September 30, 2007

Bush Administration Suing Illinois Over Refusal to Help Enforce Immigration Laws

Perhaps Bush is finally getting serious about immigration?

From the Federalist Patriot:

The Bush administration may``finally`` be getting embarrassed over the flouting of immigration laws. They are suing Illinois over a new state law barring employers from voluntarily accessing a national database to verify that workers are legally present within the U.S. Ever notice how most of those favoring unfettered illegal entry across our nation’s borders will resort to any ``heads we win, tails you lose``rationale? These defenders of the border-breaking ``culture of lawlessness`` contend that immigration is a matter for the federal government and that states and localities may not enforce any immigration laws at all, but then they turn around and claim that states and localities may legitimately enact laws protecting illegal aliens against enforcement of immigration laws.

Does is surprise anyone that a state controlled largely by Democrats would try to prevent border enforcement?  They want to create a new plantation class for their party, and they don`t care if they wreck the country to do it.  Illinois is full of illegals; I went to Rockford a year ago and could barely find any spoken English.  Why?  Because Chicago  and the outlying vicinity has been a magnet for illegals, and the state of Illinois has turned a blind eye to the problem.  How many of these illegals voted in the last election? 

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Divest in Iran

There is a move afoot to pressure businesses to divest in Iran.  Dick Morris and Eileen McGann penned a piece for the New York Post discussing the issue.  Here`s a small sample:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to sign a new law aimed at banning Golden State public pension funds - which includes the two largest ones in America - from investing in companies that are involved in developing Iranian petroleum or natural-gas resources. Florida's public-employee-retirement fund is divesting nearly $1.3 billion invested with 21 companies doing business in Iran or Sudan. (California already hit Sudan's pocketbook last year.) Missouri and Louisiana have similar policies in place.

The blow to Iran's rulers should be huge. The California system alone has assets totaling $350 billion - much of it invested in companies that do business with Iran such as Sieman's, Total, Respol and Shell.

Here in New York, state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has total power over the state pension funds. He could add materially to the pressure on Iran simply by the stroke of a pen. City Comptroller William Thompson Jr. could help, by pushing to move Gotham pension funds away from Iranian-investing companies.

City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) is sponsoring a resolution calling on the state and the city to disinvest in companies that do business with Iran. He says that more than $100 billion of the holdings by New York public pension funds are invested directly or indirectly in Iran.

*********************************

It`s about time, isn`t it? 

Hat tip; Jack Kemp

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Al Gore Quack-up (Ducks Open Debate)

If Al Gore is so convinced he is correct, why is he ducking open debate?

From Tech Central Station:


Gore Dodges Repeated Calls to Debate Global Warming
 
By Bonner R. Cohen Ph.D. : BIO| 28 Sep 2007
 
As over 150 heads of state and government gather at UN headquarters in New York to discuss climate change, former Vice President Al Gore, the most prominent proponent of the theory of the human-induced, catastrophic global warming, continues to refuse repeated challenges to debate the issue.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who addressed the General Assembly on climate change September 24, is but the latest global warming skeptic to receive the cold shoulder from Gore. In ads appearing in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times, Klaus has called on Gore to face him in a one-on-one debate on the proposition: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." Earlier in the year, similar challenges to Gore were issued by Dennis Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. All calls on the former vice president to face his critics have fallen on deaf ears.

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free-market think tank, launched the debate campaign in April, using ads, press releases, and other tactics to prod Gore into confronting those who reject his alarmist views on global warming.

For his part, President Klaus has not minced words on what he sees as the real agenda of those promoting climate hysteria. In an op-ed in the Financial Times (June 13, pointedly titled "Freedom, Not Climate, is at Risk," Klaus said: "Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives." Arguing that the issue of global warming "is more about social than about natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature," Klaus rejected the notion of a "scientific consensus" on climate change as an effort by a "loud minority" to impose its will on a "silent majority."

However, Klaus reserved his unkindest cut of all for the movement that has joined forces with Gore is spreading fear about global warming:

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Gore's refusal to take on the likes of Klaus, Avery and Lord Monckton is no isolated incident of the former vice president's lacking the courage of his convictions. In June, Professor Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania urged Gore to put his global warming money where his mouth is. Armstrong, one of the world's leading experts on forecasting, has studied the forecasts made by Gore and such organizations as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and found their methodology wanting.

Convinced that Gore and the IPCC are overstating how much temperatures will rise in the years to come, Armstrong has challenged Gore to the following wager: Each man bets $10,000 on how much temperatures will go up in the next ten years. The money will stay in escrow until 2017. The one whose forecast come closer to the actual change in temperature will be declared the winner and be allowed to donate the $20,000 plus accumulated interest to the charity of his choice. But despite being flush with cash from his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," and from lucrative speaking engagements around the world, Gore has not taken Armstrong up on the bet.

Gore's reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the - from the standpoint of climate change alarmists - unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a "crisis." At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.

Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and author of "The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences, published by the Capital Research Center.
 

Muchas Gracious, Wil Wirtanen
 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.

Heisenberg is Wrecking Our Computers!

There is a principle in quantum physics, one which has had enormous philosophical implications about the nature of our Universe.  Werner  Heisenberg first stated this principle of indeterminacy in 1927:

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.

He was studying subatomic particles, and it became apparent that it was impossible to know both the energy state and position of a particle at that level; to measure the energy state would change the position and vice versa. In fact, certain pairs of properties in general cannot be measured at the same time, and Heisenberg first pointed this out. There were things that were not only unknown, but unkowable.

This offended Albert Einstein who famously stated ``God does not play dice with the Universe`` and who, in answer to Niels Bohr, devised a thought experiment in which he postulated a box full of light, measured the properties of the box, then cracked it open to allow just one photon to leave and then remeasured the properties of the box.  In this way he could (purely theoretically) measure the box`s energy state and it`s mass, thus getting both properties at the same time.  Bohrs pointed out that the escape of one photon changed the temporal nature of the box-something straight out of Einstein`s Special Theory of Relativity.  The measurements would be off, since time, or the synchronization of the clocks, had been subtly disturbed by the movement of the photon.  Einstein remained a skeptic for the remainder of his life.

But the Indeterminacy Principle goes much farther; it became apparent that the basic behavior of things that we take for granted work differently at the quantum level.  We call an electron a particle, but it actually is a probability, a ``most likely`` spot on a wave-front.  (Matter has a wave nature as well as a particulate, and any time you move you have a wave length-a very, very short wavelength. That wave length becomes more pronounced as the mass of an object shrinks, and at the level of electrons-or smaller particles-it becomes more obvious. (The Copenhagenists consider that wave nature to be primarily a useful tool to understanding what is happening, but doubts the ultimate reality of the wave function.)  As a result, quantum physicists came to realize that there is no ``here`` when discussing subatomic particles, and that an electron can, in fact, be in two places at the same time. 

It became apparent that in the perceptual Universe an event both occurs and does not occur; an electron can be at point a and point b at the same time. It can both go through an opening and not go through an opening simultaneously. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (so named because it was devised in Copenhagen by Heisenberg and Bohrs

This bothered Erwin Schrodinger, who came up with his own thought experiment.  Imagine a cat being placed in a box and, well, we`ll let Dr. Schrodinger tell it:

``One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.`` 

Schrodinger`s point was that reality is there whether we know it or not.  The Indeterminacy Principle applies strictly at the subatomic level, and it has to do with our abilities to manipulate nature adequately to get proper experimental results.

This is profoundly important to understanding the limits of nanotechnology; there is a certain point after which we can no longer adequately manipulate things because we run up against Indeterminacy. Micro-miniaturization-the key to the modern electronics revolution and the genesis of computer technology, is on the verge of bumping up against this limit, and the fact that a particle no longer has solid definition means it is increasingly difficult to continue improving computer technology.

David from Ultima Thule sends along this fine article on the ``End of Technology Maxim`` by Intel`s Gordon Moore. More thinks we can continue only for another 10 years or so before it becomes impossible-thanks to Quantum Indeterminacy-to make any more advances.

Of course, people have been predicting that for a long time, and new ways are found to finess the problem.  David kindly e-mailed me a response from a friend of his (a person who was high in the computer industry) to this piece:

Well, the exciting thing is nobody, including Gordon Moore, knows what is going to happen when we actually do "run out of room." As it says in the article, many people including Moore have predicted this "end-of-life" several times in the last 40 years. And it has not happened yet. The element described in the article, hafnium, did not exist 10 years ago. Or, at least, not in its current usable form. Back in the days when we had silicon as a substrate it had certain mathematical properties which were inviolable. But everybody stared at silicon as though it were the only possible substrate. And then someone came up with gallium arsenide for a substrate and away we went with another galloping run at doubling the numbers of gates per square inch. 10 years from now, or 5 or 15, we will bump up against another roadblock. And then, whether it be Yankee ingenuity or guidance by the Holy Spirit or pure happenstance, something else will develop. But there is nobody on God's green earth today who knows whether it will be 5 or 15 or 10, or what we will do at that time. As a matter of fact there's nobody in God's green earth today who knows for an absolute fact whether or not they will wake up tomorrow morning.
This is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.
In His Loving Grip,

Indeed!  The old adage ``laws are made to be broken`` has always been applicable to technology, and many things considered impossible we now take for granted.  (Spaceflight is a classic example.) I suspect we`ll find some new ways to circumvent the problem, discover new ways or discover new science which will allow us to continue. 

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to show how something as remote to the everyday as quantum physics actually affects us in ``real life``.  It turns out that Heisenberg may stop our ability to improve computers, and that is an interesting point. 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1260 words, total size 8 kb.

September 28, 2007

Ignorance of History on College Campuses

Americans are woefully ignorant of history-either their own or anybody else`s, for that matter.  This historical ignorance makes college kids easy prey for radical professors, who convince them that black is white simply by ignoring the history of the thing in question.  Consider the current ``Che Guevera`` t-shirt fads, or the nostalgia for Communism in fashion on College Re-education Campuses; this sort of thing can only be appealing to those completely ignorant of the horrendous suffering imposed by the communists in the name of the Revolution.  Consider how many people erroneously believe that Columbus ``proved`` to an ignorant world that the Earth was round (everyone knew that, and knew Columbus had seriously miscalculated the circumference of that round world) or that the Crusades were an example of racist colonial oppression by Europe over a peaceful indiginous people.

I was arguing with a Democrat college student who said that REPUBLICANS tried to fill Kansas with pro-slavery people to make it into a slave state!  He didn`t have the foggiest idea of what had occured in Bleeding Kansas, that the Republicans were born as an anti-slavery party, and that their first Presidential candidate (Freemont) ran in 1856. 

I suspect he is pretty much par for the course among college kids these days. History has become much like George Orwell`s vision; malleable to the current whims of those who control the dissemination of information.  In short, Americans have become so ignorant of history that they can no longer differentiate fantasy from reality.  This fits liberal purposes completely, since theirs has always been a philosophy which believes in molding humanity into something new, and that requires a break with the past.  It doesn`t just affect the humanities; Darwinists and other left-wing science types use the trial of Galileo and the argument over Copernicanism to recruit kids by telling them that an evil Church sought to repress the light of the mind, a light which you, too, can share if you join our cause. They greatly distort what had happened (Galileo`s ``and yet it moves`` muttered while on bended knee is one of the great works of fiction) to suite their own purposes.

Ignorance of where one has been makes it difficult to know where one is going.  America is in an historical emergency, and it bodes quite ill for the future.

Don`t believe me?  Read this piece from Townhall below (hat tip to my brother Brian):

By Matthew Ladner

Few Yale seniors, it turns out, know which American President created the New Deal. Even fewer would know which one said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." It was Thomas Jefferson, and he and the other founders recognized that our system of ordered liberty would endure only if its citizens understood the nation's guiding principles.

The endurance of American democracy depends upon a broad knowledge of the nation’s history and an understanding of our institutions. Unfortunately, a lack of civic literacy abounds at the k-12 and university levels.

The National Center for Education Statistics administered a grade-level appropriate civics exam to a nationally representative sample of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders in 2006. The percentage of students "demonstrating solid competency over the subject matter" was 25 percent of fourth graders, 24 percent of eighth graders, and 32 percent of twelfth graders.

The percentage of students scoring below even partial mastery of the material was 27 percent, 30 percent and 34 percent respectively. At every grade level tested, more students failed the exam than demonstrated a solid mastery.

Cue the predictable response: we all know that our k-12 schools under-perform, but luckily, we make up for it with the best system of higher education in the world. Well, not so much these days.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute recently released The Coming Crisis in Citizenship: Higher Education's Failure to Teach America's History and Institutions. The study surveyed 14,000 randomly selected college freshmen and seniors at 50 colleges and universities to measure their knowledge of four subjects: American history; government; America and the world; and the market economy.

The researchers found unsettling results. The average score, had the survey been an exam, was an F, with only 53 percent of items answered correctly. Worse still, there was little evidence of students having gained any knowledge on these subjects, as the seniors outscored the freshmen by only 1.5 percent. At many of the universities, including elite institutions such as Brown, Georgetown, and Yale, seniors knew less about these subjects than the freshmen. The researchers dubbed this phenomenon "negative learning gains."

Sadly, the news gets worse.

The American Institutes for Research (AIR) recently assessed the literacy of 1,800 graduating seniors from 80 randomly selected two- and four-year colleges and universities. What they found was not pretty.

Twenty percent of U.S. college students completing four-year degrees have only what the researchers describe as basic quantitative literacy skills, meaning they are unable to estimate if their car has enough gas to get to the next gas station or calculate the total cost of ordering office supplies. The study also finds that more than 50 percent of students at four-year colleges have only the most basic literacy skills, meaning they can't do a basic task like summarize the arguments in a newspaper editorial.

Universities make outlandish claims about spurring economic development and leading the way to a new knowledge economy. Yet somehow in the process, they stopped teaching their students basic civics, or apparently, requiring them to know how to read.

American universities suffer from a deadly combination of an almost complete lack of transparency, massive indirect government subsidies, and inelastic demand. Higher education costs have raced ahead of even health care inflation without any evidence that students are learning more today than they did in the past.

A wise man recently told me that every system is perfectly designed to produce the results it achieves. The higher education system produces a surprisingly high number of semi-literate graduates who know little about their history and government.

A serious reappraisal of higher education policy is long overdue, both at the state and federal levels.
 

(Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute and an expert on educational reform and school choice. Dr. Ladner holds a Ph.D. from the University of Houston)

 


 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1064 words, total size 7 kb.

September 27, 2007

Solar Forcing Ended the Last Ice Age, Not CO2

One of the cornerstones of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theories is that an increase in CO2 levels ended the last ice age.  This has been based on ice core sampling showing that CO2 levels rose about the time world temperatures rose.  Those who favor the AGW theory frequently cite this fact to prove their case that CO2 has a powerful effect on global climate, and that the increase in CO2 during the 20th and 21st centuries bodes quite ill for our future.

Not so!  This new study suggests what many climate scientists and geologists have thought; increases in atmospheric CO2 often follows temperature increases, not the other way around.  It turns out that (drumroll please!) THE SUN was the prime mechanism (or Milankovitch cycles, at least, increased solar forcing). 

Just another spade full of dirt on the AGW coffin!

(Thanks to David from Ultima Thule)


Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age
Media Release, University of California
9-27-07 1400 ET
 
Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records.
"There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change," said USC geologist Lowell Stott, lead author of the study, slated for advance online publication Sept. 27 in Science Express.
"You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages."

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found. The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming and may have accelerated the meltdown - but was not its main cause.

"I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate," Stott cautioned. "It does, but the important point is that CO2 is not the beginning and end of climate change."

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.
The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

"What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2," Stott said.

But where did this energy come from?  Evidence pointed southward.
Water's salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin - and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that deep-sea temperature increases coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere's ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this might be the energy source.

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes ocean water that reflects less light and absorbs more heat, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day.

In addition, the authors' model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, also accelerating the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth's orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemisphere's spring rather than the northern hemisphere's summer.

The conclusions also underscore the importance of regional climate dynamics, Stott said. "Here is an example of how a regional climate response translated into a global climate change," he explained.
Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms.
These organisms - foraminifera - incorporate different isotopes of oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the temperature. By measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and surface ocean temperatures changed through time.

If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.

"The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms," Stott said. The complexities "have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future."

This can be found at Junkscience.com.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 897 words, total size 6 kb.

Media Template Lies and the Jena 6

We have another birds eye view of what is actually happening in Jena.

According to pastor Eddie Thompson:

It has been reported that the school has two standards of justice since white students who attacked a black student were not treated as the black students who attacked a white student. No group of white students attacked a black student at Jena High School. Fights that have occurred have always been handled equally. This was not a fight. This process was taken out of the hands of school officials when the ambulance was called to bring Justin Barker to the hospital for the attack. Both the appearance of the ambulance and Barker’s visit to the emergency room requires an investigation by law enforcement.


National news organizations, which continue to call it a ``fight,`` suggest that there was no reason to involve the District Attorney’s office. If a young female student had been raped in a bathroom on campus, the school officials would do all the investigations required under their policy, but they would also report the crime to law enforcement. Criminals, adults or students, are not allowed to rape or assault students with impunity simply because it happened on a high school campus.


The ``Jena Six`` have repeatedly been held up as heroes by much of the race-based community and called ``innocent students`` by the national media. Some of these students have reputations in Jena for intimidating and sometimes beating other students. They have vandalized and destroyed both school property and community property. Some of the Jena Six have been involved in crimes not only in LaSalle Parish but also in surrounding parishes. For the most part, coaches and other adults have prevented them from being held accountable for the reign of terror they have presided over in Jena. Despite intervention by adults wanting to give them chances due their athletic potential, most of the Jena Six have extensive juvenile records. Yet their parents keep insisting that their children have never been in trouble before. These boys did not receive prejudicial treatment but received preferential treatment until things got out of hand.


The entire black community of Jena is not being heard in this controversy, just the parents, relatives, and close friends of the Jena Six. The black community of Jena has not been involved in the protests and demonstrations called by national race-based organizations. Some state and national race crusaders have chastised them for not “rising up” with the parents to force law enforcement to “free the Jena Six.” Many do agree that the charges seem wrong, but they also know the criminal history of the boys referred to as the “Jena Six.” It is their neighborhood these boys have terrorized. Not even all of the parents claim that these boys should be set free with no consequence for their actions. One of the parents was interviewed, saying that the boys should suffer the fair punishment for their actions. He suggested that simple battery would be an acceptable charge. With one exception, the local black pastors do not support the demonstrations. They have been openly criticized for their lack of cooperation with the national race crusaders. One of them counseled the ``Jena Six`` families to not stir controversy for controversy’s sake. The black pastor was openly condemned by a local radio personality sympathetic to the cause of the black parents. The rhetoric grew so intense that the black pastor was referred to as Reed Walter’s ``house Negro`` on the local radio talk show. The pastor is consistently accused on this show of working in cooperation with Reed Walters in a plot to undermine the ``Jena Six.``

The accounts from people at Jena are very different from the template accounts given by the mainstream media. This is looking more and more like another Duke LaCross rape case.

For more on this, see the following posts by Steve Rankin at Free Citizen:

http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2007/09/all-about-jena-six.html

http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2007/09/jena-six-through-looking-glass.html

http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2007/09/jena-nooses-and-school-beating-not.html

http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2007/09/jena-what-national-media-has-gotten.html

http://southerncrown.blogspot.com/2007/09/jena-louisiana-true-story.html 

Hat tip: Wil Wirtanen

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 666 words, total size 5 kb.

Brzezinski, Carterism and the Iranian Crisis

This from the Federalist Patriot:

When the President flatly asserts [Iran is] seeking nuclear weapons, he’s overstating the facts. We are suspicious, we have strong suspicions, but we don’t have facts that they are. If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us.

The Carter administration’s ``National security advisor`` Zbigniew Brzezinski


***************************

Now, first let me remind you that it was Zbiggie who engineered a policy which ended with Americans held hostage and Iran proliferating terrorism throughout the world.  It was Zbiggie and Carter who pulled the rug out from under the Shah (when told that the Shah was in trouble Carter exclaimed ``f*** the Shah`` and cut off assistance) and opened the door to the Ayatollah.  It was on Zbiggie`s watch that we failed to take steps to protect the Embassy, despite an obvious gathering threat.  It was on Zbiggie`s watch that our Embassy was seized and our people held captive (with one of the ``students`` now being President of the Islamic Republic).  It was under Zbiggie that we mounted a lame ``rescue attempt`` after failing to take any credible steps to get our people back.  It was under Zbiggie that we negotiated and wrung our hands while the Mullahs laughed at us and the Islamic world saw our weakness.  It was under Zbiggie that Iran went from a friend to a terrible enemy, one that would turn terrorism into an international phonomenon.  Why should we listen to this decrepid geezer now?

That said, let us examine the logic here, shall we? 

The learned Doctor says;

`` If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us.``

But if we fail to act and Iran develops nuclear weapons, how much worse a disaster?  I think the worst-case scenario would be smoking pits where once American cities stood.  THAT is what we are trying to prevent, after all.

What would happen in the event of war?  Do we have to fear a more hostile regime taking over?  A greater radicalization?  At this point, just about any change would be an improvement.

Of course, Iran is destabilizing Iraq with weapons, training, equipment, and a sanctuary for our enemies.  We do not act because we don`t want to provoke a war, but we are already IN a state of war with them.  Iraq will be far easier to stabilize if we eliminate Iranian influence there (I have been arguing that since the invasion.)  Iran and Syria are the chief exporters of terrorism and revolution, and they aren`t going to become worse if we fight them.  How is this a disaster for us?

Granted, we are told the Iranian people support us, but we have yet to see this spontaneous rebellion against the Mullahs.  Perhaps they need a small nudge?  Certainly, our long-term policy has not worked. 

We are in a world war.  We need to understand that fact and deal with our enemies.  Iraq would long since have been stabilized were it not for Iran and Syria-and our ``allies`` Russia and China who supply the Islamists in those hostile states.  What we cannot do is continue on this road of limited engagement; it does not work.  America is not a nation capable of playing at endless war.  We either need to fight or not fight, and efforts at ``police actions`` are bound to fail.  Iraq will fail if we do not take action against Iran and Syria.  That should have been plain from the moment those towers fell in New York. 

I can`t imagine anybody thinking that Alphabet Soup Brzezinski has any credibility whatsoever-but then, Carter is now thought to have been a great president.  Go figure!

 

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 660 words, total size 4 kb.

September 26, 2007

Biological Hazards in Space

Space travel is dangerous; of that there can be no dispute.  Advocates of a manned mission to Mars often gloss over the dangers and difficulties, prefering to look at the matter in the spirit of pioneerism and adventure.  While I would love to see a manned mission to Mars, I think it would be an unwise move at this juncture; there are too many unresolved issues to be spending the time necessary to get there, stay a few weeks, and return home.

Better to simply build a permanent station there.  Still, the dangers of traveling to Mars are many and varied; the astronauts will be exposed to high doses of radiation (the space station is protected by Earth`s magnetic field), dangers from unseen meteoroids, prolonged exposure to zero G, etc.  No help will be available; the mission will be unable to simply return home, as the space station crew can do now.

I advocate building a lunar colony first; work out the bugs in a similar environment closer to home.  A Moon colony would be a far-flung suburb of Earth, within easy reach of the mother world.  I don`t think it logical to rush off to Mars when we have a perfectly good world (albeit a bit dry) 250,000 miles above us.  Mars will be more expensive, more difficult, and more isolated.  Lack of a magnetic field and the thin atmosphere (7 millibars) means that any permanent settlers would have to live underground anyway, and limit their exposure to the surface thanks to normal radiation dangers and solar flares. We should make a dry run (pun intended) on the Moon first.

Oh, and a lunar colony can be a source of raw materials for the construction of space stations and space craft, saving huge amounts of money.  It is far, far easier to life material off the Moon than from Earth.

That said, another danger has become apparent in a long deep-space journey; bacteria.

According to this article from Space.com:

A germ that causes food poisoning and other illnesses can be three times more dangerous in space than on the ground, an experiment has shown.

The finding spells out tougher challenges for astronauts taking trips to the moon or Mars, as recent work also hints that the body's immune system weakens during extended stays in space.

"Space flight alters cellular and physiological responses in astronauts including the immune response," said Cheryl Nickerson, a microbiologist at Arizona State University and leader of the experiment. "However, relatively little was known about microbial changes to infectious disease risk in response to space flight."

NASA's STS-115 space shuttle mission, launched in September 2006, carried Nickerson and her colleague's Salmonella typhimurium bacterial experiment into space while her group conducted an identical experiment on Earth. Their findings are detailed in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Interesting, no?  (This could certainly be used as evidence by advocates of Panspermia, the theory that life migrated here from space.)  Bacteria (well, at least Salmonella bacterium) becomes tougher  while the human immune system becomes weaker.  This suggests a mission to Mars may more difficult than we thought.

Also, it should be pointed out that the bacteria in a Mars ship will be subject to mutation-generating radiation, and one must question what that will bring.  Perhaps a simple colon bacterium will mutate into a killer? 

That is not to say we shouldn`t go to Mars; on the contrary, we need to learn about these things now, rather than learn them the hard way later.  That`s why I advocate more development in the Earth system; more space stations and a permanent Lunar colony.  Let`s learn what we need to know before exposing ourselves to these dangers.  We will eventually need to colonise Mars (and other planets in the Solar System) if only to offer our species a sense of hope, the knowledge that a frontier still exists.  Mars could one day be the New Earth, but we should not make the mistake we made with the Apollo program; go and never return.  We need a longer-term effort, a permanent presence.

Still, it would be very helpful to know that the first astronauts who go on such a trip will survive.  A little more knowledge would be helpful.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 5 kb.

Columbia Hosted Nazis in 1933

Jack Kemp (not the politician) notes that Columbia University tried the same thing with the Nazis that they did with ``Doc Ock`` Ahmidenejad. Didn`t work then, and won`t work now:

Tim, Dr. Candace deRussy noted this website finding in her PhiBetaCon piece today. Dialogue didn't work then either. I once wrote a blog piece at AT where I said that nothing will rise to the level of Hitler in the liberal's eyes. Apparently even Hitler didn't rise to the level of Hitler. Maybe the leftists now oppose Hitler because he attacked the Soviet Union.
Jack


http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/42946.html
Roundup: Historians' Take
Rafael Medoff: Columbia ``Invites Hitler to Campus`` --As it Did in 1933
Source: Released by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies (9-20-07)

[Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, www.WymanInstitute.org)]

Columbia University has invited a representative of the world’s most antisemitic regime to speak on its campus.  This week’s news?  Try 1933.

Seventy years before this week’s invitation to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Columbia rolled out the red carpet for a senior official of Adolf Hitler’s regime. The invitation to Iran’s leader may seem less surprising, but no less disturbing, when one recalls that in 1933, Columbia president Nicholas Murray Butler invited Nazi Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Hans Luther, to speak on campus, and also hosted a reception for him.  Luther represented "the government of a friendly people," Butler insisted. He was "entitled to be received ... with the greatest courtesy and respect."  Ambassador Luther's speech focused on what he characterized as Hitler's peaceful intentions.  Students who criticized the Luther invitation were derided as ``ill-mannered children`` by the director of Columbia’s Institute of Arts and Sciences.

Columbia also insisted on maintaining friendly relations with Nazi-controlled German universities.  While Williams College terminated its program of student exchanges with Nazi Germany, Columbia and other universities declined to do likewise.  Columbia refused to pull out even after a German official candidly asserted that his country’s students were being sent abroad to serve as ``political soldiers of the Reich.``

In 1936, the Columbia administration announced it would send a delegate to Nazi Germany to take part in the 550th anniversary celebration of the University of Heidelberg.  This, despite the fact that Heidelberg already had been purged of Jewish faculty members, instituted a Nazi curriculum, and hosted a burning of books by Jewish authors.  Prof. Arthur Remy, who served as Columbia’s delegate to the Heidelberg event, later remarked that the reception at which chief book-burner Josef Goebbels presided was ``very enjoyable.``

"Academic relationships have no political implications," President Butler claimed.  Many Columbia students and faculty members disagreed.  More than one thousand of them, including Nobel Laureate Harold Urey and world-renowned anthropologist Franz Boas, signed a petition opposing the decision to participate in Heidelberg.  The student newspaper, The Spectator, also opposed it.  Students held a "Mock Heidelberg Festival" on campus, complete with a bonfire and mock book burning.  "Butler Diddles While the Books Burn," their signs proclaimed.

That was followed by a student rally in front of Butler's mansion.  Butler was furious that a leader of the rally, Robert Burke, "delivered a speech in which he referred to the President [Butler] disrespectfully."  As punishment, Burke was expelled from Columbia.  He was never readmitted, even though he had excellent grades and had been elected president of his class, and even though Columbia’s own attorney later acknowledged that ``the evidence that Burke himself used bad language is slight.``

Eventually, in the late 1930s, Butler would change his position and speak out against the Nazis.  Unfortunately, it was too late to undo the damage he already had done by helping to legitimize the Hitler regime.

As Prof. Stephen Norwood of the University of Oklahoma has found in his research on the academic community’s response to Hitler in the 1930s, Columbia was not the only prominent U.S. university to behave shamefully with regard to the Nazis.  Harvard hosted a visit by Hitler’s foreign press spokesman, Ernst ``Putzi`` Hanfstaengl.  American University chancellor Joseph Gray visited and praised Nazi Germany.  MIT Dean Harold Lobdell personally tore down posters for a rally against a Nazi warship docked in Boston’s harbor, and MIT participated in a 1937 celebration at the Nazi-controlled University of Goettingen.  Yale, Princeton, Bryn Mawr, and others continued student exchanges with Nazi Germany into the late 1930s, and more than twenty U.S. colleges and universities took part in the 1936 Heidelberg event.

But Columbia is unique in one important respect.  Its administration alone seems to have learned so little from the mistakes of the 1930s that it is prepared to welcome the leader of yet another antisemitic, terrorist regime.

According to Israel’s ambassador, inviting Ahmadinejad to speak is the equivalent of ``inviting Hitler to [speak] in the 1930s,`` because ``appeasing fanatics and granting them legitimacy leads to genocide and war.``  Will some future Columbia president one day look back at the invitation to Ahmadinejad and say the same thing?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 6 kb.

September 25, 2007

Attack on U.S. Satellite by Russia or China

In a September 20 story, the Bolshevik newspaper Pravda reported that a U.S. spy satellite crashed in Peru. I could not find any other source for this article, and take it with a grain of salt.

If true, what does it mean?  It means that either the Russians or Chinese have shot down our satellite, that`s what.  Russia developed a satellite killer in the `90`s, and the Chinese have been on the verge of developing one for the last year or so.  , and

What this means is that somebody is very concerned about a U.S. strike on Iran, which, of course, means that our ``friends`` are actively aiding the Iranians.  Iran has been supplying and protecting the insurgents in Iraq as well as working feverishly on nuclear weapons.  Obviously, either our good friend Putin or the Chi-Coms have committed an act of war. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed everyone thought the battle was over.  Remember ``The End of History`` by Francis Fukuyama?  We ``ain`t gonna study war no more`` seemed to be the popular belief.  From such illusions come disaster, and the 9/11 attacks were a direct result of America standing down in the wake of the Soviet demise.  We became careless and sloppy (even worse than Sandy Burger, who was at the helm of our national defense strategy during the Clinton era) and worried more about who was fellating Bill and how we could make rich people pay for everyone`s health care.

Half of the country awoke when the 9/11 attacks hit, but the other half, still furious over their failure to steal the election of 2000 refused to admit we had a problem.  Well, we do, and the Russians and Chinese are both a big part of it. 

If somebody is shooting down our satellites, it means they are testing to see what they can accomplish.  Why do that?  It suggests to me that someone may want to disable our command and control abilities.  Everything we do depends on our satellite system; if an enemy can take that system down we are going to be in dire straits.  Testing such capabilities suggests malevolent motives.  It`s clear that one of our good friends has it in their minds to thwart our abilities to defend against the Mullahs.

World War is much closer than everyone thinks. 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

Nasa`s James Hansen Funded by Soros

I`ve always said that the Anthropegenic Global Warming movement is more about a political vision than about science.  Furthermore, the Gang Green (AGW alarmists) have vociferously accused the ``climate change deniers`` of being corrupt toadies of the oil industry, while they themselves are pure in their motives.  Well, well, well, what have we here?  Turns out that one of the top GW alarmists-Nasa`s James Hansen-has been funded (and quite heavily) by none other than George Soros, the patron of Moveon.org and as red a capitalist as one can find.

Courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

The Soros Threat To Democracy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.

Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.

"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.

That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 5 kb.

No Intelligence Allowed; the Agenda of the Darwinian Machine

I know that whenever I write anything about Darwinism my hits will double; the Darwin crowd, in spite of calling me a fool and idiot, are very concerned with what I am saying.  They post links to whatever post I happen to write at their HQ sites (such as Panda`s Thumb, Talk Origins, Anti-Evolution) and come over to see what I have to say. They no longer leave many comments; at least that much can be said.  I generally pick my fights with them judiciously.  (It helps that they have made total fools of themselves on occasion, as people who are more partisans than scientists will do.)  Their goals are to tie their enemies up in endless squabbling, to play sleight-of-hand to keep readers from following what those enemies (and they are enemies to this bunch) are saying, to obfuscate and confuse rather than to open an honest dialogue.  They are propogandists.  I like to call them Evo-fascists, because they are Darwin`s Brownshirts.

I am hardly alone in this.  P.Z. Myers, the Imam of the Darwinian Jihad, regularly excoriates people who disagree with his holy vision. In fact, he is so vicious that he has been sued by a friend of the late Stephan Jay Gould for liable and slander.  (If they would have opened it up to a class-action the numbers would probably have grown greater than the population of Arkansas.)  Anyone who dares challenge Darwin`s theory of perpetual motion finds themselves under a blistering assault by this bunch.  They watch websites and storm in to silence those who disagee with them.

Is that the mark of rational scientific disagreement?  Do we see this with, say, those who still believe in the Steady State theory of the Universe rather than the Big Bang?  People will dismiss the Steady Staters, but won`t become all a-lather about them.  There is something different about Darwin, something that brings out the absolute worst in his defenders.  What could that be?

It is, of course, Atheism.  As a substitute religion, the atheists believe in the supremecy of Nature as the totality of existence.  They are, in effect, nature worshippers.  They have rejected the Creator and worship the Creature.  They will never admit to such a thing, but it`s true none the less, and they know it in their hearts. The point is, Atheism can only be defended by an appeal to the natural world, and Darwin gave them the tool they needed to defend that particular worldview.  The believer in a transcendent God doesn`t care who wins the argument, because God can do things any way He likes, but an atheist is bound by the experiential, and the Darwin debate is absolutely critical to his Kampf; there can be no challenge allowed to the Catechism.

David from Ultima Thule forwarded this to me.  I could easily have been interviewed by Ben Stein for this film:


Ben Stein exposes the frightening agenda of the Darwinian Machine in new movie
ASSIST News Service ^ | September 20, 2007 | Michael Ireland

Posted on 09/20/2007 7:12:00 PM PDT by AngieGal

Ben Stein exposes the frightening agenda of the Darwinian Machine in new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, coming February, 2008
By Michael Ireland Chief Correspondent, ASSIST News Service
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (ANS) -- Ben Stein, the highly recognizable television personality, actor and former White House presidential speech writer, is on a journey to answer one of the biggest questions ever asked: "Were we designed or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?" EXPELLED movie poster.
Stein, who is also a lawyer, an economist, an author and social commentator, is stunned by what he finds on his journey. He discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma.
But even worse, along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection.
``Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,`` says Stein. ``Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.``
In "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," in theaters February, 2008, Stein discovers a High School science educator who teaches a theory as indisputable fact and reveals that university professors unmercifully crush any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief.
A news release about the movie explains: "This isn’t the latest Hollywood comedy; it’s a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all conservative leaders, those who believe Creationism to be true and scientists are free to follow the evidence and their own personal faith wherever it may lead."
Expelled uncovers that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of ``design`` in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance.
For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double PhD biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings.
Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution where Sternberg was a research fellow began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.
On his journey, Stein meets other scientists such as astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of his extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. There are others, such as Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian Theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe. The list goes on and on.
Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn’t just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education.
The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.
``The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ‘shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,`` said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-executive producer.
People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth," Ruloff said.
The film is being marketed by Motive Entertainment, the company that has spearheaded significant Hollywood blockbusters, including The Passion of the Christ, Polar Express and The Chronicles of Narnia. Rocky Mountain Pictures, an established distribution company, which has enjoyed numerous box-office successes, will distribute the film.
The extensive grass roots campaign for Expelled, spearheaded by Motive Entertainment president Paul Lauer, will include nationwide screenings and endorsements with key leaders, promotional materials, a promotional resource DVD, publicity, radio promotions and Internet. In addition, a pre-launch campaign will include unprecedented partnerships and a widespread campaign together with educators, youth, scientists, families and the media nationwide.
Premise Media Corporation develops, finances and produces independent films, books and DVD's for the domestic and international marketplace, "Producing world class media that stirs the heart and inspires the mind to truth, purpose and hope." Company principals and producers Logan Craft and Walt Ruloff can be contacted via its website (www.premisemedia.com).
Los Angeles-based Motive Entertainment, which directed the grassroots marketing campaigns for Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, the Tom Hanks/Robert Zemeckis film Polar Express and the record-breaking Walden Media/Disney epic series, The Chronicles of Narnia, is a leading company in film and entertainment marketing (www.motivemarketing.biz).
Specializing in the independent motion picture industry, Rocky Mountain Pictures provides full-service theatrical film distribution including strategic marketing development. Principal partners Ron Rodgers and Randy Slaughter each have more than 35 years of theatrical distribution and marketing experience, having previously served in executive positions with some of the largest and most profitable independent production and distribution companies in the U.S. (www.rockymtnpictures.com).
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is scheduled for release in February 2008. For more information on Ben Stein’s journey visit www.expelledthemovie.com. This film is not yet rated.


 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:52 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1527 words, total size 11 kb.

September 24, 2007

The Clinton`s Web of Corruption

In the movie ``Wag the Dog`` the President`s campaign manager invents a war, and creates a fictitious abandoned soldier (``left like an old shoe``) named Shoeman.  I find the irony interesting, as the Clintons frequently opted for ``Wag the Dog`` scenarios and they even have a ``good old Hsu`` in the guise of a Chinese fundraiser.  In this instance the Hsu is on the other foot, and he is more a millstone than an asset.

It turns out that this is a more complex thread of corruption than we had first imagined.  Turns out Hsu has ties to Lillian Vernon`s Fred Hochberg, who has ties to NYC`s New School. This from our good friend Jack Kemp:

Tim, I think this account of college trustees at New York City's New School (former Sen. Bob Kerrey [D-Nebraska] is President) involved with Hillary's shading contributions is worth a look. From Suitably Flip http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitably_flip/2007/09/hsocking-hsu-se.html
 
and the Doug Ross @ Journal blog site http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/09/hillary-in-deep-hsit.html .
 
Jack
 
Doug Ross's account:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/09/hillary-in-deep-hsit.html
 
Lillian Vernon is a trinket catalog company... founded by Lillian Hochberg in Mount Vernon, NY (clever, eh?) in 1951. Lillian's son Fred is the current CEO and his brother David is an executive at the company... If you run a search for Fred Hochberg's own federal political contributions, the telltale Hsu pattern once again emerges.

...Fred Hochberg... [is] a fellow HillRaiser... Hochberg is also a dean at the New School, where Hsu was a trustee until this scandal broke last month and the school hurriedly removed his name from their website. Also on the New School board is Bernard Schwartz, one of Bill Clinton's biggest financial backers and the central figure in Clinton's scandal involving the sale of missile technology to China.

Developing...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Hillary Care, the Constitution, and the Rights of Man

This from the Orange County Register courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

Mark Steyn: Bend over for Nurse Hillary
By MARK STEYN

Syndicated columnist

Our theme for today comes from George W Bush: ``Freedom is the desire of every human heart.``
When the president uses the phrase, he’s invariably applying it to various benighted parts of the Muslim world. There would seem to be quite a bit of evidence to suggest that freedom is not the principal desire of every human heart in, say, Gaza or Waziristan. But why start there? If you look in, say, Brussels or London or New Orleans, do you come away with the overwhelming impression that ``freedom is the desire of every human heart``? A year ago, I wrote that the story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government ‘security,’ large numbers of people vote to dump freedom  the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff.
Last week freedom took another hit. Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled her new health care plan. Unlike her old health care plan, which took longer to read than most cancers take to kill you, this one’s instant and painless  just a spoonful of government sugar to help the medicine go down. From now on, everyone in America will have to have health insurance.
Hooray!
And, if you don’t, it will be illegal for you to hold a job.
Er, hang on, where’s that in the Constitution? It’s perfectly fine to employ legions of the undocumented from Mexico, but if you employ a fit 26-year-old American with no health insurance either you or he or both of you will be breaking the law?
That’s a major surrender of freedom from the citizen to the state. ``So what`` says the caring crowd. ``We’ve got to do something about those 40 million uninsured! Whoops, I mean 45 million uninsured. Maybe 50 by now.`` This figure is always spoken of as if it’s a club you can join but never leave: The very first Uninsured-American was ol’ Bud who came back from the Spanish-American War and found he was uninsured and so was first on the list, and then Mabel put her back out doing the Black Bottom at a tea dance in 1926 and she became the second, and so on and so forth, until things really began to snowball under the Bush junta. And, by the time you read this, the number of uninsured may be up to 75 million.
Nobody really knows how many ``uninsured`` there are: Two different Census Bureau surveys conducted in the same year identify the number of uninsured as A) 45 million or B) 19 million. The first figure is the one you hear about, the second figure apparently entered the Witness Protection Program. Of those 45 million ``uninsured Americans,`` the Census Bureau itself says over 9 million aren’t Americans at all, but foreign nationals. They have various health care back-ups: If you’re an uninsured Canadian in Detroit, and you get an expensive chronic disease, you can go over the border to Windsor, Ontario, and re-embrace the delights of socialized health care; if you’re an uninsured Uzbek, it might be more complicated. Of the remaining 36 million, a 2005 Actuarial Research analysis for the Department of Health and Human Services says that another 9 million did, in fact, have health coverage through Medicare.
Where are we now? 27 million? So who are they? Bud and Mabel and a vast mountain of emaciated husks of twisted limbs and shriveled skin covered in boils and pustules? No, it’s a rotating population: People who had health insurance but changed jobs, people who are between jobs, young guys who feel they’re fit and healthy and at this stage of their lives would rather put a monthly health-insurance tab towards buying a home or starting a business or blowing it on booze ’n’ chicks.
That last category is the one to watch: Americans 18-34 account for 18 million of the army of the ``uninsured.`` Look, there’s a 22-year-old, and he doesn’t have health insurance! Oh, the horror and the shame! What an indictment of America!
Well, he doesn’t have life insurance, either, or homeowner’s insurance. He lives a life blessedly free of the tedious bet-hedging paperwork of middle age. He’s 22, and he thinks he’s immortal  and any day now Hillary will propose garnishing his wages for her new affordable mandatory life-insurance plan.
So, out of 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million aren’t American, 9 million are insured, 18 million are young and healthy. And the rest of these poor helpless waifs trapped in Uninsured Hell waiting for Hillary to rescue them are, in fact, wealthier than the general population. According to the Census Bureau’s August 2006 report on Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage, 37 percent of those without health insurance  that’s 17 million people come from households earning more than $50,000. Nineteen percent  8.7 million people  of those downtrodden paupers crushed by the brutal inequities of capitalism come from households earning more than $75,000.
In other words, if they fall off the roof, they can write a check. Indeed, the so-called ``explosion`` of the uninsured has been driven entirely by wealthy households opting out of health insurance. In the decade after 1995  i.e., since the last round of coercive health reform the proportion of the uninsured earning less than $25,000 has fallen by 20 percent, and the proportion earning more than 75 grand has increased by 155 percent. The story of the past decade is that the poor are getting sucked into the maw of ``coverage,`` and the rich are fleeing it. And, given that the cost of health ``insurance`` bears increasingly little relationship to either the cost of treatment or the actuarial reality of you ever getting any particular illness, it’s entirely rational to say: You know what? I’ll worry about that when it happens. In the meantime, I want to start a business and send my kid to school. Freedom is the desire of my human heart even if my arteries get all clogged and hardened.
I was glad, at the end of Hillary Health Week, to see that my radio pal Laura Ingraham’s excellent new book, ``Power To The People,`` has shot into the New York Times bestseller list at No. 1. It takes a fraudulent leftist catchphrase (the only thing you can guarantee about a ``people’s republic`` is that the people are the least of it) and returns it to those who mean it  to those who believe in a nation of free citizens exercising individual liberty to make responsible choices.
Do you remember the so-called ``government surplus`` of a few years ago? Bill Clinton gave a speech in which he said, yes, sure, he could return the money to taxpayers but that we ``might not spend it the right way.`` The American political class has decided that they know better than you the ``right way`` to make health care decisions. Oh, don’t worry, you’re still fully competent to make decisions on what car you drive and what movie you want to rent at Blockbuster.
For the moment.
But when it comes to the grownup stuff, best to leave that to Nurse Hillary

********************************************

A right does not require any action on the part of another.  When we say a person has the right to free speech, we don`t suggest that they can demand time on radio or television.  The right to bear arms doesn`t mean you have to buy a gun for me.  The right to freedom of assembly doesn`t mean I can make you attend.  Yet we are now told that we have ``social rights``, and that those ``rights`` obligate society at large to fulfill them.  Everyone has the right to a home, right?  That means somebody has to provide that for them.  How about the right to food or drink?  Ditto.  The right to an education?  Not only is it unfair for me to provide a free education to somebody else`s child (I have no children and attended private school as a youth) but it imperils MY right to own property, since public schools are funded by property taxes, and if I can`t pony up the money every year the oh-so generous government will sell my house and land at auction.  (Strange, I thought I actually owned the property-turns out the government owns it and I have to pay a yearly stipend to use it!) 

Public schools should be a cautionary tale to the American public; an education on the taxpayer dime, given courtesy of the NEA, is about as usefull as a degree from  Wossamotta U. (that`s Bullwinkle`s Alma Matre, for those who remember the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon.) Most public schools are engaged in babysitting, and little in the way of actual teaching occurs.  Many of the ``teachers`` are barely advanced beyond their charges themselves, and much time is devoted to liberal indoctrination and projects promoting leftist causes. 

So, not being satisfied with destroying the American educational system, the Wilderbeast wants to apply the same methods to health-care.  She wants to force people to buy insurance or be relegated to the public dole.

There is the point; those who will not buy the insurance will be forced into dependence, thus becoming Democrats.  Those who buy their own insurance will be at the mercy of price spikes (since demand will greatly increase) and so the government will artificially hold prices down-making many of those who do purchase this insurance dependent on the government.  Insurance companies will eventually require subsidies to survive, and they will likewise need to crawl to Hillary and company for the table scraps that the Democrats will feed them.  It`s a win-win for the Dems, but a big loser for everyone else.

What Hillary is proposing is Fascism, plain and simple; there will be a veneer of the private sector overlaying what is, essentially, a government-run affair.  Hitler would have admired her acumen.

America must remember her first love.  For over 70 years we have swooned in our crush on big government, while big government has systematically crushed the swooning.  This nation once loved Liberty so much that we were willing to die for it.  We stood against the most powerful army on Earth with squirrel guns, knowing that many would die and likely the rest would hang, yet we did it anyway.  Would Americans have even a fraction of that courage today?  On the contrary, too many Americans rush into the Leviathan`s embrace, giddy with pleasure at the thought of surrendering their freedoms for the security the beast offers.  Like the Morlocks in H.G. Wells` Time Machine, we have grown so complacent that we allow the dark forces beneath us to snatch our own, prefering the leisure and ease provided by our overlords.  Where is the American spirit!  We have traded it for the false promise of security-and we are preparing to trade even more.

We have a right to be uninsured.  This is not like auto insurance, which one must have to indemnify anyone we should wrong by our actions.  This is different because it forces us to do something solely for OUR OWN benefit-not to protect the rights of others.  Government`s job is to protect people from having their rights stolen, not to provide those rights.  If government provides rights it means government owns those rights, which makes them priveledges granted.  You have the right to life, and government punishes those who would steal that right.  You do not have a right to an all-you-can-eat buffet.

I hope America realizes this, and sends Mrs. Clinton an old fashioned Lexington and Concord rebuke!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1965 words, total size 12 kb.

September 22, 2007

Seperation of Church and State Tax Exemption

This from Jack Kemp:

Perhaps this where the money for Hillary's health care proposals will come from.
 
Columnist Maggie Galligher points out http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucmg/20070919/cm_ucmg/cannewjerseypunishmethodistsformarriage
the left's newest way to attack religious institutions and deny their traditional status as tax exempt institutions. Citing two instances, one in New Jersey, where
 
"For the first time, a religious organization in New Jersey is being punished by the government because it refused to permit same-sex civil union ceremonies on its property."
 
This was followed by this analysis of a bureaucrat's actions in Maryland:
"Despite its historic nature, this officially sanctioned discrimination against a religious group did not require a special act of the legislature or ruling of the court to accomplish. A state bureaucrat, one Lisa Jackson (the state commissioner on environmental protection), quietly sent a letter informing the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization, that the pavilion it owns on the beach is no longer eligible for exemption from state real estate taxes. (The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association also remains the target of a state investigation into whether it has violated the state's anti-discrimination laws by refusing to permit same-sex ceremonies on its property.)"

END OF QUOTE
 
And then this statement:
 
"It was Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, who first pointed out to me in an interview for the Weekly Standard, that it is not just federal tax exemptions in play -- every major religious charity in the country depends on state real estate tax exemptions."
 
END OF QUOTE
 
It appears that the War on Religion has opened a new front. Could a state bureaucrat, when finding out that a religious school has refused to acknowledge the parents of a student as married if they are two legally or symbolically married same sex gays, then withdraw all state tax exemptions? I believe we are all about to find out.
 
Keep in mind that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Pres. Bill Clinton, said that http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001738---C000-.html
 
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
 
 But what if that state's officials take it upon themselves to recognize a gay marriage without being ordered to do so by the federal government? What you then have is the situation in Maryland, listed above, where a state now declares the traditional religious view of marriage - and even the viewpoint of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act - as discrimination akin to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South.
 
We have reached a point in this society where we are going to be reasonable and tolerant about the death of everything we have ever valued. This will either have to be stopped or we will no longer have an American society, something the left wants to see happen.
 
As one poster on Lucianne.com summarized the issue a while ago, what will we fight to defend in this country - ring tones?
 
Jack Kemp
(not the politician)

 

ADDENDUM:

 

Tim, I have an addition to the Separation of Church and State Taxes blog piece.
If the states of New Jersey and Maryland want to take away church state tax exemptions because churches don't acknowledge gay marriage on doctrinal grounds, then shouldn't these states also be charging mosques a state tax real estate assesment? After all, no mosque sanctions gay unions/weddings.
 
The only consistant value in these two state's arguments is their hatred for Christianity, probably Orthodox Judiasm - and Western Civilization in general.
 
Jack

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 641 words, total size 5 kb.

James Hansen; Global Cooling Alarmist

James Hansen, Nasa`s preeminent Climate Change Alarmist, used to think we were heading for an ice age:

The 'Old' Consensus?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 21, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.

But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?

If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.

Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.

Thanks, Wil Wirtanen!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 526 words, total size 3 kb.

The Hot Summer Returns to Jena

Steve Rankin has posted an account by someone from Jena about what really happened with the ``Jena 6`` hate crime down in Louisiana.

Turns out those nooses in the trees were there because the school football team was playing the Cowboys-it had nothing to do with lynching.  Of course the race-baiters had to turn the tables on this, and are now defending six thugs who brutally assaulted a white freshman for no other reason then his ethnicity.  (Incidentally, the boy was saved by a black kid who intervened at great personal risk.)

But none of that matters to Jesse Jackson or the other professional racial pimps.  Once again, we are witnessing race over decency; everyone-black or white-should condemn what these thugs did, but the ``civil rights`` community is charging to the rescue to deny civil rights to this white freshman and to perpetrate injustice in the interest of ``being down for the struggle``.  This attitude hurts the black community more than it does the whites, yet it has become standard operating proceedure, and Jesse, Louis, and Al aggressively work to make criminals and thugs the norm in black society.  It`s shameful!

Here in St. Louis we see billboards all over town from a law firm with a black man in black stocking cap and black athletic jacket with his index finger over his mouth and the caption ``If you want to walk, don`t talk.``  In other words, it`s o.k. to be a criminal!  This is a large part of the problem, the reason why we continue to have a black underclass; there are many who like things that way, who want a ghetto full of criminals, dope pushers, hookers.  Despair is just good business to some, and the poor residents who cannot leave these neighborhoods are the ones who suffer.  The majority of crime is committed in ``the hood`` and it is mostly against people who have little. These are the people who Jesse and company are supposed to care about, yet they are the ``forgotten man``, the powerless.  Who cares about them?  They don`t have the money or power to make them worthwhile!

Change must come to the black community; Bill Cosby was right.  They are the ones who must institute this change.  They have got to stop making excuses for bad behavior, must resist the Devil and he will flee from them.  White America cannot do it for them. 

Of course, the press should tell the true and entire story; that would go a long way towards turning the hearts of people against evil men.

No more excuses!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

September 21, 2007

Shrinking Russia, Conception Day, and the End of The World System as We Know It

When I was in college I specialized in Russian History; I had studied Russian in high school, and fulfilled my college language requirements at St. Louis University by retaking the language, so it was easy to cross list it with a history degree.  I had a history major and a degree in Russian Scientific Translation, and was short just one course on the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism (taught by a leftist Jesuit) because the instructor went on sabbatical.  I would have had a double major and a certificate in Eastern Area Studies, but I settled for what I could get (I didn`t have the cash to come back a year later.)

My first love was astronomy, and I had dreamed of working at the Jet Propulsions Laboratories (JPL) or some such place.  I knew it would be difficult to find work in that field, and I knew I was going to find pursuing a PH.D. was going to break the bank.  I had also considered going into neurobiology, as I was fascinated by the brain, but I would have been in the same boat.  Also, I`m not very good at math.

I had carried a number of history credits from high school (as well as English credits) and had been ``killing time`` taking history classes (something I was equally interested in) so ended up drifting into the field.  I come from a family steeped in history; my brother is a history professor, and my mother had majored in history in college herself.  My father was (and is) endlessly pouring over history books or watching historical documentaries on television, so I was following the family tradition.  (My brother used to nag me to work toward a PH.D. myself, but I just couldn`t afford the investment of time and money.) 

At any rate, I specialized in Russian history.  My goal was to become a beaurocrat, say an analyst at the CIA. I was going to get into the field and pursue higher education from there.  History wronged me; I started college in 1983 and graduated in 1987.  In `83 the Cold War was heating up, and the need for Russian history guys was growing.  By `87 Ronald Reagan had pretty much crushed the Soviet Union, and, after 70 years, the object of my study was at the point of collapse.  I was punked by Reagan and the forces of history!

That is why I devote my time to a, shall we say, modest job with an even more modest salary.

Still, I do keep an eye on what is happening in Russia, and wrote about the declining birthrate there. Russia is dying.  The promises of the end of communism raised expectations, only to see them dashed by the Fascism of Putin.  The Russians have little hope for tomorrow, and their declining birthrate is a symptom of a dark spiritual malady. Not only will they be driven out of Asia by the demographic shift, it is doubtful they will survive in Europe. 

So Comrad Putin and his Dancing Teeth has instituted a ``breeding holiday`` in which Russian couples are intended to, well, couple in the interest of making new workers for the Worker`s Paradise. 

David from Ultima Thule has forwarded this article from Townhall.com by Pat Buchanan about the intended labor of the workers.

According to Buchanan:

Since the 1990s, however, Russia has been losing population at a rate of 750,000 a year -- not to emigration, but to death. By one count, the Russian population is down to 143 million. President Putin has predicted that only 124 million Russians will be alive in 2015. In 2000, the United Nations projected that, at its present birth rate, by 2050 Russia's population would fall to 114 million.
In a 2005 study, the United Nations estimated that, together, Ukraine and Russia will lose 50 million people -- 25 percent of their combined populations -- by mid-century. The Slavs are dying out, and the geostrategic implications are enormous.
In a few decades, Turkey, which seeks entry into the European Union, will become Europe's most populous nation. Like Xerxes' bridge of boats across the Hellespont, Turkey will be the Asian land bridge into Europe, the Bridge of The Prophet into the homeland of the Christians.
As critical, the vast majority of Russians live west of the Urals, while east of Novosibirsk (New Siberia City), all the way to Kamchatka, the tiny Russian population is departing or dying out. Yet, in timber, oil and minerals, this is the most resource-rich region on earth. And south of Siberia lies the most populous and resource-hungry nation on earth.

American children born today may have Chinese for neighbors across the Bering Strait from Alaska.  

and those Chinese will have no women, thanks to China`s population laws.  How will the Chinese populate those lands?  They will need women-lots and lots of women. 

Ditto India, which has similar problems.

Who will benefit most?  The Islamic world, that`s who.  Remember, Central Asia is largely Turkish and mostly Islamic, and these are the peoples destined to inherit the vast middle of Asia from the missing Russians.  In Europe, Turks from Turkey will likely colonize in Russia as well. 

That is, if we don`t have a war first; these nations are unlikely to go down without a fight, and a lack of women to restrain the barbaric impulses of men will likely lead the Chinese to an eventual rampage.  The Russians are likewise not likely to go quietly into that good night, and should China aggressively pursue expansionism into Siberia they may react somewhat violently-especially since they have their spiffy new nuclear arsenal. 

Actually, the Chinese have been quietly invading Siberia for some time, and their people have been squatting on Russian lands.  I suppose they hope to intermarry with the Mongols and other ``barbarian`` tribes of the Steppe who have continued to reproduce naturally. 

What has caused this state of affairs?  I have a one word answer-God! Russia and China cast off the Almighty, and they are being removed from the scene.  One could argue from a purely non-religious standpoint that these nations have lost their hope, the hope which religion traditionally provides.  They have cast off their traditional spiritual purpose for other gods, but those gods never really took hold, and now the people are existing in a spiritual vacuum.  The Russians substituted Marxism and national pride, but these things quickly failed when the Cold War ended, leaving an empty void in the psyche of the Russian people.  The Chinese are attempting the same thing at this very moment, and will meet the same fate. 

Getting people to copulate will not get them to have children; if that were so the West`s population would have risen steadily with the ``sexual revolution``.  It hasn`t; abortion and contraception actually reduce population growth, and those measures are taken because people who are indulging in sexual excess have little desire to nurture the fruits thereof.  Encouraging sex tends to limit population growth, not the other way around, and Putin is a fool if he believes otherwise.  These people need hope for the future, need to believe in something greater than themselves and their tyrannical state.

Europe, too, has been steadily declining, and the influx of Moslems from North Africa is threatening to undo the work of Charles Martel and the Spanish Reconquista. Europe has spit upon her Judeo-Christian heritage, and the resultant substitution of liberal atheism has left the Continent in a state of malaise.  Nobody believes in anything in Europe anymore, and a nation that does not believe in itself will be unlikely to have children.  If that doesn`t change Europe will be overrun. 

So, who IS having children?  Latin America is certainly on the rise.  Perhaps we could colonize Europe, or Siberia, with Mexicans and Central Americans?  That would reduce the pressure on the United States, and help support the Russian`s failing hegemony in the East.  It is likely that the Indian ancestors of the mestizo populations of Central America had originally come from Asia, so they would be making a return to their ancestral homeland.  This is a much better idea than Aztlan, which seeks to displace the Anglo population of the United States.  There is plenty of room in Asia!  As Christians, they would make better neighbors than those Godless Chinese...

Below is an article from the Financial Times that disagrees with the premise that Europe will fall to the Moslems:

Head count belies vision of ‘Eurabia’
By Simon Kuper in Paris
Published: August 19 2007 22:22 | Last updated: August 19 2007 22:22
Muhammad is the second most popular name for newborn boys in Britain, if you add together the various spellings. In the Seine-St-Denis suburb of Paris, Mohamed is number one. In the four biggest Dutch cities in 2005, either Mohamed or Mohammed came top.
Facts like these have led some pundits to forecast the Islamicisation of Europe  a future ``Eurabia``. Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islam, cited the immigration from Muslim countries and relatively high birth-rates of immigrants as trends that mean “Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest.``
Most academics who have analysed the demographics dismiss such predictions.
Jytte Klausen, a professor of politics at Brandeis University who studies European Muslims, says: ``It’s being advocated by people who don’t consult the numbers. All these claims are really emotional claims.`` Sometimes they are made by Muslim or far-right groups, who share an interest in exaggerating the numbers.
Nominal Muslims  whether religious or not  account for 3-4 per cent of the European Union’s total population of 493m. Their percentage should rise, but far more modestly than the extreme predictions. That is chiefly because Muslims, both in Europe and the main ``emigrating countries`` of Turkey and north Africa, are having fewer babies.
``Nobody knows how many Muslims there are in Europe,`` says Ms Klausen. Few European states ask citizens about religious beliefs. Estimates based on national origins suggest that 16m nominal Muslims live in the EU. There are about 5m in France, 3.3m in Germany and 1.5m-2m in the UK.
``Berlin is a Muslim city, Paris is a Muslim city, and even Madrid or Turin to some degree,`` Jocelyn Cesari, an expert on European Muslims at Harvard University, has said.
The EU’s most Islamic country is Bulgaria, where 1m Muslims account for about one-seventh of the population.
But the birth-rates of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, though still above the EU’s average, are falling. The fertility rate of north African women in France has been dropping since 1981, say Jonathan Laurence and Justin Vaisse in their book Integrating Islam. ``The longer immigrant women live in France, the fewer children they have; their fertility rate approaches that of native-born French women.``
At the last count Algerian women living in France averaged an estimated 2.57 children, against 1.94 for French women overall.
The decline in birth-rates is more dramatic in north Africa itself. Women there use contraceptives more and have babies later than they did. In Algeria and Morocco 35 years ago, the average woman had seven children. According to the United Nations, it is now 2.5 in Algeria (about the same as Turkey), 2.8 in Morocco, and falling in all of them. The US Central?Intelligence?Agency’s World Factbook has even lower estimates of Algerian, Tunisian and Turkish birth-rates: below France’s rate and below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. Emigrating countries are no longer exporting high birth rates to Europe.
At the same time, northern Europe has seen a rebound in fertility. Several countries have introduced policies  such as more generous parental leave and better childcare to encourage people to have babies.
France’s birth-rate is near the replacement level of 2.1. The UK’s fertility rate is at its highest since 1980, thanks largely to older or immigrant mothers  only a minority of whom were Muslims. The number of babies born in Germany has rebounded since the post-war low recorded in 2005. Cash incentives appear to have helped but birth-rates in southern and eastern Europe remain low.
The US National Intelligence Council predicts there will be between 23m and 38m Muslims in the EU in 2025  5-8 per cent of the population. But after 2025 the Muslim population should stop growing so quickly, given its falling birth-rate. In short, Islamicisation  let alone sharia law is not a demographic prospect for Europe.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

 

 

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:06 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2086 words, total size 13 kb.

The Voice of a Distant Friend; a New Post at Ultima Thule

I once made a dear friend on the internet.  My very first essay had appeared in the American Thinker, and I the editor (Thomas Lifson) forwarded an e-mail from his friend Aussiegirl/Helen.  She was such a sweet person and we quickly became great friends.  She was also a terrific writer, having been a regular poster at Lucianne.com and hosting her own website Ultima Thule.  I had just started my own blog, and Aussiegirl gave me so much encouragement that I continued writing in spite of less than stellar success.  I often considered our sites complementary; she would frequently post on my work and I on hers.  (She was brilliant.) 

Ultima Thule was a terrific site, and Aussiegirl had a breathtaking depth of knowledge.  She was as likely to post on archaeology as on politics, on classical music, or opera, or especially physics. Her natural curiosity and love of learning made her site one of the most fascinating I have ever encountered.

Unfortunately Aussiegirl passed away at the beginning of the year after a prolonged illness. I miss her terribly.

Her husband David has kept the site going, although he has been unsure what to do with it.  It was Aussiegirl`s pride and joy, and David does not want to let it die.  He has been working through a number of her unfinished pieces, and posting when possible.

Today marks the birthday of Ultima Thule, and David wanted to post a new work to commemorate.  He has posted a pensive musing by Aussiegirl on the the passing of the seasons and the approaching winter in the West.  It`s good to hear Aussiegirl again, if only for a moment!

For those unfamiliar with Ultima Thule, be sure to read back through her archives; she has some of the best writing available on the internet, and there is bound to be something to please everyone.

Heaven is richer, but we on Earth have lost a bright light.  I`m glad David is working to keep that lamp lit.

We miss you, Helen! 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 4 >>
159kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 0.0843 seconds.
39 queries taking 0.0234 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.