Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

27 February 2011

The Muslim Brotherhood's "General Strategic Goal" for North America

Source

In July 2007, seven key leaders of an Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) went on trial for charges that they had: (a) provided "material support and resources" to a foreign terrorist organization (namely Hamas); (b) engaged in money laundering; and (c) breached the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which prohibits transactions that threaten American national security. Along with the seven named defendants, the U.S. government released a list of approximately 300 "unindicted co-conspirators" and "joint venturers." During the course of the HLF trial, many incriminating documents were entered into evidence. Perhaps the most significant of these was "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," by the Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram.

Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, this 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the “grand jihad” that he and his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims' efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram's document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”

In line with this objective, Akram and the Brotherhood resolved to "settle" Islam and the Islamic movement within the United States, so that the Muslim religion could be "enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country.” Akram explained that this could be accomplished “through the establishment of firmly-rooted organizations on whose bases civilization, structure and testimony are built.” He urged Muslim leaders to make “a shift from the collision mentality to the absorption mentality,” meaning that they should abandon any tactics involving defiance or confrontation, and seek instead to implant into the larger society a host of seemingly benign Islamic groups with ostensibly unobjectionable motives; once those groups had gained a measure of public acceptance, they would be in a position to more effectively promote societal transformation by the old Communist technique of “boring from within.”

“The heart and the core” of this strategy, said Akram, was contingent upon these groups' ability to develop “a mastery of the art of 'coalitions.'” That is, by working synergistically they could complement, augment, and amplify one another's efforts. Added Akram: “The big challenge that is ahead of us is how to turn these seeds or 'scattered' elements into comprehensive, stable, 'settled' organizations that are connected with our Movement and which fly in our orbit and take orders from our guidance.” The ultimate objective was not only an enlarged Muslim presence, p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }but also implementation of the Brotherhood objectives of transforming pluralistic societies, particularly America, into Islamic states, and sweeping away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Akram and the Brotherhood understood that in order to succeed in this endeavor, they needed to appeal to different strata of the American population in different ways; that whereas some people could be influenced by messages delivered from a religious perspective, others would be more responsive to messages delivered by educators, or bankers, or political figures, or journalists, etc. Thus, Akram's blueprint for the advancement of the Islamic movement stressed the need to form a coalition of groups coming from the worlds of education; religious proselytization; political activism; audio and video production; print media; banking and finance; the physical sciences; the social sciences; professional and business networking; cultural affairs; the publishing and distribution of books; children and teenagers; women's rights; vocational concerns; and jurisprudence.

By promoting the Islamic movement on such a wide variety of fronts, the Brotherhood and its allies could multiply exponentially their influence. Toward that end, the Akram/Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum” named the following 29 groups as the organizations they believed could collaborate effectively to destroy America from within – “if they all march according to one plan”:

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD'S "GENERAL STRATEGIC GOAL" FOR NORTH AMERICA

Source

In July 2007, seven key leaders of an Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) went on trial for charges that they had: (a) provided "material support and resources" to a foreign terrorist organization (namely Hamas); (b) engaged in money laundering; and (c) breached the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which prohibits transactions that threaten American national security. Along with the seven named defendants, the U.S. government released a list of approximately 300 "unindicted co-conspirators" and "joint venturers." During the course of the HLF trial, many incriminating documents were entered into evidence. Perhaps the most significant of these was "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," by the Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram.

Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, this 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded "organizations of our friends" that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These "friends" were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims "that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands ... so that ... God's religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the “grand jihad” that he and his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims' efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram's document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”

In line with this objective, Akram and the Brotherhood resolved to "settle" Islam and the Islamic movement within the United States, so that the Muslim religion could be "enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country.” Akram explained that this could be accomplished “through the establishment of firmly-rooted organizations on whose bases civilization, structure and testimony are built.” He urged Muslim leaders to make “a shift from the collision mentality to the absorption mentality,” meaning that they should abandon any tactics involving defiance or confrontation, and seek instead to implant into the larger society a host of seemingly benign Islamic groups with ostensibly unobjectionable motives; once those groups had gained a measure of public acceptance, they would be in a position to more effectively promote societal transformation by the old Communist technique of “boring from within.”

“The heart and the core” of this strategy, said Akram, was contingent upon these groups' ability to develop “a mastery of the art of 'coalitions.'” That is, by working synergistically they could complement, augment, and amplify one another's efforts. Added Akram: “The big challenge that is ahead of us is how to turn these seeds or 'scattered' elements into comprehensive, stable, 'settled' organizations that are connected with our Movement and which fly in our orbit and take orders from our guidance.” The ultimate objective was not only an enlarged Muslim presence, p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }but also implementation of the Brotherhood objectives of transforming pluralistic societies, particularly America, into Islamic states, and sweeping away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

Akram and the Brotherhood understood that in order to succeed in this endeavor, they needed to appeal to different strata of the American population in different ways; that whereas some people could be influenced by messages delivered from a religious perspective, others would be more responsive to messages delivered by educators, or bankers, or political figures, or journalists, etc. Thus, Akram's blueprint for the advancement of the Islamic movement stressed the need to form a coalition of groups coming from the worlds of education; religious proselytization; political activism; audio and video production; print media; banking and finance; the physical sciences; the social sciences; professional and business networking; cultural affairs; the publishing and distribution of books; children and teenagers; women's rights; vocational concerns; and jurisprudence.

By promoting the Islamic movement on such a wide variety of fronts, the Brotherhood and its allies could multiply exponentially their influence. Toward that end, the Akram/Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum” named the following 29 groups as the organizations they believed could collaborate effectively to destroy America from within – “if they all march according to one plan”:

24 February 2011

Democrat coop

23 February 2011

UK: Four Muslim Men Brutally Attack Teacher Because He Was Teaching Other Religions to Muslim Girls…

(Source)


The fruits of multiculturalism.

(Daily Mail)- Four men launched a horrific attack on a teacher in which they slashed his face and left him with a fractured skull because they did not approve of him teaching religion to Muslim girls.

Akmol Hussein, 26, Sheikh Rashid, 27, Azad Hussain, 25, and Simon Alam, 19, attacked Gary Smith with a Stanley knife, an iron rod and a block of cement.

Mr Smith, who is head of religious education at Central Foundation Girls’ School in Bow, east London, also suffered a fractured skull.

The four now face a jail sentence.

Detectives made secret recordings of the gang’s plot to attack Mr Smith prior to the brutal assault.

The covert audio probe captured the gang condemning Mr Smith for ‘teaching other religions to our sisters’, the court heard.

The RE teacher was targeted as he made his way on foot along Burdett Road in nearby Mile End on July 12 last year, Snaresbrook Crown Court was told.

Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse told the court: ‘The evidence from what was said on the probe points overwhelmingly to a religious motive for this attack.’

It is believed the gang had made two earlier attempts to get at the teacher.

22 February 2011

Israel's Liberal Fifth Column Bankrolled by Terrorists

The Soviet Union bankrolled communist fifth columnists in the USA, why shouldn't Islamic terrorists fund useful idiots in Israel?

An independent investigation by the grassroots student group Im Tirtzu revealed that Israeli leftist groups receive money from Arab pro-terror organizations, Ma'ariv reports. The study connects the dots between 13 Israeli leftist groups — including B'Tselem and the Center for Protection of the Individual ('Hamoked') — and a Ramallah-based fund called the National Development Center (NDC), which is closely linked to a fund called the Welfare Association (WA). The WA, in turn, receives some of its money from the Al Aqsa Fund, which also gives money to the relatives of "martyrs" who carried out suicide attacks against Israelis.
The NDC gave a total of about two million dollars to 13 Israeli groups in 2008-2009 alone, the new research reveals. The largest donations were to Hamoked, which received $450,000, and B'Tselem, which got $400,000. The NDC, founded 2006, is officially funded by the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and Denmark. However, its website also says that its assets, systems and team of founders came from the WA. NDC's headquarters are based in Ramallah, and its directors are all from the Palestinian Authority. Five of the 13 board members are also representatives and members of the WA in Ramallah, which receives money from the Islamic Investment Bank, Arab countries hostile to Israel and the Al Aqsa Fund.
Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Liberman stirred a huge controversy when his party, Israel Beiteinu, last week introduced a motion in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, to investigate the funding of a number of Israeli human rights organizations that are suspected to participate in delegitimization campaigns against IDF soldiers. According Israel Beiteinu representative Fania Kirshenbaum, one of these organizations went into schools to convince the students that joining the IDF is unethical. Other members of Knesset said this motion is a "shame on the Knesset," a way to stifle opposition, and a danger to the Israeli democracy.

Funding transparency is a danger to democracy. Sounds like someone has plenty to hide.

Note the ever-helpful role of liberal Euroweenies in helping terrorists destroy Israel. If given their way, bleeding heart do-gooders will finish what Hitler started.

Allen West to CAIR rep: Don’t try and blow sunshine up my butt!

20 February 2011

Pathetic: Global Warm-ongers Issue Dire Warning for Year 3000


I guess they've given up on all the idiotic forecasts for 10 or 20 years down the road since they've been proven wrong every time. Now they set a new standard: Making predictions for how things will look 989 years in the future. Hey, at least they can't be debunked now by us evil deniers.
Even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could span the next millennia. The results? By the year 3000, global warming would be more than a hot topic - the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, and global sea levels would rise by about 13 feet (4 meters), according to a new study.
Hasn't Algore been spewing this same nonsense? Notice how they always couch as it could happen. So when they're wrong (and they always are) they can just saw they were warning us, just in case.
Using a computer model, researchers looked at two scenarios - an end to humans' industrial carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 and by 2100 - stretched out to the year 3000.

Even if humans were to stop emitting excess carbon dioxide - or if they figured out a way to completely capture it - the effects of global warming would continue to accumulate. That's because previously emitted carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere and the oceans, unlike land, warm only gradually, according to one of the study researchers, Shawn Marshall, an associate professor of geography at the University of Calgary.
So once 3000 rolls around and humans face only another few billion years on the planet, then they can't really start to worry or something.

19 February 2011

Eminent geophysicist rejects global warming theory, says world on verge of ‘mini ice age’

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MEXICO CITY, February 18, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An eminent Mexican geophysicist says that despite predictions of global warming based on computer models, the world may be on the verge of an eighty-year cold period similar to the “little ice age” experienced by Europe from 1300 to 1800 A.D..
Sunspot activity since 1990
NASA

Víctor Manuel Velasco, of the University of Mexico’s Institute of Geophysics, says that recent winter conditions are similar to those of the “little ice age”, and in particular the “Maunder Minimum,” a period during which sunspot activity dropped significantly. He also notes that the Earth is in a similar position today in relation to the rest of the solar system, a fact which he regards as significant for climate.

“We are talking about the period between 1645 and 1715, which is known as the Maunder Minimum, a period in which the sunspots practically disappeared from the surface of the sun, and in which our planet occupied a position similar to which it has today, with respect to the center of gravity of our [solar] system.” Velasco said in an interview published by the university.

Velasco dismissed computer models that are used to predict global warming as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, noting that “today we are experiencing a scientific revolution in which on one side there are are supercomputers and on the other, human intelligence. Only human beings create knowledge and science, and those who bet on computers are making an erroneous diagnosis.”

“It will be nature that demonstrates which theory is the correct one. However, the Earth is getting colder,” he added.

Although sunspot activity has been higher in recent decades, which has correlated with higher global temperatures, it has recently shown signs of dropping. The year 2009 marked a particularly low point in the 11-year sunspot cycle, representing the “deepest solar minimum in nearly a century” according to NASA.

Velasco says that he has been studying the relationship between solar activity and climate since 2002, and “our observations led us to predict, in 2008, that the climate would begin to grow colder around 2010, and nature is beginning to demonstrate if the prediction was right or not.”

The geophysicist believes that a “mini ice age” began in 2010 which will last between 60 and 80 years, and says that “there does not exist a scientific consensus regarding the influence and responsibility of man in global warming,” according to a University of Mexico press release describing his views.

Velasco is one of many scientists who question the conclusions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political body which has been the primary force behind the promotion of the catastrophic global warming hypothesis. The theory is a favorite of organizations seeking to justify population control measures such as abortion, contraception, and sterilization.

18 February 2011

Muhammad the Liar

In the following hadiths, we see that Muhammad admits he's a liar when it suits him and he advises its acceptable for Muslims to do likewise:

Narrated Zahdam:

We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it ' Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you).

Once I went to Allah s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, 'I have nothing to mount you on' In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, 'Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps.

We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, "Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful."

So we returned to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.' He said, 'It is Allah Who has given you mounts.

By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.' "

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:

The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."
Abu Musa al-Ash'ari reported: I came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) along with a group of Ash'arites requesting to give us a mount. He (the Holy Prophet) said: By Allah, I cannot provide you with a mount, and there is nothing with me which I should give you as a ride.

He (the narrator) said: We stayed there as long as Allah willed. Then there were brought to him (to the Holy Prophet) camels. He (the Holy Prophet) then ordered to give us three white humped camels, We started and said (or some of us said to the others): Allah will not bless us.

We came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) begging him to provide us with riding camels. He swore that he could not provide us with a mount, but later on he provided us with that. They (some of the Prophet's Companions) came and informed him about this (rankling of theirs), whereupon he said: It was not I who provided you with a mount, but Allah has provided you with that.

So far as I am concerned, by Allah, if He so wills, I would not swear, but if, later on, I would see better than it, I (would break the vow) and expiate it and do that which is better.

Abu Huraira reported: A person sat late in the night with Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), and then came to his family and found that his children had gone to sleep. His wife brought food for him. but he took an oath that he would not eat because of his children (having gone to sleep without food) He then gave precedence (of breaking the vow and then expiating it) and ate the food He then came to Allah s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and made mention of that to him, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: He who took an oath and (later on) found something better than that should do that, and expiate for (breaking) his vow.
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who took an oath and then found another thing better than (this) should expiate for the oath (broken) by him and do (the better thing).
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who took an oath and (later on) found another thing better than that, he should do that which is better, and expiate for the vow (broken by him).
This hadith is narrated on the authority of Suhail with the same chain of transmitters (with these words): "He should expiate for (breaking) the vow and do that which is better."
'Adi reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When anyone amongst you takes an oath, but he finds (something) better than that he should expiate (the breaking of the oath), and do that which is better.
Abd al-Rahman b. Samura reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to me: Abd al-Rahman b. Samura, don't ask for authority for if it is granted to you for asking for it, you would be commissioned for it (without having the support of Allah), but if you are granted it without your asking for it.

You would be helped (by Allah) in it. And when you take an oath and find something else better than that, expiate for (breaking) your oath, and do that which is better. This hadith has also been transmitted on the authority of Ibn Farrukh.

Muslims often claim lying in Islam is restricted to its use in war, but in the following hadiths, Muhammad permits a Muslim to lie in order to kill Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote an anti-Muslim poem which offended him.

"Narrated Jabir : The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew).’ Muhammad bin Maslama replied, ‘Do you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like.’ [i.e. to lie]. The Prophet replied ‘I do (i.e. allow you).’"
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).

"The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be.

Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me."

Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you."

Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka'b said. "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men.

(Some narrators mention the men as 'Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr).

So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. " have never smelt a better scent than this.

Ka'b replied. "I have got the best 'Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well.

Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."

This is a clear case of Lying endorsed by the prophet in order to achieve the objectives of Islam, therefore Muslims are permitted to lie (and kill) in defence of Muhammad and his character.

17 February 2011

20 Quick Facts About Jerusalem and The Arab-Israeli Conflict

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E; the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land. Autonomy under the Palestinian Authority has supplied them with weapons.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs: Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

(Source)

NPR And NY Times Say Bush Was Correct About Pushing Democrac

Get your ice skates out, folks, Hell has just frozen over, starting with NPR: In Egypt, More Proof That George W. Bush Was Right

Two weeks of massive street protests have given Egyptians their voice and today Hosni Mubarak has heard them. If the events that led to Mubarak’s resignation after 30 years as president came as a surprise to many longtime observers of the Middle East, there’s one former US policymaker who has some reason to boast that he saw it coming.

President George W. Bush’s Freedom Agenda was based on the notion that around the world all men share the desire for liberty. It was our founding fathers who put forth the idea that this was not merely a human aspiration but a natural right, and it was the many generations of our forefathers who fought for that right, both at home and abroad. The Arabs had not been born with that privilege.

In the wake of Sept. 11, Bush believed that freedom was not only best for the Arabs, but also a vital national interest that would keep Americans, U.S. allies and interests around the world safe from terrorism. The Freedom Agenda became the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy.

OK, OK, the writer, Lee Smith, is Senior Editor at The Weekly Standard, but, who would have believed that NPR and their far left agenda would allow such an article. But then we get to the NY Times, and Peter Baker is no Conservative: The Return of Pushing Democracy

The cheers of Tahrir Square were heard around the world. But if you listened carefully, you might have heard cheering from another quarter 7,000 miles from Cairo as well, in Dallas.

The revolution in Egypt has reopened a long-simmering debate about the “freedom agenda” that animated George W. Bush’s presidency. Was he right after all, as his supporters have argued? Are they claiming credit he does not deserve? And has President Obama picked up the mantle of democracy and made it his own?

Peter attempts to sidestep the issue regarding Bush’s push for democracy and freedom around the world, particularly in the Middle East, yet, the more he performs a soft shoe, the more he shows that Bush was right, and Obama had been wrong, vis a vis Obama’s “smart power” and “nuanced view” (Peter fails to mention that that view included diminishing America as an exceptional country, kowtowing to foreign dictators, and bowing to foreign leaders, among others.) He also calls Obama’s response to the Iranian uprising “muted.” That’s like referring to an aircraft carrier as a dingy.

Of course, Bush wasn’t the only president who pushed freedom and democracy. The article points out that most presidents before him did the same. Not mentioned is that Jimmy Carter was a failure at it, and Clinton was rather tepid. You know, something links those two to Obama, can’t figure out what. Help me out, OK? Anyhow, Peter points out that somehow, pushing democracy and freedom became a “polarizing concept.” In other words, the Left was against it, because Bush was for it.

Not everyone sees it that way, especially in the Obama White House, where the assertion rankles deeply. “Was Bush right?” scoffed one Obama adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Give me a break. How many democratic transformations like this took place when he was in office?”

Interesting. In Liberal circles, intentions typically rank higher than actual actions and/or outcomes, yet, they have a problem with the concept of pushing freedom around the world. But, then, so many of them have taken the side of dictators and brutal thugs, typically aligned with socialism (and countries like the USSR, communist China, North Vietnam, and Venezuela. Remember, these are the same caring Liberals who looked the other way during the genocide in Rwanda.)

So, too, is Mr. Obama’s destination. Aides said he has been focused on the issue of democracy abroad since the beginning of his tenure. Last fall, they compiled a 17-page, single-spaced compendium of speech excerpts to show it. But he seems to have found more of a voice in the last six months.

Oh, good, he gave speeches. And did next to nothing. Perhaps now, though, Obama has had finally received his on the job training, after failing Iranian Uprising 101, and getting a D+ in Egyptian Uprising 102, and will be on the forefront as other nations see uprisings, and will follow in the footsteps of Bush and other presidents in pushing freedom and democracy.

Netherlands: Multiculturalism has failed, says Deputy PM

Source

Following similar declarations by German, Belgian, British and French officials, a high-ranking Dutch politician declares multiculturalism a failure. Via DutchNews:
Christian Democrat leader Maxime Verhagen on Monday said the multicultural society has failed. He was speaking during the recording of tv show Nova College Tour, reports the Algemeen Dagblad.

Verhagen told the programme the Dutch no longer feel at home in their own country and immigrants are not entirely happy here either.

(source)

Lara Logan Sexually Assaulted B/c They Thought She Was a Jew – The Real Islam

**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ****

It wasn’t the least bit interesting, today, to read the same carbon copy, seminar-e-mailers telling me that everyone’s a rapist, especially White males and American soldiers, in response to my post on Lara Logan getting sexually assaulted by Muslims because that’s what they do to women (and young boys and livestock). In fact, it was boring to see so many heads encrusted with sand and connected to jelly-spines. Yaaawn. The thing is, how many rapists rape women because they believe the woman is Jewish and a spy for Israel? Yup, not exactly a newsflash that the new Nazis (Muslims) are the same as the old Nazis (who also included a good number of Muslims). But, hey, it’s the “Religion of Peace,” so they’d never rape or be anti-Jewish, right? It’s interesting how most coverage of the story skips over that part. Gee, I wonder why? Can’t show Muslims are Jew-haters? Is that really a secret?

islamiccrescent.jpg

Lara Logan’s Taste of Islamic Jew-Hatred

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, “Jew! Jew!” as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo’s main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.

The TV crew with Logan, who is also the network’s chief foreign correspondent, had its cameras rolling moments before she was dragged off — and caught her on tape looking tense and trying to head away from a crowd of men behind her in Tahrir Square. . . .

A network source told The Post that her attackers were screaming, “Jew! Jew!” during the assault. And the day before, Logan had told Esquire.com that Egyptian soldiers hassling her and her crew had accused them of “being Israeli spies.” Logan is not Jewish.

Allahu FUBAR. Religion of Pieces, baby!

But don’t worry. As soon as Logan is healed, I’m sure she’ll return to her usual Islamo-pandering ways. It’s what she does, despite so many deluded people wanting to pretend otherwise.

**** UPDATE: Reader Worry01:

I suspect that it was just an excuse for Muslims to engage in “Wilding”.

It seems that you are a “Jew” or are influenced by Jews if one finds
Islamic logic to be wanting on various issues. This seems to be a
substitute for thought or reflection on the part of many Muslims.

Indeed.

Nigel Farage audits Barroso Commission

16 February 2011

California : The Most Miserable State

I know, I know, you’re shocked by the Forbes report via the BBC

A new survey of the “most miserable cities” in the US suggests that five of the 10 worst are in California. The BBC’s Peter Bowes considers whether life in the Golden State has really got that bad.

For many people, life should be much better than it is, and a new survey by Forbes magazine concludes that “the Golden State has never looked less golden”.

The region is at the epicentre of the foreclosure – or repossession – crisis, unemployment is way above the national average and high taxes are crippling business.

“If they can divorce themselves emotionally and psychologically from their problems, everyone seems pretty happy”

As a result, eight out of 20 spots on the publication’s annual list of America’s Most Miserable Cities are in California.

The ranking takes into account a range of factors – including the economy, crime levels, the climate and social factors, such as how the local sports teams are doing.

Stockton, Ca is ranked the worst, with Ca. cities also ranking 3, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, and 20.

Surprisingly, Detroit ranks 15th. You’d think it would be higher, but, I guess the Red Wings save them a bit.

Obama’s hometown of Chicago hits #7, while D.C. ranks 16. Miami is #2. The only somewhat right leaning city on the list is Memphis, at #6.

Never show weakness

By Vox Day

Not to women, children, or dogs, anyhow. Roissy tells the tale of a text message written in response to a blow-off:
I begin reading his reply in a trembly voice, imitating as best I can a lovelorn beta. Paraphrased:

“Ok, I’m sorry to hear that. I was hoping we could date a few more times and see where it goes. I think you are really great, and a very special girl, and I felt we had something between us. I definitely felt we bonded on our dates together. Remember that time playing pool? That was pretty funny. But oh well, if you need some time to yourself, I understand. If you ever change your mind, you know where to email me. I’m willing to give it another try if you are. Ciao.”
Look, guys, no woman ever needs any time to herself. With very few exceptions, women are not contemplative and few can even entertain themselves for any extended period of time. The expression is merely a conflict-avoidance device utilized to communicate a lack of romantic interest. The correct translation of "time to herself" means "time with men who are not you" and by "time" she means "until the end of it". If a woman is genuinely attracted to a man, she will make time for him even if it means abandoning her children, quitting her job, or doing without food and sleep.

But a blow-off shouldn't inspire this cringing, lachrymose attempt to convince a woman that she has made the wrong choice. "I definitely felt we bonded"... seriously? This is classic delta and all it does is convince her that she was right to blow off the weakling when she did and make him a figure of mockery and scorn. The correct response, as numerous Chateau denizens have pointed out in the comments, is nothing. Niente. No response. To lash back at her over nothing more than legitimate rejection would be gamma; this need to ensure the rejector that there are no hard feelings on the part of the rejectee is pure delta. The omega, of course, will vow eternal vengeance (to himself) and tell his fellow rejects about the ten different terrible things that would teach his rejector a lesson she'd never forget if he ever followed through on one. Which he won't. There is no single appropriate alpha response, as the real alpha is already involved with at least one of her friends and will feel relieved that a potentially messy problem has sorted itself out again without requiring any effort on his part.

The sigma response, of course, is "????"

Now, since there are clearly a few quasi-aspies here of the sort that regularly drive the Chateau regulars mad with their inability to understand the concept of behavioral gradations, the injunction to show no weakness is a relative one. If you are covered in blood, surrounded by headless bodies, and holding a severed head in your hand, then you can safely shed a tear or two and permit a woman to read your diary of secret doubts about your courage and masculinity. Any perceived weakness will be tend to be outweighed in her mind by your manifest ability to wreak massive havoc and that delicious sense of fear and security it inspires in her.

Please note that I am primarily speaking metaphorically here despite the literal truth of the statement. Casanova can confess his fears of rejection without concern, (although quite possibly not without sarcasm), because the woman knows that if she rejects him he can and will find a replacement for her within days, if not hours. Your average delta - and this very probably means you* - not so much. In summary, the strong man can afford to be seen as vulnerable, but the average man cannot.

*Except you, of course. You are a unique and precious sigma snowflake.

Which reminds me. Pop socio-sexual rank quiz:

Omega: You have threatened to kill yourself over a woman. But you stalked her instead.
Gamma: You have thought about killing yourself over a woman. But you wrote about how she made you feel instead.
Delta: You have taken it seriously when a woman threatened to kill herself. She did not do it.
Beta: You have listened to a woman threatening to kill herself over your best friend. With some amusement. On more than one occasion.
Alpha: A woman with whom you were involved has threatened to kill you because you also had sex with a) her roommate, b) her best friend, or c) her sister.
Sigma: A woman has asked you to kill her during sex. You thought it was hot.

UPDATE: The Dark Lord explains the optimal response to a blow-off and why it is better than the alternatives. You'll note that it is precisely the response I recommended:
#1: No response. (Credit: Gorbachev)

90% of the time, and in 90% of situations, this will be your best option. Radio silence is a failsafe method for causing reckless hamster spin in a woman’s headspace. You have got to understand a couple of things about women and breaking up.

One, women initiate most breakups. I have read it is on the order of 75-85% of all breakups. Women also initiate 2/3rds to 3/4ths or more of all divorces.

Two, women secretly get a thrill out of the power they wield as society’s de facto hypergamous dumpers. When a woman dumps a man, she wants to know she got to him. Though she will never admit it, the act of gettting to a man is a blissful ego massage for the typical woman.

15 February 2011

Scientists and physicians declare:human life begins at conception

Source

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”4

In his film, “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8


Footnotes:

1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

2Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence of Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 113.

3 Ashley Montague, Life Before Birth (New York: Signet Books, 1977), vi.

4Bernard N. Nathanson, “Deeper into Abortion,” New England Journal of Medicine 291 (1974): 1189Ð90.

5Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

6Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

7John C. Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes Publishing, 1988), 42.

8Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

14 February 2011

Planned Parenthood Tried to Force Raped Teen to Have Abortion

On the heels of a slate of new videos showing Planned Parenthood centers in three states and Washington, D.C. assisting alleged sex traffickers in getting abortions for underage girls, a new report shows problems at a Washington state abortion business.


A newly-uncovered police report concerning a September 2008 incident reveals staff at a Kennewick, Washington Planned Parenthood doing everything possible to arrange an abortion for a 14-year-old girl who had been a victim of statutory rape by a 20-year-old man. The staff also try to keep the young girl at the Planned Parenthood center against her father’s will.

The blog site Abortion in Washington has recently obtained a copy of the September 2008 police report detailing how Planned Parenthood employee Andrea Smasne holds a 22-week pregnant young girl at the Planned Parenthood center and refuses her father’s request to return her so he could take her home.

The unnamed girl had arrived at the Planned Parenthood with her father and sister but did not want her father at the abortion center with her because she was worried about him being upset with her over the pregnancy. Meanwhile, the unnamed man who impregnated the girl was en route to the Planned Parenthood center — which apparently prompted the father to want to take his daughter home and cancel the appointment to avoid a confrontation.

The police report indicates Smasne informs the young girl she can’t get an abortion there and would have to receive a referral to a Seattle abortion center to complete the late-term abortion. She holds the young girl to complete the referral even though the girl’s father requests that she be released he can take her home. When the police arrive, Smasne even disobeys the police officer’s order to return the girl to her father, telling him that “once a minor child is pregnant she is emancipated.”

“I then asked Smasne how old the patient was. She advised the female patient [was 14-years-old],” the officer writes in the report. “I then asked why they would tell the father he had to leave if his juvenile age daughter was there. At that point Smasne stated that once the juvenile is pregnant, the juvenile is emancipated, and further stated the father had no right to be present if the patient did not want him there.”

However, the officer contacts City Attorney Eric Eisinger who explains state law and says the young girl is not emancipated and that the father has a right to take her home.

“Based on his research, a juvenile is not emancipated simply by becoming pregnant,” the officer indicates. “He stated becoming emancipated required a court process. Eisinger further advised that unless employees of Planned Parenthood provided documentation from the court indicating that [redacted] is/was emancipated, [redacted] would be required to go with her father [redacted]. I was also advised, if employees at Planned Parenthood could not provided the documentation and did not allow access to [redacted] to send her with father, I should proceed with a criminal investigation against the involved employees citing Custodial Interference Section 26.28 as the charge.”

The officer eventually returns to the abortion center to make his point with Planned Parenthood staff and requests to speak with the young girl. He talks with her for over half an hour about her situation and says Planned Parenthood staff continuously walk by the room in which he and the young girl are discussing matters in order to attempt to eavesdrop on the conversation.

Mary Emanuel, of the Abortion in Washington web site obtaining the report, comments on the police report her web site obtained.

“As the Planned Parenthood employee Smasne defies the officer and attempts to hang on to the girl despite the officer’s explanation of the law, Smasne seems determined to make sure a 22-week old baby is aborted, ignoring the officer until her referral is completed,” she says. ” To be clear, this woman disobeys a direct, lawful order from a police officer to do everything she can to ensure a 22-week-old unborn baby is aborted. That is how hell-bent on killing babies they are at Planned Parenthood.”

“Please note that the father of the baby was 20 years old. After the officer informs Smasne of this fact, she retorts that the girl’s father “did not have rights in this matter” because “according to the legal staff of Planned Parenthood” the girl was ‘emancipated,’” she adds.

Emanuel says, “Parents need to take note of Custodial Interference Section 26.28 and be prepared to use it with Planned Parenthood employees in the event their children are ever in the same situation as this same young girl. Employees of Planned Parenthood cannot interfere in the rights of parents.”

“These actions by the Kennewick Planned Parenthood are systematic of the abortion industry and part of a nationwide problem that has been so well documented by Live Action. We hope everyone has seen the their undercover videos showing the facilitation of under-age sex trafficking by Planned Parenthood and also the pattern of failure to report statutory rape and covering up for men who have sex with under-age girls who come into Planned Parenthood clinics,” she says.

The young girl eventually left with her father and the girl did not sign the referral form Planned Parenthood attempted to give her for an abortion in Seattle.

Source

Secret Videos Taken at Muslim Hate Schools in Great Britain: Pupils Beaten and Taught “Hindus Drink Cow Piss”

Source

The true face of Islam…

(Daily Mail) — It is an assembly hall of the sort found in any ordinary school. Boys aged 11 and upwards sit cross-legged on the floor in straight rows.

They face the front of the room and listen carefully. But this is no ordinary assembly. Holding the children’s attention is a man in Islamic dress wearing a skullcap and stroking his long dark beard as he talks.

‘You’re not like the non-Muslims out there,’ the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. ‘All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking . . . you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.’

He refers to the ‘non-Muslims’ as the ‘Kuffar’, an often derogatory term that means disbeliever or infidel.

Welcome to one of Britain’s most influential Islamic faith schools, one of at least 2,000 such schools in Britain, some full-time, others part-time.

They represent a growing, parallel education system.

The school is the Darul Uloom Islamic High School in Birmingham, an oversubscribed independent secondary school.

Darul Ulooms are world-renowned Islamic institutions and their aim is to produce the next generation of Muslim leaders.

In fact, these schools have been described as the ‘Etons of Islam’.

This school is required by its inspectors to teach tolerance and respect for other faiths. But the Channel 4 current affairs programme Dispatches filmed secretly inside it — and instead discovered that Muslim children are being taught religious apartheid and social segregation.

We recorded a number of speakers giving deeply disturbing talks about Jews, Christians and atheists.

We found children as young as 11 learning that Hindus have ‘no intellect’ and that they ‘drink cow p***’.

And we came across pupils being told that the ‘disbelievers’ are ‘the worst creatures’ and that Muslims who adopt supposedly non-Muslim ways, such as shaving, dancing, listening to music and — in the case of women — removing their headscarves, would be tortured with a forked iron rod in the afterlife.

10 February 2011

Dinosaur Bones Crack Open Surprises: Original Tissue

New Scientist?

“Occasionally, though, nature is kind and fossilisation preserves details of an animal’s soft tissue.” But has nature been kind for tens of millions of years? In an article called “Soft-centred fossils reveal dinosaurs’ true colours,” Jeff Hecht spilled the beans that more researchers are finding soft tissue and original material in dinosaur bones said to be over 65 million years old and older – even more than twice as old.

We’ve seen news about soft tissue before (e.g., 12/22/2010), but this article suggests that scientists are becoming more bold to look for it (cf. 02/22/2006).

Pete Larson, Phil Manning and Roy Wogelius, in particular, have been using synchrotron radiation at Stanford to look for unfossilized remains of dinosaurs. Hecht suggested that they are not alone; “Their project is one of several challenges to the conventional wisdom that when animals fossilise, all the original organic material, from the bones to the blood, is lost.”

Their work could crack open old bones of contention: “First, however, researchers like Manning must convince other palaeontologists that their fossils really do preserve original material, which won’t be easy.” Other paleontologists have been skeptical, because “Convincing evidence of original soft tissue older than the Ice Age was lacking.”

That’s because “DNA degrades much faster than proteins and other soft tissue components and nobody thinks it is possible to recover DNA that is older than about a million years.

Hecht explained that, while soft tissue imprints are exceptional but not unknown, preservation of actual original material has been controversial. Mary Schweitzer famously announced blood vessels, cells and other material in a T. rex femur in 2005 (03/24/2005), but “Schweitzer’s claim was met with scepticism, in part because of the immense age of the bone.” She countered skeptics’ arguments that she had only found recent biofilms (07/30/2008) and then announced finding collagen, haemoglobin, elastin and laminin – strengthening her discovery of original material (04/30/2009).

Awaking from their dogmatic slumbers, more paleontologists have started on a soft tissue treasure hunt:

Others have begun to report similar findings, and not just from inside bones. Manning and Wogelius have reported finding amino acids in the claw and skin of Dakota, the 66-million-year-old Edmontosaurus mummy (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 276, p 3429).

Meanwhile, Orr’s former student Maria McNamara, now splitting her time between Dublin and Yale, claims to have found marrow inside the fossilised bones of 10 million-year old frogs and salamanders preserved in lake-bed deposits from Spain (Geology, vol 34, p 641). Marrow is normally among the first tissues to decay, but she found organic residues preserved in three dimensions that retained the original colour and texture of the marrow.

“The fidelity of preservation on a morphological level is remarkable, though it’s very unlikely that the biochemistry would be completely original,” says [Patrick] Orr [University College Dublin]. Preservation of very decay-prone soft tissues is probably more common than we realise, he adds.

So what of the latest test at Stanford? Manning and Wogelius had been successful finding original pigment in an Archaeopteryx specimen in 2009 (05/10/2010), Hecht recalled; “Nobody had expected soft-tissue chemistry to be preserved in such places” as feathers. Quoting Wogelius, “It’s amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years.

Zinc and copper atoms were also detected with the synchrotron machine. Others have found “more surprises,” like melanosomes still intact in a bird feather said to be 108 million years old using a scanning electron microscope; ditto by another team in China.

The new techniques have not yet answered any big questions about dinosaurs: researchers like Schweitzer and Manning have devoted much of their effort to persuading sceptics that their results are real.

Eventually they think they will win over the doubters and revolutionise palaeontology, but in the meantime they have the satisfaction that drives on amateur and professional fossil hunters alike. “It’s quite amazing to discover something that has never been seen before,” says Wogelius.

Unfortunately, Hecht left us hanging on whether Manning’s team found something at Stanford in their latest test. It sounds, though, like more announcements of original tissue preservation in fossils will be forthcoming, now that the credibility gap has been bridged. “The claims are controversial, but if true they promise to breathe new life into our understanding of ancient life,” Hecht said.

You can read Hecht’s article and think, if you are intellectually lazy, “Isn’t this nice; science marches on.” But it means that science was marching in the wrong direction for a long, long time.

The facts are making evolutionary paleontologists and geologists turn about face, with red faces: they didn’t expect to find soft tissue; they weren’t looking for soft tissue; and they couldn’t believe it when it was shown to them. Schweitzer and Manning are having to act like drill sergeants, barking to the troops that they have been marching in lock step in the wrong direction.

There is only one group that is not surprised by these findings: the young-earth creationists. Yes, those despised, hated, expelled Henry Morris followers, relegated to the dregs of society by academia (both secular and theistic evolutionist camps), even shunned by many in the Intelligent Design community, are not at all surprised.

Like their foes, they also cannot believe that DNA and protein can last for 80 to 150 million years – because they believe those long ages are a fiction. Now that the sleepers on EST (Evolution Standard Time) have been jolted awake, should we trust their alarm clocks? Should we grant them credibility now, when they say, “Well, I’ll be darned! DNA can survive for 150 million years!”? Many of them are sidestepping the fact that soft tissue preservation wreaks havoc on evolutionary age assumptions (cf. 06/03/2005).

While these findings do not vindicate the young earth creationists beyond all doubt – there are still many questions and tests to be made – it sure looks like they have the ball, and the momentum is with them. So don’t let the evolutionists put Greek happy-masks over their red faces and spin this story with cheerful talk that such finds are going to “breathe new life into our understanding of ancient life” (how much did they understand before?), or that this is going to “revolutionize paleontology” somehow, in some vague, unspecified way.

It ought to revolutionize it, all right: by dismantling the evolutionary timeline and re-opening some old, imprisoned questions about the history of the earth. See also the 01/28/2011 entry for more reasons to doubt the presumed authority of the moyboys.* Don’t let them grab the ball. Don’t let them make predictions that only a young-earth creationist would make, like “We expect more soft tissue will be found in dinosaur bones,” and then, when it is found, declare victory. The ball is headed toward the other goal line, and it will take impartial referees to call the fouls.

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More