Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Junk Science, Religion | Tags: "Violent Extremism", Climate Change Denial, Starvation Famine & Disease
The mystery Of just who the other “violent extremists” are is solved, by a post from spiked:
Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offense. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’.
The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalized, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.
Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like – and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.
Kind of explains the liberal disinterest in talk about free speech. We have noticed that those folks on the left are somewhat intolerant of disagreement. They really don’t like their ideas to be challenged. Britain’s Royal Society wrote to ExxonMobil to demand that they cut off any funding to groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence.” Funny thing, I have never heard anyone deny that the climate changes. They simply deny that it is anything to get all excited about. An open letter to the Society from climatologist Tim Ball argues that:
“scientific inquiry is unique because it requires falsifiability’: ‘The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation. And yet for the first time in history, the Royal Society is shamelessly using the media to say emphatically: “case closed” on all issues related to climate change.”
Well, they’re coming to take me away, ha ha, they’re coming to take me away. We skeptics are to be grouped with Holocaust deniers, we will be “directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead.” (Mark Lynas) I think it was Bobby Kennedy Jr. that wanted us put in concentration camps. So there you go.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Intelligence, Islam, Middle East, National Security, Progressivism, Terrorism | Tags: "Violent Extremism", A Lack of Clear Thinking, Leftist Euphemism
Unbelievable. The world is demonstrating against Islamic jihad, and the White House blandly announced that they would dredge up the old idea of convening a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” The world is protesting murder in France because a cartoon “offends.” A 10-year-old little girl is outfitted with a suicide vest in Nigeria and sent into a marketplace to be exploded remotely killing and wounding at least 20 people.
In 2014 alone — 32,004 people were killed in the name of Islam, and the President of the United States cannot bring himself to say “Islam” or “jihad” or even “terror,” but merely the euphemism “violent extremism.” It may be violent and it may be extremism, but the words slide off the tongue like stale room-temperature gruel.
Hillary was last heard from, babbling about the need to empathize with our enemies, and understand their point of view. But then it was Hillary who told the parents of the Americans killed in Benghazi that that nasty little man who made a video that hardly anyone saw would be put in jail, and so he was.
You cannot address “violent extremism” if you cannot have the courage to even name terror as the weapon in play.
Euphemism is the chosen weapon of the Left for dealing with unpleasant circumstances — “workplace violence” to keep from identifying an American army officer as an Islamic jihadist. And there was “man-caused disaster.” Is it all just a ploy to avoid being associated with the hated Bush? Pathetic.
The pictures of heads of state from the West marching arm in arm was moving, Netanyahu came from Israel, and neither President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Kerry nor Attorney General Holder were in attendance. That was noticed. There is apparently no protocol aide at the White House.
We cannot seem to think clearly and make clear judgments. The emotional needs of chickens are of enough concern recently to disrupt the supply of eggs in the grocery stores. Endangered species pop up and disappear depending on their usefulness as court cases for environmentalists. People who live in apartments in cities, lobby for reintroducing wolves, grizzlies and cougars to territory that was finally free of them, ready to kill unwary hikers.
Kevin Williamson has one of his excellent columns reminding us all of the meaning of being human. Can we all just try to think clearly and speak plainly?
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Military, National Security, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: "Violent Extremism", Terrorism, Workplace Violence
Three years after a man with ties to Islamic radical groups killed twelve people while screaming “Allahu Akbar” over and over at the Fort Hood Army Base, the incident is classified as “workplace violence.” You might classify this one as a cover-up as well; it is at the very least, political correctness gone amok.
Major Nidal Hassan was a U.S. Army psychiatrist scheduled to be deployed. He was a loner, and increasingly under the influence of al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. His superiors were increasingly aware of his odd behavior and Muslim radicalism. But no one did anything about it. The Obama administration has been reluctant to call any incident “terrorism.” Homeland Security has played around with other designations — “violent extremist” seems to be the most popular at the moment. That is a term they are still using for events at Benghazi.
The failure to recognize Islamic terrorism is rooted in a desire to avoid saying anything that would alienate Moslems. Islam, everyone keeps repeating, is a religion of peace. But there are Islamic terrorists and they do have an agenda. Refusing to call it by its correct name is simply a failure to recognize the agenda of those “violent extremists.”
The inaccurate designation of the incident as “workplace violence” is meant to suggest that it is just an ordinary “going postal” situation that could happen anywhere, and don’t even think of blaming Hassan’s superiors for not noticing that he was a danger to everyone around him.
The “workplace violence” designation also deprives Staff Sergeant Shawn Manning, who was shot six times during the attack, of the disability compensation that other wounded service members receive, and eligibility for Purple Hearts or medals for valor. And the twelve dead soldiers are deprived of the recognition they deserve.
Some members of Congress are fighting the classification, but it has not yet been enough. The constant avoidance of not just the designation, but the reality of terrorism, is just wrong and distorts Americans’ understanding of their own nation’s foreign policy.
Heritage’s James Carafano wrote earlier this month:
Clearly, acknowledging that terrorism is alive and well looks bad for the Obama Administration’s rhetoric, which has portrayed Obama as having vanquished Osama bin Laden and thus ending the “war on terrorism.
Playing politics with terrorist incidents and indulging in cover-ups to prevent public knowledge is more than unbecoming, it is dishonest, and unworthy of the office.