Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Horror of Kobani: The Savagery of ISIS Laid Bare !


Survivors of the fighting in Kobani have described the horrors they witnessed as Isis militants took control of parts of the town from Kurdish forces. These refugees, staying in Suruc, Turkey, have told The Daily Mail how relatives and neighbours were beheaded by the militants, while another spoke ''hundreds'' of decapitated corpses in the besieged town.

Armin Fajar, 38, father-of-four who left Kobani and crossed the border to Suruc, said ''I have seen tens, maybe hundreds, of bodies with their heads cut off. Others with just their hands or legs missing. I have seen faces with their eyes or tongues cut out - I can never forget it for as long as I live.''  Belal Shahin, another refugee in Suruc, told MSNBC, ''Isis came into the villages. They beheaded people as well as animals. They took some animals and the girls; they left nothing alive. Even animals don't do what Isis is doing. They are doing these things and it's not acceptable to our religion.''

ISIS militants have laid siege to the town for nearly four weeks and fought their way into it in the past week. On Friday, the UN Syria envoy warned the hundreds still trapped in Kobani will be ''massacred' by the militants if the town falls, where only a small corridor remains open for the people to flee. More than 200,000 have already escaped across the border to Turkey but up to 700 remain inside the town. Some good news came from a video yesterday showing fighting in the streets of Kobani, showing Kurdish fighters holding their ground and even catching attackers in an ambush, killing 36, of which all were foreigners.

The battle for the Syrian town has also sparked major protests in Turkey against its perceived inaction, with the media showing its tanks lined up on a border hilltop overlooking Kobani. But
Turkey faces a deadly dilemma. The Turks could be forced to take military action in a conflict they have been trying to avoid with Isis. The hesitation of President Tayyip Erdogan (photo right) is based on the fact that ISIS is holding 44 of its diplomats, taken at the Turkish consulate in Mosul many months ago, with the threat of being killed if Turkey enters the conflict.

As ISIS is pouring reinforcements into Kobani, there is a growing mismatch between the opposing sides while the Turkish government still refuses to allow a corridor between the border and Kobani to allow Kurdish volunteers from Turkey and Syria to join the fight, prompting the Kurds to accuse Ankara of siding with the Islamic State.  ISIS could force Turkey's hand, if it takes Kobani and threatens a religious shrine in a Turkish enclave there. (see photo left) This is the Tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire. The territory surrounding the complex, about the size of two football fields, is physically located inside Syria but considered Turkish territory. Turkey has told ISIS that any attack on the tomb and the 60 elite special forces guarding it would
constitute an attack on Turkey. This move that could draw NATO into the fight to defend Turkey, a member of the 28-nation Western military alliance.

The underlying problem is that Ankara sees the Kurds as a greater danger than the Islamic militants. Turkey is also concerned about the gains the Kurds have made in the Syrian civil war.  For 30 years now, Turkey has battled a self-rule insurgency, mounted by the Stalinist Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, and the Kurdish People's Protection Unit (YPG) which is an offshoot of the PKK. Turkey opposes actions that boost the strength of the Kurds, potentially giving the PKK additional leverage to push for autonomy in Turkey. There is now a faltering peace process with those 15 million-strong Kurds, but PKK activists said if Kobani falls, then the peace process will be finished. Turkey is sort of stuck between ''a-rock-and-a-hard-place.''

The fight for Kobani will test U.S. strategy that at a pussy President Obama's insistence has been limited to air strikes, depending on uncertain local allies on the ground to do the actual fighting. U.S. officials say they are angry that Turkey has refused to do more to avert a slaughter, largely because of its own bloody history with the Kurds. The second piece of the U.S. strategy involves training as many as 5,000 moderate Syrian rebels per year to fight ISIS on he ground. But that's a long term Bashar Assad than in combating ISIS.
Turkish Tanks Overlooking Kobani from Turkish Border
gambit with no guarantee of success, in part because many of the rebels are more interested in fighting their three year old civil war against Syrian strongman

ISIS has frustrated air strikes by abandoning key outposts - which would be easier to hit - and breaking into smaller units. The terrorists are also moving into civilian areas they know the coalition won't bomb - especially without intelligence from on-ground scouts. Obama has refused to dispatch such spotters as part of his ban on U.S. ground troops in the conflict. Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden stated that many of the targets in Syria hit by U.S. air strikes were ''easy targets'' and that obtaining good intelligence for choosing air strike targets is a major problem.

The Way I See It.....the U.S.-led game of ''whack-a-mole'' has been under way across much of Syria and Iraq since the end of September -- and so far the moles are winning. ISISs success helps explain why, last week, the U.S. began deploying AH-64 Apache helicopters against the militants. The low-and-slow gunship is better than a jet bomber for attacking moving targets. But helicopters are more vulnerable to ground fire than jet. ISIS recently shot down a pair of Iraqi choppers, killing all four pilots aboard. For a President who wants to defeat ISIS without ground forces, the options are
dwindling.

UPDATE:   A few hours ago Kurdish fighters took down the Black Flag of ISIS from a hill, Tell Shair, they captured overlooking Kobani. ISIS militants erected it at the beginning of their siege to intimidate the Kurdish defenders and it became the goal to retake the hill and kill as many of the Islamic filth the flag represented.

A History of Attempts to BAN the Burqa !

                           
Of course we should not ban the burqa or the niqab. We do believe in Freedom don't we? But it is because we do believe in Freedom that we should still feel free to criticize those shrouds of oppression. Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott last week weighed in, confessing he found the burqa ''a fairly confronting form of attire.''

In 2011, Senator Cory Bernardi called for the burqa to be banned in Australia, branding it ''un-Australian''.  Last week, he called on Tony Abbott this time to make the decision, now that there is renewed scrutiny on the Muslim community and its surreptitious support of the Islamic State. Unfortunately, even though many countries around the world have succeeded in banning the loath-some garment, the PM looks like he is reluctant to stir things up presently, so the debate about the burqa continues.



To put some perspective on the matter, it is important to know that the Quran has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with the full-body burqa or chador (also known as chadri in Central Asia).

The full chadri covers the wearers entire face and head except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a net or grille. Burqa is an Arabized Persian word of purda (or parda) meaning curtain and veil, which has the same meaning in Persian.

In other styles, like the niqab, the veil is attached by one side, and covers the face only below the eyes to be seen. The more simpler covering are the head scarfs hijab, shayla or al-amira. Many Muslims believe that the collected traditions of the life of Muhammad, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public.

The Burqa/ Niqab Situation Around the World:

In Afghanistan:, it is officially not required under the present regime, but local deadshit warlords still enforce it in the southern regions. Chadri use in the remainder of the country is viable and is gradually declining. Due to political instability, women who might otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as a matter of personal safety.

In Pakistan:  the use of the burqa is primarily predominant in Pashtun territories along the border areas, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. However, in the remaining majority of the country, its use has greatly declined over time. However, the burqa observances remain localized and most women who observe burqa use within these areas, do not do so when they travel out of the area.

In India:  the burqa is common in many areas of the Muslim population -- old Delhi, for example. It seems the obligation of a woman to wear a burqa is dependent on her age: young, unmarried women or young, married women in their first years of marriage are required to wear the burqa. However, after this the husband usually decides if his wife should continue to wear it.

In Indonesia:  the term jilbab is used without exception to refer to the hijab. Under Indonesian National and Regional law female head-covering is entirely optional and not obligatory. The hijab is a fairly new phenomenon in Indonesia. The sole exception where the jilbab is mandatory is in Aceh Province, which was granted special autonomy and instigated Islamic Sharia based law.

In Malaysia:  Muslim women may choose whether or not to wear the headscharf, except it must be worn visiting a mosque. It is forbidden to wear the full-face niqab as the Supreme Court cites, ''it has nothing to do with a women's right to practice her Muslim religion because Islam does not make it obligatory to cover the face.''

In Bangladesh:  There are no laws the require women to cover their heads. In recent times there has been a rise in number of women wearing the hijab. The ruling secular government has increased there are reports of  harassment and repression against those who wear the hijab which is seen as a symbol of Islam. This goes against the vision the government has of creating a secular Bangladesh.

In Iran :  The Reza Shah banned the chador and all hijabs in 1936, as incompatible with his modernizing ambitions. During the reign of the last Shah traditional clothing was largely discarded by the wealthier urban upper-class women in favour of western clothing, although women in small towns continued to wear the chador. Niqabs and burqas are very uncommon in Iran, limited mostly in small Arab and Afghan communities in the south and east.

In Saudi Arabia:  The vast majority of traditional Saudi women are expected to cover their faces in public. The Saudi niqab usually leaves a long open slot for the eyes. Many Saudi women use a headscarf along with the niqab or another simple veil to cover all or most of the face when in public.

In Egypt:  Since 1926, the veil gradually disappeared. However, the veil has had a resurgence,
concomitant with the global revival of Muslim piety. Now about 90% of Egyptian women currently wear a head-scarf.  Small numbers wear the niqab but the secular government does not approve and there has been even some restrictions of wearing the hijab, which it views as a political symbol.

In Jordan:  There are no laws banning the headscarf in public. Veils covering the face as well as the chador are rare. The hijab is increasingly becoming more of a fashion statement than a religious one with Jordanian women wearing colourful, stylish scarves along with western style clothing.

In Lebanon:  The wearing of headscharves has become more common since the Israeli invasion in the 1980s. Observance of this custom ranges from no headscarf at all to just a regular hijab and/or a chador,

In Syria:  Syria's Minister for Higher Education, announced that the government would ban women from wearing the Burqa at universities and public buildings. Among the prohibited garments would be the niqab, but not the hijab or related garments that do not cover the entire face. He stated that the face veils ran counter to the secular and academic principles of Syria.

In Turkey:  Being officially a secular state, the burqa and hijab are banned in universities, libraries, government and public buildings in 1980. The law was strengthened more in 1997 but under the conservative party (AKP) there has been some unofficial relaxation in recent years. In cities like Istanbul and Ankara most women do not cover their heads. In 2008, the Constitutional Court reinstated the ban which was widely seen as a victory for the Turk's separation of state and religion.

In Morocco:  The burqa and the hijab are not encouraged by governmental institutions and are frowned upon by urban middle and higher classes, but as yet not forbidden by law. As it is not traditional, to wear one is considered rather a religious or political decision.

In Tunisia:  In 1981, women with headscharves were banned in schools and government buildings. Then in 2006, the authorities banned it public places. The government described the headscarf as a sectarian form of dress which came uninvited to the country. In January, 2011, after the revolution took place, the headscarf was authorized and the ban lifted.

In Europe:   Italy was the first, in 1975, by an anti-terrorism law, to pass a law forbidding women wearing any dress that hides the face. In France, since 2004, wearing the burqa was not allowed in public schools, being judged religious symbol like the Christian cross. This was followed in 2010 with the banning of burqas and niqabs in public areas. Also in 2010 the Belgium parliament passed a bill banning any clothing that would obscure the identity of the wearer in public. In 2012, in the Netherlands followed suit with the banning of the burqa and niqab as clothing that would hide the wearer's identity.. This would pertain to public transport, health care, education and government buildings.

The United Kingdom:  Is a separate case because a 2011 poll indicated that 68 per cent of British people supported banning the burqa and niqab in all public places. With 2,786, 685 Muslims living in the U.K. and making up 4.4 per cent of the population, there is a political spinelessness bordering on appeasement to this ethnic community. So, for now, if ever, a ban on burqas and face-covering clothes has been ruled out by the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat government and the pussys in he previous Labour government.


The Way I See It.....I agree with Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, (photo right) perhaps the foremost spiritual authority in Sunni Islam and Grand sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam's highest institution of religious learning, was reportedly ''angered''  when he toured a school in Cairo and saw a teenage girl wearing a niqab. Asking the girl to remove her face veil, he said, '' The niqab is a tradition; it has no connection with religion.''  He instructed the girl never to wear the niqab again and issued a fatwa (religious edict) against its use in schools.

As early as 1899, the Egyptian intellectual Qasim Amin published his landmark book, The Liberation of Women, which argued that the face veil was not commensurate with the tenents of Islam and called for its removal. In 1923, the feminist Hoda Hanim Shaarawi, who established the first feminist association that called for uncovering the face and hair, became the first Egyptian woman to remove her face veil (niqab).

There's enough precedent over the last century for banning the Burqa and Niqabs in Australia. As a secular country there should be no guilt feelings on the part of our government to ban any religiously motivated face-covering in public. As ex-president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy so aptly put it;  ''In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut of from all social life, deprived of all identity.''

Sunday, October 5, 2014

NO...They aren't Victims and the Left is Reckless to Feed that Confected Fury !


By Gerard Henderson
Gerard Henderson (photo right) is an Australian author, columnist and political commentator. He is the Executive Director of the Sydney Institute, a privately funded Australian current affairs forum.

There is something dangerous in the pandering of the Race Discrimination Commissioner, who indulges what he should reject:
 
On Tuesday, The Age published an opinion piece by Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane that was essentially a fudge. He began by conceding that “all of us are rightly disturbed by the prospect of terrorist acts on Australian soil; counter-terror raids in Sydney and Brisbane, and the shooting of Muslim teenager Numan Haider in Melbourne, have highlighted community concern”.

Soutphommasane’s reference to the shooting of Haider by Victorian Police failed to mention the evidence that the deceased had wounded with a knife and attempted to murder two counter-terrorist policemen. The Race Discrimination Commissioner also declined to remind The Age readers that Haider’s family had migrated from Afghanistan to ­settle in Australia and that he obtained a good ­education, had a job and a car, and lived in a fine house. Haider was no victim.
Soutphommasane
Soutphommasane went on to argue that “Muslim Australians are entitled to a fair go”. This suggests that they do not get a fair go already. It’s another way of saying that Muslim Australians are victims. 
This led to writer Gabrielle Lord contacting the Australian Human Rights Commission to express her disappointment with the Race Discrimination Commissioner’s comments, which she interpreted as “largely a reprimand to the non-Muslims of Australia”.
Lord’s position is that “rather than chiding non-Muslims for their suspicions, fears (and on occasions bigotry), a Race Relations Commissioner would surely be better advised to address those Muslims in our community who bear a lethal hatred and contempt towards all of us non-Muslims and tell them this will not be tolerated”. 
Too many commentators on the Left have been reckless in feeding the absurd paranoia and victimology that is so marked in parts of Muslim Australia, and which feeds the dangerous notion that Australia is at war with Islam - and vice versa.

Note how Soutphommasane’s preferred narrative would only feed into that of, say, Tahmid Mirza:
Tahmid Mirza, 21-year-old Deakin University student by day.....jihadi by night, [is] one of the 10 most-followed jihadist propagandists among English-speaking foreign fighters… In April, King’s College’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence named his Twitter account in the top 10 “disseminators” of propaganda followed by English-speaking foreign fighters. The think tank said the ­account was followed by 48.6 per cent of the 190 foreign fighters it had studied online.
Mirza, taken in from Bangladesh and given a good education, security and access to taxpayer-support, nevertheless prefers to see himself as another victim:

''I am with all the sincere Mujahideen, whether from AQ (al-Qa’ida) or ISIS… We should not delay in establishing an Islamic State or applying the shariah whenever the Muslims have authority.... [Australians] don’t give me ‘security,’ why on earth have many Muslims been harassed, betrayed and in fact lied to by the government and the so-called ­‘security’ intelligence? I love the nature and the landscape (of Australia), that’s about it… You fear terror attacks back home? Your government should stop destroying other people’s homes then. It’s not rocket science now is it?'' 

These sort of threats from immigrants in our on country are opposite to what Australians have seen in previous war efforts. We were assured that immigrants from lands we're fighting in are loyal to their new country. But many Muslim spokesmen now don't assure us of the loyal of their followers but warn of - or threaten - the very opposite.

A month ago, when we woke up to news of another Islamic State beheading, this time Stephen Sotloff, that very day Muslim leaders again put out a statement condemning...Tony Abbott. This time, it was from the Australian National Imams Council. Again it blamed the West for jihadism: ''One of the main causative factors for local radicalisation in the West has been the western governments' military involvement in the Middle East.''  And there was this warning: ''If the Australian government is serious about reducing the terror threat locally, then it must review its foreign policy decisions with regard to this region.'' That sounds like an outrageous threat. Name one other ethnic or religious group here that warns Australia to change its foreign policies or face violence from its members. Western governments around the world could be pushed into an internment program for these so-called ''alien immigrants,'' even though it has been universally denounced in the past as human rights. 

The Way I See It......the more the Muslim community slowly reveals where it sympathies lie, the more Australians could start to compromise their Judeo-Christian goodwill, but above all, they will not tolerate its Left media and politicians pandering to Muslims sense of victimhood. If the Muslim community feels put upon, it is only through their collective posture of denial of their leaders that makes it so.  They must  speak out that modern civilisation can't tolerate the people following the violence and brutality that is expressed in the Qur'an. Islam is at a cross-roads, it's 7th Century ideology should be reformed now or thrown on the camel dung heap of history, there is no middle ground anymore.


Saturday, October 4, 2014

The Ugly Face of ''Moderate'' Muslims in Australia


by Larry Pickering (cartoonist, political commentator and satirist)   (http://pickeringpost.com)
Larry Pickering
 

The vast majority of Australians are confounded as to why their politicians are failing to apportion blame to the teachings of Islam. Well, there are two reasons why and both are fast wearing thin.
 
The first is an electoral one. Islam has been able to skew up to 20 Federal seats in Labor’s favour and Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Coalition is fearful of their success in more elections to come. 

Why is Bill Shorten’s Australian Labor Party (ALP) of preference for Islam?  That’s an easy one; lots of social benefits that’ll keep them happy, loyal voters with only a blind eye to watch them. 
 

Muslims are mostly unemployable, they pray five times a day, take Friday arvos off to listen to Mullahs promote our demise and have made an art-form of rorting welfare systems world-wide. This leaves them with plenty of time on their hands to plot their hosts’ destruction. 

I heard of a recent investigation by Centrelink, in Brisbane’s western suburbs, that was positively shocking but nicely resolved by snaring lawyers from the local office of Shine Lawyers that were holding meetings and giving legal advice to the local Muslim community on how to maximize their welfare benefits. Here is the modus operandi that these legal ‘’traitors’’ were instilling into our welcomed immigrants: 

First thing a Muslim immigrant does on arrival is call the local friendly Islamic doctor and got himself on a disability pension. His disability is usually no more an aversion to work. Then he needed to get his wives and nine kids here, family reunions are an Islamic gold mine. 

Now he needs to apply for housing somewhere near all the other Muslim families and this is where it gets interesting. The mother(s) of his kids apply to Child Welfare authorities complaining of not being able to care for the children and she needs assistance, but she has this terrific idea... “there’s  a lady up the road who
would make a wonderful carer, and guess what? She is my sister and she already knows the children.”  You can’t get better than that eh? 

So now, on paper at least, the sister up the road is bedevilled by 18 kids and needs to offload 9 of them so she complains to child welfare that she too can’t cope, “but there’s another lady up the road who would make a wonderful carer....”. Get the idea?  I mean the Government hands over $200 per child, per week, in this merry-go-round of welfare fraud and everyone’s happy. 

By the time this scam goes up and down just one western Sydney or Brisbane street there are financially secure Islamic families everywhere, and all on a total of at least $3,000 a week! Why wouldn’t Australia be their port of preference? 

But why aren’t they always caught defrauding the system? Well, that has a simple answer too. They swap their cars and swap their names... Muslims have multiple names to defraud authorities anyway. And if the authorities try to clamp down on the scam there’s always a friendly Islam sympathetic solicitor who will recommend some free legal aid. In the meantime nothing has changed in the street except the level of social benefits has skyrocketed. 

The Federal welfare budget on these thieves has now exploded at the expense of needy Aussies. 

The other reason politicians fail to blame Islam is that the last thing they want is to get mainstream Islam offside. They hope to get “moderate” Muslims to cooperate in catching “radical” Muslims. How naive. How bloody stupid! How damned dangerous! This infection of Political Correctness in our society has to STOP !  Stop this denial of reality. Let them know our Judeo-Christian heritage is not going to turn-the-other-cheek anymore and if you can’t be an honest, law-abiding citizen….as John Howard said, "Get Out!!'' 

The most radical of Muslims are their leaders. Muslims will never integrate….it’s in the Qur’an.  We can keep trying to ignore their ‘’jihad-by-stealth’’ until we get it overwhelmed or get misled by some “appeasement chatter” by the media and by then it’s too late. 

The Way Larry Sees It…..we can refuse to learn from the Islamic disasters in France, Belgium, the UK and the Netherlands, or we can do something about the scourge now. 

1.      Stop building mosques.

2.       Stop Islamic immigration.

3.       Ban insidious Sharia law.

4.       Stop the welfare rorts.

5.       Arrest those who incite violence.

6.       Stop the Halal certification extortion racket that finances their terrorist activities and,

7.       Stop the PC and 18C nonsense that exhibits our weakness and emboldens Islam’s worst. 

Australians in general are not rednecks but we are well and truly over it. We want our leaders to act like leaders before we see an ISIS, or IS flag hanging from Australian flagpoles and Aussie heads on fences.

 

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Bonfire of the Humanities !


It's been a long time coming, but America's colleges and universities have finally descended into lunacy!

 Guess this doesn't besmirch Brandeis's Core Values
Three months ago, in May, Brandeis University banned Somali-born feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as its commencement speaker as well as to receive an honorary degree, purporting that ''Ms Hirsi Ali's record of anti-Islam statements'' violates Brandeis's ''core values.''  The university's President H. Lawrence outed himself as another ass-kisser of Islam, bowed to complaints from Muslim students and some appeasing members of the faculty. It certainly was the graduating class's loss.

Ms Ali's reputation was based on her being a spokeswoman for Islamic women's subjugation and isolation, which was highlighted in her shocking book, INFIDEL, My Life (2007). She revealed that she was subjected to genital mutilation, while her father was in prison, by her grandmother at 5 years of age, knowing it was against her father's wishes. She attended an English-language school and was  impressed by the Qur'an and ''lived by the Book, and for the Book'' throughout her childhood. Her disenchantment with Islam came with 9/ll and while listening to Osama Bin Laden's justification for the attacks. She escaped from a forced marriage and in 2002 she renounced Islam and became an
atheist. She began to formulate a critique of Islam and its culture of suppression, hate and death and started publishing articles about it.

A few weeks later, higher education's ritualistic burning of college-commencement heretics spread to Smith College and Haverford College. Smith College announced the withdrawal of Christine Lagarde, the French head of the international Monetary Fund (IMF). And what might the problem be with Madame Lagarde, considered to be one of the world's most accomplished women?  An online petition signed by some 480 offended Smithies said the IMF is associated with ''imperialistic and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.''  With unmistakable French irony, Ms Lagarde withdrew ''to preserve the celebratory spirit'' of Smith's commencement.

The very next day, Haverford College's graduating ''intellectuals'' forced commencement speaker Robert J. Birgeneau ( photo right ) to withdraw. Get this!  Mr Birgeneau is the former chancellor of UC Berkeley, the Big Bang of political correctness. It gets better. Berkeley's Birgeneau is famous as an ardent defender of minority students, the LGBT community and undocumented illegal immigrants. What could possibly be wrong with this guy speaking at Haverford??? The Haverfordians were upset that in 2011 the Berkeley police used ''force'' against grotty Occupy protesters in Sproul Plaza. They said Mr Birgeneau could speak at Haverford if he agreed to nine conditions, including his support for reparations for the victims of Berkeley's ''violence.'' In a letter, Mr Birgeneau replied, ''As a long time civil rights activist and firm supporter of nonviolence, I do not respond to untruthful, verbal attacks.'' (In other words, ''screw you!'')

Smith president, Kathleen McCartney, felt obliged to assert that she is ''committed to leading a college where differing views can be heard and debated with respect.'' And Haverford''s president, Daniel Weiss, wrote to the students that their demands ''read more like a jury issuing a verdict than as an invitation to a discussion or a request for shared learning.'' Mr Birgeneau, Ms McCartney, Mr Weiss and indeed many others in American academe must wonder what is happening to their world this year.
                              Here's a short explanation:  The disintegration of unbiased thought.

Years ago, when the academic left began to ostracize professors identified as ''conservative,'' university administrators stood aside or were complicit. The academic left adopted a notion espoused back then by a ''New Left'' German philosopher (Herbert Marcuse) -- who, unfortunately wasn't killed by the Nazis. He taught at Brandeis (1958 - 1965), coincidentally, and preached that many of the conservatives ideas were immoral and deserved to be suppressed. And so they were.

This shunning and isolation of ''conservative'' teachers by their left-wing deadshit colleagues (with many gutless liberals silent in acquiescence) weakened the foundation of American universities - freedom of inquiry and the speech rights in the First Amendment. No matter. University presidents, deans, department heads and boards of trustees watched or approved the erosion of their original intellectual framework. The ability of aggrieved professors and their students to concoct behaviour, ideas and words that violated political correctness got so loopy that the phrase itself became satirical -
 though not so funny to profs denied tenure on suspicion of incorrectness. Offensive books were banned and history texts rewritten to conform.

No one could possibly count the compromises of intellectual honesty made on American campuses to reach this point. It is fantastic that the liberal former head of Berkeley should have to sign a Maoist self-criticism to be able to speak at Haverford.  Meet America's Red Guards! 

These students at Brandeis, Smith, Haverford and hundreds of other U.S. colleges didn't discover illiberal intolerance on their own. It is fed to them three times a week by Marxist professors of mental conformity. After Brandeis banned Ms Hirsi Ali, the Harvard Crimson's editors wrote a rationalizing editorial, ''A Rightful Revocation.'' The legendary liberal Louis Brandeis (Harvard Law; First Amendment icon) must be spinning in his grave. (right)

Years ago, today's middle-aged liberals embraced in good faith ideas such as that the Western canon in literature or history should be expanded to include Africa, Asia, Na├»ve Americans and such. Fair enough. The activist academic left than grabbed the liberal's good faith and wrecked it, allowing the nuttiest professors to dumb down courses and even whole disciplines into tendentious gibberish. 

The Way I See It.....the slow disintegration of the humanities into what is virtually political propaganda on many campuses is no secret. Professors of economics and the hard sciences roll their eyes in embarrassment at what has happened to once respectable liberal-arts departments at their institutions. The bad professors drove out many good, untenured professors, and that includes smart young liberals. Most conservatives were wiped out long ago.

One might conclude. Who cares?  Parents are beginning to see that this is a $65,000-a-year scam that won't get their kids a job in an economy that wants quantification skills. Parents and students increasingly will flee the politicized nut-houses for apolitical MOOC''s - massive open online courses. Still, it's a tragedy. The loonies are becoming the public face of some once-revered repositories of the humanities.  Here's hoping the pendulum will swing back sooner than later.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

The Spice that Prevents Fluoride from Destroying Your Brain !


In my last blog posting I outlined the many ways fluoride in our drinking water has the potential to damage the delicate tissues in our brain. I mentioned there are over 100 studies over the past ten years spelling out there was no doubt of the poisonous nature of this chemical. I even  revealed in the latest report in the March issue of the Lancet Neurology journal compared fluoride with lead, arsenic and cyanide. Unfortunately, fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, from non-stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why new research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising!


Fluoride's neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of  increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From it's shocking history of it first being used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the Pineal Gland - the traditional  ''seat of the soul''.  Many people around the world are starting to ''wise-up'' and organize at the local and state-wide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from their municipal drinking water.


Now, a new study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, ''Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,'' add experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available.


The study was authored by researchers from the Department of Zoology, University College of Science, in India, who have spent the past decade investigating the mechanisms through which fluoride induces severe neurogenerative changes in the mammalian brain, particularly in cells of the hippocampus and cerebral cortex (as was cited in the previous blog post). Curcumin is the medicinal compound found in the popular Indian spice Turmeric.


The study opens by describing the historical backdrop for concern about fluoride's significant and wide ranging toxicity:  ''Fluoride is probably the first inorganic ion which drew attention of the scientific world for its toxic effects and now its toxicity in drinking water is well-recognized a global problem. Health effect reports on fluoride exposure also includes various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases. And yet the world's media still criminally ignores notifying the public about this health threat. Perhaps not for long.''


Owing to these well-known mechanisms of fluoride associated neurodegeneration, the researchers identified the primary polyphenol in the spice Turmeric - known as Curcumin - as an ideal agent worth testing as a neuroprotective substance. Previous research on Curcumin indicates that it is capable of acting as an antioxidant in three distinct ways by protecting against: 1) singlet oxygen 2) hydroxyl radicals and 3) superoxide radical damage. Also, Curcumin appears to raise endogenous glutathione production in the brain, a major antioxidant defence system.


In order to assess the neurotoxic effects of fluoride and prove Curcumin's protective role against it, researchers randomly divided up mice into four groups, for 30 days. Control (no fluoride), Fluoride (in drinking water), Fluoride + Curcumin, and Curcumin (in order to measure the malondialdehyde (MDA) content in the brains of the treated mice. MDA is a well-known marker of oxidative stress/damage. As was expected, the fluoride only treatment group showed high MDA levels vs. the non-fluoride treated control. The fluoride + Curcumin group saw reduced MDA levels vs. the fluoride only group, demonstrating Curcumin's neuroprotective activity.


The study concluded: ''Our study thus demonstrates that a daily intake of fluoride results in increases in the LPO (lipid peroxidation, i.e. brain rancidity) as well as neurodegenerative changes in the neuron cell bodies of the hippocampal region. Supplementation with Curcumin significantly reduces the toxic effect of fluoride to near normal level by augmenting the antioxidant defence through its scavenging property and provides evidence for having a therapeutic role against oxidative stress.''


The Way I See It.....this is far from the first study to demonstrate Curcumin's remarkable brain-saving properties. From the perspective of the primary research alone, there are over two hundred peer-reviewed published studies indicating that Curcumin is the perfect neuroprotective agent. You can use this link to read for further information. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/how-turmeric-can-save-aging-brain-dementia-and-premature-death.


Considering the many chemical insults we face on a daily basis in the post-industrial world, Turmeric (the main source of Curcumin may very well be the world's most important herb, with well over 600 evidence-based health applications. As I said before, it is criminal that the world's media doesn't expose these and many other positive findings and continues to ignore this serious, accumulative threat to the health of millions of people. Now YOU KNOW, it's up to you to tell every one you know.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Fluoride Toxicity No Longer a ''Conspiracy Theory'' !


It amazes me how many people still view the dangers posed to health from fluoride in the water supply as nothing more than a ''conspiracy theory'' - dismissed as a notion unsupported by any solid evidence. They say it's pseudoscience. It probably doesn't help matters that Wikipedia - that hugely flawed yet oft cited source of information on the internet peddles misinformation which clearly creates a misconception as to fluoride's adverse effects. Its page discussing fluoride toxicity states that ''the only generally accepted adverse effect of fluoride levels used for water fluoridation is dental fluorosis (see photo right) which can mottle children's teeth; this is mostly mild and usually of an aesthetic concern.'' Sure, as long it's not your child.

With a sizable number of people satisfied with this unfounded reassurance, little further research is conducted, reflecting the lazy manner in which some people are willing to take things at face value, regardless of the high stakes. After all, if they were to take the issue seriously enough to thoroughly check the evidence themselves they would find themselves dragged licking and screaming from their comfort zones, forced to question the veracity of widely held ''truths'' built on lies and deceptions.

Of course, mainstream studies outlining the deleterious effects (worse than fluorosis) of fluoride are commonplace - in 2006 the National Research Council released a 500 page review, which took 12 scientists over three years to produce and described in great detail why the U.S.'s EPA''s purportedly ''safe'' drinking water standard (4 ppm) needed to be reduced in order to protect human health. The report documents myriad potential hazards from fluoride exposure, including damage to the bones, brain, and various glands of the endocrine system. According to Dr Bob Carlton PhD a former risk-assessment scientist at EPA and President of the Union of Government Scientists, this report ''should be the center piece of every discussion on fluoridation, it changes everything.' Fluoridation will not prevent tooth decay.'' 

More recently a Harvard study funded by the National Institutes of Health confirmed the fluoride lowers the IQ of children. The adverse effects of high concentrations of fluoride in the water supply were summarized by the report from Environmental Health Perspectives:  ''We specifically targeted areas in rural China that have not been tested before, thus complementing the studies that have included in previous review and reports. Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxin that effects a child's brain development at exposures much below those that cause toxicity in adults.''

Given the wealth of other studies which have drawn similar conclusions, its perhaps remarkable that this hasn't been fully accepted in the scientific community, particularly dentists. and by the general population at large. Additional studies have found other negative effects of fluoride on the human brain including: 
1)  Formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer''s Disease).
2)  Damage to your Hippocampus (associated with memory and spatial navigation)
3)  Impairs antioxidant defence systems
4) Accumulation of fluoride in your Pineal Gland (which produces melatonin which controls sleep/wake cycle, also known as ''the third eye'')'
5)  Damages Purkinje Cells (located in the cerebellum and controls motor coordination)
6)  Exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency

In March of this year, the journal  Lancet Neurology (see panel on left) compared fluoride to lead, arsenic, methyl mercury and other chemical toxins, and reclassified it as a developmental neurotoxin. Adding to the above list of detrimental effects of fluoride, the report explained how neurotoxins can cause widespread brain disorders such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and other cognitive impairments. It would be criminal for this revelation to be further ignored!

The Way I See It....there appears to be only a ''fringe'' section of the populous against fluoride (and clearly the lack of mainstream media coverage has a great deal to do with this misconception), but a sizable scientific community exists fighting to have it removed. An increasingly informed number of communities are also fighting to have it removed from their drinking water.

Perhaps, with the release of the Lancet report, the ''conspiracy theory'' response to those pointing out the dangers of water fluoridation can finally be dropped and a concerted movement to end the poisoning of our water supplies by the dental profession in their ludicrous assumption that drinking this poison will allow it, after it washes over every delicate organ, gland and tissue, to end up fighting cavities in our mouth. To me that is not only criminal but the height of scientific gullibility.