They Like Us, They Really Like Us

from:

Our government thinks that if we give money to nations that want to destroy us that somehow they’ll learn to like us. Don’t believe it. They only think we’re stupid and weak. The money we’ve sent to these backward and violent regimes have only been used to prop up dictators who keep most of the money for themselves. When their rulers are finally overthrown, the people blame the United States for keeping the tyrants in power.

How well did our foreign aid do in Egypt? How is it doing in Syria with the slaughter of innocent children? All foreign aid should be stopped. If wealth redistribution is hurting the poor in the United States, why do we think it’s going to help in other nations? What we should be exporting is a worldview that — moral, religious, economic, and political — that will help these nations transform themselves.

How much support have the following regimes given the United States when it came time for them to vote at the United Nations? (Following this voting list, take a look at how much foreign aid money we dole out to some of these nations):

  1. Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time (how quickly they forget)
  2. Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
  3. Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
  4. United Arab Emirates votes against the United States 70% of the time.
  5. Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
  6. Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
  7. Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
  8. Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
  9. Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
  10. Oman votes against the United States 74%of the time.
  11. Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
  12. Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
  13. Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
  14. Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
  15. Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
  16. India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
  17. Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
  18. Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

United States Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

  1. Egypt, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2,000,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
  2. Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
  3. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States and receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
  4. India votes 81%

There Be Pirates

Once known as the wickedest city in the world when it was the playground of British buccaneers and explorers in the 17th century, little now remains of Port Royal.

However, a campaign supported by the Jamaican government was launched this week to secure UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) world heritage status for the sunken city to put it firmly back on the map.

Surveys by a team of experts are under way to mark the land and sea boundaries of what is regarded as one of the most important archeological sites in British history as part of the bid to UNESCO.

A seven-mile spit of golden sand arcs around Kingston bay protecting the capital. At the far end lies the small fishing village of Port Royal (of “Pirates of the Caribbean” fame), which was once a bustling city and key British outpost in the 1600s.

The port, which boasted a population of 7,000 and was comparable to Boston during the same period, was a playground for buccaneers like Henry Morgan, who docked in search of rum, women and boat repairs.

England seized Jamaica from the Spanish in 1655 under the orders of Oliver Cromwell with the aim of establishing a trading base in the Spanish New World.

Merchants and pirates flocked to the new settlement and Port Royal soon became synonymous for excess. There was one tavern for every 10 residents and boasted a thriving prostitution trade.

The city became known as “the Sodom of the New World”, with contemporary writer Charles Leslie noting in his history of Jamaica of the buccaneers: “Wine and women drained their wealth to such a degree that… some of them became reduced to beggary. They have been known to spend 2 or 3,000 pieces of eight in one night and one gave a strumpet 500 to see her naked.”

However, on June 7, 1692, an earthquake and tsunami decimated the coastline, submerging two-thirds of the city and killing an estimated 2,000 people.

The port remained a key strategic British naval base, but the debauchery was washed away with the tsunami. Fort Charles, where Lord Nelson was once stationed, sank three and a half feet during the earthquake but remains standing to this day.

Despite the village being littered with remnants of British military installations, many of the historic colonial buildings are dilapidated.

The algae-covered remnants of the city are under water in an archaeological preserve closed to divers without a permit.

But in recent decades, underwater excavations have turned up artifacts including cannonballs, wine glasses, ornate pipes, pewter plates and ceramic plates dredged from the muck just offshore. The partial skeleton of a child was found in 1998.

At a press conference on Tuesday, experts said it is among the top British archaeological sites in the Western Hemisphere and should be protected for future generations.

“There is outstanding potential here. Submerged towns like this just do not exist anywhere else in the Americas,” said Robert Grenier, a Canadian underwater archaeologist who has worked closely with UNESCO.

Donny Hamilton, Texas A&M University nautical archaeologist, said the consulting team has completed the fieldwork for the world heritage assessment and is working on a management plan.

Port Royal could become a sustainable attraction for tourists but first “there’s got to be something above the ground that people are going to want to come and see,” Mr Hamilton said.

Jamaican officials and businessmen have announced various strategies to renovate the ramshackle town over the years, including plans for modern cruise liners and a Disney-style theme park featuring actors dressed as pirates.

Some area businessmen have grown exasperated with the slow pace of development.

Attribution: UK Telegraph

Point of No Return?

by: Walter E. Williams

Our nation is rapidly approaching a point from which there’s little chance to avoid a financial collapse. The heart of our problem can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. That’s a set of circumstances when something is commonly owned and individuals acting rationally in their own self-interest produce a set of results that’s inimical to everyone’s long-term interest. Let’s look at an example of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon and then apply it to our national problem.

Imagine there are 100 cattlemen all having an equal right to graze their herds on 1,000 acres of commonly owned grassland. The rational self-interested response of each cattleman is to have the largest herd that he can afford. Each cattleman pursing similar self-interests will produce results not in any of the cattlemen’s long-term interest — overgrazing, soil erosion and destruction of the land’s usefulness. Even if they all recognize the dangers, does it pay for any one cattleman to cut the size of his herd? The short answer is no because he would bear the cost of having a smaller herd while the other cattlemen gain at his expense. In the long term, they all lose because the land will be overgrazed and made useless.

We can think of the federal budget as a commons to which each of our 535 congressmen and the president have access. Like the cattlemen, each congressman and the president want to get as much out of the federal budget as possible for their constituents. Political success depends upon “bringing home the bacon.” Spending is popular, but taxes to finance the spending are not. The tendency is for spending to rise and its financing to be concealed through borrowing and inflation.

Does it pay for an individual congressman to say, “This spending is unconstitutional and ruining our nation, and I’ll have no part of it; I will refuse a $500 million federal grant to my congressional district”? The answer is no because he would gain little or nothing, plus the federal budget wouldn’t be reduced by $500 million. Other congressmen would benefit by having $500 million more for their districts.

What about the constituents of a principled congressman? If their congressman refuses unconstitutional spending, it doesn’t mean that they pay lower federal income taxes. All that it means is constituents of some other congressmen get the money while the nation spirals toward financial ruin, and they wouldn’t be spared from that ruin because their congressman refused to participate in unconstitutional spending.

What we’re witnessing in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other parts of Europe is a direct result of their massive spending to accommodate the welfare state. A greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product. The other percentages of GDP are 120 in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal. As a result of this debt and the improbability of their ever paying it, their credit ratings either have reached or are close to reaching junk bond status.

Here’s the question for us: Is the U.S. moving in a direction toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt, which was 35 percent of GDP during the 1970s, is now 106 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II’s 122 percent. That debt, plus our more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, has led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+, and the agency is keeping the outlook at “negative” as a result of its having little confidence that Congress will take on the politically sensitive job of tackling the same type of entitlement that has turned Europe into a basket case.

I am all too afraid that Benjamin Franklin correctly saw our nation’s destiny when he said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

It’s Not My Fault

Scientists say a fault-line running across Alaska could cause tsunamis of the same magnitude as the Japanese disaster of March last year.

Attention has turned to the Alaskan-Aleutian subduction zone, a region where one of the earth’s tectonic plates, carrying the Pacific Ocean, drops beneath the North American plate.

A particular section of the fault near the Semidi Islands has not ruptured since at least 1788, and measurements on this area – which lies four to five kilometers (2-1/2 to 3 miles) under water – reveal the pressure is accumulating rapidly.

If the Pacific Ocean plate slips, as happened in the geographically-similar Tohoku subduction zone off the coast of Japan, a tsunami could occur – and could wreak havoc as far away as Hawaii and California.

According to Discovery.com, scientists are now investigating the underwater fault-line in the hope of estimating the likelihood of danger to the U.S. and to the Hawaiian islands.

The last time a slip between the Alaskan plates occurred, it led to the Good Friday Earthquake, on March 27, 1964, which was the most powerful earthquake in U.S. history – a 9.2 magnitude earthquake and led to 145 deaths.

Tsunamis also occurred in this area in 1947 and 1957, while a magnitude 7.4 earthquake occurred in the area last June, but as its location did not lead to a tsunami, a brief tsunami warning was recalled shortly afterwards.

Many of these deaths happened hundreds of miles away from the epicenter of the earthquake – with 90% caused by tsunamis.

The Japanese quake, which measured 9.0 magnitude, led to a 10-meter-high (33 ft) tsunami and ended up killing an estimated 18,000 people.

Attribution: Eddie Wrenn, Discovery

Setting the Agenda

by: Kathleen Marquard & the Common Constitutionalist

Pop Quiz: Who said this? Marx, Lenin, Mao, Michael Moore?

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

Nope. It was Professor Maurice Strong and he was just one of the speakers at the Agenda 21 summit.

In 1992, twenty years ago this summer, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development was unveiled to the world at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio.

In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle, which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

Sheesh! Take away the environmental crap and it sounds like Woodrow Wilson could have penned it.

George H.W. Bush was in Rio for the ceremonies and graciously signed on for America so that our overburdened Congress wouldn’t have to spend the time reviewing the document, thus learning then, what dastardly deeds were in store for us — that protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.

A year later Clinton established his President’s Council for Sustainable Development, which would embed the guidelines of Agenda 21 into public policy to be administered by the federal government via all departments. In doing this, Bush(41) and Clinton set up Agenda 21 as ruling authority, i.e., implementing a U.N. plan to become U.S. policy across the whole nation and bleeding into every county and town. And both succeeding presidents have evidently fully endorsed and implemented Agenda 21 through every department of the federal government.

Here is how the UN described Agenda 21 in one of its own publications in a 1993 article entitled “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

So, it sounds as if we may have to make some minor changes to our lifestyle.

In simple terms, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it. It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the rest of the world (actually the global elites and progressive intellectuals); it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution.

Before we go any further, I know what you’re thinking. It’s been in effect since 1993, but I don’t see any drastic changes to this country. What’s the big deal? Remember this; National Healthcare was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. I’ll give Progressives props; they don’t give up. They’ll just keep pushing their agenda through generations and the foundation has already been laid.

According to its authors, the objective of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity (the 3Es of sustainability – Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity). They insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

You will need to memorize these new vocabulary words if you are to be a good citizen of the world:

Open space, smart growth, smart food, smart buildings, regional planning, walkable, bikeable, foodsheds, viewsheds, consensus, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, social justice, heritage, carbon footprints, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, community service.

After reading this laundry list of Agenda 21 words, you may now see that some have already found their way into our lexicon. Those who control the language, control the argument, thus control the agenda.

This is not just policy but a complete restructuring of life as we know it. We not only will be taught how we must live, but where we are allowed to live; how many children we may have; taught how to think and what is acceptable thinking; told what job we will be allowed to have; taught how we can worship and what we will be allowed to worship; and we (especially our children) will be brainwashed into believing that the individual must cede all to the collective.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Private property and free-market economics will be replaced by public private partnerships and a planned central economy. Social justice will usurp individual rights. Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” – in other words, the redistribution of wealth. This will be achieved through an organizational structure of land use controls; control of energy and energy production; control of transportation; control of industry; control of food production; control of development; control of water availability; and control of population size and growth. And all will be decreed under the guise of environmental protection and sustainability.

Agenda 21 is nothing more than worldwide centralized command & control. They only wish to control all aspects of our lives. Is that too much ask?

Suffer No More

Millions of diabetes sufferers face the daily grind of frequent and painful skin prick tests to monitor their blood sugar levels.

Now researchers have developed an innovative alternative that could reveal the same information in the blink of an eye.

A team from The University of Akron have developed a contact lens that senses glucose which is the blood sugar in tears, the natural fluid that bathes the eye.

If sugar is not being metabolized properly and glucose concentration builds up in the body, the contact lens will detect a problem and change color.

“It works just like pH paper in your high school chemistry lab”, said Dr Jun Hu.

“The sugar molecule literally acts like the proton in a pH test, displacing a color dye embedded in the lens, and the lens changes color.”

Usually when you dissolve sugars in water you can’t see them. Dr Hu has used a molecule, called a probe, that binds well to sugars that they then combined with a dye. When sugar concentrations rise the sugar binds to the probe and knocks the dye loose, causing a color change.

The person wearing the lens wouldn’t notice the change unless they looked in the mirror, so the team are now designing an app that will calculate sugar levels from a camera phone snap of the eye.

Dr Hu said, “This device could be used to detect subtle changes in blood sugar levels for tight management of diabetes. It can also be used to identify patients with pre-diabetic conditions, allowing early diagnosis that is crucial for preventing diabetes from advancing.”

“The convenience of contact lenses could boost patient compliance to blood sugar testing, as it will reduce discomfort, inconvenience, and even cost.”

“In addition, blood sugar also changes rapidly throughout a normal, active day, so a device that can monitor glucose many times in a day will provide diabetic patients with a very powerful tool in combating such a damaging condition.”

The lens is currently at the prototype phase but scientists say they could be commercially available within three years if all goes well.

The next step will be to check that the dye binds completely to the contact lens and does not leach as this could be dangerous to the eye.

Scrubba Dub Dub

Several media outlets have again pulled or edited already-published articles about the activities of President Barack Obama’s daughter, even though the stories appeared to pose no active security risk to the first family.

On Thursday, 14-year-old Malia Obama attended a concert by the British boy band One Direction at the Patriot Center in Fairfax, Va., flanked by Secret Service agents who attempted unsuccessfully to blend in with the crowd of mostly pre-teen girls.

At one point during the concert, the boy bands’ teen heartthrobs sang, “You’re insecure, Dunno what for, You’re turning heads when you walk through the door” — words that managed to take on some meaning for Malia, who looked less than enthused by the presence of multiple middle-aged federal agents at her side.

On Friday, the story was picked up by the liberal website The Huffington Post, which ran the headline, “Malia Obama, One Direction Fan: First Daughter Attends Boy Band Concert with Secret Service in Tow.”

Within hours, the entire post was scrubbed from the site without explanation, and the post’s URL was hastily changed to direct users to the site’s celebrity section.

The next day, news aggregation website Buzzfeed ran a story on the event, accompanied by a picture of Malia in attendance at the concert. The headline was “Malia Obama Goes to the One Direction Concert with the Secret Service,” and the story’s picture showed Malia standing awkwardly in front of a scowling male Secret Service agent, with what appear to be two additional female Secret Service agents standing to her right.

By Sunday, the headline had changed to “Secret Service Agent Does Not Appear To Enjoy One Direction Concert,” and Buzzfeed had cropped the photo to remove Malia entirely, leaving only a narrow shot of the unhappy Secret Service agent. Again, the author of the post, Hillary Reinsberg, left no explanation for scrubbing Malia from the story and the picture, nor did she provide any indication to readers that it had occurred.

“I was expecting a little more than a tiny picture of half of a guys face,” Buzzfeed commenter Kyle Thompson wrote on Saturday, after the bizarre change had gone into effect.

“They had originally run a story about Malia Obama attending a One Direction concert, but apparently changed their minds when one of the first comments pointed out that journalistic protocol is that the President’s children be left alone, unless they are related to a story about the President in some way,” another commenter, Ryan Johnson, explained. “One of the clumsier things I’ve seen, well, ever.”

Major outlets like the Associated Press and AFP did not cover Malia’s appearance at the concert at all, while community-driven sites such as TMZ and The Blaze have kept their stories about the event posted, unaltered.

On Saturday, the Associated Press reported that the first family was attending yet another concert — this time, they took in some Beyonce. Many sites, including The Huffington Post, omitted any mention of the Obamas in stories about the concert.

The media have run interference for the first family in the past. In March, several news sites — including The Huffington Post — scrubbed stories about Malia’s planned spring break vacation in Mexico with a dozen friends and 25 Secret Service agents.

At the time, the White House admitted it had asked that the stories be removed only for security reasons.

“From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news

Mainstream Media

 outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest,” Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady, told Politico.

However, unlike the spring break stories, which were published in advance of Malia’s trip

 and may have posed a threat, the articles about the first daughter’s appearance at the One Direction concert were published only after the fact.

Additionally, despite repeatedly saying that the first family is off-limits to reporters, the Obama campaign has used images of the president’s daughters in advertisements urging the public to “help the Obamas stand up for working Americans.”

I remember the media according the Bush daughters the same respect. Right!

Attribution: Gregg Re, Daily Caller

A Flag for All

Jim Parks may be 93-year-old, but he isn’t slowing down. The former Navy sailor and World War II service member is on a mission to officially honor his fellow veterans.

Parks, who has a passion for commemorating those who have given back to the United States of America, has created a flag that serves this very purpose — a symbol that he hopes to eventually see flying in all 50 states.

Parks, who pushes on despite health problems, has stated his surprise with the fact that there are already flags for each branch of the military and for individuals who are missing in combat. But the dearth of a more general symbol to represent the many individuals who have served has been a concern to him, so he has set out on a crusade to see that this alleged wrong is righted. 

“Twenty-three million veterans that served our country: Don’t they deserve to have an emblem that represents them?, Parks recently asked. ”You always have to be optimistic. If it doesn’t work one way, try another way. So, I keep trying. I’ve come a long way in 10 years.”

Already, Parks is halfway to his goal, as 25 states have voiced support for the flag. The California state legislature was the first to take up the motion back in 2006 for what Parks has dubbed the “Veterans Remembered Flag.” The symbol, rather than singling out a specific group of servicemen and women, is intended to serve as a memorial for “past, present, and future veterans,“ while providing ”an enduring symbol to support tomorrow’s veterans today.”

For more information and to order a flag click on the following link:

http://veteransrememberedflag.com/index.html