Archive for November 30th, 2009

Time is Running Out to Order Your Christmas Gifts from the Jerusalem Gift Shop

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Gifts from Jerusalem

I love ordering gifts from the Jerusalem Gift Shop. They have so many really interesting and ideal gifts. But time is running out if you are planning to get items in time for Christmas. Since each gift is shipped directly from Israel, it will soon be too late to get them here in time.

Take a moment and browse their on-line store for wonderful gift ideas.

The Jerusalem Gift Shop 234x60

Christian Gifts from Israel – The Jerusalem Gift Shop

Climate Change Data Destroyed

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Incoming message to Global Warming “Scientist”:
“Discontinue use of your decoding machine…and dispose of immediately. Special emphasis on destroying important parts…and burn all secret documents.”

OK, a little humor this morning, courtesy of the movie “Pearl Harbor”, as Dan Aykroyd, playing the part of Capt. Thurman in Navy Intelligence, advises Washington of messages to the Japanese embassy ordering them to destroy their decoding equipment and burn all of their secret documents.
It appear our global warming “scientist” have received the same message, and are doing everything in their power to maintain their global warming agenda, despite a great amount of evidence contrary to that position.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

he admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Original Link.

University Outlines ‘Re-Education’ For Those Who Hold ‘Wrong’ Views

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Our education systems continue to spin wildly out of control as the liberal educators will accept no other course than complete acceptance of their liberal agenda.

A program proposed at the University of Minnesota would result in required examinations of teacher candidates on “white privilege” as well as “remedial re-education” for those who hold the “wrong” views, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The organization, which promotes civil liberties on the campuses of America’s colleges and universities, has dispatched a letter to University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks asking him to intervene to prevent the adoption of policies proposed in his College of Education and Human Development.

“The university’s general counsel should be asked to comment as soon as possible,” said the letter from Adam Kissel, an officer with FIRE. “If the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group achieves its stated goals, the result will be political and ideological screening of applicants, remedial re-education for those with the ‘wrong’ views and values, [and] withholding of degrees from those upon whom the university’s political re-education efforts proved ineffective.”

By any “nontotalitarian” standards, he wrote, the the plans being made so far by the school are “severely unjust and impermissibly intrude into matters of individual conscience.”

Kissel wrote that it appears that the university “intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the ‘wrong’ beliefs and values – those who either do not have sufficient ‘cultural competence’ or those who the college judges will not be able to be converted to the ‘correct’ beliefs and values even after remedial re-education.”

“These intentions violate the freedom of conscience of the university’s students. As a public university bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the university is both legally and morally obligated to uphold this fundamental right,” he wrote.

Among the issues discussed in the plans are requirements that teachers would be able to instruct students on the “myth of meritocracy” in the United States, “the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values,” and the “history of white racism.”

The demands appear to be similar to those promoted earlier at the University of Delaware.

As WND reported, the Delaware university’s office of residential life was caught requiring students to participate in a program that taught “all whites are racist.”

School officials immediately defended the teaching, but in the face of a backlash from alumni and publicity about its work, the school decided to drop the curriculum, although some factions later suggested its revival.

Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten said the developing Minnesota plan would require teachers to “embrace – and be prepared to teach our state’s kids – the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.”

She said the plan from the university’s Teacher Education Redesign Initiative – a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained – “is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers’ lack of ‘cultural competence’ contributes to the poor academic performance of the state’s minority students.”

“The first step toward ‘cultural competence,’ says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize – and confess – their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the re-education camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi,” she said.

“What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment?” she posed. “The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must ‘develop clear steps and procedures for working with nonperforming students, including a remediation plan.'”

The plan asks: “How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?”

The original correct answer was to have “a training session disguised as a thank-you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year.”

Original Link.

[Seven] Stories Obama Doesn’t Want Told

Monday, November 30th, 2009

Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.

No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:

  • He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
  • Too much Leonard Nimoy
  • That’s the Chicago Way
  • He’s a pushover
  • President Pelosi
  • He’s in love with the man in the mirror
  • But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.

    That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.

    Read the complete article here.

    Principles Before GOP Politics

    Monday, November 30th, 2009

    I think the Republicans would be wise to listen to this. People are tired of the absolutely liberal agenda we are currently seeing. Republicans will not be successful until they return to their conservative roots.

    The vice chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) is promoting a proposed resolution that would warn 2010 GOP candidates that if they do not respect the party’s “conservative values,” they will not receive the financial backing or endorsement of the RNC.

    The Republican Party needs to reclaim its conservative bona fides,” argues [Jim Bopp, vice chairman of the RNC]. “The problem is that we lost our way on fiscal conservative policies at the end of the Bush administration with expanding government and increasing debt, and then support of bailouts. So we need to show that we are serious about governing as conservatives.”

    Bopp says the Republican Party’s message is compromised when the party supports liberal Republican candidates like DeDe Scozzafava in the 23rd Congressional District of New York.

    Original Link.

    “Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures” By John Feeny

    Monday, November 30th, 2009

    As a result of the Louisiana Purchase Part Deux on the night of Saturday, November 21st, Harry Reid has forced the American people one step closer to the proverbial cliff, an eventual near-complete takeover of the once proud American way of life. It goes without any need for further explanation that all of the policy decisions coming out of this administration, let alone the cultural behemoth that is health care, simply make no mathematical sense whatsoever.

    Whether this is the result of some deliberate, calculated attempt with an underlying agenda or complete, unabashed ignorance is a question that can be debated by future generations; resolving the threats that we face in the here and now is the task at hand.

    The one question that I think gnaws at the back of the minds of many common sense conservatives these days, however, is why these liberal Democrats are intent on embarking on such a reckless–some would say politically suicidal, as it applies to those Democrats who are up for re-election in 2010–course of action. Why are they doing this?

    Seemingly with each passing day, there’s some new outrage coming out of Washington, and the beginnings of the resurgent conservatism that we’re all beginning to sense in this country is making it more and more clearly evident that this is indeed a center-right nation and that, for the most part, Her people have no use for the extreme measures being undertaken by this administration. Yet these people continue on the path of “the ends justify the means,” so much so that they’re not even bothering to hide the boldness of their political machinations any longer. Transparency indeed.

    I think, however, that there is an answer (of sorts) to this question. Many of the men and women who constitute the far-left of the Democratic Party are what I would label Ideological Kamikazes. We may be witnessing a suicide mission, and I think there’s a bit more to the metaphor than merely what the label suggests.

    I don’t think anyone who reads America’s Right and other political blogs of the same type would dispute the contention that we are, in a very real sense, in the midst of a sort of civil war. Our battlefield, however, is not Gettysburg, Bull Run, Okinawa, or Iwo Jima; our shots are being fired on the Battlefield of Ideas. As with any great war or battle, there comes a time when the momentum shifts, usually as a result of a variety of reasons: lack of manpower, resources, political and/or popular support, and so on.

    In the context of this metaphor, I think it important to look to two of America’s staunch adversaries of the past sixty-odd years: imperial Japan and radical Islam. An interesting case can be made that both of these political and cultural entities had and continue to have two things in common: they represent altogether different cultural values, and both may have begun to at least perceive that their very existence (way of life) was and is in peril.

    One of the foundational tenets of any entity involved in a war of any sort is that when it opts for suicide warfare–which is decidedly different from the notion of honorable sacrifice–it has reached the point at which surrender or any form of compromise with the enemy is no longer an option.

    Our liberal Democrats, if they haven’t reached that point already, may be quickly approaching it. As I’ve said, however, I feel that there’s more to this than initially meets the eye.

    Generally speaking, the military rationale for suicide warfare is that the people making preparations for battle reach a point at which they begin to realize that they truly lack the adequate resources with which to engage the enemy; other and better alternatives to the last, best measure–terrorism–no longer exist. In the case of Japan, the military decision to move forward with kamikaze missions was the empire’s last, desperate attempt to balance the ever-increasing industrial and technological might of the advancing American forces in specific and the West in general. While Japan had munitions available, their resources both in armaments and manpower were rapidly diminishing. While suicide warfare would no doubt deplete them of even more manpower, Japan had reached the point of needing a force multiplier. Not only did each bomb have to count, but the damage had to reach maximum output. Anything less would be a wild failure.

    Radical Islam’s situation is quite similar, although the battle that is being waged is more cultural in nature than overtly political. There’s no question in my mind that the prevailing crux of the conflict is founded in the dichotomy of West vs. East; the specific source(s) of that in which we find ourselves currently engaged, however, would seem to be the Iranian Revolution of 1979 (which, in addition to other political factors, was heavily influenced by the sense on the part of many fundamentalist Muslims that many young people in the Middle East were becoming far too “Westernized” in the manner in which they behaved, dressed, thought, etc. — after all, who would want to be free, right?) and Afghanistan’s decade-long war with the Soviet Union, which, upon its conclusion, was subsequently followed by the United States’ near-immediate pullout from the area, leaving a vacuum of both power and resentment.

    Here again, much as in the case of Japan, I’m guessing that there are quite a few fundamentalist Muslims who see Western Civilization as a threat to their very cultural survival. Lacking the military organizational and industrial might of America, these terrorists have taken up the very same kamikaze tactics of World War II Japan — guided smart bombs, only on a completely unheard of and unimagined level.

    In the case of the liberal Democrats currently in Congress, it seems as though there’s far more at hand than merely trying to get health care reform legislation passed. The behavior of some of these people leads me to think of what, in the psychological field, is deemed the “sunk-cost dilemma.” Simply put, these ideologues have so much invested in bringing their platform to fruition–even at the expense of the United States as a whole–that common sense and logic no longer factor into any equation; having arguably invested–financially, politically, emotionally, and otherwise–40-plus years into their endgame, defeat, surrender or compromise are no longer political options. It’s the entire socialized package or nothing at all. They must now choose between the certain loss of the sunk costs if they were to actually acknowledge political realities versus possible–even if unlikely–electoral success should they charge ahead. These Marxist Democrats seem to tend to favour uncertain success over the certain loss of political manpower in the fallout.

    In my mind, then, there’s no doubt that these politicians may in fact view themselves in much the same light as imperial Japan at the end and radical Islam in the here and now, given that their agenda has now been exposed and that they’re likely to find themselves short of adequate political resources in the very near future — popular and political support, for instance, in addition to manpower in Congress. As a result, the leftist Democrats may now view as necessary the political suicide of some of their cherished “Blue Dogs,” because the very existence of their worldview is at stake.

    The torpedoes will take the form of outrageous bribes, and the spectacular detonations to the side of the USS Constitution will be outlandish. It is important to note, however, that history clearly shows that those countries who eventually turned to the tactic of suicide warfare have always lost their war.

    Original Link.

    FBI Swoops in to Halt Return of CAIR Documents

    Monday, November 30th, 2009

    Very interesting…

    WASHINGTON – While attorneys representing the co-author of “Muslim Mafia” were preparing late today to honor a federal court order to return documents obtained from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in an independent undercover operation, FBI agents served a warrant on a Washington, D.C., law office for the same documents.

    The FBI agents entered the capital law offices of Cozen O’Connor tonight and issued a warrant for thousands of pages of documents as well as audio and video recordings gathered by P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris in a daring and lengthy undercover penetration of CAIR in which the younger Gaubatz served as an unpaid intern for the group that was labeled an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in last year’s Holy Land Foundation trial.

    CAIR claimed in a lawsuit that Gaubatz removed its papers and made recordings of employees “without any consent or authorization and in violation of his contractual fiduciary and other legal obligations.” A federal judge in Washington issued a restraining order Nov. 3 barring the Gaubatzes from further use or publication of the material – 12,000 pages of documents along with audio and video recordings – and demanding that they return it to the Muslim group’s lawyers.

    However, last night the FBI stepped in with a warrant, suggesting the agency wants to see the papers and examine the recordings as part of its interest in CAIR and its Hamas terrorist links, including those involving its founding chairman and acting executive director.

    Joseph Farah, chief executive officer of WND and its subsidiary, WND Books, who has been raising money for the defense of his author and son, welcomed the FBI’s interest in the papers.

    “Obviously, we were prepared to honor the court order from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,” he said.

    Kollar-Kotelly – who as head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court made several controversial decisions against the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies – was criticized recently by many security experts for ruling against the military’s designation of a Guantanamo detainee as an enemy combatant, allowing the Obama administration to send him home.

    “Now,” said Farah, “we will have to confer with the attorneys to determine what happens next. Which takes precedence – a federal court order or an FBI warrant? I trust this will be sorted out in the days to come. Personally, I would like to see these papers in the hands of trained FBI investigators. The revelations raised about CAIR in ‘Muslim Mafia’ have clearly piqued the agency’s interest.”

    In fact, adds Farah, “I would say the nature of this warrant and the way it was served strongly suggests the FBI doesn’t want these documents returned to CAIR – where they were destined to be destroyed in the first place. We have always believed, as the Gaubatzes did, that there is valuable evidence here vital to the nation’s security.”

    The FBI’s grand-jury subpoena is intended to preserve the status quo and not intended to require the Gaubatzes’ legal counsel to turn over the documents immediately – or before notifying Judge Kollar-Kotelly.

    CAIR contends the documents were stolen. David Gaubatz insists the research described in his book, including securing the documents, “was conducted professionally and legally” in cooperation with law enforcement officials. Much of the relevant material is already in the hands of the FBI, he said.

    The Gaubatzes are being represented by high-profile First Amendment specialist Martin Garbus, most famous for representing Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case. Garbus is teamed with Bernard Grimm of Cozen O’Connor in Washington and Daniel Horowitz in the San Francisco Bay area. Horowitz, a frequent TV legal analyst, represented talk-radio host Michael Savage in his lawsuit against CAIR. Grimm also is a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, CNN and Court TV.

    In Gaubatz’s book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” he and co-author Paul Sperry present firsthand evidence CAIR is acting as a front for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate the U.S. and help pave the way for Saudi-style Islamic law to rule the nation.

    In the lawsuit, however, CAIR, a self-described Muslim civil-rights group, does not defend itself against the book’s claims.

    The FBI cut off ties to CAIR in January after the group was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case in Texas, the largest terrorism-finance case in U.S. history. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and other senators have called for a government-wide ban on CAIR.

    Garbus told WND he believes Americans have an interest in exposure of the CAIR documents, because they are relevant to federal law enforcement officials’ concerns about the group’s ties to terrorist operatives that threaten the nation’s security.

    “The more information you have, the better able you are to form a judgment about the organization,” he said.

    Garbus said the Gaubatz lawsuit has similarities to his defense of legal author and CNN commentator Jeffrey Toobin, who allegedly violated a confidentiality agreement with Iran-Contra investigator Lawrence E. Walsh in the early 1990s when he published a book about his experience as a member of the prosecution team. Garbus won the case on First Amendment grounds.

    CAIR alleges Chris Gaubatz signed a confidentiality agreement when he worked as an intern for six months, but Gaubatz denies it, and CAIR reportedly says it has no copy of any agreement.

    In any event, Horowitz says CAIR has bigger things to worry about: “If a grand jury hears even half of what is in the ‘Muslim Mafia,’ CAIR will be destroyed and its leaders could face massive prison terms.”

    Original Link.