"Totalitarian socialism" .. not a variation but a redundancy

... What is "social justice"? The theory that implies and justifies the practice of socialism. And what is "socialism"? Domination by the State. What is "socialized" is state-controlled. So what is "totalitarian" socialism other than total socialism, i.e., state control of everything?

... all the rivalries within the different socialist revolutions have been won by, not the "democratic" or "libertarian" socialists, but the totalitarians, i.e., those who don't qualify their socialism with antonyms. "Totalitarian socialism" is not a variation but a redundancy, which is why half-capitalist hypocrites will always lose out to those who have the courage of their socialist convictions. (Likewise, someone whose idea of "social justice" is a moderate welfare state is someone who's willing to tolerate far more "social injustice" than he's willing to eliminate.) ...

... the rest ... .

Stop Obama!

Thomas Sowell discusses his new book "Dismantling America" :

... While the Obama administration is not the root cause of the ominous danger that faces this country at home and abroad it is the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago. ... I see [Obama] as someone who all his life has been associated with or part of a group of people who fundamentally don't believe in the principles of this country.... he always sought out the most radical people ...

Thomas Sowell states that if the Obama agenda is not stopped in the November 2010 elections, he doesn’t know how it will ever be stopped.

Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5

Here's an idea for the Republicans - run Sowell in 2012.

[via]

Muslim barbarians - part MCXXXI

Theo Caldwell writes:

Sakineh Ashtiani has confessed.

Ashtiani is the Iranian woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of “adultery,” and whose cause was championed by people around the globe. Owing to public outcry, Iran’s mullahs, in their mercy, commuted her sentence to death by hanging.

[Via]

Supreme stupidity

It's thanks to our Supreme Court that our refugee system is the mess it is. James Morton in today's Post:

Other nations -- Australia, for example -- accept refugees but keep them in detention facilities until they are processed. Australia also keeps refugee claimants offshore in centres on Manus Island or Nauru. The effect of such detention has been to limit the number of refugee claimants to Australia. Other countries, such as the United States, limit the rights on arrival of refugee claimants. In the United States low-level immigration inspectors have authority to identify and immediately remove individuals who are not eligible ...

Such mandatory detention, or summary exclusion, is not a lawful option for Canada as a result of our Supreme Court's application of constitutional rights and freedoms to refugee claimants. In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that everyone in Canada is entitled to the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, people who arrive in Canada, regardless of their actual status, must be given a hearing if they claim to be refugees and are entitled to be at liberty in Canada unless they are a danger to the public, are known criminals or are unlikely to attend an immigration hearing.

Supreme lunacy! That ruling effectively rendered the country borderless (for everyone except legal immigrants.) It's hardly any wonder every refugee and every ne'er-do-well on the planet heads for Canada when things go awry at home. And all that yapping about human "smugglers" by our politicians and media pundits is bogus too. There's no need to "smuggle" anyone into the country. Just show up at the front door and the system rolls out the red carpet - free lawyers, free medical care and countless other taxpayer funded benefits.

Ezra Levant:

Who do you think should decide who gets to come to live in Canada?

Should it be the criminals and terrorists who smuggles hundreds of people to our shores?

Or how about three Supreme Court judges, back in 1985, who decided to give foreigners the right to sue our country under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

"Religion of peace" part MCXXX...

[Via]

2010's "record temperatures"

Lately, in the heat of summer, we've been hearing nothing but the "record temperatures of 2010" from the news and weather media. But is it true, or have they been getting their "data" from that old GISS propagandist and alarm monger, James Hansen?:

... HadCrut [...] show[s] temperatures flat over the past decade. and 2010 about 0.1°C cooler than the warmest year 1998.

... Hansen made temperature forecasts which have proven too high. Now his “measured” temperature data is pushing higher than everyone else. Would you accept the other team’s coach doing double duty as the referee? In what other profession would people accept this sort of conflict of interest?

Update: Then there's all that melting Arctic sea ice the media keeps yapping about. However:

... [2010] has been the coldest summer on record north of 80N, and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the average date.

... It also appears that the summer melt season will be the shortest on record.

... PIPS shows average ice thickness increasing ...

... The South Pole will almost certainly set a record for most sea ice this season.

... Yet the press continues to spread massive disinformation about the state of ice at both poles. Who could possibly be responsible for that?

A giant waste of time and money

At the Premiers’annual Council of the Federation these bozos

gassed on about (a) saving the planet from global warming and (b) making sure Canadians don’t "waste" water, even though:

(a) Canada’s contribution to global GHG emissions is negligible (assuming "GHGs" are a problem to begin with), and;

(b) Canada has the world’s largest supply of fresh water which might explain why we’re big users of the stuff. Apparently we have to wear a hair shirt because desert dwellers need to get by with less.

Perhaps they haven't read the memo, the climate climate has gotten colder. Nor, I'd wager, have they kept up on recent research which, in part, concludes:

Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models. Which means, one commenter says: "ie. they've done it wrong, and then oversold it."

[via FOS]