I have been waiting for this for a long time. When I was in college finishing my latest degree here at IUSB I was making many of these very same claims about global warming alarmist nonsense as the IAC report below. Leftist students and faculty pretty much told me that I was nuts, and I wasn’t a climate scientist so how would I know? Well it looks like I knew. It was easy. First of all it doesn’t take a genius to see when the scientific method is being ignored and second of all, what I am an expert on is politics and I know a political movement when I see one.
At the bottom of the article I posted a list of links that I wrote starting in 2007 saying many of the same things the IAC has pointed out below. I have reactivated IUSB Vision just for the purpose of posting this story. All of you PhD. laden academics who doubted me and called me all of those names behind my back should ask yourselves; why was a mere undergrad like me spot on and all of you who are supposed to be teachers wrong? And this isn’t this first time that happened is it? – Chuck Norton
On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the Inter Academy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”
Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.
If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.
The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.
Alternative views not considered, claims not properly peer reviewed
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
No formal criteria for selecting IPCC authors
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).
Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”
Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:
Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).
How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?
Phony estimates of certainty
Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.
The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”
The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.
IPCC participants had conflicts of interest
Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).
Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.
IPCC critics vindicated
So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here…keep on moving.
Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.
It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.
And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.
And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?
In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?
Related from this old college blog:
Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Ask – February 18, 2007 – LINK
Top Scientists Say: You Are Not the Cause of Global Warming – October 22, 2007 – LINK
Global Cooling Continues; Global Warming Alarmists Still Issuing Death Threats – December 28, 2008 – LINK
UK Telegraph: 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved – December 28, 2008 – LINK
National Climatic Data Center: Cooling in Last 10 Years – January 10, 2009 – LINK
The Debate is Over. Global Warming Alarmism is About Achieving Central Control of the Economy and Now They Admit It Openly – March 27, 2009 – LINK
Al Gore: Climate change issue can lead to world government – July 11, 2009 – LINK
EPA Tried to Suppress Global Warming Report Admitting Skeptics Correct – October 23, 2009 – LINK
New AP Article on “Global Cooling Myth” Spins a Bad Study – UPDATED: Look where they put THIS ground station… – October 27, 2009 – LINK
Professors Paid to Plagiarize – UPDATE: Global warming scientists hacked emails show manipulation of data, hiding of other data and conspiring to attack/smear global warming skeptics! – November 19, 2009 – LINK
National Association of Scholars on the “ClimateGate” Scandal – November 28, 2009 – LINK
Examples of the “Climategate” Documents – UPDATE: BBC Had the emails and files for 6 weeks, sat on story. UPDATE II – They carried out their conspiracy threat; much of the raw data from CRU destroyed! – November 28, 2009 – LINK
Scientific American thinks you are stupid: The dissection of a blatant propaganda piece for global warming alarmism. – December 6, 2009 – LINK
The Roundup: IPCC Authors Now Admitting Fault – No Warming Since 1995 – Sea Levels Not Rising. Senator Inhofe: Possible criminal misuse of taxpayer research funds. – February 23, 2010 – LINK
OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits… – April 23, 2010 – LINK
UN IPCC Co-chair: climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth – November 18, 2010 – LINK
More Hadley Center Global Warming Horror Claims Debunked by Real Science – December 6, 2010 – LINK
ClimateGate One Year Later. Elite Media Still Lying – December 6, 2010 – LINK
More ClimateGate One Year Later – December 7, 2010 – LINK
IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT: Most global warming models are exaggerated, many scientists in it for the grant money or treat it like a religion – December 7, 2010 – LINK
How Global Warming Propaganda Works – December 8, 2010 – LINK
NASA’s global warming evidence page filled with lies, half truths and suspect data – December 10, 2010 – LINK
Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research: Halt economic growth, start government rationing. Global Warming Alarmists Party Fat in Cancun – December 21, 2010 – LINK
Global Warming Conference Delegates Sign Petitions to Ban Water and “Destabilize U.S. Economy” – February 15, 2011 – LINK
Global Warming Alarmist Quote of the Day – Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart: No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.
AAUP Seeks to Limit Transparency Over Climate Science – September 19, 2011 – LINK
The University of Montana School of Law has agreed to stop discrimination against a Christian group in its allocation of student funds.
Prior to this, the leftist dominated school administration and student government had denied funding to the student chapter of the Christian Legal Society on the basis of its religious and political viewpoints.
In response, the group filed a lawsuit, assisted by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group.
You would think that a law school would know how to follow clearly established anti-discrimination laws. The truth is that of course U of M Law knew full well what the law was as said law can be looked up in minutes, but their zeal for anti-Christian bigotry was more important to them than the law, as evidenced by the fact that they held out until they faced a lawsuit they had no chance of winning.
Now keep in mind this is the University of Montana where the people there are as traditional and religious as can be and yet look at how detached the university is from the people it is paid to serve. This is an indicator of just how completely the radical left has compromised the public education system. University departments tend to clone themselves. The only place most Americans are likely to encounter neo-Marxists and genuine ‘capital C’ communists is on a university campus. The truth is that even moderate and center/right professors are persecuted at most colleges and that includes IU South Bend.
Would a university such as the University of Montana whose entire administration engaged in obviously illegal view point discrimination and anti-Christian bigotry to the point of having a lawsuit filed against them even hesitate to not hire or drum out a traditional or conservative professor?
Is your group being discriminated against by your administration or student government association? Contact your Regional Field Coordinator to learn about the legal resources you can use to ensure fair treatment for your conservative group on campus.
On the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, we are finding our way of life, our culture, our system of law, and even our history under attack. This is the message of Todd Beamer’s father in an interview with Megyn Kelly.
The history, founding, and philosophy of this country is crystal clear, the enemy, both foreign and domestic, is just hoping that you will not discover it.
Kate Smith introducing God Bless America with Ronald Reagan at 4:20
Bill Whittle makes some remarkable comments in his must see video and we expand on those comments below:
Lying and/or deception is a staple of leftist philosophy (like Radical Islam’s Taqiyyah concept) and anyone can read Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, Mao, Goebbels, Van Jones, Piven, Hegel, Walter Lippmann, Stalin, ACORN materials, union activist manuals that have been leaked, etc and see that they advocate that the “truth” is anything that supports their position, the ends justifies the means, etc. I then remind them that our philosophy punishes those who lie or break their word – Just ask Bush 41 (read my lips).
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell says that bluedogs are just conservative and rhetorical cover so the socialists can get away with more.
While many politicians on both sides do spin and commonly lie when there is a scandal to attempt to get themselves out of trouble, for the left lying is calculated aggression.
Barack Obama says that government must live within its means and then puts forth a budget with 1.3 trillion to 1.6 trillion yearly deficits for as long as they eye can see, all while his budgets assume 4-5% economic growth.
When Obama goes to El Paso and says that he has done everything the GOP wants him to do with the border and now it is time to pass amnesty (laughable), or after he signed the Stimulus Bill he bragged about how it did not have one single earmark on national television, and then a few days later signed a $411 billion dollar omnibus spening bill with over 8000 earmarks in it, or how his Press Sec. claims that Texas Governor Rick Perry is lying about the federal government denying Texas disaster aid because of the wildfire problem there that has burned millions of acres “because the federal government is paying 75% of the bill” – but here is the rub, they are paying 75% of the bill for 25 fires out of 9000; a key fact he chose to omit. I could go on for 10 pages but I would not want to rub it in.
The truth is not neutral. Truth is demonstrated as truth when it can be demonstrated with a full body of evidence. That is why comments like “That web site isn’t balanced” are meaningless as the truth is not neutral.
What we are stating here was first recorded by Aristotle with his ‘Law of Identity’, also known as A=A; meaning that no matter how something is spun or misperceived truth is what it is and A=A no matter how many people say it equals Q. Aristotle had to break down rhetoric to this common sense level because of another school of rhetoric and ethics known as “The Sophists”. The Sophists prided themselves in their ability to defeat good arguments with bad ones and to use emotional pleas and deception to undermine truth whenever it suited them.
It is more than just a scarey title. Mark Steyn is a Canadian news, political, economic, and demographic analyst whose rhetorical witt, wisdom and skill has been compared to Samuel Clemens. He is an award winning writer.
Steyn’s 2008 book titled America Alone, predicted the economic and cultural fall of Western Europe that we are witnessing in our news today. Steyn is not a bomb thrower, rather he is one of the most dedicated and mindful analysts that Canada has ever produced.
Steyn has written for a wide range of publications, including the Jerusalem Post, The Orange County Register, Chicago Sun-Times, National Review, The New York Sun, The Australian, Maclean’s, Irish Times, National Post, The Atlantic Monthly, Western Standard and New Criterion.
Steyn is a visiting professor at Hillsdale College, is a saught after lecturer. There are few in the world that are his rhetorical equal.
Mr. Walter Smith included me in his list of email recipients. Here is an excerpt.
“Does any one know Lloyd Marcus?
“Since when did African Americans become so equal that they could afford to support groups that are obviously anti-Black. Does he not know that a vote against Barack Obama is a vote against all African Americans?”
Dear Mr. Smith:
I usually delete hate mail from the left. Because your email did not begin with the typical calling me numerous expletives and the “n” word, I will reply.
I find it amazing how blind you are regarding YOUR racism. You call millions of Americans, many who voted for Obama, “obviously anti-Black” because they disapprove of his socialistic agenda . So, because we have a black president, any and all criticism is automatically deemed to be racist. Last time I checked, this is still America where folks have a right to disagree regardless of the president’s skin color.
In response to your statement: “Does he not know that a vote against Barack Obama is a vote against all African Americans?”
Good lord Mr. Smith, not only is this statement absurd, it is evil. You are instructing black Americans not to consider who Obama is as a human being. According to you, Obama’s values, principles and vision for America are irrelevant.
In essence, you are saying Obama’s skin color MUST trump EVERYTHING! Can you not see the immorality of such thinking? What if white America followed your lead. “If you do not vote for the white guy, you are voting against all white Americans.” Only a white skin head would make such an idiotic, evil proclamation.
But then, you probably do not consider black racism to be immoral. I suspect you view America’s sin of slavery, a ga-zillion years ago, as a gold credit card entitling blacks to limitless acts of racism.
Mr Smith, over 50% of black babies are aborted which Obama supports via Planned Parenthood. Obama supports gay marriage. Black unemployment has risen to an unprecedented high under Obama.
As a Christian, Obama’s agenda does not “jive” with my values. You are insisting that I worship Obama’s skin color over my God. I will not.
The greatest thing about science fiction is that it allows us to explore humanity in ways that rarely come along in day to day life.
What does a good man do when put in the most impossible of situations? How does he react? How does it impact him in the face of a man’s strengths and frailties? These are the questions that good science fiction seeks to find the answers to.
Gene Roddenberry said that science fiction is the last playground of the philosophers. Truer words could not be spoken. Green Lantern is a good movie because it is a story of the greatest battle every man must face in some way, the internal battle to determine who and what he will chose to be.
So here we have Hal Jordan, a pilot who suffers from great character strengths and flaws [Note: if you do not think that strength of character can cause one to suffer than you have never tried to do the right thing in the face of a group of people determined to do wrong - Editor].
In the following scenes Hal Jordan’s day starts off bad and by evening his life is turned up side down as he is thrust into an impossible situation.
La Raza means “The Race”. La Raza calls for communist revolution in the United States, wants much of the Western United States given to Mexico (they call it Aztlan), and are so racist that they are often referred to as “The Klan with a tan”; what would one expect from a group that calls itself “the race”?
A Judicial Watch investigation reveals that federal funding for a Mexican La Raza group that for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars has skyrocketed since one of its top officials got a job in the Obama White House.
The influential and politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has long benefitted from Uncle Sam’s largess but the group has made a killing since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) in 2009 to be his director of intergovernmental affairs.
Ignored by the mainstream media, Judicial Watch covered the appointment because the president issued a special “ethics waiver” to bring Muñoz aboard since it violated his own lobbyist ban. At the pro illegal immigration NCLR, Muñoz supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels and she was heavily involved in the congressional immigration battles that took place in the George W. Bush Administration.
She also brought in a steady flow of government cash that’s allowed the Washington D.C.-based group to expand nationwide and promote its leftist, open-borders agenda via a network of community organizations dedicated to serving Latinos. Among them are a variety of local groups that provide social services, housing counseling and farm worker assistance as well as publicly-funded charter schools that promote radical Chicano curriculums. Judicial Watch published a special report on this a few years ago.
This week a JW probe has uncovered details of the alarming increase in federal funding that these NCLR groups have received since Muñoz joined the Obama Administration. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
Not surprisingly, a big chunk of the money (60%) came from the Department of Labor, which is headed by a former Californiacongresswoman (Hilda Solis) with close ties to the La Raza movement. Since Obama named her Labor Secretary, Solis has launched a nationwide campaign to protect illegal immigrant workers in theU.S. Just this week Solis penned declarations withGuatemala andNicaragua to preserve the rights of their migrants.
The NCLR also received additional taxpayer dollars from other federal agencies in 2010, the JW probe found. The Department of Housing and Urban Development doled out $2.5 million for housing counseling, the Department of Education contributed nearly $800,000 and the Centers for Disease Control a quarter of a million.
Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor. An offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa (CPLC) saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’ appointment.
A social service and legal assistance organization (Ayuda Inc.) that didn’t receive any federal funding between 2005 and 2008 got $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. The group provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they won’t be reported to authorities.
Related: The speech below was at a La Raza event in Los Angeles
May 08, 2010 — ”Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico”…La Raza rally at UCLA….More gems: ‘Communist Revolution’, ‘Frail, racist white people’, ‘La Raza’ (the Race), Fidel Castro, ‘Northern Front of Latin Revolution’…”40 million…revolutionaries…in the belly of the beast”. “Our enemy is Capitalism and Imperialism”. Sedition anyone?
Sanchee H.S. history teacher Ron Gochez, La Raza Rally at UCLA
Here is his H.S. Let them know what you think of his comments: http://www.santeefalcons.org/
Phone: (213) 763-1000
Los Angeles Unified School District
Los Angeles Board of Education:
“We are revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. Its about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism.”
There are more and more of these kinds of videos appearing on the internet. Inner city black America is figuring out that something is wrong. It seems that the man in this video read Obama’s book and realized that Marxism is bad and is full of hypocrisy.
Warning, the man in this video uses “gangsta” like adult language. It probably has 100 cuss words in it.
A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.
Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the school district is in the process of appealing the ruling, and his office has agreed to file a brief in their support.
“Part of this goes to the very heart of the unraveling of moral values in this country,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News Radio, saying the judge wanted to turn school administrators into “speech police.”
“I’ve never seen such a restriction on speech issued by a court or the government,” Abbott told Fox News Radio. “It seems like a trampling of the First Amendment rather than protecting the First Amendment.”
Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”
He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.
“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,’” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”
Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”
The Texas attorney general called the ruling unconstitutional and a blatant attack from those who do not believe in God — “attempts by atheists and agnostics to use courts to eliminate from the public landscape any and all references to God whatsoever.”
“This is the challenge we are dealing with here,” he said. “(It’s) an ongoing attempt to purge God from the public setting while at the same time demanding from the courts an increased yielding to all things atheist and agnostic.”
The judges ruling was not just wrong, it was unhinged. This is what happens when political donors, cronies, political hacks and campaign envelope lickers get awarded judgeship’s as an “atta boy”.
Some of the videos have executives making rather obvious revelations, like when Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds talk about pacifist messages in M*A*S*H or when MacGyverproducer Vin Di Bona says anti-gun messages were a recurring theme in that show.
But an additional video has Di Bona, who also created America’s Funniest Home Videos, becoming remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: “I think it’s probably accurate, and I’m happy about it.”
Another video has Leonard Goldberg — who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie’s Angels and Starsky and Hutch — saying that liberalism in the TV industry is “100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth.” Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. “Absolutely,” Goldberg says.
When Shapiro tells Fred Pierce, the president of ABC in the 1980s who was instrumental in Disney’s acquisition of ESPN, that “It’s very difficult for people who are politically conservative to break in” to television, he responds: “I can’t argue that point.” Those who don’t lean left, he says, “don’t promote it. It stays underground.” …
In the book, subtitled “The true Hollywood story of how the left took over your TV,” Shapiro also tells anecdotes of bias against conservatives. One example is Dwight Schultz, best known for his roles as Murdock in The A-Team and Barclay in Star Trek: The Next Generation.
The late Bruce Paltrow knew that Schultz was a fan of President Ronald Reagan. When Schultz showed up to audition for St. Elsewhere, a show Paltrow produced, to read for the part of Fiscus, Paltrow told him: “There’s not going to be a Reagan a**h*** on this show!” The part went to Howie Mandel.
Here is Dwight Schultz in an award winning scene from Star Trek: The Next Generation
Dwight Schultz as Murdock in The A-Team
Dwight Schultz as Barclay in Star Trek: Voyager
McGuyver Creator: I am Happy With the blacklisting of conservatives
COPS – Manipulated to be politically correct? –
Fred Silverman of NBC, ABC, and CBS: The progressive perspective is the only one that is available.
Leonard Goldberg, CBS Producer: Leftism is “100% dominant” –
A third of graduated and rising high school seniors – who will be voting in the 2012 elections – have never studied the U.S. Constitution.
A recent study by the National Assessment for Educational Progress reported that only 67% of all high school students have spent any time studying the nation’s founding document. Every four years, the NAEP polls 10,000 students about their knowledge of – or even exposure to – the Constitution. The percentage of knowledgeable students is continually decreasing and, since 2007, the numbers have fallen another five percentage points from 72%. Maybe this is obvious, but shouldn’t a responsible and informed citizenship be one of the goals of public education?
Without basic knowledge of this foundational document, these voters will be hard pressed to answer some of the most important political questions in 2012. The next election is going to depend on every voter’s understanding of constitutional authority. For instance, does Obamacare’s individual mandate fall under the commerce clause? Other recent questions – like which branches are involved in the decision to declare war – cannot be answered without a thorough understanding of the Constitution.
But a basic understanding of the Constitution is useful well beyond just the next election. The Constitutionspells out both the powers and limitations of the federal government. It seems that it could become rather difficult to secure the blessings of liberty without teaching the next generation how our government is designed to protect these liberties.
This is slightly disturbing but highly enlightening.
So how do you combat this?
Get a program called Spybot Search & Destroy. It is free and updated every week. Install it (do not install the “Tea Timer” option), update it manually once a week and run it from time to time. It will delete the tracking cookies on your computer. Another free program called CCleaner has an option to delete the specific Google and Yahoo tracking cookies as Spybot ignores those. This makes it more difficult for those companies to profile you. Only log in to Yahoo and Google when you have to, or only do it on a certain backup PC.
The search engines have “advanced search” options that will help you to get straighter results. I find myself using them from time to time.
There are few people on Earth who have the level of understanding and have religious writings committed to memory like Robert Spencer. I have seen Spencer debate those who try to deny the truth and the result is a site to see.
Palestinian youths charged with slaughter of Fogel family
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
“I’m proud of what I did, I did it all for Palestine,” one of the suspects says during an appearance in court, “I would do it again.”
Two Palestinian youths from the West Bank village of Awarta, arrested in April on suspicion of murdering five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, were charged with five counts of homicide at a military court on Sunday.
The defendants, 17-yearold Hakim Awad and 18-yearold Amjad Awad, who are from the same clan, have confessed to stabbing and shooting two young brothers, their parents, and a three-month-old baby in the attack.
“I don’t regret what I did, and would do it again,” Amjad Awad told reporters in court. “I’m proud of what I did and I’ll accept any punishment I get, even death, because I did it all for Palestine,” he added.
The charge sheet detailed how the two saw two young brothers sleeping in their beds, 4-year-old Elad and 11- year-old Yoav, snuck into the home, and stabbed them both to death. They then entered the parents’ bedroom, where they launched a knife attack on Ehud and Ruth Fogel. The parents fought back, attempting to fend off the attackers. Ehud died of stab wounds and Ruth was shot dead by the attackers with a stolen M- 16 gun. The two then left the house, before hearing cries from three-month-old baby Hadas. Awoken by the attack, the baby lay in its crib in the parents’ bedroom.
“They went back into the house and stabbed the baby to death to silence her cries,” a security source said following the arrests in April.
Why is it that the elite media will not show you this? This is typical of Islamist TV.
Two 11-year-old girls articulate their personal goal to become shahids [people who die for Allah], explaining that “all Palestinian children” see Shahada [death for Allah] – because of its promised grand Afterlife – as more worthwhile than living.
Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who spoke out against Islamic violence, so the leftist parties used one of their appointed cronies to prosecute him for “hate crimes”, all while admitting that everything he said is true.
Now just so you understand, it was the military who did this, well the spin from the State Department and the Muslim Brotherhood [they give the same spin...think about that for a moment] is that the military is “secular” , wants “democracy” and can be “trusted” and will ‘oversee elections’. What kind of real democracy does not respect these women’s rights and sovereignty? The truth (and has been reported by foreign press) is that the military is cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood and maybe they will have an election, but since the Muslim Brotherhood is who is organized, financed and already has vast influence with the military it is not difficult to see what will happen. The Muslim Brotherhood backed Hamas was elected in Gaza and do you think they will ever have another fair election again?
Photo: Salwa Hosseini, a 20-year-old Egyptian hairdresser and one of the women named in an Amnesty International report about human rights abuses during protests that led to the downfall of former President Hosni Mubarak, described to CNN how she was subjected to a “virginity test.” Credit: CNN
A senior Egyptian general told CNN Tuesday that officials performed “virginity checks” on women arrested during the uprising that led to former President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, the first time the authorities have admitted they performed such tests during the revolution.
The tests were first reported by the human rights group Amnesty International, weeks after a March 9 protest in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in which female demonstrators were allegedly beaten, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to procedures that supposedly determined whether they were virgins.
At the time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied they had been tortured or had their virginity tested.
On Tuesday, a senior general who asked not to be identified admitted to CNN that military officials conducted virginity tests — and he defended them.
“The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine,” the general told CNN. “These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and [drugs].”
The general said the virginity checks were conducted to prevent the women from claiming they had been raped in custody.
“We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” the general said. “None of them were [virgins].”
Salwa Hosseini, a 20-year-old hairdresser and one of the women named in the Amnesty International report, described to CNN how, on the day of the protest, uniformed soldiers tied her up on the grounds of the Egyptian Museum near Tahrir Square, forced her to the ground and slapped her, then shocked her with a stun gun while calling her a prostitute.
“They wanted to teach us a lesson,” Hosseini said. “They wanted to make us feel that we do not have dignity.”
Hosseini said she was taken with 16 other female prisoners to a military detention center in Heikstep and subjected to a “virginity test.”
Hosseini said she did not want to be tested by a male doctor, but her captors threatened her with stun guns until she complied.
“I was going through a nervous breakdown at that moment,” she recalled. “There was no one standing during the test, except for a woman and the male doctor. But several soldiers were standing behind us watching the backside of the bed. I think they had them standing there as witnesses.”
Some bloggers have announced plans to hold an online day of protest Wednesday about the virginity testing.The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which has been running the country since Mubarak stepped down, has increasingly faced criticism from the youth protest movement, upset at the government’s unwillingness to address past abuses, release political prisoners and prosecute former leaders.
On Tuesday, the military prosecutor questioned a prominent blogger, Hossam al-Hamalawy, after he criticized the ruling military council on a TV talk show.
Military leaders plan to meet with some youth leaders on Wednesday at the El Galaa Theatre in Heliopolis that holds up to 1,000 people, but the meeting has been condemned by protesters on Twitter and Facebook as a ploy.
“They’re just going to pick one thousand kids and get in an argument and say the revolutionaries don’t know what they want,” said Tarek Shalaby, a blogger and social media consultant who was jailed after participating in recent protests and has been tweeting his opposition to Wednesday’s meeting.
We have seen leftist groups coordinate with the Muslim Brotherhood backed Muslim Students Association on campus. David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer have been talking about it for years. Glenn Beck has also highlighted this issue on his program. Leftist groups in coordination with MSA have joined forces to disrupt campus speeches made by traditionalists, Israeli’s, Republicans etc.
Brigitte Gabriel on her story growing up in Lebanon.
How the Islamists used Christian tolerance to wipe the Christians out and destroy the country. The Christian leftists who marched with the Islamists and helped them take power because they were the “underdog” were the first ones that the Islamists killed.
As if the old law wasn’t an interpretive mess before. The proposed California law is preposterous because any critique, or even statement of fact can be interpreted/deliberately misinterpreted as discriminatory. In Europe people who make accurate stateswomen about Islamic history or what is in their texts are at times prosecuted for “hate crimes”. Sometimes the prosecutors say that “the truth is no defense.” Well if the truth is no defense to history, than we have no history at all and it is all predetermined propaganda.
I will give just a couple of examples. The headline we all saw as kids form the New York Daily News, ”JAPS BOMB HAWAII” would be banned.
The story in the Hadith of the murder of the Jewish Merchant would be banned. Any critique about how women are treated in many Islamic countries would be out. Any WWII film that had the word “Nips” or “Krauts” would be banned.
No matter what some group will/can always cry “discriminatory”. This is a mess as it would not stop. The British Conquered – “So all British are murderers out to take your land huh why how dare you make such an ethnic slur…” /shakes head.
No one wants overt racism for the sake of racism in any history book, but what publisher is going to make such a book and try to market it to schools anyways? What state would adopt such a book? The answer is obvious, so this is not about racism at all, this is about group politics at the expense of teaching real history, which isn’t always politically correct.
Instruction: prohibition of discriminatory content
Existing law requires instruction in social sciences to include a study of the role and contributions of both men and women to the development of California and the United States.
This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and other ethnic and cultural groups, to the development of California and the United States.
Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions by referring to race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law prohibits a governing board from adopting instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in this provision to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, and occupation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials for use in the schools, governing boards shall include materials that accurately portray the role and contribution of culturally and racially diverse groups including Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans to the total development of California and the United States.
This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse groups to also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, persons with disabilities, and other ethnic and cultural groups.
Existing law provides that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of specified characteristics in any operation of alternative schools or charter schools.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that alternative and charter schools take notice of the provisions of this bill in light of provisions of existing law that prohibit discrimination in any aspect of their operation.