The Price of Progress – The Poor Will Always Be With Us   http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ “If the poor didn’t exist, we would have to invent them,” Pogue said, spooning kneaded balls of raw spinach into his mouth. Pogue was Anson’s superior though the term no longer existed in the workplaces of the Community. Pogue was the […]


That is the name that Quadrant magazine, Australia’s leading conservative journal (http://quadrant.org.au/) gives to the climate change, global warming, man made impending planetary doom groupies.

Read this spoof by Wilbur York
Revealed! North Korea’s Warmist Plot

Catastropharians love to believe that “deniers” are in the pay of Big Carbon and that is why the planet is almost certainly doomed. Well here’s a conspiracy theory so outlandish, so baroque in the details of its intrigue, it might just be enough to win some coverts to the sceptic cause

pyongyangIn a sensational discovery, found in a floating filing cabinet off the coast of Tuvalu, there is now an indication that the agents of the government of North Korea were responsible for the absence of any significant rise in global temperature since the late 1990s.

The document discovered in the filing cabinet was an unpublished paper by a little known Professor Wilbur York, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Calamities. Little is known about this institute. It was originally endowed by Sir Wayward Brainstorm, a distinguished British psychologist who is thought to have made his fortune while working at the University of Western Australia. There is no trace of the buildings that housed the institute and it is believed rising sea levels have washed the buildings away.

Professor York, while studying the nuclear activities of the North Koreans, was handed a document by a defector indicating that, as a trial run at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre, a program of enriching mercury with its heaviest isotopes had been conducted before starting uranium enrichment. This program was the result of an inspired insight by the Korean Dear Leader that heavier mercury would have a lower thermal expansion coefficient than the mercury then used in thermometers. Thus thermometers calibrated to read temperatures with ordinary mercury would report lower temperatures when filled with heavy mercury. When the mercury enrichment programme was complete, a second phase commenced producing thermometers identical to those used in all the major meteorological stations but loaded with heavy mercury. Meanwhile, a team of special agents was schooled to play the parts of “climate scientists”, subsequently dispatched to all corners of the globe to replace thermometers with the heavy mercury thermometer.

It is clear, looking at the reported global temperatures, that it took some three or four years for their complete replacement. However, it is now widely acknowledged that the temperature appears to have stabilised, with a statistically insignificant rise.

The big question: Why did the North Koreans go to so much trouble?

One can only speculate that it may have been a desire to provoke political uncertainty amongst its enemies, thus distracting them from following too closely North Korean nuclear ambitions.

On the other hand, it may have been a desire to show the foolish actions of the US government and its President over climate change. After all, the increasing level of atmospheric CO2 with stable global temperature, showed that US climate scientists were as bad at making predictions as the Quants of Wall Street and might even create an even bigger financial mess.



These breathless reports about the planet never being hotter, take them with a truckload of salt. How can anyone place the slightest credence in claims being advanced by people who fail to grasp, or refuse to grasp, the simple truth about trend lines and temperature.

“Read all about it! Read all about it! It’s the hottest year on record — except for another five hotter years!” A new twist can be put on the aphorism attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. It is now clear that there are lies, damn lies, and the interpretation of climate statistics.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported that last year (2013) tied with 2007 for the sixth-hottest year on record – i.e. since 1850. “This is confirmation of the trend of global warming of the planet,” according to WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. In case you missed the import, Mr Jarraud added that thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st Century.

The latest version of the Hadley Centre’s global surface temperature series HadCRUT 4 shows a trend rise of about 0.8 degrees Celsius between 1850 and 2013. This upward trend steepened between around 1910 and 1940 and, following a period of becoming negative between 1940 and 1975, steepened somewhat more acutely between around 1975 and 2000 before leveling.

It seems clear, based on both the surface and satellite records, that since around 2000/’01 — that is, for the last 12 or 13 years — temperatures have plateaued. I don’t really buy the 17-year cessation being bandied about. I think there is too much noise created by the sharp rise in temperature in 1998 to draw firm conclusions until just after the beginning of this century. But form your own conclusions. Data can be sourced from the excellent and universally well-regarded web site woodfortrees.org.


What the Swiss rejected at the ballot box was not immigration as such. What they voted against is the notion that their government must bow before Brussels and surrender the right to determine who takes up residence in Switzerland, for how long and under what circumstances.

It wasn’t a racist mob pulling down the shutters. The Swiss referendum on February 9, 2014, was not a vote against immigration. It was a referendum against the outsourcing of immigration. Just as Australians rejected the outsourcing of immigration by the Rudd and Gillard governments to people-smugglers in Indonesia, so the Swiss have decided that they will no longer leave the outsourcing of immigration to bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels.

They were giving voise, in effect, to what John Howard said on 28 October, 2001: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

What the Swiss rejected — albeit narrowly, at 50.03% – is not immigration as such. What they voted against is the freedom for any citizen from the European Union, or members of the immediate family of any citizen (whether or not he or she is a citizen) to settle in Switzerland.

Note that Switzerland has refused to become a member of the European Union. It is fair to say that if the Swiss people did not have the right to make laws themselves by petitioning for a referendum, Switzerland would now be a member of the European Union.


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ BILL CLINTON TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE Has Bill really thought this analogy through? Ukraine was technically a case of a legislature tossing out a president after popular protests. If America worked that way, Obama would have been out in 2010. Clinton focuses a lot on the idea of the Ukranian president privatizing […]


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ THE HEARTLAND OF ISLAM Kafa’ah, equality in marriage, is used to establish that both sides are free from the “taint” of slave blood. The blood of Takruni, West African slaves, or Mawalid, slaves who gained their freedom by converting to Islam, is kept out of the Saudi master race through genealogical records that can […]



UPDATE! Below, the Israeli cabinet minister, invited to surrender more land to the Palestinians, asks his BBC interviewer, “Would you hand over half of Britain to someone who keeps on killing you?”

Keep that question in mind as you consider the scenes at the Old Bailey, England’s central criminal court, at the sentencing of the two Sarf London jihadists who hacked to death a British soldier, Drummer Lee Rigby, on the streets of Woolwich in broad daylight:

Violence broke out in the Old Bailey dock today after Lee Rigby’s murderers began hurling abuse at the judge and fighting with prison guards during their sentencing.

Michael Adebolajo, 29, was given a whole-life term, while Michael Adebowale, 22, was jailed for life with a minimum of 45 years – meaning he could be back on the streets by the age of 67.

In extraordinary scenes, the two Muslim extremists yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘You (Britain) and America will never be safe’ during their sentencing at the court in Central London…

The killers had to be pinned to the ground by nine security guards and Rigby’s family began sobbing as they watched the incident in horror, being handed tissues by court staff.

The relatives were forced to get up from their seats, cowering away from the violence which was happening just feet away, according to reporters in court.

As Laura Rosen Cohen comments:

No remorse from the murders, no respect for the court or for the law, and yet the possibility for the jihadist murders of a free life, once again, as “extremist” senior citizens in jolly old London town.

What’s interesting is the point at which Messrs Adebolajo and Adebowale decided they’d had enough:

The struggle in the dock was triggered when the killers, both wearing Islamic robes, reacted angrily to comments that Mr Justice Sweeney made about their extremist beliefs.

He told them: ‘You each converted to Islam some years ago. Thereafter you were radicalised and each became an extremist, espousing views which, as has been said elsewhere, are a betrayal of Islam.’

At which point the two murderers yelled, “That’s a lie!” and “It’s not a betrayal of Islam!”



Ship me somewheres east of Suez where the best is like the worst
Where there aren’t no Ten Commandments an’ a man can raise a thirst…
Rudyard Kipling, “Mandalay”

Two days ago, I wrote about Chuck Hagel’s sleepy announcement of the downsizing of the US military, and compared it to Washington’s predecessor as dominant power:

First comes reorientation, and the shrinking of the horizon. After empire, Britain turned inward…

The symbolic moment came 46 years ago, in January 1968. Hugh Hewitt sprang it on me quite out of the blue in one of our weekly radio chats back in October 2011:

HUGH HEWITT: Now I described it as sort of America’s East of Suez moment, and very few people knew what I was talking about. You do, but do you think it’s that order of a retreat for America?

MARK STEYN: No, I wouldn’t put it on that scale. That’s still to come. By East of Suez, you’re referring to the Labour government’s…

HH: Yes.

MS: …review in the late 1960s…

HH: Yup.

MS: …when in effect, they decided to shrink Britain’s presence in the world very considerably. And Denis Healey, I believe, was, if memory serves…

HH: …Healey was the foreign minister.

MS: He was, Denis Healey was the defence minister.

HH: Defence, that’s it.

MS: And the reality here, the reality here is that moment, the East of Suez moment, is still to come for the United States. The U.S. currently accounts for 43% of global military expenditure, more than most other major powers combined – Britain, China, Russia, whoever, all wrapped up. The American presence abroad will shrink. It will shrink because we have taken on domestic entitlements that combined with our overseas commitments, are unsustainable. And we will discover, as the British government discovered in 1968, that if it’s the choice between unsustainable domestic spending, or retreating from global power, it’s always easiest in a democratic society to retreat from global power. So I believe the real East of Suez moments will be hitting us in mid-decade, and certainly by 2020.

Democrats Defeat Cruz’s Effort to Protect Americans from IRS Abuses By Andrew C. McCarthy


As an enthusiastic fan of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), I am sorry that an ongoing project prevented me from participating in PJM’s Cruz symposium. But this relevant news just came over the transom, so I thought I’d at least pass it along.

As I’ve previously noted, Obama administration officials have been working the codify in federal law the IRS harassment and obstruction of conservative organizations that President Obama and Attorney General Holder claimed to find “intolerable,” “inexcusable,” “outrageous,” and “unacceptable” back when the scandal first came to light. As usual, it has been Senator Cruz leading the charge to try to stop them.

In the Senate today, Cruz offered two amendments that would have safeguarded the First Amendment rights of Americans against being profiled and targeted for IRS harassment. Specifically, it would have made it unlawful for IRS employees to:

[W]illfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate, or single out and subject to undue scrutiny any person or organization in any state.

One might think that discriminating against groups based solely on their political beliefs is something so manifestly wrong and un-American that everyone could agree it should be prohibited – especially after all the Obama administration’s bloviating about how terrible it is. Instead, Democrats unanimously opposed the Cruz amendment. Their majority assured the measure’s defeat.


http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/02/28/criminal-background-checks-thats-racist/?print=1 Stop underestimating the crackpot ideas the race-left will cook up.  The latest in-fashion example of America’s structural racism is the criminal background check. The complaint goes like this. Racists who are looking for ways to engage in employment discrimination against blacks can use criminal background checks in hiring. Since blacks have been convicted of […]