I started off today--as I hope you will--by having a good laugh at Harry Reid's expense. Watching Reid go through painful contortions to try and explain to an interviewer how we really have a "voluntary" tax system is a great way to start off the day with a good laugh. And Allah has provided the opportunity this morning to do just that.
But all humor aside, deeper things trouble me today, namely this: how is it that our friends and neighbors continue to be so obtuse that they would elect these neo-Marxist Democrat bozos? I have been watching HBO's excellent series on John Adams, and what strikes me about this excellent adaptation of David McCullough's superb biography, is that back then when our Founding Fathers discussed their political differences, they did so in a civilized and poised manner that which shames the daily conduct of today's lowest-rated-in-history Democrat Congress.
Another thing I can say about Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, et. al., is that the Founders certainly thought that our future as a nation was important to bring up in polite conversation--even at dinner with the kids and family. So why is it that today, people are so afraid to disagree with their friends and neighbors over politics, or even to raise the issue, when failing to do so is allowing our country to be sold down the river? Yes we are a polarized country, but could that not be precisely because we are no longer having such dialogue and polite discourse? Are our Leftist teachers to be allowed to fill our children's heads with lies, but we are not to be permitted--out of politeness--to have a reasoned discussion with our friends? (Caveat: not at the workplace--I am not trying to get people fired here...)
We are taught that it is impolite to bring up politics with friends. Exactly why is that? If we live in a democracy, a representative Republic, does that not make electing our representatives one of the most important things we as citizens do? Is it not every bit as important as the education of our children?
The most "educated" person in the world is worth absolutely nothing if he/she is living under a tyranny that is as bad or worse as that which engendered the American Revolution. (I use quotes on the word 'educated' because our kids are not being taught what makes this country exceptional--and what would make them exceptional--in schools today. They are not taught to strive to be exceptional, but rather that the dullard has the same intrinsic value as the most gifted --"there are no winners", etc... )
But I digress--the point I am trying to make is this: would you be willing to allow your concern for being "polite" or "one of the gang" around your friends and associates to prevent your kids from getting any education? Because--I submit--allowing your country to go down the tubes out of apathy is equally consequential in denying your progeny a future as is their classroom education. (And the fact that in the schools they are being taught relativistic socialist crap doesn't exactly help to guarantee them a bright future either...)
Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to our future, and neither is the brand of Stalinism being sold to us by todays Democrat shysters as "hope" and "change". Change to a tyranny is not a change worth making. To hope for a welfare state, is to hope for mediocrity and the least common denominator. If this latent Marxist drivel is what we get by our neighbors and associates' continued apathy and/or ignorance of what is really happening in our government today, then why is it so "proper" not to attempt to alert them to the bill of goods that is being peddled by the Democrats they've been busy electing? Is it not our duty to do everything we can as citizens to prevent a disastrous future? Not only for ourselves, but for those who will have to live here after us?
Maybe it is time we redefined what is really "polite". To me, the problem is not so much bringing up "politics" in a discussion, it is rather that most often those on the Left--when presented with logical arguments that tear down their strawmen--are precisely the impolitic "thought bigots" which they so often accuse those of us with a Judeo-Christian moral outlook of being. Left-leaning "intellectuals", who quite obviously are not grokking what is being done in their name by the snake oil salesmen in the Democrat party, will get downright belligerent when their vapid views are challenged in a discussion. Because once reasonable, logical discussion gets to a certain point, there is no more logic available to support an intellectually vacant argument. The only tools left to he/she who has been taking the illogical side of things are emotion, character assasination, and bullying .
And so our challenge is not that we should never discuss those things; but rather--when our friends do become so emotionally unhinged--we then must bring the conversation back down to earth, rather than to adopt the same cheap emotional tactics of your unhinged antagonist. Trying to bully or outshout someone who quite evidently doesn't get it does not work. However properly applied, logic, reason, and facts--presented in a calm tone, regardless of the tone adopted by an adversary--trumps hyper-emotional vapidity every time. And if others around you are listening to logic and reason vs. intellectually vacant emotionalism--so much the better for all of us.
It is important to deconstruct the intellectually dishonest PC strawmen of our day. And it is more important to convince those who do yet not see the forest for the trees. If we ever do want to be "united" as the mealy-mouthed "messiah" from Illinois preaches, then that means we all must be united in purpose. And the only common language the human species understands is the language of reason.
So long as the hidden purpose of the Democrat party is to re-establish Marxist State Socialism, we need to destroy the strawmen that are holding our nation back from what it can be. And where does an evangelist go to convert the "unwashed"? To the sinners themselves.
This is precisely what we must do, in defense of the greatest experiment in government ever devised by Man. We must prevent these latter-day Trotskyites from destroying our Constitution. We must also have the character and poise to establish a dialogue with the unwashed of our day--and that means taking our "A-game" into the Lions Den.
Who's with me?
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
POLAR BEAR FEARS GROUNDLESS
A press release below from Dr Kesten C Green, Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. The paper referred to can be found here
The U. S. government commissioned studies to support the listing of polar bears as a threatened or endangered species. Polar bear numbers are currently high and the population has been increasing rapidly in recent decades. Everyone likes polar bears, so this is good news. A decision to list would require forecasts that the current upward population trend will reverse. The government studies concluded that polar bear populations would decrease substantially.
Decision makers and the public should expect people who make forecasts to be familiar with the scientific principles of forecasting just as a patient expects his physician to be familiar with the procedures dictated by medical science. Three scientists, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Kesten Green of Monash University, and Willie Soon of The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, audited the government studies to assess whether they were consistent with forecasting principles. Their paper, "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit," has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal.
They concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions and their polar bear population forecasts contravened many principles for scientific forecasting. Indeed, the reports followed fewer than one-sixth of the relevant principles. Given the importance of the forecasts, all principles should be properly applied. In short, the government reports do not provide relevant information for this decision.
Research shows that for issues such as the population of polar bears-situations that are complex and where there is much uncertainty-the best forecast is that things will follow a "random walk;" in effect, this model states that the most recent value is the best forecast for all periods in the future. Because the polar bear population has been increasing over recent decades, however, a continuation of that trend over the short term is possible.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
The U. S. government commissioned studies to support the listing of polar bears as a threatened or endangered species. Polar bear numbers are currently high and the population has been increasing rapidly in recent decades. Everyone likes polar bears, so this is good news. A decision to list would require forecasts that the current upward population trend will reverse. The government studies concluded that polar bear populations would decrease substantially.
Decision makers and the public should expect people who make forecasts to be familiar with the scientific principles of forecasting just as a patient expects his physician to be familiar with the procedures dictated by medical science. Three scientists, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Kesten Green of Monash University, and Willie Soon of The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, audited the government studies to assess whether they were consistent with forecasting principles. Their paper, "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit," has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal.
They concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions and their polar bear population forecasts contravened many principles for scientific forecasting. Indeed, the reports followed fewer than one-sixth of the relevant principles. Given the importance of the forecasts, all principles should be properly applied. In short, the government reports do not provide relevant information for this decision.
Research shows that for issues such as the population of polar bears-situations that are complex and where there is much uncertainty-the best forecast is that things will follow a "random walk;" in effect, this model states that the most recent value is the best forecast for all periods in the future. Because the polar bear population has been increasing over recent decades, however, a continuation of that trend over the short term is possible.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
UK's Sir David King Embarrassed by Skeptical Scientists
Britain's Cambridge university has recently appointed Britain's chief climate alarmist to a prestigious position. Below is a letter written by Britain's Rupert Wyndham about the matter. The letter was in response to a request for donations from his University Master. Wyndham explains a few facts to the Master as to why donations might not be forthcoming this year
31 March 2008.
Lord Butler, Master University College Oxford
Dear Robin
Thank you for your letter last week on the subject of fund raising for the College. When last we exchanged correspondence about this, attention was drawn to the fact that contributions had been made on a number of occasions in the past, and I looked forward to gifting further in the future. However, as I also mentioned, just at this precise moment, I am already fairly heavily committed. In short, there are a dozen small (and now not so small) waifs in Chiangmai, orphaned by AIDS but not themselves carriers of the virus, who depend on me directly for a significant part of their welfare, especially educational.
There is, however, another factor, which I should like to draw to your attention. I ask your indulgence if this letter turns out to be a little long, but think you'll see why. Anyway, a little background history is called for.
Four years ago Dr. Andrei Ilarionov, then chief economic adviser to Vladimir Putin, decided to cross check the advice coming to him from the Russian Academy of Sciences on the subject of global warming. Its members had opined that it would not be significant and would pose no threat. To this end, and here I quote from an impeccable source, "he looked around for the sappiest, laziest, most acquiescent, most true-elieving government in the world, and settled upon the UK.."
The then Foreign Secretary was invited to a meeting avec entourage, including the then Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King. Unbeknown to them, six of the world's most eminent sceptical scientists had also been invited. Let me continue by further quoting my source:
Fortuitously, it just so happens that I am a child of empire, one of the last, and this rings a bell entirely personal to me. You see, as a small boy in either Kenya or Uganda, I remember Kilimanjaro (as well as what I now know to be the Furtwangler Glacier) being discussed at my father's dinner table. Of course, I do not remember the detail of the grown-up conversation nor would I have understood it all, but its essence I do remember. It was a speculation about the apparent diminution of ice at the summit. So, to return:
I will not comment on the conclusion contained in the last sentence, save to say that it wouldn't surprise me any more than would the indented part of paragraph 2 above.
So, what is the point of all this? The point is a simple one. It is that anthropogenic global warming, now spun to climate change, has not a scintilla of authentic scientific evidence to support it. Likewise, there is not a scintilla of authentic scientific evidence to support the plethora of catastrophic phantasmagoria which the likes of David King and Al Gore are determined to promote as fact. In other words, King, himself a distinguished chemist if not scientist, is content not simply to watch the corruption of scientific method, and therefore the scientific endeavour generally, but to act as an enthusiastic participant. This issue, we are admonished ad nauseam, is the defining challenge to the species in the 21st century.
Intellectually, however, it is no more than a vast inverted pyramid constructed on the summit of a sand dune. Let me go a step further and suggest that it is so manifestly shoddy, mendacious and corrupt that it is simply not possible for AGW science to be pursued disinterestedly and with honesty of purpose. At a macro level, Nigel Lawson has called for the dissolution of the IPCC. He's right to do so.
You may or may not agree with the proposition just put, but it represents my carefully considered conviction and, moreover, I believe it to be supremely important on many levels. I am not alone.
So, where does that leave us or, more accurately, where does it leave me? Well, I find myself confronted with an uncomfortable dilemma. In general terms, do I consider that donating to the University in one guise or another is `a good thing'? Yes, of course. Do I, on the other hand, really feel in good conscience that financial support should be given to an institution, which not only promotes the self-preening of a vain man, but actually goes further by installing him in a sinecure calculated to allow him to further his malignant proselytising endeavours.
No doubt, in the fullness of time, the ethical conundrum will resolve itself in my mind - perhaps to the benefit of the university and/or college, perhaps not. Either way, in purely monetary terms, the effect will be insignificant. In the long run, I am not so sure that that it will remain so with regard to the appointment of the Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford. We shall see.
Yours sincerely
R.C.E. Wyndham
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
31 March 2008.
Lord Butler, Master University College Oxford
Dear Robin
Thank you for your letter last week on the subject of fund raising for the College. When last we exchanged correspondence about this, attention was drawn to the fact that contributions had been made on a number of occasions in the past, and I looked forward to gifting further in the future. However, as I also mentioned, just at this precise moment, I am already fairly heavily committed. In short, there are a dozen small (and now not so small) waifs in Chiangmai, orphaned by AIDS but not themselves carriers of the virus, who depend on me directly for a significant part of their welfare, especially educational.
There is, however, another factor, which I should like to draw to your attention. I ask your indulgence if this letter turns out to be a little long, but think you'll see why. Anyway, a little background history is called for.
Four years ago Dr. Andrei Ilarionov, then chief economic adviser to Vladimir Putin, decided to cross check the advice coming to him from the Russian Academy of Sciences on the subject of global warming. Its members had opined that it would not be significant and would pose no threat. To this end, and here I quote from an impeccable source, "he looked around for the sappiest, laziest, most acquiescent, most true-elieving government in the world, and settled upon the UK.."
The then Foreign Secretary was invited to a meeting avec entourage, including the then Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King. Unbeknown to them, six of the world's most eminent sceptical scientists had also been invited. Let me continue by further quoting my source:
"Sir David King, not realizing he had been ambushed, launched into his usual exaggerated, alarmist presentation (he actually knows remarkably little about the science of climate, and makes an ass of himself every time he opens his mouth on the subject).
The six sceptics heard him politely until one of them, who told me the story, could contain himself no longer. When Sir David said that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of "global warming", my informant pointed out that, in the 30 years since satellite monitoring of the summit had begun, temperature had at no instant risen above -1.6oC, and had averaged -7oC (Molg et al., 2003); that the region around the mountain had cooled throughout the period (Cullen, 2006); that the recession of the glacier had begun in the 1880s, long before any anthropogenic influence (Robinson, Robinson & Soon, 2007); and that the reason for the long-established recession of the Furtwangler glacier at the summit was ablation caused by the desiccation of the atmosphere owing to the regional cooling. It had nothing to do with global warming."
Fortuitously, it just so happens that I am a child of empire, one of the last, and this rings a bell entirely personal to me. You see, as a small boy in either Kenya or Uganda, I remember Kilimanjaro (as well as what I now know to be the Furtwangler Glacier) being discussed at my father's dinner table. Of course, I do not remember the detail of the grown-up conversation nor would I have understood it all, but its essence I do remember. It was a speculation about the apparent diminution of ice at the summit. So, to return:
"Sir David King, embarrassed at having been caught out, said he had never been so insulted in all his life. He flounced out of the meeting, followed by the rest of the British delegation. To Dr. Ilarionov, two conclusions were evident: first, that the supporters of the "consensus" position had based their argument on known scientific falsehoods and were accordingly unable to argue against the well-informed sceptics; secondly, that, as he put it at the time, the British Government were behaving like old-style imperialists. The breakdown in relations between the UK and Russia began at that moment."
I will not comment on the conclusion contained in the last sentence, save to say that it wouldn't surprise me any more than would the indented part of paragraph 2 above.
So, what is the point of all this? The point is a simple one. It is that anthropogenic global warming, now spun to climate change, has not a scintilla of authentic scientific evidence to support it. Likewise, there is not a scintilla of authentic scientific evidence to support the plethora of catastrophic phantasmagoria which the likes of David King and Al Gore are determined to promote as fact. In other words, King, himself a distinguished chemist if not scientist, is content not simply to watch the corruption of scientific method, and therefore the scientific endeavour generally, but to act as an enthusiastic participant. This issue, we are admonished ad nauseam, is the defining challenge to the species in the 21st century.
Intellectually, however, it is no more than a vast inverted pyramid constructed on the summit of a sand dune. Let me go a step further and suggest that it is so manifestly shoddy, mendacious and corrupt that it is simply not possible for AGW science to be pursued disinterestedly and with honesty of purpose. At a macro level, Nigel Lawson has called for the dissolution of the IPCC. He's right to do so.
You may or may not agree with the proposition just put, but it represents my carefully considered conviction and, moreover, I believe it to be supremely important on many levels. I am not alone.
So, where does that leave us or, more accurately, where does it leave me? Well, I find myself confronted with an uncomfortable dilemma. In general terms, do I consider that donating to the University in one guise or another is `a good thing'? Yes, of course. Do I, on the other hand, really feel in good conscience that financial support should be given to an institution, which not only promotes the self-preening of a vain man, but actually goes further by installing him in a sinecure calculated to allow him to further his malignant proselytising endeavours.
No doubt, in the fullness of time, the ethical conundrum will resolve itself in my mind - perhaps to the benefit of the university and/or college, perhaps not. Either way, in purely monetary terms, the effect will be insignificant. In the long run, I am not so sure that that it will remain so with regard to the appointment of the Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford. We shall see.
Yours sincerely
R.C.E. Wyndham
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Monday, March 31, 2008
BIRD FLU IN INDONESIA INCREASING; PANDEMIC EMERGING?
USA TODAY:
Two more people have died of bird flu in Indonesia, bringing the death toll in the country worst hit by the virus to 107, the health ministry said Monday.One of the victims was a 15-year-old boy and the second was a 12-year-old girl, ministry official Lily Sulistyowati said. Both died last week and lived in separate suburbs of the capital, Jakarta, she said, adding that the source of the infections was being investigated.
Meanwhile, a 22-month girl from West Sumatra province was being treated in a hospital after health officials confirmed she had bird flu, said Sulistyowati. The baby's condition was said to be improving, she said.
Indonesia has regularly recorded human deaths from bird flu since the virus began ravaging poultry stocks across Asia in 2003.
H5N1 Clusters and Denials Raise Indonesian Pandemic ConcernsIT'S NOT A MATTER OF "IF"; IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF WHEN...
Kandun dismissed the possibility of more bird flu cases in the same family after the boy's brother died recently. Confirmed cluster cases raise concerns over human-to-human transmission. "It is not correct that there is a cluster in Subang," Kandun said, adding that the brother has died of dengue fever.
The above denial of an H5N1 cluster in Subang is cause for concern. Both brothers were initially diagnosed as dengue fever. However, since dengue fever is transmitted by insects, the likelihood of two fatal cases in the same family with distinct disease onset dates is remote. Consequently, the second case was tested for H5N1 and was positive, strongly suggesting that the index case was also H5N1 positive and infected his brother.
The denial of the cluster by the director general of communicable disease control in Indonesia raises serious transparency problems, and is similar to denials of H5N1 in the first confirmed cluster in Indonesia, almost three years ago. Those cases were initially said to have died from bacterial pneumonia, although the father was subsequently H5N1 confirmed, and the H5N1 from that patient is a target for vaccines directed to clade 2.1, the clade of H5N1 in Indonesia.
In addition to the death of a family member of an H5N1 confirmed case in West Java, a similar cluster has been reported in the local media in Sumatra. H5N1 has been confirmed in a young child, but the recent death of a family member has not been reported in the English language press.
Similarly, the nurse who cared for one or both family member is in isolation with bird flu symptoms, raising concerns of a expanding cluster.
The two clusters above, as well as a third confirmed case, located in Bekasi, which is near the two brothers in West Java, raises pandemic concerns.
WAFA SULTAN: WHAT'S AT HOT AIR TONIGHT, WAS AT THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS ON... SATURDAY
HOT AIR:
BECAUSE WE DON'T JUST FOLLOW THE PACK.
Great: Wafa Sultan in hiding now for fear of jihadi nutjobs
posted at 9:38 pm on March 31, 2008 by Allahpundit
- WE HAD THIS SATURDAY. (WITH GREAT VIDEOS!)
- AND HAD A FOLLOW UP ON SUNDAY. STILL BEATING HOT AIRT BY MORE THAN A DAY. BOTH POSTS BY THE GREAT "AOW".
- (AND, WE POSTED WITHOUT THE OBLIGATORY SARCASTIC "GREAT". NO "DUDE" EITHER!)
BECAUSE WE DON'T JUST FOLLOW THE PACK.
- SPREAD THE WORD!
- BLOGROLL US!
- READ US TWICE A DAY!
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - THE MOST LEFTIST CANDIDATE SINCE HENRY WALLACE
Henry Wallace, who had been Secretary of Agriculture (when Alger Hiss was on his staff), FDR's 2nd Vice President, and President Truman's Secretary of Commerce until 1946, ran for President against FDR's 3rd Vice President in 1948. (From 1946 until the campaign he edited The New Republic magazine.)
He ran on the ticket of the "Progressive Party" whose communist-inspired platform included universal government health insurance, opposed the Berlin airlift, blamed the United States for the communist conquest of Czechoslovakia, and appeasement of the Soviet Union. He was endorsed by the Communist Party, USA, and communist party members actively supported his candidacy.
He received 2% of the vote.
Interestingly enough, in his younger years, his search for a spiritual mentor had led him to Nicholas Roerich, whom the historian Arthur Schlesinger described as "a Russian emigre, painter, theosophist and con man." Wallace's letters to his "Dear Guru" were an embarrassment during the Presidential campaign.
When the communists invaded Korea, however, Wallace saw the error of his leftist ways, and supported President Truman. He wrote a book in 1952, Where I Was Wrong, describing how he had been duped into trusting Stalin.
Barack [middle name redacted] Obama is the most leftist Presidential candidate since Henry Wallace. His folk-marxist extremism is not likely to land him in the White House. But the success of his candidacy to date shows how far left the Democratic Party has lurched since the time of Harry S Truman in 1948. Joe Lieberman is right.
He ran on the ticket of the "Progressive Party" whose communist-inspired platform included universal government health insurance, opposed the Berlin airlift, blamed the United States for the communist conquest of Czechoslovakia, and appeasement of the Soviet Union. He was endorsed by the Communist Party, USA, and communist party members actively supported his candidacy.
He received 2% of the vote.
Interestingly enough, in his younger years, his search for a spiritual mentor had led him to Nicholas Roerich, whom the historian Arthur Schlesinger described as "a Russian emigre, painter, theosophist and con man." Wallace's letters to his "Dear Guru" were an embarrassment during the Presidential campaign.
When the communists invaded Korea, however, Wallace saw the error of his leftist ways, and supported President Truman. He wrote a book in 1952, Where I Was Wrong, describing how he had been duped into trusting Stalin.
Barack [middle name redacted] Obama is the most leftist Presidential candidate since Henry Wallace. His folk-marxist extremism is not likely to land him in the White House. But the success of his candidacy to date shows how far left the Democratic Party has lurched since the time of Harry S Truman in 1948. Joe Lieberman is right.
Reliapundit agrees:
Henry Wallace was FDR's Veep for a term, but was replaced by Truman.
Wallace ran against Truman in 1948 - on the PROGRESSIVE PARTY line, and got 2.4%. Less than Strom Thurmond. Wallace was a courageous anti-segregationist, but also a socialist and an appeaser at the time.
WIKI:
Wallace had said that if he became President, he would appoint Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as Secretary of Treasury. Both Duggan and White were Communist sympathizers who are now known to have been passing information to the Soviets since before the Second World War. Their appointment could have been a major victory for Soviet intelligence.[3]WALLACE CAME TO SEE THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS:
... [and] advocated the re-election of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.[1] In 1961, President elect John F. Kennedy invited him to his inauguration ceremony, though he had supported Kennedy's opponent Richard Nixon.
I'm beginning to feel that Obama will do worse in the general election than Kerry or McG0vern.An Obama candidacy might be every bit as naive and leftist as Wallace's run in 1948.
Let's just say he'll lose BIGTIME: he's too liberal; too unaccomplished; too slippery, marched with Farrakhan and worshiped with a bigot for twenty years. And he's announced that he wants to raise taxes. That didn't work out too well for Mondale...
HOW LEFT IS HE?? Let's just say, Obama makes McGovern look like Lieberman.
MSM FOOD STAMP/DEPRESSION MEME SPREADING
Yesterday we posted on the RIDICULOUS and ridiculously biased and distorted NYTIMES article on food-stamps.
GATEWAY posted on this today - with dome great graphs.
Now, the UK INDEPENDENT takes up the NYTIMES distortion and embellishes it some more, turning a slight and to-be-expected up-tick in food stamp use into A FULL BLOWN DEPRESSION. WHY NOT: the "BUSH = HOOVER" has been a favorite slogan of the left for 5 years.
Too bad there is not even the slightest hint of truth on the matter.
HAVE THEY NO SHAME!?
Nope.
*******UPDATE: CBS JOINS UP.
GATEWAY posted on this today - with dome great graphs.
Now, the UK INDEPENDENT takes up the NYTIMES distortion and embellishes it some more, turning a slight and to-be-expected up-tick in food stamp use into A FULL BLOWN DEPRESSION. WHY NOT: the "BUSH = HOOVER" has been a favorite slogan of the left for 5 years.
Too bad there is not even the slightest hint of truth on the matter.
HAVE THEY NO SHAME!?
Nope.
*******UPDATE: CBS JOINS UP.
TURKEY'S LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS
THE NYTIMES TODAY:
Turkey Court Takes Politically Explosive CaseErdogan and his islamicist comrades screwed us big-time just before the Iraq War - they failed to give us permission to invade Iraq from the north. And Iran ships weapons to Hizballah via Turkey.Turkey had been a good ally until he and his islamicist comrades took over. MANY Turks see this and want it to stop; they fear what may become of turkey if Erdogan keeps doing what he's been doing - like making the hijab legal.
Turkey’s highest court said Monday it had decided to take a case on closing Turkey’s governing party and banning its top political leaders, moving the country closer to a final confrontation between religious and secular Turks over who will rule Turkey.
Alifeyyaz Paksut, deputy chairman of the court, known as the Constitutional Court, said its justices had voted unanimously to hear the case, which was filed by Turkey’s top prosecutor on March 14.
The case calls for the closure of the Justice and Development Party, and the banning from politics of 71 party members, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erodgan and his ally, President Abdullah Gul, from politics.
Turkey has shut down other parties in the past. In 1998, it banned the Welfare Party, an openly Islamist group that claimed Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Gul as members, and has also banned Kurdish parties. But Mr. Erdogan’s current party maintains that it is secular, having moved away from its earlier involvement with political Islam.
The court’s acceptance of the case significantly increases the chances that the party, which was elected to power in 2002 and remains highly popular, could be closed.
- I HOPE THE COURT DOES THE RIGHT THING: CLOSES DOWN THE PARTY.
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN FITNA IS: WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW
I remember reading a bit about the following documentary on video here, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, which is made in the US, almost two years ago. As Melanie Phillips says, it does an even better job informing about jihad, because it's longer, and there's even some interviews available in it with people like Walid Shoebat. Take a look at this important gem as well, and learn plenty more.
JUST JOURNALISM FOR THE UK
Now, if you'd like to know some good news from the UK, there's a new independant non-profit outfit called Just Journalism (via Melanie Phillips), whose job it is to monitor distortions and bias by the British media's middle east coverage; the first such organization in the UK to work on a forensic and objective approach. I'm glad they're here.
CONGRESS TO VOTE TODAY ON JEWISH REFUGEES ISSUE IN MIDEAST
The American Thinker reports that Congress is set to vote on an important issue that's been long ignored, in contrast to that of the Arab "refugees" whose own rejected them for the purpose of using them as a tool against the state of Israel. The issue in focus here is Jewish refugees who'd been driven out of Arab lands at the time of the 1940s. Justice For Jews (via Point of No Return) is supposed to have a phone press conference about it.
Expressing hatred of Israel is not hate speech -- apparently
The Muslim fruitcakes sure do not like having "hate speech" restrictions placed on them. Report below (excerpt) from a Canadian professor who went along to a Muslim/Leftist "forum" and was foolish enough to think that his defence of hate speech restrictions would be heard:
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
"A forum was held on Feb. 29 at McMaster University under the pretext of discussing "the recent shocking decision by the McMaster Student Union (MSU) and administration to unequivocally ban on campus the usage of the phrase Israeli Apartheid." This event was organized by a group calling itself U4SR, in reality an amalgam of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, and Muslims for Peace and Justice.
What had McMaster done to merit such attention? The university had merely embraced and enforced its Student Code of Conduct. This code, which can serve as a model for other universities, prescribes conduct for an inclusive academia respectful of the "rights, responsibilities, dignity, and well-being of others" and proscribes behaviour that is "harassing, intimidating offensive and/or threatening."
The code was deemed to have been violated during Israeli Apartheid Week held several weeks earlier. At that time, responding to a complaint, the Provost Ilene Busch-Vishniac denied placement in the Student Centre of a banner with the outrageously inciteful juxtaposition of Israel and apartheid, which could not combine two more incongruous words, judging such banner to be unduly inflammatory and so in violation of the tenets of the code. ....
Midway through my presentation the moderator shut the microphone. What had I said? I was warning students about the dangers of confounding free speech with hate speech. I aimed for inclusion and had just exhorted the students to show the world that McMaster is an example where Muslims and Jews can live together in harmony and mutual respect, pointing out that they share the same father Abraham, write from right to left, and have similar words for peace - salam and shalom. I was pleading with them not to be the pawns of the older generation with hate-filled hearts that uses unwitting handicapped people to deliver suicide bombs or launch rockets against civilians, when the microphone went dead.
Let's understand this clearly. At a forum arranged by a student group to discuss free speech, a professor supporting the university and discussing what hate does to a campus community was not allowed to finish his speech. Evidently, what the organizers and moderator intended was: free speech for themselves but not for others.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
THE HONESTY PROBLEM ON THE LEFT
Some more fictional history from the Left
Obama and Hillary are not alone. Real history is so pesky for Leftists that they have to make it up
We should read the Financial Times column written by Cambridge historian and New American Foundation senior fellow, Anatol Lieven entitled: "Why we should fear a McCain presidency?" His intriguing answer which appears in bold print in the paper edition is:
Really? I was curious. Who could he mean? I could not think of an example. Apparently, neither could he. The closest he came to naming names is comparing McCain to Andrew Jackson, a highly regarded 19th century Democrat president and not a particularly scary one. He does tell us that so extreme is the McCain presidency going to be that it will make leftists look back with nostalgia at George W. Bush. Indeed, European governments should start immediately planning on "how they could either prevent a McCain administration from pursuing pyromaniac policies or, if necessary, protect Europe from the ensuing conflagration."
But why should Americans believe that as experienced and knowledgeable a warrior as John McCain would behave so irresponsibly? Because he has an ungovernable temper, Lieven answers:
Well, let me enlighten him. World War II hero and two term president Dwight Eisenhower was another military man with a lightening temper. In her book First Mothers, Bonnie Angelo describes his mother's failure to teach him temper control. "From childhood those lightening flashes were as much a part of Ike as the contagious smile," she writes.
Biographer Carlo D'este describes instances when "he totally lost his self-control -- whether beating an apple tree with his fists as a child, banging his head against a wall when playing poor tennis, or punching his fist through the wall of a cafe." White House seamstress Lillian Rogers Parks tells how his wife Mamie lived in constant fear of his outbursts. Angelo reports that presidential aides became most familiar with a vein in his forehead which would noticeably stand out during press conference he found annoying as signaling, "Caution: high voltage temper."
That said, Eisenhower did help win World War II but did not start World War III. He, merely, ended the Korean War and presided over 8 years of relative peace and prosperity. Not a bad record for a brave honorable, if temperamental, warrior. If temperamental McCain does as well we should all be very happy.
More here
************************
Explaining Obama, Clinton and Kerry's False Histories
Below is Bruce Kesler's explanation. I think he is too kind. Leading Leftists and many of their followers are just psychopaths, born defectives who are completely lacking any moral instinct. They virtually tell us so when they say: "There is no such thing as right and wrong"
It's a wonder to observers that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry so blatantly -- and relatively easily revealed as otherwise -- invented their histories as heroic, exemplary and worthy of leadership.
Their formative education coincides with a post-war radical trend in historiography called leftist revisionism. Although revisions of historical understandings are a commonplace occurrence as new sources come to light, the radical left in post-war America veered into a myth that the causes of the Cold War, and of Vietnam and now Iraq, came from avaricious and racist motives and are furthered by outright mendacity and secret cabals. The structures, and confusions, of institutional decision-making with naturally murky intelligence, the requirements of national security and alliances, the value or sincerity of Western values, these are treated as excuses that purposely hide the true intents and goals.
This radical leftist revisionism, while allied with and blending easily with Marxist opposition to capitalism, is distinct in its raising of the true enemy to heroic proportions, extra-powerful individuals. This demonization of our leaders leads to the need for heroic counters. Thus, Obama, Clinton and Kerry needed to re-invent themselves, both to appear as the answer, and to convince themselves they are worthy of being the answer. Their self-invention is as false as their root interpretation of history and the workings of politics and international affairs.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Obama and Hillary are not alone. Real history is so pesky for Leftists that they have to make it up
We should read the Financial Times column written by Cambridge historian and New American Foundation senior fellow, Anatol Lieven entitled: "Why we should fear a McCain presidency?" His intriguing answer which appears in bold print in the paper edition is:
Some of the worst 20th century catastrophes were caused by brave men with passionate sense of national mission.
Really? I was curious. Who could he mean? I could not think of an example. Apparently, neither could he. The closest he came to naming names is comparing McCain to Andrew Jackson, a highly regarded 19th century Democrat president and not a particularly scary one. He does tell us that so extreme is the McCain presidency going to be that it will make leftists look back with nostalgia at George W. Bush. Indeed, European governments should start immediately planning on "how they could either prevent a McCain administration from pursuing pyromaniac policies or, if necessary, protect Europe from the ensuing conflagration."
But why should Americans believe that as experienced and knowledgeable a warrior as John McCain would behave so irresponsibly? Because he has an ungovernable temper, Lieven answers:
"Mr McCain's policies would not be so worrying were it not for his notorious quickness to fury in the face of perceived insults to himself or his country. Even Thad Cochran, a fellow Republican senator, has said: `I certainly know no other president since I've been here who's had a temperament like that.'"
Well, let me enlighten him. World War II hero and two term president Dwight Eisenhower was another military man with a lightening temper. In her book First Mothers, Bonnie Angelo describes his mother's failure to teach him temper control. "From childhood those lightening flashes were as much a part of Ike as the contagious smile," she writes.
Biographer Carlo D'este describes instances when "he totally lost his self-control -- whether beating an apple tree with his fists as a child, banging his head against a wall when playing poor tennis, or punching his fist through the wall of a cafe." White House seamstress Lillian Rogers Parks tells how his wife Mamie lived in constant fear of his outbursts. Angelo reports that presidential aides became most familiar with a vein in his forehead which would noticeably stand out during press conference he found annoying as signaling, "Caution: high voltage temper."
That said, Eisenhower did help win World War II but did not start World War III. He, merely, ended the Korean War and presided over 8 years of relative peace and prosperity. Not a bad record for a brave honorable, if temperamental, warrior. If temperamental McCain does as well we should all be very happy.
More here
************************
Explaining Obama, Clinton and Kerry's False Histories
Below is Bruce Kesler's explanation. I think he is too kind. Leading Leftists and many of their followers are just psychopaths, born defectives who are completely lacking any moral instinct. They virtually tell us so when they say: "There is no such thing as right and wrong"
It's a wonder to observers that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry so blatantly -- and relatively easily revealed as otherwise -- invented their histories as heroic, exemplary and worthy of leadership.
Their formative education coincides with a post-war radical trend in historiography called leftist revisionism. Although revisions of historical understandings are a commonplace occurrence as new sources come to light, the radical left in post-war America veered into a myth that the causes of the Cold War, and of Vietnam and now Iraq, came from avaricious and racist motives and are furthered by outright mendacity and secret cabals. The structures, and confusions, of institutional decision-making with naturally murky intelligence, the requirements of national security and alliances, the value or sincerity of Western values, these are treated as excuses that purposely hide the true intents and goals.
This radical leftist revisionism, while allied with and blending easily with Marxist opposition to capitalism, is distinct in its raising of the true enemy to heroic proportions, extra-powerful individuals. This demonization of our leaders leads to the need for heroic counters. Thus, Obama, Clinton and Kerry needed to re-invent themselves, both to appear as the answer, and to convince themselves they are worthy of being the answer. Their self-invention is as false as their root interpretation of history and the workings of politics and international affairs.
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your summary of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
Sunday, March 30, 2008
HUGE VICTORY IN IRAQ: Iraqi Army Kicked Sadr's Iranian-backed Ass
GATEWAY HAS ALL THE JPEGS AND LINKS.
On TV this evening the MSM reported it as if Sadr had proven what a good and important fell he is for pro-actively declaring a cease-fire. Sheesh.
On TV this evening the MSM reported it as if Sadr had proven what a good and important fell he is for pro-actively declaring a cease-fire. Sheesh.
NYTIMES INVENTIVELY AND NEGATIVELY REPORTS ON FOOD STAMPS
NYTIMES:
Food Stamp Use at Record Pace as Jobs VanishDriven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.
The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.
But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 — to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.
The percentage of Americans receiving food stamps was higher after a recession in the 1990s, but actual numbers are expected to be higher this year.
Er, um... so it's a PROJECTED increase which would still be well below recent historical levels as a percentage of US population. THERE IS NO "INCREASE AT A RECORD PACE"; that's entirely an invention of the NYTIMES.
Which means that there really is NO STORY HERE, once you take away the distortion designed to make things seem worse than they are
GEE: I WONDER WHY THE NYTIMES WOULD DO THAT!?!
DO NYTIMES REPORTERS GET A BONUS FOR EACH MENDACIOUS WORD THEY WRITE WHICH DAMAGES BUSH?
IT SURE SEEMS SO TO ME..
MAJOR SECURITY DISCONNECT: AS EUROPEANS BECOME LIKELIER AGENTS OF AL QAEDA, THE USA REMAINS UNPREPARED TO SCREEN MORE AND MORE ENTERING EUROPEANS
ITEM #1: MEET THE PRESS:
ITEM #2: BBC:
... Putting strains on our ability to effectively check who is entering.
ITEM #5: THE USA IS AWARE WE NEED BETTER INTEL ON EUROPEANS ENTERING THE USA, BUT THE INTEL WE NEED IS STILL NOT AVAILABLE; (2/11/08):
MR. RUSSERT: Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that there is--if there is another terrorist attack, it will originate there.More on this HERE.
GEN. HAYDEN: We believe so, too. We, we, we can see what's going on. Our--you, you talked before about intelligence and how good or ill we have been in the past. We've gotten much better against al-Qaeda, and, of course, tomorrow we should be better than we are today. So, you know, that's not an absolute scale. We have to keep getting better. But it's very clear to us that al-Qaeda has been able, over the past 18 months or so, to establish a safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area that they have not enjoyed before, that they are bringing operatives into that region for training, operatives that, a phrase I would use, Tim, wouldn't attract your attention if they were going through the customs line at Dulles with you when you're coming back from overseas.
MR. RUSSERT: Look, look, look Western?
GEN. HAYDEN: Look Western, who, who, who would be able to come into this country with--again, without attracting the kind of attention that others might.
ITEM #2: BBC:
Open skies deal comes into effectITEM #3: INTERNAL SECURITY IN EUROPE IS GETTING WEAKER:
The long-awaited "open skies" agreement between the US and European Union is coming into effect, aiming to open up trans-Atlantic air travel.
The deal ends limits on which airlines can fly between the US and EU, and it is expected to lead to a large rise in the number of carriers on the routes.
However, changes at big airports such as Heathrow will be minimised by the limited availability of take-off slots.
New trans-Atlantic services are likely to use smaller airports instead.
Irish low-cost airline Ryanair has already declared an interest in flying to North America.
Lower prices?
Analysts say the introduction of more competition will bring down prices, but that reductions will be limited unless the current high price of aviation fuel also goes down.
Ryanair jet
A key component of the new aviation agreement between the EU and the US is that any European airline will be able to fly to the US from anywhere in the EU - not just from its home nation.
British Airways and Air France have already announced their intention to launch flights to the US from outside the UK and France respectively.
But European airlines also want access to domestic airline routes in the US, says the BBC's Europe business reporter Duncan Bartlett - flights, say, between New York and Washington.
Europe's Airports Remove Border ChecksITEM #4: THE CHEAPER DOLLARS MEANS EUROPEAN TO USA TRAVEL WILL CONTINUE TO BALLOON...
Passport-free travel in Europe has expanded further as border checks at airports in nine mainly former Communist countries have disappeared. ... Sunday's move allows 400 million people unlimited travel in what is known as the "Schengen zone."
Starting Sunday, citizens of Europe's 24-country "Schengen zone" are no longer required to undergo passport checks at airports in Malta and eight other European Union countries that joined the EU in 2004. Among them are ex-communist Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
The Schengen zone takes its name from a village in Luxembourg where five founder-member governments agreed in 1985 to abolish border controls. It is now comprised of 22 EU member states plus non-EU nations, Iceland and Norway.
Land and maritime border controls had already been abolished among all the EU member countries, allowing Europeans to travel from Norway to Portugal without a single border check.
European Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot suggests the removal of airport controls will revolutionize air travel for some 400 million people.
He says, "The enlargement of the Schengen area to 24 states will mean that passengers within that zone can now freely travel without submitting to any kind of formality."
... Putting strains on our ability to effectively check who is entering.
ITEM #5: THE USA IS AWARE WE NEED BETTER INTEL ON EUROPEANS ENTERING THE USA, BUT THE INTEL WE NEED IS STILL NOT AVAILABLE; (2/11/08):
Bush orders clampdown on flights to USTHE USA HAD BETTER GET A HANDLE ON THIS ASAP.
EU officials furious as Washington says it wants extra data on all air passengers
Bush administration is calling for armed air marshals on transatlantic flights. Photograph: Eric Meola/Getty Images
The US administration is pressing the 27 governments of the European Union to sign up for a range of new security measures for transatlantic travel, including allowing armed guards on all flights from Europe to America by US airlines.
The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington's requirements.
According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said.
And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days.
The data from the US's new electronic transport authorisation system is to be combined with extensive personal passenger details already being provided by EU countries to the US for the "profiling" of potential terrorists and assessment of other security risks.
Washington is also asking European airlines to provide personal data on non-travellers - for example family members - who are allowed beyond departure barriers to help elderly, young or ill passengers to board aircraft flying to America, a demand the airlines reject as "absurd".
Seven demands tabled by Washington are contained in a 10-page "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) that the US authorities are negotiating or planning to negotiate with all EU governments, according to ministers and diplomats from EU member states and senior officials in Brussels. The Americans have launched their security drive with some of the 12 mainly east European EU countries whose citizens still need visas to enter the US.
"The Americans are trying to get a beefing up of their visa-waiver programmes. It's all contained in the MOU they want to put to all EU member states," said a diplomat from a west European country. "It's a very delicate problem."
WILL AMERICA ELECT A MAN WHO MARCHED WITH FARRAKHAN?
AMERICA'S FUTURE?
This is the photograph that the Washington Post chose to illustrate a story about John Edwards praising both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack [middle name redacted] Obama:
In 2008, the burka is optional. But if the Gramscian leftists who dominate the Democratic Party have their way, America may be so weakened that the burka will be mandatory at some point in the sadly easily foreseeable future.
In 2008, the burka is optional. But if the Gramscian leftists who dominate the Democratic Party have their way, America may be so weakened that the burka will be mandatory at some point in the sadly easily foreseeable future.
DEREK JETER VERSUS BARACK OBAMA
Here's a picture of DerekJeter's family - his white American mom, his black/African-American pop, and his sis.
Derek is half white American and half African-American.
Barack Hussein Obama Junior had a father who was an African - from Kenya, NOT African-American.
His mother was a white American.
Here are pictures of them; (FUNNY: I could not find a single picture of the three of them together. WEIRD! What does THAT means!?)
Derek's ethnicity is NOT the same as Barack's. Derek's father was a descendant of the African's brought here against their will; Barack's WAS NOT.
Derek's parents stayed together and raised him and his sister as AMERICANS. Derek is one of the greatest athletes ever to play OUR NATIONAL PAST-TIME.
Barack was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia. He struggled with his identity until his conversion by Jeremiah Wright. Some say Wright didn't convert him to Christianity, but actually made Barack an African-American. The "Black Liberation Theology" practiced at Obama's church would seem to back this up.
Barack's greatest accomplishment has been his ability to make African-Americans think he's one of them - even though he is NOT the descendant of slaves, even though his ancestors were NEVER victims of segregation or Jim Crow, and even though his parents NEVER took part in the Civil Rights Movement.
He is in the process of fooling white Americans about more than his identity; he is fooling many about his political ideology.He is running as a uniter and a doer, even though he is the most liberal Senator currently serving, and one who has NOTHING top show for his entire term to date: HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING.
And despite the fact that he has UNITED nothing and no one.
The core of Barack's identity really is this: he is a sly sweet-talking LIAR and a thoroughly corrupt Chicago politician, who is a member of a racist church, who is also a hard-core leftist who has already begun to list the taxes he will increase.
SECRETARY OF STATE RICE INITIALLY DIDN'T WANT TO MEET WITH NETANYAHU...
But now, fortunately, she's agreed to do so (H/T: One Jerusalem). However, this latest attempted snub of an opposition leader is reminiscient of prior reports that Dubya didn't want to meet with opposition leaders when he came to Israel, and only makes the administration, and the State Dept, look more absurd.
Update: read also this article at National Review Online by Rafael Medoff (also via One Jerusalem) about how the State Dept. once again ignored Mahmoud Abbas' vile anti-semitism.
Update: read also this article at National Review Online by Rafael Medoff (also via One Jerusalem) about how the State Dept. once again ignored Mahmoud Abbas' vile anti-semitism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)