Monday, February 2, 2015

US and Europe tried to cover up data showing lack of global warming

US and Europe tried to cover up data showing lack of global warming

It looks like the science isn’t settled. Leaked documents obtained by the Associated Press show that the U.S. government and several European governments tried to get climate scientists to downplay the lack of global warming over the past 15 years.

The highly anticipated United Nations report on global warming is expected to affirm the link between human activity and global warming, but scientists are still having trouble explaining away the lull in rising global temperatures over the past 15 years despite rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels.

The lull in global warming has been noted by skeptics to show the flaws behind the science and the theory that human activities, primarily through burning fossil fuels, causes global temperatures to rise.

This has some governments worried, reports the AP, as documents show that the U.S. government along with some European nations tried to convince the report’s authors to downplay the lack of warming over the past 15 years.

The AP reports that “Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.”

“The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean,” the AP noted. “Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. …Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.”

Concern by governments over the lull in warming comes ahead of the deadline the world has set for reaching a global climate agreement in 2015. This report would serve as the scientific underpinning of such an agreement.

“This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted,” Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the UN’s climate authority, told the AP.

A leaked draft of the UN’s climate report from June said it was “extremely likely” that human influence caused more than half the warming since the 1950s.

However, the report also acknowledged that the rate of warming since 1998 was about half of what the average rate had been since 1951, citing natural variability in the climate system, cooling effects from volcanic eruptions, and downward phase in solar activity.

“I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying: ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,’” Alden Meyer, of the Washington, D.C.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, told the AP.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.




Is glorifying God a hate crime now?

Is glorifying God a hate crime now?

Russell D. Moore is president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The views expressed in this column belong to Moore.

Russell D. Moore

That much isn't all that new these days, from the Duck Dynasty brouhaha to the axing of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich to the skirmishes over forcing, with state power, bakers and florists to participate in same-sex weddings.

What caught my eye in this case, though, is the controversy over glorifying God.

While many are pointing to passages in Cochran's book about sexuality, much of the furor, especially in online forums, is directed toward another passage, in which Cochran says that his life and work serve the purpose of glorifying God.

Some see this language as scary and subversive, as though Cochran were planning a theocratic takeover of the fire department and would refuse to put out fires for cohabiting couples or gay or lesbian people or atheists.

Cochran has said that if intentionally seeking to glorify God is a violation of his oath of office, then he should have been fired immediately for, well, taking his oath of office, ending as it does with "so help me God." True enough. Behind this, though, is a deeper issue of religious ignorance that has serious consequences for the common good.

Cochran's statement is hardly surprising, and it is exactly the opposite of some sort of tearing down of the boundaries between church and state. Every Christian would say the same thing about his or her life and vocation. The Apostle Paul told the church at Corinth, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).

The Bible's argument is not that all the food and drink ought to be "taken over" by coercively Christian manufacturers and distributors. In fact, the argument is exactly the reverse.

Paul is telling believers to eat the food sold in the marketplace without having to interrogate about its religious pedigree, and only to refrain from eating something if it would cause a problem of conscience for someone else.

The "glory of God" is about living with thankfulness, in ways that are consistent with the ways of Christ. Christians believe they glorify God by loving our neighbors, by serving the poor, by helping the sick and the lonely, by showing honor and kindness to everyone.

The fact that some would find this statement controversial demonstrates ignorance of a basic tenet of mere Christianity, ignorance with public consequences. 

It's akin to a journalist covering the New Hampshire primary speculating about the suicidal tendencies of the voters, given the fact that so many of them have "Live Free or Die" on their car license plates, or a city council investigating the terrorist inclinations of the Fourth of July picnic singer because she once sang a song about "bombs bursting in air" at the ballpark, or a soldier dismissed from the Army for lying about his background because he claims he was born not just once but twice.

Of course the chief wants to glorify God in his job. That doesn't mean annexing his fire department for the Southern Baptist Convention. It means living with integrity, respecting other people, dealing honestly, as one who will give an account for his life.

That's hardly surprising, just as it is hardly surprising the chief holds to a typical evangelical Christian (and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish and Muslim) view of marriage and sexuality.

Now, I don't expect the American people to enroll in Sunday school en masse to understand biblical references (although we'd be glad to have you).

I do expect that when we are castigating and caricaturing and firing each other that we will do so with at least some inkling of what we're talking about.

Many of the fights over religious liberty have to do with this precise point: secular people who don't understand why these issues matter to the religious consciences involved.

What does it matter, Planned Parenthood wonders, whether the Little Sisters of the Poor have to pay for contraception? It's just a small amount of money, after all.

Why should that Muslim woman insist on wearing a head-scarf to work, the employer asks? No one else gets to wear hats.

This sort of religious ignorance leads to a quick and easy paving over of consciences in ways that will do damage not only to religious communities but also to the American experiment in liberal democracy itself.




Ending Groundhog Republicanism

Ending Groundhog Republicanism

Humanity is tormented once again by an age-old issue—is man to live in dignity and freedom under God or be enslaved—are men in government to serve, or are they to master, their fellow men? It befalls us now to resolve this issue anew—perhaps this time for centuries to come. Nor can we evade the issue here at home. Even in this Constitutional Republic, for two centuries the beacon of liberty the world over, individual freedom retreats under the mounting assault of expanding centralized power. Fiscal and economic excesses, too long indulged, already have eroded and threatened the greatest experiment in self-government mankind has known. We conservatives claim no monopoly of love of freedom. But we challenge as unwise the course the leadership of both political parties have charted; we challenge as dangerous the steps they plan along the way; and we deplore as self-defeating and harmful many of the moves already taken. Dominant in their council are leaders whose words extol human liberty, but whose deeds have persistently delimited the scope of liberty and sapped its vitality. Year after year, in the name of benevolence, these leaders have sought the enlargement of Federal power. Year after year, in the guise of concern for others, they have lavishly expended the resources of their fellow citizens. And year after year freedom, diversity, and individual, local and state responsibility have given way to regimentation, conformity, and subservience to central power. We conservatives hold that a leadership so misguided weakens liberty in America and the world. We hold that the glittering enticements so invitingly proffered the people, at their own expense, will inevitably bring disillusionment and true disappointment in place of promised happiness. Such leaders are Federal extremists—impulsive in the use of national power, improvident in the management of public funds, thoughtless as to the long-term effects of their acts on individual freedom and creative, competitive enterprise. Men so recklessly disposed cannot be safely entrusted with authority over their fellow citizens. To conservatives, liberty is still today man's most precious possession. For every citizen, and for the generations to come, we conservatives vow that it shall be preserved. I did not write the six paragraphs above. I changed only five words. I changed, in each instance, the word "Republicans" to the word "conservatives" and I changed the word "Democrats" to "leadership of both political parties". The above six paragraphs were the preamble to the 1964 Republican Party Platform, prepared for the convention at which the GOP would nominate Barry Goldwater. So much of the 1964 party platform rings true today. Consider also this:
This Administration has exploited interracial tensions by extravagant campaign promises, without fulfillment, playing on the just aspirations of the minority groups, encouraging disorderly and lawless elements, and ineffectually administering the laws. It has subjected career civil servants and part-time Federal employees, including employees of the Agriculture Department, to political pressures harmful to the integrity of the entire Federal service. It has weakened veterans' preference in Federal jobs. It has made Federal intervention, even on the Presidential level, a standard operating practice in labor disputes, thus menacing the entire system of free collective bargaining. It has resorted to police state tactics, using the great power of Federal Departments and agencies, to compel compliance with Administration desires, notably in the steel price dispute. The Department of Justice, in particular, has been used improperly to achieve partisan political, economic, and legislative goals. This abuse of power should be the subject of a Congressional investigation.
Or this:
It has aggravated the problems of small business by multiplying Federal record-keeping requirements and has hurt thousands of small businessmen by forcing up their costs. This Administration has curtailed, through such agencies as the National Labor Relations Board, the simple, basic right of Americans voluntarily to go into or to go out of business.
Or this:
This Administration has adopted the policies of news management and unjustifiable secrecy, in the guise of guarding the nation's security; it has shown a contempt of the right of the people to know the truth.
It was important, for purposes of this, to substitute "conservatives" for "Republicans" because the Republicans of today have been complicit in the growth and expansion of the federal government. Consider, for example, this portion of the 1964 Republican Platform:
This Administration has violently thrust Federal power into the free market in such areas as steel prices, thus establishing precedents which in future years could critically wound free enterprise in the United States.
George Bush did that with steel tariffs in Pennsylvania as a raw political calculation to win Pennsylvania for the GOP, which Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)0% won anyway. With the exception of 1980, Republicans have continuously nominated individuals who claim to be heirs of Reagan and, thus, Goldwater while really being heirs of Nelson Rockefeller. Unfortunately for the GOP, as it has grown more and more prone to government intervention and continues to grow the size and scope of the federal government, its base has thought it was electing leaders who actually believed the Republican Platform. With the growth of talk radio and the internet, it is harder and harder to keep the base ignorant of its leadership's machinations. In my twenty years actively in Republican politics, I have never seen the murmuring discontent of the base as loud as it is now. Certainly it goes through phases and, historically, this is most akin to the situation in the mid-70's for the Republican Party as conservatives were ascending again after the Goldwater collapse and Nixon reemergence. Currently, the general sense of grievance and betrayal is as great or greater than at that time. More troubling, a number of the voices of the GOP who stood with Reagan have turned to be table scrap moocher of the resurgent Rockefeller wing that the Establishment has become. They use the means of government to prop up interests who benefit them politically as opposed to disentangling government from business and allowing individuals and small businesses the liberty of self-governance free from interference. Then they hide behind their former proximity to Reagan as a shield to their current complacency, corruption, and condescension toward the values Reagan extolled and the base supports. But this does not have to be the case. The era of big government returned with Barack Obama. The people clearly forgot why it was so bad. They have now tasted again that which prior generations rejected and they too are rejecting it. They are rejecting crony capitalism, though there is a danger they reject capitalism altogether because of it. They have rejected big government and there is a growing, palpable sense that they may reject government altogether for anarchy or complacency. They have rejected government intervention, but they may reject intervention even to protect us from our enemies. Only Republicans can paint a vision away from what the nation is rejecting, but also away from larger and more calamitous rejections. But only Republicans not entangled in Washington can do that. The base of the party, which remains more conservative than the funders, bundlers, and leaders of the party, will have a say in the new Presidential nominee. It is my hope that all parts of the party might find a common person around whom they all can rally. My great fear is that, should the base feel again as if its nominee is picked for them, there will be no base come Election Day 2016 in sufficient numbers to ward off a Democrat. "I'll stay home," has been an oft-repeated and entirely idle threat voiced by an aggrieved few in each election. But the aggrieved few keep growing in number with more and more legitimate grievances. That is why I hope to see all the Republican Presidential candidates in Atlanta for the RedState Gathering on August 6, 7, and 8th. I want to give them all, from Jeb Bush to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)95%, a chance to paint their vision of the country. What should it look like after four years of their President with 2020 foresight, as that will be the year they seek re-election. What will government's role be in our lives? What will be the balance between Main Street and Wall Street. If they can sell the base, coming in with all their preconceived notions on the candidates and various concerns, they will go a long way toward solidifying the party. I invite the candidates to come to Atlanta, with minimal Obama bashing and platitudes, and tell us not on which nuances of 50 point plans they disagree with each other, but by what unique measures will we head into 2020 evaluating their re-election, should they be successful in 2016. Republicans have an opportunity to paint a picture and share their individual visions for the future of this country. I believe the base of the Republican Party and its leaders can unite. I believe that unity can be on common ground. And most importantly, I believe that unity can be found in favor of something and someone and not just against Barack Obama. I look forward to hearing the candidates' visions for the future and I pray we can avoid the perpetual Groundhog Day politics of the intra-Republican fights.



‘SEC primary’ could have a lasting effect for Southern voters

‘SEC primary’ could have a lasting effect for Southern voters

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s push to make the South among the first in the nation to vote in the 2016 presidential primaries has landed squarely on the national radar — an eye-opening experience for a region used to being taken for granted.

Now experts say it may even have lasting effects in elections well past next year’s, as potential candidates shift long-term strategies toward the region. Its creators are riffing on the name of the most powerful college football conference in the country. So they have nicknamed it the SEC Primary, a nod to the NCAA’s Southeastern Conference.

“A lot of candidates have taken the South for granted, and it’s long been fragmented in primaries. It hasn’t been as valuable a bloc like it was in the 1980s,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political scientist who has written extensively on presidential primary strategies. “This is going to put the South back in the center, and Georgia would be right in the middle of it.”

The plan involves a March 1 primary, essentially a new Super Tuesday spate of elections for Southeastern states and a few neighbors. The move is all but guaranteed to give the South more influence in choosing presidential nominees, particularly if there are a number of candidates contending for the nod.

Moreover, all parties can participate. Any serious candidate, be they Republican, Democrat or other, will have to pay attention.

And that, supporters said, was the point.

“We’re on the national map, and that’s really what we wanted,” said Kemp, who next week will update his colleagues and brainstorm on how to move ahead with the plan while attending a national conference in Washington. “We wanted the candidates to know this was going to happen: The SEC primary is going to be a happening event. And our voters here will be able to participate in that process.”

Most Southern states have already signaled their support for the move, which has reached beyond traditional Southern borders.

Elections officials in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas have all either confirmed or are working to seal their intent to hold March 1 primaries. So have Oklahoma and Virginia, even though they don’t host SEC schools. Florida has as well, though it may break from the pack and shift its primary even earlier.

“I want the next president of the United States to come to Mississippi,” Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann said of the decision. “By having an earlier voice in the decision-making process through an SEC primary, I believe he or she will.”

The idea behind the plan is simple: the earlier the better.

The states that first vet presidential candidates through primaries and caucuses — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — will still hold their place of honor. But Georgia and its fellow SEC primary participants would come soon after — and ahead of a number of others.

That’s a bit different than what happened on Super Tuesday in 2012, when the 10 states voting that day ranged from Georgia to Alaska.

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, embracing the obvious football analogy, noted a recent conversation he had with an Iowa politician who said a presidential candidate visiting there has to meet with voters at least eight times to win their support.

It’s the kind of wooing not seen in some core Southern states for years. Places such as Alabama and Georgia more typically see the candidates on quick, blink-and-you-miss-them campaign swings to raise money. Merrill wants his state to get more than fleeting attention.

“We need to try to find a way to get in the game,” Merrill said. “We know we’re not going to be the quarterback. But we could be the holder or the placekicker.”

He likened it to a big-name bowl game between college football teams, played in the national spotlight while interest is high.

“Do you want to have it before the national championship game or after?” Merrill said. “Because if you have it afterward, all eight people who watched it would probably enjoy it, but if it’s all said and done, what need is there for you to have it?”

Already, supporters say they are seeing ripple effects. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a potential GOP candidate who won Georgia’s 2008 primary, visited Georgia last week to meet with voters. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, another potential contender, met with Republican-leaning business leaders and donors last week in Atlanta. And state Republican officials expect a slew of presidential candidates at the party’s May convention in Athens.

It’s not without risks, though.

Candidates could still ignore smaller states within the region and try to divvy up delegates from bigger states, including Texas. States in other regions could also decide to join the fray and move their primary dates earlier, taking focus away from any one area in particular.

That hasn’t happened yet — there are talks of other regional primaries, including a “Big Ten” vote, for later in March — but Kemp and others are mindful of the scenario. None said they were worried.

“The South already is an important player, but sometimes states like Georgia get labeled as only going in one direction,” Gov. Nathan Deal said. “It might give Georgia more influence.”

There is no guarantee how it will turn out.

Decades ago, the South was a formidable gantlet for presidential contenders, who spent time and money in the region appealing to voters. But while a bloc is most effective when it sends a clear message, Southern voters didn’t always agree on a preferred candidate.

Joshua Putnam, an Appalachian State University political scientist who writes an influential blog on presidential strategies, noted what happened in 1988 during that year’s Southern Super Tuesday. Rather than unite behind a nominee, Democratic voters across the region prolonged the contest by splitting votes between Al Gore, Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis.

“The most influence comes through providing a clear, unified decision,” Putnam said. “That is much easier said than done.”

In the interim, the nation has also seen a shift in power.

“The last time a group of Southern politicians tried to do that, Chuck Robb, Al Gore and Bill Clinton created the Southern primary in the early 1980s to try to make Democrats a more mainstream party,” said Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. “Now those offices are held by Republicans and you find Republicans are going to try to have a Southern primary to assert themselves.”

Either way, Kemp is tickled to see his little idea — first announced a year ago without commitments from other states — turn into something so big it could influence the election.

“The main thing, I’m glad for our voters down here,” he said. “This really gives us great momentum.”




These 16 States Have All Introduced Legislation to BAN Shariah Law [FULL LIST]

These 16 States Have All Introduced Legislation to BAN Shariah Law [FULL LIST]


http://conservativetribune.com/16-states-ban-shariah-law/

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Many states in America have taken a pro-active approach to creeping Islam by banning any ability of Shariah law from being used in state courts.

The radical, sociopolitical system of radical Islam likes to claim “religious freedom” while forcing its barbaric code of “justice and morality” onto a country.

There are currently 16 states which have legislation pending, some more than one, to help combat this practice before it sets into the fabric of American society as it has already done in Europe.

Already in the United Kingdom there are roaming “Shariah patrols” who bully people who they feel aren’t being Islamic enough, along with the “no go” areas reported in France.

In a popular video, a member of one of these patrols is captured saying, “Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe, I want to see the hand of the thief cut, I want to see adulterers stoned to death.”

Hey who wouldn’t want that?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an extremist group with ties to the terrorist group Hamas, which is working to advance this agenda with cries of racism and Islamophobia anytime people mention radical Islam.

CAIR issued a report about the 16 states in 2013 as a condemnation for their actions, yet most Americans applauded it.

The states are:

-Alabama (two bills)

-Arkansas

-Florida (two bills)

-Indiana (two bills)

-Iowa

-Kentucky

-Mississippi (four bills)

-Missouri (two bills)

-North Carolina

-Oklahoma (seven bills)

-South Carolina (two bills)

-Texas (six bills)

-Virginia

-Washington

-West Virginia

-Wyoming (two bills)

Hopefully, in the coming year, the list will extend to all 50 states.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

SCOTT WALKER: VIDEO CSPAN

Governor Scott Walker on National Policy Issues

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) talked about national policy issues and strategies.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324081-1/discussion-national-policy-issues







Obama’s Muslim Adviser Lashes Out in Anti-Christian, Anti-Jindal Rant

WHO IS. Mohamed Elibiary 

Obama administration Muslim adviser Mohamed Elibiary 

Obama’s Muslim Adviser Lashes Out in Anti-Christian, Anti-Jindal Rant

‘He’s what we call … a bottom feeder appealing to Southern segregationists’

(PJ Media) – Obama administration Muslim adviser Mohamed Elibiary is no stranger to regular PJ Media readers.

In September, Elibiary was unceremoniously removed from his fellowship position with the Department of Homeland Security, which he tried to spin as a “resignation,” but letters sent to members of Congress by DHS officials indicated he would not be reappointed.

Undoubtedly, one of the chief reasons for DHS cutting ties with Elibiary was a long string of extremist statements he had been making on Twitter, including talking about the inevitability of the return of an ISIS-style caliphate — tweets that were subsequently used by ISIS supporters for recruiting purposes.

FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Impeach Obama NOW!

But Elibiary has apparently not learned his lesson, engaging in a hate-filled anti-Christian rant on Twitter yesterday, even going so far to attack Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as a “bottom feeder”:

Nor, as you’ll see below, is this the first time he has indulged in his anti-Christian bigotry.

Before revisiting his Twitter meltdown, perhaps it’s useful to revisit some of Elibiary’s greatest hits:

  • Elibiary admitted that his mentor and long-time friend was none other than Hamas terrorist leader Shukri Abu Baker, who is currently serving a 65-year prison sentence.
  • In 2003, Elibiary was listed as a board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dallas chapter, which was founded by now-convicted Hamas operative Ghassan Elashi. In 2008, federal prosecutorsdeclared in a federal court brief that “from its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  • In Dec 2004, Elibiary was a featured speaker at a Dallas rally honoring the Ayatollah Khomeini as a “Great Islamic Visionary,” an event the Dallas Morning News called a “disgrace.”
  • Immediately after the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, Dallas Morning News editor Rod Dreher recounted Elibiary’s strident defense of jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb, whom the 9/11 Commission identified as the chief architect of Al-Qaeda’s ideology.
  • In April 2010, he published an op-ed at Fox News pleading with the Obama administration to not kill senior Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
  • In June 2010, he attacked the Supreme Court after they upheld the material support for terrorism statute in an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News.
  • In June 2011, the IRS revoked the 501c3 tax-exempt status of Elibiary’s Freedom and Justice Foundation forfailing to file the required IRS Form 990s over a period of several years, documents which would reveal the source of his organization’s funding.
  • In October 2011, I reported exclusively here at PJ Media that Elibiary had downloaded sensitive documents by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety from a secure DHS database, and then unsuccessfully tried to shop them to the media claiming then-Gov. Rick Perry was running an “Islamophobic” operation. Despite multiple claims by top DHS officials that an internal investigation exonerated Elibiary, in Sept 2013 DHS admitted in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA request that no records related to any internal investigation existed, prompting members of Congress to claimDHS was engaged in a cover-up. Texas DPS, having conducted their own investigation, severed their relationship with Elibiary.
  • After 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to remove Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi, leading to his ouster, Elibiary added a Muslim Brotherhood logo to his Twitter avatar in solidarity with the extremist Islamic group.
  • In November 2013, Elibiary took to Twitter to announce that the U.S. was a shariah-compliant Islamic country.

So that provides some context for his hate-filled Twitter rant yesterday.

Elibiary began his meltdown by denouncing “guilt by association,” and then engaged in the very group scapegoating (“Christianist culture wars”) he had just condemned:

Then in a bizarre statement, he claimed that Islam is the driving force for the “Far Right” (presumably he means that hatred of the religion of Islam itself drives the “Far Right” — again another sweeping group indictment that he previously denounced):

He then launched into a rage about “Christianist subculture”:

“Christianist” is a slur invented by Leftist reactionaries to attack Christians who take their faith seriously and are politically involved. And yet if Elibiary’s co-conspirators at CAIR can denounce the use of the term “Islamist,” as they recently did, isn’t it equally bigoted and unfair to use the term “Christianist” to attack Elibiary’s perceived enemies?

But he continues, identifying “Christianist subculture” as a “problem” for Muslims, and presumably one that must be eradicated:

“Christianist” subculture is unAmerican:

And again the attack continued, as he demonized a large group he had just identified in the millions as hateful and xenophobic:

And demonstrating the complete lack of self-awareness of his own hypocrisy:

Mohamed, if you find yourself gravitating towards a view that blames “Christianist subculture” broadly, then you’re lost.

But don’t dare call him out on his hypocrisy!

One is given to wonder what Elibiary’s reaction would be if someone were to simply modify his tweets to replace “Christianist subculture” with “American Islamist subculture.” Undoubtedly, he would froth at the mouth with rabid accusations of racism and “Islamophobia.”

This, however, is not remotely the first time that Christians have been the targets of Elibiary’s unbridled rage.

In September 2013, he engaged in a series of tweets attacking Egyptian Coptic Christians:

Which prompted this shocked response from a UK Coptic bishop:

But Elibiary was back spewing anti-Christian hate again last April, attacking Coptic church leaders as immoral:

As I witnessed first-hand in Egypt last year, Elibiary’s Muslim Brotherhood allies sacked and burned down nearly 100 churches in August 2013 and launched an ongoing wave of terror targeting Copts and the government after the ouster of Morsi. During Morsi’s regime, attacks on Christians were commonplace, with the Muslim Brotherhood setting up torture chambers for Christian protesters right outside Morsi’s palace. When Christians were murdered in April 2013, a Muslim mob aided by Morsi’s police attacked the funeral service and mourners at the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo. So it’s no surprise that Christians overwhelmingly supported Morsi’s overthrow.

And the outrage of Coptic Christians is understandable when, despite all the contrary evidence, Elibiary tweets out this:

Clearly, it is long past time for Elibiary’s friends to stage a mental health intervention. And because he exhibits undeniable anti-Christian hatred and bigotry, he clearly has no place advising anyone in our government.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/28/homeland-security-adviser-mohamed-elibiary-goes-on-hate-filled-anti-christian-rant-attacks-jindal-as-bottom-feeder/