http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-phantom-establishment-of-the-jewish-anti-israel-left/print/ Alan Alda’s wife signed a letter denouncing the newly elected left-wing mayor of New York for doing AIPAC’s bidding. The Sandinista supporter had been accused of many things, but being an Israeli stooge wasn’t one of them. Signing the letter, along with the spouse of that guy from MASH, were Martha Weinman Lear, the […]
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4737/hilarious_bbc_bias_on_wait_for_it_american_versus_british_teeth
NO “WISDOM” TEETH AT THE BEEB….JUST RABID CANINES….RSK
Hilarious BBC bias on, wait for it, American versus British teeth!
Only the BBC could run something so hilariously lacking in awareness of their liberal left bias as this
If it wasn’t for the fact that this is from the BBC, you’d have to assume it was parody. They’ve just run a 950 word feature on British and American teeth, focusing on the legendary (but correct) observation that British teeth are commonly bent and dirty looking while American teeth tend to be straight and white.
They come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful arguments ranging from dental rip-offs in America producing unnatural looking results to the ludicrous notion that Brits have rotten teeth because they’re “more free-spirited, more radical”. Of course, the real reason never enters their minds.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4740/al_andalus_muslims_demand_spain_citizenship_rights Al-Andalus Muslims demand Spain citizenship rights One of Bin Laden’s core demands was a “return” of Spain. In this tortured story from Spain, it appears that mainstream Muslim groups want the same thing Muslims of Spanish descent are up in arms about a decision by the Spanish government to grant citizenship to Jews expelled […]
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266?mod=Opinion_newsreel_1
Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”
But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?
Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV “science guy,” say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.
What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579392821615729590?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
Pull Out of Sochi to Protest the Kiev Massacre
It is absurd, if not obscene, to pretend that there are two Putins.
Two images from Wednesday compete for space in people’s minds.
The image of the immaculate snow of Sochi crisscrossed by the world’s top skiers to the cheers of the international crowd. And that of the bloodied snow around the barricades of Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, after special units of the Ukrainian government, with Vladimir Putin’s seal of approval, attacked the protesters there. At least 26 people were killed, and hundreds were injured—yet the international response has been indifference.
Telling ourselves that we’re used to this sort of thing doesn’t do any good.
It’s no use reminding ourselves of the abandonment of the 130,000 Syrians put to death through the murderous madness of Bashar Assad, backed by the very same Mr. Putin; of the innumerable Chechens “kicked into the crapper,” in the elegant phrase used by the same master of Russia and its borderlands. It’s no use knowing, as we have for some time now—since republican Spain was abandoned in the 1930s, since Central Europe was sacrificed in the 1940s, and since the Polish revolt in the early 1980s was kept at arm’s length—that democracy never defends its values.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/risking-lives-to-promote-climate-change-hype?f=puball
Yet another global warming expedition gets trapped in icebound ideology
Will global warming alarmists ever set aside their hypotheses, hyperbole, models and ideologies long enough to acknowledge what is actually happening in the real world outside their windows? Will they at least do so before setting off on another misguided adventure? Before persuading like-minded or naïve people to join them? Before forcing others to risk life and limb to transport – and rescue – them? If history is any guide, the answer is: Not likely.
The absurd misadventures of University of New South Wales climate professor Chris Turney is but the latest example. He and 51 co-believers set out on the (diesel-powered) Russian charter ship Akademik Shokalskiy to prove manmade global warming is destroying the East Antarctic ice sheet. Perhaps they’d been reading Dr. Turney’s website, which claims “an increasing body of evidence” shows “melting and collapse” across the area. (It is, after all, summer in Antarctica, albeit a rather cold, icy one thus far.)
Instead of finding open water, they wound up trapped in record volumes of unforgiving ice, from Christmas Eve until January 2 – ensnared by Mother Nature’s sense of humor and their own hubris. The 52 climate tourists were finally rescued by a helicopter sent from Chinese icebreaker Xue Long, which itself became locked in the ice. The misadventurers were transferred to Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis, but the Shokalskiy remains entombed, awaiting the arrival of US Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Star. (Meanwhile, Tourney hopes to get more grants to study manmade global warming, to help him make more money from his Carbonscape company, which makes “green” products from CO2 recovered from the atmosphere.)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obamacare-the-terrifying-consequences-to-healthcare
As the ObamaCare debate rages, we hear much about insurance companies, costs, and people’s ability to pay. We hear the policy defended as proponents tell us it will provide healthcare to those who never had it. Of course, these proponents never seem to explain how those who couldn’t afford healthcare when it was a choice can now afford an even more expensive cost now that government mandates it.
However, these debates about the pros and cons of ObamaCare basically focus on money. What about the real issue – healthcare? What will ObamaCare do to our medical system? How will it affect the quality of our care? How will it affect doctor’s decisions as they attempt to take care of our health needs? And, ultimately, in a system controlled by government bureaucrats and government-written manuals – who will really be making the decisions that determine our quality of life? These are the real questions that need to be the center of the debate. And the answers are terrifying.
I recently received a report from an oncologist, Dr. John Conroy, who is fighting the desperate battle to treat cancer. All of those concerned Americans who wear their pink ribbons and dash for miles in their stop-cancer marathons should take a long hard look at what Dr. Conroy reports to be the future of all American medicine. They may want to start running straight at Congress to save their own lives.
Obviously, Oncology is a very detailed science, difficult for the layman to understand. That’s why American healthcare has always promoted specialists. Let’s begin with a patient who has discovered a lump on her breast. She takes a mammogram, undergoes a biopsy, and is found to have adenocarcinoma. She is seen by an oncologist and certain questions need to be addressed.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/keeping-the-peace-amidst-chaos-and-crises#ixzz2trFo0Shv
In 2002, former top defense official Michelle Flournoy and Capitol Hill staffer and former USAF official Clark Murdock published a Center for Strategic and International Studies assessment of what further strategic nuclear weapons reductions the United States should pursue and what kind of deterrent force we should maintain to keep the peace and maintain stability.
They concluded a Triad of nuclear forces including submarines, land based missiles and bombers made the most sense, at levels of nuclear weapons from 1000-2200, the higher number then being under consideration by the Bush administration. Eventually, the United States and Russia concluded the Moscow Treaty that reduced deployed strategic nuclear weapons from 6000 to 2200 which was the single largest percent reduction of strategic nuclear weapons in history.
Under the New Start treaty of 2010 that further reduced our deployed nuclear weapons to 1550, we continued to maintain a Triad of forces including 450 Minuteman land based missiles.
However, some radical proposals continue to be put forward to eliminate the ICBM force from our nuclear deterrent largely under the assumption that the Cold War is over and there are no serious threats to the United States from any nuclear armed adversary.
While the Cold War did end in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union, the totalitarian threats to America’s security remain although in changed form.
http://sarahhonig.com/2014/02/18/exposing-the-charade/
Odds are that convicted spy Jonathan Pollard is now in his 29th year in prison only because of thinly camouflaged anti-Semitism. That is the learned opinion of James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Woolsey has said so in interviews to Channel 10, as well as to The Jerusalem Post. He went on the record and without beating around the bush. He thus gave an authoritative voice to what many suspected and hinted at for years.
Woolsey may be the only higher-up in the US security establishment to head-on cite anti-Semitism, but he is not the only one to have called for Pollard’s release on the grounds that he had served an unreasonably and disproportionately long sentence in comparison to the time other spies for US allies spent behind bars.
In many cases the spies from friendly countries were sent up for less than four years, and they didn’t serve the full sentences either. Egyptian Abdelkader Helmy got a three-year-and-10-month sentence. Jean Baynes, who was caught spying on behalf of the Philippines, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years. Spies for Britain and South Africa were each given two years.
After the Woolsey statements, the specter of anti-Jewish prejudice, however denied, can no longer be covered up. The elephant in the room has materialized and come out in full view. Nobody – on either side of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic – can continue pretending the issue is not there.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4182/israel-europe-discrimination The fact remains that a Dutch soccer player was excluded from a training camp on the sole basis that he is Jew with an Israeli passport. Not only is the Dutch Foreign Ministry’s advice to “keep sports and politics separated as much as possible” bankrupt of any enforceable meaning; it conflicts with the Dutch […]
