I Think I'd Rather Eat Soylent Green...
Solution to the Global Food Crisis - TURD BURGERS!
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Friday, June 24, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Diet,
Disgusting,
Health,
Japan,
Nutrition,
Outrageous,
Science
Who owns your money?
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Debt,
Economy,
Government,
IRS,
MacIver Institute,
Paul Ryan,
Taxes
Hezbollah cartoon teaches kids to throw stones at Israelis
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Thursday, June 23, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Hate,
Hezbollah,
Indoctrination,
Intolerance,
Islam,
Israel,
Israeli,
Jewish,
Muslim,
Terrorism,
TV
500 TSA Officers Fired or Suspended for Stealing
by Howard Portnoy
Houston, you’ve got a problem. Every airport does, and it goes by a familiar name: TSA theft.
In the case of Houston, the problem was Transportation and Security Administration agent Karla Renee Morgan, who decided to augment her salary by helping herself to the contents of passengers’ luggage as it passed through her security checkpoint.
In 2009, a TSA screener at Newark Liberty International Airport by the name of Pythias Brown was sentenced to three years in federal prison on multiple counts of grand larceny. Known to eBay buyers as “Alirla,” Brown had run the largest one-man theft ring in the short history of the Transportation Security Administration, netting an estimated $400,000 via the resale of stolen high-priced electronics.
And even Brown represents just the tip of the iceberg. According to TSA records, press reports, and court documents, Brown is just one of some 500 TSA officers who have been fired or suspended for stealing from passenger luggage since the agency’s creation in November of 2001. The airports servicing New York City—John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty—harbor the most flagrant offenders, but virtually no city in the nation is safe from the TSA’s sticky fingers.
Read More...
Houston, you’ve got a problem. Every airport does, and it goes by a familiar name: TSA theft.
In the case of Houston, the problem was Transportation and Security Administration agent Karla Renee Morgan, who decided to augment her salary by helping herself to the contents of passengers’ luggage as it passed through her security checkpoint.
In 2009, a TSA screener at Newark Liberty International Airport by the name of Pythias Brown was sentenced to three years in federal prison on multiple counts of grand larceny. Known to eBay buyers as “Alirla,” Brown had run the largest one-man theft ring in the short history of the Transportation Security Administration, netting an estimated $400,000 via the resale of stolen high-priced electronics.
And even Brown represents just the tip of the iceberg. According to TSA records, press reports, and court documents, Brown is just one of some 500 TSA officers who have been fired or suspended for stealing from passenger luggage since the agency’s creation in November of 2001. The airports servicing New York City—John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty—harbor the most flagrant offenders, but virtually no city in the nation is safe from the TSA’s sticky fingers.
Read More...
NBC Omits ‘Under God’ From Pledge Of Allegiance - TWICE!!
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Wednesday, June 22, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Censorship,
God,
NBC,
Outrageous,
Pledge of Alliegance
Obama Chief of Staff Says he Can't Defend Obamanomics
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Big Government,
Bureaucracy,
Economy,
Obama Administration,
Regulation
by Ed Morrissey
White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.
Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress....’”
Read More...
White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.
Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress....’”
Read More...
Jihad American Style
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Tuesday, June 21, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
American,
Freedom,
Guns,
Jihad,
Osama bin Laden,
Wild Bill,
Women's Rights
Ethanol Subsidy Finally Eliminated
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
CO2,
Energy,
Environmentalism,
Ethanol,
Government Waste,
Green House Gases
by Lurita Doan
A stubborn Washington has taken a long time to finally come to its senses and kill ethanol subsides. Once heralded as a great "green" initiative, studies soon proved that diverting huge amounts of American farmland to the production of expensive corn-based ethanol actually increased green house gases. America's best scientists warned stubborn senators that the nation’s ethanol policy was not achieving the desired results, even as it consumed massive amounts of taxpayer money.
Read More...
A stubborn Washington has taken a long time to finally come to its senses and kill ethanol subsides. Once heralded as a great "green" initiative, studies soon proved that diverting huge amounts of American farmland to the production of expensive corn-based ethanol actually increased green house gases. America's best scientists warned stubborn senators that the nation’s ethanol policy was not achieving the desired results, even as it consumed massive amounts of taxpayer money.
Read More...
New EPA Rules Will Increase Cost of Energy
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Monday, June 20, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
CO2,
Coal,
Energy,
Environmentalism,
EPA,
Fraud,
Obama Administration,
Propaganda,
Regulation
by IBD Editorials
Overregulation: The Environmental Protection Agency has two new rules it wants to impose on utilities that use coal. But the rules make sense only if you want less energy, higher prices and fewer jobs.
Remember then-candidate Barack Obama's comment in January 2008 that the price of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket" once his policies went into effect?
It's now coming to pass — just as OPEC has decided it doesn't want to pump more oil. Get the picture? We're being systematically starved of energy, and our economy is suffering. Just don't ask the White House to help.
Broadly, the new EPA rules seek to clean up the air. Everyone's for that, of course. But at what cost?
According to a study the economic consulting firm National Economic Research Associates conducted for the coal industry, the two new rules mentioned above will by themselves cost electric utilities $184 billion by 2030 and kill 1.4 million jobs.
So why do it? Coal, our nation's No. 1 energy source for making electricity, is "dirty." And granted, coal isn't the cleanest available energy. But clean-coal technologies make it cleaner than ever.
It's also the least expensive and most easily available energy we have. For a pittance, it provides fully half the power we need to heat and cool our homes and run our TVs and computers.
But if these EPA rules go into effect, the cost of energy will shoot up 11% to 23% in just a few years.
Read More...
Overregulation: The Environmental Protection Agency has two new rules it wants to impose on utilities that use coal. But the rules make sense only if you want less energy, higher prices and fewer jobs.
Remember then-candidate Barack Obama's comment in January 2008 that the price of electricity would "necessarily skyrocket" once his policies went into effect?
It's now coming to pass — just as OPEC has decided it doesn't want to pump more oil. Get the picture? We're being systematically starved of energy, and our economy is suffering. Just don't ask the White House to help.
Broadly, the new EPA rules seek to clean up the air. Everyone's for that, of course. But at what cost?
According to a study the economic consulting firm National Economic Research Associates conducted for the coal industry, the two new rules mentioned above will by themselves cost electric utilities $184 billion by 2030 and kill 1.4 million jobs.
So why do it? Coal, our nation's No. 1 energy source for making electricity, is "dirty." And granted, coal isn't the cleanest available energy. But clean-coal technologies make it cleaner than ever.
It's also the least expensive and most easily available energy we have. For a pittance, it provides fully half the power we need to heat and cool our homes and run our TVs and computers.
But if these EPA rules go into effect, the cost of energy will shoot up 11% to 23% in just a few years.
Read More...
1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon - Is history about to repeat itself?
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Betrayal,
Big Government,
Communism,
Corruption,
Deception,
Humor,
Socialism
FEMA Denies Aid to Tornado Victims
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Sunday, June 19, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Bureaucracy,
FEMA,
Georgia,
Outrageous,
Tornado
Electric cars may not be so green after all...
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
CO2,
Electric Car,
Environmentalism,
Fraud,
Ignorance,
Ironic,
Pollution,
Propaganda
by Ben Webster
ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.
An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.
The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.
The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government watchdog, has called for the number of electric cars on Britain's roads to increase from a few hundred now to 1.7 million by 2020.
Britain's Department for Transport is spending $66 million over the next year giving up to 8,600 buyers of electric cars a grant of $7700 towards the purchase price. Ministers are considering extending the scheme.
The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.
Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.
Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to avoid misleading consumers. He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car. “People have to match the technology to their particular needs,” he said.
Read More...
ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.
An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.
The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.
The Committee on Climate Change, the UK government watchdog, has called for the number of electric cars on Britain's roads to increase from a few hundred now to 1.7 million by 2020.
Britain's Department for Transport is spending $66 million over the next year giving up to 8,600 buyers of electric cars a grant of $7700 towards the purchase price. Ministers are considering extending the scheme.
The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.
Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.
Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to avoid misleading consumers. He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car. “People have to match the technology to their particular needs,” he said.
Read More...
Defending the Faith Part 2: Why Tactics?
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Saturday, June 18, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Apologetics,
Christianity,
Faith,
Gospel,
Greg Koukl,
Truth
by Greg Koukl
Let’s discuss our need for tactics, what they are, and how to use them.
Our need for tactics concerns our commission to be effective ambassadors for Christ. Ambassadors use three essential skills:
Knowledge: an accurately informed mind
Wisdom: an artful method
Character: an attractive manner
These skills play a part in every effective engagement with a non-believer.
The second skill the artful method, or “tactical wisdom” is our focus in this series of emails. Tactics are distinct from strategy. Strategy involves the big picture, the large-scale operation, of one’s positioning prior to engagement. I use the term “strategy” in reference to the tremendous resources of knowledge available to us to be adequately prepared to give an account for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). In our case, Christianity has strategic superiority it is well “positioned” on the battlefield because our ideas can hold up under serious scrutiny compared to other views.
We have an excellent case. We have the best answers to life’s most important questions.
Tactics entail the artful arranging of resources, specifically in maneuvering through conversations. They allow you to:
Use your knowledge in creative ways.
Choreograph the particulars of your response.
Style your response to objections.
Employ specific methods in addressing attacks.
Guide yourself with sound reasoning, clear thinking, and aggressive advocacy.
Often a clever commander has the advantage over a superior opponent through deft tactical maneuvering.
Tactics should not be used as tricks or slick ruses, clever ploys to destroy non-Christians, forcing them to submit to your point of view, attempts to belittle or humiliate to gain notches in your spiritual belt.
Instead, tactics should enable you to present the truth clearly and persuasively. They should enable you to maneuver and get a footing or an advantage in a conversation, helping you to navigate through the minefields. Tactics put you in the driver’s seat, allowing you to, in many cases, stop a challenger cold and turn the tables, offering him the arguments for Christianity he should carefully consider.
The goal in using tactics is to:
Manage, not manipulate
Control, not coerce
Finesse, not fight
Tactics are powerful and can be abused quite easily. It’s not difficult to make someone look silly with these techniques. We should be direct, focused and challenging, but never abrasive, abusive or alarming. This is where the third quality of an ambassador plays an important role: Character an attractive manner. Our goal is to find clever ways to exploit another’s bad thinking for the purposes of guiding them to truth.
In the next e-mail I’ll introduce you to Lieutenant Columbo, the “queen mother” of all tactics.
Next week: The "Queen Mother" of Tactics
For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.
Let’s discuss our need for tactics, what they are, and how to use them.Our need for tactics concerns our commission to be effective ambassadors for Christ. Ambassadors use three essential skills:
Knowledge: an accurately informed mind
Wisdom: an artful method
Character: an attractive manner
These skills play a part in every effective engagement with a non-believer.
The second skill the artful method, or “tactical wisdom” is our focus in this series of emails. Tactics are distinct from strategy. Strategy involves the big picture, the large-scale operation, of one’s positioning prior to engagement. I use the term “strategy” in reference to the tremendous resources of knowledge available to us to be adequately prepared to give an account for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). In our case, Christianity has strategic superiority it is well “positioned” on the battlefield because our ideas can hold up under serious scrutiny compared to other views.
We have an excellent case. We have the best answers to life’s most important questions.
Tactics entail the artful arranging of resources, specifically in maneuvering through conversations. They allow you to:
Use your knowledge in creative ways.
Choreograph the particulars of your response.
Style your response to objections.
Employ specific methods in addressing attacks.
Guide yourself with sound reasoning, clear thinking, and aggressive advocacy.
Often a clever commander has the advantage over a superior opponent through deft tactical maneuvering.
Tactics should not be used as tricks or slick ruses, clever ploys to destroy non-Christians, forcing them to submit to your point of view, attempts to belittle or humiliate to gain notches in your spiritual belt.
Instead, tactics should enable you to present the truth clearly and persuasively. They should enable you to maneuver and get a footing or an advantage in a conversation, helping you to navigate through the minefields. Tactics put you in the driver’s seat, allowing you to, in many cases, stop a challenger cold and turn the tables, offering him the arguments for Christianity he should carefully consider.
The goal in using tactics is to:
Manage, not manipulate
Control, not coerce
Finesse, not fight
Tactics are powerful and can be abused quite easily. It’s not difficult to make someone look silly with these techniques. We should be direct, focused and challenging, but never abrasive, abusive or alarming. This is where the third quality of an ambassador plays an important role: Character an attractive manner. Our goal is to find clever ways to exploit another’s bad thinking for the purposes of guiding them to truth.
In the next e-mail I’ll introduce you to Lieutenant Columbo, the “queen mother” of all tactics.
Next week: The "Queen Mother" of Tactics
For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.
Shannan Parker's Description Of The Crucifixion
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Christianity,
Crucifixion,
Faith,
Forgiveness,
God,
Gospel,
Grace,
Jesus,
Salvation,
Shannan Parker,
Sin,
Worship
Global Warming Charlatans Feel the Heat
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Friday, June 17, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Climate Change,
CO2,
College,
Deception,
Dishonesty,
Environmentalism,
Fraud,
Global Warming,
IPCC,
Propaganda,
Truth
by Alan Caruba
The University of Virginia, after vigorously resisting a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for data related to the emails of Michael Mann, was the subject of a court order to make them available. While global warming is known worldwide for its claim that manmade warming would doom the Earth, the names and machinations behind the fraud are far less well known.
Mann, a climatologist, was part of a relatively small clique of charlatans who, working for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), conjured up all manner of “proof” that the Earth was on dangerous trajectory, heating up. Mann invented the “hockey stick” graph that demonstrated this bit of climate magic.
With Al Gore as the most famous face of global warming, Mann and others lent credibility to the IPCC that called for massive reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use of fossil fuels, primarily oil and coal.
Mann’s problem began when the “hockey stick” graph was debunked and demolished as bogus. All this occurred while Mann was on the faculty of the University of Virginia and while large amounts of research grant money were being received by the University to support Mann and others.
Read More...
The University of Virginia, after vigorously resisting a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request for data related to the emails of Michael Mann, was the subject of a court order to make them available. While global warming is known worldwide for its claim that manmade warming would doom the Earth, the names and machinations behind the fraud are far less well known.
Mann, a climatologist, was part of a relatively small clique of charlatans who, working for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), conjured up all manner of “proof” that the Earth was on dangerous trajectory, heating up. Mann invented the “hockey stick” graph that demonstrated this bit of climate magic.
With Al Gore as the most famous face of global warming, Mann and others lent credibility to the IPCC that called for massive reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use of fossil fuels, primarily oil and coal.
Mann’s problem began when the “hockey stick” graph was debunked and demolished as bogus. All this occurred while Mann was on the faculty of the University of Virginia and while large amounts of research grant money were being received by the University to support Mann and others.
Read More...
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Climate Change,
Environment,
Ice Age,
Science,
The Sun,
Weather
by Victoria Jaggard
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
Read More...
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
Read More...
Yale, Jews, and Double Standards
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Thursday, June 16, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Anti-Semitism,
College,
Hate,
Indoctrination,
Islam,
Israel,
Jewish,
Propaganda,
Truth,
Yale
by Caroline B. Glick
Last week Yale University announced its decision to close down its institute for the study of anti-Semitism. The move has been widely criticized as politically motivated. For its part, the university claims that the move was the result of purely academic considerations.
While not clear-cut, an analysis of the story lends to the conclusion that politics were in all likelihood the decisive factor in the decision. And the implications of Yale's move for the scholarly inquiry into anti-Semitism are deeply troubling.
The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) was founded in 2006. Its purpose was to provide a scholarly approach to the study of contemporary and historical anti- Semitism. It was attached to Yale's Institution of Social and Policy Studies. It was fully funded from private contributions. Yale did not in any way subsidize its activities from the university's budget.
Since its inception, under the peripatetic leadership of its Executive Director Dr. Charles Small, YIISA organized seminars and conferences that brought leading scholars from all over the world to Yale to discuss anti-Semitism in an academic setting. Its conferences and publications produced cutting edge research. These included a groundbreaking statistical study published by Small and Prof. Edward Kaplan from Yale's School of Management that demonstrated a direct correlation between anti-Israel sentiment and anti- Jewish sentiment.
At a large conference last August titled, "Global anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity," among other things, YIISA confronted the genocidal nature of Islamic anti-Semitism. The conference produced more than 800 pages of scholarly research materials on all facets of anti-Semitism, including anti-Semitism in Western academia.
Read More...
Last week Yale University announced its decision to close down its institute for the study of anti-Semitism. The move has been widely criticized as politically motivated. For its part, the university claims that the move was the result of purely academic considerations.
While not clear-cut, an analysis of the story lends to the conclusion that politics were in all likelihood the decisive factor in the decision. And the implications of Yale's move for the scholarly inquiry into anti-Semitism are deeply troubling.
The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) was founded in 2006. Its purpose was to provide a scholarly approach to the study of contemporary and historical anti- Semitism. It was attached to Yale's Institution of Social and Policy Studies. It was fully funded from private contributions. Yale did not in any way subsidize its activities from the university's budget.
Since its inception, under the peripatetic leadership of its Executive Director Dr. Charles Small, YIISA organized seminars and conferences that brought leading scholars from all over the world to Yale to discuss anti-Semitism in an academic setting. Its conferences and publications produced cutting edge research. These included a groundbreaking statistical study published by Small and Prof. Edward Kaplan from Yale's School of Management that demonstrated a direct correlation between anti-Israel sentiment and anti- Jewish sentiment.
At a large conference last August titled, "Global anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity," among other things, YIISA confronted the genocidal nature of Islamic anti-Semitism. The conference produced more than 800 pages of scholarly research materials on all facets of anti-Semitism, including anti-Semitism in Western academia.
Read More...
“This is What Democracy Looks Like” Yemeni Style
by Trevor Loudon
Do you think this crowd has a Jeffersonian constitutional republic in mind?
Mob power, egged on by Marxists, Iranian agents and the Muslim Brotherhood, is not a recipe for any sort of stable Western style government.
Dictatorship is inevitable. its just a matter of what flavor.
by Socialist Aotearoa
Huge crowds celebrated on the streets of Yemen on Sunday after president Ali Abdullah Saleh fled to Saudi Arabia—saying he needed medical treatment.
“The people have brought down the regime,” chanted the crowds in University Square at the heart of the capital, Sana’a. Protesters have renamed it Change Square and camped there since February.
Saleh, who has held power in the country for 33 years, was injured in an attack on the presidential compound on Friday of last week. Other leading members of his regime were also hurt.
Throughout Friday and Saturday, members of Saleh’s regime insisted that the injuries were minor.
However on Sunday morning it was announced that Saleh had left to have surgery.
Although Saleh’s supporters still say he will come back “in a few days”, that was looking increasingly unlikely.
“The squares have been filling up with people celebrating, and that in itself makes it harder for the dictator to return,” Abubakr Al-Shamahi, a Yemeni activist based in Britain, told the British Socialist Worker newspaper…
The real risk is that the Yemeni protest movement does not continue after Saleh resigns.
But Abubakr Al-Shamahi thinks it will.
“Yemenis are very stubborn people,” he said. “They’ve suffered 800 dead. People won’t let things go back to ‘normal’. People want change.”
Read More...
Do you think this crowd has a Jeffersonian constitutional republic in mind?
Mob power, egged on by Marxists, Iranian agents and the Muslim Brotherhood, is not a recipe for any sort of stable Western style government.
Dictatorship is inevitable. its just a matter of what flavor.
by Socialist Aotearoa
Huge crowds celebrated on the streets of Yemen on Sunday after president Ali Abdullah Saleh fled to Saudi Arabia—saying he needed medical treatment.
“The people have brought down the regime,” chanted the crowds in University Square at the heart of the capital, Sana’a. Protesters have renamed it Change Square and camped there since February.
Saleh, who has held power in the country for 33 years, was injured in an attack on the presidential compound on Friday of last week. Other leading members of his regime were also hurt.
Throughout Friday and Saturday, members of Saleh’s regime insisted that the injuries were minor.
However on Sunday morning it was announced that Saleh had left to have surgery.
Although Saleh’s supporters still say he will come back “in a few days”, that was looking increasingly unlikely.
“The squares have been filling up with people celebrating, and that in itself makes it harder for the dictator to return,” Abubakr Al-Shamahi, a Yemeni activist based in Britain, told the British Socialist Worker newspaper…
The real risk is that the Yemeni protest movement does not continue after Saleh resigns.
But Abubakr Al-Shamahi thinks it will.
“Yemenis are very stubborn people,” he said. “They’ve suffered 800 dead. People won’t let things go back to ‘normal’. People want change.”
Read More...
Rising forest density offsets climate change
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Wednesday, June 15, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Climate Change,
CO2,
Environmentalism,
Global Warming,
Ironic,
Propaganda,
United Nations
by Alister Doyle
(Reuters) - Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change caused by deforestation from the Amazon basin to Indonesia, a study showed on Sunday.
The report indicated that the size of trees in a forest -- rather than just the area covered -- needed to be taken into account more in U.N.-led efforts to put a price on forests as part of a nascent market to slow global warming.
"Higher density means world forests are capturing more carbon," experts in Finland and the United States said...
Read More...
(Reuters) - Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change caused by deforestation from the Amazon basin to Indonesia, a study showed on Sunday.
The report indicated that the size of trees in a forest -- rather than just the area covered -- needed to be taken into account more in U.N.-led efforts to put a price on forests as part of a nascent market to slow global warming.
"Higher density means world forests are capturing more carbon," experts in Finland and the United States said...
Read More...
Radicalization of Muslims in U.S. prisons
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Tuesday, June 14, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Islam,
Muslim,
Peter King,
Prison,
Radicalization,
Terrorism
High Speed Rail Subsidies in Iowa: Nothing for Something
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Absurd,
Chicago,
Government Waste,
High Speed Rail,
Iowa,
Obama Administration,
Unintended Consequences
by Wendell Cox
The Federal government is again offering money it does not have to entice a state (Iowa) to spend money that it does not have on something it does not need. The state of Iowa is being asked to provide funds to match federal funding for a so-called "high speed rail" line from Chicago to Iowa City. The new rail line would simply duplicate service that is already available. Luxury intercity bus service is provided between Iowa City and Chicago twice daily. The luxury buses are equipped with plugs for laptop computers and with free wireless high-speed internet service. Perhaps most surprisingly, the luxury buses make the trip faster than the so-called high speed rail line, at 3:50 hours. The trains would take more than an hour longer (5:00 hours). No one would be able to get to Chicago quicker than now. Only in America does anyone call a train that averages 45 miles per hour "high speed rail."
Read More...
The Federal government is again offering money it does not have to entice a state (Iowa) to spend money that it does not have on something it does not need. The state of Iowa is being asked to provide funds to match federal funding for a so-called "high speed rail" line from Chicago to Iowa City. The new rail line would simply duplicate service that is already available. Luxury intercity bus service is provided between Iowa City and Chicago twice daily. The luxury buses are equipped with plugs for laptop computers and with free wireless high-speed internet service. Perhaps most surprisingly, the luxury buses make the trip faster than the so-called high speed rail line, at 3:50 hours. The trains would take more than an hour longer (5:00 hours). No one would be able to get to Chicago quicker than now. Only in America does anyone call a train that averages 45 miles per hour "high speed rail."
Read More...
Renewable Energy Requires Vast Amounts of Natural Resources
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Monday, June 13, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Energy,
Environment,
Environmentalism,
Solar Panels,
Unintended Consequences,
Wind
by Robert Bryce
IN April, Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines by signing into law an ambitious mandate that requires California to obtain one-third of its electricity from renewable energy sources like sunlight and wind by 2020. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have renewable electricity mandates. President Obama and several members of Congress have supported one at the federal level. Polls routinely show strong support among voters for renewable energy projects — as long as they don’t cost too much.
But there’s the rub: while energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources — most notably, land. Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement.
Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles.
The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.
Read More...
IN April, Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines by signing into law an ambitious mandate that requires California to obtain one-third of its electricity from renewable energy sources like sunlight and wind by 2020. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have renewable electricity mandates. President Obama and several members of Congress have supported one at the federal level. Polls routinely show strong support among voters for renewable energy projects — as long as they don’t cost too much.
But there’s the rub: while energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources — most notably, land. Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement.
Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles.
The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.
Read More...
Taxpayers Face Multibillion Dollar Loss from Auto Bailouts
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Chrysler,
Deception,
Dishonesty,
Extortion,
Fraud,
General Motors,
Obama,
Obama Administration,
Propaganda,
Union
by David Skeel
President Obama's visit to a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, on Friday was the culmination of a campaign to portray the auto bailouts as a brilliant success with no unpleasant side effects. "The industry is back on its feet," the president said, "repaying its debt, gaining ground."
If the government hadn't stepped in and dictated the terms of the restructuring, the story goes, General Motors and Chrysler would have collapsed, and at least a million jobs would have been lost. The bailouts averted disaster, and they did so at remarkably little cost.
The problem with this happy story is that neither of its parts is accurate. Commandeering the bankruptcy process was not, as apologists for the bailouts claim, the only hope for GM and Chrysler. And the long-term costs of the bailouts will be enormous.
In late 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tapped the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Fund to lend more than $17 billion to General Motors and Chrysler. With the fate of the car companies still uncertain at the outset of the Obama administration in 2009, Mr. Obama set up an auto task force headed by "car czar" Steve Rattner.
Under the strategy that was chosen, each of the companies was required to file for bankruptcy as a condition of receiving additional funding. Rather than undergo a restructuring under ordinary bankruptcy rules, however, each corporation pretended to "sell" its assets to a new entity that was set up for the purposes of the sale.
With Chrysler, the new entity paid $2 billion, which went to Chrysler's senior lenders, giving them a small portion of the $6.9 billion they were owed. (Fiat was given a large stake in the new entity, although it did not contribute any money). But the "sale" also ensured that Chrysler's unionized retirees would receive a big recovery on their $10 billion claim—a $4.6 billion promissory note and 55% of Chrysler's stock—even though they were lower priority creditors.
If other bidders were given a legitimate opportunity to top the $2 billion of government money on offer, this might have been a legitimate transaction. But they weren't. A bid wouldn't count as "qualified" unless it had the same strings as the government bid—a sizeable payment to union retirees and full payment of trade debt. If a bidder wanted to offer $2.5 billion for Chrysler's Jeep division, he was out of luck. With General Motors, senior creditors didn't get trampled in the same way. But the "sale," which left the government with 61% of GM's stock, was even more of a sham.
Read More...
President Obama's visit to a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, on Friday was the culmination of a campaign to portray the auto bailouts as a brilliant success with no unpleasant side effects. "The industry is back on its feet," the president said, "repaying its debt, gaining ground."
If the government hadn't stepped in and dictated the terms of the restructuring, the story goes, General Motors and Chrysler would have collapsed, and at least a million jobs would have been lost. The bailouts averted disaster, and they did so at remarkably little cost.
The problem with this happy story is that neither of its parts is accurate. Commandeering the bankruptcy process was not, as apologists for the bailouts claim, the only hope for GM and Chrysler. And the long-term costs of the bailouts will be enormous.
In late 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tapped the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Fund to lend more than $17 billion to General Motors and Chrysler. With the fate of the car companies still uncertain at the outset of the Obama administration in 2009, Mr. Obama set up an auto task force headed by "car czar" Steve Rattner.
Under the strategy that was chosen, each of the companies was required to file for bankruptcy as a condition of receiving additional funding. Rather than undergo a restructuring under ordinary bankruptcy rules, however, each corporation pretended to "sell" its assets to a new entity that was set up for the purposes of the sale.
With Chrysler, the new entity paid $2 billion, which went to Chrysler's senior lenders, giving them a small portion of the $6.9 billion they were owed. (Fiat was given a large stake in the new entity, although it did not contribute any money). But the "sale" also ensured that Chrysler's unionized retirees would receive a big recovery on their $10 billion claim—a $4.6 billion promissory note and 55% of Chrysler's stock—even though they were lower priority creditors.
If other bidders were given a legitimate opportunity to top the $2 billion of government money on offer, this might have been a legitimate transaction. But they weren't. A bid wouldn't count as "qualified" unless it had the same strings as the government bid—a sizeable payment to union retirees and full payment of trade debt. If a bidder wanted to offer $2.5 billion for Chrysler's Jeep division, he was out of luck. With General Motors, senior creditors didn't get trampled in the same way. But the "sale," which left the government with 61% of GM's stock, was even more of a sham.
Read More...
Bill Warner: Kafir Civilization
Posted by
MyNewsLinx
| Sunday, June 12, 2011 |
0
comments
|
Labels:
Bill Warner,
Freedom,
Geert Wilders,
Intolerance,
Islam,
Jihad,
Muslim,
Quran,
Sharia Law,
Terrorism,
Truth
On May 12, 2011 Bill Warner was the opening speaker for Geert Wilders in Nashville, TN. This is his 14 minute speech about our civilization and Islam.
Click here for your free copy of Sharia Law For The Non Muslim...













