“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

“They are savages,” said Mohammed Noaman, 22, as he showed The Independent a mobile phone photo of a man with half his face torn off. “The police, the army, they are all dogs.”

'Hundreds' dead as Egyptian army opens gun fire on pro-Morsi protesters in Cairo

Bloodshed ensues as military opens fire on protest camps


Heavy bursts of automatic gunfire were ringing through the streets of eastern Cairo this morning as the Egyptian authorities went to war with Islamists cowering amid the tents and alleyways of their huge protest camp in Nasr City, a suburb of the capital.
Latest estimates from the Muslim Brotherhood put the number of dead well into the hundreds.
As police helicopters hovered overhead and huge plumes of black smoke billowed into the morning sky, security forces armed with semi-automatic rifles and tear gas laid siege to the sit-in from roads surrounding the camp on several sides.
Supporters of toppled president Mohamed Morsi who have been camped out in Nasr City for the past six weeks crouched behind make shift brick barricades as the live rounds crackled around the surrounding apartment blocks. Others frantically prepared Molotov cocktails hiding behind piles of sandbags which mark the outer limits of the encampment.
In the hospital at the centre of the sit-in, dead bodies were being stretchered down the central staircase on their way to the basement morgue. Injured protesters were lying on the corridor floor, moaning in pain as others were carried in from the streets outside. Agonized screams filled the hallway.
“They are savages,” said Mohammed Noaman, 22, as he showed The Independent a mobile phone photo of a man with half his face torn off. “The police, the army, they are all dogs.”
A Reuters journalist also witnessed the military open fire and saw about 20 people being shot in the legs by soldiers.
Earlier estimates had put the number of civilians killed by security forces at 30, but the Muslim Brotherhood is now claiming that up to 500 are dead and 9,000 wounded.
At least two members of the security forces were confirmed to have died in the morning's crackdown. A senior Health Ministry official, Ahmed el-Ansari, said four people were killed and 50 injured in all at Nasr and a smaller camp in Cairo.
A number of leaders from the Brotherhood have since been arrested, an official announced during a broadcast.
"We have arrested a number of Brotherhood leaders but it's too early to announce their names," General Abdel Fattah Othman, a senior official in the Interior Ministry, told the privately-owned CBC TV channel.


  1. There were 5,000 dead and 90,000 wounded, all shot in the face.

    1. No, there were 50,000 dead and 900,000 wounded, all gassed.

    2. That's what we get for $1.6 billion dollars a year. Next door we pay $3 billion and get apartheid. ::shrug::

  2. Dozens dead as Egypt cracks down on sit-ins

    At least 40 people reportedly killed as security forces launch operation to remove two anti-military sit-ins in Cairo.

    Last Modified: 14 Aug 2013 09:43

    Al Jazeera

    A security operation to clear protesters camped out on the streets of Cairo since President Mohamed Morsi was deposed by the military last month has left at least 40 people died.

    The Egyptian Interior Ministry says 200 people have been arrested, including 50 in the Rabaa al-Adawiya sit-in in Nasr City and 150 at the Nahda Square sit-in in Giza.

    Live footage from Cairo on Wednesday morning showed smoke engulfing Nahda Square - which was later completely cleared - and there were reports of tear gas and birdshot being used on supporters of the Morsi.

    By mid-morning, state television reported that security forces had finished breaking up the sit-in there.

    Bulldozers were said to have been used to uproot the camps.

    The Interior Ministry said security forces had "total control" over Nahda Square, and that "police forces had managed to remove most of the tents" in the area. Security forces had blocked all access to the protest camp.

    Conflicting toll figures

    Sources on the ground told Al Jazeera of at least 40 fatalities, while the Muslim Brotherhood said at least 300 people had been killed, with more than 5,000 others injured.

    Al Jazeera could not independently verify the Brotherhood's figure.

    The Health Ministry said at least seven people had been killed, including three members of the security forces, and 78 injured.

    State television also said a number of people were arrested in Nasr City for having weapons and gas cylinders.

    1. Who's killing all those people in the Religion of Peace? Oh, other people in the Religion of Peace. Nebba mind.

  3. But let's stay focused.

    jews are BUILDING homes in the jewish section of Jerusalem. This is a crime.

    1. If the President had cajones he would deduct a million dollars for every house. But he knows what side of the matzo is buttered.

  4. How many did Russia kill in Georgia? In Chechnya

    Russian-Chechen Friendship Society set the conservative estimate of death toll in this time period at about 150,000 - 200,000 civilians, 20,000 to 40,000 Russian soldiers, and possibly the same amount of Chechen rebels.[26]

    1. That's why I'm digging drones these days.

  5. russia - georgia war

    Civilian casualties:
    South Ossetia: 162 according to Russia, 365 civilians and military according to South Ossetia[41][42][43]
    Georgia: According to Georgian sources, 224 civilians killed and 15 missing, 542 injured[31][31]
    One foreign civilian killed and 3 wounded[44]

  6. John Deere's Brazil tractor sales increased 26% year over year.

  7. Holy Moly,

    E85 for $1.99 / gal in Lockport, Illinois

    Other prices - $2.01, $2.02, and $2.05

    43% Spreads

  8. Others frantically prepared Molotov cocktails hiding behind piles of sandbags which mark the outer limits of the encampment

    These protesters obviously didn't attend the Martin Luther King school of peaceful, non-violent protest.

    1. Obama's Supporters... The Moslem Brotherhood.

      It's a good day in the arab / Islamic world when Islamic nazis are dying.

      If only the Israelis had released the murderers earlier so they could have joined their brothers in Egypt!

      The ONLY good islamic NAZI? Is a dead Islamic Nazi.

    2. I'm right with you there Wi0. Besides, there's no more oil in Egypt.

  9. It's all good. It's getting harder and harder to think of an Arab country that is not either in or teetering towards an all out civil war.

    It's hard to say it was all touched off by Obama's wonderful Cairo Speech but it didn't hurt any either.

    His actions in Syria have been perfect. Syria no longer exists.

    The guy is a genius, I'm telling you.

    1. It's all right out of the Hugh Fitzgerald play book of foreign policy.

      Who is Hugh, you ask?

      >>>Who is Hugh Fitzgerald?

      Hugh Fitzgerald is JihadWatch’s mystery man, no one knows who he is, his Wiki page is one sentence long. Alongside Robert Spencer, Fitzgerald is a co-administrator and contributor to JihadWatch. Robert Spencer claims that he elevated Hugh Fitzgerald to Vice President of JihadWatch in 2004, which is curious considering Fitzgerald is neither listed as Vice President on the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 990 tax return nor does it mention him receiving any sort of salary.

      Some have claimed that Hugh Fitzgerald is in fact Robert Spencer, an accusation Spencer denies, though he leaves much to be desired when answering critics. For instance Spencer claimed that Fitzgerald was with him at the David Horowitz lead Conference, Restoration Weekend. However, only Spencer corroborated this account while no film was taken of the event and not a single picture exists of Hugh Fitzgerald anywhere on the web.

      Photos of Spencer abound: he has one on his site, Jihad Watch, and he has posted over the years numerous photos of himself at various events. He has also posted videos of himself, not only delivering lectures but also in debates with others. Not a single photo seems to exist of Hugh Fitzgerald. Not only this, but no explanation has ever been put forth for this odd dearth of documentation of a major figure in the anti-jihad movement when we have photos of all the other major players, such as David Horowitz, Andrew Bostom, Daniel Pipes, Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc. It seems silly to continue maintaining this queer blackout on Fitzgerald’s physiognomy, particularly when Spencer has to keep denying the equally silly rumors of their identity with each other.

      Fitzgerald claims to be an atheist, teaming up with Spencer to fight the “threat of Islam.” A tactic it seems to try and enlist people to the anti-Muslim cause from various, (not just Christian Conservative backgrounds) by claiming it as a universal priority for Westerners who want to preserve their Judeo-Christian culture and values.

      The anonymity of “Hugh Fitzgerald” affords him the ability to say things that Spencer otherwise would never utter, and also allows Spencer to play the card that JihadWatch is not just a biased Christian-centric, Judeo-Christian Supremacist blog but a site that brings together individuals from differing backgrounds into a coalition opposed to “the Jihad.”<<<

      He is not Spencer, to be sure. His writing is entirely different, and he knows so much obscure European literature and thought as to make any Literature professor ashamed.

    2. Some have suggested Hugh is from the Detroit, a master deceiver and fraud artist, a kind of supersalesman, uncouth.

      So far, firm evidence is lacking.

    3. His sentences and paragraphs go on and on, dispensing an incredible amount of information, a living commercial for his unique point of view.

    4. "Some have suggested Hugh is from the Detroit, a master deceiver and fraud artist, a kind of supersalesman, uncouth."

      But this is surely a misleading characterization. His historical citations are unfailing accurate, his passion is obvious, his overall good will evident, and his strategy Machiavellian in the better sense. Working without pay, he has no financial incentive, either, for what he does. It's not like he is trying to sell you a horoscope.

  10. August 14, 2013
    Obama-inspired climate change rally epic fail
    Thomas Lifson

    What if Obama for America Organizing for America held a rally and nobody showed up? Could we all conclude that this is nothing but a giant David Axelrod-style astroturf effort, designed to give the appearance of genuine citizen concern, but really just a Potemkin Village version of political momentum?

    Well, it's happened. The Washington Free Beacon reports:

    Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obama's 2012 campaign, the NRCC wrote in its blog.

    The event page for the "Climate Change Day of Action Rally"disappeared after rainy weather appeared to drive away whatever people planned to attend. The embarrassing showing follows the news that only one volunteer stayed for an OFA Obamacare event in Centreville, Va., last week to work the phones:

    The corrupt media will ignore this remarkable event because they are also all about creating appearances that reinforce positive perceptions of the Obama presidency, and which sell the global warming scam.

    Lincoln said it best: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    Rick Moran notes that the media have ignored the demise of the Occupy movement, which they hyped so intensely as an alternative to the tea parties, just as the IRS was suppressing them.

    1. .

      Moran is an dolt.

      The Tea Party was formed in opposition to abuses associated with the size and breadth of big government. The Occupy movement was formed in opposition to t influence of Wall Street and the inequality it breeds. In truth, they were fighting an interrelated fight. Only the Kool-Aid drinking sheeple on both sides of the political spectrum fail to see that.


    2. The Occupy 'Movement' was condoned and encouraged by the WH.

    White man left bloodied near Yale University

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/black-mobs-erupt-in-ivy-league-region/#Vi2RoMyLzvwqybu9.99

    Many examples given in just that region, an 'enlightened' region.

    All this is going to come back and haunt them. There will be a reaction sooner or later. They are doing their own cause the worst disservice.

  12. The first U.S. plant to produce ethanol from garbage at Commercial Scale starts operations in Florida

    Ineos - Garbage to Ethanol

    1. Are they going to take Obama's books and Michelle's Rap albums and go directly to the plant?

  13. QuirkTue Aug 13, 05:42:00 PM EDT


    You indulge in simplistic reasoning, Ash.

    You can't claim that 'you can't be right because you can't prove me wrong' when the same illogical argument can be reversed and applied to you.

    Your mind is cluttered with false assumptions and they drive your attempts at reasoning. You like Bush argue, if you are not with us you are against us, you either have to believe in god or not belief in god. Your bifurcated reasoning is absurd as well as arrogant. Saying that you do not know is a perfectly legitimate response. The only reason you feel it is an illegitimate response is because it doesn't fit comfortably within your own stilted view of reality or with your biases.

    ... but rather the simple notion that unless there is a reason, or evidence, to believe something there is no good reason to state it's existence.

    You are basically disavowing the entire scientific method. Were we to accept your view, we/they would have never proved the Higgs Boson or any other subatomic particles exist. We would outright deny that dark matter or dark energy exists. Yet there are countless scientists who while believing do not know. That is the point of theory.

    Those who believe in god offer up their theory based on various arguments, first cause, intelligent design, the prime mover, etc. Your argument is that there is no god because you can't see one.

    While I tend towards your view more than I do towards those of the religious, it's not because I share your simplistic reasoning but rather because of perceived flaws I see in the arguments they offer. However, since neither side has in my opinion 'proved' their case, I feel very comfortable in saying I am agnostic on a subject debated for millennia by men on both sides of the argument who possessed much more wisdom than you or I combined.

    The reason you can't accept that, I believe, lies with your constrained worldview not mine.


    *sigh* ole Quirk falls back on the ad hom's as usual.

    Let's start with:

    "You are basically disavowing the entire scientific method. Were we to accept your view, we/they would have never proved the Higgs Boson or any other subatomic particles exist. We would outright deny that dark matter or dark energy exists. Yet there are countless scientists who while believing do not know. That is the point of theory."

    I don't think you understand the basis of the scientific method. In fact, in science, you never prove anything but rather find evidence that confirms or disconfirms a theory. In mathematics and logic you have proof, not in science.

    One of the problems with dealing with God's existence from a scientific point of view is that believers cannot present a 'theory' of God that is testable. A prime example of that was anon-boobies waxing poetic on being.

    This brings me back to the point I have been trying to make - With respect to God's existence to be agnostic is to beg the question. Dougman has a clear conception of what God is to him and what confirms his belief in God's existence. I believe God does not exist because I see no reason, no evidence, to believe that He exists as I don't believe scientific theories that don't have backing evidence. I am also not convinced by the traditional 'proofs' of his existence. To say "I don't know" reflects thought that is not rigorous and fails to grapple with the issues (i.e. what constitutes God). It is PC religious thought ;)

    1. .

      Once again, that is continuously, we disagree.

      You are right in the fact that I was sloppy with my word choice. I stand corrected.

      A law is a mathematical correlation observed repeatedly in many situations, usually reserved for the physical sciences; e.g. Newton's laws, Ohm's law, and the law of conservation of energy. Scientific laws are patterns in nature that theories seek to explain.

      From Rationalwiki: A law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a theory of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.

      The issue we are discussing is creation and what brought it about, what exactly happened at the exact precise moment time started (well, that and me being an agnostic on the subject).

      Given the physical constraints that exist (i.e. the speed of light) it is my understanding that we are beyond the point where we can actually look back to the point of the 'beginning' of time. The widely accepted Big Bang Theory merely tells us what happens 'after' that initial moment. It can't tell us what sparked that moment nor what existed before that moment. All it does is offer a hypothesis. It hypothesizes a singularity, something infinitesimally small, infinitely dense, infinitely hot, in which space and time become infinitely distorted, something we have no way of measuring. It does not explain where the singularity came from or how it got there or what made it go bang.

      Those religions that believe in a supreme being believe they know the answer. Their hypothesis is that everything was created and started in motion by god, whatever that particular concept means to them. I won't go into the 'proofs' they offer for his/her/its existence since you have already stated you don't accept them.

      You say their hypothesis or theory if you like could not be true because no evidence of god has been provided. That is an illogical statement since lack of evidence while it obviously doesn't prove it also doesn't disprove.

      One of the problems with dealing with God's existence from a scientific point of view is that believers cannot present a 'theory' of God that is testable.

      You argue that we should be debating the 'existence of god' from a scientific point of view and dismiss religious arguments because in your opinion they can't be tested yet you and science offer nothing in return, no explanation for what caused the Big Bang and your only definition of what existed before that is so filled with the word infinite as to be downright godlike.

      You argue there is no god because those that argue for his existence haven't offered sufficient proof to convince you of it. You and science, however, offer no alternative explanation that offers the rigorous evidence you demand of the religious. Yet you bitch and complain when someone says he is agnostic on the subject. In my opinion, that is your problem not mine.

      And please, don't sigh over my ad hom's when every time you appear here you can't quite manage to leave without the obligatory "anon-boobies" comment.


    2. Experience is the proof, for those that have the experience.

      See: William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

    3. Rationality is a crutch for mere school children.

    4. I choose not to argue with boobie, I simply throw ad-homs at him. ad-homs don't make for effective argument in my opinion.

      With respect to our argument I've only talked about "I don't know" make for a very good statement vis a vis God's existence. I've said nothing about the pre-big bang.

      If you ask me 'does an all-powerful all knowing God exist?' I would say no and offer up Evil as the evidence disconfirming evidence for that statement.

      If you ask me 'did God cause the big-bang?' I'd like to know what you mean by 'God' in that case. You could just as easily ask me 'did Big Blue Unicorns cause the big-bang'. In both cases my answer would be no, not without a reason to think either of them did and I can't think of one. Can you?

    5. please pardon my convoluted sentences. In a hurry. gotta run. I do enjoy the discussion though.

      later dude!

    6. grabbed a free moment as I run out the door:

      Quirk wrote:

      "You say their hypothesis or theory if you like could not be true because no evidence of god has been provided. That is an illogical statement since lack of evidence while it obviously doesn't prove it also doesn't disprove."

      I have never said their theory "could not be true because no evidence of god has been provided" rather I have said there is no reason to say it is true unless evidence is provided (or a logical argument for that matter) AND there is no reason to say "I don't know" unless rational is provided. "I don't know" in effect means "I cannot know" or "I haven't made up my mind" both of which don't really tell us much.

    7. "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

      Translated: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (7)
      Also: About what one can not speak, one must remain silent.

      Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
      Ludwig Wittgenstein

    8. .

      Well at least you admitted to the convoluted sentences. I guess what you are saying is that my saying I’m an agnostic on the question of god’s existence is an unsatisfactory answer for you. If, after I have explained to you in two long posts my reasons for being an agnostic, you are still ‘unsatisfied’ and don’t think (believe?) it make for a very good answer, all I can say is boo-hoo. The worth of your opinion has been noted and has been given the consideration it deserves.

      I've said nothing about the pre-big bang.

      Why not? How can you speak of god and leave out the most existential questions about human existence? A quick look at various online dictionary entries for ‘god’ show the first in each are very similar, something along the lines of the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe

      Using the following website which looks at various religions, both monotheistic and polytheistic


      we are offered a general definition of what may be termed the creator god.

      God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.

      Since you denigrate my agnosticism, let’s at least get it straight what we are talking about.


    9. .

      If you ask me 'does an all-powerful all knowing God exist?' I would say no and offer up Evil as the evidence disconfirming evidence for that statement

      Evil? Is a natural disaster evil? I believe most would call them tragic acts of nature, not Evil. Is there intelligence behind an exploding volcano or just dumb brute forces? Evil is usually described as having a moral component. It requires intelligent action. To your Evil argument, I’m sure someone would counter argue that you ignore the whole question of free will. You work under the assumption that if there were a god we would all be living in Eden right now. You, like many of the religions, have created in your mind the vision of a personal god, one willing to interfere in the lives of people on an individual basis.

      If you ask me 'did God cause the big-bang?' I'd like to know what you mean by 'God' in that case.

      Every religion has its own vision of god. They vary in numerous particulars, thus the reason for the many conflicts we have seen. However, one particular they seem to agree on can generally be described by the definition shown in bold above. I am content with that description of god.

      You could just as easily ask me 'did Big Blue Unicorns cause the big-bang'. In both cases my answer would be no, not without a reason to think either of them did and I can't think of one. Can you?

      You seem to be fixated on Blue Unicorns, Ash. You presume to try to understand the mind of god and then invite me to do the same. Let me turn the question around on you. Can you offer me a reason why 13.7 billion years ago a ‘singularity’ (a construct hypothesized by man), one of infinitesimally small size, infinitely dense, infinitely hot, one in which space and time as we conceive them were infinitely warped and distorted beyond anything we could imagine suddenly decided to go ‘bang’, or for that matter where that singularity came from in the first place?

      I have never said their theory "could not be true because no evidence of god has been provided" rather I have said there is no reason to say it is true unless evidence is provided (or a logical argument for that matter) AND there is no reason to say "I don't know" unless rational is provided.

      The various religions have offered what they consider evidence that they indicate has been acquired through observation and logic. I’m sure the fact that you don’t accept their arguments means very little to them. Likewise, I have provided you my rationale for being agnostic on the subject of god. In response, you provide zip. Your only argument is sure I have no answer to these existential questions, none at all, but I sure know it wasn’t god. Well, all I can offer is compared to those who practice religion your arguments mean even less to me.

      "I don't know" in effect means "I cannot know" or "I haven't made up my mind" both of which don't really tell us much.

      The prior comment is just plain silly the latter could be equally applied to your arguments. They really don’t tell us much. You don’t believe in god and you demand that people either agree with you or disagree with you. Sometimes things just don’t work out the way we want.

      As for the quote, I would say it applies more to you than it does to me.

      Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

      You offer us not a clue as to the existential questions of the human experience and yet are bitter when someone else has the temerity to admit he has none either.

      I choose not to argue with boobie

      And I choose not to argue with you anymore, at least on this subject. The arguments on both sides are becoming redundant.


  14. "They are savages."

    ...a revelation for our time... Who knew?

  15. Fed paper says QE barely moved economy’s needle Add to ...

    Vasco Curdia and Andrea Ferrero, both economists with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, published an in-depth white paper, “How Stimulatory Are Large Scale Asset Purchases?,” on October 12. Their conclusions were surprising:

    “Asset purchase programs like QE2 appear to have, at best, moderate effects on economic growth and inflation… we estimate QE2 added about 0.13 percentage point to real GDP growth in late 2010 and 0.03 percentage point to inflation.”

    Some commentators, including CNBC’s John Carney, argue the report shows the low costs of Fed stimulus – it was a wise plan because it helped the economy while having a minimal upward influence on inflation.

    This assumes, however, that there will never be negative effects arising from a tripling of the Fed’s balance sheet. I’m far from an Austerian, but in the case of QE2, exchanging $600-billion in public debt for 13 basis points of GDP – and bearing in mind chairman Ben Bernanke’s concerns over whether Fed action may threaten “financial stability” – sounds like an expensive trade-off.

    It’s also clear that investors, particularly those exposed to Canadian resources, overestimated the stimulative power of QE2 on the global economy. Mining stocks immediately shot higher when QE2 was announced in late 2010 in expectations of both a weaker U.S. dollar and a stronger economy. But, because the economic effects of the strategy were muted, commodity prices came all the way back to the levels where they started over the subsequent 12 months. (see chart)

    The positive implication from Mr. Curdia’s and Ms. Ferrero’s analysis is that, while the markets may have trouble digesting the end of QE3, in economic terms we don’t have much to worry about. QE hasn’t helped the economy much, so stopping it won’t have that big an effect either.

    The report also suggests, however, that the Fed is realizing the limitations of QE programs and investors that predict QE4, QE5 and QE6 (goldbugs are fond of mentioning that one) will be disappointed. As a strategy, large-scale central bank asset purchases may be at an end.


  16. In fact, the economic benefits of Wind VII may actually outweigh the environmental aspects. The project will create 460 construction jobs and an estimated payroll of $30 million over two years. Once built, the turbines will support 48 permanent green jobs and an estimated $2.4 million payroll.

    With time, Wind VII will cut electricity bills for MidAmerican ratepayers. The utility is Iowa’s largest, with roughly 734,000 electric service customers, and the expansion will be built at no net cost to customers. After the first 350 megawatts of new generation capacity are installed, a $3.3 million rate reduction will take effect. By 2017, the rate reduction will increase to $10 million per year.

    Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/14/iowa-will-add-1-06gw-new-wind-energy-capacity-by-2015/#4EM2lBh0hUMsBaE6.99

    Movin' on up

  17. Low Solar Prices Around the World

    EU solar without subsidies as low as $1.20/watt: Deutsche Bank has reported that about ⅓ of small- to mid-sized solar installations in the EU are now going in without subsidies. Furthermore, “Multi-megawatt projects were being built south of Rome for €90c/W,” as RenewEconomy notes. “This was delivering electricity costs (LCOE – with 80 per cent self consumption) of around €80/MWh (€8c/kWh).” That’s about $1.20/W and 10–11¢/kWh.

    Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/12/solar-panels-prices-europe-australia-us-india/#PwG4OGHtBDRYWvsw.99

    That would be about 5.8 cents per kwhr in most of the U.S. Southwest, and about 7.3 cents per kwhr in even our worst insolation zone - zone 5.)


  18. Netanyahu encourages Christians to join IDF

    Wednesday, August 14, 2013 | Ryan Jones

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has officially put his weight behind growing efforts to encourage young Israeli Arab Christians to join the Israeli army and fully integrate with Israeli society.

    The government has tried to initiate such programs in the past, only to create rifts in the Christian community and more hostility toward the Jewish state.

    But this time, the initiative is coming from the Christians themselves.

    Last week, Netanyahu met with Father Gabriel Naddaf, a Greek Orthodox priest from Nazareth who has been actively recruiting local Christian youth to the cause.

    Together with Christian Arab army officers from the area, Naddaf has established a forum aimed at educating Christian youth on why they should brush aside old anti-Israel biases, and view the Jewish state as their home and ally.

    Netanyahu's decision will make the Israeli government a direct partner of this Nazareth forum.

    The move is precisely what Father Naddaf and others had been hoping for. Months ago, under heavy criticism and even threats from Arab members of Israel's Knesset, Naddaf cautioned that without official government recognition and support, the movement to bring local Christians into the Israeli fold would fail.

    Israel Today

    1. Why should followers of Christ defend Eretz Yisrael when the most hardcore followers of Moshe (Haredim) won't even do it?

    2. Because Jews are the good elder brothers of the Christians, and when your brother is attacked you come to his aid.

      As for the Haredim you'll have to ask them.

    3. But this time, the initiative is coming from the Christians themselves.

      A common enemy will do wonders for the Christian-Israeli relationship.

  19. You think the country would be better off if …


  20. Stratfor’s naval update map shows that the USS Nimitz moved towards Bahrain in recent days, with the USS Truman in relatively close proximity as part of its fresh 9 month deployment to the Arabian Gulf.

    “The timing is instructive – pro-democracy protestors are preparing to demonstrate for human rights in the capital, Manama, writes Afshin Rattansi. “The Nimitz, lead Flat-top of President Obama’s Carrier Strike Group 11, rolled into harbor as if to say out loud: “The United States will not tolerate democracy in this island kingdom, home to the US Fifth Fleet. The USA supports the dictatorship installed here in the 18th century.”

    Despite massive protests planned for today, “a tight security clampdown appears to have stopped large-scale demonstrations in the city,” reports the Associated Press, with the Bahraini prime minister having vowed to “punish” anti-government protesters.

    Attempts to stage an “Arab Spring” revolution in Bahrain have been brutally crushed by the regime and its ally Saudi Arabia.

    While the US corporate media has dutifully sold the Syrian uprising as a grass roots revolution, when in reality it was quickly hijacked by radical jihadists and Al-Qaeda terrorists, there has been virtually zero coverage afforded to Bahrain’s struggle for freedom. That probably has plenty to do with the fact that the country is a key launch pad for any future US attack on Iran and the regime is a compliant puppet state for US hegemonic interests.

    When former CNN journalist Amber Lyon made a documentary highlighting the royal dictatorship of Bahrain’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, CNN International refused to air the film and Lyon was later fired. It subsequently emerged that the Bahraini regime was paying CNN to portray the country in a positive light.

    Meanwhile, the next destination of the USS George Washington, currently positioned near Japan, remains “classified”.

    Yeah, let's put all our energy eggs in this mess, whattaya say?

  21. Is there a wall long enough in DC to line them all up against at the same time?

    Metaphorically speaking of course, with all due respect.

    1. Never forget that 'metaphorically speaking' disclaimer. You are being watched. They are just looking for an excuse, any excuse....

    2. Americans have always risen to the occasion, even if that meant working 24/7.


    'Ran multimillion-dollar deficits, despite vast amounts of money flowing in'...
    Rife with Cronyism...drudge

    Exactly like the SoulsRUs Foundation when I took it over by Court Order, except for the 'vast amounts of money flowing in'.

  23. Investors are wading back into emerging-market bonds, a sign that the fears that roiled credit markets earlier this year have receded.


    They added $62 million to Mexican peso-denominated bond funds in the three weeks through Aug. 7, according to data provider EPFR Global. A net $23.5 million was withdrawn in the previous three-week period.

  24. Law of Biomechanics - The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach..

    1. Does this apply to The Seven Year Itch as well?

  25. On this day in 1945, World War II came to an end after President Harry Truman announced Japan surrendered unconditionally.

  26. ...on the Empire's western front...

    "In a major rebuke on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unusual writ of mandamus, which is a direct judicial order compelling the government to fulfill a legal obligation. This 'extraordinary remedy' is nominally about nuclear waste, writes Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the 2-1 majority, yet the case 'raises significant questions about the scope of the Executive's authority to disregard federal statutes.'"


  27. From the 'Why we need a common language file' --

    Reason 217 -

    New Mexico Supreme Court: People who don’t speak English must be included on juries


    This is, as Charles Cooke notes, actually the correct decision. The court didn’t manufacture this rule; it’s right there in Article VII of the state constitution. If you think judges are too prone to substituting their own judgments’ for the people’s, then this is the ruling for you.

    Cooke wonders why a state wouldn’t want/expect its citizens to learn English by the time they’re 18 and jury-eligible. Good question, but I’m more intrigued by the practical implications here.

    Michael Anthony Samora’s appeal argued that his convictions should be reversed because a Bernalillo County judge excused a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had trouble understanding English.

    The Supreme Court said it agrees with that argument but also said Samora’s defense needed to object during the trial but didn’t…

    In Samora’s case, the prospective juror said on his jury questionnaire he didn’t understand English well enough to write in English, and the judge told him an interpreter would be provided if the man was selected to serve on the jury.

    However, the judge dismissed the man after he acknowledged he was not able to understand a large portion of the court proceedings.
    The defendant was convicted of murder one. If his attorney had objected during voir dire, presumably this would be grounds for mistrial.

    Here’s what I mean by “practical implications.” If you’ve got 11 jurors who are listening to the witnesses’ testimony in English and a 12th juror who’s listening to an interpreter translating that testimony into another language, aren’t the jurors technically hearing different testimony? Is that a due process violation? You run into a variation of this problem when a witness can’t speak English and his testimony needs to be filtered through a translator, but at least in that case the entire courtroom’s hearing the same (translated) evidence. Besides, the witness can’t be disqualified on language grounds; he’s indispensable to the court if he has material evidence about the defendant’s guilt or innocent. Not so with a juror. Plus, consider the disruption of having to translate every single word of the trial, from bench rulings to witness testimony to opening and closing arguments, for the benefit of one person. The court has no choice but to do that if the defendant can’t speak English, but it does have a choice when selecting jurors. And of course the juror’s interpreter would have to sit in on deliberations too, even though that’s supposed to be off-limits to everyone not on the jury.

    And yet, jury duty is an obligation of citizenship. If a (native-born) citizen’s not required to learn English in order to vote or fulfill other civic obligations, why bounce him from jury service because of it? What you could do as a work-around is put Spanish-speakers in a separate jury pool and conduct some trials entirely in Spanish (assuming the defendant also speaks it, of course). That would solve the problem of people hearing different testimony while ensuring that non-English speakers get to serve, but of course that puts you even further away from Cooke’s aspiration of everyone learning English by the time they’re 18. There’s less of an incentive to do that if the justice system begins splitting off into English- and Spanish-language tracks, which in turn will only encourage the cultural balkanization of America. Not sure what the answer is. “Learn English” isn’t an option, per constitutional law, in New Mexico.

    1. Consider the body language and inflections of an interpreter. Is the non-English speaking juror getting the testimony of the witness or, rather, the opinion of the interpreter.

  28. :):)



    Protestors push police off bridge ...

    Bros demands Morsi return...

    Failure of US diplomacy?

    'Government Thugs Beat Me Up'...

    Blood and tyranny................................................................................................................................Obama hits links... drudge

    Praise the Lord.

  29. "Oh my God! I never thought I would live to see that day... The Prime Minister just gave a GLORIOUS speech about freedom and rights! I never thought this was possible that I would agree with an Egyptian prime minister!"-Cyn Farah

    1. " I saw Sky News vile propaganda. I am replying in a post including horrific videos of mass slaughter, beheading, shooting people in the heart, running them over with cars, throwing them off bridges, and burning them alive while screaming Allahu Akbar. Sky News is vile and complying with mass murderers."-Cyn Farah

    2. Little reported, an Israeli drone killed and fried five jihadists on the Egyptian side of the Sinai border several days ago, with the apparent complicity of the Egyptian military.

      The Egyptian military has zero interest in war with Israel. That feeling is mutual.

    3. Hopefully the rest of the secular Arabs in the ME will want to Walk like an Egyptian all the way to Damascus.

    4. Sounds like a good plan.

      ...if they want to stay alive.

  30. Legendary political reporter Jack Germond dies at age 85...drudge

    My favorite aunt used to love this guy, watched him every week. She always laughed cause he generally said stuff like 'all this doesn't matter' or 'this doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things' on nearly ever topic. I listened intently, for years, and never did understand what did matter to Jack but in the end it didn't matter as I came to love him too, he was such a good humored and jovial guy.

    And I'm sure he's with the good humored and jovial folk in the afterlife.

  31. The difference between men and primates:

    About a 12 pack.

  32. For Sam:

    Two old men were sitting at a bar, one says to the other;

    I think my wife died.

    The other man chokes and says:


    Yeah, he replies:

    The sex is the same but the dirty dishes are piling up.

    1. Craigs list rules:

      I sold my homing pigeon 12 times in the last two months.

    2. :)

      This sounds like a possible $$$$ making scheme for Quirk, if he had the $$$$ to invest in a homing pigeon. Unfortunately, he's under garnishment until his natural death.

    3. Anyone in the know, and not under garnishment, of course, will be investing in multiple pigeons in schemes which are gauranteed to work and make megabucks right up until the victimized human pigeons get a clue.

      Maybe Quirk could get some kind of loan, so he could partake of this abundance despite his status as a Garnishee?

  33. August 14, 2013
    The Close Connections between the Economy and the Family
    By Janice Shaw Crouse

    Some public figures like to dismiss the so-called "social issues" as irrelevant to the economy; many of those same people think that they can address fiscal concerns without any understanding of the pressures and drains put on the economy from the breakdown of the family. With the government now owning 51 percent of the private sector, we would do well to remember that our society has suffered grievously from programs and policies that meant well but failed miserably - and on a colossal scale - as is documented by an abundance of data and the negative social trends in America that have done so much damage to the nation's families and children.

    Now, with the implementation of ObamaCare looming and tax increases seeming inevitable, we face yet another ill-advised call for a return to the old, failed social welfare policies of entitlement, income redistribution, and tax increases. Best estimates indicate that the U.S. tax Code now contains approximately 3.7 million words -- almost nine times the total number of words in the King James Bible. Carrie L. Lukas, in her article, "The Tax Man Cometh," reports that the nation's families face a double-whammy in terms of taxes: in addition to losing about 30 percent of our income for federal, state, and local taxes (more than the typical family spends on food, clothing, and housing combined), Americans also spend nearly 4 billion hours in complying with income tax laws.

    Worse, we are discovering that ObamaCare really will "destroy marriage for the middle class the same way that the Great Society welfare state destroyed the black family -- with financial incentives for staying single." ObamaCare's marriage penalty could possibly cost couples over $10,000 a year. This intentional disparity means that U.S. government policy will encourage singleness and create increased disincentives for marriage. Single individuals will have an advantage with the earned income tax credit as well as welfare benefits, including food stamps. This comes as no surprise, of course, because "making the subsidies neutral towards marriage would lead to a married couple with only one bread-winner getting a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income-level."
    With ObamaCare ramping up subsidies promoting single motherhood and discouraging marriage, an increase in poverty is inevitable -- along with dramatic increases in entitlements and dramatic tax hikes to pay for the increased entitlements. These increases are just one more of the numerous financial incentives in current government policy that increasingly encourage individuals to reject marriage -- the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), housing subsidies, food stamps, child support payments, and the welfare dependency programs that created and sustained the inner city matriarchal culture. These perks are costing American taxpayers trillions of dollars a year. Current welfare programs total close to $1 trillion a year (twice as much as national defense and nearly the size of the federal deficit); ObamaCare is projected to add another $2.5 trillion after all its provisions take effect. There's no end in sight to the increasing costs of these entitlements.


    1. Politically, the "marriage penalty" is also a Democratic vote-getting initiative -- 70 percent of unmarried women voted for President Obama in the 2008 election. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a liberal firm that consults for clients such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry, said: "Unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate ... leading the charge for fundamental change in health care."

      As the nation's largest public policy women's group, Concerned Women for America has been sounding the alarm about how the fiscal health of the nation and economic crises are affecting America's families. We advocate a fiscal reform plan that focuses on entitlement reform -- offering options that will enable today's families to keep more of the money they earn and rescue our children and grandchildren from the debt and national decline that will otherwise land on their shoulders. We remind legislators that the nation's women are very concerned about the way government dependency is impacting American families. We want to see principled, courageous action to reverse the crisis and bring back the kind of financial and economic stability that propelled America into the world's superpower and enabled families to thrive - having a steady, good paying job, owning a home, and enjoying a bright, prosperous future. We reject any and all tax increases that will cripple families, devastate the economy, and consolidate more power in government. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children."

      Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. is Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute and author of Children at Risk (2010) and Marriage Matters (2012)

      We are committing social suicide.

  34. Silicon Brake Fluid contains 15 percent air. (Dot 5)

    ...not a good thing.

    Using DOT 5 in a DOT 3 or DOT 4 system without proper flushing will cause damage to the seals and cause brake failure.

    DOT 5 brake fluid is not compatible with anti-lock brake systems.