Sunday, March 14, 2010

England commits suiciide

The Home Office was accused of discriminating against Christian groups after it emerged a Muslim police group has received at least six times more funding than a Christian one.

The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) received £90,000 in grant aid in the last two years while the

Christian Police Association (CPA) received just £15,000 in the last five, despite both groups having around 2,000 members.

And the CPA even disputed those figures insisting it has only been given £10,000 over the period.


It is hard to imagine anything more stupid than this, yet we have it here before us.

Of course we have our government funded resettlement monies for new Muslim immigrants... The question is, why should we be letting anyone in!

submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Phil Jones and climate data

It is now plain that Phil Jones can't be trusted even with the most mundane statements:

Phil Jones called out by Swedes on data availability issue

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.


Looks like this hoaxer has been caught...again.

submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Who goes there? Friend or foe and how do we know?

There is an issue that we, as a society, are currently unwilling to step up and address. That issue is simply this.

How can any member of our society find any common ground with Islam?

The expression, "moderate Muslims" is often used but fails to recognize that the goal of Islam is the Islamization of the world and the development of "radical Muslims" represents the extreme side of that. Yet the goals of both are the same. And given that, how far can we ever believe that "moderates" will do anything beyond giving lip service condemnation?

The question is becoming further complicated by the 10 DOJ attorney's, including Obama's AG, that we now have in justice. And while it can be argued that everyone deserves representation in criminal matters, if these lawyers volunteered they must have a vision that is much different than the ordinary American.

All of this is better said here:

Now, to the more important question posed in the last paragraph of Jonah's post. Let's put DOJ's ten (and counting) Gitmo lawyers to the side and just talk about the volunteer Gitmo bar in general. I believe many of the attorneys who volunteered their services to al Qaeda were, in fact, pro-Qaeda or, at the very least, pro-Islamist. Not all of them, but many of them. The assistance many of them provided went disturbingly beyond any conventional notion of "legal representation." (And let's not forget that what Lynne Stewart called her "legal representation" of the Blind Sheikh was later found by a jury to be material support to terrorism.) I expect we'll be hearing much more about this in the coming days.

Islamism is a much broader and more mainstream (in Islam) ideology than suggested by the surprisingly ill-informed comments Charles Krauthammer made about a week ago (see Dr. K's commentary here; Mark Steyn's reaction, with which I agree, is here.) Jihadist terrorists are a subset of the Islamists, but many Islamists disagree with the terrorists' means — they are mostly on the same page as far as ends are concerned.

Personally, I don't think there is much difference, if any, between Islam and Islamism. In that assessment, I'm not much different from Turkey's Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who claims it is "very ugly" for Westerners to draw these distinctions between Muslims as "moderate" or "Islamist" — “It is offensive and an insult to our religion," he says, because "there is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it."

Islamists are Muslims who would like to see sharia (Islamic law) installed. That is the necessary precondition to Islamicizing a society. It is the purpose of jihad. The terrorists are willing to force sharia's installation by violent jihad; other Islamists have varying views about the usefulness of violence, but they also want sharia, and their jihadist methods include tactics other than violence. I reluctantly use the term "Islamist" rather than "Islam" because I believe there are hundreds of millions of Muslims (somewhere between a third to a half of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims) who do not want to live under sharia, and who want religion to be a private matter, separated from public life. It is baffling to me why these people are Muslims since, as I understand Islam, (a) sharia is a basic element, and (b) Islam rejects the separation of mosque and state. But I'm not a Muslim, so that is not for me to say. I think we have to encourage the non-sharia Muslims and give them space to try to reform their religion, so I believe it's worth labeling the sharia seekers "Islamists" in order to sort them out. But I admit being very conflicted about it because I also concede that the Islamists have the more coherent (and scary) construction of Islam. We wouldn't be encouraging reform if we really thought Islam was fine as is.

Use the link and read the complete National Review article.

submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

New service to be provided by Obama's health care?

Reuters) - A union representing Dutch nurses will launch a national campaign Friday against demands for sexual services by patients who claim it should be part of their standard care.

The union, NU'91, is calling the campaign "I Draw The Line Here," with an advert that features a young woman covering her face with crossed hands.

The union said in a statement Thursday that the campaign follows a complaint it had received in the last week from a 24-year-old woman who said a 42-year-old disabled man asked her to provide sexual services as part of his care at home.

The young woman witnessed some of the man's other nurses offering him sexual gratification, the union said. When she refused to do the same, he tried to dismiss her on the grounds that she was unfit to provide care.


When Nancy said "We'll do anything to pass it," she meant it!

submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Patriot Act. Where have you been? What have you been doing?

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief David Strickland told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the regulator is considering whether to make "black boxes" mandatory for all new vehicles. [ID:nN11246251]

The devices can capture data on speed, braking effort and other details which can be vital in reconstructing accidents.

Long term this is the device that will allow the government to control how much you drive and where you go.

It will be interesting to see how many Lefties who cried so much over the Patriot Act will protest this truly frightening proposal.


submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1