Foehammer's Anvil

I Haven’t Changed My Tune on Islam in the USA

Foehammer — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:37:21 PDT

The following video just came to my attention this morning. I want you to watch this exchange that took place at an Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan on June 21st, 2009. Pay special attention to how often the cameraman is assaulted and how often they are told “Stop taping” by both Muslims and security.

Let’s get something straight right off the bat. Fascism is overt. It is not going to sneak up on you. What you are seeing here in this video is textbook. This is how thuggery begins. Thugs ignore laws. There is no law against photographing in public places, which a festival on the streets obviously is. There is definitely no law against videotaping security guards or police and if you are not near a government building and a policeman tries to tell you so, get his badge number and call and ask him if he’d like you to call his chief, or your attorney.

Also note how the festival does not want Christians proselytizing at the event. It’s almost as if I’m hearing dictates from within Saudi Arabia, but this is in the United States of America!

Now, I bet many of my readers have mistakenly believed that because I have done a 180 on 9-11, that I’ve gone soft on Islam. That couldn’t be more false. The actions in this video and the location (Michigan is a hotbed of Islamic activity in the USA) give me reason to be alarmed. This is the sort of Islam I have been anticipating seeing come to the United States.

So, watch the video and then think about it. This is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Islamists. Eventually, given enough time and numbers, I predict we will see far worse actions in Muslim communities against Christians and other “outsiders” that dare ask questions.

There’s a reason why Islam has been used for false flag events: Islam is inherently Fascism. When you want to commit a crime, you use criminals, right?

I’m disturbed by what our government is doing overseas. I’m disturbed by what our government allows to keep happening inside our borders. I have every reason to be on guard. I wish this blog wasn’t necessary, but as you can see, it obviously is. For so many reasons.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day

Foehammer — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:54:52 PDT

I know I’ve been a bit absent from blogging for a couple of weeks. I needed some time to myself after Debra Medina got ousted from the Texas Governor’s race by Rick “the Slick” Perry in what I consider a crooked vote, but what can you do? There’s always next time; if the USA survives to a “next time” and Rick Perry doesn’t end up President.

But today is St. Patrick’s Day! Make some plans to enjoy some toasts over green beer with your best friends and family and forget about our worries for a day, at least. We all deserve that much. Well, most of us anyway.

Not you, Rick.

Many leading scientists tell the EPA to think again

Foehammer — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:23:40 PST

From PrisonPlanet.com:

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
This letter from numerous leading scientists in climate and related fields to Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is worthy of wider circulation.

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We congratulate you on your appointment to EPA Administrator and commend you for your commitment to “science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” We write today because the United States finds itself at a crossroads where these values are sure to be tested.

Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce submitted a petition for an on-the-record hearing under the Clean Air Act before the EPA proceeds with its proposed rulemaking on the regulation of greenhouse gases, Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009) (hereinafter “Endangerment Finding”).

The Chamber requested a hearing based on 5 U.S.C. §§ 556-57 where: all proceedings would be conducted on the record; the decision-maker would be the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, or an Administrative Law Judge; the decision-maker would have the benefit of the full Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; parties could submit supporting documents, data, and presentations; and agencies other than the EPA designated in Executive Order No. 13,432 could designate a single official to observe and participate in the proceedings.

In light of the monumental importance of the EPA’s proposed rulemaking, we urge the adoption of the Chamber’s request. Additionally, we urge the EPA to address four critical questions, which, in addition to the issues enumerated in the Chamber’s Petition, are central to the EPA’s proposed rulemaking. Indeed, these questions require careful analysis before intelligent public policy can be promulgated. They are:

1. Is the Earth’s climate changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion?

2. Does the science permit rejection of the hypothesis that CO2 is only a minor player in the Earth’s climate system?

3. Can climate models that assume CO2 is a key determinant of climate change provide forecasts of future conditions that are adequate for policy analysis?

4. Can we reject the hypothesis that the primary drivers of the Earth’s climate system will continue to be natural (non-anthropogenic) forces and internal climate variability?

The fundamental issue facing the EPA is whether or not human-caused CO2 emissions have already led to, or can be expected in the future, to lead to significant adverse changes in the Earth’s climate system. That is, in order to justify the current proposed Endangerment Finding, a very critical theory or assumption that must stand up to rigorous scientific analysis is that highervatmospheric CO2 levels will, with some appropriate level of confidence, lead to measurably higher surface temperatures.

This theory can only be tested or validated by testing the so-called null hypothesis that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s climate system. If this null hypothesis cannot be rejected, there is no basis for regulating CO2, particularly given the enormously negative implications of such regulation on the Nation’s Energy, Economic and National Security.

Is the Earth’s climate changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion?

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by more than 20% over the last 50 years. If atmospheric CO2 levels, in fact, have more than a minor impact on the Earth’s climate system, one would expect to see the impact in the relevant climate data. So, to answer the question, “Is the Earth’s climate changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion?” it is necessary to rigorously seek answers to at least the following five questions:

• Is the Earth’s air temperature change unusual?
• Are droughts becoming longer and more intense due to increasing CO2?
• Are floods and heavy rainfall events increasing due to increasing CO2?
• Are hurricanes and tropical storms becoming stronger and more intense?
• Are sea levels rising dramatically due to increasing CO2?

The scientific evidence and empirical data strongly suggest there are respected scientists who would answer “no” to each of these five questions. Thus, despite the over 20% rise in CO2 over the last 50 years, there is little credible evidence that any of these dimensions of the Earth’s climate system have shown anomalous behavior.
Does the science permit rejection of the hypothesis that CO2 is only a minor player in the Earth’s climate system?

Whether or not the EPA, at this point, concurs with “no” answers to all of these questions, correlation does not imply causation. For example, the fact that CO2 concentration and surface temperature both rose over the period 1975 to, say, 1998 does not imply that rising CO2 was the primary cause, which is clearly indicated by the fact that while CO2 concentration continued to rise, temperatures have recently been falling. Therefore, we feel that it is critical that the EPA utilize a rigorous process to address the question: “Does the science permit rejection of the hypothesis that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s climate system?” To properly answer this question, one must address each of the following issues:

• Is carbon dioxide (CO2) the most important of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
• Does a “tipping point” exist where more CO2 will ultimately lead to “run away” warming?
• In the past, did increases in CO2 cause increases in the Earth’s temperature?
• Since CO2 concentrations have recently risen dramatically, is the warming consistent with a “Greenhouse Gas fingerprint”?
• Is there evidence that rising CO2 levels are leading to acidification of the oceans which threatens calcium carbonate-based marine life?

An unbiased, critical review of the literature by respected scientists would have many of them answering “no” to each of these five questions.

Thus, if the EPA would come to believe that the answers to the questions spelled out above were all “no”, it would imply that the scientific evidence and experimental data to date suggest that the Earth’s climate system has not been behaving in an anomalous fashion; and, as of today, there is no known credible reason why further increasing CO2 levels will cause harm in the future.

Can climate models that assume CO2 is a key determinant of climate change provide forecasts of future conditions that are adequate for policy analysis?

In our view, particularly with temperatures now falling, the argument for CO2 regulation rests solely on the “validity” of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC and the EPA. Thus it is crucial to answer the questions, “Can climate models that assume CO2 is a key determinant of climate change, provide a forecast quality sufficient for such critical regulatory policy decisions?” To properly address this issue, it is necessary to seek rigorously developed answers to the following questions:

• Do global climate models properly handle “feedbacks” in the Earth’s climate system?
• Do global climate models perform well in simulating the climate and compare well when forecasting the impact of increased levels of CO2?
• Have modelers followed the well-documented and validated rules set forth by academic forecasting professionals?
• Did these models forecast the recent decline in temperatures?

Evidence in the literature would strongly suggest that many respected scientists would answer “no” to each of these four questions, which may well eliminate any possible rationale for regulating CO2. It should be noted that it should not be surprising that models that assume CO2 is a critical player in the Earth’s climate system cannot be validated for policy analysis when we can demonstrate that rising CO2 levels have had little impact on the Earth’s climate so far, and at this point, there is little theoretical reason to believe they will ever have a significant impact. Can we reject the hypothesis that the primary drivers of the Earth’s climate system will continue to be natural (non-anthropogenic) forces and internal climate variability?

Finally, since atmospheric CO2 levels are not demonstrably relevant determinants of the Earth’s climate, it is highly relevant to ask, what is really driving changes in the Earth’s climate? To address this issue, climate science literature would suggest that the following question be answered: “Can we reject the hypothesis that the primary drivers of the Earth’s climate system will continue to be natural (non-anthropogenic) forces and internal climate variability? More specifically, one must at least ask:

• Does the sun play a significant role in climate variations on short (multi-decadal or shorter) time scales?
• Can volcanic activity and changes in stratospheric aerosols affect climate on short (multi-decadal or shorter) time scales?
• Do oscillations in ocean temperatures and the oceanic conveyor belt have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate?
• Do cloud/water vapor feedback mechanisms significantly affect the climate system on short (multi-decadal or shorter) time scales?

It is clear from the literature that many respected scientists would answer each of these four questions independently with a resounding “yes”.

Recommendation

We feel strongly that the EPA must not only rigorously address all four of the additional questions outlined at the outset, but also deal with at least the 18 supporting issues. As can be clearly seen by an analysis of the different fields of knowledge and academic skills required to answer the 18 detailed questions listed above, no one scientist should feel comfortable answering each and every question. And yet, without thoughtful, fully-informed judgments on all of the questions by the scientists who are expert in the particular issue area, the EPA should not feel comfortable issuing an Endangerment Finding in support of CO2 regulation.

Because of the need to have only those highly qualified to provide answers to each of the questions outlined above, we strongly suggest that the EPA grant the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Petitions, and in particular, adopt its recommendation regarding the use of the an on-the-record hearing conducted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 556-57.

While following such an analysis process may well be more arduous than planned, the implications of ill-founded CO2 regulation could be truly catastrophic. Hardly a day goes by without another prominent scientist joining the ranks of those who reject the conclusion of the IPCC that the primary driver of the Earth’s climate system is CO2 emissions from human use of fossil fuels rather than other natural forces.

The EPA has the authority to hold on-the-record hearings under the Clean Air Act using procedures based on 5 U.S.C. §§ 556-57. As the Administrative Conference of the United States said, such authority should be exercised whenever (a) the scientific, technical, or other data relevant to the proposed rule are complex, (b) the problem posed is so open-ended that diverse views should be heard, and (c) the costs that errors may impose are significant. See 1 C.F.R. § 305.76-3(1) (1993). The Chamber noted in its petition that “it is hard to imagine a situation where each part of this test is more easily met.” We concur and urge the EPA to hold a formal, on-the-record hearing before proceeding with any proposed Endangerment Finding.

Thank you for your consideration

Dr. J. Scott Armstrong
Professor at The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University

Dr. Robert M. Carter
Professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University (Australia)

Dr. Ian Clark
Professor of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa (Canada)

Dr. Roger W. Cohen (Retired)
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs
ExxonMobil Corporation

Dr. Susan J. Crockford
Adjunct Professor of Anthropology
University of Victoria (Canada)

Dr. Chris de Freitas
Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science
The University of Auckland (New Zealand)

Dr. David Deming
Associate Professor of Arts & Sciences
University of Oklahoma

Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh
E.G. Bailey Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion
The Ohio State University

Dr. Patrick Frank
SLAC National Accelerator Center
Stanford University

Dr. Stewart W. Franks
Associate Professor of Engineering
University of Newcastle (Australia)

Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford

Dr. Kesten C. Green
Business & Economic Forecasting Unit
Monash University (Australia)

Dr. Sultan Hameed
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Stony Brook University

Dr. William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University

Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Tempe, Arizona

Mr. William Kininmonth
Australasian Climate Research
Kew, Victoria (Australia)

Dr. George Kukla
Special Research Scientist
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Dr. David R. Legates, C.C.M.
Associate Professor of Climatology
University of Delaware

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri

Dr. Ross R. McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph (Canada)

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
School of Public Policy
George Mason University

Dr. Paul B. Queneau Metallurgical Engineer and Educator
Golden, Colorado

Dr. Tim R. Patterson
Professor of Earth Sciences
Carleton University (Canada)

Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Department of Physics
Duke University

Dr. Harrison Schmitt
Adjunct Professor of Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

Dr. Willie Soon
Astrophysicist and Geoscientist
Salem, Massachusetts

Mr. George H. Taylor, C.C.M. Applied Climate Services, LLC
Corvallis, Oregon

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Lecturer in Geography
Lakehead University (Canada)

Dr. Brian G. Valentine, PE
US Department of Energy
Washington, DC

Dr. George T. Wolff
Air Improvement Resource, Inc.
Novi, Michigan

Debra Medina: Republican of the People

Foehammer — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:11:48 PST

From the Texas Observer, written by Bob Moser:

On a Saturday afternoon in Burleson, even the hottest politician in Texas has trouble scoring a table at Babe’s, a popular fried-chicken joint.

Her name is called after 15 minutes huddled around an industrial heater against the frosty, early-February breeze. Then there’s a snag. “Is your whole party here yet?” the young hostess asks sternly. “We can’t seat you until all four are here.”

“Then it’s a party of three,” Debra Medina says, flashing a grin at husband Noe and the reporter—me—who’s been chasing her around North Texas. “Good Lord,” she says, hustling us through the door while peeking at the time on her BlackBerry, “let’s get inside while we can.”

A member of Medina’s skeletal staff, the fourth in the party, is mired in Metroplex traffic. As usual, it’s up to Medina to keep things on track. She’s used to it. The first-time candidate has been running a shoestring campaign for a year now—fueled by little more than a wing, a prayer and a radical libertarian platform. She’s running against two of America’s most powerful and well-funded Republicans, Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. As late as December, her grassroots insurgency looked predictably hopeless, with Medina sittting at 4 percent in polls of likely GOP voters. But commanding performances in January’s two televised Republican debates have vaulted her into contention, confounding every political expert in Texas. A few days after lunch at Babe’s, a new poll would show Medina just four points behind Hutchison for second place and an April runoff with front-running Perry.

It’s been a dizzying, meteoric rise for this trained nurse and small-business owner from Wharton County. Asked earlier in the day what her last week had been like, she’d flashed a smile and said, “I don’t know where I’ve been, literally. We’re getting invitations from all over the state.” Then she tackled a Dallas forum in her trademark style: strident, folksy and bookish, all bundled together into an oddly compelling package. “This is, really, a war. I think we use the word ‘campaign’ a lot without realizing that that’s a military term. But that’s where we are in this race, trying to prosecute this war in a way that’s going to result in victory on March 2. I am going where the fires are hottest and talking to people and recognizing that this really isn’t about me. We are where we are today because there are a bunch of Debra Medinas across the state who’ve had enough, and they’re engaging in the battle.”

Medina had $68,000 cash on hand on Feb. 1, compared with her opponents’ war chests of more than $10 million apiece. She drew donations in January from some 1,400 Texans—more than three times the number of folks who gave money to “Kay and Rick,” as she likes to call them. “I absolutely believe that we’ll make the runoff,” she says. “This race is going to be won with shoe leather and elbow grease.”

The right-wing fairy tale that is Medina’s campaign began in late 2008. While her only elected office had been chair of the Wharton County GOP, Medina had attracted attention from hardcore conservatives around the state with a guerilla run at the state party chairmanship in 2008, which ended in a lawsuit and a restraining order against her by party leaders. She also helped run Ron Paul’s Texas campaign in 2008 and chaired the state chapter of his Campaign for Liberty in the aftermath. In that capacity, she starred at an “End the Fed” rally in Houston in late 2008. There she hollered eloquently through a bullhorn, organizing the troops behind Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve—a move that, she said, would be the logical first step toward abolishing the “illegal” federal bureaucracy.

Soon afterward, dissident Republicans and libertarians began pressing her to run. She was skeptical, but says that her daughter Janise, a 24-year-old interior designer in Houston, talked her into playing David to the two Goliaths of Texas Republicanism. “She said, Mom, you’ve been talking about these things for 20 years,” Medina recalls. “Why not step up and fight the good fight?”

Read the rest.

Insider: Republican Dirty Tricks Machine Targeting Grass Roots Constitutionalists

Foehammer — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:12:23 PST

A bombshell from Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com:

A prominent insider has told Infowars that Texas Governor Rick Perry and other establishment neo-cons have decided to deliberately target grass roots constitutionalists with dirty tricks campaigns in an effort to derail and hijack the growing liberty movement whose influence is threatening to blow the Texas gubernatorial race wide open.

Our office was contacted by a national personality, a household name, who told us that they were in a green room at a national public event a few weeks ago with Rick Perry. The individual was shocked when Perry said directly that there were three people who ‘got under his skin’ and who ‘had to be dealt with’ immediately.

One – Debra Medina, two – Alex Jones, and three – Ron Paul.

Perry told the individual that these three people had to be targeted and stopped in order for the Republican establishment to shut down any real voices of opposition that were threatening to have an influence on the Tea Party movement, which has been blatantly hijacked by the neo-cons in recent months.

Perry made it clear that these individuals and their supporters were the number one target of the neo-con hierarchy because the grass roots was threatening to regain control of the Tea Party movement that was first created by Ron Paul supporters back in 2007, but has since been hijacked by the Republicans.

The insider expressed their shock that Perry would be so open with his comments, suspecting that Perry must have considered the individual to be a fellow neo-con. The insider’s deep concern about what was said prompted them to contact our office.

Perry made the comments just a couple of weeks before gubernatorial challenger Debra Medina, the only true constitutionalist running for Governorship in Texas, was set-up by Fox News’ Glenn Beck, after the duplicitous talk show host smeared Medina and generated a fake controversy merely for saying that people should be free to question the official 9/11 story, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Perry, who was subsequently celebrated by Beck as the only remaining credible candidate after the smear attack on Medina, must have been in on the ploy. Within an hour of her appearance on the Glenn Beck radio show, Texas residents told the Austin-American Statesmen that they had received robo-calls on behalf of the Perry campaign demonizing Medina as an unstable “9/11 truther,” echoing Beck’s manufactured talking point aired just an hour earlier.

There can no longer be any doubt that the RNC establishment is running a targeted smear campaign against real grass roots conservatives and libertarians because they are terrified that such individuals will be able to steer the Tea Party movement in a genuine national revolt against big government, thereby massively diminishing the power of establishment Republicans.

This dirty tricks campaign is most likely being steered by Karl Rove, master Republican political strategist and former Rick Perry campaign manager. Rove cut his teeth in Texas, using his “uncanny ability to manipulate federal prosecutors into going after the officeholder his client was trying to unseat,” reports Harper’s Magazine writer Scott Horton.

Horton reveals how Rove, in his capacity as Perry’s campaign manager for the powerful Texas office of Commissioner of Agriculture, eliminated Perry’s political opposition by using his influence to launch aggressive criminal investigations into their past and then hyping allegations of misconduct in the media.
Rove is a kingpin of smear and dirty tricks campaigns, and his fingerprints are all over this latest assault.

Read it all!

A Day with Debra Medina | The Texas Tribune

Foehammer — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:28:14 PST

This is quite possibly the best interview of Debra Medina that I’ve come across. I think it does an excellent job of revealing her character, focus and honesty. From The Texas Tribune:

I’d been hoping to shadow Debra Medina on the campaign trail since well before the first Republican debate. Back then she was a relative unknown, but I thought a profile on an earnest, if extreme, candidate would be fun to write. When the Medina campaign finally gave me a day with Debra, it turned out to be February 11 — right in the middle of her meteoric rise to within two points of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the polls. Little did I know how momentous the day would be.

As I was driving to Houston Thursday morning to hook up with the campaign, Medina was being interviewed by Glenn Beck on his syndicated radio program. As all of Texas and much of the country now knows, she was asked her views on the 9/11 “truther” movement, which alleges the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on the Twin Towers. Medina replied that the she believed there were questions yet to be answered, and she applauded those questions being asked. “There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there,” she told Beck. “So I have not taken a position on that.” When the interview was over, Beck excoriated her for not disavowing the 9/11 truthers, and Medina’s primary opponents, Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison, soon did the same.

I met up with Medina and her aides not long after the interview, at the Fort Bend Chamber of Commerce. When we arrived, almost no one seemed aware of the trouble ahead. One rabid supporter talked about the “hatchet job” that Beck had done to the candidate, and word slowly spread through the crowd of about 50 people. Medina entered the room to a standing ovation, eagerly shaking each and every hand in the room. She started her speech talking about where she was from, about her vision of a Texas without property taxes, and about her belief in gun freedom.

Continue reading (audio clips also included)

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Foehammer — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:30:41 PST

What follows is a brief excerpt from a lengthy and thoroughly researched article posted at Dandelion Salad. I highly recommend that you read both parts in their entirety (links to follow):

by Elizabeth Woodworth

Global Research, December 12, 2009

Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin

The cover story of the September 24, 2009, issue of The New Statesman, the venerable left-leaning British magazine, was entitled “The 50 People who Matter Today.”(1) Any such list, necessarily reflecting the bias and limited awareness of the editors, would surely contain choices that readers would find surprising.
That is true of this list – which includes families as well as individuals. A good number of names are, to be sure, ones that would be contained in most such lists created by British, Canadian, or American political commentators, such as the Obamas, the Murdochs, Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, Angela Merkel, Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Pope Benedict XVI, and Gordon Brown. But about half of the names reflected choices that I, and probably most other readers, found surprising. One of these choices, however, is beyond surprising – it is astounding.

I refer to the person in the 41st position: David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology who, in 2003, started writing and lecturing about 9/11, pointing out problems in the official account of the events of that day. By the time the New Statesman article appeared, he had published 8 books, 50 articles, and several DVDs. Because of both the quantity and quality of his work, he became widely regarded as the chief spokesperson of what came to be called “the 9/11 Truth Movement.” It was because of this role that the New Statesman included him in its list, calling him the “top truther” (the “conspiracy theorist” title went to Dan Brown, who was placed in the 50th slot).

“Conspiracy theories are everywhere, and they always have been. In recent years, one of the most pernicious global myths has been that the US government carried out, or at least colluded in, the 11 September 2001 attacks as a pretext for going to war. David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of religion, is the high priest of the ‘truther’ movement. His books on the subject have lent a sheen of respectability that appeals to people at the highest levels of government – from Michael Meacher MP to Anthony ‘Van’ Jones, who was recently forced to resign as Barack Obama’s ‘green jobs’ adviser after it emerged that he had signed a 9/11 truth petition in 2004.”

I wish to raise two questions about the New Statesman’s treatment of Griffin. First, is its evaluation of him as one of the most important people in the world today simply absurd, as it certainly seems at first glance, or is there a perspective from which it makes sense? Second on what basis could the editors justify their claim that the 9/11 truth movement is promoting a “myth” – and a “pernicious” one at that?

Please continue reading:

Part I: The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Part II: The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement

My View on the Glenn Beck Radio Hit Job on Debra Medina

Foehammer — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:09:52 PST

At 10 AM on February 11, 2010 Debra Medina appeared as a guest on syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck’s radio program. He proceeded to set her up. The rest is history. So, here we go again. It’s time for me to podcast. Fight fire with fire and all that jazz. Please have a listen.