Here’s a collection of stories I find interesting.
No, he didn’t win any golf championships. He did, however, admit to having an affair with a staffer. There are a few things he did which may be considered illegal. See, he took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Asia and the Middle East….. He also gave her a $14,000 raise. Of course, it wasn’t HIS money, right? Oh, wait….. it was ours. Why wasn’t this the top story all day, evidence of Government Corruption? Why is Tiger still getting more play than this? Well, Max Baucus is a Democrat, you see….
Teens are Teens and are stupid, regardless of law.
In Oklahoma, as with a few other states, we are talking about making it illegal to text while driving. Other states already have such laws on the books. Now I’m not going to discuss the legality or logic of such laws, though I am linking to this story to show that no matter what kinds of laws you pass, stupid people are still going to do stupid things. Texting while driving is pretty stupid and the law hasn’t apparently stopped stupid people from doing it.
Liberal Weenies DO approve of armed force.
Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider, a AGW cult member, was having a question and answer session regarding climate change. Apparently, though, no one told him that thinking people would be able to ask questions. When confronted with questions that would cause a Professor to have to think or admit that AGW may not be real, the professor acted as we would when someone comitts a crime: He asked armed guards to eject the individual.
The individual who was ejected by armed guards, armed UN guards, by the way, was Phelim McAleer. His question so evil and harrassing as to warrant being kicked out of a question and answer session by armed UN guards?
He asked the Professor’s opinion on the Climategate emails.
► Hot Links
Tags: climategate, Max Baucus
After Shatner mocked Palin, she got even with him.
For anyone interested Charles foster Johnson will be on the Alan Clomes obscure radio show in the next hour or so.
http://affiliates.foxnewsradio.com/Radio/player.html
No formatted xhtml link for that.
song_and_dance_man wrote:
*crickets*
*tumbleweeds*
@ song_and_dance_man:
I don’t think sharmuta or irish rose read this blog anymore.
I, however, am listening to Colmes right now off of your link. I can see why Charles is a fan of this guy. I forgot how annoying he was.
“I wish these global warming deniers would just go away. And if you’re a tea partier, that goes for you too. LEAVE ME ALONE!”
translation: I can’t counter what you’re saying, so I will not let you speak.
LanceKates wrote:
What about…
And after his “Leave me alone!” rant, he went to commercial, now that he’s back he leads with “We have THREE open lines now…”
well, if you turn away the fox news listeners, you’re not going to have many listeners.
HA! “Little Green Footballs, one of the most popular destinations on the web.”
rrrriiiiigggghhhhtttt…..
Colmes: “There is no climategate scandal. There isn’t.”
Oh, well, as long as he says so…
Funny how Alan keeps pushing the Charles foster Johnson thingy. This may get good.
If Cj says something significant that proves his moonbattery other than what we know it will make 1.0 news and become the new drip from the 1.0 pap.
@ LanceKates:
Man, I have kittens. They are way funnier than Charles, and they are litter box trained
That’s twice why Colmes has said the specific words regarding LGF: “most popular destination on the internet.”
I wonder if he was told to say that by cj. Strange to use the exact same wording.
Colmes is callng LGF a popular blog. ha, and nonsense. It was, but not anymore.
@ song_and_dance_man:
OMG “the 10 reasons he lurched to the left” is the topic for the interview. He is getting a lot of mileage from that.
@ LanceKates:
Just reading a script. It is much easier than having Hannity pitching softballs at you…
@ LanceKates
It’s a mutual reach around between insignificant players.
@ snowcrash:
The left loves turncoats. Unless they move to the right, like Zell Miller
song_and_dance_man wrote:
Yeah, about as popular as Colmes’ radio show (not so much).
Iron Fist wrote:
obviously scripted, he even stammered a moment on it.
but did his writer label 1.0 the most popular destination on the internet, or did cj request it?
LanceKates wrote:
It’s possible. People were contractually required to call Michael Jackson “The King of Pop” at his media appearances.
snowcrash wrote:
He posted that screed for a reason. Look at me all ye leftists, I want to camp with you on Leftback Mountain.
@ Kitteh:
until s&d man put up a link, I didn’t even know what colmes had been doing after he left hannity.
snowcrash wrote:
Lurched? More like slithered and slunk, with a smile most unpleasant….
Independent rather than a leftist. bullshit
At least he has come clean to acknowledge that he only had a small part in Rathergate.
cj: “I’ve always tried to show the moderate muslims…”
in response to colmes asking him about his post 9/11 posting.
and cj just trotted out the leftist response to racism: “I have muslim friends.”
@ LanceKates:
He alsways made me want to smash the TV screen. He was like Hannity’s punching bag.
He is admitting to having a problem with the religious.
OT but this has to be the headline of the night.
cj: “Obama has been cleaving to a centrist position.”
like taking over the banks, auto companies and healthcare…..
Kitteh wrote:
He has only one reason for lurching left. He is a milk toast fop with no balls.
It’s like a left love fest.
first, chuckles has a lisp and he sounds out of breath just speaking
second, even Colmes thinks chuckles is a nut.
Chuckles, your hyperbole ain’t fooling skeletor
PS: I was on the show earlier.
anybody else on hold?
CALL FOLKS!
I got through first try
@ LanceKates:
Maybe Colmes should ask him about the “Nuke Mecca” requests….
LOL speaking of global warming legislation: “Its a very conservative standpoint, I think, to want to protect the environment.”
No, it is a liberal standpoint to want to allow the government to run my daily life, like telling me what kind of car I can drive or what kind of lightbulbs I can use or how warm my house can be.
a CONSERVATIVE standpoint would be to post the SCIENCE (not the consensus, but the actual data, unmolested by agenda) and let the populace decide what it will do on its own.
@ Doppelganger:
That could be deeply amusing, even if Charles is the only person listening…
Colmes is combing over the issues and isn’t digging for real answers.
OMG, Cj is bringing up the John Birch society. I guess the Illuminati has been kicked to the curb once again.
Chuckles sounds smug. This is a mutual reach around with Skelator and Nancy. We are probably doubling his ratings by listening to him tonight. How much do you want to bet Nancy doesn’t take any phone calls.
@ Doppelganger:
were you the one that asked about climategate?
Doppelganger wrote:
He is ballooning with no basket.
Kitteh wrote:
And what happened next? Well in 2.0 ville they say
Then his membership rolls shrunk three sizes that day.
I’m glad our tires don’t blow up like this.
@ song_and_dance_man:
My kittens aren’t as much pussy…
@ Iron Fist:
I’m sure he’s deleted them. I think he nuked your posts because of this interview.
The first thing he said when asked about his ‘anti muslim bias’ was for people to ‘check out his blog’ and do research.
What about the comments on 1.0 about Islam that were nowhere near what occurred on other blogs.
Didn’t the dumba$$ used to make fun of colmes? Something like skeletor?
@ LanceKates:
Ah, that makes it make more sense. I wondered why so public and why now? Isn’t that special…
cj is a hypocrite. What about the Car Swarm and misogynist threads.
LanceKates wrote:
He is a true lib now. He is a total liar.
wait… since when is ‘equal rights’ for women and minorities a “Liberal” stance?
it was the southern DEMOCRAT that opposed integration.
LanceKates wrote:
Are they cached on Google?
Chuckles is buzz phrasing from memoery like a coked out jazz musician on a hypnotic mixolydian run
@ newsjunkie_ky:
Skeletor is what we called him on LGF. But that was before Charles found his inner kitten…
stupid ass set up call
what a pair of lame piss ants
I have to say, Andrew Breitbart has nothing to worry about.
you lie
LanceKates wrote:
yep.
Called them climategate deniers
heh. Charles just said that “Viewership has increased”
Much the same way that the New York Times readership is up?
song_and_dance_man wrote:
Palestinian Child Abuse
If I’m wrong, did they only take one call?
full doof going down
@ Doppelganger:
I was curious if one of us would be in.
He took 1 call. From Shiplord.
obviously set up.
so even when being interviewed he doesn’t allow disagreement.
This was a radio form of what is called a “Whitepaper”
Well that was a complete out of the closet interview by a left winger to another.
@ song_and_dance_man:
Not to mention the Palestinian Child Abuse threads.
He has a record to run on that has nothing to do with me or my “ravings”. Although he agreed with me when I made them, but that is another issue…
He is kinda goofy and sounds old. Old and goofy, now THAT is a combination to avoid.
Doppelganger wrote:
Of course you did. You were the only one listening.
snowcrash wrote:
Goofy and old? Not a jolly old elf? Who’da thunk?
@ Silhouette:
We think alike. We should do dinner again sometime
Anybody linked this yet? Who’d a thunk Iowahawk?
In your dreams…
So yes, it was only one call.
I spoke with the young lady screening callers, I told her I knew the lines were probably busy, that I had a contrary point of view, and I would keep it quick and courteous.
Something stinks.
Hey, people who question Obama and his birth certificate were just called racists by Colmes.
2 calls, 1 from shiplord sloptank and the other asked him if he ever played with Miles Davis. What a load of crap.
Formercorpsman wrote:
Dude cannot take calls. He doesn’t have cover of his blog where he can ban and bully at will. I predicted it.
@ RoboMonkey:
Love that pic!
2 calls.
You know, most of my friends have either taken, or still take bullets.
They can’t phone calls?
@ Formercorpsman:
It is Colmes. What has he ever done other than clean up sloppy seconds from Hannity? Were you expecting real journalism? Hell, real journalists don’t do that…
@ Bordm:
Two deep calls, there.
@ Iron Fist:
Right. some of his threads, back in the day when he catered to those who didn’t think like him, shows he was a charlatan of the worst degree. And now he has the gumption to say he never thought like that, yet he posted things then that were against his leftist leanings.
What is that kind of man like?
Colmes is quick with the cut button, no wonder he only has a few listeners. Probably close to the numbers of his guest’s commenters and viewers now.
When is he going to start dissing Israel?
@ LanceKates:
Did he (Holmes) leave Fox altogether? Hadn’t thought about it till now, but haven’t seen him there recently.
mjazz wrote:
He did in that interview. I can’t quote it precisely, but it was there.
@ Bordm:
One guy didn’t even get to his question….. then he called back and was cut off again.
Colmes knows what is coming and doesn’t want to deal with it, so he silences it.
THAT’S why the left must be driven out of any position of authority or power.
Fort Hood shooter is a palestinian.
@ mjazz:
He’s a Mohammedan. All the rest is just window dressing…
Shiplord was taking over the whole interview! They really screened the calls. Charles must have told Colmes him how everyone picks on him and Colmes understands. LOL
If IQ points were degrees of temperature, Colmes and selrahC, working together, couldn’t muster up enough energy to melt a snow flake.
both god damned threads talking about the same obscure shit.
@ Dolphin:
Saw him there just the other night.
@ coldwarrior:
Then bring something else up.
Well that was double plus pathetic. Pathetic colmes and pathetic CJ.
Both holding hands, circling the drain.
snowcrash wrote:
Colmes knows he has a hard time disciplining his eyebrows, so callers are a much peskier element.
mjazz wrote:
His using the word “denier” is very telling. He KNOWS what that word subtly and not so subtly means to Jews. He doesn’t care.
@ RoboMonkey:
A bit like John Kerry, who served in Vietnam.
@ coldwarrior:
To repeat my response to someone earlier on a different topic… Lighten up Francis.
The addiction must be fed until the moment of clarity…
We will move on, just not yet.
LanceKates wrote:
i was having a drink with my wife…so gimme a minute.
(she has to work in the AM, the good nurse)
@ LanceKates:
Good God Almighty, if the Chosen one is ‘cleaving to a centrist position’, then what the f-ck would it take to be called a leftist?
CynicalConservative wrote:
good enough.
@ mjazz:
Thanks. Don’t watch much past Glenn Beck now days. Can’t stand much of the “news” these days.
coldwarrior wrote:
chickadee wrote:
Both concise analyses.
I wasn’t expecting anything different.
Was anybody?
Back to Iowahawk.
Phalanx Anti-Missile System
They didn’t allow me through. They said call back, I wanted to expose his support of Hugo Chavez and his bigotry of Christians. I did and they just left me to hang. Only Kriel and some Mile davis fan was allowed to talk to him. Then he ran like the coward he is.
@ coldwarrior:
No worries. I despise the ponytailed libtard and do my (weak) best to ignore but have a purient interest in the train-wreck that I haven’t moved past.
@ snowcrash:
Pretty soon “occupation” should pop up.
Rodan wrote:
It was the Alan fucking Colmes Show!
Did you really let your hopes get that high?
aladam, and just like that, with one post about a new nomination about a new category we have been nominated in at Weblog Awards we are now in 4th place there after only one night.
You guys are awesome. somehow that sounds sharmuta like so disregard the hint of disingenuousness.
@ coldwarrior:
Its the facyt here was a chance to confront him. He ran like a coward and no Anti-LGF calsl were allowed. People don’t like cowards.
Imagain some guy was running his mouth about you, then you know where he is. You go to see what he has to say. Rather than man up, he runs out the back. You would be pissed also.
Going Green.
High efficiency traffic lights don’t melt snow cover, creating traffic hazard
City officials say the LED lights use less electricity and don’t give off enough heat to melt ice or snow. So when the snow falls and the wind blows, the traffic lights are obscured.
To funny.
@ Poteen:
Did he clone himself?
coldwarrior wrote:
Here or there?
@ coldwarrior:
RN?
coldwarrior wrote:
Gunshow tomorrow in Monroeville. I’m going (not buying unless something sweet is in the parking lot) just to boost numbers.
Bordm wrote:
Are you kidding? You mean he set up a lizard minion to call him?
OMG. That is pathetic. Sad, really.
@ Poteen:
Yes, I thought Alan was a straight shooter. I just wanted to expose Charles for his hatred of Christians and support of Chavez. He confirmed his cowardice to me.
mjazz wrote:
Tried but auto aborted./
LMAO!!! Charles is really desperate for traffic.
He unblocked my IP!
(Not as it made any difference… )
@ mfhorn:
In order for moderately conservative folks to be considered ‘right wing extremists’ then the radical leftists must be considered ‘centrists’
I can’t imagine what it makes me. I catch hell from moderates for being as conservative as I am.
Rodan wrote:
If Colmes was a straight shooter his show wouldn’t be so obscure.
Even if you’d gotten on, no one would know but those here and them there. And his regular 5 listeners.
@ Possum:
Maybe he is getting ready for an open enrollment.
Possum wrote:
And the hits just keep coming.
People, i realize he’s doing this for Traffic. If he really believed what he thought, he would man up and allow questions. he didn’t. He ran like a coward. Therefore I think we should ignore him.
He’s a punk and tonight, it’s visible for all to see.
The press here in MT has been playing coverup for Baucus since the stroy broke. Not only that, but on the facebook accounts for the tv stations trolls have flooded them repeating the meme “there is no story”. There’s something here, Everyone on the left in MT is in full blown denial and attack mode. I think we haven’t seen the whole thing yet.
@ bar:
The law of unanticipated consequences. Sheesh.
bar wrote:
LMAO, The law of unintended consequences strikes again! Next thing you know, the ZerO administration will be claiming,the workers scraping the ice off the lenses, are new jobs created.
If he unblocks my IP it means he’s in the tank talking to the sharks, once again.
@ Rodan:
That’s how they do it on the left. They lie, mock you, and when confronted in the light of day with clear objective arguments, they flee.
Rodan wrote:
that was my impression listening to the interview. he’s a punk. even in a softball interview, Colmes still hinted that chuckles was a fake. He called him out on calling Ann Coulter a white supremacist.
I haven’t given that coward a single click in several months. I don’t visit the daily kos. I don’t visit 1.0
@ Rodan:
-Lays on hands-
You have seen the Light my son!! You are hee-ulled!!
Go forth now, free of your former burden.
Get your updates from other sinners. Go thee no more into the pit.
Leave your offering in the Right Rev. Poteen’s basket please.///
Growing Evidence of the Transcontinental Cocaine Pipeline
AH,, they cut the rest of my discussion off.
As well, he diverted the focus of my call.
He never addressed the my point, and turned into something personal on my end which I never insinuated.
I was totally respectful, not hostile, and had definitive examples of why I considered one of his points to be contradictory.
Formercorpsman wrote:
Did you make it on the air?
@ Formercorpsman:
No call challenging CJ’s positions made it on air…that I heard.
@ mjazz:
Just what we need is an al-Qaeda/Mexican alliance, given what is happening just south of the border.
@ Doppelganger:
What was his response?
Yes. Just a little bit ago.
I was respectful, and he never addressed the point of my call.
He side-stepped the rationale, and instead of addressing my point of drawing a comparison of how the right is being blamed for opposition of gay marriage, when it transcends both parties.
The essential point of my call, was how the administration’s positions are no different than the political opposition, or that in a very large blue state, they passed Prop in just the last year.
He turned it into why I cared if they get married. It was a dishonest tactic, as my point was to illustrate the dishonesty of holding one side responsible, yet the other side is just as guilty.
Possum wrote:
LMAO!!! Charles is really desperate for traffic.
He unblocked my IP!
(Not as it made any difference… )
My curiosity almost made me go see if mine was unblocked – but I really don’t want to give him any traffic, and truth is, I really don’t care.
It was on the open line, not during the interview.
This should be a fine example of finding one who once could be trusted, and can’t be anymore, to serve as notice to those on both sides of the political isle, there may be turncoats of a most devious nature.
Here was one, one once trusted and admired, who hailed and exuded conservative ideals- and spoke about them vicariously through his cut and paste entries- who moved past his former deception to tout something that was beyond those be embraced when it was more convenient.
It is more than just little lies, and goes into an area where a devious deception was used as motive for a reason Foster can only describe.
@ mjazz:
It’s not real great north of the border either.
gulfloafer wrote:
My experience has been they cuss and call you names.
@ mjazz:
Interesting stuff. Looks like Venezuela is setting itself up as a major hub for the European drug market by establishing this African route.
(Of course, they’ll still like him anyway.)
snowcrash wrote:
Yoda mode. Love it, I.
I’m tired. Have a good night.
@ yah:
I do! I have a favorites folder labeled “Fun” for when I just want to have a laugh.
In it I have,
http://www.craigslist.org/ I laugh at the crap people try to sell.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/ I really laugh at the Kittehs.
and….
You guessed it!
So you see, Charles ranks below people selling crap and cute animals in my world.
@ song_and_dance_man:
1200 miles away from behind a key board no doubt.
Mars wrote:
Why does the press everywhere have to be liberal?
*sigh*
@ gulfloafer:
They are everywhere. I’ve been acquainted to them from old friends and family and know them well. I may love them them, but I don’t like them.
Goodnight all, it has been fun. I am off to my daughters middle school to chaperone the 12-3 shift for the band’s all night lock in. I could kick myself. lol
Something my (currently nonexistant) daughter will one day say.
Is it just me or does this whole Tiger Woods thing reflect more poorly on women than Tiger?
to whit:
his wife; goes mental and attacks him even though she signed an agreement to be his ‘beard’ so he could look good for his endorsement contracts. (‘beard’ in this case as not that he’s gay but that he’s a whore monger)
all the other two bit whores, sluts, hookers and sundry that are now coming out of the woodwork (pun intended) like the ill-bred trailer trash little gold diggers that they are.
Yet somehow, TIGER is the one who’s no good.(which is true in a way but no one is pointing out that he couldn’t do this stuff without cooperation)(women get all upset about men who cheat but they neglect to point the finger at their sister’s predatory actions; every cheating man has an accomplice in the act)
@ jakee308:
Yeah, but a single lady scoring with Tiger is a single lady engaging in sex with someone she’s not married to.
Tiger scoring with random women across the country is a married man having an affair.
While you are right that they bear some responsibility as sex is a two way street….. it’d require people to view sex outside of marriage as something negative.
Well, in my humble opinon, you’ve falle a long way when you’ve gone from being invited on the Dennis Prager show to being invited on the Alan Colmes show.
@ Nikis Knight:
like I said earlier, I didn’t even know colmes HAD a show. I thought he just retired or something.
I especially didn’t expect Fox to give him a radio show. I guess they’re trying to ‘balance’ the glenn beck tv show and hannity.
Shep Smith can only balance out so many conservatives…
RoboMonkey wrote:
lol!
@ LanceKates:
Actually, from what I’ve read, she’s got a pretty good size payout coming for being Tiger’s wife. I think she got paid off to let him do what he wants and keep quiet about it. It’ll be interesting if the details of the deal get out when/if she goes for a divorce.
I don’t buy that he ‘married’ her with any real emotion attached so it’s not like he really meant his vows and she knew it. (maybe she didn’t really expect him to keep on with his antics but then women never seem to believe that a lying philanderer will keep lying and philandering once they get married.)
My take from what I’ve heard/read, is that he only got married to help his image with his endorsement deals.
@ LanceKates:
P.S.: it also seems that these ‘single ladies’ are more like ladies of negotiable affection and are not exactly innocent star struck groupies being taken advantage of.
ROTFLMAO.
Politically correct term for “Hooker” ?
@ LanceKates:
Alan Colmes: He played the ‘Washington Generals’ to Hannity’s Globetrotters.
Sometimes when he would take the opposite tack on a subject, I would literally cringe as I couldn’t believe that anyone could possibly be that dumb or doctrinaire but apparently it was genuine: he truly is that dumb of a liberal but I repeat myself.
That CJ is getting booked on Alan’s show says something about Alan AND CJ; they’re both circling the drain looking for any handy turd to cling to before the final flush.
It always amazes me that liberals seem to think that passing a law will actually change anyone’s behavior. They never seem to connect with the reality that people do what they do without much regard to what the law is. Mostly because of alcohol or emotions or just plain stupidity.
About 80% of Law Enforcement is waiting for the uncaught criminal to do something else stupid and finally get caught. It’s why LE has such a lousy opinion of the citizen; they meet mostly stupid people doing really, really stupid things. It tends to give one a bad opinion of the human race in general.
@ jakee308:
Seriously, all Charles was ever good for was a handy list of Islamic attacks overlooked by the media with room for comments. Now? What wisdom exactly does he have to recommend him? He’s just one guy out of 6 billion. I wish him well but scoff at the thought that people much care what he thinks.
song_and_dance_man wrote:
Poor Alan is scraping the bottom of the barrels. Sad. What is he even up to these days?
jakee308 wrote:
If he wasn’t famous he’d more than likely be a video game nerd and still have to pay for women. Sort of feel sorry for him. He is just not a looker and no doubt he knows that.
@ jakee308:
I agree with you 100%. There are a lot of fucked up bitch cunts out there who prey on the weakness of men. I hate the bitch more than the guy I was in love with because she was a vampire, knowing full well how to manipulate his ego. Its up to women to teach men how to behave, sorry its what I believe. If every single woman told a man to fuck off, instead of using them for whatever they wanted, the world would be a lot less stressful.
Drive by comment here.
So Tiger the Pampered couldn’t control himself, and his pecker just kinda leapt into the crotches of a baker’s dozen of women of its own will. How can it be Tiger’s fault since he’s attached to his leaping pecker?
Aside from that nonsense, here’s this:
Nikis Knight wrote:
What I cannot understand is his ridiculous effort to capture former glory by hitching his star to the AGW movement. He has already been pwned all over the place by Ace and is setting himself up to receive a hiding to nothing over this issue. When he does the crowd with whom he hopes to be accepted, (the Kos’s and the Huff Po’s of the world), will keep their distance and the people who stood by him and helped him at the height of his influence will pile it on.
teacake wrote:
The trouble with sex is that it adds to the complications o0f life by about 75%.
RoboMonkey wrote:
I don’t care what you call the little white animal, its adorable and it kills rats!
This is WORTH a few minutes of your time to read.
Risk, Threat and Security: The Case of the United Kingdom Gwyn Prins, Robert Salisbury. RUSI Journal. London: Feb 2008. Vol. 153 (1) p 6
Abstract
It proposes that positive steps to strengthen and update our defence and security efforts involve returning to long established constitutional arrangements of the Queen in Parliament. It describes the operating principles and the dynamics of constitutional machinery with the necessary strength to match present threat and future risk How to realign our defence effort to changing risks and threats is not merely a technocratic question to be answered internally by the defence and security establishments within government. It has been the reduction of traditional threats (aggression from nation states) combined with the increase of possible risk factors (most notably, Islamist terrorism, but there are many others) which has so destabilised world affairs and increased uncertainty.
Copyright Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies Feb 2008
This article expresses the consensus of a private seminar series which met at intervals between May 2006 and January 2008. In addition to the authors those participating included Sir Mark Allen, Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, Chris Donnelly, Field Marshal the Lord Inge, Tom Kremer, Lord Leach, Baroness Park of Monmouth, Douglas Slater, General Sir Rupert Smith, and Professor Hew Strachan.*
The security of the United Kingdom is at risk and under threat. The mismatch between the country’s military commitments and the funding of its defence moved Lords Bramall, Boyce, Craig, Cuthrie and Inge – five former Chiefs of the Defence Staff – to take the unusual step of raising their concerns publicly in a House of Lords Defence debate on 22 November 2007. A public forum – the Defence Association – has also been established to investigate and articulate the crisis they identify. security is not only a question for Chiefs of the Defence Staff. It matters to every citizen of the United Kingdom. security is the primary function of the state, for without it there can be no state, and no rule of law. The former Chiefs of the Defence Staff have stepped outside their traditional reticence to speak on behalf of all. Anxiety about defence and security runs far and wide.
This essay addresses the bases of that anxiety: the sources of risk and threat, both overseas and at home. It argues that weaknesses at home, particularly divisions in our attitudes to our defence, contribute to turning risks into threats. It proposes that positive steps to strengthen and update our defence and security efforts involve returning to long established constitutional arrangements of the Queen in Parliament. Thus we may meet the needs of today and tomorrow. Our proposal is not a finely detailed blueprint. It is more fundamental. It describes the operating principles and the dynamics of constitutional machinery with the necessary strength to match present threat and future risk
How to realign our defence effort to changing risks and threats is not merely a technocratic question to be answered internally by the defence and security establishments within government. Repeated assertions by ministers that all is well, that the matter is well in hand and can be safely left to them to manage in-house, no longer carry conviction.
Uncertainty
The electorate is uncertain and anxious. People feel uncertainty about military adventures overseas which have cost many lives and have pushed our armed forces to the limits. They are worried about security at home since the successful terrorist attack of 7/7, the similar attack a fortnight later which was only averted by the incompetence of its perpetrators, and the narrowly preempted attacks on planes in 2006. In the summer of 2007, there were also carbomb attempts at Glasgow airport and in the West End of London. The ‘war on terror’ is with us now in all its ugliness.
Both current military operations and the war on terror together raise a deeper point. Is there any longer a clear distinction between being at war and not being at war? A declaration of war is almost inconceivable today, and yet both our defence and security services are in action against active forces, abroad and at home, at this moment. The electorate sees this paradox. It also worries about the way we were committed to war, especially in Iraq, and about Washington’s sway and leadership. But equally, the electorate is disturbed by an undertow of doubt about the wider muddling of political responsibilities between Westminster and Brussels. Who actually holds, or will take, responsibility for our foreign relations, for our defence, and for our security? Who – for instance – should guarantee our borders?
Such uncertainty should be of primary concern because it weakens the bond between government and the governed, which is precisely what terrorists seek to achieve and what other enemies of the United Kingdom will exploit. For this reason, it is not enough for anyone (even Her Majesty’s Government) to say, ‘Don’t worry, we have it in hand’. The uncertainty has to be addressed. The confidence and loyalty of the people are the wellspring from which flows the power with which all threats to defence and security are ultimately met. Our constitutional arrangements and institutional dispositions must both deserve and grow out of that loyalty and confidence. The present uncertainty suggests our arrangements need review and renewal.
Risk and Threat
Latent risks can become patent threats. What marks the change of a risk into a threat is usually the emergence of a factor which has been misjudged. It has been the reduction of traditional threats (aggression from nation states) combined with the increase of possible risk factors (most notably, Islamist terrorism, but there are many others) which has so destabilised world affairs and increased uncertainty. Linked to these changes is a loss in the United Kingdom of confidence in our own identity, values, constitution and institutions. ‘This England that was wont to conquer others’, wrote Shakespeare, ‘hath made a shameful conquest of itself.’ This is one of the main factors which have precipitated risks into threats. As long as it persists, it will have the power to do so again.
Islamist terrorism is where people tend to begin. The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity. That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate. This is a problem worsened by the lack of leadership from the majority which in mis-placed deference to ‘multi-culturalism’ failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism. The country’s lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.
We live under threat. We sense that now is a time of remission, between the frontal attack of 9/11, and its eventual successor, which may deliver an even greater psychological blow. Significant though they were in their different ways, neither the 2004 Madrid train bombings (which affected a national election), nor the London Underground and Bus bombings of July 2005 (which exposed the weakness of the ‘multi-cultural’ approach towards lslamists) were that successor. Thus, we are in a confused and vulnerable condition. Some believe that we are already at war; but all may agree that generally a peace-time mentality prevails. In all three ways – our social fragmentation, the sense of premonition and the divisions about what our stance should be – there are uneasy similarities with the years just before the First World War.
We are fortunate in not having the specific external state enemies who once posed threats to the British state and against whom we could therefore define ourselves. There has been no straight substitution of the Cold War threat with another threat of different source but similar type. But the range and nature of the threats to the security of British citizens in 2008 are not confined solely to what the lslamists call their ‘jihad’ against the West.
A shifting complex of risks faces us. An adequate approach to Britain’s security in the next few years must address questions that are intricate, delicate and strange to our conventional way of thinking. The familiar categories of ‘home’ and ‘abroad’, which have long reassured the British in a deep part of their national identity, are breaking down. We know much less about what threatens us and how it does so than our official policies assert.
Six categories of risk can be identified. Any one of these may ignite the powder trails in and between any of the others. The examples we employ are not exhaustive but illustrative.
Geo-strategic fundamentals do not change, but new sources of power are at play within them
There are unchanging geo-political factors of trade, distance, trade routes and choke-points vital to the United Kingdom’s well-being. Yet while British reliance on sea traffic is increasing, our policy-makers seem to suffer from ‘sea blindness’. They have not yet noticed or, if they have, have not reacted to the weakening of the Royal Navy. The Navy is set rapidly to shrink in size and in capability because of the failure to maintain construction and establishment during the last decade. (We emphasise this point here not because there are not grave shortcomings throughout the services, but because naval force structure, once lost, is especially difficult to recover.) Likewise, the other fixed geopolitical fact is that Britain is an island adjacent to continental Europe. Our security depends upon continental arrangements not encroaching on our basic freedoms, that do not sap but amplify our strengths and that do not traduce the limits of public consent.
The old surfs the new
Standing astride the old fundamentals are actors who deploy against us both old and very new sources of moral and material power. The jihadists deploy the power of conviction that comes from a sectarian understanding of religion. They also surf the internet and use it to their advantage and our peril. They are not state-bound, but can take over part or all of a state, as has happened in Afghanistan and Somalia, and as could happen in Pakistan. That is why ‘home’ and ‘abroad’ are now seamlessly interlinked in such troubling ways.
There is new competition for resources
Competition for energy, water and food is sharpened every day by the demands of the two awakening demographic superpowers, India and China. This competition entails, at the least, tighter markets and, at the worst, real vulnerability to interruption of supply. Both India and China are matching their greater dependence upon increasing volumes of sea trade with substantial programmes of naval construction. These resource questions interlace with wider and older types of question. Can the Chinese Communist Party successfully maintain its rule in an open economy? Can it manage to hand power down without internal collapse, in a way that Gorbachev could not? How may these tensions influence its competition with India, the world’s largest democracy? What will be the consequences of America’s deep and different engagements with each? These will be some of the most important questions in the coming decades. They are of a high order of importance in judging how best to plan for British security.
The politics of climate change represent unexpected pressures
Climate change has now been added to the more familiar factors governing the competition for resources, and the security implications that flow from that competition. World food stocks may fall as demand increases for plant-based feedstock for biofuels. China and India have both made it plain that they will not constrain their economic growth to curtail emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. Can the Chinese Communist Party cope with political pressures rising from pervasive domestic pollution of air, land and water? The present failure of the Kyoto Protocol and the probable future failure of any successor built on the same flawed structural assumptions lay the ground for future conflicts of interest. This is a new source of tension between the advanced industrial regions, the demographic superpowers, and the rest; and it represents a simple operation of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Law is greatly to be respected in developing a viable defence and security establishment. It turns risks into threats.
The problem of Russia is re-emerging
President Putin is showing considerable skill in mixing the old with the new. He has answered, with troubling clarity, the question in Alexandr Blok’s poem: as Russia, the Sphynx, gazes at Europe, sometimes with hatred, sometimes with love; which sentiment predominates? A new Russian nationalism is being promoted. Proud in its wealth of oil and gas, this nationalism revels in its isolation and its contempt for the ‘soft’ West. It is ready to expropriate property, to break contracts, to hint at energy blackmail, and to pursue opponents wherever they are – for instance in the unprecedented 2007 cyber-attack on Estonia, in which state resources were apparently complicit. The opportunity to engage Russia in the world economy efficiently (as opposed to colluding with robber baron capitalism) was squandered by those from the West who gave advice in the 1990s. We are yet to see the full bill for these errors. Meanwhile, both birth rates and life expectancy in Russia continue dramatically to slide, compounding the ferocity of the new nationalism with a tragic urgency.
Multilateral institutions are weakening
Currently, for essentially ideological reasons, the United Kingdom continues to invest much effort and faith in three supranational institutions: the UN, NATO and the EU. The current Prime Minister restated that investment as his central credo in his first Mansion House foreign policy speech in November 2007. Yet all are simultaneously weakening. Originally intended as alliances to support agreed ends, they have lost their way and no longer offer their members the benefits once covenanted. What are the essential features of alliances worthy of that name? Shared essential values; shared culture, and especially military culture; shared interests; and, most basic of all, trust – trust enough to permit the special intelligence relationships enjoyed by the UK for the last sixty years with Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand. We have only to look at destinations for British emigration, and at world-wide phone traffic patterns, to see where our practical preferences are exercised.
What does all this – and particularly the last – mean for the United Kingdom? Coalitions of the willing are the only lasting kind; nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Foul weather friends are to be preferred to fair weather friends; and the British people know precisely which are which. The English-speaking world manifestly close friends – and, less openly, those with interests common to ours, emerge as our main diplomatic resource. In making our choices, however, we need to know who we are ourselves and what we stand for. How else should we ourselves be reliable allies to others? Once we know these things and admit them, we can restore our divided house to harmony and thence to security.
A profound lack of agreement about the nature and priority of threats and the right ways of confronting them enhances the risks. The stiff geometry of the Cold War world has given way to a less predictable (although actually older and familiar) flow of forces in world affairs; but the mindset of Cold War planners and analysts and the institutions shaped by them still linger. This mismatch leaves us open to ambush. We maintain a posture to meet threats of a certain type for which we have defences of a certain type. What we actually face are risks that could grow into threats that are significantly different in origin and in nature. We lack the certainty of the old rigid geometry.
So our defences must be much more flexible, agile and therefore of a scale to allow that flexibility. We can only take the risk of a bare-bones defence and security establishment if we are sure of the shape of the threat: that we are not, and cannot be. But to justify the costs of flexibility, there has to be a common understanding shared by people, government and defence forces that the risks and threats exist which warrant such expense. At present, in the United Kingdom, there is no such congruence of views. This is a source of vulnerability. It gives the wider context of risks a menacing advantage in incubating threats. So we face these dangers in a condition of lost certainties, eroded self-confidence and fractured institutional integrity.
A vicious circle has thus been set up. There is no coherent and comprehensive mechanism for the analysis of risks and threats within government that the electorate can see to exist, and so rely on. When the unexpected occurs, the response to it is likely to be incoherent and ad hoc: short-termist and uncertain. This encourages government to ‘spin’ and manipulate, to cover the shortfall in real strength and coherence with public relations ploys. This will play into our enemies’ strengths.
The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are. Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent. We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without.
There is now such disjuncture between Britain’s enduring security interests and the manner in which the state’s moral and material defence of those interests has been pursued since the collapse of the Soviet Union (and especially during the last decade), that this disjuncture is like a breach made by the defenders themselves in the walls of their own city. Both political parties have been complicit, from the time of the Rifkind Defence Review under the Major administration to the agitated activity and many institutional disturbances of the Blair administrations. And now we have the failure of the Brown administration to provide the significant increases of core funding for defence that so exercises Lords Bramall, Boyce, Craig, Guthrie and Inge. Official assertions plead otherwise, but the intervention of the Chiefs of the Defence Staff suggests an atmosphere of chronic disrepair. Britain’s defence forces have been reduced during a decade of overuse, under-funding and general underprovision relative to that use.
A more fundamental source of damage to the security of Britain has been flabby and bogus strategic thinking. History and experience have been neglected in favour of ‘group think’ and enthusiasm for ideological projects. Public expenditure has been directed in correspondingly perverse ways with clear consequences for our defence and security. All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links of confidence and support between the British people, their government and Britain’s security and defence forces, than for many years.
What is needed is to reverse the vicious circle and turn it into a virtuous one. Fortunately, our history and experience suggest tried and reliable tools for doing this.
We need to remind ourselves of the first principles which govern priorities in liberal democracies. Defence and security must be restored as the first duty of government. The trust and mutual obligations between government, people and the defence forces must be reasserted. Our common understanding of and allegiance to the United Kingdom must be restored. We have a powerful history and a sound constitution, fit for the state’s essential role as the ultimate guarantor of the individual’s safety, freedom and security.
Moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics. We have the successful example of the creation of the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England, which removed control of interest rates from the political arena. The range of threats and risks facing the United Kingdom, together with the experience of the past few years, suggest that measures to achieve that should go beyond changes in policy. Institutional changes are needed.
The present Government appears to understand this. Gordon Brown’s ‘Governance of Britain’ initiative, launched by him in a speech in July 2007, buttressed in October by another speech and consultative papers issued by the Lord Chancellor, contains proposals relating to foreign policy and security. These implicitly admit errors in the recent past, and seek to create greater trust and consensus, notably by publication of a National security Strategy and giving Parliament formal powers over the engagement of troops and the making of treaties.
In that spirit, now may be an opportune moment to offer a further and complementary proposal for institutional change in the area of defence and security. But before doing so, let us be realistic about the role of such changes. Institutions do not guarantee sound analysis or clear thinking any more than they engender political will. It is a common error to conflate legislating with doing. Individuals do the analysis, the thinking and the determining. Institutions facilitate these. They can only provide the best possible spaces and the clearest lines of communication within and through which people come together to make these things happen. Institutional improvements such as we advocate here are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the improvement of British security.
Aim of the Proposal
The aim is to match three needs: addressing the full range of strategic risks and threats coherently and consistently within government, instead of ad hoc; doing so in a manner which as far as possible escapes the traps of partisan and political-cycle factors, without doing violence to the principles of parliamentary government; and building political consensus so that public opinion can feel confidence in the political process, without the detailed mediation of the press – for these, of course, are matters that often need to be confidential, if not secret. This would represent a virtuous circle.
Twin Committees
We propose twin committees: one a Cabinet Committee (of ministers, with service personnel and officials not just formally in attendance, but actually as full members), and the other a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament.
A key aspect of the proposal is that, although the Joint Committee would need a very small staff in each House, the two Committees should essentially share a staff within the Cabinet Office.
Functions
The Cabinet Committee would draw together all the threads of government relating to defence and security, whether at home or abroad. It would be ‘somewhere for anyone to go’ in raising concerns. It would draw all parts of government into strategy and planning, as required. Its key function would be strategic: assessing risks and threats, and our capabilities in addressing them, in order to make judgements as to the balance and proportions of policy across the full spectrum of government activity. It would not be concerned directly with operational matters. It would not be concerned directly with the allocation of resources, but would have an influential voice when a clear need for resources was not being met. Its principal task would be to exercise judgement as to the necessary levels of capability and the overall balance of effort and planning, long term.
The Joint Committee would provide a parallel institution within Parliament to monitor Government assessments and strategy, to make available the perspective of politicians from other parties (and none)/and to act, in so far as it saw fit, to build consensus in Parliament for Government policy, or to raise awareness in Parliament of gaps in Government policy. It would not be inquisitorial, in the sense of investigating or scrutinising past actions by Government departments or agencies. It would have the power to report to the Houses as it saw fit, and so recommend matters for debate.
Membership of the Committees
The members of the Cabinet Committee would be ministers, defence staff and officials as ordered by the Prime Minister: the normal arrangement for such a Committee. The departments and agencies to be represented would probably include the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Home Office. Others who were not permanent members might need to attend from time to time – for example, the heads of the security services, Lord Chancellor or Attorney General (for constitutional issues impacting on the freedom of the individual) or ministers from the departments responsible for schools or higher education.
The membership of the Joint Committee would of course be a matter for the two Houses: but we propose two innovations to be established as conventions. First, all members should be appointed with the expectation of serving for at least a full Parliament, and normally for a fixed number of years. secondly, all members should already be Privy Counsellors, or be appointed so on joining the Committee. This would emphasise the seniority of the Joint Committee and allow its deliberations to take place on Privy Council terms. It would also allow it to meet together with the Cabinet Committee if circumstances required.
Chairmen
We believe that these committees could become very important. This being so, for two reasons we suggest that the Prime Minister be not given chairmanship. First, the new committees are organs of analysis and overview, not executive organs. They will report to and thus empower the Prime Minister’s executive committees. The best military, political and business experience shows that sound and decisive leadership involves delegation. Leadership can then be quiet, creative and clear. secondly, we seek by re-engagement to stimulate the sinews, nerves and muscles of the whole parliamentary body politic that has grown flaccid from under use. It is imprudent and counter-productive to overburden a Prime Minister with detailed chairing commitments. Therefore, a senior Cabinet minister would chair the Cabinet Committee. This, together with responsibility for the Cabinet Office staff of the committees, should be a substantial, if not the major, part of his or her remit. One of the sinecure posts, ideally Lord President, would clearly be appropriate for this. The Committee would report, as appropriate, direct to the Cabinet or to the Prime Minister’s own defence and overseas policy committee. A senior member of the Opposition, possibly but not necessarily with Cabinet experience, should chair the Joint Committee.
Conclusion
This new structure of committees would have an important symbolic function, as well as a practical one. It would demonstrate to the public that the widest view of defence and security was taken within government and within Parliament. It would show that the whole range of risks and threats was being managed.
It would help both ministers and officials comprehend the interrelated nature of today’s risks and the emergence of threats. It would help them build the underlying policies in support of operational strategies. It would be a guarantee of the coherence and legitimacy of operations in the eyes of the public.
It would reduce the appearance of short-term political advantage in the deployment of our defence forces and promote acceptance of necessary provision for defence and security. Most importantly, it would preserve and safeguard the authority of Parliament.
Our world has entered into a dangerous phase of uncertainty. In the United Kingdom, frustration with our piecemeal and erratic response to new threats has sapped the strengths we know we have. In reaffirming a political settlement that has served us well, by accepting some considered institutional innovation, we shall be better able to meet what lies ahead, and extend to our allies the support we owe them, helping them in turn to support us.
‘The country’s lack of self-confidence Is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.’ A policeman stands at a cordon in a London street after a failed car bomb attack, 29 June 2007.
Our loss of cultural self-confidence’, Prins and Salisbury argue, ‘weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks.’ British Prime Minister Cordon Brown talks with British troops at their base in the southern Iraqi city of Basra, 2 October 2007. REUTERS/Lefteris Pitarakis.
* Sir Mark Allen is a retired member of HM Diplomatic Service; Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham is a former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff; Chris Donnelly is a Director of the Institute of State & Governance, Oxford and Senior Fellow of the Defence Academy, Field Marshal the Lord Inge is a former Chief of Defence Staff; Tom Kremer is author of The Missing Heart of Europe; Lord Leach is an international banker; Baroness Park of Monmouth is a former member of SIS and diplomat; Douglas Slater is a former Clerk of the House of Lords; General Sir Rupert Smith is a former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe and author of The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World; and Professor Hew Strachan is Chichele Professor of the History of War at All Souls College, Oxford.
@ Aussie Infidel:
I am not going to quote the whole piece and there are too many quotables. I do not know whether to once again give vent to my despair at the steady dissolution and disappearance of the United Kingdom or rejoice that there are still British patriots who know the problem as shown by that article. Where did you find it?
Charles Johnson you are now – following your own logic – a white supramacist, guilty by association.
(cache)
Your logic states: because Colmes interviewed McCain, so Colmes is a white supramacist, guilty by association. You have been interviewed by Colmes so you are too a white supramicist, guilty by assosciation.
Charles, did you Colmes tell before the show that you called him in the past an “useful idiot” ?
@ African Moondog:
A retired General officer that i am on a Returned Services Association committee with, posted it as i am engaged in a similar effort in NZ. We just got some excellent air time on National News and radio. We are battling a Defence Minister in a so called ‘conservative’ government who confessed to me face to face that he believes in One World Government and rule by an elite. Alas he admits that half of his caucus thinks likewise as do 2/3 of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister. This from a so called conservative political party! It seems that the MInister of Defence caught the ‘socialist progressive virus’ whilst completing his Doctorate in constitutional law at Cambridge University.
I fear that a Cameron Administration in the UK next year will be similarly infected with social-progressives who have infiltrated the Conservative Party. In NZ we get to choose every three years a Conservative Socialist government (Labour) OR a Socialist Conservative government (National).
We have no Senate / House of Lords / House of review / Upper House (abolished in 1951), no written constitution and an all powerful Executive that has been known to rule (and i use that term advisedly) by Regulation. Not so much a true democracy, more an elected dictatorship.
Still we trip them up whenever we can!
Guggi @ 172:
Facts, facts, what do they mean to a libtard, nada.
que hora es?
@ Aussie Infidel:
The radical muslims would only agree to that if the little satan Israel and the great satan the United States were eliminated. I have a hunch that those are not the only satans in the world, in their book.
Thanks to boycott Israelis not Affected
Aussie Infidel wrote:
I was horrified when the BNP, an English fruitcake party with some following in the Midlands pushed the Liberal democrats into fourth place in a by election in Glasgow. When even the Scots support parties like that the progressive-conservatives should get a wake up call or are they too smug and arrogant?
palestinians still firing from Gaza
I guess the Israelis still haven’t handed over enough land for peace.
mjazz @ 175:
Agora é 07:18 am aqui.
Damn it got cold quick.
Cause Celebre Islam in America
Obama
Positioned as the first Afro-Zionist President
Also known as “Bush III”
Also known as “judas Goat”
@ mjazz:
Gotta love that law of unintended consequences.
Morning!
@ vagabond trader:
Good morning. What a dip in temperature, eh?
@ mjazz:
Brrrrr!According to the weather pundits,feels like 1 here.We were just wondering if the lawn would be visible again before March,tho heard it might rain tomorrow?
@ vagabond trader:
Showers, high of 48.
@ vagabond trader:
Do you have that saying about New England weather?
Boycott Israeli Goods
I like the ending…
@ mjazz:
Sorry palis no can do, Zionist entity is inside my pc controlling it and me.
Going out to a R meeting.
3 Texas Congress Critters will be there.
Going to call them out on going along and not calling the commie Democrats out loud and every f’n day.
Going to tell them time runs short for them.
November 2010 is coming, get with it or get the f out of the way.
like that, up close , while I’m shaking their hands and I will not turn loose until I see the fear in their eyes.
@ taxfreekiller:
Good for you TFK! The Rs need a sound thrashing, even moreso than the Ds.Please give us an update later if you’re around.
@ taxfreekiller:
Didn’t know Texas was a red state. And I thought the Southern states voted mostly D.
Obama Happy Hanukkah
The once great colonial power now a dhimmi nation.Unfortunately the Jew hate is nothing new.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/uk_catering_to_israelhaters.html
@ mjazz:
I see your Hanukkah and raise you one Mohammedan
@ Urban Infidel:
LOL, Hi UI! He looks rather comfy with that tradition,no?
Good morning, Blogmocracy!
Urban Infidel wrote:
GAK,
Well, America is the 2nd largest Muslim country in the world. Or so Zero says.
Good Morning folks.
@ vagabond trader:
It’s the first time I’ve ever seen him look natural.
This was OUR President at a MOSQUE prayer earlier this year in the middle east!
He canceled OUR CHRISTIAN “NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER”.
For Obama to continue as our president is an INSULT TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS!
Good morning!
@ chickadee:
Lots of targets, thenUm, really…
Morning IF! Left a link for you on the mystery of non religious Jews conversation. If you’re still interested,some good stuff on this website.
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
@ Urban Infidel:
Everytime Hussein speaks is an insult to all that is great about America.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/media/DebtChart715.jpg
Good example of how Bush increased the debt starting the year Democrats took over.
@ vagabond trader:
Thanks! I appreciate it
The Zero’s wanted to secularize Christmas this year in the WhiteHouse. Really cut back on decorations etc. but realized that would look bad for them, so they relented and allowed the decor to go up.
Zero and ‘squatch do not exchange gifts or give their children gifts. They aren’t very Christmasy at all.
I think in Black Liberation Theology, especially the Rev. Wright version, there is not much emphasis on real Christianity. Too much time is spent HATING. fck these scum.
How did CJ do on Colmes last night?
I have only heard Charles on the radio once.
He needs to man up, as I recll his voice is very high.
@ chickadee:
Hi Chickadee! Yes, too much time hating and hustling for that White-y Christmas money to be placed into Rev. Wrights wallet rather than into some Joooooooooo merchants greedy paws.
good morning comrades. potato good this morning, no
Good morning, y’all.
I truly have no issue with President Obama’s being a Muslim. I have an issue with his lying about it.
RIX wrote:
yes very high I nearly fell over laughing the first time I heard him
@ vagabond trader:
I wish there was video of him praying with his lips on the ground and his ass in the air. Though his trademark bowing evokes a similar submissive quality. An insult wrapped in a surrender.
@ mawskrat:
yes very high I nearly fell over laughing the first time I heard him
Yeah, the first time that I heard him , I believe it was an interview
on a Toronto radio program. He was on an anti-creationist rant.
His voice was way too high
@ goddessoftheclassroom:
Good morning Goddess, RIX!
He is a Muslim according to the laws of that practice,though doubtful he is a full believer.His boyhood was spent in its study and he no doubt has “feelings” for the cult. Personally I think the guy is a religious shape shifter. He’ll adopt and profess any belief system if it will benefit his political and or social credentials.
@ vagabond trader:
Good morning Trader. Those are my sentiments exctly. I don’t think that BHO sneaks off to a Mosque & I don’t believe that he is a Mulim.
I do believe that he has sympathies though from his Koranic studying Yoot, “I will stand with the Muslims.”
I really don’t consider that hateful Church that he attended for twenty years to be Christian, so I don’t really know what he is.
vagabond trader wrote:
Hey {vt}, I think they have a very perverse take on Christmas. Christians don’t hate like that.
Check this out: Obama aproval index at all time low:
He’s melting…
@ RIX:
Opportunistic Atheist fits the bill nicely.
@ Urban Infidel:
Very good good, succinctly describes him.
vagabond trader wrote:
That’s exactly what he is, with a special affinity for ROP.
@ vagabond trader:
lol, one “good” was intended. Must be this Zio-puter taking over again.
@ vagabond trader:
Opportunistic Atheist fits the bill nicely.
He does seem to be situational, doesn’t he?
The Trinity United Church that he & Michelle attended is well known in the Chicago Area for hateful sermons.
good morning folks
for those of you who have kids that belive in santa claus, here is a really cool website
Norad tracks santa
each christmas eve, my daughter and I follow Santa as he travels around the world.
here is one of their vids
@ RIX:
He carefully chose it to gain street creds with the Chitown community organizer set. The people he most needed to convince of his leftist “blackness” in order to launch his political career.
The Chicago Tribune has an interesting take on the busted Jihadi wannbes from Chicago in Pakistan.
Their view? It is good news, cause it does not happen that often among the RoP.
They don’t see the story as that these “assimilated” Muslims went there to join the Jihad & kill Americans.
Idiots!
vagabond trader wrote:
That is exactly right. That Church is well known to attract African-Americans who are social climbers , or seek advancement in business or politics.
Obama knew Wright from his Community Organizing days & was aware of just how hateful the Rev & the Church are before he joined.
I think that Oprah is a twit, but she had the inegrity to walk away ‘
from that place, but not our POTUS
@ RIX:
Trouble is when jihad is followed through to its conclusion we won’t know how many had American ties until its too late.Now if it were Baptists,well the Trib would have a fine story.
Morning all. Are there any links to the goings on in Copenhagen?
vagabond trader wrote:
The Tribune knows very well that there is a pro-Jihad Mosque in Bridgeview, IL outside Chicago.
They covered it back in the time before they went in the tank for
Obama.
That paper has changed radically , something like a certain ponytailed guy with a high pictched voice.
RIX wrote:
Probably the destination for the Gitmo detainees transfer.
@ teacake:
Hi teacake. I just read the link above re: the left using troops. It appears dissent is not to be tolerated by the AGW crowd in Copenhagen.Big surprise./
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722
@ teacake:
Probably the destination for the Gitmo detainees transfer.
A memo surfaced that makes Thomson Il. look like a done deal.
Seroiously, I think that this puts Chicago at risk.
The Jihadis will want to m,ake a statement about their psycho brothers being held prisoner.
They would be too conspiuous in that little town, but not the Peoples Republic of Chicago.
@ RIX:
what’s sad is those punks did’nt even qualify for the rank of cannon fodder for the jihad.lol
mawskrat wrote:
Yeah, what their defenders ignore is that these guys don’t qualify for the protections of the Geneva Convention , much less constitutional protection that is now given to KSM.
We would have been totally justified lineing that up in front of
firing squads, stateless, non-uniformed enemy combatants.
@ vagabond trader:
Thanks, VT, but I didn’t ask the question correctly. Wondering if there’s links to the various bullshit speeches and that sort of thing.
See ya later.
@ teacake:
Looks like big media is keeping a lowish profile on the fiasco? This should be amusing,nothing but the best in Copenhagen. Wonder if they showed up for the free whores?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30511.html
vagabond trader wrote:
Everyone in Copenhagen currently is a whore.
Just ran a search on youtube and there are so many selections I don’t know where to begin. Perhaps some might be of interest?
nil stooge wrote:
But I delete 95% of them so it looks like fewer.
@ teacake:
LOL,but they ain’t free!
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/12/05/denmark-whores-offer-global-warming-whores-free-sex-carbon-offsets-when-whores-unite/
@ vagabond trader:
Good site, thanks for the link. lol
Hey, this is pretty funny from Weasel Zippers. Sarah Palin vs William Shatner reading excerpts from each others autobios.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/12/lefties-heads-are-exploding-palin-surprises-william-shatner-whose-reading-passages-of-palins-book-on.html
@ kansas:
LOL!
How’s this for a lyng sack of shit!
240 HoosierHoops Sat, Dec 12, 2009 6:55:27am replyquote
* 2
* down
* up
* report
re: #235 Spare O’Lake
Is it my imagination or have there been a lot less flounces lately?
It’s been really nice lately.. The whole hard core rightwing posters ran off the edge of the cliff like a herd of cattle a while back.. They could have stayed here but the very thought that some lefties joined left them curled up in the corner sucking their thumbs. Just to much balanced dialog for them to handle.
What selrahC nosnhoJ thought of ferret faced Alan Colmes and Sarah Palin back in August 2008.
Remember to do copy/paste do no click on link
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31105_Alan_Colmes_Sewer_Diver
links to discoverthenetworks.com
All things Soros
@ Speranza:
Oh that is rich! Er, sorry HH, but as you know from your stalking forays we’re all over here and there having a good time without the threat of the blogtator and his Stasi hovering nearby looking for imaginary offense.You guys are stuck with the likes of spacejesus ice weasel and ludwig von whatever the fck.
Have a nice day.
@ vagabond trader:
Don’t forget the scintillating postings of Sharmutqa as well as the charming odes from the like of Cato the Ogre and the gal from Michigan (Eyerash Hose)with the Swedish blow-up doll sex machine Lars.
Good morning everyone… Anyone home???
@ Speranza:
Gah, my bad how could I evah forget that erudite slice of humanity?
kansas wrote:
and 90% of them come form 7 posters – Sharmuta, iceweasel, Jimmah Killgore Trout, Cato the Ogre, Gus 802 and Walter L. Newton (and with the exception of Walter) none are gainfully employed.
vagabond trader wrote:
Oh we try to forget them but they are such compelling people that who can resist the calls of “Charles you rock!” or “I concur Charles”?
@ teacake:
How I detest that horrid waste of protoplasm. To think his orthodox Jew father changed their name and hid little Georgie with collaborators. Sickening.Half of my mothers people were Hungarian,the pos may have helped send them to the death camps for all I know.
@ Speranza:
Or the immortal words which will echo down the ages:
Charles, I’m so sorry.
vagabond trader wrote:
and Soros never felt any guilt about helping to inventory the property of Jews sent to Auschwitz. Somebody referred to him once as a Jame Bond movie villain which I think is apropriate.
vagabond trader wrote:
I remember NY Nanan writing that after CJ reprimanded her for referring to BHO as “Hussein”. A month or so later she was banned anyway.
This post from 1.0 is to funny not to repost here.
331 negativ Sat, Dec 12, 2009 8:46:26am replyquote
* 0
* down
* up
* report
#323 albusteve
we are not ready for electric cars, and the Volt goes on the market next year…they are impossibly impractical so far, except for a midnight run to Taco Bell…too bad the same amount of R and D and excitement doesn’t go into the Hyperion…get our horse in front of the cart for once
Every 1.0 technology sucks. Every single one. But there has to be a 1.0 before there can be a 2.0+
@ Poteen:
I saw that. I love this remark:
I wonder which ignoramus that was aimed at?
Which on is the real joker?
@ BBEV:
They have some first rate intellects over there.
/not
@ Speranza:
Did she, because I thought it originated from Sharmutt. Perhaps its in the standard script for proper ways to debase yourself to selrahC. Or it was in the Race Detective dialogue.
@ Speranza:
Not only felt no guilt but he said those were the happiest days of his life and helped to shape his “character.”
I hate to say this but soros in my opinion is even more evil than hitler and seems to have had a lot more influence in destructive world events and creating today’s radical left.
@ BBEV:
LOL, the irony!
Hi BBEV! Little nippy this AM up in NH?
@ Speranza:
They could have stayed here
but the very thought that some lefties joined left them curled up in the corner sucking their thumbs. Just to much balanced dialog for them to handle.nothing intelligent was ever said, so in the end we’re all that’s left.I think that’s what he meant.
Speranza wrote:
Soros is evil. That monstrous activity he engaged when he was a kid, made him a sociopath. All those deaths are on his head. That really turned him to the dark side. He even looks like a gollum like creature. .
@ vagabond trader:
Horrible thought. Maybe its time to hold him accountable for war crimes?
vagabond trader wrote:
It is and windy, I have not gone out yet but will be soon. I’m hoping to find the home of my dreams today
BBEV wrote:
Wouldn’t charging the battery use more energy than the curly light bulbs?
@ teacake:
If there is a human who personifies the expression making a deal with the devil his name is George Soros. Vengence will find him one place or another.
Iowahawk!!! You magnificent bastard!!! You used a spreadsheet Chuckles can’t run on his Mac!
The Hawk gets it. This is how the data homoginizer/sausage maker works. Yes kids, you can be a climatological statistician in your bedroom! You can make your own
hokyhockey sticks right at home. No multi-megawatt carbon-sucking supercomputer needed.@ BBEV:
What a wonderful way to start the weekend! Good luck, lots of nice property up your way.
@ Speranza:
That guy’s soul purpose is to please his blog host and tow the line.
@ chickadee:
Gollum, perfect description of this creature.
@ gulfloafer:
sole
vagabond trader wrote:
He’s really no worse in a way than any other globalist bastard. He’s just one of the few who are in the limelight. Just too bad he’s managed to create so much damage. Someone with the power really should charge him with war crimes.
@ snork:
A link would have been nice….
@ doriangrey:
The link is in #67 @Poteen
Here are the new balloon boys.
http://newshopper.sulekha.com/philippines-climate-change_photo_1087909.htm
snork wrote:
A statistical wizard with a sense of humor vs. a sensitive musicologist without one.
That’s the AGW debate I want to see.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
@ doriangrey:
Up @ 67.
@ snork:
Oh please… Like I am suppose to know that? Hint hint….from Comment #270 comment 67 doesn’t fit on the screen and you did not make any reference to it. And don’t give me no crap about how I should have read the whole 275 plus comment thread….
@ gulfloafer:
CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW! –
A truly insane idea, but these people are actually serious.
yah wrote:
That has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?
Oh, yeah …..
Reparations
gad!
Iowahawk
@ doriangrey:
So you don’t feel left out.///
What they want is our money, so they can buy all the goods we manufacture. Sure beats manufacturing or working for it themselves.
They really don’t care about hot air, they just want our “stuff.”
“CJ: [LGF gets] three, to four, to five thousand comments a day…”
3000, 5000,….hey, whatever, man, what’s the diff?
And he has to be looking only at his dead cat bounce when he says his traffic has not decreased. All the data and graphs I’ve seen say the truth is completely otherwise. Methinks CJ went to the CRU School of Creative Measurement.
I see that Bunk X got a screen shot of the latest product CJ is trying desperately to hawk on 1.0.
@ doriangrey:
Did someone piss in your Wheaties this fine morn??????????
@ grambo:
Oh, yeah …..
Reparations
gad!
Actually, you know, I’m in favor of reparations to black people for slavery.
In 1860 there were 5 million slaves. By 1865 they were free. There were 500,000 dead soldiers who bought that freedom, an inordinate number of whom had Irish surnames.
When the check clears, we send the bill.///
NoThreat2U wrote:
Nah, he just hasn’t had his coffee yet.
@ wolfie:
Wood kindle = paperback
@ Poteen:
Quick! Someone pour Mr. Grumpypants a cup a java!!!!!!!!!! lol
@ NoThreat2U:
Looks like Dorian Grumpypants scared everyone away.
Quiet this morn is.
NoThreat2U wrote:
Grrrrrr, I got my first 3 day weekend on my new 9/80 schedule and it’s raining, and going to rain the whole weekend… and yes I need some coffee…
gulfloafer wrote:
They aren’t much different than pirates. Their sense of entitlement is incredible. They are trying to engage in emotional robbery. Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax. Yet they are trying to blackmail us and make us feel guilty that we are a rich successful powerful country and they are a shithole that is under assault from Islam. These 3rd world countries have inferior leadership, governments, belief systems, attitudes and work ethics. We got lucky with brilliant people who founded America, gave us a Constitution and a system of governance that allowed us as individuals to excel.
America was created by hard working people. Now these lowlifes are taking a page from the Sharpton/Jackson playbook that uses strong arm tactics as a way to literally rob us of our earnings.
They have a taste of what they can gain by pressuring us, especially with the traitor Zero in office who wants to beat the middle class down anyway. The vultures and jackals are circling from within and from without. It is really amazing how it parallels life in the wilds. We have a jackal in our midst who is trying to lead us to destruction and beasts everywhere waiting for the spoils.
Liberalism has made us weak. There was a time when 3rd world countries would not have had the audacity to make aggressive demands like this. They would simply have been thankful for all the aid we voluntarily give them. Obviously they think they have got us on the run. Zero gets credit for this.
@ chickadee:
These people don’t realize that if Zero gets his way, it won’t lift them up a bit, but it will bring the average American down to a subsistance level. Which is his goal.
@ chickadee:
Well said.
The saddest thing is that, even if they pull off this scam, it will not help the mass of people in the 3rd World. In fact, there is ample reason to believe that it will be counterproductive.
Bookmark this 5 part interview with Dambisa Mayo. If you set aside 40 minutes or so to listen sometime, you will get a glimpse of how most kinds of aid acually hurt Africa. (The individual parts are short, BTW.)
@ doriangrey:
Rain gear is cheap. Grab a fishing pole and a few beers and it can still be a good weekend. There aren’t any bikinis out this time of year anyway.
Actually, a big poncho and your favorite squeeze make the rain thoroughly enjoyable. Who wants to do yardwork.
yah wrote:
It started years ago and they are over half way there. More people depending on govt assistance than paying taxes to support it.
@ doriangrey:
But you still have us
@ Poteen:
Rain gear is cheap.
Sure is. I just cut a hole in a large trash bag. Works great.
@ wolfie:
What really gets me is these countries that could actually prosper are tearing themselves apart one way or another. Yet they beg us for aid. They are like children with an allowance. In my day, if you didn’t do what was expected of you, you didn’t get your allowance. These days, the more these countries sink into the abyss, the more money we throw at them. I want Uncle Sam to be my Uncle too.
I think we might be making doriangrey even madder at us. Nothing worse than having to put up with a bunch of chipper comments when you just want to quietly enjoy your pissy mood and sulk.
@ yah:
If you feel like pissing and moaning, get a sock at the other place. They’re all a bunch of sourpusses there now. And you can engage in conspiracy theories to your bladder’s content.
@ yah:
ROTFLMAO…. I’m just going to go over to my brothers house, drink some beer (he’s buying for once), fire up my vette (not going to drive it, just charge the battery) smoke a few cigars and bitch about the weather…
@ doriangrey:
Or hop on up to the new thread…we are talking about BOOZE!!!! Yeeehaaaaaw!!
Poteen @ 300:
A bad day of fishing is still better than a good day at work.
mjazz wrote:
Unfortunately the current group of fascist and authoritarian folks who make up the ‘One World Government (Rule by the elite) ‘ brigade actually believe that they can ‘game’ the Islamists and manipulate them to help destroy the common enemy …. conservative small government democracy. …. Likewise the Islamists think that they can ‘game’ the Fascistic neo-Marxists as well. Time will tell which group wins, but in the meantime the conservatives are the ‘common enemy’ of both camps.
African Moondog wrote:
The rise of the BNP is the consequence of tying off alternative ways that the hio poloi can express their frustrations with the conventional party political system. When the system is effectively broken and all the public can get is the same’ one size fits all’ politics of either the so called right or left they tend to head to the extremes.
A case in point is the capture of the RNC by special interest groups who do not reflect their constituency in any way shape or form. The ‘country club’ RNC set is as remote from the common man as the wild eyed fascistic left of the left edge of the DNC.
To get elected in a party based political system everyone has to capture the centre if one wants to govern.
The game then is to move the so called ‘centre’ to a place that suits your political philosophies and name it THE CENTRE. Unfortunately that ‘centre ‘ does not reflect the reality of the electorate at least in the middle term. This is what has happened to the RNC and they occupy an overlap position of a ‘centre’; defined by the DNC, the unions and special interest groups like ACORN.
If this is not nipped in the bud, after a generation the memory of where the true ‘centre’ lays is lost and the ‘new’ centre becomes the status quo. THIS is the underlying key to the 40+ year movement they of the left has been working so diligently on. THEY ARE REDEFINING where the centre is and attempting to make it the new status quo to cement in their ‘Hopenchange’ strategy.
The DNC and the crazies of the extreme left are NOT the key enemy.
THE KEY IS TO RECAPTURE THE RNC and make it do the bidding of the conservative majority and MOVE THE ‘CENTRE’ back to where it was before the 1960s burst upon us all.
Change the RNC to reflect conservative mores and philosophies.
Give the folks a true alternative to the left
Differentiate the Conservatives from the left in philosophical as well as practical terms
and the folks will come, either right away, or when they have had enough of the PC, authoritarian, antidemocratic, economy busting, philosophies of the left to their back teeth.
THE SECRET IS TO OFFER THE FOLKS AN ALTERNATIVE!
@ Kitteh:
LGF was almost immediately described as a ‘linker’ not a ‘thinker’ collective.
@ vagabond trader:
Soros even looks like a bad guy.
@ chickadee:
It’s a globally orchestrated political movement hell bent on Cap and Trade. Notice the little commie fist taped to their heads? The belief is that third world countries having been getting a raw deal and that if the industrialized nations scale back production perhaps the “have nots” can finally achieve a higher standard of living. My position? See picture of Churchill at the top of Blogmocracy home page; read the quote, learn it and live it.