Egypt: Stork suspected of spying was 'killed and eaten' by villagers


An Egyptian wildlife organization claimed on its Facebook page that the unfortunate bird was 'killed and eaten by local villagers'.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | Int'l Desk
Source/Credit: Thde Independent | UK
By Rob Williams | September 8, 2013

Sometimes a bird just can't catch a break.

An innocent stork detained by police in Egypt on suspicion of spying has been found dead following its release amid reports it was killed and eaten by villagers.

Authorities in Egypt detained the bird after a man in Egypt’s Qena governorate, some 450 kilometers (280 miles) southeast of Cairo, spotted the animal - described by officials as a swan - among a group of four others.

Suspicions were raised after the man noticed an electronic device attached to the suspected winged infiltrator. The bird was captured and delivered to local police where experts investigated the electronic device and identified it as tracking equipment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read more »

Israelis saving the world, again

From NoCamels:

Dr. Sarit Larisch
“Killing these cancer stem cells is the holy grail of cancer treatments and therefore holds promise for complete eradication of cancer,” says Dr. Sarit Larisch of the University of Haifa.

These are not words pronounced lightly; instead, they follow more than a decade of research that could give hope to cancer patients worldwide. Along with her colleagues, Larisch has established the basis for developing a new, more effective treatment for cancer using a protein called ARTS.

ARTS is a protein, which along with a number of other proteins and enzymes, regulates what is known as apoptosis. Apoptosis is the process of programmed cell death which occurs when a cell is damaged, mutated or no longer functional. ARTS acts as a trigger for cell death, its presence allowing for enzymes called caspases to destroy the non-functional cell.

But this process is missing in cancer cells.

Larisch’s research shows that unlike normal cells, cancer cells have an absence of the ARTS protein. “Without the ARTS protein, cells can’t be triggered to self-destruct. As a result cancer cells can survive and develop into a tumor,” she tells NoCamels.

“We have found that ARTS is lost in many types of cancers. Therefore, determining levels of ARTS in blood could provide a marker to alert to the possibility of developing certain types of cancers.” Consequently, Dr. Larisch believes that small molecules that mimic ARTS could restore the ability of cancer cells to be killed selectively using the natural process of apoptosis.

“ARTS-based cancer drugs could potentially change the treatment method of cancer worldwide,” Larisch tells NoCamels. “We have found that ARTS is particularly important for the death of defective stem cells. We therefore believe that ARTS-based drugs will specifically eliminate cancer stem cells (the cells that drive the growth of a tumor and are often resistant to chemotherapy or radiotherapy).

The therapy would also minimize common side-effects of conventional cancer treatment. “All currently available cancer drugs have unwanted side effects because they harm normal cells as well. In contrast, ARTS-based cancer drugs should only kill cancer cells because they act by specifically correcting the defect in their cell suicide program, caused by the loss of ARTS,” notes Dr. Larisch.
The article goes on to say that Dr. Larisch is seeking funding to develop anti-cancer drugs based on her research.

Meanwhile, another Israeli team, this one at Technion are working on a completely new method to reduce cholesterol and help reduce heart disease This team also prominently features a woman.

(h/t Jewess)

The Curse of Liberalism

Guest post by Alan Caruba


“Liberalism has become an ugly blend of sanctimony, self-interest, and social connections,” writes Fred Seigel whose credentials include being a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He has written “The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class”, but you won’t be able to read it until it is published in January. As a reviewer, I received an advance copy from Encounter Books.

It hardly needs to be said that today’s liberals and conservatives loathe one another, nor that the nation is as sharply divided politically as in the days before the Civil War. Politically, America has swung back and forth between liberal and conservative administrations as evidenced by the elections of the previous century and this new one.

Moreover, many have noticed that there is often scant distance between Democrat and Republican administrations. Both have been led by patricians, often the graduates of Harvard and Yale. Seigel refers to them as the “clerisy” defined as educated people being a class unto themselves.

Liberalism has been a very expensive failure


“Liberalism has been a very expensive failure,” says Seigel and points to the Obama administration as an example of “the apparent disdain for the copybook maxims of faith, family, and hard work.” When liberals go to court to force schools to remove a daily prayer or a pledge of allegiance to start the day, support abortion on demand and gay marriage, seek to expand so-called “entitlement programs” and put as many people as possible on some form of government dole, this should be obvious to anyone.

The seizure of one-sixth of the nation’s economy in the form of Obamacare is yet another example and the failure of this program, passed near midnight by a straight party vote by Democratic legislators who had no idea what was in the bill, demonstrates the liberal preference for a massive central government.

“Liberalism has been dedicated to preserving the problems for which it presents itself as the solution.”

Seigel traces the beginnings of liberalism in America. “American liberals don’t like to compare themselves with other twentieth-century ideologues. But, like all ideologies that emerged in the early twentieth century—from communism and fascism to socialism, social democracy, and its first cousin, British Fabianism—liberalism was created by intellectuals and writers who were rebelling against the failings of the rising middle class.”

Among the intellectuals who advanced liberalism was Herbert Croly, the editor and co-founder of The New Republic whose 1909 book, “The Promise of American Life”, was the first manifesto of modern American liberalism. Croly “rejected American tradition with its faith in the Constitution and its politics of parties and courts.” This reeks of the intellectual snobbery that has dominated liberal thinking for more than a century at this point.

A distinguishing element of liberalism has been its admiration of autocratic leaders and this explains its embrace of dictators from the likes of the German Kaiser, Lenin and Stalin, through to men like Fidel Castro and his murderous sidekick, Ernesto “Che” Guevara. The appeal of communism has always played a large role in the ideology of liberalism.

What distinguishes liberalism today in the minds of conservatives is its rejection of the utter failure of communism and its cousin, socialism. One need only look to Russia and Europe for evidence of this, but it is manifest in America as it struggles to deal with the costs of New Deal creations such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, absorbing and redistributing some sixty percent of the national budget. The liberal belief in Keynesian economics whereby the government maintains the economy through massive expenditures has left America today with the largest debt in his history.

Liberalism has been driven by its disdain for America’s middle class


Liberalism has been driven by its disdain for America’s middle class that emerged from the large wave of immigration in the early 19th century and the success it has had in the business sector, entering the professions, and raising incomes. Liberalism has a deep distrust of “the masses” while claiming to represent them.

Liberal ideology produced Lyndon Johnson’s failed “War on Poverty” and embraced environmentalism with its doomsday predictions, none of which has come true. It explains President Obama’s rejection of American exceptionalism. “Liberal interests never reexamined their assumptions, even when faced with social and political failure. They never asked why, despite the vast sums expended, poverty had become worse rather than better.”

At the same time, in the latter half of the last century, liberals invented a laundry list of “rights” you will not find in the Constitution such as women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights and even the Gaia concept of the Earth’s right to be protected against human activity.

“It was attitude and intentions—not outcomes—that matter to liberals,” says Seigel.

Liberalism is the ideology of intellectuals who looked down on the masses that became America’s middle class and produced the greatest economy the world had ever known. Now they exist to live parasitically off of it.

The great frustration of conservatives is the inability to have a rational debate or discussion with liberals. They don’t make sense. It is the curse of liberalism.


Alan Caruba writes for a variety of periodicals and his daily blog is called Warning Signs.

My 2010 Rosh Hashanah graphic gets ripped off

From EoZ, September 8, 2010:

From an ad in a Long Island Jewish newspaper, this week:


Hmmm.

Then again, it is possible that they didn't rip me off directly - but they got it from the Chabad of University of Western Ontario:


(To be fair, I probably got the apple and honey image from a random Google search as well this time. Other years I drew them myself. )

Syria decision won't save Obama's image


For a president who was elected on promises to wrap up wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proposed war is an antithesis to his image that is epitomized by a Nobel Peace Prize.

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | US Desk
Source/Credit: Sun Sentinel
By Mansura Bashir Minhas | September 7, 2013

President Obama's conundrum propelled him to seek the approval of Congress before a military intervention in Syria. Despite the fact that many are calling this a political risk, the term remains a misnomer.

The deferral on an attack cannot restore the president's credibility that has already been tarnished. Millions of zealous Obama supporters like me are feeling betrayed. For a president who was elected on promises to wrap up wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proposed war is an antithesis to his image that is epitomized by a Nobel Peace Prize.

As commander-in-chief, the onus of responsibility will ultimately rest on him. He risks going down in history as a warmonger just like his predecessor and losing the political capital that he has amassed so far. Obama must remain mindful that as a president of the greatest democracy in the world, he must exert his influence to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read more »