Never forget, Hard Truth

I received this email today:

General Eisenhower Warned Us

It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

This week, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the,6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests

Who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, beat, experimented on and humiliated' while the German people looked the other way!

Now, more than ever, with Iran , among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people! Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center ..

'NEVER HAPPENED'

My question to you, is how much do you REALLY care about genocide? Are you willing to tolerate it, or ignore it?

I would propose to you the following: If Hitler had stayed within the boundaries of Germany and Czechoslovakia, would the world have gone to war with him to stop him from the extermination of the people of God and his enemies? I would hazzard a guess that he'd have been "tolerated" just as the world tolerates every other dictator who committed genocide against his people; be it the Soviets (Ukraine), Turks (Armenians), or Darfur, Sudan, Rwanda, and all the other places which have been turned into living hell. No, Hitler would have eliminated the Jews from his country, and Chamberlain and the west would have given him Poland and who knows how much of Europe, had he not gotten impatient.

You don't think so? Search the history of the 30s, the 40s. Try and find a voice speaking out for the Jews of Germany in this country, advocating going to war to save them, even when we were at war. You will come up empty(1). the silence of Roesevelt is deafening. No, the international community speaks of rights, and offers pious plattitudes about "Never again" but the reality is, sanctity of borders is of far more importance than sanctity of life.

Oh, yes, there is one genocidal dictator that was taken out by military action; but for some reason, we've forgotten that and are now upset by the violation of that dicatators' borders! C'est la vie, c'est la mort;



What was that you said? "Never again?"



"Never again?"

"Never again?"

"Never again?"

Unless you mean it, never say never again, unless you are willing to back it up.
hypocrite. see if the name fits.

Here is Mexican actor Eduardo Verastegui speaking about the genocide of his people occuring with the USA.



Eduardo Verastegui continues with

"and my answer is the same that they give in schools about showing movies of the Nazi holocaust. Teachers don't show these videos in order to emotionally manipulate students. They snow them because the Nazi holocaust represents a terrible evil that words alond cannot describe. The holocaust of abortion is no different. We all instinctively know abortion is something evil and it is something so terrible that we can't even see it, shouldn't we perhaps not tolerate it either?

Yet, at this moment, Eduardo's video has been banned on YouTube, and his web site is unreachable. It would seem that we are destined to remain in darkness.



They who die today, will be there to convict us on judgment day.

---

(1) see:
The Holocaust in American Life, Peter Novick (2000)
Selling the Holocaust: From Auschwitz to Schindler, How History is Bought, Packaged and Sold, Tim Cole (1999)

From the Back Cover
"Here is a book with a thousand memories for those of us who came of political age while living through urban riots, the Vietnam War, and the Nixon years. Norman Solomon, one of America's most respected progressive voices, gets personal in this account of living through the age of Vietnam, Nixon, tie-dye T shirts, girlfriends, and even the music that will forever waft through the minds of those of us who were there. Those of us who, like journalist Solomon, will never forget it." ***Phil Donahue

America declared war on God and wonders why there is no peace. well, duh.
The usual apologetic; we didn't succeed because we didn't go far enought. I'd venture to say that if we didn't go "far enough" it's probably why we are all still breathing.

History lessons - worth watching

The truth might keep you free.


Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?




Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

Fr. West's Catholic Blog: More Than 100 Reasons to Vote Against Barack Obama

From The Australian

No smoking hot spot

David Evans July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Tragedies Versus Statistics

In a collection of essays by former Marxists called The God That Failed, poet Stephen Spender drew attention to his own hypocrisy in the matter:

"When I saw photographs of children murdered by the Fascists, I felt furious pity. When the supporters of Franco talked of Red atrocities, I merely felt indignant that people should tell such lies. In the first case I saw corpses; in the second only words. I gradually acquired a certain horror of the way in which my own mind worked. It was clear to me that unless I cared about every murdered child impartially, I did not really care about children being murdered at all."

From CWNews, Tragedies Versus Statistics

SB 1520 (2005) and closed minds

When confronted with the fact that the 2005 so-called "human cloning ban" bill co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama (SB 1520), does no such thing, but rather mandates the killing of human clones after their production, here's the response of one individual who prefers to close his mind to truth, instead of follow his own advice and investigate the facts:

It bans cloning. You can't make a human by moving the embryonic cell to a uterus, and this bill mandates that you may not do this, no matter what the source of the uterus is. That is prohibition! Your understanding of the process is incomplete and convoluted. The NRTL's is too! I thoroughly believe that the NRTL's intent is to get you to vote Republican, and that they'll resort to playing stupid. What this bill says, in effect, is that it's not okay to allow people who can't have children to get them through embryonic transplantation [of a clone, legally produced under this bill]. It does not prohibit in vitro fertilization. It prohibits moving the embryo to any uterous.

I have no more time for this nonsense! I've already decided how I'm gonna vote. I'm voting for sanity and reason! There seems to be way too little of both.

Whatever it is, whether I agree with it or not, I don't wanna hear anybody's opinion. I don't wanna hear things about abortion, gun legislation, immigration, or anything. Don't send me yours. I won't send you mine. I can't deal with the stress. I have enough of my own.

All future correspondence relating to politics will go into my Ignore email folder for immediate deletion.

OK, demand thinking, then refuse to, and finally cut off intelligent discourse.

---

SB-1520 is an excellent example of crass missrepresentation; follow the fun!


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01520:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
S 1520 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1520
To prohibit human cloning.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 27, 2005

`Sec. 301. Prohibition on human cloning

`(a) Prohibitions on Human Cloning- It shall be unlawful for
any person or other legal entity, public or private--

`(1) to conduct or attempt to conduct human cloning;

On the face of it, this seems to vindicate the claim that the National Right to Life Committee erred in stating that Sens. Obama and Clinton support cloning via this bill. However, if you
continue with the text of the bill, you will find:

`(e) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) HUMAN CLONING- The term `human cloning' means implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.

You see the obvious point that the National Right to Life Committee has made, that this bill, in spite of it's name, does no such thing as ban cloning of humans; it renames "human cloning" to "nuclear transplantation" and then redefines human cloning to something that it is not (Orwell's 1984 is just behind schedule). When all is said and done, the bill simply demands that there be no attempt for clones not be brought to birth by any means; there is no prohibition on cloning, because cloning has been redefined to exclude the actual process of cloning! the only thing prohibited is so-called "reproductive cloning."

In point of fact, this bill expressly permits the creation of cloned human beings:

`(b) Protection of Research- Nothing in this section shall be
construed to restrict practices not expressly prohibited
in this section.

It effectively requires that they be killed. read this part very carefully, because this is the redefinition of what is actually human cloning; it is the slight-of-hand that is the establishment of a new legal-fiction:

`(3) NUCLEAR TRANSPLANTATION- The term `nuclear transplantation'means transferring the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an oocyte from which the nucleus or all chromosomes have been or will be removed or rendered inert.

Section 301(2) makes this painfully clear by prohibiting the creation of an interstate or export trade in clones created in the US for further gestation.

`(2) to ship the product of nuclear transplantation in
interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of
human cloning in the United States or elsewhere; or

So in this bill, a clone is now "The product of nuclear transplantation."

Historical/Political questionaire

Not original with me, but borrowed from a trusted friend. If you don't know the answer make your best guess.

Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) .can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

You will find the Answers in the first Comment below.