Rush Limbaugh speaks frequently about the new breed of “low-information” voter in America handing President Obama a second term in the White House. No doubt a disturbing amount of these voters were unaware that Obama’s inauguration on January 21st was a ceremonial re-enactment of the constitutionally required one the day before, and certainly they accepted unquestioningly the line in his ceremonial speech in which he said, “We will respond to the threat of climate change… Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

But that particular sentence only stays afloat when no one looks any deeper into it. The most damaging thing that can happen to a politicized thesis such as “climate change” is for more people to actually question it and discover for themselves that it looks like indefensible misinformation. For President Obama and others promoting the idea of man-caused global warming, any kind of plausible opposition to this issue imperils it, so they avoid exploration of critical viewpoints and instead label them as “deniers”. Case closed.

That is the hallmark of far-left agendas. The global warming issue showcases how spectacularly this tactic fails.


If The Facts Don’ t Fit The Agenda, Hide ‘Em: The BBC & The Israeli Election

Over at BBCWatch, the Sherlock Holmesian Hadar Sela has posted several must-read posts that analyse in illuminating and depressing detail how Britain’s “national broadcaster” has been covering the Israeli election.

There is the trademark omission of facts that don’t fit Al Beeb’s agenda of emphasisng a supposedly inexorable lurch to the right and the power of rightwing bogeymen, there are errors, there is jejune analysis, there is outsourcing of reportage to a leftist Israeli activist with an axe to grind, and there is manipulative sleight of hand.

There was the doctoring of remarks by the Jerusalem Post’s Gil Hoffman (who slayed the myth of a rightward shift here):

“Donnison’s report also included an interview with the Jerusalem Post’s chief political correspondent Gil Hoffman. Or at least, parts of an interview. For – as Hoffman later explained on Twitter – it seems that some things said in that interview just did not fit in with the BBC agenda.

PREVIEW FOR AMERICA? JOHN PHELAN ON THE UK’S NIH….PUTTING HEALTH ABOVE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Blindly defending the NHS does not make you noble, good, or compassionate. We must stop prioritising political dreams over people’s health t is sometimes said that the NHS is the closest thing the increasingly secular British have to a religion. And, like a religion, when questioned its defenders react with accusations of evil and […]

Obama only wants military leaders who ‘will fire on U.S. citizens’, says ‘leading humanitarian’
A ‘respected’ humanitarian has claimed that a military source has informed him of radical changes to the US military under a new Obama doctrine

Humanitarian activist, author and former Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Jim Garrow has this week made the incredible claim, via Facebook, that Barack Obama is weeding out military officials who say they would not fire on US citizens if required.

The extraordinary claim made by Garrow on Monday is sourced from someone Garrow refers to as “one of America’s foremost military heroes”, bringing many theories to light, such as whether Obama is simply contingency planning, or as some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, Obama is planning an assault on US citizens.

The likelihood is, if the story is indeed true, that Obama perhaps expects a level of civil unrest in his second term, given the contentious nature of his position on gun control, and the often aggressive sentiment whipped up by those such as Alex Jones, who recently told Piers Morgan, “1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms”.

In recent days, we have shown how plans are in the works for the confiscation, rather than simply the limitation of purchase, of firearms. New York Democrats especially have been uneasy with their plans being made public, no doubt for fear of backlash from voters.

Dr. Garrow posted on his Facebook page on Monday at 2:05pm, “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed.”



“…..sharply rebuked Israeli leaders for what his interviewer on CNN today, Fareed Zakaria, described as “nostalgia” for fallen Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

“It’s crazy. The Israelis should welcome what’s happened in Egypt,” Wolfowitz said. “If only cynically, I mean, they — instead of associating themselves with a dead, doomed regime, they should try to find allies in Egypt. And I would assume there are millions of Egyptians who do not want to restart a war with Israel. and Mubarak wasn’t such a great bargain. He filled the Egyptian state-controlled media with anti-American junk, with anti-Israeli, even with violently anti-Semitic junk. So — but the nostalgia — I think the nostalgia is misplaced, but it’s completely irrelevant now. They and we should be thinking about the future. ”

Why did Mrs. Clinton outsource to Qatar the arming of the opposition in Libya and Syria?

Four months after terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, killed four Americans—including the popular and effective Ambassador Chris Stevens—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will finally testify before Congress on Wednesday. The testimony should be an occasion to examine how the disaster was part of a larger failure in Libya and a still larger one in Syria that will haunt U.S. interests in the Middle East for decades.

Lawmakers will ask Mrs. Clinton why security in Benghazi was so lax on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and why the Obama administration claimed falsely that the terrorist attack was a response to an obscure and distasteful anti-Islamic video when available evidence made clear that the attack was a well-planned operation with likely connections to al Qaeda. For months, the danger in Benghazi had been growing. The evidence included attacks on the British ambassador, the United Nations special envoy to Libya, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the U.S. Consulate itself. Even in Tripoli, Libya’s capital, Islamist militias had—in broad daylight and with bulldozers—demolished a mosque that they considered heretical.

AYAAN HIRSI ALI: RAISED ON HATRED EGYPT’S newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, was caught on tape about three years ago urging his followers to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews and Zionists. Not long after, the then-leader of the Muslim Brotherhood described Zionists as “bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians,” “warmongers” and “descendants of apes and pigs.” […]

Britain: Immigration Seen as Top Problem by Soeren Kern There are roughly 863,000 people living illegally in Britain, of whom 604,000 (70%) live in London. — London School of Economics Britons’ view immigration as the biggest problem facing their society, according to a flurry of new surveys and research reports about the current state of affairs in Britain. Taken together, the data highlights […]


Frontpage Interview’s guest today is William Kilpatrick, the author of several books, including Psychological Seduction and Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong. His articles about Islam have appeared in FrontPage Magazine, Investor’s Business Daily, Catholic World Report, and other publications. His most recent book, Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West explores the threat that Islam poses to Christianity and Western civilization. The book also examines the role played by militant secularists in facilitating the expansion of Islam.

FP: William Kilpatrick, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with you telling us what inspired you to write this book.

Kilpatrick: In a way it’s a continuation of an earlier book of mine, Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong. That book looked at the ways in which moral relativism impaired Johnny’s ability to tell right from wrong. Part of the new book looks at the ways in which cultural relativism, or multiculturalism, impairs his ability to tell friend from foe. One of the chapters is titled “Why Johnny Can’t Read the Writing on the Wall.” One of the main reasons Western citizens can’t see the obvious about Islam is that they have been subjected to an educational system that insists on the moral equivalency of all cultures and religions, just as it had previously insisted on the equivalency of all value systems. So, the initial impulse for writing the book was my realization that the same people who introduced moral chaos into schools and society were now bent on normalizing an alien ideology. Or, to paraphrase Mark Steyn, the people who brought you Heather Has Two Mommies are about to bring you “Heather has four mommies and a great big bearded daddy.”

FP: Can you explain the title?

Kilpatrick: I use the word “atheism” in the title as shorthand for both atheists and militant secularists, most of whom tend to be on the left. Many Christians have awakened to the fact that they are in a cultural struggle with secular leftists, but far fewer have come to the realization that they are also in a civilizational struggle with Islam. Fewer, still, are aware that, as you point out in United in Hate, the left has formed a tacit alliance with radical Islam against the West.

Of course, Christians aren’t the only ones who are threatened by Islamic expansion. All non-Muslims are. But in the West, Christianity has traditionally been the focal point of resistance to Islamization. Unfortunately, Christianity in the West has been weakened both by secular attacks and by self-inflicted wounds. As a result, Christians in the West are failing to stand up for their cultural heritage. In fact, many fail to realize that their culture is under attack.

But without Christianity you are left mainly with philosophies of relativism, skepticism and materialism—philosophies that have proved themselves incapable of resisting Islamization and, in fact, serve to enable its spread. You can see this most clearly in Europe where the decline of Christianity has been accompanied not only by the rise of secularism but also by the rise of Islam. With the loss of faith has come a loss of meaning and the loss of a sense among Europeans that they have anything worth defending. The loss of faith is also one of the main factors accounting for Europe’s population loss. In other words, the decline of Christian faith in Europe created a spiritual vacuum and a population vacuum, both of which Islam was quick to fill.

While Muslim leaders and radical secularists are fully engaged in the struggle for the soul of the West, many Christians seem unaware that they are under attack from two sides. They need to wake up before it’s too late.

FP: In one of your chapters, you spoke of “Christian enablers of Islam.” Can you elaborate on that?

Kilpatrick: Many Christian leaders unwittingly act as enablers of Islam’s totalitarian agenda by focusing on the surface similarities between Christianity and Islam rather than on the profound and irreconcilable differences. A prime example is the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate which includes a short statement of the Church’s relation to Muslims. Essentially, it says that Muslims adore the one God, revere Jesus, honor Mary, and value the moral life. Reading it one could easily jump to the conclusion that the Christian faith and the Islamic faith are very much alike. One might also conclude that Islam is indeed a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a handful of terrorists who misunderstand their own religion.


This week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be making her swan song appearance on Capitol Hill, providing at last to Senate and House panels her testimony about the Benghazigate scandal. Under the circumstances, legislators may feel pressured to be deferential and to keep their questions more limited in scope and superficial rather than probing. For the good of the country, it is imperative that they resist going soft.

After all, the hearings Wednesday before the two chambers’ committees responsible for foreign policy oversight afford the final opportunity to examine with the sitting secretary of state her legacy with regard not only to the fiasco that left four Americans dead in Benghazi last Sept. 11, but with the policies that led up to that event — policies that are roiling the region today and that will afflict us for many years to come.

In other words, the object of the exercise must be to understand how we got to the point in Libya where Shariah-adherent jihadists felt able to attack American facilities and diplomatic personnel murderously and with impunity. Consequently, Mrs. Clinton’s interlocutors need to go beyond exploring the record of repeated rejections of requests from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and others to enhance security at the “mission” in Benghazi and the lack of U.S. response once the attack was launched.

Legislators must ensure that the following issues, for example, are also addressed:

Who was responsible for devising and executing the policy of engaging, legitimating, empowering, funding and arming Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood? It appears to date back to at least March 2009, when the United States first co-sponsored a Shariah-driven United Nations Human Rights Council resolution criticizing expressions that offend Islam. What role did Mrs. Clinton play in that initiative and in the broader policy of which it was a leading indicator?

ALAN CARUBA: THE NYTIMES GOES THE WAY OF GLOBAL WARMING “What’s in worse shape,” asked the Heartland Institute’s Director of Communications, Jim Lakely, in a January 11th blog post. “The state of the Earth’s climate? Or the state of the New York Times? Global temperatures are not rising all that quickly, so the Earth is doing fine. Meanwhile, the Old Gray Lady is shutting […]