I have changed my position on imigration, and no longer support amnesty. I had long taken flak from my fellow conservatives for my views, defending amnesty because the illegals are usually Catholics and hard workers, whom we need to keep our population growing. However, I shredded that erring view earlier today, when the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sent me a letter. A money-plea it was, but the plea rolled on for eight pages, with such disturbing facts as
I. Haman traffickers commonly rape female aliens.
II. The Mexican government encourages illegal immigration, so that that nation’s elite class can profit from the portion of the American wages which is sent back to Mexico, i.e. rich exploiting poor (Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon are giving conservatives a bad name!).
III. Drug trafficking and related violence (lest we forget)
IV. Illegals often destroy and steal property of those living near the border.
V. ONE ILLEGAL’S JOURNAL WAS DISCOVERED WITH ARABIC WRITING INSIDE!
I concluded that however good it would be to legalize the c. 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in America, they would most likely refuse to assimilate (like in France); even if we then increased border security, it would leave foreigners with a precedent for hope that crossing the border illegally could someday land them American citizenship. I also made an analogy to the dogmatic situation in the Church. Whenever we allow that Baptism isn’t necessary, or that men outside the Church can be
saved, the gates of Hell break loose. Now, I’m not obligated to take the hard line on the border, but neither am I obliged to follow Fr. Feeney’s wise rejection of the Baptism of Desire [anyone with a bad view of the Feenyites, check out catholicism.org, and read the article on Baptim of Desire, in Resources]. It is just the best thing for America-and all the friendly Latinos!
Still, we’ll need to do some stuff to offset not granting amnesty, simply,
A. Increase the flow of legal immigration, and make the process more efficient (except for Muslims, who hould have to make an honest conversion to Roman Catholicism as a prerequisite), and more importantly
B. Have more children. That means priests should tell their paritioners contraception is a mortal sin, and we should…
Contentment: God Will Provide
Where socialism fails, the Judeo-Christian tradition succeeds.
Sunday’s sermon at the Long Ridge Congregational Church (a non-UCC congregation in North Stamford, Connecticut) was preached by the Reverend Jason Pankow. His principal text was 1 Timothy 6:3-10.
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5)
The inverse relationship between wealth and contentment is a frequent theme in literature and theatre. Likewise the sense of emptiness, the lack of fulfillment that characterize so much of our hectic lives today. Hillary Clinton, in an article published in the New York Times Magazine, noted this early in the first Clinton administration. Despite the sincerity of her concern, she was mocking dubbed ‘St. Hillary’ by liberal intellectuals.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (1 Timothy 6:6-10)
Inner peace and real happiness are matters of the heart, not of cash in hand.
The Protestant ethic was described by Max Weber as a commitment to hard, efficient work, which often produced riches. In contrast to our 20th century society, corrupted by the atheistic materialism of socialism, the 17th and 18th century Puritans and Presbyterians, here and in Holland and the UK, acknowledged that those riches belonged to God, that rich families were merely His stewards and accountable for using wealth for good purposes. That ethic resulted in the greatest and fastest improvement in living standards, for everyone, of any period in history.
The bottom line is that making money, as in Jesus’s parable of the good and faithful servant, is not sinful. The sin lies in worshipping the making of money for itself and for one’s selfish gratification.
Too many people today pit their personal desires against what God wants them to do, against living a moral life in accord with the Judeo-Christian instruction of the Bible. Juedo-Christian morality requires us, as individuals, to do the right thing. We can’t get away with letting the socialistic government planners tell us what to do and assuming that passive conformity to millions of regulations constitutes morality.
While it was not part of Rev. Pankau’s sermon message, another of his quotations nails the fatal weakness of socialism:
Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless. (Ecclesiastes 5:10)
Émile Durkheim, a founder of sociology in the 19th century and a sympathizer with socialism, observed that socialism has an inherent and insurmountable problem, as the post-Revolutionary French government quickly discovered. Socialistic theory speaks of collectivizing society’s wealth in order to satisfy everyone’s needs. But, in real life, people do not distinguish between desires and needs. And experience has demonstrated that people’s desires have no limits. People will always want more than is available.
We see the result today, here and in Europe, in huge government deficits, massive public debt, and welfare entitlement commitments that can not be fulfilled as our populations age, at the same time that special interest groups pressure politicians for still more hand-out programs.
The situation will get worse, at an accelerating rate, year by year. The ratio of working taxpayers to the elderly, sick, and destitute is dropping rapidly. When President Roosevelt instituted socialism in the 1930s, there were approximately 35 working taxpayers for every Social Security beneficiary. Today there are slightly more than 3 working taxpayers for every Social Security beneficiary.
Another aspect of liberal-socialistic-progressivism’s fatal weakness is its exclusive focus on material things, welfare benefits of all kinds. Liberal intellectuals assume, as part of the social “sciences” introduced by French socialists in the 18th century, that humans have no souls, that humans are the same as any other animal, motivated only by desires for water, food, sex, clothing, shelter, and power.
This is one reason why liberals aggressively attack spiritual religion, consigning it to the realm of ignorant superstition. It is essential to the materialistic religion of socialism that humans be soulless animals that can be trained by regulations to conform to the socialist ideal: a classless society in which everyone is happy to be equally poor.
Against this bleak and dreary prospect, the Bible instructs us that only through faith in God can people attain inner peace and true happiness that will liberate them from selfish jockeying for more personal welfare benefits, without regard to the costs to society as a whole.
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Hebrews 13:5-6)
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
…While concern about the future of Turkish secularism is warranted, alarmism about military intervention is not. There will be no more military coups in Turkey. Erdoğan may be prepared to spark a constitutional crisis in pursuit of personal ambition and ideological agenda, but Turkey’s civilian institutions are strong enough to confront the challenge. The greatest danger to Turkish democracy will not be Turkish military intervention, but rather well-meaning but naïve interference by U.S. diplomats seeking stability and downplaying the Islamist threat. …
Cross-posted at netwmd.com and IsraPundit
Leaving Islam can be hazardous. Apostasy is a capital crime in a number of Islamic countries. But even in elite conservative circles in the United States, there is a tendency to dismiss or at least ignore some important former Muslims who have a lot to teach us about their former faith, as we face an era in which religious war on the West has been declared by radical Islam.
Two years ago, following a modest Washington, DC area reception celebrating the release of Leaving Islam, a compilation of Ibn Warraq’s own brilliant essays, and poignant, harrowing testimonials from other ex—Muslim ‘apostates,’ I received a disturbing communication from a former admirer and supporter of Warraq’s work (particularly the seminal, Why I Am Not A Muslim) who attended the same event.
This individual dismissed Warraq’s unique and important collection on apostasy in Islam, because Warraq (and by extension, all Muslim apostates) was (were), ‘…no longer in the game.’ It was astonishing to hear such a glib assessment from a conservative intellectual and self—appointed doyen (subsequently, government—appointed) examining Islamic terrorism. The pernicious effect of this mindset—apparently quite pervasive among the lemming—like denizens of the most influential Washington, DC area conservative ‘think tanks’—was reinforced during Warraq’s dismissive small audience (composed entirely of self—important, self—appointed doyens) at perhaps the pre—eminent Institute of this ilk. Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s rise to prominence as an openly avowed Muslim apostate Parliamentarian in the Netherlands—both before, and most decidedly after the murder of her colleague, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh—demonstrates that it is completely misguided to dismiss the profound intellectual and sociopolitical contributions courageous apostates can make to both the public discourse, and specific policy initiatives, regarding Islam.
Four recently published interviews (here, here, here and here) of Somalia—born Ayaan Hirsi Ali provide an informative overview of her evolution—from a teenage Islamic school—educated supporter of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, to an asylum—seeking refugee in the Netherlands in her early 20s (in 1992), and now, a courageous Dutch Parliamentarian (since January 2003) dedicated to the defense of the core Western values (i.e., such as true freedom of conscience) embodied in modern human rights constructs.
Shortly after completing her studies in political science at Leiden University, Hirsi Ali was hired as a researcher for the Dutch Labor Party, and assigned to write a brief on immigration. She stunned her Labor colleagues by making blunt recommendations that were a frontal assault on established multicultural taboos: shut down all 41 Islamic schools; curb immigration; and radically alter Article 23 of the Dutch constitution (which embraced the multicultural orthodoxy by sanctioning the creation of separate schools and cultural institutions for distinct religious groups).
Disillusioned with the Dutch left, Hirsi Ali joined the opposition VVD party in 2002, and by September 2002, also publicly ‘apostasized’ from Islam—an action which precipitated death threats against her. Ibn Warraq’s unique compilation and analysis of apostate testimonies highlights the courage of such a public declaration:
“…for a free discussion of Islam remains rare and dangerous, certainly in the Islamic world, and even in our politically correct times in the West…Apostasy is still punishable by long prison sentences and even death in many Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Iran….”
The fact that Hirsi Ali’s declaration elicited murderous threats in the Netherlands—in the heart of Western Europe—where, as Warraq notes,
“…one talks of being a ‘lapsed Catholic’ or ‘nonpracticing Christian’ rather than an ‘apostate.’ [and] There are certainly no penal sanctions for converting from Christianity to any…superstitious flavor of the month, from New Ageism to Islam….”
underscores the serious erosion of Europe’s core values under its new Islamized Eurabian sociopolitical ethos.
Combining lucid intellectual and experience—based understanding with rare valor, uncompromised by politically correct apologetics, Hirsi Ali has made explicit the threat that orthodox Islam (as she stated, ‘The problem is the Prophet and the Koran‘ )—not ‘Islamism’—poses to the Western civilization she has come to cherish, and staunchly defend. She identifies the core Muslim texts—Koran, hadith, sira—their codification into Islamic Law (i.e., Shari’a), and the orthodox interpretation of this sacralized literature by seminal Muslim jurists—noting Ibn Taymiyya’s ‘pure’ Islamic exegesis, specifically—as being responsible for the incompatibility between Islamic and Western values. In particular, the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, versus the Shari’a—based Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (Cairo, 1990).
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam included the triumphal statement that the Shari’a has primacy over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the specific proclamation that God has made the umma (Islamic community) the best nation, whose role is to ‘guide’ humanity. This formulation captures the indelible influence of the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude on the Shari’a, rendering sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels—reiterated in the Cairo Declaration.
Hirsi Ali’s response to the standard non—sequitur apologetic about the putative existence of, ‘different Islams’, is unequivocal:
“No that is an erroneous idea . If one defines Islam as the religion founded by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by hadiths, there is only one Islam that dictates the moral framework.”
Finally, she concludes that true reform of Islam, to render it compatible with modern human rights standards, must include criticism of both its core sacred text, and founder:
“You cannot liberalize Islam without criticizing the Prophet and the Koran…You cannot redecorate a house without entering inside.”
As a VVD Parliamentarian since 2002, Hirsi Ali’s major legislative focus has been on women’s issues: drawing up legislation, which was subsequently enacted, to improve enforcement of the statute against female genital mutilation [a practice sanctioned by hadith]; working to assure better enforcement of laws protecting women from ‘honor killings’, a particular problem among Turkish Muslim immigrants in Europe; and drafting a position paper about the economic integration of women. Her outspoken positions on matters apart from women’s issues include: urging intensive oversight of new Muslim schools before they are accredited; supporting the US—lead coalition’s invasion of Iraq; and raising sober concerns about Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership (which she characterizes as a ‘big gamble’ for Europeans).
It is quite illuminating to juxtapose Hirsi Ali’s unapologetic arguments, and her concrete legislative agenda based upon those principles, with the views and ‘achievements’ of ‘moderate’ Muslims championed by U.S. media and policymaking elites, across the political spectrum. Four prominent examples will suffice.
Conservative elites have promoted, most notably, Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz [SASS] and Khaleel Muhammad [KM], while liberal elites have embraced Irshad Manji [IM] and Khaled Abou El Fadl [KAEF]. Despite certain disagreements between them, what these individuals unfortunately share is a persistent avoidance or absolute denial of the need to challenge and alter institutions intrinsic to Islam—to the Shari’a. Instead, they blame so—called ‘distorted’ interpretations of a theological—juridical system they deem completely compatible with modern human rights constructs, and normal international and inter—communal relations. The logical conclusion of their arguments is the absurd notion that jihad war, and its corollary institution, dhimmitude (which only IM of the four ‘moderates’ even acknowledges, albeit fleetingly) are ‘distortions’ of basic Islamic dogma.
Below, I have summarized a series of their specific views on critical issues. The dismaying opinions range from denying altogether, to ignoring or trivializing:
“…a democracy campaigner for whom the role of an ordinary democratic citizen is off limits…Hers is a big heroic life that moves her fellow citizens but now gets lived mostly in locked rooms and bulletproof cars.”
Hirsi Ali, condemned Muslim ‘apostate’, and intrepid politician committed to maintaining the democratic vitality of her adopted Dutch society, epitomizes the powerful, effective voice Ibn Warraq foresaw in Leaving Islam. Recalling The God that Failed, a collection of testimonial essays by ex—Communist intellectuals and their warnings about the all—encompassing oppression of body and spirit intrinsic to Soviet—style Communism, Warraq noted that the accounts of these ex—Communist ‘Cassandras’ appeared eerily similar to the ex—Muslim apostates whose testimonies he had compiled. Warraq concluded,
“Communism has been defeated, at least for the moment…unless a reformed, tolerant, liberal kind of Islam emerges soon, perhaps the final battle will be between Islam and Western democracy. And these ex—Muslims…on the side of Western Democracy, are the only ones who know what it is all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries.”
Hirsi Ali’s practical efforts in the Netherlands mirror the strategies outlined by Warraq in a thoughtful essay about reform (somewhat ironically) of Middle Eastern Muslim societies. She clearly shares the unapologetic views about the obstacles to such reform presented by Islam itself, which Warraq characterized as follows:
“There are some (I believe, misguided) liberal Muslims who deny any such transformation is necessary, that Islam need not be marginalized for liberty to flourish. These liberals often argue that the real Islam is compatible with liberal democracy, that the real Islam is feminist, that the real Islam is egalitarian, that the real Islam tolerates other religions and beliefs, and so on. They then proceed to some truly creative re—interpretation of the embarrassing, intolerant and misogynist verses of the Koran. But intellectual honesty demands that we reject just such dishonest tinkering with the Koran’s text, which, while it may be open to some re—interpretation, is not infinitely elastic. The truth is there is no real difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism — at most there is a difference of degree, but not of kind. There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. All the tenets of so—called Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Koran, the Sunna, and the Hadith — the defining texts of Islam — and elaborated in intimate detail by the classical Muslim jurists from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, as well as by Shi’ite jurists. The only solution is to bring the questions of human rights out of the religious sphere and into the sphere of the civil state, in other words to separate religion from the state and promote a secular state where Islam is relegated to the personal. Here, Islam would continue to provide consolation, comfort, and meaning, as it has to millions of individuals for centuries, yet it would not decree the mundane affairs of state.”
It is also apparent from her own statements and actions that Hirsi Ali agrees with Warraq’s assessment, summarized below, about the crucial need to encourage scholarly criticism of the Koran, in particular, and more generally, to promote secular education emphasizing critical thought:
“First, we who live in the free West and enjoy freedom of expression and scientific inquiry should encourage a rational look at Islam, should encourage Koranic criticism. Only Koranic criticism can help Muslims to look at their Holy Scripture in a more rational and objective way, and prevent young Muslims from being fanaticized by the Koran’s less tolerant verses. It does not make sense to lament the lack of a reformation in Islam, and at the same time boycott books like Why I am Not A Muslim nor to cry ‘Islamophobia’ (or ‘fatwah!’) every time a critique of Islam is offered. Instead, political leaders, journalists and even scholars are bent on protecting the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. We are not doing Islam any favors by protecting it from Enlightenment values. … We can encourage rationality by secular education. This will mean the closing of religious madrassas where young children from poor families learn only the Koran by heart, learn the doctrine of Jihad — learn , in short, to be fanatics… What kind of education? My priority would be the wholesale rewriting of school texts, which at present preach intolerance of non—Muslims, particularly Jews. One hopes that education will encourage critical thinking and rationality. Again to encourage pluralism, I should like to see the glories of pre—Islamic history taught to all children.”
Finally, we should consider this insightful warning from another Muslim secularist, Professor Reza Afshari, the pre—eminent historian of the human rights tragedy engendered by Iran’s return to its theocratic roots, after a 50—year hiatus, in 1979:
“What we have from liberal Muslims today are only ideological claims punctuated by expressed good intentions. A sector of the traditional custodians of religion, the ulema, politicizing Islam did come to power[in Iran]; therefore it is logical to assume what we faced in the 1980s and 1990s was the result of Shiite Islam (at least an authentic version of it) injecting itself into the politics of a contemporary state. They created a record of what the `culturally authentic’ rulers did… The issue is not Islam as a private faith of individuals. It is about what state officials claiming Islamic authority might have to say about the state’s treatment of citizens.”
Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books (2005).
Some say that Science says this or that; when they only mean scientists, and do not know or care which scientists. – G.K. Chesterton
We at Dearborn Underground don’t plunge willy-nilly into every controversy or fad.
But when it comes to this recent push on global warming I’m really getting a major case of sour grapes: If the world is going to build a consensus to save humanity, why not agree to confront global jihadism—which is so bad for the planet right now—before we dismantle the global economy over a potential climate change that might make some difference in another 100 years?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), has just released its most recent Summary for Policymakers. France hosted this year’s IPCC gathering, and as a sign of hospitality to these UN hacks, they briefly turned off the lights on the Eiffel Tower.
The purpose of the IPCC report has always been to elevate the persuasiveness of the climate-change evidence from “smoking gun” level to “slam dunk.” Though the Summary has only now just been released, the global warming crowd has been talking it up for months, and predicting that the IPCC was going to reach this very “consensus.” The temptation for me to refer to this pre-release period as the “buildup” to the 2007 report, and to accuse the scientists of “sexing up” their results is almost too much to resist, so please just forget I mentioned it.
It goes without saying that this is a weather forecast. The prediction and causation findings in the Summary range on a highly scientifical certainty range from “More likely than not,” to“Likely,” “Very likely,” and “Virtually certain.” The overall report itself only dared to call its conclusions “Very likely,” or, as it might be rephrased, “less than virtually certain.” (Sort of the way “virtually certain” would accurately be rephrased as “not exactly certain”).
Not only is it not a slam dunk, it isn’t even a smoking gun. A smoking gun is direct evidence. Very likely is still a guess.
Not that anyone on the “smoking gun” side of the argument cares.
As is evident from the statements being released since the Summary was announced on Friday its only purpose was to establish that there was a “consensus” of scientists on the issue, so that dissenters can be marginalized and silenced. As was utterly predictable, the usual kinds of people now are claiming that the “consensus” is incotrovertible proof for their case that “human activities” are responsible for global warming, and so we must now curtail those activities as fast as we can.
National Audubon Society President John Flicker pronounced, “The clarity and completeness of the IPCC’s global warming findings permanently relegates skeptics to the fringe.” The St. Louis Dispatch pontificates, “We’ve heard enough from Flat Earth Society members,”such as Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who rightly said the Summary was a political document, and not a scientific one. Flat Earth is the reigning pejorative for any one who questions the theory. Google “flat earth” and see what I mean. The point is, there is no time for argument, there is no room for dissenters.
Is this the language of science? Listen to this expert, as quoted in one Fox News story:
“‘It is critical that we look at this report … as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it,'” said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.”
This is like a prosecutor saying on the first day of trial, “Ladies and gentleman of the jury, you are not here to decide the evidence, nor even to wonder about whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent, rather the question before your minds should be: ‘Should we hang him or just lock him up for life?’”
And here’s where I get to the sour grapes: the complete disjunct with liberals between what qualifies as an imminent danger and what doesn’t.
You see, the maddening thing about the certainty on the Left about the imminent danger of global planetary catastrophe in another century or two is how insanely it clashes with their absolute indolence and self-delusion on the clear and present danger of global jihad expanding right now. One would think jihadism might raise some concerns among Greens if only because a nuclear exchange provoked by Iran and leading to the incineration of Israel and Tehran would result in even more global warming, and even sooner than that warned about by the IPCC, leaving no time fore the mitigating effects of the new CAFE standards.
There’s no need for me to repeat all the reporting on the Iranian determination to get a bomb. It has also been reported that the madmen who run that country intend to use it when they get it, and are even calculating the cost of an Israeli response. Most of us are well familiar with Iranian rhetoric on the subject:
“In a Dec. 14, 2001, speech, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (long depicted by the Europeans as an Iranian “moderate”), declared that, if the Muslim world had an atomic bomb, it would be in good shape after a nuclear exchange with Israel, because a nuclear bomb would destroy the Jewish state, while Muslim countries (with their much larger populations) would survive.”
By the way, Rafsanjani later said his nuclear-survival strategy was firmly rooted in the “consensus view” of Iranian scientists.
But observe how the Left views the threat level a nuclear Iran. In response to a Washington Times editorial in December 2005 warning about the looming danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, liberal website Media Matters complained that the editorial “ignored key facts about Iran’s nuclear capability” just “to exaggerate the threat.” Note that the charge isn’t that the threat referred to in the editorial was invented or false, but only exaggerated.
You’ll see in the Media Matters response the painstaking effort to minimize the Iranians’ technical capacity to make weapons-grade uranium for at least another two years. The significance of the two years prediction was to counter Drudge Report’s and Washington Times’ estimates of Iran being “months away” from enriching uranium, in conjunction with Iran’s stated foreign policy goals of nuking Israel. The whole Media Matters argument was not over Iran’s intentions, nor even its eventual success in producing nuclear weapons, (which Media Matters appears to take for granted), but whether they were going to be significantly closer to enriched uranium in mere months or in up to two years. In the meantime, it is now fourteen months later, only months away from the two year prediction. Yet Media Matters blasted the Washington Times for being alarmist.
Months? Two or three years? By way of comparison, the IPCC report makes predictions as far out as 2090-2100, and even 2200. One of the authors of the report, Kevin Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., made this kicky comment: “We’re creating a different planet. If you were to come back in 100 years time, we’ll have a different climate.”
How’s that for a persuasive argument? You want proof? Just come back here in 100 years and see for yourself!
But see how alarmed Media Matters gets over any challenges of a “consensus on global warming,” a subject to which it is absolutely committed. (So far, I haven’t seen them post on the 2007 IPCC Report).
On just this January 7th they attacked Willard Scott (Willard Scott, for God’s sake!) for daring to suggest that anyone, anywhere, could cast “doubt on global warming.” In a moment of thoughtless morning-show ebullience over the deadly snowstorms in Colorado, Scott obliquely questioned the dogma by asking co-host Meredith Vieira if she was “a global warming fan.” Media Matters felt this called for a response, and in it referred back to the overwhelming proof of consensus they had already “documented” in a previous attack on Tucker Carlson in August 2006 when he questioned the existence of consensus.
This example from Media Matters is only meant to show the widespread approach by liberals to global warming, which is to go to any lengths to answer any critic denying there is a consensus view of it, waging arguments that the critic is demonstrably wrong, and incensed that the dissenter could be so reckless with the future of humanity, or at least the future of the planet. In this view of it we simply can’t tolerate dissent when we are facing a growing danger from climate change in response to which we cannot act fast enough, nor commit sufficient resources.
It is only when confronting global jihadism, or deposing weapons-mad dictators, or searching out and stopping terrorists across the globe that Leftists always find there’s a fatal lack of evidence, and malign those trying to oppose jihad as liars, distorters of the facts, intolerant of dissent, and always rushing into action at “the drop of a hat.”
Using the IPCC’s likelihood scale, Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons by developing them internally or getting them from a rogue actor like North Korea or the Russians is “Virtually certain.”
The likelihood that the UN, or any other combination of international diplomats will never take any meaningful action to forestall Iran’s plans is “Virtually certain.”
The likelihood that Iran will use its nukes aggressively as soon as they’ve got them is “Virtually certain,” or, at least “Very likely,” which puts it into the same 90% category as the IPCC weather forecast for 2090. Only Iran could easily be pushing the button in 2008 or 2009.
Now do you think the French are going to turn the Eiffel Tower off over that?