Outdoor heaters that keep smokers warm outside pubs and clubs could be banned as part of the battle against climate change, costing the hospitality industry £250million in lost trade. Euro MPs are expected to back a resolution calling on the European Commission to set a timetable for abolishing goods with low energy-efficiency ratings.
read more | digg story
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
EXCLUSIVE - Obama's Nation of Islam Staffers. The real Obama
A former Obama insider says that Obama's sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Why ’Global Warming’ is Not a Global Crisis
By Christopher Monckton, 1/22/2008 8:06:23 AM
I earned my Nobel Peace Prize by making the United Nations fix a deliberate error in its latest climate assessment. After the scientists had finalized the draft, UN bureaucrats inserted a new table, but with four decimal points right-shifted. The bureaucrats had multiplied tenfold the true contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise. Were they trying to support Al Gore's fantasy that these two ice-sheets would imminently cause sea level to rise 20ft, displacing tens of millions worldwide?
How do we know the UN's error was deliberate? The table, as it first appeared, said the units for sea-level rise were being changed. But the table was new. There was nothing to change from. I wrote to the UN that this misconduct was unacceptable. Two days later, the bureaucracy corrected, relabeled and moved the table, and quietly posted the new version on its Web site. The two ice sheets will contribute, between them, over 100 years, just two and a half inches to sea-level rise. Gore had exaggerated a hundredfold; the UN tenfold. Hawaii is not about to disappear beneath the waves.
The High Court in London recently ordered the British Government to correct nine of the 36 serious errors in Al Gore's climate movie before innocent pupils were exposed to it. It was Gore who, in 1994, announced that Mars was covered in canals full of water. This notion had been disproved before his birth. It was Gore who recently spent $4 million of the profits from his sci-fi comedy horror movie on a luxury condo just feet from the supposedly rising ocean at Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco. No surprise that he and the mad scientists with whom he has close financial and political links are under investigation for racketeering -- peddling a false prospectus to investors in his "green" investment corporation by distorting climate science even after the UK judge's ruling.
It is not so well known that the UN's climate reports are also error-packed and misleading.
To begin with, the UN denies that global temperatures were warmer than today in the medieval warm period. It overlooks the dozens of peer-reviewed papers that establish this fact, and continues to rely on the bogus and now-discredited "hockey-stick" graph by which its previous assessment in 2001 had tried to rewrite history.
It was also warmer than today in Roman times, and in the Minoan warm period or Holocene climate optimum, when temperatures were warmer than today for 2000 years in the Bronze Age, firing the emergence of great civilizations worldwide. In each of the four previous interglacial periods, temperatures were 10F warmer than today's. For most of the past half billion years, temperatures were nearly always 12.5F warmer than the present. So the warming that has now stopped (there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998) was well within the natural variability of the climate.
The only chapters in the UN's 1,600-page ramblings that are worth close analysis are those which consider "climate sensitivity" -- how big is the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature? The scientific debate centers not, as the Greens try to suggest, on whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warmer weather (it will), but instead on how much warmer the weather will be. So the only variable that truly matters in this debate is lambda -- the "climate sensitivity parameter." Here are just some of the UN's errors and exaggerations in calculating lambda.
First and foremost, the UN's crafty definition of lambda allows it to overlook the fact that the oceans -- 1,100 times denser than the atmosphere at the surface, and many times denser still at depth -- soak up a good proportion of any additional radiant energy in the atmosphere (see papers by Lyman et al., 2006; Schwartz, 2007). The oceans cancel a great deal of "global warming," because the next Ice Age will arrive long before the oceans lose their capacity to take up heat from the atmosphere.
Next, the UN has unwisely repealed the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation, the fundamental astrophysical law that relates changes in radiant energy to changes in temperature. The entire debate is about exactly that matter. Yet in 1,600 pages the UN does not mention this crucial equation once. Result: the UN's "no-feedbacks" value of lambda is way too high. As an eminent physics professor pointed out to me recently, if the UN were correct, global surface temperature would now be 20F higher than it is.
It gets worse. The UN's computer models predict that in the tropics the rate of increase in temperature five miles above the surface will be three times the rate of increase down here. But 50 years of atmospheric measurement, first by balloon-borne radiosondes and then by satellites, show that the air above the tropics is not merely failing to warm at three times the surface rate: for 25 years it has been cooling. The absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" indicates that the computer models -- expensive guesswork -- on which the UN's rickety case is founded are, in a fundamental way, misunderstanding the way the atmosphere behaves (Douglass & Knox, 2004; Douglass et al., 2007).
On top of the "radiative forcings" from greenhouse gases, the UN says the mere fact of temperature change will cause more change still, through what it calls "feedbacks." The UN has hiked the feedback multiplier by more than 52 percent since its 1995 report, without quite saying why. Shaviv (2006) and Schwartz (2007) calculate that the sum total of all feedbacks is either nil or very small; Wentz et al. (2007) report that the UN has missed out two-thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its assessment of the water-vapor feedback; Spencer (2007) finds that the cloud albedo feedback, which the UN says is strongly positive, is in fact negative; Ahlbeck (2004, 2005) says the CO2 feedback has been enormously exaggerated.
I have mentioned a dozen scientific papers. I could have mentioned hundreds more that challenge the UN "consensus." There has never been and can never be a scientific consensus on climate change. Lorenz (1963), in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, stated and proved his famous theorem that the long-run evolution of mathematically chaotic objects like the climate cannot be predicted unless one knows the initial state of the object to a degree of precision that is in practice unattainable. Whenever you hear anyone recite the propaganda mantra "The Science Is Settled," laugh at his redneck scientific illiteracy. The science can never be settled.
Schulte (2008: in press) reviewed 539 papers on "global climate change" in the scientific journals. Only one paper mentioned that "global warming" might be catastrophic, and even that paper offered not a shred of evidence for the supposed apocalypse.
Bottom line: a recent peer-reviewed paper (Lindzen, December 2007) says all the UN's climate sensitivity estimates should be divided by three. We don't have a climate problem. The correct policy to deal with a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Don't let your legislators in Hawaii waste time on this non-problem. The real problem of the 21st century will not be "global warming" but resource depletion, starting with oil. Let your lawmakers do some real work, and get to grips with that.
(me-the cooling trend and probable 'little ice age' conditions to peak around mid century will add to the depletion and shortages ultimately proving to the world a warmer world is much more friendly than a colder one!)
I earned my Nobel Peace Prize by making the United Nations fix a deliberate error in its latest climate assessment. After the scientists had finalized the draft, UN bureaucrats inserted a new table, but with four decimal points right-shifted. The bureaucrats had multiplied tenfold the true contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise. Were they trying to support Al Gore's fantasy that these two ice-sheets would imminently cause sea level to rise 20ft, displacing tens of millions worldwide?
How do we know the UN's error was deliberate? The table, as it first appeared, said the units for sea-level rise were being changed. But the table was new. There was nothing to change from. I wrote to the UN that this misconduct was unacceptable. Two days later, the bureaucracy corrected, relabeled and moved the table, and quietly posted the new version on its Web site. The two ice sheets will contribute, between them, over 100 years, just two and a half inches to sea-level rise. Gore had exaggerated a hundredfold; the UN tenfold. Hawaii is not about to disappear beneath the waves.
The High Court in London recently ordered the British Government to correct nine of the 36 serious errors in Al Gore's climate movie before innocent pupils were exposed to it. It was Gore who, in 1994, announced that Mars was covered in canals full of water. This notion had been disproved before his birth. It was Gore who recently spent $4 million of the profits from his sci-fi comedy horror movie on a luxury condo just feet from the supposedly rising ocean at Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco. No surprise that he and the mad scientists with whom he has close financial and political links are under investigation for racketeering -- peddling a false prospectus to investors in his "green" investment corporation by distorting climate science even after the UK judge's ruling.
It is not so well known that the UN's climate reports are also error-packed and misleading.
To begin with, the UN denies that global temperatures were warmer than today in the medieval warm period. It overlooks the dozens of peer-reviewed papers that establish this fact, and continues to rely on the bogus and now-discredited "hockey-stick" graph by which its previous assessment in 2001 had tried to rewrite history.
It was also warmer than today in Roman times, and in the Minoan warm period or Holocene climate optimum, when temperatures were warmer than today for 2000 years in the Bronze Age, firing the emergence of great civilizations worldwide. In each of the four previous interglacial periods, temperatures were 10F warmer than today's. For most of the past half billion years, temperatures were nearly always 12.5F warmer than the present. So the warming that has now stopped (there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998) was well within the natural variability of the climate.
The only chapters in the UN's 1,600-page ramblings that are worth close analysis are those which consider "climate sensitivity" -- how big is the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature? The scientific debate centers not, as the Greens try to suggest, on whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause warmer weather (it will), but instead on how much warmer the weather will be. So the only variable that truly matters in this debate is lambda -- the "climate sensitivity parameter." Here are just some of the UN's errors and exaggerations in calculating lambda.
First and foremost, the UN's crafty definition of lambda allows it to overlook the fact that the oceans -- 1,100 times denser than the atmosphere at the surface, and many times denser still at depth -- soak up a good proportion of any additional radiant energy in the atmosphere (see papers by Lyman et al., 2006; Schwartz, 2007). The oceans cancel a great deal of "global warming," because the next Ice Age will arrive long before the oceans lose their capacity to take up heat from the atmosphere.
Next, the UN has unwisely repealed the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation, the fundamental astrophysical law that relates changes in radiant energy to changes in temperature. The entire debate is about exactly that matter. Yet in 1,600 pages the UN does not mention this crucial equation once. Result: the UN's "no-feedbacks" value of lambda is way too high. As an eminent physics professor pointed out to me recently, if the UN were correct, global surface temperature would now be 20F higher than it is.
It gets worse. The UN's computer models predict that in the tropics the rate of increase in temperature five miles above the surface will be three times the rate of increase down here. But 50 years of atmospheric measurement, first by balloon-borne radiosondes and then by satellites, show that the air above the tropics is not merely failing to warm at three times the surface rate: for 25 years it has been cooling. The absence of the tropical mid-troposphere "hot-spot" indicates that the computer models -- expensive guesswork -- on which the UN's rickety case is founded are, in a fundamental way, misunderstanding the way the atmosphere behaves (Douglass & Knox, 2004; Douglass et al., 2007).
On top of the "radiative forcings" from greenhouse gases, the UN says the mere fact of temperature change will cause more change still, through what it calls "feedbacks." The UN has hiked the feedback multiplier by more than 52 percent since its 1995 report, without quite saying why. Shaviv (2006) and Schwartz (2007) calculate that the sum total of all feedbacks is either nil or very small; Wentz et al. (2007) report that the UN has missed out two-thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its assessment of the water-vapor feedback; Spencer (2007) finds that the cloud albedo feedback, which the UN says is strongly positive, is in fact negative; Ahlbeck (2004, 2005) says the CO2 feedback has been enormously exaggerated.
I have mentioned a dozen scientific papers. I could have mentioned hundreds more that challenge the UN "consensus." There has never been and can never be a scientific consensus on climate change. Lorenz (1963), in the landmark climate paper that founded chaos theory, stated and proved his famous theorem that the long-run evolution of mathematically chaotic objects like the climate cannot be predicted unless one knows the initial state of the object to a degree of precision that is in practice unattainable. Whenever you hear anyone recite the propaganda mantra "The Science Is Settled," laugh at his redneck scientific illiteracy. The science can never be settled.
Schulte (2008: in press) reviewed 539 papers on "global climate change" in the scientific journals. Only one paper mentioned that "global warming" might be catastrophic, and even that paper offered not a shred of evidence for the supposed apocalypse.
Bottom line: a recent peer-reviewed paper (Lindzen, December 2007) says all the UN's climate sensitivity estimates should be divided by three. We don't have a climate problem. The correct policy to deal with a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Don't let your legislators in Hawaii waste time on this non-problem. The real problem of the 21st century will not be "global warming" but resource depletion, starting with oil. Let your lawmakers do some real work, and get to grips with that.
(me-the cooling trend and probable 'little ice age' conditions to peak around mid century will add to the depletion and shortages ultimately proving to the world a warmer world is much more friendly than a colder one!)
Friday, January 25, 2008
Muslim opening prayer at Iowa Statehouse raises concerns
When is this insanity going to end? I fear it will not utill they've taken us over!
By: Erin Ballou, Pilot Tribune Staff Storm Lake Pilot Tribune, January 24, 2008
The Iowa Legislature started just over a week ago and some people were upset before the first issue was ever addressed.
When the session began, a Muslim Imam began the prayer in the Iowa Legislature. This is where the controversy begins.
The prayer asked of "Victory over those who disbelieve," and "Protection from the great Satan" among other things.
Pastor Steve Smith of the Evangelical Free Church in Albert City is among those concerned about the Muslim prayer. Rev. Smith admits that he doesn't know about all the levels of Muslim but knows that the Jihadists believe those in the U.S. are the great Satan.
Rev. Smith also wants to point out the mention of "victory over those who disbelieve." He feels "this is a request in the Iowa Legislature for God to grant the Muslims victory over every non-muslim. Not a request for salvation." Smith takes it as a gesture not of prayer but more as a political statement, especially with the wars that have been going on in the Middle East.
"I'm not concerned about a Muslim Imam opening the Legislature in prayer but it concerns me with the statements that were made. He interpreted this prayer from his understanding of Islam."
Here is the text of the opening prayer, as transcribed by Radio Iowa:
Imam Muhammad Khan of the Islamic Center of Des Moines spoke first in Arabic.
"I seek refuge in God against the accursed Satan in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful," Khan said in English. Khan made no specific mention of the war in Iraq or foreign affairs, but he called God the "master of the day of judgment" and asked for "victory over those who disbelieve."
"As we begin this new year...in a world with trials and tribulations, we ask you to open the hearts of our legislators and policy makers to make the right decisions for the people of Iowa," Khan said. "...We ask that you guide our legislators and give them the wisdom and knowledge to tackle the difficult problems that face us today in order to eliminate the senseless crimes on humanity. Help them, Lord, to solve the complicated problems in the State of Iowa so that we can be a model to the world."
Khan's prayer lasted about four minutes and he closed with a few words for legislators.
"On behalf of the Muslim community of Des Moines and Iowa, I wish you all the success in this year for making the right decisions for us," Khan said. Khan was the guest of State Representative Ako Abdul Samad of Des Moines, who is also a local Muslim leader.
Rev. Smith has urged others who may be concerned to contact their representative.
When asked about the prayer, Senator Steve Kettering replied in an e-mail that he had not heard the prayer, which did not take place in the Senate chambers.
"I cannot tell you what was said. I have received e-mail regarding this, but since it did not occur on the Senate side I do not have much information," Kettering said. "I should point out that the senate had a Catholic priest for their opening."
Representative Gary Worthan of Storm Lake said that he agrees with the concern being shown over the Muslim prayer.
He said that he has registered his concerns with the proper authorities.
As the father of two sons who have fought terrorism in the military, Worthan said the phrases mentioned earlier also jumped out at him and he said he shares concern for the same reasons as the constituents he is hearing from.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Liberal "Tolerance": Kansas City Official Forced to Resign
Ms. Semler resigned from the parks board because she felt her involvement had become too contentious. Why? Well, the National Council of La Raza and Southern Christian Leadership Conference canceled plans to hold their national conventions in Kansas City because of Ms. Semler's presence on the board, solely because she is a member of the Minutemen.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, January 18, 2008
School Textbook: Islamic 'jihad' means doing good works
An Islamic "jihad" is an effort by Muslims to convince "others to take up worthy causes, such as funding medical research," according to a middle school textbook used in California and other states.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
PETA Killed 97 Percent of “Companion Animals” in 2006
An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it’s perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.
Follow the link and read the rest of this article and others exposing PETA's hypocrisy!
Follow the link and read the rest of this article and others exposing PETA's hypocrisy!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Our global warming 'Animal Farm'
In one of his incomparable essays, C. S. Lewis criticized man's often insolent determination to control the forces of nature. He remarked that man's control of nature was frequently nothing more than man's control over other men - with nature as the instrument.
Nothing explains the mad obsession with global warming quite so pointedly. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the global warming panic has little to do with temperature change and everything to do with man's control of other men with climate as the instrument.
The global warming hoax is a dream come true for the global bullies intent on imposing their repressive regulatory regime upon a willing world of useful idiots.
Follow the link and read the whole atricle.
Nothing explains the mad obsession with global warming quite so pointedly. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the global warming panic has little to do with temperature change and everything to do with man's control of other men with climate as the instrument.
The global warming hoax is a dream come true for the global bullies intent on imposing their repressive regulatory regime upon a willing world of useful idiots.
Follow the link and read the whole atricle.
American Free Speech and Press Rights
This “Legal Jihad” Must Be Stopped!
Imagine an America where no journalist, author, or speaker dared to write or speak out about militant Islam and Islamic terrorism. Imagine an America where books like Brigitte Gabriel’s Because They Hate were never published out of fear by the publishing company that they could be bankrupted by “libel” lawsuits.
Sounds impossible in America, right? After all, this is the world’s beacon light of free speech and free press, right?
Yes, but those rights are under very serious assault from another tentacle of Jihad – “Legal Jihad.”
One of the tactics being employed by Islamists to intimidate critics and muzzle investigative reporting of Islamic militancy and terrorism is the use of lawsuits alleging defamation of character and slander. A particularly egregious example of this has ensnared Rachel Ehrenfeld, noted author on terrorism and related issues, and a member of the Advisory Board of American Congress for Truth, ACT! for America’s sister organization.
Ehrenfeld was sued in a British court by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz for detailing in her book how Bin Mahfouz, and some of his family, are allegedly tied to funding terrorist organizations. She lost the suit by default and was ordered to pay Bin Mahfouz over $225,000 in damages.
Bin Mahfouz has used the British legal system to obtain more than three dozen such judgments affecting the U.S. media. His tactics have been so successful that several major American media companies and book publishing companies have chosen to pull books and issue apologies and retractions, rather than face the economic consequences of losing to him in British courts.
Such legal assaults, if allowed to succeed, have chilling and far-reaching implications for our cherished freedoms of speech and the press so enormous that they threaten the very foundation of American liberty.
It is no accident that our Founding Fathers placed freedom of speech and the press in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. They understood that without such freedoms, there cannot be a free people.
Ehrenfeld rightly sought a court order and legal protection of her constitutional rights in the New York court system. Shockingly, a New York Court of Appeals has ruled that it cannot protect her from this lawsuit. The court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from a foreign defamation verdict!!
This court ruling has stunned many in the legal, media and publishing community. The British court system’s legal standard for libel is much lower than that in the United States, which explains why litigants like Bin Mahfouz file lawsuits in Great Britain. They recognize they are unlikely to succeed with such lawsuits in America, so they use foreign courts in an attempt to intimidate and muzzle American authors and journalists.
This is nothing more than “Legal Jihad” – and it must be stopped.
Fortunately, a bi-partisan effort is now under way in New York to pass legislation designed to protect journalists, authors and publishers from lawsuits filed outside the U.S. by foreign nationals seeking to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American citizens, particularly those reporting on terrorism and its financiers.
This Sunday, January 13th, at 10:30 a.m., on the steps of the New York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, a bi-partisan news conference will be held by New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, where they will announce the introduction of such legislation. The two lawmakers, Ehrenfeld, and members of the bar, will warn that without this legislation, not only are authors and journalists threatened, the contents of the New York Public Library could be subject to assault by foreign nationals seeking to silence public debate in America. They are to be applauded and supported for this effort.
If you live in the New York area, you are invited to attend this news conference. Next week, once we have specific details regarding the legislation, we will launch a full-scale educational and lobbying effort to ensure its passage – so please watch for our alerts in your email boxes.
Ladies and gentlemen, if Islamists are allowed to “court shop” around the world, seeking friendly judges who will issue court rulings and monetary judgments against anyone in America who dares to write or speak out against the assault of militant Islam, not only will our ability to resist this threat be dramatically imperiled. This will be a stake in the heart of American free speech and press rights.
We cannot allow this to happen.
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
Imagine an America where no journalist, author, or speaker dared to write or speak out about militant Islam and Islamic terrorism. Imagine an America where books like Brigitte Gabriel’s Because They Hate were never published out of fear by the publishing company that they could be bankrupted by “libel” lawsuits.
Sounds impossible in America, right? After all, this is the world’s beacon light of free speech and free press, right?
Yes, but those rights are under very serious assault from another tentacle of Jihad – “Legal Jihad.”
One of the tactics being employed by Islamists to intimidate critics and muzzle investigative reporting of Islamic militancy and terrorism is the use of lawsuits alleging defamation of character and slander. A particularly egregious example of this has ensnared Rachel Ehrenfeld, noted author on terrorism and related issues, and a member of the Advisory Board of American Congress for Truth, ACT! for America’s sister organization.
Ehrenfeld was sued in a British court by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz for detailing in her book how Bin Mahfouz, and some of his family, are allegedly tied to funding terrorist organizations. She lost the suit by default and was ordered to pay Bin Mahfouz over $225,000 in damages.
Bin Mahfouz has used the British legal system to obtain more than three dozen such judgments affecting the U.S. media. His tactics have been so successful that several major American media companies and book publishing companies have chosen to pull books and issue apologies and retractions, rather than face the economic consequences of losing to him in British courts.
Such legal assaults, if allowed to succeed, have chilling and far-reaching implications for our cherished freedoms of speech and the press so enormous that they threaten the very foundation of American liberty.
It is no accident that our Founding Fathers placed freedom of speech and the press in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. They understood that without such freedoms, there cannot be a free people.
Ehrenfeld rightly sought a court order and legal protection of her constitutional rights in the New York court system. Shockingly, a New York Court of Appeals has ruled that it cannot protect her from this lawsuit. The court ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans – on U.S. soil – from a foreign defamation verdict!!
This court ruling has stunned many in the legal, media and publishing community. The British court system’s legal standard for libel is much lower than that in the United States, which explains why litigants like Bin Mahfouz file lawsuits in Great Britain. They recognize they are unlikely to succeed with such lawsuits in America, so they use foreign courts in an attempt to intimidate and muzzle American authors and journalists.
This is nothing more than “Legal Jihad” – and it must be stopped.
Fortunately, a bi-partisan effort is now under way in New York to pass legislation designed to protect journalists, authors and publishers from lawsuits filed outside the U.S. by foreign nationals seeking to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American citizens, particularly those reporting on terrorism and its financiers.
This Sunday, January 13th, at 10:30 a.m., on the steps of the New York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, a bi-partisan news conference will be held by New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, where they will announce the introduction of such legislation. The two lawmakers, Ehrenfeld, and members of the bar, will warn that without this legislation, not only are authors and journalists threatened, the contents of the New York Public Library could be subject to assault by foreign nationals seeking to silence public debate in America. They are to be applauded and supported for this effort.
If you live in the New York area, you are invited to attend this news conference. Next week, once we have specific details regarding the legislation, we will launch a full-scale educational and lobbying effort to ensure its passage – so please watch for our alerts in your email boxes.
Ladies and gentlemen, if Islamists are allowed to “court shop” around the world, seeking friendly judges who will issue court rulings and monetary judgments against anyone in America who dares to write or speak out against the assault of militant Islam, not only will our ability to resist this threat be dramatically imperiled. This will be a stake in the heart of American free speech and press rights.
We cannot allow this to happen.
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Boston Firefighter Stabbed: 'Don't want any gringo here'...
Here's an OUTRAGE that you've probably never even heard about!!
A Boston firefighter is mending from what could have been deadly stab wounds he suffered early yesterday morning when he was allegedly jumped in East Boston while off duty by a group of Hispanic males who told him they "don't want any gringo here."
read more | digg story
A Boston firefighter is mending from what could have been deadly stab wounds he suffered early yesterday morning when he was allegedly jumped in East Boston while off duty by a group of Hispanic males who told him they "don't want any gringo here."
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)