Well, he has promised to do so—but his own deadline has passed, and he hasn't done it yet.

Did Obama get Iran to relinquish its nuclear weapons? No, he has merely started a new round of negotiations whose main effect seems to be to give US support to Russian aid for Iran's uranium enrichment.

Has he championed the cause of "democracy"? Obama has sided with a would-be dictator against the constitution of Honduras, and he just cut off funding for an organization that helps document Iranian human rights abuses.

Has he achieved peace in Afghanistan? On the most pressing foreign policy issue of his administration—the most immediate issue of war and peace he has so far been called to decide upon—Obama hasn't even made a decision yet. But he's getting the Nobel Peace Prize.

So I guess it is a joke, after all—a joke by the Nobel committee at its own expense.

The fact that Obama hasn't actually accomplished anything isn't all that unprecedented. When the Nobel committee gave the prize to lifelong terrorist Yasser Arafat, they did not do so because the Oslo Accords were a great success. They did so because the accords were in trouble. Several members of the committee admitted later that their motive in giving the award was to encourage Arafat to stick with the "peace process." It didn't work, of course, and a few years later, Arafat would launch the Second Intifada, importing Iranian explosives to strap to suicide bombers and plunging the Palestinian territories into another round of chaos and bloodshed from which it has yet to emerge.

The new Nobel is also meant for the same purpose: not to reward something Obama has done, but to influence his future action. Lech Walensa—Nobel recipient in 1983 for facing down the Soviets—put it quite clearly: "So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act. This is probably an encouragement for him to act."

This is an attempt by the Nobel committee to play on Obama's vanity in order to influence his decisions on Iran and Afghanistan. The message is: how could you possibly let Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or how could you send an additional 40,000 troops to "escalate" the war in Afghanistan—after we've just given you the Nobel Peace Prize?

In appealing to Obama's moral vanity, they know their man well—and it will probably work.

In this respect, Obama is the perfect successor to the last American president to win the Nobel: Jimmy Carter. Consider the legacy of Carter's term in office.

Carter withdrew American support for the shah in Iran, then failed to mount any effectual response to the seizure of the US embassy and its staff—all of which allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to establish a brutal Islamist regime which has been the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, a supporter of Palestinian terrorism, civil war in Lebanon, and insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a regime that has repeatedly murdered and tortured its own citizens.

By allowing a Communist takeover in Nicaragua, Carter encouraged a legacy of socialist strongmen that is still riling Latin America to this day.

Carter's weakness in Latin America and Iran also emboldened the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, inaugurating three decades of bloody civil war and providing the proving ground for the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

So Carter's legacy is three decades of chaos and killing—and the growth of three of today's biggest threats to world peace. Yet Carter is infamous for his haughty, priggish sense of moral superiority.

This is what the Nobel Peace Prize really stands for: irresponsible moral posturing in the service of the leftist delusion that appeasement will bring peace, when all it really brings is more war.

Come to think of it, that makes Barack Obama the perfect recipient.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

The News That Beats Them All...honest news from honest folks...telling it like it is!

Around 1850 in California work started in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to transport water to the San Joaquin Valley. Currently this was accomplished via water pumps from the Delta to irrigation canals in the Valley.

The agriculture output of the San Joaquin Valley was two-thirds of California agriculture output. California was near 13% of the total U.S. agriculture output. Recently leftist environmentalist went to a Federal Court to stop the pumping of this water from the Delta to the Valley, and a Federal judge ordered the pumps to be turned off.

This was done to protect a two inch minnow named the delta smelt, which the communist, Marxist environmentalist claims is in danger because of the pumps. For over 150 years this fish had no problem, so just now the problem arises?

This order resulted in the loss of over 40,000 jobs in the San Joaquin Valley. The United States (USA) once the bread basked of the world now has to import food to feed itself to make up for the lost agriculture output from the San Joaquin Valley. The USA will be importing tainted food from Communist China, and other third world nations.

The Congressman from the Valley in the U.S. House of Representatives tried to insert a provision which would have overturned the judges order; however Democrat Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in the House blocked it.

Their goal is to totally depress the USA in manufacturing, finance, and agriculture. Because with a depressed nation it will be easier for the communist in the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to complete their take over. Historically no wealthy nation has gone over to the red side; it has always been depressed nations. Can you say comrade?

Vaccinations ? Got questions ? It's your body...

You heard it all before ... Are you going to take it anymore?

Advertise here...

The Hot and Cold of it... Holdren is a climate alarmist, even if he can't make up his mind whether the crisis is the earth warming up or cooling down

Several days ago I saw this person wearing a T-shirt with the words (in very large print), "STOP GLOBAL WARMING". I thought to myself what a jerk this guy is and I had the urge to go up to him and ask, "How?" In the article below Mr. Holdren may have the answer. You see Holdren believes human-produced carbon dioxide is the no. 1 culprit... Hold it, stop right there! The answer has just been revealed, "STOP BREATHING" ~ Norman E. Hooben

See also Climate Change - ABC News Echo's The Ignorance Of The Associated's the sun stupid!
Holdren warned of coming ice age
Science chief argued for population control to limit 'global cooling'

Posted: October 06, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

John Holdren
What is clear from the record going back over nearly four decades is that White House science czar John Holdren is a climate alarmist, even if he can't make up his mind whether the crisis is the Earth warming up or cooling down.

But long before Holdren was the global warming Cassandra he is today, he was a global cooling alarmist predicting a new ice age.

The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable climate catastrophes.

In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the foreseen coming new ice age; today Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from global warming.

The new ice age Holdren predicted in the 1970s failed to materialize, just as WND has reported an increasing number of scientists are discounting claims mankind has significant influence on global climate.

Still, Holdren remains a climate alarmist, now with an important government policy position as science czar in the Obama White House.

WND has obtained a copy of a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled "Global Ecology," now a rare out-of-print book that cost WND over $100 to buy on Amazon.

Warning the world was headed for a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilizations, Holdren predicted "ecocide" or the "destruction of all life on this planet" were a possible consequence of inaction.

In an essay contained in the textbook entitled "Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide," Holden and Ehrlich predicted on pages 76-77 a "world cooling trend" they estimated at measuring "about 2 degrees Celsius in the world mean surface temperature over the past century."

Holdren and Ehrlich attributed the cause of global cooling to "a reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollutions (smoke, aerosols), agriculture air pollution (dust), and volcanic oil." (Parenthesis in original text.)

The authors worried "a mere 1 percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8C" and that "a decrease of 4C would probably be sufficient to cause another ice age."

Holdren and Ehrlich warned, "The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large populations scarcely need elaboration here."

They continued: "Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history."

The authors then predicted global cooling could "give way to global warming," writing: "If man survives the comparatively short-term threat of making the planet too cold, there is every indication he is quite capable of making it too warm not long thereafter."

Why? Because overpopulation would lead to increased energy consumption and energy consumption would produce more heat, the authors argued.

Holdren and Ehrlich explained, "The present rate of increase in energy use, if continued, will bring us in about a century to the point where our heat input could have drastic global consequences. Again, the exact form such consequences might take is unknown; the melting of the icecaps with a concomitant 150 foot increase in sea level might be one of them."

Interestingly, Holdren predicted the "short-term" nature of a coming new ice age was not caused by increased population putting increased carbon dioxide greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, but simply because of the heat output of energy use itself.

As Zomblog commented, when first reporting on Holdren's ice age prediction: "In other words, it's not the greenhouse effect that will get us in the long run, but merely energy generation itself as a concept; even nuclear energy, which produces no greenhouse gases, is bad because it produces energy which inevitably becomes heat."

Holdren and Ehrlich conclude their essay predictably, by calling for population control: "Simple arithmetic makes it plain that indefinite population growth in the finite space allotted to us is impossible."

As the title of the essay suggests, among the possible costs of not controlling climate disaster caused by overpopulation is "ecocide," or "the destruction of all life on this planet."

In the first essay in the reader, entitled "Population and Panaceas," Holdren and Ehrlich wrote on page 21 of the textbook: "But it cannot be emphasized enough that if the population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."

And, again, on the same page: "We should ask, for example, how many vasectomies could be performed by a program funded with the $1.8 billion required to build a single agro-industrial complex, and what the relative impact on the problem would be in both the short and long terms."

Later, on page 210 in the reader, reacting to a paper published in the textbook that considered involuntary fertility control including the use of a "fertility control agent" placed in the water supply by the government to limit births and compulsory sterilization of men with three or more living children, Holdren and Ehrlich say the political acceptability of such techniques is a relative moral judgment that might be justified if the alternatives involved "famine, war, epidemic, or the loss of habitability of this planet."

But in recent years, Holdren has dropped his concern about a new ice age in deference to his alarmism over global warming.

Holdren, testifying to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology July 30, warned of the following: "The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are showing signs of instability, and sea level is rising."

His testimony continued to enumerate dire human consequences he foresaw if new public policy measures such as cap-and-trade were not enacted immediately.

"And the consequences for human well-being are already being felt: more heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires; tropical diseases reaching into the temperate zones; vast areas of forest destroyed by pest outbreaks linked to warming; alterations in patterns of rainfall on which agriculture depends; and coastal property increasingly at risk from the surging seas."

Holdren's believes human-produced carbon dioxide is the No. 1 culprit: "We know the primary cause of these perils beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our vehicles, and our power plants, and from use of our land in ways that move carbon from soils and vegetation into the atmosphere in the form of CO2."

He warned of the failure to act now.

"Devastating increases in the power of the strongest hurricanes, sharp drops in the productivity of farms and ocean fisheries, a dramatic acceleration of species extinctions, and inundation of low-lying areas by rising sea level are among the possible outcomes."

Holdren's current concerns about global warming led him to contribute data for charts used in Vice President Al Gore's 2006 Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore's movie does not entertain the possibility that instead of global warming, the Earth might instead experience a new ice age.

Obama's ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIAS ...I wouldn't call it "bias" 'bout, "hate"

Last month I made comments directed at a Catholic priest who was sending false signals to his parishioners during his Sunday sermon. In my comments I mentioned that Obama hates Christians and Jews and further that Obama appoints anti-Christian judges. All this is true and is further evidenced by the continued actions such as identified here in an email I received from the Catholic League. Obama's actions are what to watch, his words are meaningless...that is unless you are a very naive. It is hoped that the priest is no longer preaching in favor of the anti-Christ and in the meantime an apology from the pulpit is still waiting. ~ Norman E. Hooben

PS: I will continue to post the truth to combat the lies...!

----- Original Message -----
To: link removed
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:32 PM

October 8, 2009



Catholic League president Bill Donohue drew attention to two of President Obama’s nominees who harbor an anti-religious bias:

It is one thing for a professor or pundit to maintain extremist views on constitutional law, quite another to have such a person tenured in a federal legal office. Dawn Johnsen, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, and Chai Feldblum, nominated to join the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have both exhibited an animus against religious institutions that is striking. Johnsen is a pro-abortion zealot and Feldblum is a pro-gay rights extremist. Moreover, both are profoundly opposed to religious liberty.

In 1988, Johnsen worked on a case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to revoke the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church. The Church’s offense? Its expressed opposition to abortion. Though she didn’t win, we know what her goal is, and we know what she would like to do to all churches. Johnsen is not merely pro-abortion—she celebrates it. To wit: she testified in February that after a woman has her child aborted, “The experience is no longer traumatic; the response of most women to the experience is relief.” Really? Is that why so many who enjoy this “experience” wind up on the couch or in the morgue?

Feldblum is such a radical activist that she wants to subordinate a constitutional right, namely freedom of religion, to a right she invented, namely sexual liberty. Moreover, she has lobbied for “a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships….” (My emphasis.) This includes, “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households.” She also wants “Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.” Read: she wants to privatize marriage and provide equal status to every conceivable “partnership.”

Johnsen and Feldblum are not only out of the mainstream of jurisprudential thought, they are professed enemies of religious liberty.

Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10123
212-371-3394 (fax)

Send Mail To to unsubscribe.

UNCRC - Another reason to give the United Nations the your senator today!

from the comment section...

"You can say what you want but, the Founding Fathers never intended for us to be dictated to by a foreign and unaccountable power. ..."

"I just want the U.S. Government to do what the U.S. Constitution says it can do,and the United Nations to get out of America ! "

Another viewpoint: The Higher You Go, the Less They Know

If you're going to argue the point, make sure you can point to the argument. ~ Norman E. Hooben

The Higher You Go, the Less They Know
October 6, 2009

In general, we hope to find superior qualities in our leaders. If they have succeeded in climbing to the top of a hierarchy, we believe they should be smarter, more charming or something that is better than the average Joe. It is unfortunate, but there is one area where the higher the rank, the less the person knows. Perhaps there is a high ranking official in government, industry, education or the media that has a clue about the doctrine of political Islam, but they have not manifested this knowledge publicly.

Here are two examples of ignorance at the highest levels. General Stanley McChrystal gave his assessment of the war in Afghanistan. He gives us exceptional false insights. Insights that should be brilliant because his report included advice from “a multidisciplinary assessment of the situation in Afghanistan”.

It turns out that the “right” name for our enemy is “insurgents”, not jihadists, but insurgents.

A more forceful and offensive StratCom approach must be devised whereby INS [insurgents] are exposed continually for their cultural and religious violations, anti-Islamic and indiscriminate use of violence and terror, and by concentrating on their vulnerabilities. These include their causing of the majority of civilian casualties, attacks on education, development projects, and government institutions, and flagrant contravention of the principles of the Koran. These vulnerabilities must be expressed in a manner that exploits the cultural and ideological separation of the INS (insurgents) from the vast majority of the Afghan population.

Where does the military get its multidisciplinary assessment? Certainly they haven’t received information from anyone who knows the doctrine of political Islam.

At times McChrystal hints that he might understand what is happening.

“Many describe the conflict in Afghanistan as a war of ideas, which I believe to be true.”

However, no where in the 20,000 word report is there a single sentence devoted to the mind of jihad. The j word does not even occur. You have to read between the lines to fathom that Islam is involved. Instead, we have talk about “culture.” McChrystal is ignorant about Islam and the jihad he is trying to defeat.

An individual (from a private communication) who gives briefings on Islam to the military says that generals do not have any understanding about political Islam, nor do they even want to know. The lieutenant colonels and lower, understand the problem, but not the flag rank.

But you don’t have to be in the military to be a dhimmi-wit (a person with the mind of dhimmitude). This week, Sara Palin weighed in with her pronouncement that Indonesia was a fine democracy, which proves that Islam and the democratic process were compatible. In reality, the Indonesian democracy is bringing persecution of women, stoning of adulterers and gays, a creeping theocracy. The government wants to institute Sharia law with its oppression of all kafirs, including Christians.

In addition, Palin proclaimed that there was no war of civilization between us and Islam. She gives a long list of qualities that we will need to defeat the terrorists (there are no jihadists included in a dhimmi-wit’s thinking). But nowhere in her list is knowledge about the doctrine of political Islam and Sharia law.

She weighs in on the need to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if we succeed in those countries we will have used our blood and treasure to put into place two constitutions that begin with the statement that Sharia law is the foundation of government. Sharia law is based upon ethical dualism and making the kafir submit in all political matters. This is insanity to support since Sharia law should be opposed in all ways at all times by all kafirs.

The problem is not limited to Palin and McChrystal, it is endemic to all of our leadership. You have to go to the bottom of the hierarchy to find any knowledge about Islam. If it is a church, then the congregation will have more knowledge than the minister. If it is the FBI, the agent on the ground will have a better understanding than the Director. Ditto for the universities and the media.

It matters little whether you are from the left or the right, dhimmi-wit leaders rule. The oddest thing is that having knowledge about political Islam means that you will be called a right-winger. Is knowledge conservative? Is ignorance liberal? Why can’t knowledge transcend politics?

All leaders should be asked the same questions: What are your ethics when you speak about Islam and know nothing about the actual doctrine or history? Why do you not want those who know to speak? Why do you try to silence those with knowledge?

We must demand better from of our leaders. How can our civilization survive being lead by ignorance, on the left and the right?

Bill Warner, October 6, 2009


ps: Bill, Should the title read, "The Higher You Go, the Less You Know" or "The Higher They Go, the Less They Know" ? ...just wondering