Sunday, May 29, 2011

Live & Let Live!

This post was passed to me by Citizen Warrior who has an excellent Islamic investigative site here on Blogger.

The article was written by Bill Warner of Political Islam website.
Copyright (c) http://www.politicalislam.com/
Copy and use as needed, give us credit and don't edit.





ISLAM'S GOLDEN RULE

"ISLAM'S apologists say that Islam just needs a reform. After all, Christianity and Judaism have been reformed. But the apologists never get around to saying what the reform would be.

There are many kinds of reform possible to Islam, but does anyone care if they reformed prayer by praying towards LA rather than Mecca? No. The only thing that kafirs care about is how Islam treats us. We want our treatment changed. We want political Islam reformed.

Islam's treatment of us can be found in one word - kafir. The Koran says that a kafir (unbeliever) can be robbed, killed, tortured, mocked, insulted, beheaded, raped, crucified and on and on. The Hadith and the Sira agree with the Koran. Every single reference to the kafirs is negative, offensive and hateful.

The word "kafir" illustrates both of political Islam's principles - submission and duality. The Trilogy (Koran, Sira and Hadith) says that every kafir in the world must submit to political Islam.

The Koran also establishes dualism with its ethical system. A Muslim is not to kill another Muslim; a kafir may be killed, or not. A Muslim is not to lie to another Muslim; a kafir may be deceived or not. And so on. Islam has one set of ethics for Muslims and another set of ethics for the kafir - dualistic ethics.

The later political Koran written in Medina frequently contradicts the early religious Koran written in Mecca. The Koran gives a rule for removing the contradiction by saying that the later Koran "abrogates" the early Koran. But the earlier Koran is still true; it was given by Allah. So in Islam both sides of a contradiction can be true. This gives Islam its dualistic logic. Our unitary logic says that if two things contradict, then one of them is false

This dualism accounts for the two types of Muslims - the good Muslim at work and the Taliban Muslim. Both Muslims are "real" Muslims. Dualism gives the "good" Muslim plausible deniability when they say that jihadists are not "real" Islam. Dualism means the "good" Muslims and the jihadists are just two ends of the same stick.

The Koran, Sira and Hadith are filled with demands for all kafirs to submit to Islam. Kafirs can submit by joining the religion or submit by being a dhimmi (an apologist). Either way, the Koran constantly demands that all kafirs submit to Islam.

So what kafirs want to reform about Islam is its principles of political submission and duality. What principle can be used to reform Islam? The key is how Islam treats the "other" - the kafir. The Golden Rule tells us how the "other" is to be treated. Every culture in the world has the Golden Rule as part of its heritage. But not Islam.

So what happens if we apply - treat others, as you want to be treated - to political Islam? All of the hurtful, hateful and harmful duality and submission disappear. What is amazing is how much of the Islamic doctrine goes away. About 61% of the Koran disappears. The Sira loses 75% of its words and 20% of the Hadith vanishes.

And those figures are low. All of the abusive words about women would go away as well. So the above reductions would be even bigger.

The Golden Rule even changes Hell. Islamic Hell is primarily political. Hell is mentioned 146 times in the Koran. Only 9 references are for moral failings - greed, lack of charity, love of worldly success. The other 137 references to Hell involve eternal torture for not agreeing that Mohammed is right. That is a political charge, not a morals failure. Thus 94% of the references to Hell are as a political prison for dissenters. The Golden Rule would empty the political prison.

Think how wonderful a Golden Rule Islam would be. No arguments, demands, accusations, law suits, threats, pressure, hateful speech, killings, or bombings. A Muslim could even be a true friend to a kafir. Islam would develop a sense of shame and admit to the terrible suffering of the 270,000,000 kafirs killed in jihad. A Golden Rule Islam would ask forgiveness about all the suffering of the dhimmis. A Golden Rule Islam would also admit to running the slave trade in Africa by killing and capturing the slaves they sold to the white slave traders.

Women would not have to be beaten and wear the hijab or burka. Honor killings would stop. Muslims could join us in the human race.

But all of those wonderful thoughts vanish when you realize what else it would mean to Islam. Mohammed had only 150 followers in Mecca after preaching the religion for 13 years. But when he went to Medina and became a politician and warlord, he conquered all of Arabia in 9 years by averaging a violent event every 6 weeks.

Duality and political submission were the principles that gave Islam its victory. Why would Islam drop the only principles that yielded success? Duality and political submission have crushed the world that believes in the Golden Rule.

CSPI could produce a Koran, Sira and Hadith that would use the Golden Rule. It would be a thin volume, but what Muslim would buy it?"


Saturday, May 28, 2011

Kill Five Birds With One Stone

THE FOLLOWING email was sent to ACT! for America members by Kelly Cook, ACT's National Field Director:


Couple this idea with 1.  Buy American fuel and 2.  Use American Oil Resources for Americans and the impact on OPEC becomes even greater.  Then we are killing five birds with one stone: 1.  Cheaper gas, 2.  stop funding people who want to destroy America, 3.  return federal control to the people, 4.  Create American jobs, and 5.  reduce the federal deficit.




"Face it. We’ve been played.

OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is playing a deadly game with America. Their oil price fixing mechanism is legendary in the unjust world of anti-trust schemes.


The fact is that oil prices in the $15 to $20 a barrel range provide plenty of fair and reasonable profits for any oil exporting nation. Then why are oil prices today over $100 per barrel? OPEC is laughing all the way to the bank.

Here’s the game: OPEC, through the willingness to price fix among its 12 nation partners, gradually ratchets up the price of oil through secretly agreed-to reductions in supply. They don’t care if they’re not producing as much oil. The skyrocketing prices on the oil they do produce are more than enough to provide for their lavish lifestyles and...their generous donations to worldwide Islamic jihadist operations.

As soon as the American public starts to really feel the pain at the pump and begin to lobby their members of Congress to do something about it, oil supplies “magically” increase and the price of gas settles down just enough to prevent the outrage that was about to boil over. And so the cycle goes — by design!

We at ACT! for America are tired of being played in this deadly game of supplying the enemy with the resources to attack us. This is why we are fully supporting the Open Fuel Standard ACT of 2011. We are calling for Members of Congress to enthusiastically co-sponsor this vital legislation.

Why the Open Fuel Standard Act? Imagine you’ve got a flex fuel car — a car that has been retro-fitted to accept at least 2 different kinds of fuel. You notice the price of regular gas just hit $4.10 per gallon. Because you can also run on methanol (or electricity, natural gas, etc), you check the current price for methanol which is approximately $1.65! Now that you’ve got “Fuel Choice,” you fill up with methanol! Methanol can be produced from natural gas and biomass (common trash, plant wastes, landfill materials, etc). Therefore, it’s a potential environmental winner as well.

What happens when tens of millions of consumers start taking advantage of fuel choice and switch to other fuels? OPEC is forced to bring down its prices in order to compete. Game over. The price of oil per barrel would plummet down to its natural market trading range of $10 to $25 per barrel.

How can we be so sure of this? Brazil has already done it — back in the 80’s and it’s still working for them! Do you know that two of the major car suppliers to Brazil’s flex fuel market are GM and Ford? Brazil’s proven success demonstrates that a single nation can employ this strategy successfully as a solitary nation against the forces of worldwide markets.

Why shouldn’t the U.S. and other major oil consuming countries follow suit? The transition costs are minimal when compared to the tremendous savings and security we all will enjoy through fuel choice!

I know some of you are asking: “What about Drill Baby Drill”? We are enthusiastically in favor of developing all strategies to disarm OPEC and their deadly allies. We need to develop all forms of energy, especially our unfathomable supplies of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy technologies. Encouraging fuel choice through the Open Fuel Standard ACT of 2011 will only enhance these and other needed developments.

***Action Items***

1) Invest 5 minutes to support fuel choice for your gas tank and for the nation! Contact for your member of Congress and urge them to be a co-sponsor for H.R. 1687, the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011. We are starting to pick up real momentum in this process! Please make sure your member of Congress is a co-sponsor. Click Here to complete this simple process.

2) Check out the amazing new website dedicated to the passage of the Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011. Please sign up for email updates and find out the many reasons we need to actively promote this bill. The resources this site has amassed are considerable. There are many factors involved that we just don’t have the space to cover in a single email. Please avail yourself to this vital information. Click Here for this creative new website!"

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Nope, I Can't Vote For You

E-mail titled "Contributions" which I sent to Republican Senate Minority Leader and Senate Whip on 5/26/2011

Senator McConnell, I am a veteran, recently retired, and since retirement I make weekly contributions to Conservative causes and politicians which promote a smaller and constitutionally based federal government.  I have developed a strategy which allows me to have an influence on politicians who feel safe because I live in Texas and can not "vote" for them.  What I do is to Google their next re-election date, and then Google their possible opponents in order to make a contribution to the opponent who seems to be the strongest Conservative for the cause I am interested in.  Currently I am making "opponent" contributions at an approximately 30% level of my total contributions.

I received an e-mail today that tells me that you and Senator Kyle seem to be of little help in promoting Senator Paul's proposal to protect lawful gun owner's right to privacy from federal interference and also federal restrictions on lawful ownership.  Just like my position on immigration I try to promote lawful use, hinder unlawful use, and prevent my government from passing laws which turn normally lawful individual rights into new "crimes" as in the potential ObamaCare disaster.  I am contacting Senator Kyle's office separately, but since both your voice mailboxes (202-224-2541 and 202-224-4521) are full (not allowing messages), and the Congressional Switchboard 202-224-3121) could not leave a message for you, I am e-mailing your local office in Louisville, Kentucky.  If I receive no response from you to my questions here I will try phoning your DC and local office in a couple of days, assuming that you will have staff listening to and compiling voice messages and then erasing them, to express my point of view.

I agree completely with Thomas Jefferson's view:  "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
-Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764











Please respond to this e-mail with your position on Senator Paul's proposal, so I can decide whether you fit into my donation plan, or if an opponent might be a better fit.  Yes, I am from Texas and yes I can have an influence on any congressional politician in any state in the United States of America.

Expecting your reply soon and God bless America.

Monday, May 16, 2011

My Sabbatical


My son Tre is getting married to Jennifer on the 21st of this month and I have been in Gainesville Florida since the 13th for the wedding.  I will be returning to Houston on the 24th or 25th.

We are packing a lot of “stuff” into each day here, and having lots of fun with my kids and granddaughter Mia (I make her call me “Uncle” Bill…hahaha).  Since I don’t see my kids often, when I visit them like this I have to work hard to embarrass them as much as possible because I may not have another chance for a year or so…hahaha.

I graduated from the University of Florida so enjoying visiting old friends and co-workers in the departments of Anatomy & Cell Biology, Pathology, Diagnostic Histology Referral Laboratories, Florida State Anatomical Director’s Office, Environmental Sciences & Engineering Diagnostic Electron Microscopy Referral Lab, and BurgerKing (never worked there but did eat there often when I was a student here).  The Medical Center is a sprawling complex and has changed a lot since I was here last, but so far I have not gotten lost, wandering around looking up friends from the past.

trailbee, not sure which comment I didn't get?  But because of the “whirlwind” tour, I am only checking in to my laptop every few days.  I probably won’t have the time to post another serious blog until I get back to Houston.  I certainly will post a couple of wedding pics – I am literally taking more than 1000 pics here with my new camera.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Grade F minus

“CHANGE” IS COMING
How has Obama’s “change” been working out for you so far?
This time we the people will bring about the change, God willing.



First we look at Obama broken promises due to opposition (1, 2, 3, etc.),

and then we look at Obama’s broken promises due to concept implosion (aa, bb, cc, etc.)



1)  President Obama promised that his administration would be the most transparent in history.  Is it?          NO.

2)  President Obama promised to allow 5 days of public comment before signing any legislation.  Did he?              NO.

3)  President Obama promised to close Gitmo. Did he?         NO.

4)  Presidential “candidate” Obama stated that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize an attack in a military situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”.  Did POTUS Obama follow his own analysis of presidential powers when he committed US troops to Libya without consulting Congress?                NO.

5)  President Obama promised in March after committing US troops, that the Libyan War would be short term?   Is it?           NO.

6)  President Obama promised to form international group to help Iraq refugees.  Did he?             NO.

7)  President Obama promised to negotiate health care reform with public sessions on C-SPAN.  Did he?          NO.

8)  President Obama promised that ObamaCare would reduce the cost of health care.   Has it?        NO.            Will it?     NO.                     Is it transparent?          NO.

9)  President Obama promised to allow imported prescription drugs, to lower cost for Americans.  Did he?                   NO.

10)  President Obama promised to mandate insurance coverage of autism treatment.  Did he?          NO.

11)  President Obama promised to appoint federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts.  Did he?            NO.

12)  President Obama promised to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives.  Did he?                   NO.

13)  President Obama promised that his Stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%.  Did it? NO.

14)  President Obama promised to allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court.  Did he? NO.

15)  President Obama promised to end the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 per year.  Did he?      NO.

16)  President Obama promised to repeal the Bush Tax cuts for high income earners.  Did he?     NO.

17)  President Obama promised to forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses.  Did he?                 NO.


18)  President Obama promised to initiate comprehensive immigration reform in his first year.  Did he?             NO.            Second year?             NO.

19)  President Obama promised to expand and make refundable the child and dependent care credit.  Did he?       NO.

20)  President Obama promised to end “no-bid” contracts above $25,000.  Did he?              NO.

21)  President Obama promised to create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security.  Did he?                NO.

22)  President Obama promised to change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts.  Did he?           NO.

23)  President Obama promised to allow five days of public comment before signing bills.  Did he?      NO.

24)  President Obama promised to tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials.  Did he?                    NO.

25)  President Obama promised double funding for afterschool programs.  Did he?              NO.

26)  President Obama promised to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.  Did he?      NO.

27)  President Obama promised to allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage.  Did he?          NO.

aa)  President Obama promised to re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council.  Did he?             NO.

bb)  President Obama promised to support human mission to moon by 2020.  Did he?                    NO.

cc)  President Obama promised to pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit.  Did he?       NO.

dd)  President Obama promised to limit term of director of national intelligence.  Did he?       NO.

ee)  President Obama promised to give annual "State of the World" address to the American people in which “I lay out our national security policy”.   Did he?    NO.

ff)  President Obama promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. Did he?          NO.

gg)  President Obama promised to enact windfall profits tax for oil companies. Did he?          NO.

hh)  President Obama promised to require high tech electrical plug-in auto fleet at the White House. Did he? NO.

ii)  President Obama promised to provide an annual report on "state of our energy future". Did he?  NO.

jj)  President Obama promised to allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009. Did he?  NO.



Obama is pretty good at talking the talk, but sucks big-time at walking the walk.  A fair question is “Is his seeming ineptness accidental or intentional”.  If it were accidental, it would graph as a bell shaped curve, with decisions graphed both to the laft and to the right of the peak.  Since most of his decisions are toward the left politically on the bell shaped curve, this is mathematical proof that it is NOT accidental, but obviously intentional.  This makes Mr. Obama a very dangerous man for the future of the Unites States of America.  We must all work hard NOW, to ensure that we do not have to endure another term from this deceiver.


VIDEO UPDATE:
Obama Non-Acomplishments

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

"Speak the truth, even if bitter” - Muhammad

I Pamphlet from www.citizenwarrior.com
“Speak the truth, even if bitter” Muhammad


Some things you probably don’t know about
Islam:

1. When Muhammad was in his fifties he married a girl (Aisha) who was just six years old. The marriage was consummated when she was nine.  This is one of the reasons why child brides are still common in the Muslim world. On coming to power in Iran in 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini reduced the age at which a girl could be married to 9 years, thus following the example of Muhammad.

2. Muhammad participated in the massacre of 800 Jewish men who had surrendered themselves following a famous battle. Trenches were dug and they were all beheaded and their bodies thrown into the trenches.
The women and children were distributed among the victorious Muslims
as slaves.

3. When a woman came to Muhammad confessing that she had
conceived a child out of wedlock, he said that she should wean the child
and then be stoned to death. This sentence was duly carried out. In
1994, a Sharia court in Nigeria passed the same judgement against
Amina Lawal thus following Muhammad’s example exactly. Because
Muhammad’s behaviour is seen by Muslims as sacrosanct these kinds of
laws will be almost impossible to change.

4. Muhammad supported the use of slavery. He gave away slaves as
gifts. He owned all kinds of slaves including males, females and Black
slaves. He passed around slaves for the purpose of sexual pleasure for
his companions - men who were his chief lieutenants. He stood by and
prayed while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex
with female slaves after conquest. He captured slaves and sold them to
raise money for warfare.

5. Muhammad told his followers to raid caravans in order to boost the
economy of his fledgling state in Medina. Bandits and pirates need look
no further for justification.

6. Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a prophet, kill him”; this is one of
the reasons why Muslims are so intolerant of anyone mocking
Muhammad…and why anyone doing so is liable to get killed. It is also the
reason why Islamic law requires the execution of anyone insulting
Muhammad or Islam. A Christian woman in Pakistan is currently facing
execution for “insulting Muhammad”.

7. Muhammad said, “Whoever leaves Islam, kill him”; this why it is so
difficult for Muslims to leave Islam. Abdul Rahman was flown to safety in
Italy from Afghanistan in 2004 because he was threatened with execution
for converting to Christianity. Many others are less lucky. Islamic law
requires that those leaving Islam be executed. Islamic countries are
campaigning to get criticism of Islam outlawed worldwide. They are
pursuing this via the United Nations (and making good progress!).

8. Under Islamic law, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a
man. That means that under Islamic law a woman is half as believable as
a man.

9. At the end of his life, Muhammad boasted that he had been “made
victorious through terror”. Is it any wonder that many Muslims are
engaged in terrorism?

10. He also declared that he had been ordered to make war on nonbelievers
until the whole world was dominated by Islam.

11. It is stated 91 times in the Koran that Muslims must follow the
example of Muhammad in every detail. Just ponder the implications of
that.

These are a small sample of facts about Islam. It should be enough to
show you that the founder of Islam was a brutal warlord and that his
words and deeds have given Islam its brutal and intolerant character. It is
difficult to see what good can come from the teachings of a man like
Muhammad. Take a look at the world and you will see that many of the
most oppressive, brutal and backward societies are strongholds of Islam.
They have become like this by following the teachings of Muhammad.
Islam now has a foothold in your country and we are seeing increasing
pressure to make our society more Islamic. Do you want to live in such a
society?

If the answer is “no”, it is important that you find out more about
these issues.

You can do so at:
www.politicalislam.com
www.jihadwatch.org
www.thereligionofpeace.com
(You can download, print and distribute this leaflet at
www.citizenwarrior.com)
“Speak the truth, even if bitter” Muhammad

Friday, May 6, 2011

The Nature of Yin & Yang

When there are obviously large differences between different cultural groups, what is the causative agent for those differences?  Is it environmental, is it dietary, is it economic, is it hereditary, is it religious, or is it differences in the nature of the human spirit or the soul?  Causes are difficult to establish but the differences are easily documented.

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000
ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20%                                                                          of the world's population.

Muslims have received the following Nobel Prizes:

LITERATURE:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz


PEACE:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai


ECONOMICS:
(zero)


PHYSICS:
(zero)


MEDICINE:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad



TOTAL NOBEL PRIZE AWARDS TO MUSLIMS - SEVEN


The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000 only FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.2% of the world's population and about ONE HUNDREDTH of the Muslim population.

The Jewish people have received the following Nobel Prizes:

LITERATURE:
1910 - Paul Heyse                                               1976 - Saul Bellow
1927 - Henri Bergson                                          1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1958 - Boris Pasternak                                        1981 - Elias Canetti
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon                               1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1966 - Nelly Sachs                                              1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

PEACE:
1911 - Alfred Fried                                              1978 - Menachem Begin
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser                     1986 - Elie Wiesel
1968 - Rene Cassin                                             1994 - Shimon Peres
1973 - Henry Kissinger                                        1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

PHYSICS:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer                                   1972 - William Howard Stein
1906 - Henri Moissan                                            1973 - Brian David Josephson
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson                        1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann                                      1976 - Burton  Richter
1910 - Otto Wallach                                              1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1915 - Richard Willstaetter                                    1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1918 - Fritz Haber                                                 1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1921 - Albert Einstein                                           1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1922 - Niels Bohr                                                  1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1925 - James Franck                                             1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1925 - Gustav Hertz                                               1980 - Paul Berg
1943 - Gustav Stern                                               1980 - Walter Gilbert
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy                        1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi                                        1982 - Aaron Klug
1952 - Felix Bloch                                                 1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1954 - Max Born                                                    1985 - Jerome Karle
1958 - Igor Tamm                                                 1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1959 - Emilio Segre                                               1988 - Robert Huber
1960 - Donald A. Glaser                                        1988 - Leon Lederman
1961 - Robert Hofstadter                                        1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1961 - Melvin Calvin                                               1988 - Jack Steinberger
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau                              1989 - Sidney Altman
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz                                 1990 - Jerome Friedman
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman                           1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1965 - Julian Schwinger                                         1995 - Martin Perl
1969 - Murray  Gell-Mann                                       2000 - Alan J. Heeger
1971 - Dennis Gabor

ECONOMICS:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson                             1985 - Franco Modigliani
1971 - Simon Kuznets                                             1987 - Robert M. Solow
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow                                 1990 - Harry Markowitz
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich                                     1990 - Merton Miller
1976 - Milton Friedman                                           1992 - Gary Becker
1978 - Herbert A. Simon                                         1993 - Robert Fogel
1980 -  Lawrence   Robert Klein

MEDECINE:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff                                           1969 -  Salvador  Luria
1908 - Paul Erlich                                                    1970 - Julius Axelrod
1914 - Robert Barany                                              1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1922 - Otto Meyerhof                                              1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1930 - Karl Landsteiner                                           1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1931 - Otto Warburg                                               1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1936 - Otto Loewi                                                   1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1944 - Joseph Erlanger                                            1978 - Daniel Nathans
1944 - Herb ert Spencer Gasser                             1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain                                         1984 - Cesar Milstein
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller                               1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein                                        1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman                     1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini 1953 - Hans Krebs                                                  1988 - Gertrude Elion
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann                                   1989 - Harold Varmus
1958 - Joshua Lederberg                                        1991 - Erwin Neher
1959 - Arthur Kornberg                                         1 991 - Bert Sakmann
1964 - Konrad Bloch                                              1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1965 - Francois Jacob                                            1993 - Phillip Sharp
1965 - Andre Lwoff                                                1994 - Alfred Gilman
1967 - George Wald                                               1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg

TOTAL NOBEL PRIZE AWARDS TO JEWISH RECIPIENTS - ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE

The Jewish people with only ONE HUNDREDTH of the Muslim population, have received nearly 20 times the number of Nobel Prizes as the Muslim people!  Which group do you think is contributing the most to our world society?

The Jews are NOT promoting brain washing children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum innocent deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims!

The Jews DO NOT hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew that has destroyed a church.  There is NOT a single Jew that protests by killing innocent people.

The Jews HAVE NEVER trafficked in slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.  Ceasing murder of innocents would also be a plus for them.

Muslims must ask 'what can they do for humankind' before they demand that humankind respects them!  Video decapitation of innocent infidels does little to increase respect for Muslims, especially when such acts are not condemned by the Muslim masses.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between  Israel  and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on  Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all, and are undeniable:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.
If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."

-Benjamin Netanyahu

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Ayn Rand Must Be Turning Over In Her Grave!

Pictured here is a young physician by the name of Dr. Starner Jones.  His short two-paragraph letter to the White House sent to and published by The Clarion Ledger, accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a "Health Care Crisis".  It "Snopes" as "Correctly Attributed", which is unusual for a liberal fact finding site like Snopes.  Usually they only find like this when it is UNDENIABLE.  However, because they always try to bend everything to the left, The Ledger posted a weak response to Dr. Jones in order to push the left's agenda.  The response from Jennifer follows Dr. Jones letter, and then an additional comment from me follows both letters.  It's worth a quick read:


Dear Mr. President:


   During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.  While glancing over her  patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.


   And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care?  I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the  result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses.  Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly  acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.  It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".


   Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.




Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD



On 6 September 2009 the Clarion Ledger published a response from Jennifer:

"I’ve been stewing about an Aug. 23 letter to the editor (“Why pay for the care of the careless?) in which Dr. Starner Jones questioned the worth of a patient to receive Medicaid because of her gold tooth, tattoos, R&B ring tone on a new cell phone, cigarette-smoking and beer-drinking.


This kind of personal attack is nothing new with the hateful rhetoric of late.  But it’s a real slippery slope when one questions whether another human merits support for health care because of appearances and choices.  There are a lot of folks in this state who make less-than-perfect choices about finances and health.  We are the poorest, fattest state, after all.


We need to turn off our TVs and radios and do our own research on health care reform.  All the Fox-fed and MSNBC-led masses are out spewing the same language the pundits are using.


Look at entities who, bottom line, want to raise their rating and celebrity, not facilitate a meeningful or productive discourse.


This country deserves more.  Read the health care reform bill.  And learn the real issues of our entire community.  We're all Americans.  This is no "us vs. them" issue.  We are all in this together.


Jennifer Sigrest"


Ms. Sigrest's comment is the typical liberal response - trying to turn a societal issue into a personal issue.  Of COURSE everyone has the right to tattoos  etc.  The problem is that this patient made her choices such that it costs other people to pay for the consequence of her choices.  Get thousands of dollars of tattoos if you wish, but choices have consequences, so don't go to the taxpayers to pay for your health insurance - we all chose to pay for our OWN health insurance, not yours.  If you are asking me to pay for your health insurance, then I get a say in the way you treat your body.   Contact Ms. Sigrest if you need help, and go ahead and try to force her as you try to force taxpayers - you might get lucky?

A quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

"We're all one big family, they told us, we're all in this together. But you don't stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day -- together, and you don't all get a bellyache -- together. Whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim he needs a yacht -- and if his feelings is all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on Earth -- why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed?"


For "yacht" in the above quote from Atlas Shrugged, feel free to substitute "tattoos," or "cell phone," or "gold tooth".... or "medical care."  If you don't want to read the book, see the movie "Atlas Shrugged which came out a week or so ago.  Of course liberals hate the book/movie because it wasn't written by the "evil rich hater" Michael Moore.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Redistribution? LETS GO FOR IT!

In the video below, the same college students who support Obama's redistribution of wealth by increasing taxes on the wealthy, seem to have a "problem" with this petition to allow forcible redistribution of GPA averages by lowering the GPA averages of the best students and using that to raise the GPA averages of the lower struggling students.  They seem to feel that they have "earned" their high GPAs, whereas the highest taxpayers do not deserve to keep the fruits of THEIR labors?  Listen carefully to the video and you will hear several students refuse to sign the GPA Redistribution petition, and complain that they "NEED" the high GPAs that they have worked so hard for.

Most college students don't seem to realize that THEY are the bugs, and REDISTRIBUTION is the windshield.

I wonder if any of these students ever thought that the reason they attend college and work hard,  is because they are doing their best to BECOME a wealthy taxpayer?  Redistribution ONLY works when you take it from OTHERS and put it in YOUR pocket.  Isn't that the definition of felony theft?

Hope this video causes a revelation and then a revolution among the millions of young, college age voters who thoughtlessly jumped on the Obama bandwagon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded#at=13