Saturday, March 10, 2012
The late Andrew Breitbart said at the last CPAC that he has videos of Obama’s college days and that we’re going to vet him in 2012. On Wednesday night,Breitbart.com,Hannity,BuzzFeed,and other media outlets were uploading and disseminating the video that showed a young Barack Obama telling members of the Harvard student body to “open your hearts and your minds to Professor Bell.”
Derrick Bell was a tenured professor at Harvard and the mind behind the “Critical Race Theory,”which hypothesized that discrimination against minorities is inherent in our legal system. Obama called Bell the “Rosa Parks of legal education,”but further review shows this radical of academia as unhinged. Daniel Webb of Red Alert Politics states that Bell’s motto was to “harass white people.” His book Faces At The Bottom of The Well begins with:
“Even the poorest whites,those who must live their lives only a few levels above,gain their self-esteem gazing down on us. Surely,they must know that their deliverance depends on letting down their ropes. Only by working together is escape possible. Over time,many reach out,but most simply watch,mesmerized into maintaining their unspoken commitment to keeping us where we are,at whatever cost to them or to us.”
Bell has gone on to praise anti-semitic Louis “Hitler was a very great man” Farrakhan and bashed the nomination of Clarence Thomas as a disservice to blacks. He wrote a surreal short story called “The Space Traders”that depicted the selling of blacks to aliens in order to reduce the national debt. John Nolte of BigJournalism writes that Jews,according to Bell in the story,would only assist blacks to ensure their survival. I guess most would blow it off with the whole notion of aliens,but Bell admitted that he wrote in fiction because his views were threatening:
“I find that my views have at least a better chance of being heard if I can place those views in the context of a fable,of a story. During the telling of which,or the reading of which,the individual is able to pull back to not feel threatened or involved.”
No wonder why Obama’s mentor,Charles Ogletree,“hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.” Bell even dismissed liberal whites as oppressors and unable to explain the realty of racism on America due to the color of their skin. Well,there goes the youth vote. In all,Professor Bell was an angry black man who believed the United States was “permanently racist.” Obama forced the radical ramblings of this man upon his “Current Issues in Racism and the Law”class in 1994. Since Bell had such a profound impact on our president,it probably explains why in 2010,one year before his death,he visited the White House twice for reasons we do not know. I’m guessing he came to offer more “constructive”anecdotes about race in America.
Thanks to Breitbart and his crew,we are able to expose this radical influencer of Obama,which the Democrat-media complex would have whitewashed or buried four years ago. Although some still try.
Palestinians on the sidelines in US elections
Obama promises push for statehood if he wins reelection, says Palestinian FM
NOTE: WOW! Here's an article so appropriate for me! Yes, I do have personality! ... Bee Sting
Bees have different “personalities”, with some showing a stronger willingness or desire to seek adventure than others, according to a study by entomologists at the University of Illinois.The researchers found that thrill-seeking is not limited to humans and other vertebrates. The brains of honeybees that were more likely than others to seek adventure exhibited distinct patterns of gene activity in molecular pathways known to be associated with thrill-seeking in humans.
The findings present a new perspective on honeybee communities, which were thought to be highly regimented and comprised of a colony of interchangeable workers taking on a few specific roles to serve their queen.
It now seems as though individual honeybees differ in their desire to perform particular tasks and these differences could be down to variability in bees’ personalities. This supports a 2011 study at Newcastle University that suggested that honeybees exhibit pessimism, suggesting that insects might have feelings.
Gene Robinson, entomology professor and director of the Institute for Genomic Biology, said: “In humans, differences in novelty-seeking are a component of personality. Could insects also have personalities?”
Robinson and his team studies two behaviors that looked like novelty seeking: scouting for new nest sites and scouting for food. When a colony outgrows its living quarters, the swarm must hunt for a new home. Around five percent of the swarm goes hunting for new lodgings. These “nest scouts” are around 3.4 times more likely than their peers to also become food scouts, researchers discovered.
“There is a gold standard for personality research and that is if you show the same tendency in different contexts, then that can be called a personality trait,” Robinson said.
In order to understand the molecular basis for these differences, Robinson and his colleagues used whole-genome microarray analysis to look for differences in the activity of thousands of genes in the brains the thrill-seeking and non thrill-seeking bees. They found thousands of differences in gene activity.
In humans and animals, thrill-seeking behavior is thought to be linked to how the brain’s reward system responds. In bees, researchers found lots of differently expressed genes that were linked to proteins and hormones that are linked to novelty-seeking in vertebrates.
In order to test whether the changes in brain signalling caused the novelty-seeking, researchers gave bees extra glutamate and octapamine which increased scouting in bees that had not scouted before. Blocking dopamine signalling decreased scouting behavior. “Our results say that novelty-seeking in humans and other vertebrates has parallels in an insect. One can see the same sort of consistent behavioral differences and molecular underpinnings,” said Robinson.
Robinson believes that insects, humans and other animals have made use of the same genetic “toolkit” in the evolution of behavior, which each species has adapted. “It looks like the same molecular pathways have been engaged repeatedly in evolution to give rise to individual differences in novelty-seeking,” he concluded.
Have you seen a grumpy honeybee or an irritable ant? Tell us in the comments below.
Image: Gilles San Martin/Flickr
By: Yori Yanover
Published: March 9th, 2012
When even the very outfit that conducted the interview with Meir Dagan misrepresents what the man actually said, it provides an opportunity to identify agenda driven reporting.
Here’s the CBS News headline for their promo of the Sunday night 60 Minutes interview with Dagan:
Now, to be fair, Dagan has been a cool voice on the issue of whether or not Israel should bomb Iran’s nukes, and so it is tempting for some to see his call for Israel’s leaders to count to 30 before speaking, as a statement of support for Obama’s view of diplomacy before war.
On January, 2011, Dagan, who was retiring from his post as Mossad chief, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that he did not believe Iran would have nuclear capability before 2015.
And so, in Lesley Stahl’s interview with Meir Dagan, part of next Sunday’s “60 Minutes,” she brings up the quote in which he supposedly said that bombing Iran now is “the stupidest idea” he’d ever heard.
Except that’s not exactly what he said. A May 8, 2011 NY Times article reports: “Israel’s former intelligence chief has said that a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations would be ‘a stupid idea,’ adding that military action might not achieve all of its goals and could lead to a long war.”
And the same article continues with a quote from Dagan, speaking at a conference of senior public servants, saying that he declared that “Iran must not be allowed to produce nuclear weapons,” and advocated “covert means of setting back the Iranian program.”
Indeed, this is how Dagan responds to Stahl’s question regarding the “stupidest idea”:
Dagan: An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.
In fact, the same promo page on CBS News confirms:
Dagan also told Stahl he thinks it’s a mistake generally to make this situation an Israeli-Iranian issue. It should be an international issue. Somehow the Saudis should be encouraged to speak up and pressure the United States. And what he would really like to happen is that Israel sits back, and the Americans do it for the Israelis. It would then be internationalized. He knows that Israel will be attacked whoever does it, but they’ll be attacked less and what he’s most worried about is the retaliation.
In other words, Dagan does not think attacking Iran today is necessarily a bad idea, if the threat is high enough, he only thinks it’s a bad idea for Israel to do it – because a coalition attack on Iran would achieve far superior results.
And we’re not told what Dagan thinks should happen if no one else is willing to join Israel or fight in its stead, while Iran completes its nuclear program and starts blowing up atomic mushrooms in the Dasht-e Kavir desert. Does he think Israel should be sitting on her hands under those circumstances? Somehow I doubt it.
But Meir Dagan’s flare and vigor, colorful celebrity that he is, are being exploited by some media outlets to distort his quite carefully expressed message, creating the impression that he actually supports the Obama Administration’s reluctance to attack Iran.
Did you expect me to start with an Ha’aretz headline? I shan’t disappoint you:
Dagan agrees with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Obama that there is still time to wait before dire actions need to be taken.
Except, at least in the promo and press release, Dagan never says he agrees with Clinton and Obama, and furthermore when Stahl says there is “a lot” of time, he emphatically corrects her and removes the words “a lot” from her sentence, and only says there is still “more time”, presumably meaning we haven’t reached zero-hour yet, but we’re close.
Only at the very bottom of the page Ha’aretz acquiesces that Dagan may not be against bombing Iran after all:
During the interview Stahl suggested that it seemed he was advocating Israel wait and have the U.S. attack Iran’s nuclear sites. Dagan replied: “If I prefer that someone will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it,” he says.
How many Internet users scroll all the way to the bottom of an article? Only the ones with nothing better to do, like yours truly. But for all intents and purposes, it has now been established that Meir Dagan is against bombing Iran, because it’s stupid. They say so, on the Internet.
And that perhaps is Dagan’s real message, he wants the US and/or an international coalition to stop Iran, including bombing if it need be. Not Israel.
CBS also seems to be playing up Dagan’s analysis of Iran and Ahmadinejad’s sanity and rationality – seemingly implying that tried and true Cold War rules could apply here too.
The regime in Iran is a very rational one,” says the former top Israeli spymaster. And President Ahmadinejad? “The answer is yes,” he replies. “Not exactly our rational, but I think he is rational,” Dagan tells Stahl.
It’s a different kind of rational, says Dagan,not rational in the Western-thinking sense. “But no doubt, they are considering all the implications of their actions…They will have to pay dearly…and I think the Iranians at this point in time are…very careful on the project,” says Dagan. “They are not running…”
Dagan seems to actually be saying that the Iran’s and Ahmadinejad’s thought processes are logical and sane – but only within their alternate worldviews, while their thinking would not be considered rational in our Western terms. The implication is that they could perhaps be influenced and persuaded via arguments that we might find irrational, but they not; or if they are forced to recognize that the price they will pay may be too high in terms of what’s important to them.
What the articles don’t address is that Ahmadinejad’s worldview includes the return of the Mahdi, the twelfth Iman/Messiah who will return in a apocalyptic war, a statement he has made from the UN podium.
When I was young and worked for print outfits (when dinosaurs roamed the planet), we had an adage: “Paper cannot refuse ink.” It appears that websites have a similar difficulty in blocking digital information. So, don’t trust anything you read, including this article, particularly when it involves reporting statements of a spy, even a former one.
US government has taken control of 750 domains over the past few years
US seizure of a Canadian gambling website caused online outcry as it was registered abroad and thought to be outside American jurisdiction. But this is far from isolated; it has emerged that the US has seized hundreds of foreign domain names.
US customs official Nicole Navas confirmed that the US government has taken control of 750 domains, “most with foreign-based registrars” over the past few years.
Operation “In Our Sites”, an initiative run by US and Immigration Customs Enforcement, is dedicated to shutting down illegal websites that it believes are involved in the distribution of copyright goods and copyright works. It was initially created in 2010 to police US-owned domains, but now appears to have extended its reach using federal court orders to shut down websites.
“The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc. needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of US federal and state lawmakers,”said EasyDNS, a multinational domain-hosting company.
The gambling site Bogdan.com was shut down and its owner Canadian billionaire Calvin Ayre prosecuted on the basis that internet gambling is illegal in the US. However, the website was registered to a Canadian server, where gambling is perfectly legal. Homeland security justified the move citing “the movement of funds from accounts outside the US” as the reason.
At first glance it would appear that such a move was beyond US jurisdiction, but this is not so. The US can get at any .com domain through a US-based company called Verisign, which is the only organization authorized to issue new .com domains. In addition, it manages .net, .cc, .tv domains.
It simply has to issue Verisign with a court order that in turn shuts down the offending website. The Public Internet Registry also based in the US is able to do this to .org websites, which it controls.
Verisign told Wired magazine in a statement that it had acted above board and “responds to lawful court orders subject to its technical capabilities.”
The US’s seemingly unbridled power to exercise its influence throughout the web has many online activists worried that this may be what is in store if SOPA and PIPA laws are finally passed.
Do you know someone who has had their blog removed lately? How about sites that are exposing Islamic extremism and the ongoing attempts by American Islamic organizations bragging about their success in taking down blogs that disagree with Sharia law? It is happening more frequently and to think, SOPA isn't necessary when use of intimidation and threats from non-governmental agencies are allowed to get their way and silence Americans.
As for foreign sites taken down, we know of a few that were removed within the last two months. If our government can claim that those sites violated copyright laws, without first allowing the sites a fair hearing, nothing posted on the Internet is safe and free speech will become a thing of the past. As I have said before and will repeat, the Internet was the last domain where free speech was allowed - now, even the Net is becoming over-ruled by increasing laws - laws that folks aren't aware of until they, too, get hit and removed at the whim of a few - yes, few - deciding the fate of your First Amendment rights.
Those with the power to remove .com, .org links, have the power to control what information is shared between friends, among like-minded links i.e. Conservative links, and soon, the Net will simply become another form of progressive, liberal robots that speak only what they are told, by those in power and all done without bills such as SOPA ever needing to be passed by Congress.
Did you know that Google had posted an explanation about a year ago demonstrating how many blogs were removed in different countries. Israel had the fewest removed and the United States, the most and isn't that a bit strange, when Israel is surrounded on all sides by her worse enemies? It's one thing to be tracking the movement of Islamic terrorists across the Net, but quite another thing, when American citizens are attacked and removed for voicing their opinions about Islam. Is our government now allowing Sharia law to control the Net? Just wondering.