RedStateEclectic

Bomber Barry, Yes He Can

Neither do I wish to make a point about the US-Israel relationship, nor do I understand the Israel-related allusions of the image, I simply like the striking depiction of the BU(shO)BAMA system, the concerted cynical usurpation of America by the Republican and the Democrat establishment.

Obama - The Audacity of Fraud, my post from 2008 predicts the below findings. There is nothing special about the uneducated, waffling, and self-aggrandizing Bomber Barry. Barack Hussein Obama is simply the new chief-puppet to take the self-empowerment of the two colluding parties that own America to the next level.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's Peace-Wars Set to Music

Did you know? Bartok set Obama's peace-wars to music. Below an excerpt from the libretto. I encourage you to compare word and sound.

In March, President Obama ordered the use of American bombers and cruise missiles to join in with the French and British to finish off the tottering Gadhafi regime. Obama was apparently stung by liberal criticism that the U.S. had done little to help rebels in their weeks-long effort to remove Gadhafi — after only belatedly supporting the successful revolutionaries in Tunisia and Egypt.

Months ago, intervention to the Obama administration seemed a short, painless way of ridding the world of a decades-long international menace while gaining praise for helping "democratic" reformers. Oil, of course, is always a subtext in any Middle Eastern war.

But almost immediately contradictions arose. Sometimes we ordered Gadhafi to leave; at other times we insisted we were only helping the rebels. Bombs seemed to be aimed at the Gadhafi family, even as we denied such targeted killing — and were reminded that U.S. law forbids the assassination of foreign leaders.

The rebels were variously described as would-be democratic reformers, inept amateurs, hard-core Islamists, or mixtures of all three. No one seems to have answers months later [...] Who knows whether post-Gadhafi Libya will become an Islamic republic, a Somalia-like mess, another Arab dictatorship or a Turkish-style democracy?

Make sure to study the entire short libretto. It improves by the line.

 

Confessions of a MSM-Consumer

Brilliantly performed by BJ Crosby:

I also like this low-quality vid of a playfully frivolous rendition.

Not Only in Nebraska

Writes EU Referendum:

The death toll from Britain’s biggest freeze for decades reached 22 today, reports The Times - and this is before we see what is slated to be the coldest night so far.

That, however, only takes into account the immediate, observable deaths associated with accidents and other incidents. But, as the BBC admits, cold is a silent killer. [....]

With many local authorities employing more climate change advisors than they have gritter trucks, we are now paying for that folly. Many are paying with their lives, unable to afford the fuel bills that the warmists have been keen to inflate in order to "save the planet" from the hypothetical risk of CO2 – to say nothing of filling their pockets.

Worst. Decade. Ever.

From Reason TV.

“Anytime Dennis Kucinich is the voice of reason, you know you’re really screwed.”  HA!

White Lies ...

... of global-warming-holocaust-deniers, notwithstanding:

Nebraska remains utterly unaffected by snowfall, whilst there is more dry, warm and sunny weather in other places of the USA as well, as this report reveals. At the same time, Britain is being hit by fuel poverty.

The Cynical Mr. Obama

In a remarkable article authors Johnson and Mason correctly detect:

Obama's new "strategy" is no strategy at all. It is a cynical and politically motivated rehash of Iraq policy: Toss in a few more troops, throw together something resembling local security forces, buy off the enemies, and get the hell out before it all blows up.

Much of the excellent article's essence is well outlined in this excerpt available from Reason's post entitled Afghanistan Another Vietnam? You Bet Your Administration It Is, Obama!:

Let's start with the obvious: There isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral toward defeat in Afghanistan. None. The U.S. president and his advisors labored for three months and brought forth old wine in bigger bottles. The speech contained not one single new idea or approach, nor offered any hint of new thinking about a conflict that everyone now agrees the United States is losing. Instead, the administration deliberated for 94 days to deliver essentially "more men, more money, try harder." It sounded ominously similar to Mikhail Gorbachev's "bloody wound" speech that led to a similar-sized, temporary Soviet troop surge in Afghanistan in 1986.....

The president offered three reasons why [Afghanistan now and Vietnam then] are different. And all are dead wrong. First, Obama noted that Afghanistan is being conducted by a "coalition" of 43 countries -- as if war by committee would magically change the outcome (a throwback to former President George W. Bush's "Iraq coalition" mathematics). The truth is, outside of a handful of countries, it's basically a coalition of pacifists. In fact, more foreign troops fought alongside the United States in Vietnam than are now actually fighting with Americans today. Only nine countries in today's 43-country coalition have more than 1,000 personnel there; nine others have 10 (yes, not even a dozen people) -- or fewer. And although Australia and New Zealand have sent a handful of excellent special operations troops to Afghanistan, only Britain, Canada, and France are providing significant forces willing to conduct conventional offensive military operations. That brings the coalition's combat-troop contribution to approximately 17,000. Most of the other 38 "partners" have strict rules prohibiting them from ever doing anything actually dangerous....

The president went on to assert that the Taliban are not popular in Afghanistan, whereas the Viet Cong represented a broadly popular nationalist movement with the support of a majority of the Vietnamese. But this is also wrong. Neither the Viet Cong then, nor the Taliban now, have ever enjoyed the popular support of more than 15 percent of the population....

The reality on the ground is that Afghanistan is Vietnam redux. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime is an utterly illegitimate, incompetent kleptocracy. The Afghan National Army (ANA) -- slotted to take over the conflict when the coalition pulls out -- will not even be able to feed itself in five years, much less turn back the mounting Taliban tide....

Most critically of all, Pakistan's reaction to Obama's speech was to order its top military intelligence service, the ISI, to immediately begin rebuilding and strengthening covert ties to the Afghan Taliban in anticipation of their eventual return to power, according to a highly placed Pakistani official. There will be no more genuine cooperation from Pakistan (if there ever was)....

See also my posts Killing Them Softly, The Obama Doctrine ... , War Is Peace (2/2), and 37 Seconds to Insult Your Intelligence.

By contrast:

War Is Peace (2/2) ...

In May 2008 (and earlier) RedStateEclectic warned of Obama's militarism.

Consult Obama - The Audacity of Fraud, where we drew attention to a piece (see the excerpt below the atom-mushroom image) in which Obama outlined his foreign policy "vision," i.e. his continuation of a sick interventionism that America can't even afford anymore. The spineless waffler Obama will always obey, heed and collude with the power holders in the establishment - after all, that is why he was allowed to become president. (See also Who Controls America's Military 1/2 and 2/2.)

Not a text likely to be used by Obama in his speech given on the occasion of being rewarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

Obama's belligerence comes as no surprise to those who have acquainted themselves with his published agenda of pre-emptive war and nation-building. Obama vows:

“To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.”   

“This century’s threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.”

“We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines.” He restates the doctrine of using the military for nation-building: “We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.” And he restates Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption, as in the case of Iran if it becomes necessary because “It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy” [...]   

“[W]e must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”

  The above statements are from July/August 2007. 

For more on the audacity of fraud, read this account of a Democrat, who explains why he is no longer prepared to support Obama: http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/cn070607.htm

Also see War Is Peace (1/2) ...

Unecological Ecologists

When the rule of law happens, capitalism happens derivatively. Illegitimate interference occurs and the rule of law as well as capitalism are suspended to a larger or lesser extent, when decisions are enforced that do not accord with generally applicable principles. The more man governs, i.e. lets himself be governed by men, the more out of time he reveals himself to be. Civilisation consists of rules, not of commands.

Of course, the search for principles of general applicability is fraught with error. But errors related to that attempt are of a different kind altogether than constant action wholly unguided by even the faintest consideration of general applicability; i.e genuine rules rather than ephemeral "solutions" by opportune jerk and twitch.

The search for general applicability or universalisability is pivotal, for it is the search for the grown order into which our ambitious but subordinate impulses of understanding the greater scheme must fit, so that both can enjoy healthy growth - the lesser and dispensable part: namely, the individual (intellect), and the grand order that admits or ousts the ambitions of the human mind.

The fundamental problem of our presently dominant political philosophy and its institutions and practices is faithfully reflected in the incoherence that disrupts the "ecological" movement at its base: a complete lack of insight into ecology. Politically correct ecologists like other believers in and exploiters of our present political model are essentially adherents of the creed of central planning, of problems and solutions the size of our mind, when we could never have emerged as a civilisation, if problems and solutions only of the size of our mind had been admitted to the game of emergence.

They do not understand that we are part of a grown order immeasurably vaster than anything we can conceive, design or manage of our own accord. Original (classical) liberalism discovered this as being the fundamental condition of civilisation. Liberty, in all its facets (law, markets, political institutions etc), is an attempt to judiciously adapt to, rather than create, that vaster order.

Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

The source.

See also Epistemic Consequences of Totalitarian Democracy

News Flash: Mainstream Media Knew about Climategate but Refused to Act

In what could only be shocking to someone who has emerged from a 100 year slumber, the mainstream media (in this case the BBC) failed to act on one of the most intriguing stories regarding global warming in years. As our readers are surely aware, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain's East Anglia University had a lot of emails released on the internet a few days ago which showed that much of their research and conclusions are based on false or manipulated data.

What has just come of light is that the BBC has these suspicious emails leaked to them one month earlier and did not act. No follow up, nothing. So instead of acting on potentially the biggest scientific story of the year, they sat on it. From the UK Daily Mail:

The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.

One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.

Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.

You can read his blog posts here. Very interesting how despite this sort of collection of emails he manifestly supports the global warming theory.

Questions remain: Did other news outlets receive it also? If so who? If not, why only the BBC? Who is the source?

My only thoughts are that it is possible other outlets received the emails but no one acting on them would be unusual. I suspect that it was precisely sent to the BBC because the hacker/leaker wanted to expose the BBC for a fraudulent news outlet that isn't interested in the truth but propagating a social meme.

I can't wait to see how this plays out. The fallout is only beginning to manifest itself.