Demonic India, Demonic America: Cecil The Lion And Sacred Cows; Planned Parenthood Abortions And Untouchables

I have been watching the pure, livid outrage of the progressive liberals as they try to climb over one another to rabidly denounce the man who shot Cecil the lion.

Interestingly, the same rabid mob came out hysterically unglued over a woman who shot a giraffe.

Which would have been killed by Cecil the lion.

So, okay, let me get this straight so far.  It’s right to believe that religion that upholds humanity as created in the image of God is false.  It’s right to believe that we are the vicious descendants of vicious animals.  But it’s wrong for us to act like the vicious animals that we actually are if the evolution it’s so right for us to believe in is actually true.

So it’s okay for lions to kill humans; it’s only when a human kills a lion that it becomes evil.

You know, the same exact way it’s wrong for a woman to kill a giraffe, but it’s right for a giraffe to kill a woman.

Gosh, liberalism is hard.  You either have to be entirely mindless or else your mind will explode due to all the ridiculous contradictions.  And I find both options thoroughly unpleasant.

Anyway, the outcry over the death of Cecil the lion by the same people who yawn when Planned Parenthood is caught red-handed trafficking in the human body parts of the babies they murder (because, after all in liberal doublethink, just because they have human body parts they clearly can’t be “human” can they?) forced me to think just how wicked America has become.

I think of India, a country of something like 330 million gods.  It is amazing what a cesspool of wickedness that demon-possessed country is.

They have their caste system and they have their untouchables, and they have their Buddhistic system of karma by which it is perfectly okay to step over someone literally slowly dying in the street (and see here).  You have a system of thought that allows you to literally step over somebody dying of starvation and feel NOTHING.

But what if instead of a dying untouchable human being you had a COW?

Well, THAT’S different, of course.  Traffic stops for the cow.  Because unlike human beings, cows are sacred in India.

In wicked India we have this incredibly wicked system that holds to the following tenants:

Guru: A teacher of Hinduism, he is supposedly a manifestation of Brahman. Every Hindu must follow a guru to reach Self-realization.

Reincarnation: The process of being physically born again. Birth, death, re-birth. In the east, a curse, in the west desirable because they think that they can come back and sin some more.

Karma: There is no forgiveness in Hinduism–only karma. If you do wrong you will pay for it in the next life–this is working out your karma your punishment for sin. Each person MUST suffer for his sins. If someone is suffering in this life, it is assumed they are paying for some evil they’ve done in their past life– even though they don’t remember what they did wrong. That’s why they can walk by some low caste member who is dying on the street and feel nothing. Karma is the law of cause and effect which determines destiny/fate. For every thought, word or deed karma produces an inevitable effect. Karma necessitates reincarnation so you can pay for the sins you’ve done in your past life. Rabi once knocked over a Krishna idol (god) on the floor and wanted to say “Sorry” but he knew no apology would be accepted. The unchangeable law of karma forbade it. He would have to continue on the wheel of reincarnation. One transgression will keep you in the system. Reincarnation is a CURSE to the real Hindu. In the west, it makes people happy to think they can come back and sin some more. If that brass figure was god, why did it fall so easy? Why do Hindus have to carefully wrap their gods and put them up for safekeeping? Because they are no gods.

Caste: A cruel system supported by Krishna in the Gita–probably devised by the Aryan invaders of India in order to keep the darker skinned Dravidians they conquered in quiet subjection. The four castes are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra. The doctrines of karma and reincarnation followed naturally, teaching that lower castes by accepting their lot in life could inprove in the next life. The Untouchables were below caste and thus outside the religous system of Hinduism. The God of the Bible, the true God, is no respecter of persons. Anyone who will repent and love the Lord will be saved.

We have degenerated to pure barbaric savagery right out of Hitler and Dr. Mengele here in America.  And the Democrat Party – the same Democrat party that worships homosexual sodomy and can’t begin to explain how they are different from Marx or Stalin, and frankly wants to lead Jews to the door of the oven  with Obama’s cursed Iran nuclear deal much the same way as their National Socialist German Workers Party brethren did before them – is in it up to their gills.  We have murdered 60 million of our babies.  We sell their body parts the way Wall Street sells stocks.

But we get outraged when a lion is killed.

Because we have utterly abandoned any pretense of humanity as a nation.

Come soon, Lord.  Take your people out of here so the Democrat Party can join the rest of the world in worshiping the Antichrist and bringing hell on earth.

 

Chinese President Flies Commercial While Obama Acts Like Emperor

What’s wrong with this picture?

The answer is nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  That commercial jet contains Hu Jintao, the president of China.

Seattle Times:

When Hu and his wife, Liu Yongqing, stepped out of the Air China commercial jet and waved, the crowd chanted “Huanying! Huanying!” or “Welcome! Welcome!” Many shook Chinese and American flags.

“He is not an emperor and he doesn’t want to be,” we are told of this Chinese president.  And he’s living up to that.  The guy who is lending Barry Hussein a trillion dollars so Obama can continue spending beyond-crazy recklessly showed up to America practically carrying his own luggage.

Why can’t WE have a communist president like that?

Unfortunately, our Marxist president is more of the Stalinist “talk about the poor people while living a life of magnificent luxury” sort of communist.

See my articles –

The Tunnel of Obama, Or Maybe Obama’s India Trip Is Costing $200 Million A Day, After All

Obama’s India Trip, Sung To The Tune Of ‘The Twelve Days Of Christmas’

– to see what I’m talking about.  It’s not like I’m making anything up.

And the Chinese communists demand less in taxes than our “spread the wealth around” redistributionist socialist president.

Which communist leader do you like better?

See also this article, while you’re at it:

Firing Empress Pelosi As Speaker And Hiring Republican John Boehner Already Saving Americans HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS

Man, Democrat communists sure do love their jets and their perks whilst continually talking out of their anuses (while moving their lips to fool the ignorant), don’t they?

Obama once said:

“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

Well, two things: 1) Obama enjoys privileges that no “Wall Street fat cat” who ever lived enjoys.  Once Obama took Air Force One to Chicago for a “date night” with his wife.  That trip deprived millions of starving children of food and polluted the atmosphere for a billion years.  And 2) After trash talking Wall Street fat cats, Obama actually had the balls to hire a J.P. Morgan fat cat as his chief of staff.

Obama plays the same games that corrupt despots have always played.  On the one hand, he demonizes the rich to score points with idiots who don’t know up from down.  On the other hand, he lives a life of luxury that none short of the most self-absorbed emperors have ever lived.

Why don’t you be consistent for just once in your miserable life, Barry Hussein?  If you’re going to go around demagoguing  the rich, why don’t you at least do so flying commercial like Hu Jintao?  Clearly it can be done, because Hu is doing it.

Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essence of Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.  And if you were to take away the hypocrisy, you’d have nothing but empty suits (and pant suits).

The Tunnel Of Obama, Or Maybe Obama’s India Trip Is Costing $200 Million A Day, After All

You’ve probably heard the scuttlebutt: an Indian official stated that Obama’s visit was going to cost $200 million a day (for ten days = $2 BILLION).

Michelle Malkin’s blog offered this take:

Obama to See India on $200 Million a Day
By Doug Powers  •  November 2, 2010 01:53 PM
**Written by Doug Powers

Seemingly every election day estimate predicting increasingly bad news for Democrats is met by an exponential rise in the cost to taxpayers for President Obama’s “I’m outta here” world tour. Coincidence?

Mumbai: The US would be spending a whopping $200 million (Rs. 900 crore approx) per day on President Barack Obama’s visit to the city.

“The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit,” a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

And if the Democrats lose the Senate, expect another $50 million in room service tabs alone, Tea Party ingrates.

To put it in perspective, $200 million is enough money to buy a pair of Lanvin sneakers for over 370,000 Indians.

The president’s “carbon footprint felt ’round the world” tour will also utilize at least 40 aircraft, or as Al Gore calls it, “Wednesday.”

The mainstream media was quick to jump all over this story (unlike, say, the falsehood Obama spread that John McCain owned seven homes when in fact he didn’t actually own any homes).

Let’s see.  Forty aircraft.  Six armored cars.  “The biggest trip ever by a US president.” Then there’s the 34 U.S. Navy warships dedicated to Obama’s convenience, the 3,000 attendants traveling with their emperor, the entire Taj Mahal booked.

And lets not forget the palm trees and all the coconuts.

You almost want to sing it to sing to “The Twelve Days of Christmas” and add, “five golden rings!”

It all sounds like “Let them eat cake” on massive loads of steroids to me.

Here’s my personal favorite of sheer extravagance: “the tunnel of Obama.”  Complete with air conditioning:

Tunnel for Obama near Mani Bhavan
Published: Thursday, Nov 4, 2010, 1:59 IST
By Pandurang Mhaske | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

It could give a sense of superior American organisation, or be an indicator of a deep-set persecution complex. It could also be a manifestation of Uncle Sam’s penchant for a show of strength.

The matter pertains to US president Barack Obama’s planned visit to Mani Bhavan —the Gandhi museum — on November 6, soon after he reaches Mumbai. On Monday, US secret agents visited the museum to plan Obama’s security detail.

They were accompanied by officers of Mumbai Police and civic officials of the D ward (where Mani Bhavan is located). While inspecting the route and the buildings lining up the route to the museum, the Americans detected a skyscraper near Peddar road and also found the area to be highly populated.

Since it is difficult to monitor such a congested area, they came up with a quick solution which left the Indians accompanying them amazed: A bomb-proof over-ground tunnel — to be installed by US military engineers in just an hour.

The tunnel would be a kilometre long and measure 12ft by 12ft — enough to let Obama’s cavalcade pass through. The tunnel would be centrally air-conditioned, fitted with close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point, including, of course, its entry and exit.

Details about when exactly the tunnel would be made were not forthcoming. But officials said that the structure would be dismantled immediately after Obama leaves the area.

Now, one might think, “Damn, that’s a lot of incredibly expensive work to protect the president for a meaningless visit to a museum.  Maybe we should cancel that part of the itinerary.”

But no.  This is Barack Obama, who has grown government that took more than 200 years to get this monstrous by an eye-popping 28% in just two short years.  This is the guy who has spent trillions of dollars in debt-fueled spending.  This is the guy for whom your money doesn’t matter.

So fine.  It costs a gazillion dollars for Obama to see a museum.  But it’s only your money.

I don’t know how much this trip to India is costing the taxpayers (or more precisely, the children’s children’s children’s children of the taxpayers).  But I do know that the cost means absolutely nothing to Barry Hussein.

Obama Climate Site Conceals Unfavorable Data

The Obama Report features this spotlight of truth into the lie that is both climate change and Barack Obama:

Climate.Gov, hiding the ice?

The President launched a new government website on Monday called Climate.gov, hoping to prove once and for all that Global Warming is a reality, and not a myth, despite the fact that Climate Change scientists have been ‘hiding the decline’ for years and that the IPOCC’s integrity has been strongly discredited.

Nevertheless, it didn’t take too long for skeptics to realize that the con artists at Climate.gov had intentionally omitted some of the sea ice data:

The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic. Mr. Scott chooses… 2007 as the endpoint for comparison. This leaves a reader who is “not in the know”, with the false impression that sea ice has not recovered in any way…

There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.

Suffice it to say, this piece on climate.gov is propaganda with a lie of omission. It is not science because it omits a portion of the data that disagrees with the article’s premise…

This news follows the IPCC being revealed as a band of pathological liars who are playing so many games with the science that India pulled out of the body after referring to “climate evangelism.”  The IPCC falsely claimed that more than half of the Netherlands was now below sea level when that wasn’t even close to being true; they falsely claimed that the Himalayas glacier was melting when it wasn’t, falsely claimed that the Amazon rain forest was being wiped out by global warming when it wasn’t.

And that’s just within the last couple of weeks.

As I write this there is snow in every single state in the Continental U. S. for the very first time ever recorded.  Washington D.C. is experiencing the snowiest winter ever recorded.

And the “scientists” are trying to explain this by arguing that warming causes cold?  I mean, really?  This is a transparent and easily refutable lie.  These ideologues are desperate, and now they are resorting to their own version of Hitler’s “Big lie” to sell their hoax.

We’re seeing so much dishonesty and deceit now because the mainstream media that used to suppress all this evidence against global warming now no longer has the power to be our “gatekeepers” any more.

Now we have the laugh-worthy news of Obama being unable to announce his new global warming office because of all the cold and snow:

The administration announced this week a new climate change office will be created as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The idea is to consolidate global warming data and resources.

But the announcement in Washington was complicated by the historic blizzard that shut down federal offices. Because of the frigid temperatures and snowy streets, the agency was forced to hold a press conference by telephone, instead of meeting at the National Press Club.

We’re finding that our scientists aren’t any more personally or institutionally trustworthy than our politicians.

And when we have so many politicians who are as dishonest as the sun is hot (the REAL cause of global warming, by the way), that says a great deal about the sad, sad state of science in an age of propaganda.

Copenhagen Accord: Scott Brown Victory Saves U.S. From More Than Just ObamaCare

The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts might be best analogized to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, in which a tiny little hobbit saves the world from an incredibly powerful dark and evil force hell-bent on totalitarian rule.

Things looked incredibly bleak.  The world was on the verge of going right down the drain into the sewer of socialism.  The dark and evil tyrant’s forces seemed unstoppable.  And yet somehow virtue, wisdom, and courage prevailed.  And a little hobbit named Frodo Baggins saved the day for freedom.

Scott Brown is our Frodo, of course.  I’ll leave it to you to figure out who the “dark and evil tyrant” is.  And that stunning upset victory in Massachusetts was analogous to Frodo successfully journeying to Mordor to throw the one-ring of Democrat power into the fiery hell of Mount Doom.

Brown’s victory likely saves the country from having the incredibly unpopular ObamaCare shoved down our throats.  But now we’re finding it did a lot more than that:

India, China won’t sign Copenhagen Accord

The Indian and Chinese governments have had a rethink on signing the Copenhagen Accord, officials said on Saturday, and the UN has also indefinitely postponed its Jan 31 deadline for countries to accede to the document.

An Indian official said that though the government had been thinking of signing the accord because it “did not have any legal teeth and would be good diplomatically”; it felt irked because of repeated messages from both UN officials and developed countries to accede to it.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has written to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seeking a number of clarifications on the implications of the accord that India — with five other countries — had negotiated in the last moments of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“That letter, and the defeat of the Democrats in the Massachusetts bypoll, has forced the UN to postpone the deadline indefinitely,” an official said. “With the Democrats losing in one of their strongholds, the chances of the climate bill going through the US senate have receded dramatically.

“So if the US is not going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, which was a very weak target anyway, why should we make any commitment even if it does not have any legal teeth?” the official said.

China also appears in no mood to sign the accord.

“With the deadline postponed, we are not going to sign now,” said a Chinese official now here to take part in the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) meeting to chalk out a climate strategy.

The meeting of the four environment ministers Sunday is likely to end with the announcement of a fund they will set up to help other developing countries cope with the effects of climate change, said an official of the environment ministry.

Only four countries — Australia, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the Maldives — have signed the Copenhagen Accord so far, though Brazil, South Africa and South Korea have also indicated their willingness to do so.

Though Australia and Canada have signed, they have not indicated the greenhouse gas emission reductions they are committing under the accord — something developed countries are supposed to do.

China and India were never going to actually sign anything that was going to gut their economies.  They were building coal plants faster than happy puppies wag their tails.  And they are increasing their CO2 emissions at a mind-boggling rate.

But Obama doesn’t care about the US economy the way the leaders in China and India care about theirs; Obama was willing to sign an economic suicide pact with the global warming orcs even if our most formidable economic competitors played games and did nothing even as they were all-the-while talking the good talk.

What can I say but “Frodo lives!”

Scott Brown is the man who may have literally saved America – and the entire western world – from death by suicide.

Copenhagen Falls Apart Under Obama’s Hollow Rhetoric

Hot Air swings for the bleachers, and sends a lot of liberal pitches soaring over the center field wall.  Here’s another home run:

Breaking: India, China walk out of Copenhagen
posted at 10:49 am on December 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama came, he spoke, and no one concurred:

India and China have taken a united stand and walked out of the climate summit as Copenhagen talks fail.

Tensions prevailed at the climate talks at Copenhagen today, as Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations, as talks failed.

Obama feted Singh just this month, saying that they should be impressed that India got first crack at Obama’s state dinner agenda.  Apparently, Singh was less impressed than Obama presumed.

Meanwhile, Obama is getting some pretty bad reviews for his intervention in Copenhagen … from his once-adoring admirers.  Since this comes from the Left’s major newspaper in the UK, where political biases are openly acknowledged in the media, this may seem like good news for those worried that Barack Obama would give away the store in Copenhagen.  We needn’t have worried; Obama turned out to be just as effective on the world stage as he has been in finding compromises here at home.  The Right has no illusions about Obama, but the disillusionment from the Left is rather amusing:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act “boldly and decisively” on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse. …

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

Honestly, have these people paid no attention to Obama’s performance all year?  He doesn’t do the hard work.  Obama has spent all year outsourcing his work on domestic policy to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, refusing to get involved in negotiations.  Even now, progressives on Capitol Hill wonder if Obama ever wanted a public option in his signature domestic policy priority at all — a rather strange gap, considering the high-profile cheerleading coming from Obama all year long.  That’s all he does: campaign.

The one issue that he could not outsource was Afghanistan.  As Commander in Chief, the decision on resourcing and strategy was his alone … and it took him almost four months to make it.

The truth is that Barack Obama would make a much better Secretary-General of the UN than an American President, and even the Left is beginning to see it.

As for Copenhagen, Obama was already redeploying over the event horizon before news of the walkout hit, according to ABC News, which had reported optimistically on Obama’s efforts for most of the morning:

“We’ve done what we can here,” a senior White House official in Copenhagen, Denmark, tells ABC News. “The Chinese are dug in on transparency and are refusing to let people know they’re living up to their end of the agreement.”

After landing in Denmark early this morning, President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a bilateral at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to press the case that China needs to allow for transparency.

“The President’s priority is to make our economy far more focused on a clean energy economy that creates jobs,” the official said. “He is here to work constructively and participate in hoping to get an international accord. But not getting one here won’t change wanting to transform our economy to create the new foundation he’s talked about.”

Well, he’s been there one whole day.  Who can argue with his commitment after giving one speech and holding one meeting?

As to Afghanistan, Obama boldly claimed he had the right strategy in place back in May, picked his own general to implement it, and then spent four months angsting over that general’s urgent recommendation.  When Obama finally made a decision after four months of what the Pentagon described as dithering, it was accompanied with a withdrawal date that left even his own supporters unable to explain his policy, in addition to grave uncertainty and fear in the minds of our allies.

Not to mention the ridiculous joke of Obama finally making the announcement to send more troops to fight in Afghanistan, then jetting off to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.  “Ridiculous” because the only way he could reconcile the massive hypocrisy from the leftist prism was to invoke what was tantamount to the very Bush doctrine he had previously personally demonized (see also here).

We arrive at something that should have occurred to the left when they were decrying Sarah Palin’s lack of experience.  Namely, that she actually had far more leadership experience than Obama did.  Sarah Palin had been a chief executive of a state; Barry Hussein had led exactly squat.  And so when the left was pointing out Sarah Palin’s lack of substantial executive experience, they were literally pointing out the splinter in Palin’s eye, while refusing to see the giant redwood log in Obama’s.

Well, they’re seeing that great big giant log now, aren’t they?  On virtually every front (e.g., the economy, health care, global warming, Afghanistan, unemployment, soaring deficits, Iran’s nuclear program, Gitmo, cap-and-trade, the Olympics), Obama is an utterly failed leader even according to the left.

Conservatives were loudly declaring that Obama would be a failure all along.  Rush Limbaugh was demonized for his prediction, but now far leftists such as Howard Dean have joined him.

The left-leaning world swooned over Obama’s speeches.  Now they know that, rather than being an eloquent man expressing a great vision, Obama is merely an incoherent gibberer who needs to read the word-for-word sentences of others off of two teleprompter screens.

This was the man who actually had the unmitigated and arrogant gall to say:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Obama says here, “It’s not all about me; it’s about you under my inspired divine messiahship, too.”  I mean, why was “this” “the moment”?  Why wasn’t it the moment when either Bush was president, or when Clinton was president, etcetera?

Michelle Obama cut through the vain hypocrisy of Obama’s vain rhetoric at a UCLA speech delivered on February 18, 2008:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

I think Spike Lee summed up Obama’s delusional mindset best:

“It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”

It was always all about Obama.  And we, tiny little near-mindless proletariat ants that we were, would be stimulated into action by the exalted greatness of Obama’s wonderfulness.

And of course, it’s STILL all about Obama.  Only now it’s about what a colossal failure he is, rather than how he is somehow going to heal the planet.

Now because of America’s delusional foolishness, we’re going to have to suffer through the dismal malaise of three more years with a failed, dithering, appeasing, demagogic, pandering weakling in the White House.

But enough about the failure and fraud of Obama and his “hype and chains” movement.

Getting back to the abysmal failure and fraud of “Hopenhagen,” do read the absolutely blistering UK Telegraph piece by  Gerald Warner.

Meet Thomas Schelling, Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Demagogue

We can go back and look at Al Gore, a documented fraud, a presenter of entirely false scientific claims, and the winner of a Nobel Prize for science.  A British High Court judge found nine “glaring” scientific errors in the Inconvenient Truth “documentary” that garnered Gore his scientific credibility.  But the only “inconvenient truth” was that the film was an example of “alarmism” and “exaggeration” and was not fit for viewing by British school children.

“Science” has officially and for the record made itself a propaganda tool to advance radical redistributionist social policies.

And now we have another Nobel prize winner doing the same thing to his own field of economics.

An Interview With Thomas Schelling, Part Two

CLARKE: I wanted to go back to the international climate-change negotiation process. So assuming we had a perfect U.S. bill — written by you or by 15 experts working on this full time — how would the international negotiation process work? It’s not obvious that averting global climate change is in the rational self-interest of anyone that is alive today. The serious consequences probably won’t occur until 2080 or 2100 or thereafter. That’s one problem. Another problem is that those consequences are going to be distributed in a radically uneven way. The northwest of the United States might actually benefit. So how does a negotiation process work? How does a generation today negotiate on behalf of future generations? And how do we negotiate when the costs are distributed so unevenly?

SCHELLING: Well I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren’t yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don’t know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

SCHELLING: It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious. I think there’s a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale — even though methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere very long — it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release, which will warm things up more, which will release more. And that will create a huge multiplier effect, and it could become very serious.

CLARKE: And you mean serious for everyone, including the United States?

SCHELLING: Yes, for almost anybody.

CLARKE: And when you say, “exaggerate the costs” do you mean, American politicians should exaggerate the costs to the American public, to get American support for a bill that will overwhelmingly benefit the developing world?

SCHELLING: [Laughs] It’s very hard to get honest people.

SCHELLING: Well, part of me sympathizes with the case for disingenuousness! I mean, it seems to me that there is a strong moral case for helping unborn Bangladeshi citizens. But I don’t know how you sell that. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest, at least in the US, to legislate on that basis.

Well, let me at least agree with Thomas Schelling to this extent: yes, it is indeed hard to find honest people.  Especially from our “experts” whom we count upon to inform us of the facts, rather than leading us by the hand to conclusions based on false premises becauses they are arrogant elitists who think only they are smart enough to handle the truth.

The article goes on – read it here – with a seriously leftist-tilted back-and-forth about climate change and the degree to which America is morally obligated to commit economic hari kari in order to atone for its sins to the developing world.

Then we get to the moral nitty gritty to end the article:

CLARKE: I wanted to ask one more question, to go back to the moral issue here. It does seem to me that the strongest case for mitigating the effects of global climate change is a moral one. It is based not on our own interest but on the interests of people in the developing world who don’t yet exist. But it also seems to me that — while I don’t know much about game theory — collective bargaining theories generally assume the participants are rational and self-interested. So how does one go about making sense of an arrangement where we must set our self-interest aside? How does one make the moral case in a situation like this? Or is my description of collective bargaining just totally idiotic?

SCHELLING: Well, I think you have to realize that most people have very strong moral feelings. I think in a lot of cases they’re misdirected. I wish moral feelings about a two-month old fetus were attached to hungry children in Africa. But I think people have very strong moral feelings. In fact, I’m always amazed by the number of people who at least pretend they’re worried about the polar bears. […]

SCHELLING: And I think the churches don’t realize that they could have a potent effect in not letting so much of god’s legacy — in terms of flora and fauna — be destroyed by climate change.

SCHELLING: But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Now, Thomas Schelling one the one hand tells us that we should feel intensely morally obligated to “beneficiaries [who] not yet born” – as long as they’re not “a two month old fetus” who is presumably about to be aborted – in which case we apparently have absolutely no obligation at all.  But stop and think: the moral logic of abortion means the future generation doesn’t matter unless we subjectively want them to matter.  No one who advocates abortion has any right to lecture others that they should not only care about but sacrifice for “beneficiaries not yet born.” Then Schelling proceeds to presume from his own massive personal arrogance that the American people’s moral intuitions are faulty, but that his are functioning perfectly.  Which of course justifies him in lying to us to steer us toward the conclusion dictated by his own superior moral reasoning.

And then this man who presumes himself to be so morally superior to everyone “beneath” him, who is entitled to “exaggerate the threat” of global warming because Americans are not responsible to make sound moral decisions if they know the truth, says he hopes “horrid things” happen to we the poor, the huddling, the ignorant and unwashed masses.

This economist seems to live more by the law involving the telling of a lie often enough that it is believed far more than by the law of supply and demand.

It’s funny that Schelling mentions polar bears, as an admitted global warming exaggerator now proceeds to run into the pseudo-science of another global warming exaggerator.  And you have – unlike Al Gore or Thomas Schelling, who have credibility in the scientific community without having any ethical integrity – a genuine scientist being persecuted because he cares about the truth:

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

And we have the same types of people as Thomas Schelling suppresing the conclusions of science that show the opposite of what they want science to show.  Consider the White House’s suppression of a scientific report by the EPA.

Or you can go back to the “hockey stick model” to see just how far “respected” scientists are willing to go in order to pass off a bogus theory for mass consumption — and just how willing other scientists are to unquestioningly accept whatever “evidence” supports their preconceived ideological notions.

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein apparently lacks Thomas Schelling’s godlike view, and thus doesn’t seem to think he possesses the divine right to distort the truth in order to lead Americans to the conclusions he ordains as “moral.”

Feldstein simply looks at the economics – which, who knows, may be a strange thing for an economist to do these days – and concludes:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

Aside from the fact that building scientific evidence indicates that global warming is a gigantic load of malarkey (just consider how the fact that the planet ISN’T warming has now led the alarmist movement to instead begin using the term “climate change”), global warming-turned climate change alarmists have an even bigger problem to worry about: the fact that the developing world has no interests in committing their own versions of hari kari for the sake of a theory.  China and India are poised to become “global warming polluters” on such a scale that any reductions in American and European greenhouse gasses would be utterly insignificant.  So why should we dramatically undermine our lives?

Chinese and Indians know what it’s like to live in a mud hut, which is the inevitable result of dramatically hamstringing our economic output to conform to the demands of the global warming alarmists.  The western radicals either don’t know what such deplorable conditions are like, or they believe that they – being the true arrogant elitists they are – will continue to live in their glass houses or ivory towers.

New Study Published In ‘Nature Geoscience’ Shows Global Warming Models All Wrong

Let’s begin with the study:

Nature Geoscience
Published online: 13 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo578

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe¹, James C. Zachos² & Gerald R. Dickens³

Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks^{1, 2}. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of ¹³C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth’s surface, although the source remains an open issue^{3, 4}. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 ^°C within a few thousand years^{5, 6, 7, 8, 9}. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14} and stable carbon isotope composition^{10, 15, 16, 17} along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO₂ concentration¹, this rise in CO₂ can explain only between 1 and 3.5 ^°C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO₂ forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

---

1. School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, Department of Oceanography, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1000 Pope Road, MSB 504, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
2. Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
3. Department of Earth Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA

This isn’t just telling us that those stupid dinosaurs didn’t send themselves into extinction by driving too many SUVs and failing to implement global warming legislation to deal with carbon dioxide.  It is saying that carbon dioxide was only a tiny, tiny little fraction of the global warming that the planet experienced 55 million years ago.

This is always one of the most amazing and incomprehensible things to me: we have HAD cycles of global warming and global cooling over and over and over again throughout the entire history of the planet.  And yet that is forgotten over and over again by people who have the educations to know better.  It is a form of willful blindness and deliberate stupidity that is simply shocking (It hearkens to Romans 1, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”).  And it is done in order to advance a political and in fact socialist agenda to redistribute wealth.

A pair of articles you should read:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A Fox News Special Report story had this to say:

West Virginia, where coal is the heart of the economy.  Coal mining produces both power and revenue.  So Obama’s plan to fight climate change by taxing carbon pollution with a cap and trade system is a serious threat.  And even ardent Obama backers like Gov. Joe Manchin says, “It’s far reaching, and I think it has detrimental effects to our economy – not just West Virginia; I think the United States of America’s economy –  cannot take that shock of artificially increasing the price much higher than what we compete.”  Both senators from W. Virginia Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller oppose the plan.

American Electrical Power CEO Mike Morris says cap and trade will raise everyone’s power cost.  “As an electric consumer and a consumer of any product you’re going to pay more for it.  This is a societal decision to deal with the issue of global warming, and you can’t do it for free.  This is not an inexpensive move.”

Support industries like heavy industries such as Caterpillar would be seriously affected too.  Caterpillar has a $50 million payroll in W.Virginia.  And about 75% of their revenues comes from the coal industry, says Rolger Lilly of Walker Caterpillar.

Burning coal creates nearly half the nation’s electricity.  It is far cheaper than alternative energies (solar $.20 per kilowatt hour; wind $.14 per kilowatt hour; vs. coal at only $.03 per kilowatt hour).

And of course you know Obama has said his plan would cause energy prices to “necessary skyrocket.”

This is a plan that will literally result in Americans starving in the dark and cold unless they stand up for sanity.

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and necessary gas.  Without it life on earth would be impossible.  Liberals like to call it “carbon” to make you think of something black and sooty and icky; but it is odorless and colorless.  It is no bogeyman; liberals are your bogeymen.

The fact of the matter is this: when we consider all global warming gasses, “anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.”

The evidence is abundantly clear, yet we are on the verge of crushing our economic output, and killing jobs in the process, to fight a problem which either doesn’t even exist in the first place or which we can do nothing to stop.

Meanwhile, we’ve got the Obama administration actively working to suppress the science that proves that global warming is bogus.  And we’ve got expert economists saying that the fact that China and India aren’t similarly curtailing THEIR emissions will do result in nothing more than America shooting itself in the foot.

Global Warming alarmists have called people like me “global warming deniers” to impugn me as tantamount to a Holocaust denier.  I respond by calling such people “reality deniers.”

Obama Searches In Vain For CIA Director Who Won’t Offend Left

Obama’s first (and as of now only) pick for the Director of Central Intelligence bowed out of the process after the left tore into him as a “torturer.”  Apparently, John Brennan didn’t want the job badly enough to put up with the typical left-wing character assassination tactics.

Bill O’Reilly was on the radio yesterday pointing out that Obama may have a tough time finding a good DCI. Given the left’s hatred for “intelligence” and “interrogations” and many of the other things this country needs in order to keep itself safe from terrorist attacks, and given the appointment of Eric Holder for Attorney General, many candidates might well fear that they would have to choose between either protecting the country or staying out of jail.

The Star Tribune writes:

Finding a candidate for CIA chief who has the operational experience and is politically “clean” will be difficult, agreed a current senior intelligence official.

John Radsan, a former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said Obama has to strike a difficult balance.

“They need somebody who rose to the level of a division chief in the clandestine service but didn’t spend too much time” with former CIA directors George Tenet and Porter Goss and current director Michael Hayden.

“But in the senior ranks you can’t escape the reality that the CIA is associated with controversial practices since 9/11,” Radsan said.

Brennan served as Tenet’s chief of staff from 1999 to 2001 and as deputy executive director of the CIA from 2001 to 2003, as the interrogation and rendition program was created.

Scott Horton, a Hofstra University law professor who has worked with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the CIA’s interrogation and detention program, said he believes Congress would take a firm line against anyone closely associated with the agency’s harsher policies. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, tapped to head the Senate Intelligence Committee, opposes the CIA’s interrogation program and will play a key role in confirming Obama’s pick.

“Brennan knew it was going to be messy,” Horton told The Associated Press.

But while Obama has clearly articulated and supported many of the liberal positions regarding these issues, Obama suddenly finds himself in the position of where the rubber meets the road.

Here’s Obama’s petard from which to dangle: if he does anything to undermine the Bush policies that protected us from terrorist attacks in the aftermath of 9/11 (the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of international calls from suspected terrorists, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and yes, harsh interrogation tactics such as waterboarding) and the United States is subsequently attacked again, he’s political road kill.  But how can he support such policies given his previous public positions?  And how can he avoid the understandable outrage of his base who will justifiably feel betrayed if he affirms the basic Bush positions?

Meanwhile, we have revelations such as this one:

Study: WMD Attack In U.S. Likely By 2013
Commission Report Says A Nuclear Or Biological Attack Should Be Expected Within Five Years
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2008

(CBS/AP) The United States can expect a terror attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013, reports a bipartisan commission in a study briefed Tuesday to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

It suggests that the Obama administration bolster efforts to counter and prepare for germ warfare by terrorists.

“Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” states the report, obtained by The Associated Press. It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.

And, of course, that report immediately following a terrorist attack in India in which nearly two hundred people were murdered, and in which Jews and Americans were specifically targeted.

Democrats attacked Bush Attorney General appointee Michael Mukasey and pressured him to denounce waterboarding as a legally permissible interrogation technique under any circumstances (whereas Obama has found an attorney general who is as willing to condemn enhanced interrogation as he was to support the pardon for convicted millionaire tax frauds).  Just as Democrats have now destroyed John Brennan simply because he didn’t come out forcefully enough against it to suit them.

But here’s a newsflash: waterboarding works.  I will make anyone who wants to take me up on it a bet: say the information is your social security number.  You try to mine from me by being nice, and becoming my friend, and giving me candy.  I’ll try to get yours from you by waterboarding you until you either tell me or you grow a pair of gills.  I bet you I’ll get your social security number from you, and you’ll never, ever, ever get mine from me.  Take me up on the bet.  As Inspector Hally Callahan once said, “Go ahead.  Make my day.”

We used waterboarding on three suspects.  You can’t exactly say we went nuts over the sheer pleasure of waterboarding.  And it worked every time.  We broke them.  They talked.  Hardened men who despised us and everything we stood for suddenly sang like jaybirds.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed broke and named at least six major terrorists as a direct result of waterboarding.  And as a result of the information that he provided, the US was able to go after other high level sources, and then use those sources to go after still others.

Now, let me provide you with the previous Democratic administration’s “alternative” approach:

[Zacarias] Moussaoui entered the United States in February 2000 and enrolled in the same Oklahoma flight school Murad had attended. After flunking out in Oklahoma, he resumed lessons on flight simulators in Eagan, Minnesota, where his eccentric behavior aroused suspicions. The F.B.I. detained him on immigration charges on August 17. Among his possessions, they discovered a laptop computer.

Eager to examine the computer, Minneapolis F.B.I. agents repeatedly requested a special warrant to examine Moussaoui’s computer, and bureau attorneys in Washington repeatedly denied their requests, claiming there was insufficient evidence. The special court that reviews warrants covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has approved more than 12,000 Justice Department applications for covert search warrants and wiretaps and rejected only one since the act was passed in 1978.

Coleen Rowley      After the 9/11 attacks, F.B.I. agent Coleen Rowley, general counsel in the Minneapolis field office, wrote a scorching 13-page open letter to F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III and the Senate Intelligence Committee. She asserted that the French government had shared ample intelligence on Moussaoui, including information on his links to Osama bin Laden, information that supported requests for a special surveillance warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer in the weeks before the terrorist attacks. (The French, who had put Moussaoui on a watch list in 1999 because they suspected him of terrorist activities, insisted that they had shared their thick dossier with American intelligence agencies.) Rowley said some field agents were so frustrated that they joked about spies and moles for bin Laden working at Washington headquarters.

A Time Magazine story confirms the above account.

That laptop computer belonging to 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui contained enough names, account numbers, and information to have prevented the 9/11 terror attacks had it been immediately accessed.  But we decided that it was preferable to allow Moussaoui’s 19 terrorist pals to murder 3000 American citizens rather than risk violating his “privacy rights.”

And I hate to tell you, but we’re returning to that old position.

My view?  I wish we had acquainted Zacarias Moussaoui with the creative use of an incline board and a garden hose, and started asking him some questions.

Given the documented likelihood of a terrorist attack on American soil using weapons of mass destruction – again citing Inspector Harry Callahan – “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?”

“Well, do ya, punk?”

If you feel lucky, you might well side with Democrats.  You be opposed to any kind of “profiling.”  You’ll be outraged over the thought that the government would actually listen to calls coming into the United States from suspected terrorists overseas.  You will become totally unglued over the thought that we would be so barbaric as to waterboard terrorists, or hold them against their will at a place like Gitmo.

If you don’t feel quite so lucky, you’ll realize that we could very well find ourselves in a situation where we detain a terrorist suspect, and need to find out what he knows while the clock ticks down to the launching of a WMD-attack that will leave hundreds of thousands or more Americans dead.  And you count on your government to protect you by forcing that homicidal S.O.B. to talk before his friends murder you and your entire extended family.

Based on the results of November 4, we’re feeling pretty darn lucky.  You would never elect Democrats to have total control over your protection if you weren’t.

Now all we can do is hope that Barack Obama looks at the intelligence information detailing the threats against this country, faints out of sheer terror, regains consciousness, and proceeds to break virtually every single one of his foreign policy campaign promises in order to actually protect this country from violent people who hate it with a psychotic passion.  We have to hope that Obama realizes that one attack – given the fact that Bush protected us – will likely spell his political demise as an outraged country repudiates both his leadership and the Democratic Party that put him in power, and that he will take appropriate steps to fulfill his foremost role as President and protect this country.

And, yeah, given who we’ve chosen to protect us, and given the events of just the last week (e.g. the Mumbai terror attacks, and the official report predicting a major WMD terror attack on US soil), we’re going to need to be lucky.

What Do You Mean, Terrorists Still Target U.S. After We Elected Obama?

We’ve been told stuff like, “A Barack Obama Presidency Will Restore America’s Prestige.”  We’ve been told Obama “would begin a presidency with tremendous potential to heal U.S. relations with much of the world.”

We’ve been told all kinds of bogus crap.

The reality is that everybody who hated us before will still hate us now.  The only diffrence after this election is that those enemies know that we elected an appeasing lightweight whom they think they can push around.  Essentially, we decided we wanted a poodle instead of a rottweiler.

Regardless of the “If we elect Barack Obama, the world will love us, all the prestige we lost under Bush will be restored, the world will respect us, and the sugar plum fairies will sprinke pixie dust on the whole wide wonderful world” narrative we’ve been fed, the reality just aint going to be like that.

You’ve heard of the massive, well-coordinated attack in seven locations in India’s financial capital, Mumbia?  Maybe you also heard stuff like this:

“They were talking about British and Americans specifically. There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said: ‘Where are you from?” and he said he’s from Italy and they said ‘fine’ and they left him alone. And I thought: ‘Fine, they’re going to shoot me if they ask me anything — and thank God they didn’t,” he said.

That from an Associated Press story entitled, “Terrorist attacks in India target Americans; hostages taken, death toll rising.”

Well, that isn’t very nice of them.

Maybe they didn’t hear that we elected this glorious “transformational figure” to be our new prom-king-in-chief?

At the same time we’ve got terrorists trying to target Americans in India, we’ve got terrorists threatening to attack the New York subway system.

Liberals gave George Bush as much hell as they possibly could have during his presidency.  They opposed the Patriot Act, opposed Gitmo, opposed interrogating terrorists, opposed domestic wiretapping of international calls from terrorists, opposed that we didn’t give full constitutional protections to terrorists, opposed pretty much everything President Bush tried to do to fight the war on terror or to keep us safe at home.  And what would they have done if we HAD suffered another attack during his presidency?  They would have screamed that he didn’t keep us safe!

We’ve also got Russia threatening the United States over US missile defense plans in eastern Europe.  And we’ve got Venezuelan warships taking part in war exercises with a Russian naval group during an unprecedented visit to Venezuela by a Russian leader to further solidify an alliance between oil giants.

Of course, that’s a drop in the bucket compared with the very real possibility that Israel will attack Iran over that country’s nuclear weapons program precisely because they may not believe that a President Obama would be up to the job.

Here we are, waiting for the brand new wonderful world that Dear Leader Barack Obama’s “gonna lead us” into.  So far, the media has been unrelentingly unfair in its biased coverage of the political campaign.  The same media that wouldn’t let Bush do anything right won’t let Obama do anything wrong.

But some point, we’re going to be forced to wake up, smell the coffee, and deal with reality.  And media sugarcoating won’t be enough to make our problems go away.

If we’re attacked by terrorists during Obama’s administration, it will be because he’s a weak, pathetic leader who can’t protect us.  If he fights our enemies, it’s because he’s a vicious bloodthirsty warmonger.  If he doesn’t fight our enemies, it’s because he’s an appeasing coward who would rather bow down and cringe than stand up and fight.  In other words, he’s going to find out that constant demonization swings both ways.