September 12, 2013

Swap Meat

Timothy Birdnow

Writing in American Thinker Paul Schlichta discusses a new technique for growing animal PARTS without actually growing the animal.!

According to Mr. Schlichta:

"Technology has finally made vegetarians an offer they can't refuse -- maybe.

Dr. Mark Post's group at Maastricht University have made "cultured" meat by extracting muscle stem cells from cows, pigs, or chickens and multiplying them in a growth medium. The stem cells then develop into muscle cells that, with a little electrical stimulation, "bulk up" into solid muscle-fiber/bundles. These continue to grow when continuously supplied with additional nutrients by means of soluble-polymer duct systems. The end result is million-cell centimeter-long strips of meat tissue.

At a recent demonstration in London, 20,000 test strips were combined with breadcrumbs and fried into a single hamburger. Tasters said that the burger was dry and a bit lacking in flavor -- but it was like eating beef."

End excerpt.

Yummy! Or at least not so gross; makes me wonder if my young vegetarian niece (who is partial to cheeseburgers but won't eat them for philosophical reasons) will change her ways.

Will the author of Eternal Treblinka start gobbling chicken ala-king?

Gastronomy aside, this brings up an obvious question; will we be able to do this with human organs? Transplaninting organs is a tricky business, and if you need a liver, or a heart, you will have to wait for one. It may also be of dubious quality (considering the former owner is indeed most former) and who wants a pre-owned? At some point most people could use a replacement of some sort or other.

Science fiction writer Larry Niven often spoke of the "organ banks problem" in his stories; transplant technology made for great longevity in his dystopic future, but it came at a terrible price. The death penalty was applied and the criminal's organs were forcibly donated to medicine, making the taking of the criminal's life beneficial. Before long capital crimes came to include traffic offenses or acts of stupidity because the population was hungry for life-sustaining organs. In Niven's vision there wouldl be "organleggers" who would kidnap people, dismantle them, and sell theirr organs to desperate sick people. There would be a horrendously despotic state that revolved around the dishing out of organs. All of this because they could extend life via replacement of failing organs.

It was bad on Earth, with the ARM, the United Nations secret police enforcing organ bank laws. On a colony world called Plateau (which was only habitable on one enormous mountain) it created a totalitarianism unlike any in history, where the "colonists" bodies were the property of the aristocratic "crew". Niven's nightmare revolved around the replacement of organs.

Now, it has been suggested we could clone ourselves and keep the clone in a state of sensory deprivation so it would not develop a mind, then harvest body parts as needed from the clone. But a clone is a human being, a twin born later thanks to technology, and such an act would be monstrous indeed; a harvesting of organs from a weak brother. This would be different; it would make it possible to grow your replacement organs, and only those organs. And it would be for a good purpose; the heart is intended to pump blood, so you would be giving a new heart a chance at life.

Schlichta continues:

"The question of what the cows want was considered by Oscar Mandel in one of his delightful Gobble-Up Stories. The heroine of "The Journey of a Cow" discovers that she and her fellow cattle are being lavishly fed so that they can be slaughtered for meat. Hearing that cattle are treated as gods and goddesses in India -- worshiped instead of broiled -- she makes a long and dangerous journey there. She soon discovers that cows lead a hungry and miserable life in India, where humans chase them away from all but the meanest food.

'She could not make up her mind what to do next. Remain where she was, live out her natural life as a goddess but live it out in misery? Or return to the joys of Carinthia, so sure but ever so brief? I have heard that she is in India to this day debating with herself, because she cannot decide. And neither can I.' "

End excerpt.

Indeed. This same conundrum was contemplated by the refugee rabbits in Watership Down. The refugees came upon a warren of rather peculiar but extremely well-fed rabbits, living in a gastronomical paradise. There was a place where all sorts of delicious food appeared magically every day, and the rabbits were fat and well fed. But they had a sort of fatalism about them, and they devoted their time not to struggle and to work but to dark poetry and trivial intellectual pursuits - and they never, never discussed someone who was not present.

Cowslip Warren proved to be a terrible trap. There was a farm, and a farmer, and he fed the rabbits well, asking only for their lives when he needed some meat. The Faustian bargain made between man and rabbit proved quite beneficial to the surviving rabbits, but at what cost? If they were free they MAY go hungry, and this arrangement assured they were well-fed, but the farmer owned them and could take their lives at his whim. The heroes of the story left as soon as they learned the terrible truth.

I once compared Democrats to the inhabitants of Cowslip Warren. Obamacare makes the point even more accurate, as under the individual mandate it has been made clear that our bodies are not our own, we do not have property rights to them, but rather the government owns those rights and can take them away. Like the farmer in Watership Down the government provides for us, but in the end we are instructed to avert our eyes when they take one for the stew pot.

See, the Left sees Man as purely material, an enormously complex machine, but a machine only. We have no real intrinsic value, and one is as good as another, so we can be dismantled if the Party sees fit. The greater good may require a sacrifice from us, and they will not cry over spilled milk.

Contributer Daren Jonescu told me that in Canada there is an ethos that one must suffer so as to free up medical resources for others. The idea that hospital beds must be vacated for other patients is endemic to Canadian society; never is it considered that they should have MORE beds, more doctors, more medicine to care for the sick. No! Because the government runs it, medicine is rationed and it is your patriotic duty to leave the hospical as soon as you are able "for the good of others". The reality is that the proponents of socialized medicine don't give a damn about the individual; he is just so many used parts. Like Niven's organ banks the individual belongs to the State and can be discarded or recycled at whim. We are the rabbits of Cowslip Warren, and the State is the farmer. We belong to them.

What does this have to do with artificially grown organs? Maybe nothing, but then too, maybe a great deal.

I have a bad heart. My heart really could use to be replaced, but the risk would not be worth it with the current technology. If I could get a new heart with no fear of rejection, one younger than my own and healthier, why wouldn't I do it? It would extend my lifespan and doubtlessly make me feel better in the process. Who controls this new technology will control society. I would be growing my own heart, but the government could easily co-opt this.

Tyrants of bygone days have had the power of death. They could hurt their citizens or kill them, but they had nothing to offer as a carrot (except maybe, well, carrots or other means of sustenance). Technology is making it possible to offer LIFE as well as death. It's the ultimate wet dream of any would-be god, to usurp the power of life as well as death. The Left has always wanted that power (as I pointed out a while back Control of medicine - especially this new type of medicine that can radically increase both our longevity and the quality of that time - will give the modern liberals power beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

In Niven's nightmare the Organ Bank Problem was resolved by the development of artificial organs and the opening up of new colony worlds. But when governments control medicine, new developments only strengthen their hand (Niven assumed a market-based system would remain) and Mankind is no longer expanding anywhere. There is no place to go on this Earth. Space settlement could theoretically offer a way out of THAT trap, but settling in space requires considerable (and expensive) technology to stay alive, so small groups of pioneers will be dependent on another entity. Liberals have traditionally opposed the space program, and I suspect that they instinctively understand that people could slip from under their thumbs by establishing colonies outside of their control. They will be happy to support space settlement provided it can be done in a controlled fashion. All must remain part of the collective.

Perhaps we can slip the snare in time. There is a plan afoot by a private concern to send colonists to Mars within a decade.!

I have doubts about the viability of this plan (and even bigger doubts about the scrupulous nature of the organizers, who are collecting wads of cash from applicant colonists). No private concern has ever even sent a probe to Mars, much less landed anything, and while Mars may look Earthlike in those dandy photographs sent back by the Mars Rover it is nothing of the sort; atmospheric pressure is between 7 and 15 millibars (one bar is sea level Earth normal) and colonists would have to wear space suits outside, or their blood would boil. The atmosphere is so thin that radiation will be a terrible hazzard, so any colony will have to be buried underground. The Martian "fines" get into everything and will cause endless trouble for our colonists. They will need water, energy, and will have to grow food in soil that is so oxygenated it will be like growing a crop in bleach. And the cold; as bad as Antarctica. This venture, which plans to start small and keep adding, will be nigh-unto overwhelming. It will have to be heavily supported by Earth.

And if it succeeds, how long before the U.N. or a government takes it over?

(My opinion is it would be better to settle the Moon, which is close enough to visit - or evacuate - in a couple of days and can be supplied far more easily. But the Moon looks like a dead rock, while Mars IS a dead rock that at least looks alive. Also, Mars has no commercial value for the forseeable future whereas profits are to be mined from the Moon. Helium 3 is but one example of a profitable commodity that can be obtained from a lunar colony, and the colony will be no more depressing under ground than the Mars colony.)

Right now we are all penned like cattle in a world of dwindling resources (or so the Left tells us), a sheep-pen for our masters to reign over us. So many of our people want to live in Cowslip Warren.

This development of organs may accelerate that prospect. Welcome to Eternal Treblinka!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1943 words, total size 12 kb.

September 11, 2013

"Renewable" wind power apparently NOT for the birds

Dana Mathewson

Study: Wind Farms Killed 67 Eagles in 5 Years

Associated Press
Wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government biologists.

The research represents one of the first tallies of eagle deaths attributed to the nation's growing wind energy industry, which has been a pillar of President Barack Obama's plans to reduce the pollution blamed for global warming. Wind power releases no air pollution.

But at a minimum, the scientists wrote, wind farms in 10 states have killed at least 85 eagles since 1997, with most deaths occurring between 2008 and 2012, as the industry was greatly expanding. Most deaths _ 79 _ were golden eagles that struck wind turbines. One of the eagles counted in the study was electrocuted by a power line.

The president of the American Bird Conservancy, Mike Parr, said the tally was "an alarming and concerning finding."

A trade group, the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement that the figure was much lower than other causes of eagle deaths. The group said it was working with the government and conservation groups to find ways to reduce eagle casualties.

Still, the scientists said their figure is likely to be "substantially" underestimated, since companies report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those included in their total were discovered during searches for dead birds by wind-energy companies. The study also excluded the deadliest place in the country for eagles, a cluster of wind farms in a northern California area known as Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year.

The research affirms an AP investigation in May, which revealed dozens of eagle deaths from wind energy facilities and described how the Obama administration was failing to fine or prosecute wind energy companies, even though each death is a violation of federal law.

Entire article here:

Funny how leftists will scream bloody murder if a bird gets killed by a logger or (gasp) a hunter, but when it happens because of a failed energy initiative, even the leftist president who's pushing it won't even levy the fines that the law requires.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Al Qaeda Reaction to Syrian Deal

Timothy Birdnow

President Obama seems to have failed in his case for war in Syria. Aviary correspondents get the reaction on the ground:

Hat tip: Never Yet Melted

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Gaia in Blackface; was Soot Responsible for the End of the Little Ice Age?

Timothy Birdnow

A recent posting in the journal Nature suggests that the Little Ice Age ended because of soot expelled from factories, the fruits of the industrial revolution.

According to the paper:

"Rising air pollution in the wake of the Industrial Revolution seems to be the explanation for a long-standing enigma in glaciology. The emission of soot from Europe’s proliferating factory smokestacks and steam locomotives explains why glaciers in the Alps began their retreat long before the climate warming caused by human activities kicked in, a study suggests.

The 4,000 or so large and small Alpine glaciers — which today are acutely threatened by rising air temperatures — did well throughout the relatively cool 500-year period known as the Little Ice Age, which began around the end of the thirteenth century. At its maximum in the middle of the nineteenth century, the extent and volume of Alpine glaciers was at least twice what it is now."

End excerpt.

Well, this is an improvement; Nature has been decidedly in the tank for the theory of Anthoropogenic Global Warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions, so much so that they denied there WAS a Little Ice Age (to buttress Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph). I suppose this shows some improvement.

Or not; the point is to make humanity the primary movers in the climate. Please note that there is no mention of the Dalton Minimum, which was a dropoff (not too far removed from our current solar doldrums) in solar activity that coincided with the end of the LIA. The Lia STARTED with the Maunder Minimum, where the sun seemed to, well, die; no sunspots, no discernible solar activity, nada. Dalton was mild compared to Maunder, but both occured during the LIA. The Dalton Minimum ended around 1830.

The article continues:

"But then these glaciers suddenly began to retreat. Other regions of the world may also have been affected — the decline was only well documented in the Alps — and, conventionally, climate scientists consider the Little Ice Age to have ended soon after 1850.

However, despite the glaciers' shrinking, average global temperatures did not rise significantly until the end of the century. In fact, Alpine climate records — among the most abundant and reliable in the world — suggest that glaciers should have continued to grow for more than a half century, until around 1910.

"Something gnawed on the glaciers that climate records don’t capture,” says Georg Kaser, a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a member of the team that built the case against black carbon, or soot, this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. "A strong decline in winter snowfall was often assumed to be the culprit,” he says. "But from all that we know, no such decline occurred.”

End excerpt.

This is, well, silly. The time frame is right to be explained by the end of the Dalton Minimum, and temperature record keeping was hardly exact at that time - even in Europe. The authors admit they do not know what was happening outside of Europe; the decline of the glaciers has traditionally been attributed to reduced snowfall, which makes perfect sense in a warmer WORLD.

Again, the purpose here is to illustrate the sensitive nature of the Earth's climate to industrial activity.

One must ask; why, if soot were responsible for warming then, it is not equally responsible for warming now? The rise of Asian industry has greatly magnified atmospheric soot, and it would stand to reason that this should explain the blistering 1* C warming we have witnessed in the past century. The principle of Occam's Razor says we should not complicate explanations unnecessarily, that the simplest explanations are probably the best. Using that principle, is not the fact that the Earth warmed during an active sun with increasing black soot not do an adequate job of explaining the warming? Why complicate it with this whole greenhouse gas theory?

It's interesting to note that another article at Nature suggests that Swiss glacier retreat is at least half natural.

According to the article:

"In most places, historical records of glacier retreat and local climate are too sparse for researchers to separate the effect of this natural cycle from that of man-made warming. In the relatively well-monitored Swiss Alps, however, Huss and his team managed to gather some 10,000 in situ observations that had been made over the past 100 years, and constructed three-dimensional computer models of 30 glaciers. By comparing a time series of daily melt, snow accumulation and ice and snow volume readings of the glaciers with a widely used index of the AMO, they teased out the impact of natural climate variability. Although the mass balance of individual glaciers varied, the long-term overall trend followed the pulse of the AMO.

Since 1910, the 30 glaciers have lost a total of 13 cubic kilometres of ice — about 50% of their former volume. Brief periods of mass gain during cool AMO phases in the 1910s and late 1970s were outweighed by rapid losses during warm phases in the 1940s and since 1980, when temperatures rose and more precipitation fell as rain than as snow. The scientists believe that these changes are due to the combined effects of the natural cycle and anthropogenic global warming, which now seems to have a greater role than early in the twentieth century.
Subtle mix

Natural climate variability is likely to have driven twentieth-century glacier shrinkage and thinning in other parts of the world, says Kaser. For example, his own research on the glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania suggests that their dramatic recession is mainly due to multidecadal fluctuations in air moisture2.

"The widespread idea that glacier retreat is the sole consequence of increased air temperature is overly simplistic," he says. "Glaciologists have known for more than 50 years that glaciers are sensitive to a variety of climate variables, not all of which can be attributed to global warming."

End excerpt.

So, at most half of the shrinkage is due to Global Warming. How much is caused by soot? Hoow much by solar variability? How much to the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation)? What other variables are we missing? We are only just beginning to understand magnetic effects. For instance, storms on the Earth produce all manner of strange phenomenon in the upper atmosphere, including "red sprites", "blue elves", gamma rays, and even burst of antimatter. How are these influenced by solar magnetic fields? Solar magnetism ties in with the strength of the solar cycle. The Earth is connected to the Sun via ropes of magnetic force, and what happens there must effect what happens here. How does that effect the Earth's climate?

Don't know and, at least where the climate hysterics are concerned, don't care.

Hey, maybe we should find a way to turn industrial soot white! Then we can have a cooling effect to counteract the warming? But then, sometimes swallowing a spider to catch a fly isn't all that great an idea.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1187 words, total size 8 kb.

Senate Obamacare Funding Sneak Attack

Timothy Birdnow

I received this from Senate Conservatives. It details a plan to make it look like the GOP is defunding Obamacare without actually doing so. Please note the fence sitters; sadly they include Michelle Bachman:

Fellow Conservatives:

This is an urgent action alert for all freedom-loving Americans.

Republican House LeadershipThe U.S. House of Representatives will vote to fund Obamacare this week and we need your help to stop it.

House Republican leaders have chickened out and decided to fund a program that will destroy our country.

According to media reports, GOP leaders will attempt to pass a "trick rule" that allows them to pretend to defund Obamacare without actually doing so.

Under the trick rule, the House will pass a continuing resolution that fully funds Obamacare along with separate phony bill that defunds Obamacare. Democrats in the Senate will then throw the defunding bill in the garbage and send the real bill that funds Obamacare to the president's desk.

It's the "now you see defunding, now you don't" strategy.

We must act now and call on conservatives in the House to defeat the trick rule that funds Obamacare.

House rules are almost always passed along party lines so all we need is 16 Republicans to oppose the rule to defeat it.


Please call these members today and urge them to do EVERYTHING in their power to stop funding for Obamacare. Tell them to vote against the rule.

It does not matter if you're not from their states. They need to know that people across the country are counting on them to stop Obamacare.

* Justin Amash (R-MI) -- 202-225-3831
* Michele Bachmann (R-MN) -- 202-225-2331
* Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI) -- 202-225-8171
* Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) -- 202-225-2211
* Mo Brooks (R-AL) -- 202-225-4801
* Paul Broun (R-GA) -- 202-225-4101
* Ron DeSantis (R-FL) -- 202-225-2706
* Jeff Duncan (R-SC) -- 202-225-5301
* Scott Garrett (R-NJ) -- 202-225-4465
* Louie Gohmert (R-TX) -- 202-225-3035
* Trey Gowdy (R-SC) -- 202-225-6030
* Tom Graves (R-GA) -- 202-225-5211
* Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) -- 202-225-2715
* Steve King (R-IA) -- 202-225-4426
* Raul Labrador (R-ID) -- 202-225-6611
* Thomas Massie (R-KY) -- 202-225-3465
* Tom McClintock (R-CA) -- 202-225-2511
* Mark Meadows (R-NC) -- 202-225-6401
* Steve Pearce (R-NM) -- 202-225-2365
* Trey Radel (R-FL) -- 202-225-2536
* Dennis Ross (R-FL) -- 202-225-1252
* Matt Salmon (R-AZ) -- 202-225-2635
* Mark Sanford (R-SC) -- 202-225-3176
* Dave Schweikert (R-AZ) -- 202-225-2190
* Steve Stockman (R-TX) -- 202-225-1555
* Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) -- 202-225-4436
* Randy Weber (R-TX) -- 202-225-2831
* Joe Wilson (R-SC) -- 202-225-2452
* Ted Yoho (R-FL) -- 202-225-5744


Pete SessionsIf Republican leaders decide to go forward with this deceptive strategy, U.S. Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX), Chairman of the House Rules Committee, will be the "yes man" who makes it happen.

If Pete Sessions pulls this stunt and writes a trick rule to fund Obamacare, we will actively recruit and support a conservative primary challenger against him next year through our House Conservatives Project.

We can't sit back and let wishy-washy Republicans like Pete Sessions destroy our freedoms.

Please make your voices heard today by calling the representatives listed above. We can win this battle, but we must fight.

Thank you for standing strong for freedom.

Best regards,

Matt Hoskins
Executive Director
Senate Conservatives Fund


A.J. Cameron fowarded this article.

He made the following remarks:

This confirms that the most dangerous man in America is John 'OBoehnerCare' Boehner, & why hundreds of thousands, if not millions of traditional Republicans and conservative Independents will not be voting Republican in 2014, or ever again.

As bad as the Lying King is, and his a puppet liar, Boehner is more dangerous because he perpetuates the myth that we have a two-party system, with opposing ideologies. His capos, Cantor & McCarthy are equally culpable, as they have placed their political careers ahead of what is best for our republic and the citizens of our republic. McConnell is also equally culpable, but he gets to 'hide' behind the fact that he is the Minority Leader in the Senate.

Republicans better get used to being minorities in both Houses of Congress, because, if Boehner screws us w/ OBoehnerCare &/or Amnesty, I believe the House will go to the Demoncrats in 2014 and any thoughts of re-taking the Senate is wasted thinking.

You might want to contact your Gutless Opposition Party (GOP) Representative to inform him/her that should Boehner stab us in the back w/ his tricky legislative maneuvers, your GOP Representative will not receive your vote in 2014. They are supposed to work for us, not dictate to us.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 6 kb.

September 10, 2013

Welcome to the Brave New World in Florida - and the Kickback

Jack Kemp


For the past 31 years, the Christian ministry has been providing food to the hungry in Lake City, Fla. without any problems. But all that changed when they said a state government worker showed up to negotiate a new contract.

"The (person) told us there was a slight change in the contract,” Daly told me. "They said we could no longer have religious information where the USDA food is being distributed. They told us we had to take that stuff down.”

Daly said it’s no secret that the Christian Service Center is a Christian ministry.

"We’ve got pictures of Christ on more than one wall,” she said. "It’s very clear we are not social services. We are a Christian ministry.”
Daly and her staff sat in stunned disbelief as the government agents also informed them that the Christian Service Center could no longer pray or provide Bibles to those in need. The government contract also forbade any references to the ministry’s chapel.

"We asked if we had to change the name of the organization but that said we could leave that,” Daly said. "But we had to take our religious stuff down.”

Daly said they were told they could continue distributing USDA food so long as it was somewhere else on the property – away from anything that could be considered religious.

In other words – the Christian Service Center had a choice: choose God or the government cheese.

So in a spirit of Christian love and fellowship, Daly politely told the government what they could do with their cheese.

"We decided to eliminate the USDA food and we’re going to trust God to provide,” she told me. "If God can multiply fish and loaves for 10,000 people, he can certainly bring in food for our food pantry so we can continue to feed the hungry.”

Read more:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Tesla - a car more coal black than green

The stacks from the Gavin coal burning power plant tower over the landscape on February 4, 2012 in Cheshire, Ohio.

The Gavin coal plant tower in Cheshire, Ohio. Coal still provides much of the nation's electricity—including that which powers zero-emission cars.
Photo by Benjamin Lowy/Getty Images

Jack Kemp

In May, a market analyst named Nathan Weiss prompted spit-takes throughout the clean-energy world in May with an incendiary post on the financial news site Seeking Alpha. The headline: "Is the Tesla Model S Green?” Weiss’ answer: a resounding, math-heavy, 6,500-word "No.” In fact, Weiss argued, the Model S is in many ways dirtier than a Jeep Grand Cherokee—and nearly as dirty as a Ford Expedition, one of the largest SUVs on the market. That’s an extreme position, and large swaths of Weiss’ argument were readily rebutted by electric-car advocates. Facing a barrage of criticism, Weiss soon revised his calculations, but still insisted that the Model S’s effective CO2 emissions exceeded those of a smaller SUV like the Toyota Highlander.

Weiss’ post was followed in late June by a report in IEEE Spectrum from Ozzie Zehner, a one-time electric-car enthusiast turned outspoken critic. His report, titled "Unclean at Any Speed,” cites studies that find electric cars are no cleaner—and in some cases less clean—than gas-powered cars.
How could that be? Critics point to three main factors that make a Tesla dirtier than the EPA’s ratings, or the company’s own data, would suggest. First, coal-burning power plants emit not just CO2 but also other noxious gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide—and in far greater quantities than gas-powered cars. "If a smog-testing center could measure the effective emissions of a Tesla Model S through a tailpipe,” Weiss wrote, "the owner would face fines, penalties, or the sale of the vehicle under state ‘clunker buyback’ programs.” (This problem isn’t Tesla’s fault, obviously, and it would vanish with a cleaner energy grid.)

The stacks from the Gavin coal burning power plant tower over the landscape on February 4, 2012 in Cheshire, Ohio.

Second, electric vehicles are more environmentally destructive to manufacture, starting with the energy required to produce their lithium-ion batteries. Those battery packs today are big, bulky, and extremely expensive to manufacture—especially Tesla’s, which is larger and more powerful than that of its competitors. And many electric-vehicle batteries contain rare-earth minerals that are hard to come by and costly to extract. The Tesla’s AC induction motors don’t use rare-earth magnets, but even the company’s engineers would admit that the Model S takes more energy to produce than, say, a Toyota Camry. The question is how long it takes to close that initial gap once you start driving your zero-emissions Tesla. The more you drive it, the greener it becomes.

That leads to the third main argument against the Model S: that it hogs more power than advertised. Weiss reckons that the Model S’s energy-efficiency is dragged down heavily by "vampire load,” or the power that drains from the battery while the car is not in use. Those idle losses played a starring role in John Broder’s famous New York Times piece about running out of juice on a Tesla test drive. Otherwise satisfied owners complain that their cars lose battery range just sitting in the garage.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

America: Not Shining but Burning

By Daren Jonescu

The human mind naturally protects itself from considerations that would interrupt the appealing flow of everyday life. This fact alone explains the continued unwillingness of many thinking people to wonder aloud whether there is still hope for the survival of the United States of America as founded. Too early to voice such a dire concern, you say? On the contrary, it is far too late.

Through most of her history, America has stood as a unique object of admiration and envy to allies and enemies alike, and the most powerful attractive force of the modern era for men seeking prosperity and practical freedom. She has stood, in that expression adapted from the Sermon on the Mount by John Winthrop, and updated by Ronald Reagan, as a "shining city on a hill."

These two images together -- the attractive force and the light in the distance -- explain America's role in the modern psyche. She has been a kind of sun, holding a complex system of political aspiration in orbit around herself. She has played this role not only, or even particularly, through direct involvement in the lives of other nations, but also and primarily through her place in the minds of men around the world whose moral and political thoughts bent in arcs defining variations on the theme of respect for the dignity of the individual man -- arcs that, for over two centuries, had America as their spiritual center.

Human things change, however, all too often for the worse. Modernity's entropy is turning admiration to dread, envy to smug satisfaction, as the world begins to recognize the radically altered aspect of the light now emanating from the former land of the free. To adapt poet Stevie Smith's famous trope, "Not waving but drowning," it is now clear that our modern hope for the perpetuation of freedom and prosperity is not shining but burning.

The prospect of America in ashes, almost unthinkable only yesterday, must cause, and I believe is causing, a radical shift in the modern psyche. The old confidence inspired around the world by that seemingly inextinguishable light -- our presumption, against the rising tide of statism, that America, at least, would resist -- is being "fundamentally transformed" into a blood-brotherhood of the fighting minority within her borders and a few kindred spirits from abroad, united in a last-ditch effort to save America from herself. The city on the hill is itself the battlefront now, its ramparts crumbled, and its defenders vastly outnumbered. Surrender is not an option, but all delusional optimism and defeatist pessimism aside, it is simply too early to tell whether this fight can be won.

Perhaps saving America "from herself" is an inapt description of the crisis. For one might say that America does not need saving from Americans, but rather from an enemy that, while certainly within, cannot properly be called American at all. America, as many have noted, but as perhaps is only now fully explicable, is less a geographical area or a collection of citizens, than an idea. The idea, roughly stated, is that of man as a rational individual, naturally free to choose his path in life according to his best judgment, guided but not enthralled by the noblest traditions of the past, and managing his own social interactions through the facilities of a system of government he designs for himself -- a government he owns, rather than one which owns him -- and which therefore is constructed from its foundations as an aid to his liberty, rather than an obstacle to it.

That idea, with its concomitants, is perhaps the real America, and an individual who lives in accordance with it an American in a manner that is less like the relationship between nation-state and citizen than like that between a Platonic Idea and its material instantiations. An American, in this admittedly poetic sense, does not so much reside in America as participate in the Idea of America. This helps to explain America's appeal to men beyond her borders, not merely as a destination, but more importantly as a consolation, a steady reminder that oppression is not our natural estate, and that there is a place on earth where, in principle, man is given his due.

This understanding of "Americanism" also explains the many thinking non-Americans who have, through no outwardly obvious necessity, made America and her inherent dangers their special study. The greatest of these, Alexis de Tocqueville, wished to apply his observations on modern representative government to French political problems; and yet his choice of America as the focal point of his research seems as natural in hindsight as it might have seemed peculiar to his contemporaries. An aristocrat with a liberal mind (in the correct sense of liberal), he intuited that if you wish to study human freedom in the modern world, you must study America -- and that if you wish to learn how freedom may contain the germ of its own undoing, you will find the answer in a close examination of the American character.

Tocqueville was, if you will, the original "orbiting American." Poetic as the notion may be, it seems to define a real category that transcends the legalisms of citizenship. Who more genuinely lives and defends the principles I identified as the Idea of America -- Tocqueville, who warned of the threat of "soft despotism," or the generations of leading American thinkers and politicians who have converted his grave warning into a how-to manual?

I grew up in Canada during its most vehement period of anti-Americanism, which, not coincidentally, was the era of Canada's Barack Obama, Pierre Trudeau. My first formative political memory involves Ronald Reagan's first official visit to Canada in 1981, when I was in junior high school. A vocal minority of jeering, sign-waving "anti-imperialists" greeted Reagan in front of the Parliament Buildings when he was introduced. Trudeau, the smug showman, leaned forward on the lectern and smirkingly berated them with, "Hey, guys, when I go to the United States, I'm not met with these signs. Americans have some beefs against us too. How about a great cheer for President Reagan?" He had managed to condescend to the protesters and his guest at the same time. And yet, for all this classic Trudeauesque élan in the service of his own ego, what I saw, even then, was a small man trying to aggrandize himself next to a big man.

Six years later, Reagan paid his last official visit to Canada, and spoke to a joint session of Parliament. This time, having become a politically focused lad with libertarian leanings, I hung on the old man's every word. He spoke with clear and uncompromising principle about the glories of free enterprise as a means to prosperity, the inseparability of economic freedom and political liberty, and the need for constant vigilance against statism. Politicians never spoke this way -- certainly not in that exhausted chamber, where the cause of freedom had long been "represented" by the Progressive Conservatives, a party whose very name was an apology for not being socialists.

Perhaps that moment, listening to that speech -- more personally affecting for being delivered in my hometown -- was the hour I became an "orbiting American," although I would not have understood it that way at the time. In fact, the seed of this notion was perhaps planted, or at least placed in a sunny window, less than a year ago by one of my American readers, with whom I had struck up an e-mail correspondence that became a friendship.

Mr. Washington (not his real name) -- I call him "Mr." in honor of the fact that he almost always addressed me as "Doctor," despite my repeated protests -- was, at the beginning of our correspondence, seventy-seven years old. He is a Navy veteran, an engineer, a businessman, a voracious reader, and an indefatigable big dreamer in that uniquely American way. Most of the best American minds seem to be of this sort. In the spirit of their nation and its founding, they tend to be experimenters and entrepreneurs of the intellect, fearless frontiersmen of thought, unafraid of being out in the wilderness alone, picking up their insights where they find them along the rough course of their investigations, and building functional shelters, rather than grand palaces, in any convenient clearing they discover. From Franklin, Jefferson and Madison to Melville, Emerson, and Hoffer, America's thinkers seem constitutionally resistant to that easy reduction to established categories which scholars use to make orderly sense of ideas they cannot actually understand.

Mr. Washington is a man in this rough-hewn New World tradition, a man of practice who respects the intellectual realm, and an honest truth-seeker who at seventy-eight was still planning for the day his ship would come in. He admires science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein and the Federalist Papers, recommends various books on the history of progressivism, stoked my interest in anti-public school crusader John Taylor Gatto, and solicited my advice on where to begin reading Thomas Aquinas and Milan Kundera.

In the aftermath of the November election, I wrote of its outcome as a monumental event in modern history, the symbolic end of a civilization, for which a radical, multigenerational rebuilding would be the only solution. Mr. Washington replied as follows:

I feel much the same way. I don't feel dour although I do feel that the US as we knew it is no more.

In a very real sense, you as a citizen of Canada, are an American -- You are one that believes in the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and formalized in the Constitution. That is the essence of what it means to be an American.

Today, 111 years after Theodore Roosevelt began this journey the progressives have finally taken over. We no longer have a government that defends and supports the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Control of both the Republican and Democrat parties belongs to the progressives.

Over those "111 years," the Idea of America has been undone, or abandoned, mainly through the corruptions of nominal Americans themselves. A compulsory education establishment borrowed from Prussia and completed by Dewey indoctrinates generations in the virtues of submission to the collective, keeping to one's place, and faith in the great god, Government. Progressivism borrowed from European intellectuals has devoured the heart of the American project, private property rights, and digested it into a grotesque Euro-illusion of "freedom" divorced from self-ownership. The land of the courageous frontiersman has willingly sacrificed its dignity and privacy in the name of a dubious security, both financial and physical, while a people identified with expressions like "Give me liberty or give me death" and "None of your damn business" is willingly granting its government powers of personal intrusiveness for which Stalin would never have dared to hope, under the self-immolating moral delusion that "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."

America is now a nation ruled -- and that is the correct word -- by a self-appointed elite of ignorant snobs and power-mad degenerates to compete with the worst ruling castes of the civilized world. The U.S. federal government has, through the deliberate deteriorations of a century, finally dispensed with all but the flimsiest pretense of the principles of limited government and the rule of law that virtually defined America's historic political achievement. By turns Commodus, Nero, and Caligula, today's American ruling elite steer an intentionally debased, demoralized and indoctrinated majority down the path to a form of enslavement as non-metaphorical as it is ingenious, the kind foreseen by Tocqueville as "soft despotism." Never to be misunderstood is that by "soft," Tocqueville did not mean weak; he meant achieved through enticements, rather than through brute force. This tyranny, he warned, might be more thorough than any "hard" despotism, in that the populace so enticed will welcome the chains, rather than resist them.

The current administration's defining achievement -- apart from the Benghazi cover-up -- is surely the Affordable Care Act. All lies to the contrary notwithstanding, ObamaCare was and is intended as the first step towards socialized medicine, the big prize of Western progressivism, in addition to being symbolic of the combined force of a wildly disproportionate executive authority and the infinite expansion of the regulatory administrative state. Socialized medicine is the dividing line -- the one America alone among Western nations had hitherto resisted crossing -- between a nation that maintains at least a mirage of individual self-ownership, and one that has finally dispensed with the niceties and declared officially that every man, woman, and child is property of the collective. Self-preservation at the whim of the state is no natural right at all. America had abrogated its founding principles in so many ways before, but now she has joined the rest of the world in making unfreedom as concrete a reality as is possible without literal shackles. In the name of "fairness" and "equality," the value of a man's life, and his ability to prolong it, will henceforth be determined by the state the Declaration of Independence obliterated in 20,000 pages of bureaucratic tyranny.

Add to all of this the financial predicament of history's most prosperous nation, a brewing storm of irredeemable debt and unmeetable multigenerational obligations that will, sooner or later, cause the global economy to collapse like a house of feathers; a permanent ruling class using economic redistribution and immigration policy to create an ever-growing dependent underclass of non-voters -- or a dependable herd of voters for unlimited government, more fool-proof than any vote fraud, to be activated as needed; and a technological global surveillance state justified with arguments that would be a delightful parody of Orwellian Newspeak if only the speakers were not dead serious.

America now appears to be extinguishing herself into progressive tyranny more quickly than most of the nations whose continuance as "semi-free" has long depended on the gravitational force of the American example. The solar system of modern liberty is perilously close to breaking up. The resulting universal chill would likely be long and merciless.

How did it come to this, without men realizing what was happening, and rising up en masse before it was almost too late? We all know parts of the answer, though perhaps the whole truth, which cuts to the heart of our flawed human nature, will always elude us. Often, however, where ultimate wisdom is beyond our flimsy rational faculty, we may find truth in the microcosm of personal life.

June 28, 2012, the day of the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision, may be one of those historic moments that "will live in infamy." That morning, my friend Mr. Washington sent me this:

Today seems to be a very serious day for America. About four AM your time [in Korea], high noon on our West Coast, two PM here and 3 PM in Ontario our Supreme Court will hand down a very important decision regarding whether we continue as a republic or descend further into a dictatorship. As someone has pointed out it is amazing that free men are waiting for nine mortals to make that decision. It is even more amazing that as I write I am aware that large computers are analyzing my words to see if I am subversive. Further, that the words I am using are the words being used to indicate a subversive.

Consider that these musings, casually invoking the vocabulary of totalitarian oppression, document the state of mind of a reasonable, far from paranoid citizen of modernity's erstwhile shining city. Consider, further, the decision that was ultimately rendered on that June day, and the American trajectory of the fourteen months since then.

In the summer of 2012, Mr. Washington indicated in passing that he sensed a new bout of illness coming on. As the remark was set against the general vibrancy and optimism of the surrounding discussion, I gave it too little thought, and our correspondence carried on as usual. I received my last e-mail from him on Christmas Day. For a while, I didn't think about his absence from my inbox. Long distance correspondence is like that; long silences go with the territory. Eventually, I began to wonder, and to reconsider his remark about his health. I have tried to contact him, but have not received a reply. I have also noticed that his online reader's comments at American Thinker ceased some months back.

There were signs, and I saw them, but I allowed myself to imagine, as we usually do, that they were false alarms, temporary setbacks, or that somehow everything would turn out alright. "Surely if anything were really wrong," I told myself, "I would know, and have time to respond." I miss Mr. Washington's earthy wisdom, his clear-eyed commentary, and his unshakable faith in the future. I still want to be hopeful, but I am very worried about my friend. A stubborn cancer may finally have its way with even the hardiest soul.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2850 words, total size 18 kb.

Hear Paul Driessen Live

Paul Driessen will be on the air tomorrow, for those who have the time to listen.

Live Webcast
McDonald Hopkins Energy Forum

Job Creation!
How the shale boom is fueling employment

Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Noon to 1:30 p.m. EDT
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. CDT
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. MDT
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. PDT

Click here to Register.

There is no fee for this program.

The shale boom is fueling business opportunities in the natural gas supply chain as oil and gas companies
continue to aggressively transition from exploration to development. Thus, job creation is being stimulated
in many sectors—from manufacturing, construction and transportation, to natural gas, chemicals and
professional services.
Our sixth Energy Forum will explore how companies are capitalizing on the shale boom
and the positive effect on job creation, including:
• The economic impact of the changing oil and gas industry
• How manufacturers and others benefit from oil and gas development
• The advantages for businesses and residents of Ohio and other states involved in the shale arena

Keynote Speaker and Panelist:

Paul Driessen

Paul is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), public policy institutes that promote environmental stewardship,
the enhancement of human health and welfare, and personal liberties and civil rights. He writes
and speaks frequently on the environment, energy and economic development, malaria eradication,
climate change, human rights, corporate social responsibility and sustainable development.


McDonald Hopkins LLC
Michael L. Snyder, Moderator
Co-Chair, Energy Practice

Prosperity 101, LLC
Linda J. Hansen
Founder and President

Clarion County Economic Development Corporation
Jamie S. Lefever
Executive Director

Questions? Call:
Janet Adamo at 216.348.5732 or Julie Knapp at 216.348.5428.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:35 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Catholic Schools Ramming Common Core Down our Throats

A.J. Cameron

Here is a letter that sums up my opinion on Common Core in the Catholic Schools.

It is about time people state exactly how they feel about this invasion into local control of education by elites (domestic & foreign) who have an agenda to stifle education and totally remove God from all levels of education.

I attended K-8 @ St. Ann in Prairie Village & Rockhurst High School. I always felt fortunate that my parents believed in the benefits of a Catholic education, and the sacrifices they made for my six siblings and me to attend Catholic schools w/ only one, sales sporadic income.

I'm relieved I do not have any children or grandchildren attending K-12, for, if I did, I would be flummoxed as to what to do. Of course, this is all by design, stealing freedoms & choice (unless, by choice, you are talking about Planned Parenthood). I cannot, in good conscience, recommend Catholic or public education in NE Kansas, so, the only recourse, soon to be shut down, too, is homeschooling. If I were speaking to the Archbishop face-to-face, I'd say the same thing, lest I be a hypocrite.

I sat through a meeting in which Kathy O'Hara refused to address the concerns of parents and grandparents w/in the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas. I thanked God that night for not having any children of school age, for, if they were enrolled in a Catholic school w/in the Archdiocese, I'd yank him/her/them. Why pay tuition for lies and indoctrination when I'm already paying taxes for lies and indoctrination.

Ms. O'Hara was so arrogant and cold that I figure she must envision herself as a member of the Illuminati. I pray for the students who are subjected to her haughty 'leadership' & tyranny, and I pray their parents yank them from any Catholic school w/in the Archdiocese. If the Archdiocese is ceding to Common Core because of fiscal concerns, the one option parents have is to dis-enroll their children and reduce their tithing until the Archbishop, et. al., get the message.

Recently, a Bishop (Omaha or Denver) said the future of the Church is not through the Bishops, but through the laity. If this is true, why wait another second in taking the reins and defund Common Core w/in the Archdiocese, or remove Common Core from the Archdiocese, or both.

Prior to the unveiling of the Domestic Terrorist Profile in March 2009, I would probably have been an uninterested lemming, believing the hierarchy. I will never make that mistake again. I exhort all parents, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, etc., to take up the banner of freedom, both for our religious beliefs, and our God-given & constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

A. J.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 3 kb.

September 09, 2013

To Bee or Not to Bee

Paul Driessen

Newspapers, magazines and electronic media continue to repeat environmentalist and anti-pesticide talking points that claim honeybees are disappearing – dying off at "mysteriously high rates” … in a frightening phenomenon that could potentially affect a third of our food crops (which require bee pollination), causing global food shortages.

In my continuing quest to inject facts and common sense into public policy discussions about environmental issues, I offer this essay on what is actually going on in beehives; how far back in time mass bee die-offs have occurred; and what things are most likely causing current episodes of "colony collapse disorder” – with neonicotinoid pesticides hardly at the top of the list.

To bee or not to bee

Reports of honeybees rapidly disappearing are greatly exaggerated

Paul Driessen

Activist groups continue to promote scary stories that honeybees are rapidly disappearing, dying off at "mysteriously high rates,” potentially affecting one-third of our food crops and causing global food shortages.  HYPERLINK ",16641,20130819,00.html" Time magazine says readers need to contemplate "a world without bees,” while other "mainstream media” articles have sported similar headlines.

The Pesticide Action Network and NRDC are leading  HYPERLINK "" campaigns that claim insecticides, especially neonicotinoids, are at least "one of the key factors,” if not the principle or sole reason for bee die-offs.
Thankfully, the facts tell a different story – two stories, actually. First, most bee populations and most managed hives are doing fine, despite periodic mass mortalities that date back over a thousand years. Second, where significant depopulations have occurred, many suspects have been identified, but none has yet been proven guilty, although researchers are closing in on several of them.
Major bee die-offs have been reported  HYPERLINK "" as far back as 950, 992 and 1443 AD in Ireland. 1869 brought the first recorded case of what we now call "colony collapse disorder,” in which hives full of honey are suddenly abandoned by their bees. More cases of CCD or "disappearing disease” have been reported in recent decades, and a study by bee researchers Robyn Underwood and Dennis vanEngelsdorp chronicles more than  HYPERLINK "" 25 significant bee die-offs between 1868 and 2003. However, contrary to activist campaigns and various news stories, both wild and managed bee populations are stable or growing worldwide.
Beekeeper-managed honeybees, of course, merit the most attention, since they pollinate many important food crops, including almonds, fruits and vegetables. (Wheat, rice and corn, on the other hand, do not depend at all on animal pollination.) The number of managed honeybee hives has increased some 45% globally since 1961, Marcelo Aizen and Lawrence Harder  HYPERLINK "" reported in Current Biology – even though pesticide overuse has decimated China’s bee populations.
 HYPERLINK "" Even in Western Europe, bee populations are gradually but steadily increasing. The trends are similar in other regions around the world, and much of the decline in overall European bee populations is due to a massive drop in managed honeybee hives  HYPERLINK "" in Eastern Europe, after subsidies ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, since neonicotinoid pesticides began enjoying widespread use in the 1990s, overall bee declines appear to be leveling off or have even diminished.

Nevertheless, in response to pressure campaigns, the EU banned neonics – an action that could well make matters worse, as farmers will be forced to use older, less effective, more bee-lethal insecticides like pyrethroids. Now environmentalists want a similar ban imposed by the EPA in the United States.

That’s a terrible idea. The fact is, bee populations tend to fluctuate, especially by region, and "it’s normal for a beekeeper to lose part of his hive over the winter months,” notes University of Montana bee scientist Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk. Of course, beekeepers want to minimize such losses, to avoid having to replace too many bees or hives before the next pollination season begins. It’s also true that the United States did experience a 31% loss in managed bee colonies during the 2012-2013 winter season, according to the  HYPERLINK "" US Agriculture Department.

Major losses in beehives year after year make it hard for beekeepers to turn a profit, and many have left the industry. "We can replace the bees, but we can’t replace beekeepers with 40 years of experience,” says Tim Tucker, vice president of the American Beekeeping Federation. But all these are different issues from whether bees are dying off in unprecedented numbers, and what is causing the losses.

Moreover, even 30% losses do not mean bees are on the verge of extinction. In fact, "the number of managed honeybee colonies in the United States has remained stable over the past 15 years, at about 1.5 million” – with 20,000 to 30,000 bees per hive – says Bryan Walsh, author of the Time article.
That’s far fewer than the 5.8 million managed US hives in 1946. But this largely reflects competition from cheap imported honey from China and South America and "the general rural depopulation of the US over the past half-century,” Walsh notes. Extensive truck transport of managed hives, across many states and regions, to increasingly larger orchards and farms, also played a role in reducing managed hive numbers over these decades.

CCD cases began spiking in the USA in 2006, and beekeepers reported losing 30-90% of the bees in many hives. Thankfully, incidents of CCD are declining, and the mysterious phenomenon was apparently not a major factor over the past winter. But researchers are anxious to figure out what has been going on.
Both Australia and Canada rely heavily on neonicotinoid pesticides. However, Australia’s honeybees are doing so well that farmers are exporting queen bees to start new colonies around the world; Canadian hives are also thriving. Those facts suggest that these chemicals are not a likely cause. Bees are also booming in  HYPERLINK "" Africa, Asia and South America.

However, there definitely are areas where mass mortalities have been or remain a problem. Scientists and beekeepers are trying hard to figure out why that happens, and how future die-offs can be prevented.

Walsh’s article suggests several probable culprits. Topping his list is the parasitic  HYPERLINK "" Varroa destructor mite that has ravaged U.S. bee colonies for three decades. Another is American foulbrood bacteria that kill developing bees. Other suspects include small hive beetles, viral diseases, fungal infections, overuse of miticides, failure of beekeepers to stay on top of colony health, or even the stress of colonies constantly being moved from state to state. Yet another might be the fact that millions of acres are planted in monocultures – like corn, with 40% of the crop used for ethanol, and soybeans, with 12% used for biodiesel – creating what Walsh calls "deserts” that are devoid of pollen and nectar for bees.

A final suspect is the parasitic phorid fly,which lays eggs in bee abdomens. As larvae grow inside the bees, literally eating them alive, they affect the bees’ ability to function and cause them to walk around in circles, disoriented and with no apparent sense of direction. Biology professor John Hafernik’s San Francisco University  HYPERLINK "" research team said the "zombie-like” bees leave their hives at night, fly blindly toward light sources, and eventually die. The fly larvae then emerge from the dead bees.
The team found evidence of the parasitic fly in 77% of the hives they sampled in the San Francisco Bay area, and in some South Dakota and Central Valley, California hives. In addition, many of the bees, phorid flies and larvae contained genetic traces from another parasite, as well as a virus that causes deformed wings. All these observations have been linked to colony collapse disorder.

But because this evidence doesn’t fit their anti-insecticide fund-raising appeals, radical environmentalists have largely ignored it. They have likewise ignored strong evidence that innovative neonicotinoid pest control products do not harm bees when they are used properly. Sadly, activist noise has deflected public and regulator attention away from Varroa mites, phorid flies and other serious global threats to bees.

The good news is that the decline in CCD occurrence has some researchers thinking it’s a cyclical malady that is entering a downswing – or that colonies are developing resistance. The bottom line is that worldwide trends show bees are flourishing. "A world without bees” is not likely.

So now, as I said in a  HYPERLINK "" previous article on this topic, we need to let science do its job, and not jump to conclusions or short-circuit the process. We need answers, not scapegoats – or the recurring bee mortality problem is likely to spread, go untreated or even get worse.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( HYPERLINK "" and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
August 7, 2013

See charts and additional information on the next two pages, for use if and as you see fit.
From  HYPERLINK "" -- What effect has Varroa had on the number of managed bee hives in other countries?

Figure 1. The number of managed honey bee hives in the world from 1961-2008 (FAO Stat, 2011).
Varroa had no perceptible effect on the number of hives reported in Europe. The number of honey bee hives in Europe declined sharply in the early 1990s, coinciding with the end of communism, and the end of state support for beekeepers, in the previously communist bloc countries of Eastern Europe. The number of hives reported Western European countries remained unchanged over the same period of time.

Figure 2. The number of managed hives in the whole of Europe, former Warsaw Pact countries and former EU 15 member countries from 1961-2008 (Food and Agricultural Organization Stat, 2011).
In the United States the number of managed hives declined steadily since the late 1940s, around 40 years before Varroa became established there. This decline reflects declining terms of trade for United States beekeepers as the result of competition with lower-cost honey producing countries in South America. In contrast, due to their competitive advantage, the number of hives in South America has grown steadily since the mid-1970s, despite Varroa already being established there. However, the J strain of V. destructor in South America is less damaging than the K strain of V. destructor in the United States.

Figure 3. The number of managed honey bee hives in the Unites States and South American countries from 1961-2008 (FAO Stat, 2011).

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1768 words, total size 13 kb.

Americans Being Forced to Pay for Al Jazeera

Jack Kemp

Guys, here's a political issue that regular people readers can do something about.


September 9, 2013
Americans Being Forced to Pay for Al Jazeera
By Kieran Lalor

Two weeks ago, Al Jazeera America launched, beaming into 48 million homes across the country. The media company that allowed Osama bin Laden to use it as a vehicle to communicate with jihadists around the world is now on your TV screen and you are paying for it. The network pushed its way onto basic cable packages with several providers. If you subscribe to Verizon, Comcast, Dish Network or DirecTV, you are forced to subsidize Al Jazeera's propaganda as part of your cable bill whether you like it or not.

I represent a district about 70 miles north of where the Twin Towers once stood. Thousands of my constituents commute to Manhattan every day. People from this area perished in the savage attacks of September 11, 2001. Serviceman from our community made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting to prevent another attack. Four Marines I served with left everything they had on the battlefields of Iraq. When constituents contacted my office to express outrage that Al Jazeera America is now part of their basic cable package, I took it very seriously.

We should not have to fund Al Jazeera through our cable bills. Americans do not want to pay for their vile propaganda. I'm launching a petition drive calling on cable companies to drop Al Jazeera from their basic cable packages.

Al Jazeera was founded in 1996 by the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and is owned by his government. Some have claimed that Al Jazeera is independent of the dictatorship that runs Qatar. But the emir's cousin Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al-Thani runs the network despite not having a journalism background.

In late 2012 former vice president Al Gore and his partners put their fledgling liberal television network Current TV up for sale. Gore and company accepted Al Jazeera's offer of a half billion dollars on January 2nd 2013. A spokesman for Gore's group said they chose Al Jazeera because "Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current," which was "to give voice to those whose voices are not typically heard" and "to speak truth to power."
Verizon, Comcast, DirecTV and Dish Network already carry Al Jazeera America, and Al Jazeera has plans to force their way onto more cable bills. Time Warner Cable, which carried Current TV, dropped Al Jazeera America. AT &T U-Verse was originally going to carry the network but backed out and is now being sued by Al Jazeera for breach of contract. Cablevision and Cox Communications do not air Al Jazeera America.

My constituents and I are alarmed that as subscribers, we are being forced against our will to pay for a network that is owned by a foreign dictatorship and has a long history of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and support for Islamic terror.

For example, Al Jazeera America has already run a show about closing Guantanamo, painting terrorists as victims and the US as oppressors. The Arabic Al Jazeera threw a birthday party for terrorist Samir Kuntar, celebrating him as a "pan-Arab hero." Kuntar murdered an Israeli father and his 4-year-old daughter in their home. The Israeli family's mother accidentally suffocated their toddler son as she tried to muffle his cries while hiding from Kuntar. Al Jazeera paid for fireworks to celebrate Kuntar's release from prison. In the days after September 11th, Al Jazeera reported as fact the anti-Semitic lie that Jewish Americans had been told not to come to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11. CNN reported that a document found in bin Laden's compound following his death referenced a meeting with the Al Jazeera bureau chief in Pakistan.

Al Jazeera's parent dictatorship Qatar does allow the US military to conduct operations within its borders. However, according to leaked cables and multiple reports, Qatar's record of counter-terrorism efforts was the "worst in the region." According to the New York Times, Qatar is "hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals." Qatar also funds Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Why should subscribers be forced to purchase a network owned by a foreign government that either appeases or subsidizes Islamic terrorists?

Some have suggested that Al Jazeera has a right to access American television sets just as the BBC, Fox News and MSNBC. Nonsense. Since when does a foreign power have a right to pipe its worldview into American living rooms? The Fox News Channel haters love to point out that a member of the Saudi royal family is the second largest shareholder of Fox's parent company News Corp. It's troubling, but that is far different than the Islamic dictatorship of Qatar owning 100% of Al Jazeera.
To be clear, this is not a First Amendment issue. The free press and free speech clauses of First Amendments do not protect foreign powers who wish to broadcast propaganda into our country. Moreover, at this time my constituents and I are not objecting to the existence of the channel. We object to Al Jazeera America's inclusion as a basic cable channel that subscribers are forced to pay for and receive rather than as an a la carte channel that can be added to a basic package. In short, we are pro-choice when it comes to Al Jazeera.

Some say that we should just ignore Al Jazeera America and it will go away as a result of low ratings. But it is not clear that Al Jazeera America is a profit-making venture for Qatar, which has the second highest GDP in the world and can absorb the losses for years if not decades. Whereas most cable networks have 12 minutes of commercials per hour, Al Jazeera America has only 6 minutes. Many, if not most of the ads are promos for the network rather than paid spots. If indeed Al Jazeera is not about making money, their presence on the basic cable dials is even more disturbing.
I have written to the four major media companies carrying Al Jazeera America and requested that they drop the notoriously anti-American and anti-Semitic Al Jazeera from their basic cable packages. Should they refuse to remedy this problem by September 11, 2013, we will begin encouraging subscribers to drop their services.

Because cable companies are granted regional monopolies by local governments, customers don't necessarily have the option to switch providers. Consequently, we will also begin working with municipalities to revoke the cable monopolies if they don't make Al Jazeera America optional by the 9/11 anniversary.

Meanwhile, we have launched this petition to show that Americans do not want to be forced to pay for a propaganda arm of an Islamic dictatorship. Sign the petition and tell TV providers you do not want to be forced to pay for Al Jazeera's foul propaganda.
Kieran Michael Lalor, a Marine Corp veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom is a Republican Member of the New State Assembly.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1192 words, total size 7 kb.

September 08, 2013

Obama Administration Asked FISA Court for Permission for Unlimited Spying on Americans

Timothy Birdnow

The Obama Administration asked the FISA court for a waiver on restrictions on spying on the American People.

According to Newsmax:

"The power used by the National Security Agency to spy on Americans' phone calls and e-mails was actually blocked during the Bush administration but overturned after Barack Obama took office through a secret court order, the Washington Post reports.

The Obama administration won permission in 2011 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to spy on Americans without a warrant and to keep the information it collected for six years, according to interviews and declassified documents obtained by the Post.

The NSA has been intercepting more than 250 million Internet communications a year, 91 percent of which came from U.S. companies like Google and Yahoo.

The spying operation was exposed by Edward Snowden, who has since sought asylum in Russia to avoid prosecution for the leak.

Robert S. Litt, general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed to the newspaper that the Obama administration asked the court to lift the ban so the government could more quickly learn about terrorist plots.

"We wanted to be able to do it,” Litt said, referring to the searching of Americans’ communications without a warrant."

End excerpt.

The Bush Administration had no similar program.

This is a President, indeed a government, that is completely lawless and out of control.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

One Way Tolerance by AF Lesbian Commander

Jack Kemp

A story that got a lot of press recently was about an Airman who was relieved of duty by his commander for "for refusing his commander’s order to say he supports gay marriage."

Since when is it required in a military command to support someone else's personal lifestyle with public statements of advocacy? Are Jewish service men and women required to say they believe in a Sunday sabbath? Are Christian service men and women required to say they believe in a Saturday sabbath? Would the Air Force come down as hard on a Muslim who refused to say they believed in gay marriage? How about if an atheist refused to say they believed in gay marriage because they deduce that their hero Charles Darwin would say that gay marriage would not propagate the species?

Now gives us the rest of the story which eluded other sources, probably for politically correct propaganda purposes.


Christian Airman Punished by Lesbian Commander Faces Possible Court Martial
by Ken Klukowski 6 Sep 2013 1668 post a comment

Updating our earlier report on Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk, a Christian serving in the Air Force whose unit is now commanded by a lesbian: according to Monk’s complaint filed with his superiors, he was relieved of duty for refusing his commander’s order to say he supports gay marriage.

Now the Air Force has taken the first steps to criminally investigate Monk for talking to the media about his situation. Despite the fact that earlier this year the Obama-Hagel Pentagon said they would never court-martial a service member for their Christian faith, they have taken the first steps to possibly court-martial Monk...

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin is the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, which recently published a report on how troops’ religious liberty is being infringed upon under the Obama administration and is a leader of a new coalition, Restore Military Religious Freedom.

On Monk’s situation, Gen. Boykin says:

We now see what is happening to Christians under President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

This appears to be an intimidation tactic to send a message to other Christians in the military that you better not speak up when we violate your religious liberty. A statement to the media is not an official statement, so it’s absurd to consider charging him with this crime. The Obama-Hagel military leadership is not officially court-martialing Christians for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, but you will be punished and might even face a court martial if you stand by the principles of your Christian faith when you are serving in uniform.

A court martial is a criminal prosecution in the military. Depending on the crime, punishments can range from reduction in rank and withholding pay to dishonorable discharge from the military or even imprisonment.

Boykin said FRC and the coalition is collecting signatures for a petition to the secretary of the Air Force, calling upon him not to punish Sergeant Monk for refusing to compromise his Christian beliefs.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 4 kb.

Devvy Kidd -- Why I don't support "conservative" organizations

A.J. Cameron

Happy Sunday Morning!

Devvy Kidd's column on

Devvy Kidd is a great resource for insights into what ails us today, and
solutions to these ailments.

I have long said that even the 'good guys & gals' aren't so good when they don't
inform their constituents of the fraud, malfeasance and thievery deployed on a
daily basis w/in the District of Corruption.

We are 23 days from 'OBoehnerCare' from destroying our healthcare system and
economy in one fell swoop, yet, has any one of our Representatives or Senators
informed 'we, the people' about the 'Office of the Attending Physician'? Not
only are the taxpayers forced to pay 75% of these miscreants' newly minted
healthcare costs, courtesy of Obama's unconstitutional act, but Congress has
appropriated just shy of $3.4 million for 2013 for the taxpayer share of the
Office of the Attending Physician. While not all take advantage of this
world-class healthcare system, it is available, exclusively, to all members of
Congress, the SCOTUS, and 5 fortunate miscreants from Puerto Rico. And what do
the hood rats pay for this largess? A whopping $503.00 per year!

This is just the tip of the iceberg of thievery, but it reveals that the
solutions to our ills do not reside in a political party and inside the District
of Corruption.

I had the pleasure of hearing Sheriff Mack speak yesterday afternoon, courtesy
of Karladine & Bruce Graves. Sheriff Mack successfully sued the Federal
government, so he has a unique insight into what we face, should we cede our
right & freedoms to the elite hood rats committed to the destruction of our
great republic. He gave up an opportunity to be w/ family on a
once-in-a-lifetime trip to Germany to speak @ the Covenant America event next
Friday & Saturday (9-13 & 14) @ the KC Convention Center.

While acknowledging that the window of opportunity of saving our constitutional
republic is closing rapidly, he inspired attendees to believe that we have
remedies available to us, if only we have the courage of our convictions to act.

The Progressives will not stop their attacks upon our rights & freedoms, so we
need to take a stand, & plant our flag for our rights & freedoms. Let's start
today, committing prayer, time, talent & treasury in emulating our founding
fathers in securing our rights & freedoms for ourselves and the generations that
follow us.

A. J.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Welcome Sign

Dana Mathewso

Almost makes you want to move there, doesn't it!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

To McCain at town hall: I'd have you arrested for treason

Jack Kemp

Here's what a real citizen said to crazy grandpa-in-the-basement John McCain:

We the people want you to be representative of the people and for this great nation, but for far too long now on the rest of Congress, including the executive branch of government, along with the judicial and legislative have turned your back on the American people and their core values and principles. I can say with great confidence and speak on behalf of all Americans that your actions against this country are treasonous. All of you — against the will of the American people — have aided and abetted the enemy.
You and the rest of Congress, including the president of the United States have went against the will your people in Syria regardless of your position and vote, whether it is a yes or no is still a political smokescreen. I believe wholeheartedly you do not care about the will and well-being of America or its people. You lied the American people about the chemical attacks in Syria. The American people know that it was our government that is most likely responsible. There is strong evidence, including video, that these attacks were carried out by al Qaeda and you advocate starting a war, even maybe World War, by taking the same attack and blaming it on Assad.
You swore an oath to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic,” he said. "The simple irony is that the domestic enemy, now in this country, is the people in government, the Untied States. And McCain, you and the rest of the leaders are accountable for their actions. It is too bad that someone like me is not in office to hold you accountable. Because if I was in a position of power or authority, I would have you all arrested and tried for treason against my country.
If you and the rest of this government are truly for the American people and representatives of us, I suggest this time you listen because nobody wants another war or strike in Syria or anywhere else.
I am truly disgusted that you people are my leaders.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

The Curse of Liberalism

By Alan Caruba

"Liberalism has become an ugly blend of sanctimony, self-interest, and social connections,” writes Fred Seigel whose credentials include being a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He has written "The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class”, but you won’t be able to read it until it is published in January. As a reviewer, I received an advance copy from Encounter Books.

It hardly needs to be said that today’s liberals and conservatives loath one another, nor that the nation is as sharply divided politically as in the days before the Civil War. Politically, America has swung back and forth between liberal and conservative administrations as evidenced by the elections of the previous century and this new one.

Moreover, many have noticed that there is often scant distance between Democrat and Republican administrations. Both have been led by patricians, often the graduates of Harvard and Yale. Seigel refers to them as the "clerisy” defined as educated people being a class unto themselves.

"Liberalism has been a very expensive failure,” says Seigel and points to the Obama administration as an example of "the apparent disdain for the copybook maxims of faith, family, and hard work.” When liberals go to court to force schools to remove a daily prayer or a pledge of allegiance to start the day, support abortion on demand and gay marriage, seek to expand so-called "entitlement programs” and put as many people as possible on some form of government dole, this should be obvious to anyone.

The seizure of one-sixth of the nation’s economy in the form of Obamacare is yet another example and the failure of this program, passed near midnight by a straight party vote by Democratic legislators who had no idea what was in the bill, demonstrates the liberal preference for a massive central government.

"Liberalism has been dedicated to preserving the problems for which it presents itself as the solution.”

Seigel traces the beginnings of liberalism in America. "American liberals don’t like to compare themselves with other twentieth-century ideologues. But, like all ideologies that emerged in the early twentieth century—from communism and fascism to socialism, social democracy, and its first cousin, British Fabianism—liberalism was created by intellectuals and writers who were rebelling against the failings of the rising middle class.”

Among the intellectuals who advanced liberalism was Herbert Croly, the editor and co-founder of The New Republic whose 1909 book, "The Promise of American Life”, was the first manifesto of modern American liberalism. Croly "rejected American tradition with its faith in the Constitution and its politics of parties and courts.” This reeks of the intellectual snobbery that has dominated liberal thinking for more than a century at this point.

A distinguishing element of liberalism has been its admiration of autocratic leaders and this explains its embrace of dictators from the likes of the German Kaiser, Lenin and Stalin, through to men like Fidel Castro and his murderous sidekick, Ernesto "Che” Guevera. The appeal of communism has always played a large role in the ideology of liberalism.

What distinguishes liberalism today in the minds of conservatives is its rejection of the utter failure of communism and its cousin, socialism. One need only look to Russia and Europe for evidence of this, but it is manifest in America as it struggles to deal with the costs of New Deal creations such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, absorbing and redistributing some sixty percent of the national budget. The liberal belief in Keynesian economics whereby the government maintains the economy through massive expenditures has left America today with the largest debt in his history.

Liberalism has been driven by its disdain for America’s middle class that emerged from the large wave of immigration in the early 19th century and the success it has had in the business sector, entering the professions, and raising incomes. Liberalism has a deep distrust of "the masses” while claiming to represent them.

Liberal ideology produced Lyndon Johnson’s failed "War on Poverty” and embraced environmentalism with its doomsday predictions, none of which has come true. It explains President Obama’s rejection of American exceptionalism. "Liberal interests never reexamined their assumptions, even when faced with social and political failure. They never asked why, despite the vast sums expended, poverty had become worse rather than better.”

At the same time, in the latter half of the last century, liberals invented a laundry list of "rights” you will not find in the Constitution such as women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights and even the Gaia concept of the Earth’s right to be protected against human activity.

"It was attitude and intentions—not outcomes—that matter to liberals,” says Seigel.

Liberalism is the ideology of intellectuals who looked down on the masses that became America’s middle class and produced the greatest economy the world had ever known. Now they exist to live parasitically off of it.

The great frustration of conservatives is the inability to have a rational debate or discussion with liberals. They don’t make sense. It is the curse of liberalism.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 848 words, total size 10 kb.

great article on Obama's stumbles

Jack Kemp

Here is a great article from American Thinker:

September 7, 2013
Dangerous Times: Are Obama's Syrian Stumbles Good for America?
By James Lewis

Conservatives are patriots. When we see an American president in trouble, we tend to see his problems as our own.
Which makes it hard to know how to react to Obama's troubles in Syria.
I am going to make an unusual case here that Obama's Syrian stumbles actually benefit the United States and the civilized world.
If that sounds odd -- well, it is.
I can think of only one precedent: Jimmy Carter's punch in the nose from Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, which caused American voters to elect Ronald Reagan instead.
Reagan speedily restored respect for America in the world. For one thing, as soon as Reagan was elected Khomeini released his US hostages in Tehran. Ten years later the Soviet Empire crumbled.
Looking back, it seems that Jimmy Carter and his NSC advisor Zbig Brzezinski actually helped the sadistic Khomeini regime rise to power after pulling the rug out from our ally, the Shah of Iran. Apparently Carter thought the United States deserved to lose Iran as an ally because of what happened in 1953, almost three decades before, when Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union. This is plainly insane, but Carter and Brzezinski still defend their screwy reasoning today, while the Iranian theocracy kills its young people and commits aggression against us.
In the upshot, defeating Carter was a very good thing for the United States and the West.
Obama is the second fervently anti-American president we have seen. That was hard to accept for a long time, but after the overthrow of our longtime ally Mubarak in Egypt, after Obama's active support for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood, after the Benghazi arms-smuggling operation to Al Qaida-allied rebels in Syria, and now, after Obama's selective outrage against Syrian poison gas attacks in a civil war where 130,000 Syrians have died -- after all those facts I don't think Obama is running a pro-American policy any more.
After all, Obama is running the "apologize for white folks" administration. It's the "American guilt" administration. It's the "bow to tyrants" administration. All that stuff looked like a farce when it happened. But it turns out to be the real Obama.
While we were scratching our heads about his oddball president, his tiny inner circle -- Obama, Jarrett, Michele, Axelrod -- were going Go 'Bama! Bow down to another murderous tyrant, please!
If that seems perverse, it was. This is the most perverse administration in American history.
By now it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that Obama is fervently anti-American. Which is what you might learn from his personal history, all the way from Mom the Stalinist, to his "mentor" Frank Davis the child pornographer, all the way to the "Reverend" Jerry Wright and the Alinsky Machine in Chicago.
They all sing the same song, and love for America is never part of it. There's no way Obama could have been marinated in that toxic stew all his life and not come out as a feverishly anti-American ideologue.
Today we see the proof.
Five years ago, after Obama was elected by our America-loathing political class, the One delivered his Message to the Muslim World from Al Azhar University in Cairo. We now know that Obama's speech signaled a radical reversal of American policy, flipping 180 degrees to support Jihadist war cults like Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's mullah cult.
On the face of it, supporting your deadly enemy in a time of war is insane. But this is Obama. Maybe he explains it to our Chiefs of Staff as a clever way to split the Sunnis from the Shiites. Lying is Obama's biggest talent, and no doubt he spins his actions in different ways to different people.
But look at the facts.
Obama is now exposed as having directly supported Islamic jihad cults in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. He has done it in close coordination with the Islamist regime of Recip Erdogan in Turkey and with the Muslim Brotherhood in America. There is a good reason why Huma Abedin was Hillary's "personal aide" as Secretary of State. Huma had worked as a magazine editor for the MBs, and her close family is Muslim Brotherhood.
There is not much doubt where her loyalties lie.
(The fact that Tony Weiner the penis texter is married to Huma suggests that Tony has at least one other talent: Swinging enough money from the Brotherhood to run for mayor of New York. Just a wild guess, you understand. For all I know, Tony might the best qualified guy in Manhattan.)
But let's get back to Obama.
Wherever Obama saw a chance he has tried to shaft our Middle East allies, including Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Netanyahu in Israel, and even the Saudis, who hate Obama's retreat in the face of their biggest threat, Iranian nukes and missiles. The Saudis live right across the Persian Gulf from Iran, and Khomeini tried to overthrow them thirty years ago. They haven't forgotten that.
Still, the Arabs have resisted Obama as much as possible. They have suffered a great deal. Today, Egypt is still in chaos. Libya is in a civil war. Millions of Syrians have fled from the war between Sunni radicals (supported by Obama) and the Assad regime. No wonder the Saudis are trying to make a deal with Vladimir Putin. America used to protect its allies. Today we just shaft them.
On top of that Obama has orchestrated a retreat from Afghanistan by negotiating with the Taliban -- remember them? They are the sadists who blow up girls' schools over there, because women should never be educated. They also harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida in the run-up to 9/11/01.
Without the Taliban, the Twin Towers would still be standing in Manhattan. Today Obama is trying to make friends with them.
Obama has bowed low to the priesthood of Iran, now under "moderate" president Rouhani, who commanded their attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 Marines on a peacekeeping mission. "Moderate" Rouhani also takes public credit for suckering the Americans long enough to build 17,000 working uranium centrifuges someplace in Iran.
In brief, none of Obama's actions have served our country and our allies.
Judging by five years of Obama foreign policy, he is radically anti-American, just like all his friends. This is all of a piece with Obama's domestic contempt for the Constitution, as shown in his flaming abuse of the IRS, the FBI, the NSA, EPA, DOJ and who knows what else.
We've got the fox in our chicken house.
Fortunately, this particular fox has a fixed habit of trying to gnaw its own tail off.
Should Americans hold their breath and hope he keeps failing?
Obama is a blunderer. He is arrogant and ideologically blind, so he always acts in an overconfident way that ignores realities on the ground. Obama routinely gets suckered by the rug merchants of Persia and the chess players of Russia.
In some weird way this means we might survive him after all.
Here are some specifics.
1. In Egypt Obama was directly involved in stirring up the vaunted "Arab Spring," which was a gambit to bring the radical Muslim Brotherhood to power. In the end, modernist Egyptians rebelled against the MBs, and today our friend Brother Morsi is awaiting trial for inciting the murder of Egyptian civilians.
2. In Libya, Obama's Ambassador Christopher Stevens helped to whip up a rebellion against Muammar Gadaffi, helped by direct US and NATO bombing. Yet Gadaffi had kept the peace in Libya for decades, and had surrendered his nuclear program to the Bush Administration. He posed no danger to us. The Libyan adventure was a blatant double-cross of Gadaffi.
Obama's bizarre Libyan policy was exposed in the Benghazi fiasco. Ambassador Stevens was in bandit country of Benghazi, far from the capital of Tripoli, supervising CIA arms shipments of Libyan arms to the Al Qaida rebels in Syria. He made alliances with Al Qaida gangs, who ended up stabbing him in the back, the way they always do.
In the end the Qaida types got away with burning the CIA "annex" on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11/01, a symbolic date if ever there was one. They also bagged 400 ground-to-air missiles, which can be used to shoot down civilian airliners for years to come.
Benghazi was a huge defeat for the Obama "policy," and it ended up exposing him just before the last election. That is why it had to be covered up by a bizarre pack of lies that no sane observer believed. Benghazi exposed Obama's pro-Jihadist policy for all the world to see.
It was a sad day for America, but it was worse for Obama's anti-American shenanigans. Benghazi was the beginning of public exposure for radical ideologue Obama, the man who suckered us in two presidential elections.
Both Egypt and Libya were Obama gambits to shaft our allies and support our enemies in the Jihad War. Whether his inner cult figured they were splitting the enemy, or whether they were simply running a subversive anti-American policy, is hard to tell. In any case, the American people need to know the truth, and Congressional hearings are the only way they ever will.
Now comes today's Syria fiasco.
3. In Syria, Obama allied with Turkey and Saudi money men to stir up a Sunni revolt against Assad. The Assads, father and son, are pretty evil, as we know by now. But they are not worse than the Al Qaida maniacs who seem to be running the "Free Syrian Army." Assad at least promised stability. Al Qaida doesn't believe in stability.
We are therefore facing a lose-lose situation in Syria. If Assad wins, the Iranians will threaten U.S. allies including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
So we lose in Syria -- no matter which side wins.
How's that for brilliant American statesmanship?
A few weeks ago this column warned that Obama was getting trapped in Syria. Today the trap has snapped shut, and Obama's self-inflicted wounds are making headlines around the world. And while he is trying to evade the consequences of his folly by making the U.S. Congress responsible, in fact this is the fifth year of Obama's overreach and the resulting failures.
So here is Obama's scoresheet.
1. Egypt: Massive overreach and failure.
2. Libya: Massive overreach and anarchy, plus the Benghazi fiasco.
3. Syria: Another overreach and a classical lose-lose trap.
But here's the real kicker.
Obama's failurex may be good for America and for the world. I can't remember a time when a major foreign policy defeat looked like good news for the United States. But then I can't remember a time when a president was so perversely anti-American.
In these strange times, Obama's five years of overreach and defeat in the Muslim world must be considered good news for civilization.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1852 words, total size 11 kb.

Common Core Aligned GED: 9/11 Attackers Were Poor Afghans | Creeping Sharia

A.J. Cameron

We know the proponents of Common Core are lying (or are unacceptably ignorant of
the facts), so we need to send this far & wide.

One thing that is never mentioned is that the 'rich' nations from which the
majority of the money is sent (no longer rich because their politicians have
committed malfeasance and fraud) are 'free market' economies & societies. The
elites are killing the goose (the U. S. middle class) that has been laying
golden eggs over the decades. What will the 'poor' nations do when we are as
poor as they are (as if we aren't already).

It is time to take our republic back!

A. J.

"Poorer countries, because they have weak governments, often have areas that attract terrorist groups because no one is there to stop them from pursuing those types of activities. Thus, poor countries are often home to terrorist groups that are free to plan and carry out attacks on the rich, industrialized nations, without fear of being stopped. This is in fact [italics mine] what happened on 9/11 when terrorists from Afghanistan hijacked planes and carried out attacks on the United States. In this case, the terrorists originated in a country that had received large amounts of foreign aid from rich countries. Apparently, it didn’t work."

End excerpt.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 68 of 477 >>
150kb generated in CPU 0.1, elapsed 0.2756 seconds.
38 queries taking 0.1875 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.