June 14, 2006

From Ramirez:

MSM Brags About the Effectiveness of Its Biased Reporting

From the Int'l Herald Tribune:

Image of U.S. falls again

WASHINGTON As the war in Iraq continues for a fourth year, the global image of America has slipped further, even among publics in countries closely allied with the United States, a new global opinion poll has found.

This poll can just as easily be interpreted as measuring the effects of global mainstream media bias, rather than of U.S. policy.

Help Stop Al-Jazeera from Broadcasting Enemy Propaganda to the West

Jesses Petrilla of the U.A.C. argues persuasively that Al-Jazeera is a purveyor of enemy propaganda during wartime, and should not be allowed to broadcast in America:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has referred to Al-Jazeera's reporting as "vicious, inaccurate, and inexcusable," while Dr. Walid Phares, professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University refers to Al-Jazeera as “Jihad TV”. The Al-Jazeera network has blatantly violated the Geneva Conventions time and again by broadcasting images of dead coalition soldiers and prisoners of war, a violation of Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention that protects POWs against acts of intimidation, insults and public curiosity. According to U.S. officials, Al-Jazeera is greatly putting American forces in Iraq at risk by broadcasting intentional lies on a continual basis, and also by broadcasting uncensored messages from terrorist leaders. Now they want to launch a new network, in American homes and in English called Al-Jazeera International.

Al-Jazeera International promises a full array of shows in addition to news and commentary, including children's shows according to the network's sources. Some may wish for the network to successfully launch in America, simply out of their curiosity to see the new station, but the fulfillment of ones curiosity will come at a grave price. With an all too often unpublicized growing insurgency of Islamic militancy within our very own borders, having a network which promotes Islamist propaganda on our own soil is beyond dangerous, it is ludicrous. Would we have given Stalin a radio network in America during the Cold War? Or would we have allowed the National Socialists of Germany to broadcast their messages in the U.S. during WWII? Why then now should we the people allow this network to promote Islamofascist propaganda in the U.S., an ideology that is a greater threat to global security then Nazism and Communism combined ever were?

Nazism could be contained. They wore uniforms, we shot them. They believed that if they were to die, then there would be no more sauerkraut and beer. But today we face an enemy who worships the thought of death in battle against the infidels, with a reward of many virgins in heaven. This new enemy does not wear uniforms, and they have sleeper cells in nearly every country of the world. The establishment of an outlet to send their message of jihad across America in the guise of a mainstream cable network would be a victory for the enemies of the free world, and a loss for America.

If  you'd like to help, there's a sample letter on the U.A.C. website that you can send to your local cable carrier, asking them not to carry enemy propaganda.

Hundreds of Climate Expert Scientists Disprove Gore’s Pseudo-Science

The leadership of the Left rejects religion, but it is also no good at science. 

Gore's attention-getting claims in "The Inconvenient Truth," are inconveniently (for Gore) easy to debunk.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

...Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

...Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Here Gore is following the Left's mantra of attacking anything that's successful. In this case, it's successful businesses.

Beware of Dems today who call any group of Americans "oppressors." They usually have no factual basis for doing so.