America’s Frankenstein Brigade

Sotloff’s Syrian kidnappers were the “good” guys

by ,
September 10, 2014

The revelation by a spokesman for the family of Steven Sotloff, the second
journalist beheaded by the Islamic State (ISIS), that Sotloff
was “sold [to ISIS]
for between $25–50,000,” by
the US-supported “moderate” Free Syrian Army
underscores the irony
and absurdity of this moment. As the President gets ready to go to the American
people and ask for their support in pursuing a military campaign in Iraq and
, how the principle of “blowback” operates should be clear to
everyone – even Rudy Giuliani.

The “moderates” we have been funding, arming, and training for the
past few years couldn’t have come up with a better plan to suck us into the
Syrian quagmire. After crying “Wolf!” for so long – what with chemical
supposedly inflicted by the infinitely evil Bashar al-Assad, and other
tall tales of dubious provenance – the rebels had lost all credibility. What
to do? Desperate to increase the decibel level of calls for US military action
in the region, they resorted to targeting the US media in hopes that the outrage
generated would push the Americans into war.

And the ruse certainly seems to be working. That’s their battlefield, after all: the Syrian Mod Squad has never been an effective fighting force on the ground in Syria, but when it comes to dominating the Western media landscape they’ve been wildly successful. According to their many friends in the Fourth Estate, those lovable cuddly “moderate” Islamists wouldn’t hurt a flea – after all, they’ve been “vetted,” haven’t they?

What a grisly joke.

The immoderate kidnapping of Sotloff surely eviscerates the argument that we
could’ve been spared the existence of ISIS if only we’d gone full bore in supporting
the Syrian Free Army. Yes, if only we’d handed Syria over to them the way they
handed Sotloff over to ISIS everything would be hunky dory. That makes sense
– in Bizarro World.

Yet Bizarro World “logic” is exactly what has been determining US
policy in the region ever since the “Arab Spring,” when the Obama
administration decided to hop on board the “revolution,” co-opt all
that energy, and use it to generate support for regime change throughout the
region. The results have been an unmitigated disaster, to wit:

  • In Libya we overthrew Muammar Gaddafi, “liberating” the country with the help of – and at the urging of – our European allies. The Libyans expressed their gratitude by murdering our Ambassador, trashing our embassy, and plunging the country into Somali-like chaos.
  • In Egypt we backed a “moderate” Islamist regime, throwing longtime American sock-puppet Hosni Mubarrak overboard without so much as a by-your-leave – and wound up supporting an even worse “secular” military dictatorship.
  • In Syria, we plotted to overthrow another Gaddafi-like secular despot, aligning with those lovable “moderate” Islamists – many of whom would soon defect to ISIS, taking their US-supplied arsenal with them.

As I’ve said in this space from the beginning, ISIS has “Made in USA” stamped all over it – and I don’t mean that just figuratively. Yes, our wrong-headed policies have so alienated the Sunnis that they’ve resorted to supporting the fanatics of ISIS, but it’s worse than that. It is literally true that we armed, trained, and deployed these monsters – what we might call the Islamist Frankenstein Brigade – and now they’ve turned on us with a vengeance.

Well then, so what? So what if our crazy policy of empowering Islamist militias in Libya and overthrowing Assad in Syria led us to this horrific pass: the monster is rampaging over the entire region and we’ve got to act fast before it takes Baghdad – right?

Wrong. To begin with, contrary to US government officials and their media echo chamber, ISIS represents little threat to the continental US. If we can’t corral the few dozen Americans who’ve gone over there to fight on behalf of our self-proclaimed allies, the darling rebels, then where have the billions spent on “homeland security” gone?

The principal victims of ISIS are those who actually live in the region: the Syrians, the Iranians, and the Iraqis. The Turks and the Kurds have a lot to lose, too, if ISIS triumphs: so why not let them take care of the problem? Senator Rand Paul, in an interview with Sean Hannity, proposed exactly that:

“Right now, the two allies that have the same goal would be Iran and Syria, to wipe out ISIS. They also have the means, and the ability, and they also have the incentive to do so because [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad’s clinging for power and clinging for life there.”

What could make more sense? Yet it’s precisely because it’s the logical solution that it’s being ruled out of order. The well-known high “moral standards” of the US government absolutely forbid such a course: Assad, we are told, is “killing his own people.” He’s a monster, and even indirectly helping him maintain his power is impermissible – because, you see, “the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend” is a Very Bad Principle to adopt because … well, just because. Not to mention the poor, persecuted Sunnis who will be “alienated” from us, and we just couldn’t have that, now could we? Far better to risk American lives, expend our resources, and bear the burden of empire alone, pure in our virtuous martyrdom.

Among the more incredible arguments along these lines is made by foreign policy maven Daniel Larison, who weaves a strange and entirely illogical theory around the idea that “Assad benefits from ISIS’ continued existence. As long as ISIS appears to be the main alternative to him and his regime in Syria, he is much more secure, and so at least in the short to medium term he has little reason to want them destroyed. One might think that he would have an incentive to destroy this group, but in practice he hasn’t been trying to do this.”

Full Story


CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!

by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012

in Atmosphere,Data,Philosophy,Theory

There are two groups in the climate debate: those who believe human CO2 is causing global warming/climate change and those who don’t, respectively labeled Warmists and Skeptics. Warmists try to deny the difference, arguing skeptics are simply wrong. They refuse to debate, claiming the debate is over, which is like saying the science is settled. Both sides believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming, but disagree on the amount. Warmists claim it explains 90 percent, Skeptics an insignificant amount. Both avoid the real issue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon. Warmists claim their computer models prove it. Skeptics do it by talking about climate sensitivity. They are both wrong, but the Skeptics are still practicing science and will adjust their views. It’s the difference between the science and political science of climatology.

The Warmist position is fixed because it was achieved by corruption of the science and the scientific method. Science advances through proposing a hypothesis. Scientists then function as skeptics and challenge the assumptions on which they are based. The hypothesis became fact through the design of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It’s the pattern of science driven by environmentalism as a political agenda. Deliberate personal and professional attacks sidelined the few who tried to be scientific skeptics. These attacks were reinforced by mainstream media, who also accepted and promoted the hypothesis.

Warmists were on a treadmill defending the hypothesis. Over 6000 leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) delineate the challenges and political rather than scientific responses. It required three major activities. A steady flow of material that appeared to provide proof; rejection of evidence that contradicted the hypothesis; and efforts to silence critics and control research and publications.

Several years ago at a conference someone questioned CO2 as a greenhouse gas. A senior climate skeptic gave what I considered a political answer. He said it was foolish to say it was not a greenhouse gas. The best approach is to say the human contribution was insignificant. I disagreed, but had inadequate understanding of physics to openly challenge.

Read More

Donald Sterling Girlfriend: V. Stiviano a Transgender? Rumors Claim Model Used to be a Man


A rumor claims that Donald Sterling’s girlfriend V.Stiviano used to be a man. (Photo : Instagram)

The world is now eager to find out everything there is to know about Donald Sterling’s girlfriend (or mistress) V. Stiviano. The 31-year-old model is the woman who reportedly leaked audiotapes in which Sterling was making racist remarks about African Americans.

Sterling is the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers but after the tapes leaked, the NBA banned him for life. Before the scandal, not much was known about V. Stiviano. She was often spotted sitting courtside at basketball games and flaunted her lavish lifestyle on Instragram but was a relative unknown.

In a new report by Media Take Out, the gossip site suggests that the model might have been born a man.

“Breaking News: We Now Have Some Very Convincing Evidence… That the Racist Clippers Owner’s Girlfriend… Is a Transgendered American!!” the site’s headline read.

MTO’s “proof” was that Stiviano has “very manly hands” and likes to wear men’s watches. That’s not much evidence to go on.

“Peep them hands… when have you ever in your life seen a woman with hands like that???” the site wrote and included a close-up picture of her hands.

According to Rumor Fix, Stiviano was not born a man and claims that legal documents revealed that her birth name is Maria Vanessa Perez. The Daily Mail reports that Stiviano changed her mane in 2010 to separate herself from her troubled childhood.

In court documents seen by the Daily Mail (which they chose not to publish because of their “sensitive nature”) she says that she wanted to change her name because she hadn’t “yet been fully accepted because of my race.”

Her mother is said to be Mexican and her father is believed to be African American. According to the Daily Mail, Stiviano was born in San Antonio, Texas but had a rough upbringing surrounded by poverty. Her mother, who reportedly didn’t have a job, was convicted on trying to use her children to steal items from a grocery store.

Now, the model lives in a $1.8 million condo in Los Angeles, drives a bright red Ferrari (and has numerous other luxury cars), and a closet full of designer clothes. It is said that Sterling was the one footing the bill for her lavish lifestyle.