Tag Archive: radical environmentalists


New Federal Agency? The Department of Peacebuilding
March 9, 2015 By Cara Delvecchio

Many Democrats have introduced legislation to create a Department of Peacebuilding. The Department would be tasked with promoting peace and have “Peace Days” celebrated in the United States.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced the bill with support from nine other Democrats.

The supporters of the new Act say that the Constitution talks about tranquility and promoting the general welfare but say that the U.S. is still dealing with a lot of violence, and that it comes at an economic cost. The bill states the following:

“Violence prevention is cost effective. For every dollar spent in violence prevention and peace building, many lives and many dollars are saved.”

The secretary of peace building would address the domestic and international violence by recommending ways to end them, address family violence and violence against women.

The bill would study how firearms add to violence. The department would employ:

“successful, field-tested programs, and developing new approaches for dealing with the tools of violence, including handguns, especially among youth.”

It even would create a Peace Academy and encourage national “Peace Days” to celebrate peace.

“The secretary shall encourage citizens to observe and celebrate the blessings of peace and endeavor to create peace on Peace Days. Such days shall include discussions of the professional activities and the achievements in the lives of peacemakers.”

The whole idea seems a bit ridiculous — another unneeded government agency. The entire bill is below. H.R.1111

 

 

 

Advertisements

Google’s Climate Name-Calling
Terrified at being called a ‘denier,’ it flings the accusation at others.

CORBIS

By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Sept. 30, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
Eric Schmidt always seemed a decent guy but we never had reason to ask if he was especially brave.

Then came his long interview on a Washington radio show late last month, the closing minutes of which featured a caller’s inquiry whether Google was still “supporting ALEC, which is that fund lobbyist in D.C. that are funding climate change deniers.”

Google’s chairman confessed his company had joined the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that promotes business-friendly policies at the state level, for “something unrelated” but had recently quit. Ranted Mr. Schmidt: “Everyone understands climate change is occurring. And the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

ALEC doesn’t take a position on climate change. The worst that anyone can find on its website is a claim that climate change would be a mixed bag for the U.S.—which is certainly true. Ask Canada or Russia, which hope to benefit from arctic development. Ask former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, an expert on cost-benefit analysis, who has written that the U.S. has relatively little to fear from climate change compared to other nations.

ALEC does oppose renewable-energy subsidies, but that doesn’t require having an opinion on climate change since, despite the considerable expense of taxpayer money, handouts to solar or wind have no discernible effect on climate change. And, yes, Google has been helping itself to these subsidies as a two-fer, to get taxpayers to pay for its considerable energy consumption and to clothe itself in appealing green.

But something else may explain Mr. Schmidt’s tirade. Google itself has been a target of castigation, as in a San Francisco Chronicle headline that blared: “Despite recent split from conservative group, Google’s connections to climate change denial runs deep.”

Mr. Schmidt has been personally pilloried by activists and bloggers for donating to “deniers,” i.e. Republicans, in Congress.

In the Salem witch trials, the best defense against being called a witch was to call someone else a witch. Hey, it was the coward’s way out but it was still a way out. Then again, when certain people in society are vested with wealth and authority and all the immunities these gifts bring, perhaps they could take the risk of setting a better example.

Even if you suppose the range of future temperature predicted by climate models is reliable, that range still is the difference between efforts to affect climate change being a plausible use of money and a terrible waste of it—which means a debate must be had.

Even those who spent the early 2000s defending Michael Mann’s hockey stick must notice how thoroughly the bottom has fallen out of such efforts directly to link human greenhouse-gas emissions and global average temperature. And no wonder given the absence of significant warming over the past 15 years, even as temperature measurement has become more rigorous and consistent, and even as China’s mountainous emissions have hit the global climate system. The action today is all toward complex climate models that, whatever their merits, are implicitly based on the recognition that any human effect doesn’t just jump out at us amid a welter of poorly understood natural variation.

All this still counts as scientific progress, even if some might wonder about an investment of billions that only produces deep uncertainty. Yet along the way has come the perverse growth of the term “denier” not for those (if any exist) who deny any possible human impact on climate, but for anyone who does not join in demanding the issue be treated with maximal urgency above every other consideration.

Who has not witnessed the crucifixion of an apostate by dinner companions claiming to be “passionate” about global warming. Not so passionate, of course, that they could say, within a factor of 100, what the carbon dioxide constituent of the atmosphere is. Not so passionate that they could name a climate “scientist” except Al Gore.

How is it possible to be passionate about a subject and not passionate to know something about it? This question is better left unmentioned.

A reasonable climate researcher like Georgia Tech’s Judith Curry will be vilified for suggesting that the “institutions of science are so mired in advocacy on the topic of dangerous anthropogenic climate change that the checks and balances in science, particularly with regard to minority perspectives, are broken.”

Yet a deranged and unhappy nothing-burger like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accrues only admirers for saying that climate skeptics should be jailed.

Much about the human animal remains inspiring and worth preserving, but humanity’s redeeming qualities are easy to forget while watching the climate debate. Except for certain questions about the Prophet in Muslim lands, no subject more frequently brings out the worst in people, as it has Google’s Mr. Schmidt.

Impervious to Evidence, Liberals Ride Again–Mona Charen

“We will restore science to its rightful place … ” So intoned a “dismissive and derisive” President Barack Obama in his first inaugural. It’s been oft quoted in the five years since (frequently by me, I’ll confess) for its arrogance and condescension, which has continuing relevance, but before turning to the left’s latest departure from scientific rigor, I cannot resist a fuller quotation. The second part of this sentence from Obama’s first inaugural reads ” … and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” Hmm.

In his second inaugural (compared to Abraham Lincoln’s second by Chris Matthews), Obama proposed a vast new program ($150 billion in combined federal and state funds) for universal preschool serving 4-year-olds. “Every dollar we invest in high-quality early childhood education can save more than $7 later on — by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime … We know this works.”

Universal preschool is universally popular with Democrats. Nancy Pelosi has hailed Head Start as “one of our most effective investments,” while the newly minted progressive heartthrob New York mayor, Bill de Blasio, proclaims, “We will ask the very wealthy to pay a little more in taxes so that we can offer full-day universal pre-K and after-school programs for every middle school student.”

Before getting to science, let’s talk politics. The federal government already runs a preschool program called Head Start. Democrats love it because they can claim to be doing something beneficial for poor children. Republicans decline to oppose it because they fear ads saying “Rep. X wants to deny education to poor children … ”

Now, let’s talk science. Head Start, a product of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, has been carefully evaluated by the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services. The study examined 4,667 3- and 4-year-olds across 23 states. It compared children who had applied for but not been accepted into Head Start to those who had participated in it. The children were evaluated by their teachers, parents and outside examiners both before and after. As David Armor and Sonia Sousa relate in the winter issue of National Affairs, the Head Start Impact Study found almost no positive effects of the program.

While children in the program showed some positive results on measures of cognitive skills and social/behavioral ratings while in the program, those results lasted only so long as the children were enrolled and did not carry through to kindergarten or early elementary school.


The point of Head Start is the promise that it offers poor children a leg up and prepares them for school. It would be nice if it worked, but it doesn’t. It does provide jobs for teachers and federally subsidized day care. But taxpayers have spent $180 billion since 1965 for a program that fails to achieve its objectives.
The principle positive effect noted in the HSIS was in social skills for 3-year-olds, but these results were reported only by parents and not replicated by outside examiners. Teachers, by contrast, noted a negative effect on social/emotional skills for the 4-year-old cohort.

Other studies have examined the effect of preschool more generally on school performance and have found effects ranging from very small to none.

What then was Obama referring to when he insisted that “high-quality” preschool “boosts graduation rates,” “reduces teen pregnancy” and so forth? In a post titled “Obama’s Preschool Proposal Is Not Based on Sound Research” on the center/left Brookings Institution website, Russ Whitehurst explains that the studies the president and other advocates of universal pre-K rely on are flawed. They do not involve randomized controls (as the HSIS did) but instead employ something called “age-cutoff regression discontinuity.”

Due to state-mandated birthdates for enrollment in preschool, the studies wind up comparing kids who are actually enrolled in play-based programs for 3-year-olds with those enrolled in academically oriented preschool for 4-year-olds. These regression discontinuity studies also fail to account for dropouts from the program. The Brookings post, to which Armor also contributed, concludes: “Because ‘gold standard’ randomized studies fail to show major impacts of present day pre-K programs, there are reasons to doubt that we yet know how to design … a government funded pre-K program that produces sufficiently large benefits … ”

Armor and Souza suggest in National Affairs that those truly respectful of science would propose: “A national demonstration project for pre-K in a selected number of cities and states, accompanied by a rigorous randomized evaluation that would follow participants at least into the third grade. This demonstration project should also examine whether ‘preschool for all’ closes achievement gaps between rich and poor, since it is possible that middle-class children will benefit more than disadvantaged children.”

This would put science in its “rightful place,” but don’t hold your breath. Many liberal nostrums are impervious to evidence.

To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at http://www.creators.com.

– The Daily Caller – http://dailycaller.com –

Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 10:42 AM 04/26/2013 In Daily Caller News Foundation | No Comments

Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.

“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.

This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.

“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge of the climate system,” Pielke added. “While there is no doubt that humans are altering the climate system, it is in a diverse variety of ways besides that caused by adding greenhouse gases such as C02.”

Pielke said that climate scientists are beginning to recognize that the natural climate forces and feedbacks play a larger role than previously thought.

“This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn’t tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before,” said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Fox News.

“The mainstream media cannot maintain the official man-made global warming narrative any longer,” Marc Morano of the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot.com told TheDC News Foundation. “With the lack of warming and the failure to shift the climate debate to ‘extreme weather,’ warmists are now losing once stalwart members of the media in promoting man-made climate fears.”

A study by Norwegian researchers from earlier this year found that global warming is less severe than was predicted by the United Nations climate authority. In fact, studies have been lowering their warming forecasts since the 2007 UN estimate.

In a Washington Times op-ed, Cato Institute climate scholar Patrick Michaels provides a partial list of studies that have made estimates lower than the UN:

“Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).”

“It’s appropriate to jump off a ship when it begins to take on water,” Michaels said. “If you look at the monthly temperature anomalies from the University of East Anglia you see no significant trend in any direction going back to the fall of 1996 which would put us at 17 years of no trend.”

“These are not good times for the promoters of global warming,” said Morano. “Earth is failing to follow global warming predictions and the new study claiming current temperatures are the ‘hottest ever’ may be facing a full scientific retraction. The great warmist retreat has officially begun.”

However, environmental groups were encouraged earlier this year when President Obama promised to address global warming during his second term, threatening executive action if Congress failed to pass legislation on the issue.

“We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence,” Obama said in his State of the Union Address. “Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.”

Green groups may have a reason to be optimistic as a Gallup poll from March found that 58 percent of Americans say they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 51 percent in 2011.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/climate-scientists-come-to-terms-with-the-lack-of-global-warming/

 

THE GREEN ENERGY FRAUD

By Michael S. Coffman
September 26, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Just like Obamacare, President Obama is committed to force us into using green energy regardless of what the people want – or can afford. Although U.S. reserves of oil, natural gas and coal are inexpensive and very abundant, Obama has done all he can to shut down every plan to develop these sources of economically cheap energy.

Obama even defied a court order requiring the Department of Interior grant deep water drilling permits for oil. Meanwhile, Cuba contracted several companies, including China, to conduct exploratory drilling within 60 miles of the Florida coast; something Obama would not let U.S. companies do. By the end of 2011, Cuba had brought in a Chinese deep water drilling rig and started drilling some 60-70 miles from Florida.

The EPA is also refusing to grant new permits to open new coal mines and has gone so far as to revoke existing permits. Once again, the federal court ruled against the efforts of the Obama administration, in this case the EPA, charging that the EPA exceeded its authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

One of Obama’s most recent actions was to deny the permit to build the XL oil pipeline from Canada down to Texas. The pipeline would have delivered 1.2 million barrels of oil a day; the amount of oil the U.S. currently gets from Saudi Arabia, and 46 percent more than all the wind and solar energy currently produced in the U.S. each day. This has led energy-sector executives to suspect the administration “is at war with American energy.”

While Obama gives lip service to reducing the dependence of the U.S. on foreign energy and create jobs, he is actually making America more dependent on foreign energy, reducing the U.S.’s national security, while killing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. It borders on the bizarre, yet the mainstream media are strangely quiet about this threat while promoting the president’s jobs program which even some Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted down.

After spending tens of billions of dollars on subsidies to green energy wind and solar farms Obama’s Clean Energy Program, the nation’s dependence on green energy has barely budged, from about 1.5 percent 10 years ago to 2 percent today. Worse, in his new book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer details how 80 percent of DOE funds for clean energy have gone to Obama backers:

…In the…government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 [2011] went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.

This is beyond cronyism, its raw corruption that calls into question whether Obama is pushing green energy because he believes in it, or to pay off his supporters with taxpayer’s money. Solyndra is a case in point. Solyndra was Obama’s poster child for his “clean energy initiative.” The dirty details of the Solyndra scandal trickled out over months, in spite of the administrations herculean effort to bury the information.

One of the details exposed was that a DOE employee monitoring the Solyndra loan guarantee, Steve Spinner, happened to be one of Obama’s top fundraisers. Another major Obama fundraiser, George Keiser, had deep ties to Solyndra. His George Keiser Family Foundation’s investment arm, Argonaut Ventures, owned a huge piece of Solyndra and received direct political support from the Whitehouse and money from the federal government. Argonaut’s President, Steve Mitchell, also served on Solyndra’s board of directors.

As the scheduled groundbreaking for Solyndra approached, a series of emails from the Whitehouse showed the administration put intense pressure on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to make a decision immediately on the Solyndra loan. The Whitehouse never said what the OMB’s decision should be, but wanted Vice President Bidden to attend the groundbreaking ceremony as a photo op and time was running out. However, the OMB said the Whitehouse deadline did not give them time to do their due diligence. If they had, perhaps the OMB would have said “no.”

Worse, as it became clear Solyndra would fail, the DOE allowed private creditors, including many big donors to the Democrats, to get paid first when Solyndra’s assets were sold, in violation of the law. The investors got some of their money back, the U.S. taxpayer got none. Then, as layoffs became inevitable, the Energy Department asked Solyndra to delay the announcement until after the 2010 election.[1]

Besides the cloud of corruption, the Solyndra scandal shows why the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers. Not only is wind and solar power economically ruinous, it just doesn’t work. Simply put, wind energy only works when the wind blows, about 25 percent of the time. Likewise, solar power is even less effective because it doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t shine or it’s cloudy. There are a host of other technical reasons why wind and solar won’t economically competitive with carbon-based energy on a large scale for a long time into the future.[2] Yet, the Obama administration is spending billions of dollars to force us to use green energy because of a proven failed ideology.

Europe is already reeling from the realization green energy is bankrupting them. Great Britain estimated last summer that 25 percent of their population already suffers from “energy poverty” as British energy costs skyrocketed by 71 percent. British companies are threatening to move to other countries. Some are already moving.

The European evidence means nothing to Obama. His clean energy plan is an utter failure that has cost the American people tens of billions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of jobs, and opened the door to what appears to be rampant corruption. Yet, the Obama administration and the progressives in Congress continue to force-feed us its failed policy. It’s time to say goodbye to any elected official who blindly accepts Obama’s failed clean energy policies.An in-depth study in Spain found that for every job green energy creates, 2.2 are lost in the rest of the economy as the enormous subsidies required for green energy sucks jobs out of the private sector. Research in Italy found that they lost an incredible 6.9 jobs in the industrial sector and 4.8 jobs across the entire economy for every green job created. As European nation after European nation realizes the enormous costs of alternative energy, they are shutting off their astronomic subsidies to prop up green energy. Green energy is in a death spiral in Europe.

© 2012 Michael Coffman – All Rights Reserved

Footnote:

1. Carol Leonniug and Joe Stephens. Solyndra: Energy Dept. Pushed Firm to Keep Layoffs Quiet Until After Midterms. Washington Post, November 15, 2011.
2. Ibid

Dr. Coffman is President of Environmental Perspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) and CEO of Sovereignty International (sovereignty.net) in Bangor Maine. He has had over 30 years of university teaching, research and consulting experience in forestry and environmental sciences. He produced the acclaimed DVD Global Warming or Global Governance (warmingdvd.com). His newest book, Rescuing a Broken America (rescuingamericabook.com) is receiving wide acclaim. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

 

– Accuracy In Media – http://www.aim.org –

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

Posted By Mark Musser On April 25, 2011 @ 3:45 pm In AIM Column | 

(A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism)

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota who shed tears in protest over the congressional hearings on the growing radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., wrote the foreword to a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet [1]. In Arabic, “deen” means religious creed. The author of Green Deen is Ibrahim Abdul Matin. He wrote his book to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between Islam and modern environmentalism.

It turns out Ellison would have been a good witness to how Muslims are being radicalized as foot solders not only for global Jihad but for a “green” future. It is an unholy alliance that threatens our future but which escapes the attention of media predisposed to believe that radical Muslims working with environmentalists could only produce positive results.

What is fascinating is that Matin works in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental planning department as a policy advisor for New York City’s long term sustainability, and was one of the Muslims promoting the idea that the new mosque being considered near Ground Zero should be a green one [2]. In fact, Matin devotes one whole chapter of his book to “Green Mosques” and provides a list of environmentally friendly practices that can and should be implemented at each local mosque. Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

One of the reasons Ellison decided to work with Matin was because of his own growing personal involvement in the green movement, which surprisingly enough, is becoming more popular among Muslims. In an interview posted on the DC [3] Green Muslim’s website [4], Ellison commented that “my involvement in politics is really rooted in my desire to try to promote unity among people, trying to promote unity with the Earth and creation, and trying to promote justice.” Ellison is also involved in an organization called the “Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM [5]).” Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman in U.S. history, thus believes in green Islamic social justice of sorts—a veritable Islamic political ecology.

Ellison first met Matin in 2008 at a Muslim American seminar caucus in Washington, D.C.  Matin was a fellow of “Green For All [6],” the very organization founded by communist Van Jones [7] to help promote the financial wonders of the so-called Green Economy [8]. Matin also helped organize Green For All’s National Day of Action [9] calling for “Green Jobs Now,” which more than 50,000 people attended. Ellison was very impressed by Matin’s influence at the caucus: “Ibrahim made an important connection that day—that the faith community needs to be involved in the green movement.” He went on to conclude his foreword by saying that “Green Deen brings faith communities into the environmental movement by changing the conversation from the facts of global warming to the fact that we all live and work here together and have a collective responsibility to keep this place clean and safe for everyone.”

While there is certainly no small controversy over exactly what a caliphate [10] may be, especially with regard to how Sunnis and Shia [11]s view it, or how closely it may be tied to the ushering in of Sharia law [12]Islamic totalitarianism [13]terrorism [14] and violence [15], it is a word that shows up often in Matin’s Green Deen. Matin innocuously translates the word “caliphah” to simply mean “steward,” a very environmentally-correct term. While this may satisfy the environmental consciousness of modern Western elites, this definition is, of course, very far removed from how most of the Muslim world have historically understood this word.

However, no matter how green a Muslim may or may not be, by definition, the caliphate must still be an Islamic theocratic state under the dominion of Allah. Even though Matin maintains [16] that he wrote his book to help rebrand Muslims from being considered terrorists to environmentalists, he still prefaces his entire book with the idea that “the earth is a mosque.”  This means that the environmental holism being espoused by Matin must necessarily be subject to Allah’s totalitarian authority over the earth. In other words, environmental holism and Islamic totalitarianism go hand in hand in Matin’s Green Deen.

Secret Conquest

If the entire earth is a mosque, as Matin maintains, then Allah’s boundaries are boundless, and this means that simultaneously Americans must live under the theocratic dictates of Allah, and environmentalism can easily be used alongside Sharia law to help bring America to its knees under Islamic jihadist control. While many on the left would naively consider such a possibility beyond the pale, something along these lines is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood [17] has in mind for the future of America. Indeed, in 1991, the radical Muslim Brotherhood espoused [18] that “the process of settlement…in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, something like environmentalism can be easily used as a jihadist tool in the hands of a green Muslim to help sabotage America from within. After all, Matin says that “Muslims have a personal connection to the color green,” and that “the favorite color of the Prophet Muhammad was green.”

More troubling is that Keith Ellison’s pilgrimage [19] to Mecca in 2008 was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which is just another name [20]for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ellison also likes to attend Hamas rallies [21], and has even worked with communist front groups [22] like the National Lawyers Guild [23]. He even once went so far as to praise [24] the terrorist record of Bernardine Dohrn—the wife of the infamous Bill Ayers. After converting from Roman Catholicism to Islam, Ellison also praised [25] the likes of Louis Farrakhan [26] and the Nation of Islam [27] during his college days. This hot-wiring of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, together with environmentalism, only helps to serve up an explosive eco-fascist concoction not seen since the 1930’s [28].

With such a cadre of characters and organizations under Ellison’s belt, is it any wonder that suspicions should arise over his activities, even over something as allegedly harmless as environmentalism? Which brings us back to Matin. Why in the world would Matin want Ellison’s endorsement if all he wants to do is try and show Americans that Muslims are not terrorists but are becoming progressive environmentalists? Neither should it be overlooked that the Muslim American Society also touts [29] the Green Deen book. Matin even considers Malcom X, who was also one of his heroes as a child when he used to listen to his tapes, to be a green Muslim [30]. Such disconcerting connections betray the image that Matin’s Green Deen is as benign as it reads.

Indeed, Matin’s whole approach to energy is viewed as a green Muslim apocalyptic dichotomy between heaven and hell. Matin considers gas, coal and oil as energy from hell, i.e., from the ground: “it is dirty, and it is a major cause of pollution and climate change. Energy from hell is non-renewable; it takes away from the Earth without giving back. It disturbs the balance of the universe and is therefore a great injustice.” As such, it appears that energy from hell needs to be placed under the caliphate control of Allah to help bring about a green Muslim social ethic on the earth: “one way we can stand out firmly for justice is by ending our reliance on oil and coal. Energies from hell are particularly devastating and unjust to people and the planet.”

From One Hell to Another

With the likes of the OPEC oil cartel largely run by the Middle East, coupled with the environmental restrictions on the homefront, perhaps the earth indeed is becoming one giant mosque. Worse is that Matin’s Green Deen only promises to become more hellish, leaving America increasingly exposed to the harsh natural elements of the sun, storm and wind. Yet, Matin views such exposure as a gift from heaven. For him, solar and wind power are Allah’s answers to America’s energy problems: “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted from the Earth and it is renewable…energy from above is a gift from heaven.” The problem now, however, is that America’s electrical grid is not ‘smart [31]’ enough yet to incorporate Allah’s heavenly gifts into her energy system.

Matin also proudly notes in his book that the EPA received much needed help from a green Muslim by the name of Dr. Aziz Saddiqi. In the 1960’s Saddiqi was a young doctoral candidate who was doing groundbreaking research in the Houston area on chemical engineering. The University of Houston was so impressed with his work that he was offered a job: “Soon he found himself guiding the development of curriculum that would help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carry out its new mission of enforcing the Clean Air Act.” His chemical engineering expertise was much needed at the beginning to help the EPA get off of its feet: “In 1973 the EPA was only three years old and did not understand the full breadth of its power.” The EPA thus had a lot of growing up to do, and Dr. Saddiqi was at the heart of it all at the very beginning: “The EPA, its scientists, and its partner agencies needed to be trained on how to monitor pollution from smokestacks and other commonly used industrial practices.”

In fact, it seems that they were all on the learning curve together on this, as Dr. Saddiqui “had to learn how to explain his research in chemical engineering to this group of regulators.” Dr. Saddiqi “also authored the training materials used to teach EPA scientists how to sample ambient air and develop pollution controls.” Today, Dr. Saddiqi is in charge of the largest Islamic community in the United States, called the Islamic Society [32] of Greater Houston.

It is certainly comforting to discover that the EPA had a green Muslim helping them all out at the beginning on how to be good regulators. Environmentalism and the Islamic caliphate working together arm in arm at the very foundations of the EPA?  Green hippies and a green Muslim expert working hard together trying to come to grips with the full regulatory power of the Clean Air Act?

Conflict of Civilizations

However innocent some green Muslims and environmentalists may or may not be in this whole ecological experiment that America is increasingly rushing headlong into, ratcheting up secular problems with apocalyptic concerns and solutions will only feed radicalism and religious fervor. It also draws in the naïve and unsuspecting to do things that they would not normally do. By apocalypticizing their worries and concerns [33], environmentalists have managed to take something as banal and neutral as handling natural resources and have turned it into a gigantic worldwide ethic of ecological social justice requiring immediate action that now is even beginning to draw [34] in the Muslims as well.

Muslims like Ibrahim Abdul Matin and Keith Ellison would do well to think again about the differences between Gaia [35], considered the spirit of the earth by environmentalists, and Allah. Though both havetotalitarian [36] goals, they are by no means the same. Ecological pantheism [37] cannot be mixed with monotheism [38], even if the Muslim religion is symbolized by a crescent moon. At some point, these two ideologies will collide, and even though I am not a betting man, I would put my money on the growing juggernaut of Western pantheism. It has already largely devoured the Judeo-Christian worldview in America, and is well on its way to spitting out the pieces of what is left of free market capitalism.


Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/radical-muslims-environmentalists-and-the-green-jihad/

URLs in this post:

[1] Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet: http://www.greendeenbook.com/

[2] green one: http://www.aim.org../aim-report/the-%E2%80%9Cgreen%E2%80%9D-mosque-near-ground-zero/

[3] DC: http://arabnews.com/world/article20017.ece

[4] website: http://dcgreenmuslims.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

[5] EJAM: http://www.ejamn.org/

[6] Green For All: http://www.greenforall.org/

[7] Van Jones: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15455

[8] Green Economy: http://junkscience.com/2011/03/23/clean-energys-junk-economics/

[9] National Day of Action: http://www.greenjobsnow.com/

[10] caliphate: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1278

[11] Sunnis and Shia: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=754

[12] Sharia law: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/10/caliphate-and-sharia-law.html

[13] Islamic totalitarianism: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_muslim_mainstream_and_the.html

[14] terrorism: http://www.danielpipes.org/2798/what-do-the-terrorists-want-a-caliphate

[15] violence: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/8882/caliphate-jihad-sharia-now-what

[16] maintains: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/16/author-wants-to-rebrand-muslims-from-terrorists-to-environmentalists/

[17] Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html

[18] espoused: http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/20

[19] pilgrimage: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/36417549.html?source=error

[20] name : http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/muslim-american-society-leader-admits-group-is-part-of-muslim-brotherhood/

[21] Hamas rallies: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/02/rep-keith-ellison-attends-ugly-prohamas-rally-in-minnesota.html

[22] communist front groups: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/times-helps-muslim-rep-ellison-obstruct-terror-probe/

[23] National Lawyers Guild: http://debs.indstate.edu/u588r47_1950.pdf

[24] praise: http://www.aim.org../aim-column/will-rep-king-expose-rep-ellison%E2%80%99s-pro-terrorist-record/

[25] praised: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/764obcsx.asp

[26] Louis Farrakhan: http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue22/chajua22.htm

[27] Nation of Islam: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/NOI.html

[28] 1930’s: http://gulagbound.com/14685/nazi-political-biology-the-hotwiring-of-power-politics-naturalism-environmentalism-racism

[29] touts: http://muslimgreenteam.org/

[30] green Muslim: http://www.greendeenbook.com/author_malcolm.html

[31] smart: http://www.greensmartgridinitiative.org/

[32] Society: http://www.isgh.org/

[33] apocalypticizing their worries and concerns: http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2011/03/eco-fascist-prophecy-of-global-warming.html

[34] draw: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_690815.html

[35] Gaia: http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html

[36] totalitarian: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032069/only-global-fascist-tyranny-can-save-us-now-says-nice-old-man/

[37] Ecological pantheism: http://www.brontaylor.com/environmental_books/dgr/dark_green_religion.html

[38] monotheism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

 

 

– FrontPage Magazine – http://frontpagemag.com –

Posted By Giulio Meotti On June 15, 2012 @ 12:25 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 53 Comments

Under intense pressure by the PLO and its Western allies, the upcoming meeting of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, to be held in St. Petersburg, Russia from June 24 to July 6, is expected to recognize the “Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage route, Bethlehem” as the Palestinian first world heritage site. The Vatican has capitulated to the Palestinian propaganda and the Holy Land’s Custodian, Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa, has asked for recognition to be given to the city of Bethlehem as a whole as a heritage site and not just to the Basilica. “Given this history of Palestinian mistreatment of the Church of the Nativity, isn’t it odd that the Vatican is silent as Unesco plans to put the Palestinians officially in charge of the church?”asks the well known Jewish blogger Israelmatzav.

When in 1995 Israel turned over Bethlehem to the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, a Muslim, proclaimed: “This is the birthplace of our Lord the Messiah, the Palestinian.” The Vatican authorities bear a tragic responsability in the Palestinian war on Bethlehem. In 1989, Jerusalem’s Roman Catholic patriarch Michel Sabbah supported the Palestinian Intifada as he celebrated a Christmas midnight Mass at Jesus’ birthplace. “Despite all that is happening to you, you will win, in the end you will win,” declared Patriarch Sabbah, appointed by Pope John Paul II. Off Manger Square, a group of Muslims chanted: “The Zionist is God’s enemy!” and “Jews, Mohammed is coming back!”

If UNESCO’s Palestinian bid won’t be stopped on time, the Arabs will go further in their Palestinization and de-Judaization of the holy land. Jesus will become an honorary member of the PLO, with the corollary of an Islamicized Christianity. According to Omar Awadallah, who heads the UN department in the PA Foreign Ministry, “Jesus is the Palestinian prince of hope and peace”.

The odious invention of a “Palestinian Jesus” persecuted by the Jews is central to the multifaceted Arab campaign that includes boycott and terrorism, the so-called “right of return” and diplomatic attempts to isolate Israel internationally. According to this Palestinian propaganda, Jesus was not born a Jew but a Christian, and Bethlehem was not a Jewish town in Judea, but a Muslim-Arab one. The former Arab League spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, who is also the PLO’s propagandist, declared: “I am a Christian, Jesus was born in the Muslim town of Bethlehem.” The Palestinian cynical assault on history is more political than theological. But if the Arab gangsters will successfully delegitimize Jews and Judaism at the United Nations, they will have advanced their goals of ideological criminals.

Palestinians have already been efficient in turning the global arena against the Jews. In 2010, UNESCO already decided that Rachel’s Tomb and Hevron’s Jewish tombs are officially “Muslim mosques.” To understand why the Palestinians feel they have a winning strategy about the Jewish holy sites, one has to look at the members of the “International Committee for the preservation and the promotion of the Old City of Hevron.” You will find Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary-General of the United Nations and Federico Mayor, former Director of UNESCO. In recent years, UNESCO also increased its collaboration with ISECO, the cultural body of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which is supporting the Palestinian efforts.

To understand the importance of the Palestinian campaign one must remind that there has been another manipulation of Jesus: the “Aryan Jesus” of Adolf Hitler. The pro-Nazis Christian Movement’s recasted Jesus as an Aryan fighting against the Jews. According to the Hitler’s theologians, Jesus was not a Jew, but a Galilean opponent of Judaism. The Christian Bible was stripped of all “Jewish influence.” As the Aryan Jesus was the Christian legitimization of the Nazi Holocaust, the Arabized and Islamicized Jesus under the Palestinian warfare is a tool in the Jihad against the State of Israel and its Jews.

Under the PLO’s dictatorship, the Jewish history has already become “Palestinian Arab history” and the Jewish nation (“Am Yisrael”) that ruled in the Holy Land for a thousand years and developed a world-shaking culture never existed. The brave Jewish historian Bat Ye’or in the pivotal book “Dhimmitude” called it “Arabization of Jesus” and “de-Judaization of the Bible,” which are both serving the Palestinian cause.

The Palestinian Authority’s television aired a program asserting that the tales of the Bible took place in what is today Yemen, not in the modern State of Israel. A PA-TV show also argued that Palestinians are “the true descendants of the biblical Israelites.” Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and the most ancient synagogue in Jericho, two cities transferred by Israel to Palestinian control in suicidal agreements, are among the sacred Jewish places destroyed by Arabs, in eerily similar attempts to the Taliban’s deplorable annihilation of ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan. Abdallah al-Hourani, the former Palestinian minister for refugee affairs, told the newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jedidah: “The Crusaders lived in our land for 242 years, until the liberation of their last outposts, and Israel is like a tree that has flowered on land not belonging to it. No matter how much it is fertilized, it cannot put down roots, and when the fertilizer stops, it will die”.

The Palestinian lies are lethal. Alex Grobman’s wonderful book “License to Murder” (Balfour) details that Arafat carried the Arabic copy of the “Protocols of Elders of Zion” wherever he went, regularly quoting from it to impress upon his visitors the perfidy of Zionism. Like Hitler, Arafat used the Protocols as a manual in his war to exterminate the Jews. The PA still consistently cites the book while their strictly controlled media continually runs stories about Jewish “conspiracies” and “plots.” In his welcoming speech to Jericho in July 1994, Arafat “borrowed” from the Protocols. According to the scholar Grobman, “the Protocols provided the PA with the ‘academic’ credibility and authenticity it needed to portray Jews and Israelis as evil, and thus making ‘fighting and killing Jews a natural response’”.

After Hitler’s Holocaust which tried to destroy the body of the Jewish people and Stalin’s Holocaust which tried to destroy the heart of the Jewish people, it’s now the turn of the Palestinian ideological Holocaust seeking to destroy the history of the Jewish people. The 20th century of Joseph Goebbels has taught all of us that a lie starts as a small one, but if it is not corrected it festers like a cancer destroying truth, justice and finally human beings.

The world community must not embrace the sinister Palestinian lies. In case UNESCO takes, again, the side of the Arabs, the State of Israel should suspend any cooperation with the UN’s cultural body. This is an historical battle that Israel can win with the support of Westerners who still care about the fate of their civilization.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/15/the-nazi-palestinian-war-on-jesus/


– FrontPage Magazine – http://frontpagemag.com –

Islamic Terror vs. Norway Massacre

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 15, 2012 @ 12:35 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 25 Comments

Ever since last year’s Norway massacre, when Anders Breivik killed some 70 people, the relativists and Muslim apologists of the world felt exonerated: for here at last, thought they, was proof positive that terrorism had nothing to do with Islamic teachings per se. If Christianity cannot be blamed for Breivik, why blame Islam for al-Qaeda?

This question was restated in a recent email to me from Gehan D. Sabry, editor of Cross Cultures, a website dedicated to “Promoting Harmony Through Knowledge and Better Understanding.” Regarding my recent article “A Tale of Two American Martyrs,” where I discussed the slayings of two American Christians in the Muslim world due to allegations of proselytizing, she wrote:

[…] I know enough fellow Christians who agree with me that the majority of Muslims and Christians, in fact the moderates of ALL religions … get along just fine, and only the radicals of each are the ones who make the news, and cause turmoil and tragedy in this world … when I read this article of yours, I immediately remembered the psycho from Norway who killed over 70 youth recently … why don’t you try to explain that away for me?

My explanation, which may be of general interest—this question of moral equivalency plagues the many who think on superficial terms—follows:

First, the two murdered American teachers were killed by Muslims under accusations of proselytism.  As it happens, according to mainstream Islamic interpretations of Sharia, proselytizing Muslims is a capital offence.  In fact, it is mentioned as far back as the so-called Pact of Omar, which Muslim doctrinaires still quote from, and which delineates what non-Muslims (it was first made with Christians in Syria) must—and must not—do to safeguard their blood.

One of the stipulations they had to agree to was, “We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it.” At the very end of the pact, they had to agree that “If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant, and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition,” which is death.Thus the Muslims who killed the American teachers accused of Christian proselytism had doctrinal backing from Islam—one that, by the way, has manifested itself regularly throughout the course of Muslim history.

On the other hand, Anders Breivik had absolutely no Christian support—doctrinal or scriptural—for his shooting spree.  Nor did he articulate his terror in the name of religion, the way Koran-waving Islamic terrorists do daily.  The importance of this contrast should be clear to objective thinkers.

Also, as earlier explained, the terror campaign of Breivik—who openly confessed that al-Qaeda was his “inspiration” to the point that he tried to emulate its tactics by beheading and videotaping his victims—was influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by Islamic-style jihad and terror.

Finally, let us not overlook the fact that the American teachers who were killed by Muslims, and the 70 Norwegians who were killed by Breivik, were all killed in response to Islam—the former directly, the latter indirectly.

Along with the countless non-Muslims daily persecuted under Islam, the Americans were slain in direct accordance with Islam’s punishment for proselytism.  Conversely, though only Breivik is directly responsible for his murderous spree, it was, nonetheless, indirectly prompted by his conviction (shared among many Europeans) that Islam—from mass and illegal immigration, to calls for Sharia and death for cartoon publishers—is making cataclysmic inroads in Europe.

Without removing the sole responsibility from Breivik, the question is: Would there have been a Norway massacre if there was no Islam in Europe—with all the troubles associated with it?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/15/islamic-terror-vs-norway-massacre/