Sunday, January 25, 2015

From the American Council on Science and Health

Rise in autism diagnoses may be largely due to changes in diagnostic criteria - The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has increased significantly over the last thirty years, for mysterious reasons. This report indicates that most of that increase may be due to changes in the diagnostic criteria: not vaccines, car exhaust, or any other pseudoscientific explanations. Read more.

Keep e-cigarettes accessible to adults, not kids  - ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross had an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press, discussing the questionable logic to which "public health" groups subscribe when deciding that any bill terming e-cigarettes as "non-tobacco" products must be vetoed, even if said bill includes restrictions on sales to minors. Read more.

Does HFCS shorten life? Maybe, for some female mice - A new "study" tries to show some adverse impact on mortality from high-fructose corn syrup. But: a) It's a mouse study; b) the alleged effect was only seen in females; c) HFCS has been declared safe by science based consensus, including ACSH's peer reviewed report. Read more.

 New antibiotic a game-changer in the fight against antimicrobial resistance - A new antibiotic has been discovered and incredibly, no resistance has been detected so far. Both the antibiotic and the technique used to discover it are being deemed revolutionary in the fight against superbugs. Read more.

 Biosimilars are coming. But, how similar are they really? - FDA advisory panel votes to recommend approval of "new" product from Novartis called Zarixio. If the FDA listens, pharmaceutical history will be made - the ability of companies to develop and market biologic drugs that are similar to other companies. Read more.

Healthy obese often don't stay that way - If you're obese but healthy, there's no reason to lose weight, right? Well, that may not actually be the case. A new study indicates that there's no guarantee that you'll remain that way as you age. Read more.

 New Drugs For Hepatitis C Show Value Of Choices For Treatment - ACSH's Dr. Josh Bloom and Dr. Henry Miller took on a controversial topic in the pharma world - so called "me-too" drugs. This derisive term should be anything but. Bloom and Miller explain how this concept led to the cure of hepatitis C. Read their Forbes piece here!

It could be more than just the "winter blues" - Seasonal affective disorder affects about 10% of the population, causing irritability, fatigue, and weight gain. Many brush it off as the "winter blues," but effective treatments, such as bright light therapy, exist. Some SAD patients have clinical depression. Read more.

Henry Miller in the Wall St. Journal: EPA/USDA strangled biopharming in its cradle  - In his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Henry Miller reminisces, sardonically, about the vast potential of "biopharming": genetically modifying plants to make pharmaceuticals. Yes, we remember: the regulators choked it to death. Read more.

Disneyland's measles outbreak continues to spread, is "100 percent connected" to the anti-vaccine movement - Earlier this month, we covered a measles outbreak that began in Disneyland. Now 59 cases of measles have been reported in California, and the obvious cause is the state's prevalent anti-vaccine movement. Read more.

Study claims association between hormonal contraceptives and brain tumors - If you scour a vast amount of data from various inputs vs. various outcomes, you will find some "statistically significant" linkage in the test sample by chance. That explains the association study authors found between contraceptives and brain tumors. Read more.

BPA = Big Phony Apocalypse, even in Europe - And yet another objective, science-based agency has declared bisphenol-A (BPA) "safe." This time, even those hyper-precautionary Europeans agree. Will this, at least, stop the hype against it? We doubt it. Read more.

"The Science of the 'Endocrine Disrupter' Debate" explains the absence of science - An opinion piece in the Independent Women's Forum by CEI's Angela Logomasini explores the science behind "endocrine disruptors." Summary: there isn't any. Read more.

New variety of GMO potato introduced by JR Simplot - The USDA approved the use of JR Simplot's 'Innate' potato last November. Now, a new variety - Generation 2 Innate - is up for consideration, which adds late blight resistance and reduces further the amount of acrylamide produced. Read more.

What is really killing bees? You may be surprised. - It has been "known" for years that bees are rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth, and that pesticides are to blame. Both of these "facts" are wrong, and a new review blames something entirely different for regional bee deaths. Read more.

From Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Foundation

Defeat For Green Lobby As EU Panel Rejects Cap-And-Trade Reforms

Richard Lindzen: Climate Alarmism Is a Doomsday Cult

The European Parliament’s industry committee failed to agree on a recommendation for a draft measure to curb a glut of carbon permits. The panel, which has an advisory role in the legislative process, rejected a report on a mechanism to withhold surplus allowances. In today’s final ballot, the industry committee voted 31 to 28, with seven abstentions, against an entire report even after approving individual amendments. --Ewa Krukowska and Ian Wishart, Bloomberg, 22 January 2015

European Union carbon allowances posted their biggest drop since April after a panel in the bloc’s parliament failed to agree on how to modify a measure curbing a glut of carbon permits. Permits fell as much as 8.1% after the European Parliament’s industry committee, which has an advisory role in the legislative process, rejected a recommendation on a mechanism to withhold surplus allowances. --Ewa Krukowska and Ian Wishart,
Bloomberg, 22 January 2015

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true. Yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all. --David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 18 January 2015

Last week, according to our crackerjack mainstream media, NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year, like, ever. No, really. The New York Times began its report with: “Last year was the hottest in earth’s recorded history.” Well, not really. As we’re about to see, this is a claim that dissolves on contact with actual science. But that didn’t stop the press from running with it. --Robert Tracinsk, The Federalist, 19 January 2015 

It is perhaps the world’s most famous environmental parable. A settler on Easter Island stood beside the island’s last tree. He or she looked around the treeless horizon, every one of those trees removed by man, and chopped it down anyway. Afterwards, the island died — the nutrients washed away, the landscape stripped. The population collapsed into warfare and cannibalism. It is a compelling tale, but may be completely false, according to research published yesterday. The Easter Island population did collapse, not due to this “ecocide”, but instead something less remarkable: the arrival of Europeans, bringing syphilis, smallpox and slavery. --Tom Whipple, The Times, 7 January 2014

The paper by Benny Peiser tackles head on the evidence Jared Diamond uses to assert that the residents of Easter Island (aka Rapa Nui) committed ecological suicide, or ecocide. According to Peiser, the primary evidence Diamond relies upon are oral traditions from the residents of Rapa Nui and from historical sources, not from the archaeological record. But what is most disturbing is the extent to which Diamond seems determined to avoid looking at the actual genocidal violence of the colonial encounter. --Kerim Friedman,
Savage Minds, 11 September 2005

It might well have been environmental folly to remove the trees, but, the scientists write in the paper, “the concept of ‘collapse’ is misleading”. “Starvation is not an automatic result of tree removal, and neither is warfare,” said Professor Hamilton. Past research found what appeared to be layers of obsidian spearheads — implying brutal conflict, but further analysis showed they had been used for peeling vegetables. Similarly, while islanders might have lost the ability to go out on the sea to fish, there is evidence that they kept more chickens. It appears that civilisation survived long after the last tree — and collapsed only when the first ship appeared. “Their story is one of ingenuity, resilience, and resourcefulness,” said Professor Hamilton. -- Tom Whipple, The Times, 7 January 2014

The ‘decline and fall’ of Easter Island and its alleged self-destruction has become the poster child of a new environmentalist historiography, a school of thought that goes hand-in-hand with predictions of environmental disaster. Why did this exceptional civilisation crumble? What drove its population to extinction? These are some of the key questions Jared Diamond endeavours to answer in his new book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive. According to Diamond, the people of Easter Island destroyed their forest, degraded the island’s topsoil, wiped out their plants and drove their animals to extinction. As a result of this self-inflicted environmental devastation, its complex society collapsed, descending into civil war, cannibalism and self-destruction. While his theory of ecocide has become almost paradigmatic in environmental circles, a dark and gory secret hangs over the premise of Easter Island’s self-destruction: an actual genocide terminated Rapa Nui’s indigenous populace and its culture. --Benny Peiser,
Energy & Environment, September 2005
 
In a twist of irony, the very country green activists are trying to “save” from global warming has turned on them for allegedly comprising its economic security. The Indian government has cracked down of Greenpeace and other U.S. environmental groups for protesting its use of coal-fired electricity, India’s biggest source of energy. Last year, India’s Intelligence Bureau issued a report declaring Greenpeace “a potential threat to national economic security…growing exponentially in terms of reach, impact, volunteers and media influence.” The report added that Greenpeace was finding “ways to create obstacles in India’s energy plans” and to “pressure India to use only renewable energy.” --Michael Bastsch, The Daily Caller, 15 January 2015

The drastic fall in global crude oil prices over the past six months could reduce the chance of a universal agreement on climate change policy this year, according to HSBC. Falling oil prices will challenge countries’ ability to implement climate policy, HSBC said in a recent report. --Nyshka Chandran,
CNBC News, 12 January 2015



The Hollywood Jihad Against American Sniper

Daniel Greenfield  Posted: 24 Jan 2015

American Sniper is the movie that should not have existed. Even though the book was a bestseller, nobody in Hollywood wanted the rights.

And why would they?

The Iraq War already had an official narrative in Hollywood. It was bad and wrong. Its veterans were crippled, dysfunctional and dangerous. Before American Sniper, Warner Brothers had gone with anti-war flicks like Body of Lies and In the Valley of Elah. It had lost a fortune on Body of Lies; but losing money had never stopped Hollywood from making anti-war movies that no one wanted to watch.

Even the Hurt Locker had opened with a quote from leftist terrorist supporter Chris Hedges.

An Iraq War movie was supposed to be an anti-war movie. There was no other way to tell the story. Spielberg’s own interest in American Sniper was focused on “humanizing” the other side. When he left and Clint Eastwood, coming off a series of failed films, took the helm, it was assumed that American Sniper would briefly show up in theaters and then go off to die quietly in what was left of the DVD aisle.

And then American Sniper broke box office records that had been set by blockbusters like Avatar, Passion and Hangover Part II by refusing to demonize American soldiers or to spin conspiracy tales about the war. Instead of pandering to coastal progressives, it aimed at the patriotic heartland.

In a sentence you no longer expected to hear from a Hollywood exec, the Warner Brothers distribution chief said, “This is about patriotism and all the things people say the country is lacking these days.”

The backlash to that patriotism and the things the country is lacking these days didn’t take very long to form and it goes a lot deeper than snide tweets from Michael Moore and Seth Rogen. Academy members were reportedly passing around an article from the New Republic, whose author had not actually seen the movie, but still denounced it for not showing Chris Kyle as a bigoted murderer.

Hollywood progressives are both threatened and angered by American Sniper. And with good reason.

The most basic reason is the bottom line. Between Lone Survivor, Unbroken and American Sniper, the patriotic war movie is back. Hollywood could only keep making anti-war movies no one would watch as long as that seemed to be the only way to tackle the subject. Now there’s a clear model for making successful and respectful war movies based around the biographies and accounts of actual veterans.

Hollywood studios had been pressured by left-wing stars into wasting fortunes on failed anti-war conspiracy movies. Matt Damon had managed to get $150 million sunk into his Green Zone failed anti-war movie before stomping away from Universal in a huff. Body of Lies with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe had a real budget estimated at around $120 million, but had opened third after Beverly Hills Chihuahua whose titular tiny dog audiences preferred to either star and their political critiques.

But why spend over a hundred million on anti-war movies no one wants when American Sniper has already made over $120 million on a budget only half that much?

Hollywood progressives don’t look forward to having to write, direct and star in patriotic pictures and if they can’t destroy American Sniper at the box office, they can taint it enough that no major star or director will want to be associated with anything like it.

Adding to their undercurrent of anger is the way that American Sniper upstaged Selma at the box office and at the Academy Award nominations. Selma is a mediocre movie, but it was meant to be a platform for the usual conversation that progressives want to have about how terrible Americans are. Instead audiences chose to see a movie about how great Americans can be even in difficult times.

There’s nothing that threatens the left as much as that.

In a Best Picture lineup that includes the obligatory paeans to gay rights and the evils of racism, American Sniper distinctly stands out as something different. It displaces Richard Linklater’s Boyhood, the previous sure winner which had its obligatory drunken Iraq War veteran claiming that the war was fought for oil, with an authentic veteran instead of Hollywood’s twisted caricature of one.

American Sniper and Lone Survivor signal a shifting wind in which the focus of movies about the War on Terror moves from the organizational conspiracy theories that Hollywood liked to make to the personal narratives of the men who fought in them. Many of the smarter progressive reviews of American Sniper grapple with the fact that the time when they could even have their favorite argument is going away.

Progressives would like Dick Cheney to be the face of the war, but are forced to deal with a world in which Chris Kyle and Marcus Luttrell will be how America sees the conflict. The lens through which the left liked to view the war, its obsessions with WMD, Bush and the path to war, have been eclipsed by the rise of ISIS and the return of American veterans. Their worldview has become outdated and irrelevant.

It’s easier for the left to vent its anger on American Sniper than to deal with its own irrelevance. The most shocking thing about the movie is not any political statement, but its presumption in dealing with the Iraq War and the men in it as if it were WW2. It doesn’t confront the left; instead it acts as if the left isn’t there. It fails to acknowledge the entire worldview through which Hollywood dealt with the war.

The left spends most of its time living in its own bubble and is shocked when events remind it that the rest of the country does not really share its opinions and tastes. American Sniper’s success is one of those explosive wake-up calls and the left has responded to it with all the expected vicious pettiness.

A billboard for the movie was vandalized and attacks from lefty outlets like New Republic and Vox not only target the movie, but the dead man at the center of it. The smear campaign against Kyle has reached new lows, because in death he has become an even more powerful symbol of everything that the left hates.

Hollywood tried to “Vietnamize” Iraq in the popular imagination. American Sniper shows they failed.

Whether or not American Sniper wins the requisite number of Oscars, its impact on Hollywood and on ordinary Americans will not go away. The anti-war movie is in eclipse. The movies that tell the stories of the sacrifices that American veterans have made in the war against Islamic terrorists are rising.


This originally appeared here and my thanks to Dan for allowing me to publish his work.  Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Vitamin A Deficiency-Related Disorders (VADD)

VADD in SE AsiaThe most damaging micronutrient deficiencies in the world are the consequence of low dietary intake of iron, vitamin A, iodine and zinc. Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is prevalent among the poor whose diets are based mainly on rice or other carbohydrate-rich, micronutrient-poor calory sources. Rice does not contain any β-carotene (provitamin A), which their body could then convert into vitamin A. Dependence on rice as the predominant food source, therefore, necessarily leads to VAD, most severely affecting small children and pregnant women. In 2012 the World Health Organization reported that about 250 million preschool children are affected by VAD, and that providing those children with vitamin A could prevent about a third of all under-five deaths, which amounts to up to 2.7 million children that could be saved from dying unnecessarily.

VAD compromises the immune systems of approximately 40 percent of children under five in the developing world, greatly increasing the severeness of common childhood infections, often leading to deadly outcomes. VAD is most severe in Southeast Asia and Africa. For the 400 million rice-consuming poor, the medical consequences are fatal: impaired vision—, in extreme cases irreversible blindness; impaired epithelial integrity, exposing the affected individuals to infections; reduced immune response; impaired haemopoiesis (and hence reduced capacity to transport oxygen in the blood) and skeletal growth; among other debilitating afflictions.  Rice containing provitamin A could substantially reduce the problems described above…..To Read More….

Golden Rice: An example of the potential benefits of genetic engineering technolog

Posted on January 23, 2015 by admin  This appeared here. 

Dr. Alan Moghissi of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (and former chairman of the ACSH Board of Directors) and colleagues cogently reviewed the evolution of agricultural development. This evolution depended on first, the availability of plants with desirable traits, second, the availability of cross breeding plants to increase agricultural production, and finally huge advances in molecular biology, which allowed the application of genetic engineering to agricultural processes.

Moghissi and co-authors use the development of Golden Rice, which has been genetically engineered to provide beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, as a clear example of the progress of agricultural technology. The authors dissect the claims espoused by those opposing the testing and application of GE technology, as exemplified by opposition to Golden Rice, and find that these are without merit.

The WHO estimates that about 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A deficient children go blind each year and half of those children die within 12 months of going blind. However, the anti-biotech crowd continues to fight against the introduction of this revolutionary genetically engineered product.

As ACSH’s Dr. Ruth Kava has said in the past, “The stance against golden rice by anti-GMO activists is simply reprehensible. There is no good reason to fight the introduction of this GMO product — or any other — into the world’s food supply. In my opinion, these activists are responsible for untold misery and death by instigating fear-driven destruction of test plots of this potentially life-saving product. Hopefully this addition to the literature will help to sway those opposing this life-saving technology.”

For more information about the use of GE (aka GM) technology in agriculture, see ACSH’s publication, Food and You, available here. For a 2013 opinion piece on this subject by ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross, see here.

Let's Play Twenty Questions!

By Rich Kozlovich

Never heard of Twenty Questions?  Well this was a parlor game that forces everyone to think and reason logically, creatively and deductively.  It even became a radio quiz show during the glory days of radio.   Here’s the way it works.  A subject is chosen and a person is chosen to be the “answerer”.   The answerer must answer 20 questions from the audience or panel honestly.  It can be a yes and no format or it can be more explanatory, but lying is absolutely forbidden.  If the answer isn’t arrived at after the 20 questions are answered the answerer wins this round and continues to be the answerer for another round – which is the goal of the game.

An article appeared on January 24, 2015 titled, Senate GOP Building Momentum For Regulatory Reform, saying: 

“A highly controversial regulatory reform bill is gaining steam in the Senate. Long scorned by Democrats, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act has found new life with Republicans in control of the Senate. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced Friday he is backing the REINS Act, adding more clout to the bill that was reintroduced earlier this week. "

The authors of  “The REINS Act” claim this act “will help cut through the “bureaucratic red tape” in Washington, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Friday. “The new Congress brings with it a new opportunity to take a close look at the true impact of an unchecked regulatory system, and to consider common sense solutions that seek to restore accountability and transparency to the rulemaking process,” said Grassley, who is co-sponsoring the legislation that was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

 Of course Democrats state this bill is an attempt to block rules from the Obama administration as if that's a bad thing! The reality is they should have done this during the Bush administration. He passed more regulations than any president since Richard Nixon, at least until now.

But now we’re in the midst of another tortuous level of unending claptrap, pandering and blather from those who have egos so large they think they should tell the rest of us how to live our lives – it’s called a Presidential Campaign.   

As these new candidates line up and spew out their claptrap on both sides of the aisle we will need clarity. Here's how to get it!  We’ll play a game of Twenty Questions and they must answer - and they must answer honestly.

1. Would you be willing to support repealing the 16th amendment, passing a national sales tax and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service?

2. Would you support repealing the 17th amendment?

3. The federal government owns between 25 and 30 percent of the land mass of the United States. Would you support selling that land?

4. The United States owns a huge amount of buildings that are unoccupied or under occupied. Would you support selling such buildings and installations?

5. Would you support dismantling the EPA and instituting Dr. Jay Lehr's five year plan to do so?

6. The United States owns a huge number of buildings that are unoccupied or under occupied. Would you support selling such buildings and installations?

7. Would you be willing to dismantle or reorganize the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corp of Engineers, and how?

8. Would you be willing to repeal or rewrite the Endangered Species Act, the Clear Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and how?

9. Would you be willing to dismantle or reorganize OSHA, and how?

10. Would you absolutely repeal Obamacare?

11. Would you support restructuring Social Security and instituting a shift to private retirement plans?

12. Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Education?

13. Would you be willing to end the destructive student loan program?

14. Would you be willing to end funding to the universities and colleges of the nation, which has caused a massive increase it the cost of education, and has allowed universities to become fever swamps of socialist thinking without consequence?

15. Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Labor?

16. Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Commerce?

17. Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Energy?

18.  Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Human Services?

19.  Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Housing and Urban Development?

20. Would you be willing to dismantle the Department of Transportation?

Ohio State Senator Cliff Hite is fond of telling a joke that goes something like this.
 
A man dies and faces St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter tells him he has to choose. The man says he wants to go to Heaven. St. Peter tells him they have a system here that requires him to go down and view things down below and then choose where he’s to go. So he takes an elevator down and the doors open to a beautiful scenic golf course. The best he’s ever seen and lo and behold he sees old friends playing golf, and he joins in. He’s having the best day he’s ever had. The next day St. Peter asks him if he’s made up his mind and he answers saying he always thought he wanted to go through the Pearly Gates, but what he experienced yesterday was so wonderful he’d decided to go down below. St. Peter says fine and sends him down the elevator. When he gets there the doors open and he’s facing hot, horrible conditions and his golfing friends are miserable and suffering hauling wheelbarrows of coal to feed the fires. He sees the Devil and asks what happened to the beautiful golf course and the great conditions? The Devil says: Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted!

The problem with all of this is whether or not they’ll answer these questions, and if they do will they answer them honestly. Politicians have the tendency to “grow” after they’re elected, but if they answer these questions - honestly - that will provide all the clarity anyone could need. 

 

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Nanotechnology and medicine: Coming of microscopic machines that treat disease

Ben Locwin | January 22, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project

Photo-2
It’s been the stuff of science fiction for almost as long as there has been science fiction: Sending miniaturized machines or vehicles through the human body to go to sites of disease or damage and repair them internally, without the need for invasive surgical incisions and collateral tissue damage. Now the first version of one of these nanotechnologies has been realized in vivo (in a living body). Researchers at the University of California, San Diego have delivered microscopic treatment projectiles to the stomach of mice to explore the concept as a treatment for conditions such as stomach ulcers, gastritis, or other diseases of the organ.

Why it’s exciting.....To Read More....


My Take - This is going to happen at some point in time. Do they understand all that's needed to be known to make it happen soon? Probably not, but it's like so many great breakthroughs - someone will stumble on the answers accidently.  Accident is a component of science, along those unexplainable “SHAZAM” moments of insight flashes into a scientist’s mind such as "Archimedes discovering how to calculate density and volume while taking a bath. Sir Isaac Newton allegedly discovered the law of universal gravity by being hit on the head by an apple, Descartes developed what is now known as coordinate geometry by watching flies, Einstein was thinking about trains and lightening when the idea of special relativity flashed into his head and Tesla was walking with a cane when he first thought of alternating current."

But I believe it’s going to happen because science fiction writers have been talking about this kind of thing for years.  So what?  Well, I don’t seem to read anything except non-fiction now - reports, news, commentary, all real world events.  In short, I’m reading more and enjoying it less.  But I used to enjoy fiction in years gone by, especially science fiction and as the years went by I noticed things discussed by science fiction writers seem to eventually come true.  Why?  Well, some of them are scientists and the rest of the good ones are science aficionados with the ability to extrapolate what’s real into what’s possible better than other people.  They simple see further down the road than the rest of us. 



 

GMO Myth: Farmers “drown” crops in “dangerous” glyphosate. Fact: They use eye droppers

Dave Walton | January 22, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project

As a farmer, I have to laugh sometimes; it’s all I can do when I run across this sort of misinformation supposedly telling me about how I run my farm. There are people out there who truly believe that we farmers douse, drown, drench or saturate our crops in chemicals, glyphosate to be more specific. Anti-GMO campaigners, organic activists and irresponsible news reports use those phrases all the time (see here, here, here, here). In graphic form it often looks something like this meme from GMOFreeUSA pictured above.

Really?.....To Read More…..

Friday, January 23, 2015

Why the Left Refuses to Talk About Muslim Anti-Semitism

Daniel Greenfield Posted: 22 Jan 2015 07:55 AM PST

Even articles about Muslim Anti-Semitism rarely want to talk about Muslim Anti-Semitism. In the aftermath of the Kosher supermarket massacre in France, articles about the Muslim persecution of Jews in Europe nervously hover around the subject before swerving away to discuss the European far-right.

An article about Muslim anti-Semitism in France inevitably becomes an article about the National Front, which is not actually shooting Jews in supermarkets. Broader European pieces obsessively focus on the Jobbik party in Hungary which for all its vileness has not actually killed any Jews.

(The endless articles about Jobbik characterize it as a far-right European Christian party, but in fact it’s a pan-Turkic organization whose chairman had told a Turkish audience, “Islam is the last hope for humanity.” Its actual identity is based on a broad front of ethnic solidarity by identifying Hungarians as a Turkic people. Its anti-Semitism is anti-Zionist. Jobbik hates Jews because it identifies with Muslims.)

The usual treatment of Muslim anti-Semitism is cursory. History books acknowledge its existence while asserting that European anti-Semitism was worse. Modern media coverage takes the same approach by finding a useful distraction in the European far-right.

Muslim anti-Semitism needs to be addressed on its own if for no other reason than that it’s the dominant form of violence against Jews in Europe. And it has been that way for some time now.

Articles that gloss over Muslim Anti-Semitism to flit on to the National Front, which in this current crisis has shown itself to be less anti-Semitic than the BBC whose reporter Tim Wilcox accused a daughter of Holocaust survivors in France of oppressing Palestinians, are very deliberately ignoring the issue. The politics of the media led it to class together anti-immigration with violent bigotry. But the violent bigotry isn’t coming from the sort of people that the media thinks it ought to.

It’s not UKIP supporters that are hunting down and killing Jews and so the media avoids the subject until some violent atrocity forces its hand and then it blames Muslim anti-Semitism on a failure to integrate. Ahmed can’t get a job because of UKIP or Wilders and so he shoots up a synagogue. The Jews are just collateral damage in Muslim blowback to their persecution by European opponents of immigration.

Throw in a little something about Israel and Muslim anti-Semitism is transformed into a misunderstood phenomenon that really isn’t what it appears to be. Muslims don’t hate Jews. They’re just confused.

But Muslim anti-Semitism predates the difficulties of integrating Algerians and Pakistanis into Europe by over a thousand years. In Islam, Jews represent both a subject race and a primal enemy. Israel infuriates Muslims so much not because they care a great deal about the Palestinian Arabs who have been expelled in huge numbers from Muslim countries within the last generation, but because Jews no longer know their place. Islam is supremacist. Allahu Akbar asserts Islamic supremacy over all other religions. As an historical subject race, Jews are a natural target for violence by Muslim immigrants with strong supremacist leanings. The disenfranchised Muslim isn’t looking for equality. He’s seeking supremacy. That is what the Islamic State and the Koran give him. He picks the same Jewish targets as Mohammed did because the Jews are a vulnerable minority. That is as true in Europe today as it was in Arabia then.

Unlike the Christian world, which was never fully subjugated by Islam, both the Jewish homeland and much of the Jewish diaspora population existed under Muslim rule long enough that non-submissive Jews became a particularly galling reminder of the fall of the Caliphate.

Muslims had taken Jewish submission for granted making the existence of non-submissive Jews, whether in Jerusalem or in Paris, that much more outrageous. The Algerian Muslim can more readily accept taking a back seat to a French Christian than to an Algerian Jew, whom he knows would have been considered inferior to him if they were both back in Algeria.

The left has become so mired in a post-colonial worldview that it refuses to understand that the struggle is not between Western European colonialism and a post-colonial Third World, but between different eras of colonialism. Arab Islamic domination is not post-colonial; it’s a colonialism that predates it.

When Western leftists make common cause with Arab and Islamic nationalists, they aren’t being post-colonial, they’re advocating an earlier form of colonialism that led and is once again leading to ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass slavery and the destruction of indigenous cultures; including that of the Jews.

Middle Eastern Jews, like other non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities, welcomed European colonialism as relief from Islamic and Arab colonialism. France is filled with Jews from North Africa because they received their rights for the first time under French rule. As French citizens, they could shed their mandatory black clothes and no longer fear being killed because of Islamic law, like Batto Sfez, a Tunisian Jew who was executed for blasphemy in an atrocity that triggered French intervention.

Yoav Hattab, one of the Jews murdered in the Kosher supermarket attack in Paris, was the son of the Chief Rabbi of Tunisia. While the Chief Rabbi was, in the unfortunate Dhimmi fashion of those who live under Islamic rule, forced to praise how well Tunisia treats Jews, his son was buried in Israel. Israel was also the place where most Tunisian Jews moved to escape Arab Muslim persecution.

The Western left can’t talk about Muslim anti-Semitism because it would also have to talk about Muslim colonialism. And then the entire basis of its approach to the Arab and Muslim world would collapse. If post-colonialism in the Middle East is just the replacement of one colonialism with another, then the left would have to admit that it has once again disgraced itself by supporting a totalitarian system.

Just as it replaced the czar with the commissar, it is replacing the protectorate with the caliphate.

Modern histories of the Middle East excuse the historical Muslim persecution of Jews for the same reason the media excuses modern Muslim attacks on Jews. This historical revisionism justifies Islamic colonialism in the service of post-colonialism with the myth of a golden age of benevolent tyranny.

The post-colonial narrative obligates academics and journalists to favorably contrast the Muslim treatment of Jews, then or now, with the European treatment of Jews. This obstructionism has endangered European Jews even more than Jihadist videos advocating violence because it makes it impossible to discuss an urgent violent threat for fear of violating the left’s post-colonial narrative.

Muslim anti-Semitism must be discussed. And it must be contextualized within the history of Muslim-Jewish relations, not European ones like the National Front or Jobbik. It must not be dismissed as some transient phenomenon caused by poverty or the latest Hamas clashes, but viewed within the context of Islamic colonialism and the treatment of non-Muslims in the Muslim world. The treatment of Yazidis in Iraq and Christians in Syria must also be placed within that same context.

Historical revisionism for Muslim anti-Semitism is as unacceptable as Holocaust denial or any other attempt to stick a smiley face on the oppression of Jews. And what is at stake here is not merely history, but the root cause that drives Muslim men and women born in Europe to attack and kill Jews.

The post-colonial authorities of the left may not be interested in discussing Muslim anti-Semitism, but Muslim Supremacist anti-Semitism remains interested in persecuting and killing Jews.

My Thanks to Daniel Greenfield who is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center for allowing me to publish his work.

David Clarke, Wisconsin sheriff: ‘Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from’

By Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times - Thursday, January 22, 2015

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke didn’t pull any punches in his assessment of the Rev. Al Sharpton — who vowed to keep fighting for justice for slain Ferguson teen Michael Brown, despite the feds’ decision to drop a civil rights investigation — and characterized him on national television as less than intelligent and unworthy of respect.  “The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, got it right,” Sheriff Clarke said, during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” “Officer [Darren] Wilson has been exonerated. The thing I want to know is how does he get his reputation back?”......Read more

If Republicans won't fight for late-term babies, what will they fight for?

By Timothy P. Carney

Most Americans -- especially women -- believe that government should ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Babies after 20 weeks of gestation can feel pain. If allowed a couple more weeks to grow inside their mothers, they can survive outside the womb. Most Americans — especially most women — believe that government should protect these babies by banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. After 20 weeks, a baby is entering her 6th month of in-utero life. She is forming taste buds and can hear her mother’s voice.

At 20 weeks, an unborn child is on the brink of viability: James Elgin Gill was born after 21 weeks and 5 days gestation. He’s now a healthy 17 year-old.

Almost all countries prohibit abortion at this point. China, North Korea, the United States, and a few others allow it. Polls show that Americans favor a ban on aborting babies after this point In 2013, the U.S. House passed such a ban. This week, on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision — widely understood to be a sloppy mess of motivated reasoning — Republicans planned to pass it through the House again. But two co-sponsors, Reps. Renee Elmers and Jackie Walorski, removed their sponsorship and demanded party leaders pull the bill. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Speaker John Boehner complied.......Republicans this week ran away from an abortion fight because they’re afraid of how it will play politically.......To Read More....

My Take - Clarity - of which we are in such dire need. William F. Buckley once said something along this order: There's only one reason to for abortion - you don't believe its murder and there's only one reason to be against abortion - you believe it is murder. Nancy Pelosi was asked if a fetus isn't a human being then what is it? If a fetus is a human being then defeating abortion is a moral imperative. If these people are so afraid of standing on such strong moral foundation then what do they believe in - other than getting re-elected by pandering to the lowest moral common denominator? As Sir Thomas More asked Richard Rich when facing trial for his life: Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales? But for a seat in Congress?

Fidel Castro: Leftwing Monster

Discover the Networks

Fidel Castro entered Havana on January 8, 1959, to wild acclaim from all quarters. Most Cubans were jubilant; Castro was promising an end to the corrupt governments that had plagued Cuba since independence. Far from any Communism, Castro was promising a revolution "as green as Cuba's palm trees!" with national elections in three months. Private property would be secure, a free press guaranteed, friendly relations with the U.S. were essential……Yet within three months of his entry into Havana, Castro's firing squads had murdered an estimated 600-1,100 men and boys, and Cuba's jails held ten times the number of political prisoners as under Fulgencio Batista, who Castro overthrew with claims to "liberating" Cuba……. As with so much else regarding pre-Castro Cuba, major misconceptions abound in this editorial. To wit: in the 1950's the average farm-wage in "near-feudal" Cuba was higher than in France, Belgium, Denmark, or West Germany. According to the Geneva-based International Labor Organization, the average daily wage for an agricultural worker in Cuba in 1958 was $3. The average daily wage in France at the time was $2.73; in Belgium $2.70; in Denmark $2.74; in West Germany $2.73; and in the U.S. $4.06. Also, far from huge latifundia dominating the agricultural landscape, the average Cuban farm in 1958 was actually smaller than the average farm in the U.S.: 140 acres in Cuba vs. 195 acres in the U.S. In 1958 Cuba, a nation of 6.2 million people, had 159,958 farms -- 11,000 of which were tobacco farms. Only 34 percent of the Cuban population was rural…….To Read More…..

Thomas Sowell on’ Inequality’

January 23, 2015 by David Hogberg

The 1st edition of Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics, published back in 2000, came in at 366 pages. The book has proven so popular that the 5th edition, release late last year, has ballooned to 689 pages. Sowell recently sat down for a lengthy interview, and in part three he talks about the new topics in his book, including inequality, human capital, imperialism and non-profits. Click the following for part one and part two of the interview.
 
David Hogberg: In the newest edition of Basic Economics, you include a chapter on international disparities on wealth, and right off the bat you ask in that chapter, “A more fundamental question might be: Was there ever any realistic chance that the nations of the word would have had similar prospects of economic development?” Can you expand on that?
 
Thomas Sowell: For starters, different races originated in different geographic settings. Those settings were never the same. There was never any reason then that the people who developed in those different places would be the same…..To Read More….

Admiral: U.S. could have ousted Gadhafi peacefully

Brokered deal but Obama chose to arm al-Qaida-linked 'rebels'

Jerome R. Corsi Email | Archive    

Obama administration rejected an offer by Moammar Gadhafi to engage in negotiations to abdicate, according to a retired U.S. Navy officer who says he was prepared to broker the deal.  Instead, the U.S. decided to provide weapons to “rebels” consisting of al-Qaida-related local Libyan militia and members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, contends retired Rear Adm. Chuck Kubic.  Kubic began email and telephone contact March 21, 2011, between Tripoli and AFRICOM in Stuttgart, Germany, to broker an offer by Gadhafi to engage in talks with the U.S. under a white flag of truce, according to testimony he provided the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.  As WND reported Monday, the commission – comprised of 17 retired admirals and generals; former intelligence agents; active anti-terrorist experts; media specialists; and former congressmen – has been conducting its own investigation and working behind the scenes for the past year and a half to ensure Congress uncovers the truth of what happened in Benghazi and holds people accountable…..To Read More….

 

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Obama Has Two More Years Left to Destroy the U.S.

This appeared on Alan's blog, Warning Signs. My thanks to Alan for allowing me to publish his work. RK




By Alan Caruba

As 2015 began the Journal Editorial Report on Fox News was devoted to having its reporters, some of the best there are, speculate on what 2015 holds in terms of who might run for president and what the economy might be. The key word here is “speculate” because even experts know that it is unanticipated events that determine the future and the future is often all about unanticipated events.

How different would the world have been if John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated? One can reasonably assume there would not have been the long war in Vietnam because he wanted no part of the conflict there. Few would have predicted that an unknown Governor from Arkansas would emerge to become President as Bill Clinton did. Who would believe we are talking about his wife running for President? That is so bizarre it is mind-boggling.

 Most certainly, few would have predicted that an unknown first term Senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, would push aside Hillary Clinton to become the first black American to be nominated for President and to win in 2008. Despite the takeover of the nation’s healthcare system with a series of boldfaced lies, he still won a second term.

Obama now has two more years in which to try to destroy the U.S. economy; particularly its manufacturing and energy sectors. The extent to which he is putting in place the means to do that still remains largely unreported or under-reported in terms of the threat it represents.
 
The vehicle for the nation’s destruction is the greatest hoax of the modern era, the claim that global warming must be avoided by reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions.

A President who lied to Americans about the Affordable Care Act, telling them they could keep their insurance plans, their doctors, and not have to pay more is surely not going to tell Americans that the planet is now into its 19th year of a cooling cycle with no warming in sight.

To raise the ante of the planetary threat hoax, he has added “climate change” when one would assume even the simple-minded would know humans have nothing to do with the Earth’s climate, nor the ability to initiate or stop any change.

In 2015, the White House is launching a vast propaganda campaign through the many elements of the federal government to reach into the nation’s schools with the climate lies and through other agencies to spread them.

In particular, Obama has been striving to utilize the Environmental Protection Agency to subvert existing environmental laws and, indeed, the Constitution unless Congress or the courts stop an attack that will greatly weaken the business, industrial and energy sectors. It will fundamentally put our lives at risk when there is not enough electricity to power homes and workplaces in various areas of the nation. At the very least, the cost of electricity will, in the President’s own words, “skyrocket.”

Why doesn’t anyone in Congress or the rest of the population wonder why White House policies are closing coal-fired plants that provided fifty percent of our electricity when Obama took office and now have been reduced to forty percent? Did you know that more than 1,200 new coal-fired plants are planned in other nations with two-thirds of them to be built in India and China? We live in a nation that has such huge reserves of coal we export it.

The EPA attack on these plants is so illegal and unethical that one of the nation’s leading liberal attorneys, Laurence H. Tribe, who began teaching about environmental law 45 years ago, went on record to declare the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.

The plan is a regulatory proposal to reduce carbon emissions from the nation’s electric power plants. Tribe pointed out that a two-decade old Supreme Court precedent forbids the federal government from taking action to commandeer the powers of state governments by leaving them no choice but to implement it.

“The brute fact,” said Tribe “is that the Obama administration failed to get climate legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not.”

As 2014 came to a close, the Obama administration either proposed or imposed more than 1,200 new regulations on the American people.

Alex Newman, writing in the New American, calculated they will add “even more to the already crushing $2 trillion per year cost burden of the federal regulatory machine.” Not surprisingly, “most of the new regulatory schemes involve energy and the environment—139 during a mere two-week period in December, to be precise.”

“In all,” Newman reported, “the Obama administration foisted more than 75,000 pages of regulations on the United States in 2014, costing over $200 billion, on the low end, if new proposed rules are taken into account.” Just one, the EPA’s “coal ash” regulation, “is expected to cost as much as $20 billion, estimates suggest.”

Then add to that the EPA’s “ozone rule” that is estimated to cost “as much as $270 billion per year and put millions of American jobs at risk under the guise of further regulating emissions of the natural gas.” Released the day before Thanksgiving, “Experts also pointed out that the EPA’s own 2007 studies showed no adverse health effects from exposure to even high levels of ozone.”

These are just two examples of the regulatory strangulation of the nation’s economy and energy infrastructure.

This is Obama’s agenda for the remaining two years of his second and thankfully last term in office. Whether you know anything about the science of the climate or have ever even read the Constitution, the sheer disaster of ObamaCare should have told you by now that everything Obama has put in motion has had the single objective of destroying the nation's economy in every possible way.

The voters have put Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress and their primary responsibility will be to reverse and repeal the damage of Obama’s first six years. The courts will play a role, but this is a job for our elected representatives.

© Alan Caruba, 2015