We Missed Annihilation By That Much


Earlier this year, the world faced annihilation from Canadian oil. Our benevolent dictator narrowly averted that catastrophe.

Just say no to Canadian oil. And just say yes to Iranian nukes.

ScreenHunter_8264 Apr. 03 11.08

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to We Missed Annihilation By That Much

  1. Pathway says:

    Apparently, the Iranians are using twitter to call the Little Dictator a liar.

  2. nigelf says:

    People have lost their minds. People with great power.
    This will not end well.

    • omanuel says:

      The conclusion to this classic battle between good and evil, selfishness and selflessness is the central theme in almost all the world’s religions.

      So relax and enjoy the show, knowing that the conclusion has already been recorded in the scriptures of almost every major religion.

      Pity the poor delusional souls who actually believed they controlled the world!

  3. Michael Spurrier says:

    Hi Steve, maybe you could start another blog called Real Politics then we can choose whether we want to read about science or politics particularly as your approach to each seems very different – one fact based and one based on your own belief system.
    I think the work you do on climate is immense.



    • DD More says:

      Now we know why those Cajun’s went to Louisiana. They don’t like the snow, and they still talk funny.

      The Acadian identity also survived in Louisiana, where the people became known as Cajuns. About 1500 Acadians made their way from the American colonies and Nova Scotia to Louisiana in the 1760s (after the war was over). Also, about 1600 Acadians who were in France sailed to Louisiana in 1785. The passenger lists of the 7 ships that made that trip are located at this website. The Acadians in Louisiana, who became known as Cajuns, became the dominant culture in an area of south Louisiana still known as Acadiana. The history of Acadians in Louisiana is covered at Cajun history.

      • spren says:

        And many of those who became known as Acadians, were dissenting American colonists who were loyalists to the British crown. They left America to avoid being caught in the turmoil of the American Revolution, and having to take sides against the colonial soldiers.
        Not sure how they responded to the War of 1812 when the battle came right to their doorstep in Loosieanna. I wonder if they fought ole Andrew Jackson back then?

    • dmacleo says:

      not too far from bangor and expecting about 4. could be worse though.

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    Be scared, really scared:

    “If Canada proceeds [with its tar sands oil development]… ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction.” –James Hansen, 2012, NASA

    Yeah, that’s as likely to happen as this:

    “[in twenty years (2008)] the West Side Highway [and thus much of Manhattan] will be under water.” –James Hansen, 1988, NASA

    • Dave says:

      Its been game over for planet earth for 25 years.

      • omanuel says:

        Almost seventy years, since the UN was formed on 24 Oct 1945.

        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          You nailed it, O. It’s ironic that the UN’s temporary first headquarters was in Lake Success, NY, isn’t it? That’s before their permanent digs in Manhattan came at the expense of individual American private property and business owners through eminent domain (i.e., private property theft for “the greater good”).

          Did you know that FDR died a few weeks before his brainchild, the UN, was officially brought to birth? Recent credible news reports tell us that Obama’s pre-planned goal in life and eternity is to be the next Dag Hammerskold. From his throne at the largest Communist organization in the world, He’ll believe that He’ll finally rule the earth after stemming the tides and destroying the two most “evil” nations in the history of the world–the United States of America and Israel.

        • omanuel says:

          I have little understanding of politics, but I know for a fact that falsehoods were inserted into the foundations of astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, planetary, solar and theoretical physics within a few months after the UN was formed on 24 Oct 1945.

          It is no mere coincidence that – in 1946 – George Orwell started writing Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

    • gofer says:

      That is one powerful pipeline, completely overshadowing the 2+ million miles of existing lines. It sounds delusional, if not insane.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Yup. Sounds that way, but.. it isn’t.
        What they’re trying to do is go after economic “targets of opportunity,” kind like US fighter plans in France in 1944, going after trains or gas tanks or water targets of opportunity they came across. It’s got nothing to do with “climate change,” or the ice sheets. No, it’s got something to do with this:
        “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Marice Strong, ex UNEP Director
        “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy.” -John Holdren, 1973 (well before Holdren believed in AGW), Obama’s “Science” Czar
        “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue

  5. Psalmon says:

    In 1962, the Soviet Union put intermediate range nuclear missiles in Cuba. The world reaches the brink of nuclear war, but strength allows a political solution to pull it back. Cuba is roughly 1200 SM from most key places in the US (NY, TX, CHI, DC).

    Iran is not 6000 miles from the US. Iran today has alliances in North Korea and in Venezuela. Is anybody getting the picture? Venezuela is 2000 miles from Washington DC. North Korea is 3000 miles from Alaska. Iran is 2500 miles from W Europe. Oh, and Iran has missiles with that capability already: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missiles.html?_r=0

    We’ve seen this movie before. If people think Iran is way over there, well they aren’t. And this time we have no strength in the game. That’s the risk here.

    The bomb shelter business is looking good again.

    • Kit says:

      The Iranians have satellite launch capability


      by definition this gives them strike capability ANY where. launch and deorbit where desired. the only question is payload weight.

      • Psalmon says:

        Looks like they would need 750 pounds or more payload: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W78

        They don’t have that according to your reference. Hitting a target 6000 miles away is a high degree of difficulty. The US refined missile guidance during the space program and has tested A LOT of ballistic missiles. This goes on constantly to prove the fleet is still functioning (since some of these systems were deployed 35 years ago). In fact we tested a MIII just 10 days ago: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-successfully-test-fires-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-california-1856826

        Wiki shows a 200m accuracy on the MIII system, with a 8100 mile est. range (actual is listed classified). I don’t doubt that. We test these often, so we have 50 years of experience and tests. Iran has none of that. Could they get something that works? Sure.

        The point is that a Northern Hemisphere and Asia presence offers a credible strategic threat. So here’s how the scenario goes: 3AM phone call…Hi, we’re launching against Israel…If you retaliate, we launch on you…how much are Chicago, NYC an DC worth to you?…stay out of it and nobody gets hurt….Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes.

        What do you think the JV team in the WH would do?

        • Shazaam says:

          I wouldn’t get all complacent about Iran’s lack of targeting experience.

          They just have to get a small nuke over the US and detonate it high in the atmosphere to put most of the US power grid down. And that’s power grid down for years since transformer manufacturing has also been shipped overseas.

          A US Air Force study concluded such an event will de-populate the US by 90%.

          Pick-up a copy of William R. Forstchen’s “One Second After” for a (fictional) account of like after EMP. It’s a chilling tale based on that Air Force study.

          You may never sleep soundly again.

        • gator69 says:

          I have been telling people about this for years, and I store enough 5 gallon cans of gas to get me 1500 miles without relying on gas stations. If it happens in Winter, I am heading for my mother’s home in Florida.

        • gator69 says:

          Here is the problem. They don’t need sophisticated missiles, what they already have is sufficient.

          The Scud missile was originally designed to carry a 100-kiloton nuclear warhead or a 2,000 pound conventional warhead, with ranges from 100 to 180 miles, and the missile reaches a maximum speed of mach 5.

          Territorial waters as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most about 14 miles from a coastal state. So they could sit well outside our waters and hit some of our largest cities, and our nation’s capitol, and the missiles would take less than 2 minutes from launch to detonation.

          What would a Scud 100KT air burst launched from a tanker look like over…

          DC… http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

          New York… http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

          LA… http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

          They can hit us now. And they don’t care about retaliation, because according to their state religion, the world must be bathed in blood to bring about the ultimate prophecy.

        • Shazaam says:

          I know Gator, I’ve seen you. I just beat you to it this time 😉

          And, the bad guys don’t even need a SCUD. Just a fishing boat in the Pacific, a collection of weather balloons, and a GPS with a programmable position alarm. Detonate if it falls below a certain altitude after attaining target altitude (in case of shoot-down) and detonate after it has passed a certain longitude.

          Forget Iran or North Korea, that is low tech and low budget enough that Somalian pirates could cobble one together.

          Can you say: “Oh Crap?”

        • gator69 says:

          I can say that is yet another reason why I am so glad I do not live on either coast. I keep telling my brother that he needs to move out here when he retires from NASA.

  6. gator69 says:

    Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)

    Are Muslims permitted to lie?

    Summary Answer:
    Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

    There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

    The Qur’an:
    Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
    Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
    Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
    Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith”among those who are not believers.
    Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
    Qur’an (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
    Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) ismakara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30and 10:21)
    Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

    From the Hadith:

    Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

    Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

    Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”

    Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”

    Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

    From Islamic Law:

    Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

    “One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

    Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

    Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true.

    Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

    Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

    Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

    At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

    Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

    Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

    Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

    The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

    The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

    The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.” In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

    Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

    The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people. An interesting side note is verse 7:99, which says that the only people who feel secure from Allah are actually those who will perish in Hell. Taken literally, this would mean that those Muslims who arrogantly assume that they will enter heaven are in for a rude surprise (such are the hazards of worshipping an all-powerful deceiver).

    The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur’an, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.

    Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

    Additional Reading: Taqiyya about Taqiyya (Raymond Ibrahim)

    So is Obama permitted to lie to us?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Wrong question. Is Obama ever allowed to tell US citizens the truth?

    • Andy Mirlach says:

      It’s all truth! Every word!

    • I. Lou Minotti says:

      Good stuff, Gator. As I’ve learned firsthand, you can’t trust anyone from the Religion of Pieces even when they say “good morning” to you. It’s their paradigm from birth.

      It also explains the existence of the Sicilian Mafia, which uses the same violent tactics as the Mohammedans, if lying doesn’t work. “Life is in the blood,” says the Paradigm for most of the Western World (cf. Lev. 17:11). “My life requires shedding yours,” says the other, while they’re looking forward to the 72 women (let alone virgins) they could never get in this life! No wonder they have sex with goats.


      • gator69 says:

        I have listened to Dr Zuhdi Jasser, for years, and he seems like a very reasonable man, who claims that ISIS is a fringe element. He claims that there just needs to be a reconciliation.

        Just this pasty week I heard an Arab Christian who had converted from Islam, speaking on Islam, and he stated quite clearly that ISIS is Islam. He was asked what he thought of Dr Jasser’s work regarding “moderate Islam”, and he had nothing good to say. I still had hope that maybe Dr Jasser might have some answers amenable to the west. I am not calling Dr Jasser a liar, but now I believe he is simply deluded.

        Zuhdi Jasser, also known as M. Zuhdi Jasser,[2] and Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser, is a medical doctor specializing internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona.[3] Jasser is a former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy[4] where he served as staff internist in the Office of the Attending Physician of the United States Congress.[5] In 2003, with a group of American Muslims Jasser founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) based in Phoenix, Arizona,[3] and in 2004 he was one of the founders of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.[6]


        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          I’ve watched him repeatedly, as well. Always on Fox. As you stated, he seems to be an honorable man and a nice guy, and I’d agree. I’d have a beer and smoke a cigar with him. If he had a flat tire, I’d change it for him so he wouldn’t break a fingernail. I would not, however, invite him to church.

          My concern is this: what is the Paradigm? Will “nice” people stand for truth when push finally comes to shove? Most peaceable, moderate Muslims live in fear of speaking out, so they appease so they won’t get slaughtered by their own. Most weak-willed Christians are the same, but without the fear of being murdered by their brethren. Can you imagine Islam’s twelfth Imam saying something like this when he finally returns to Earth to rule over it?

          “And He will judge between the nations; and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords (nukes) into plowshares, and their spears (missiles) into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war” (Isa. 2:4).

          Until that Day occurs, we’ll all have to keep a wary eye on those that profess, “Peace, peace, when there is no (truth) peace.”

  7. spren says:

    The major impediment to the Keystone pipeline is that since it crosses international borders, the federal government maintains purview over its establishment. What I don’t understand is that since a substantial portion of it was dedicated to transporting oil from the Dakotas, why don’t those states involved develop it just from North Dakota down to the Gulf. The small remaining portion, connecting North Dakota to Canada could then be a minor battle or skirmish to be won, rather than its entire length? And then, once the domestic portion had been constructed, the remaining minor segment would not be that difficult to bring into being.

    • Barbara says:

      My understanding is that the Keystone Pipeline is already built from Oklahoma to the Gulf. Linking to Canada via pipeline is a lot safer and much less environmentally damaging than transporting the oil by train over many miles of aged track through our small towns. We already import that oil!

  8. JGlanton says:

    Canola oil is good.for.us.

Leave a Reply