UK Muslims protest Obama, cleric says Obama escalated war on Islam, must face sharia court, is worse than George Bush

5/24/11, "The Bin Laden backlash: Angry Muslims demonstrate outside Downing Street as Obama visits Britain," UK Daily Mail

"Muslim activists descended on Downing Street today in protest at Barack Obama's state visit to London.As the president met David Cameron in Whitehall, an angry crowd of burka clad women as well as protesters from Muslims Against Crusades

gathered on the streets outside.

They were joined by a number of prominent campaigners, including Anjem Choudary. The radical cleric said that President Obama has made himself a 'legitimate target' for Muslim extremists after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

He called for Mr Obama to be dragged before a sharia court over his role in the war in Afghanistan.

Speaking before the march on Downing Street Choudary said Mr Obama was enemy number one for Muslims.

Choudary said Obama was an 'even greater killer of Muslims' than his predecessor George Bush. ...

'He is a war criminal, it goes without saying. He has slain more Muslims than even his predecessor George Bush and has overseen the escalation of the war on Islam.

'He must be arrested and face a sharia court for his crimes.'

'The anti-Obama camp is far bigger than the pro-Obama.'...

Choudary was eventually dragged away by police, prompting scuffles to break out with his supporters."

via Big Government

UN official says islands are sinking due to illegal coral mining NOT CLIMATE CHANGE or global warming. Generations of exploitation says UNDP official

.
The coral lost around sinking islands is due to simple theft via corrupt or lax island governments. It is not due to global warming, or evil Americans.

5/9/11, "Sea gobbles up two of 21 Gulf of Mannar islands," expressbuzz.com, India

RAMANATHAPURAM/CHENNAI: "Two islands in the Gulf of Mannar have submerged within the last few months arguably due to global warming. While officials at the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park attributed the submergence of Poomarichan and Vilangusalli islands to global warming, independent experts pointed their finger of suspicion at the generations-old illegal coral mining in the region. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that a couple of islands have gone off the Indian map.

• The Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve consists of 21 islands. The smallest measures 0.6 acre while the biggest has an area of 321.2 acres. Put together, their total area is 6.23 sq km. Based on their location, they are divided into four units: Thoothukudi, Vembar, Keelakarai and Mandapam groups. While Poomarichan is part of Mandapam group, Vilangusalli is one of the four in the Thoothukudi group.

According to Sundara Kumar, GOMMNP warden, the two islands went underwater as the water level increased due to global warming. Bunkum, says Deepak Samuel, representative of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Trust. “Illegal coral mining is the major cause for islands to submerge and not climate change,” he argues. “The corals act as a barrier and take the tidal pressure

• thereby preventing erosion of the islands.

Generations of exploitation of corals has resulted in the islands facing the entire brunt of the sea causing it to submerge,” he claims.“Sea level rise due to climate change has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, according to intergovernmental studies. While this might be a serious threat to the biosphere in the future, in present conditions, climate change cannot possibly be the reason for the islands’ submergence,” says Aarthi Sridhar, project coordinator, Central Indian Ocean, IUCN-World Commission on Protected Areas.To preserve the coral reefs and mangrove forests, fishermen and visitors are banned from entering the area. But the ban is not strictly enforced.

• Sundara Kumar claims the GOMMNP intends to pay special attention to preserve the coral reef, mangroves and fauna of all the islands. Better late than never."

via Climate Depot

Now it's Arnold who's humiliated: Judge puts California cap and trade on hold

Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California Cap and Trade bill, his raison d'etre.


5/22/11, "Cap-and-Trade Setback In California," GlobalWarming.org, M. Lewis

"California Superior Court judge Ernest Goldsmith ruled on Friday that the state’s Air Resources Board (ARB) must halt “any futher rulemaking and implementation of cap-and-trade” until the agency examines alternatives policies to meet the greenhouse gas-reduction targets established by Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. ARB must also, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), complete a review of the environmental impacts of its preferred regulatory strategy before adopting it.

Note: The ruling does not challenge AB 32 itself, and petitioners in the case are greenies who think ARB’s plan to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions doesn’t go far enough. Nonetheless, this is a setback to California politicians and cap-and-taxers throughout the land. ARB has 15 months to provide the requisite analyses. ARB says it will appeal the decision. Rots of ruck!

AB 32 requires ARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions tonnage limit for 2020 equivalent to the state’s emission levels in 1990, and to develop a regulatory path, known as a Scoping Plan, to achieve ”maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gases by 2020.” Judge Goldsmith ruled that ARB “committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion when it failed to proceed in a manner required by law by inadequately describing and analyzing Project alternatives [other ways of reducing GHG emissions] sufficient

• for informed decisionmaking and public participation.”

Judge Goldsmith more extensively discussed the issues in his Jan. 24, 2011 Tentative Statement of Decision. Petitioners, led by the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), asserted that ARB “failed to meet the mandatory statutory requirements of AB 32 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by essentially treating the Scoping Plan as a post hoc rationalization for ARB’s already chosen policy approaches.” Specifically, petitioners argued that ARB violated AB 32 by:

(1) excluding whole sectors of the economy from GHG emission controls and including a cap-and-trade program without determining whether potential reduction measures achieved maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions; (2) failing to adequately evaluate the total cost and benefits to the environment, the economy, and public health before adopting the Scoping Plan; and (3) failing to consider all relevant information regarding GHG emission reduction programs throughout the United States and the world, as required by AB 32, prior to recomending a cap-and-trade regulatory approach.

The significance for national politics? This is another nail in cap-and-trade’s coffin. AB 32 was a point of pride for both former Gov. Schwarzengger and California Democratic legislators. Indeed, one purpose of the statute was to place California “at the forefront of national and international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.” AB 32 became the much-vaunted “California model” that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) invoked during their multi-year campaign to sell cap-and-trade on Capitol Hill.

Cap-and-trade has been on the skids since its day in the Sun back in June 2009, when the House narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey bill. After passage, the bill became politically radioactive and never came to a vote in the Senate. The December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference ended in failure, producing no agreement on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

In February 2010, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order stating that Arizona would not implement the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) cap-and-trade plan, scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012. Aside from California, none of the other WCI states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Utah) is close to implementing cap-and-trade. Yet in August 2010, ARB Chair Mary Nichols said that California would not go it alone: ”We won’t launch this program without partners to trade with. It doesn’t make sense for an economy even as big as California, to try to do this all by ourselves.”

In November 2010 the Chicago Climate Exchange emissions trading pilot program announced it would shut down “for lack of legislative interest.”

And now, thanks to the Irritated and Judge Goldsmith, ARB may not be able to implement cap-and-trade even if Ms. Nichols wants to fly solo."...

----------------------------------------------------

Above mentioned Mary Nichols, the Chair of CARB in California's so-called environmental unit endorsed use of fake "science" from a fake "scientist" (Hien Tran) to enact California cap and trade laws. In spite of obvious crime, Mary Nichols still calls the shots.

10/8/10, "Overestimate fueled state's landmark diesel law," San Francisco Chronicle, Wyatt Buchanan

The vote about supposed 'deadly effects of diesel' took place in December 2008 based on data Mary Nichols, the head of CARB, knew was not real. Based on known fake data, they still issued known fake results claiming diesel was causing mass murder. Mary Nichols said she told 'some' CARB board members but not all.

----------------------------------------------------------------

12/1/10, "How corrupt is government?" CA Political News

"The foremost exhibit against CARB is Dr. Hien Tran, a CARB "scientist" who wrote a key study the agency used to force recession-wracked operators of diesel off-road construction equipment to buy new, less polluting graders and trucks, at a cost of up to $12 billion.

• CARB identified Tran as a UC Davis-educated Ph.D. in statistics, a claim that gave his report some credence.

But that was a false statement – Tran’s Ph.D. is from (non-existent) Thornhill University, which the Pacific Research Institute, the parent organization of Calwatchdog, points out is located “in a New York City office of the United States Postal Service.” Government is

• forcing businesses to spend

• $12 billion based on fraud."...

------------------------------------

4/1/11, "Politically incorrect prof. may lose his job," Donna Laframboise

via Tom Nelson, photo from globalwarming.org

Obama wagged his finger at American Jewish audience like they were dim bulbs--UK Telegraph

5/22/11, "Barack Obama's big Middle East gamble," UK Telegraph, Toby Harnden

"Barack Obama seems unrepentant over his comments on Israel's border and appears to think that his own personality will be enough to resolve a '100-year-old headache'."

"Striding to the podium inside the Washington Convention Centre, President Barack Obama did his very best to avoid any sense that he felt intimidated by entering what was, in political terms, the lion's den.

There was tepid applause and a couple of isolated boos from the crowd of almost 10,000 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as Aipac, the premier and most hardline mainstream group in the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

The reception was one of intense scepticism. A vast majority of delegates felt that Mr Obama had a need to explain himself after his comments that a Middle East peace deal should be based on Israel's 1967 border incorporating agreed land swaps with the Palestinians.

But if they thought that the American president was going to take back his words in Thursday's speech at the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters, then

• they were sorely mistaken.

Wagging his finger repeatedly, Mr Obama adopted the manner of a schoolmaster frustrated that his pupils were too dim or inattentive to pay attention to what he had said.

Rather than even acknowledge the artlessness of his 1967 comments, or the fact that he had not prepared the Israeli Government for what he was about to say, his tone was of the "I'm sorry you feel that way" variety of non-apology.

In the Oval Office on Friday, Mr Obama did little to disguise his irritation with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli premier, for turning to him to deliver an impassioned tutorial on Israel's history in the full glare of the cameras.

"It's the ancient nation of Israel," the Likud leader told Mr Obama. "We've been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres

• and the murder of millions."

It was an unprecedented rebuke of an American president by an Israeli premier. Menachem Begin is said to have delivered similar monologues to President Jimmy Carter, but never in public.

Even 48 hours later, it was clear at the Aipac conference that Mr Obama, who is remarkably thin-skinned for a top-flight American politician and has never been lacking in self-regard,

• was still smarting.

When loud applause greeted Mr Obama's mention of Mr Netanyahu's name, the president's eyes narrowed and he chewed his lip.

• He was distinctly unamused.
  

He went on to repeat, to stony silence, exactly what he had said at Foggy Bottom in an address that the White House anticipated would be heralded around the world for its embrace of people power in the "Arab Spring" uprisings in the Middle East.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states," he said. "The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

He did, however, spell out what he had failed to do in his Foggy Bottom speech. He said that a settlement would result in "a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967", the eve of the Six-Day War in which Israel pushed back the forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan and occupied the West Bank and Gaza.

There was even an acknowledgement that a deal would have to take account of "the new demographic realities on the ground" – code for Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, beyond the 1967 lines.

Naturally, in the Aipac speech he uttered the usual lines about the "unbreakable" bonds between the US and Israel, America's "unshakeable" opposition to attempts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy and the "ironclad" US commitment to the security of the Jewish state.

He dropped the names of his prominent Jewish advisers, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod (though both have now departed the White House – Mr Emanuel to be Chicago mayor and Mr Axelrod to direct the 2012 re-election campaign) and

• the new Democratic party chairman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.

But it was notable that Mr Obama neglected to reject, just as he had at Foggy Bottom, the Palestinian demand for a "right of return".

While the words of the Aipac speech were an improvement for Israelis on those of three days earlier, the question hanging in the air was why they could not have been uttered to a world audience rather than,

• belatedly, to Israeli's staunchest backers.

Although Mr Obama insisted in his Aipac speech that he "wasn't surprised" by the furore created by his decision to become the first American president publicly to state that the 1967 lines should be the starting point in talks,

• there is every indication that the White House was blindsided.

American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been in turmoil in recent weeks, with George Mitchell, Mr Obama's Middle East envoy, resigning over the White House's decision not to outline a detailed peace plan.

The man who was seen to have prevailed over Mr Mitchell was Dennis Ross, the long-time Middle East adviser to Republican and Democratic administrations, who is Jewish and viewed by Israel as its number one friend at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In seeking a balance between the Mitchell and Ross factions within his own administration, however,

• Mr Obama failed to take full account of the situation Israel finds itself in.

Although his already healthy self-confidence has been boosted by the death of Osama bin Laden, Israel finds itself facing turmoil across the Arab world, a Palestinian bid for the United Nations to recognise statehood in September and a Palestinian government in which Fatah and Hamas could be united.

In this environment, the prospect of serious peace negotiations is as dim as ever, but Mr Obama appeared to feel that his own personality, political skills and success against the al-Qaeda leader would be enough to resolve what President Harry Truman once described as "the 100-year headache". Personal relations between Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu have always been frosty and White House advisers had been briefing for months that they did not think the Israeli premier would be prepared to take risks for peace.

Some Israelis believe that Mr Obama hoped his words would destabilise Mr Netanyahu's coalition government and bring in Tzipi Livni, the Kadima leader and head of the Israeli opposition, who is viewed in Washington as more flexible and realistic.

The result of the past few days, however, may well be that real Israeli-Palestinian talks have been made more elusive. Mr Netanyahu took a considerable risk in speaking so bluntly to an American head of state. The response from the staunchly pro-Israel American commentator Jeffrey Goldberg was a blog post headlined: "Dear Mr Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way".

But Mr Netanyahu's coalition appears to be solid at the moment and he could emerge stronger from his spat with Mr Obama.

Republican presidential candidates were quick to jump on Mr Obama with over-heated statements, some of which misrepresented his words, either wilfully or ignorantly, by suggesting he was stating that the 1967 borders should be the endpoint of talks. Mitt Romney, viewed by many as the Republican front runner, accused Mr Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus".

Republicans, who are straining to assemble a convincing field of candidates to challenge Mr Obama, will struggle to portray him as weak on foreign policy after bin Laden's demise.

But Mr Obama does remain vulnerable on whether he stands up for American interests abroad following his apologies for past US conduct. Most Americans view Israel as an ally that should be backed to the hilt. If the perception sticks that Mr Obama is prepared to undermine Israeli security, it could be very damaging.

In 2008, 78 per cent of Jewish voters chose Mr Obama over Senator John McCain. That level of support could well ebb between now and 2012. More seriously, there are signs that donations from wealthy Jews, which played a key role in Mr Obama's stratospheric fundraising totals in 2008, will fall off.

Ed Koch, the former New York mayor and a prominent Democrat and Obama donor in 2008, condemned the President for having "sought to reduce Israel's negotiation power", echoing what many other prominent Jewish Democrats have said.

Mr Obama has always made clear that he wants to be not merely an ordinary American president but one to rival Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F Kennedy.

In spelling out to Israel, as he did at Aipac, what he sees as "the facts we all must confront", no one could accuse him of timidity. He may well, however, have made his own aim of being the great American peacemaker in the Middle East

• much more difficult to achieve."

------------------------------------------

So it's now viewed as astonishing that anyone would question Obama. Such hasn't been the reaction in recent American politics-- whereas it's common in monarchies and totalitarian dictatorships like the EU and Communist China. No one would have been concerned that a world leader spoke frankly in public to George Bush or even Bill Clinton. It's really not for an American to tell another country what to do about it's borders anyway. ed.



via Lucianne.com

'Obama=Jew Hater' signs at pro-Israel, anti Islamic aggression rally in NY City May 20

5/21/11, "Obama bows to Islamic aggression: New York City rally for Israel," May 20, 2011 from Urban Infidel
.




"No Auschwitz Borders," May 20, 2011, Pro Israel rally in New York City




NY State Assemblyman and democrat Dov Hikind at pro-Israel rally in NYC, May 20, 2011, most likely voted for Obama and will do so again.



More pictures at Urban Infidel

Kiss star Gene Simmons says Obama has no idea what he's talking about with Israel, suggests he go there and stand on the exact land

Simmons voted for Obama but realizes he did so for the wrong reasons.

5/21/11, "Israeli Born Kiss Star Gene Simmons on '67 Borders: 'Obama Has No F--king Idea What World is Like'," NewsBusters

"Most Americans are probably familiar with outspoken Kiss star Gene Simmons, but likely didn't know that he was born and partially raised in Israel.

With this in mind, when he was asked by CNBC's Jane Wells what he thought about President Obama's suggestion that Israel's borders be redrawn to pre-1967 levels, Simmons replied, "He has no f--king idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there" (video follows with transcript and commentary)...

JANE WELLS, CNBC: What do you think of President Obama’s suggestion that the borders be redrawn pre-67?

GENE SIMMONS, KISS: "President Obama, I voted for an idea. What I didn’t realize what I was getting was an idealist. If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no f—king idea what it’s like on the moon. For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, “Go back to your 67 borders in Israel,” how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide? On one side you’ve got hundreds of millions of people who hate your guts, on the other side you’ve got the Mediterranean. Unless you control, in Israel, unless you control those Golan Heights,

• it’s an indefensible position.

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well. I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no f—king idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there."

As someone that has stood on top of the Golan Heights, I can attest to what Simmons said, as they overlook Israel and giving them back would mean could lob munitions into a completelyindefensible Jewish state.

Anyone who's been there knows this is something Israel will never agree to, and if Obama would visit there and see it for himself, he would immediately realize how absurd his speech was Thursday.

Obviously, Simmons - who Hot Air Pundit accurately noted was born in Haifa with the name Chaim Witz - understands this far better than the man currently in the White House as well as all his sycophants in the media that praised him since he threw Israel under the bus.

Although the vulgarity was unnecessary, Witz was spot on."

========================================

12/6/10, Even before the Israel speech, Gene Simmons said he's sorry he voted for Obama, dislikes the health care bill, says Obama has no real life experience:

"Even though KISS star Gene Simmons voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, he's not as big of a fan anymore. The rocker announced that he "couldn't find somebody, in retrospect,

• more unqualified."

"Two years in public office, never ran his own company, so after the fact, I was questioning the qualification," said Simmons during an appearance on CNN.

Simmons knocked the health care bill, in addition to "the Chapter 11s and Chapter 7s.

• You should be able to fail. "

"I want the government out of my life," said Simmons."

via Lucianne.com

Global warming profiteers seem into sexual humiliation

DSK, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Soros. In Canada's British Columbia, the global warming racket played on peoples' deepest emotions to embed a cruel crime. Public school boards now use school money to subsidize private energy companies.

5/9/11, "Canada's carbon catastrophe begins," Ottawa Sun, Lorrie Goldstein

"It’s like watching the same train wreck — twice.

Our politicians are starting to commit the same wasteful blunders, resulting in the same perverse consequences, as the Europeans have in pricing carbon dioxide emissions, ostensibly to fight climate change.

The harbinger of many bad things to come for us

• is now happening in B.C.
  

There, the provincial government is forcing the transfer of millions of tax dollars from cash-strapped schools, hospitals and other public institutions, by

• requiring them to buy carbon offsets.

Money which then benefits hugely profitable energy companies

• like Encana.

This is eerily reminiscent of what happened in Europe when it started pricing emissions years ago.

Hospitals, universities and other public facilities had to spend millions of dollars that could have gone toward hiring more nurses and professors,

• buying carbon credits.

Meanwhile, energy giants like BP and Esso made millions after receiving free carbon credits from European regulators — which they then sold

• into Europe’s disastrous cap-and-trade market,
  

• the Emissions Trading Scheme.

The reason for the fiasco in B.C. is the provincial government has decreed schools, hospitals and other public facilities must become “carbon neutral,” with municipalities joining the list next year.

The only way they can comply, because so many of their buildings are old and energy-inefficient, is to buy “carbon offsets” to — in theory — cancel out their excess emissions.

As Craig McInnes of the Vancouver Sun reported May 7, the city’s school board, facing a budget shortfall of $8.4 million, nonetheless had to spend

• $450,000 on carbon offsets
  

• and a “smart tool” to calculate its “carbon footprint.”

According to The Tyee online newspaper, the same thing is happening to school boards, hospitals and other public facilities across B.C.

As a result, schools are hiring fewer teachers and turning the thermostat even lower in winter in

• already poorly insulated buildings to save money.

The money schools, hospitals and other public institutions pay for carbon offsets (the Sun estimates up to $25 million annually) is used by Pacific Carbon Trust — a government agency — to buy carbon offsets from energy companies like Encana, helping it to pay for new technology to lower its emissions.

This is so dumb it’s hard to know where to begin.

First, tax money intended to pay for cash-strapped schools, hospitals and other public institutions is instead going to subsidize hugely profitable energy companies in the private sector.

Second, “carbon offsets,” even if they actually lead to emission reductions which would not otherwise have occurred — a hugely controversial area —

• are a poor way to lower emissions.

The best way is not to emit in the first place.

But that would require the government to fund schools and hospitals properly, so they can upgrade and replace aging infrastructure.

The government argues some of the money in play is being invested in public facilities to help them improve their energy-efficiency. But funding requests are already exceeding the amount budgeted for them.

As McInnes rightly observes: “What kind of public policy leads to a school board subsidizing an energy company? A very bad one, somewhat south of ridiculous.” Exactly."

------------------------------------------------------------

DSK, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Soros, Obama, the UK and its monarchy, the UN and its above the law crime operation, jet-setting show business elites, equatorial dictators, hedge fund thugs, most American politicians, and most national media who consider themselves partners with government against the people, all believe they operate under different rules than ordinary people. ed.

"Socialism is simply a form of totalitarianism, with an aristocracy that spends 100% of its political effort maintaining its ascendancy. Ivy league sociology profs, Soviet Nomenklatura, Nazi Party members, friends of Fidel; they're all the same.

• The main difference between socialism and other forms of totalitarianism is that monarchies and oligarchies admit to being what they are. Socialism always lies. And the "easy affluence" of the elite class only gets easier and more affluent by the generation."...commenter "Dr. Robert,"
  

to article, "A Teachable Moment on American-European Faultlines," V.D. Hanson, National Review, 5/17/11

------------------------------------------------------

11/15/09, "Green Ice: NHL’s Andrew Ference Inspires Hockey’s Environmental Challenge," SamartianMag.com

"Ference’s awareness of the adverse relationship between professional sports and the health of the planet began when he joined the Calgary Flames in 2003 and had ongoing conversations with well-known environmental

• activist Dr. David Suzuki."

via Free Republic, Climate Depot