Thursday, 7 March 2013

The Misplaced Minister: Ireland and Israel?s Alan Shatter


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/03/the-misplaced-minister-ireland-and-israels-alan-shatter/

The Misplaced Minister: Ireland and Israel?s Alan Shatter

March 2, 2013

For the past two years Ireland?s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic?s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims.

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland?s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.



Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years?but only because Shatter?s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years.

Shatter is aggressively promoting new measures to further increase non-European immigration, including making immigration easier for investors and entrepreneurs and their families. More ominously still, he is working industriously to replace existing Irish legislation on foreign immigration, including applications for asylum, with a bill that will, according to Shatter?s stated priorities for the current year, will ?radically reform and modernize? Irish immigration law.

Shatter has attempted to veil his immigration policies under the subterfuge of streamlining administrative procedures. After all, while exposed to the same globalist propaganda and pressures as America, the Republic of Ireland is a small and still largely homogeneous nation. It is also a land in which cant about ?a nation of immigrants? won?t sell: until only a couple of decades ago, Ireland was a nation of emigrants. And today, Irish unemployment continues to hover at around 15 percent, twice the stated rate in the U.S.


What was Shatter to do? Why play the Holocaust trump card, of course!

Now, Ireland has not been known for its role in World War II anti-Jewish measures. Like most countries at the time, however, including Germany?s fiercest opponents, Ireland was reluctant to accept large numbers of Jewish immigrants.

So, last fall, in a speech in honor of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish businessman who traveled to Hungary at American instigation in 1944 to impede deportation of Jews to German concentration camps, Ireland?s Jewish immigration czar attempted to justify flooding his homeland with Third World immigrants by attacking Ireland?s World War II immigration policy:

There were many who did nothing in the face of the industrialised genocide and the destruction of European Jewish civilisation. Indeed the Irish Government of the day sat on its hands. And even after the death camps were liberated, the Irish Government denied Jews refuge in Ireland.

It won?t surprise TOO readers to learn that, for all his efforts to pass as a champion of universalist ethics (?It is not enough to bear witness. We must also honor our fundamental moral obligation to protect our common humanity against inhumanity.?), Shatter has been anything but a protector of the Palestinians? humanity. What may surprise is that, in a nation virtually devoid of Jews, and one which has been more supportive of the Palestinians than most Western countries, the extent to which Shatter has been a strident voice in defense of Israel?s ruthless policies, in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank.

As a member of the Irish legislature, Shatter defended Israel?s brutal 2009 invasion of Gaza. He opposed the ?freedom flotillas? organized in 2010 and 2011 to breach the Israeli blockade of the already impoverished Gaza strip, although each of the aid expeditions included a ship from Ireland (although Shatter did a brief turnabout after Israeli commandos killed nine men aboard a ship in the first flotilla). He has opposed visas for members of organizations hostile to Israeli policies, and resoundingly condemned calls for the Irish to boycott performances in Israel as ?cultural fascism.?

It would be interesting to know what Ireland?s minister of justice thinks of Israel?s recent strict measures to control and to curtail Third World immigration?but he seems to have maintained a prudent silence in that regard.

Shatter has not merely parroted Israel?s justifications for oppressive policies aimed at preserving Israel as a Jewish state for a Jewish people, he has in effect served as a second Israeli ambassador to Ireland, functioning without the diplomatic constraints of the former.



We may take it, then, that Ireland?s Jewish minister of justice is moved by something other than an abstract sense of fairness that, however misguidedly, invites the world?s ?wretched refuse? (as a very influential tribune of indiscriminate immigration once called it) to Ireland?s shores. Seen in the light of his dedication to a dogma that the United Nations General Assembly once declared racist, Shatter?s promotion of Third World immigration, as well as his long career as a lawyer promoting birth control, abortion, and gay marriage?takes on a more sinister hue, as do such recent initiatives as his condemning Ireland?s national television network for failing to depict today?s ?intercultural Ireland? rather than the homogeneous Irish people of decades past.

In other words, Shatter has at best dual loyalties?but his double standard on Israel and Ireland would seem to indicate that his loyalty is primarily, if not exclusively, to the Zionist state rather than the Emerald Isle. What factor his Jewish loyalties play in promoting an immigration that is at most minimally Jewish, yet increasingly non-White, to the land of his birth remains an unanswered, though provocative, question. Nevertheless, Shatter?s attitudes are entirely in sync with those of the organized Jewish diaspora communities throughout the West. As often noted in TOO (see also here, p. 241ff), Jewish attitudes on immigration in the West are best explained as Jewish ethnic strategizing motivated by hostility toward the traditional people and culture of the West because of historical anti-Semitism (e.g., Shatter?s construction of Ireland?s role in the Holocaust) combined with fear that ethnically homogeneous populations may eventually rise up against Jews.

As noted, Alan Shatter is also Ireland?s minister of defence. In that role, he has announced that Ireland will continue to buy arms from Israel. As one of his critics has observed, ?It is not unusual for a Defence Minister to be steeped in nationalism, but for the ?nation? in question to be a foreign state, and a rogue state at that, must be unprecedented.?


It?s hard to imagine the mirror image of Alan Shatter in Israel. Just imagine one Alan O?Slattery, devoted to promoting non-Jewish immigration to the Zionist state and putting the military and diplomatic needs of Ireland above those of the nation he serves, wielding comparable power in Israel!

But it?s not so difficult to imagine Alan Shatter finding a ministerial role in yet another country. In the eyes of John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Shatter might well be eminently more qualified to serve as U.S. Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel. After all, Hagel has the wrong loyalties, and Shatter has the right ones.

Source: http://www.whitenewsnow.com/paul-fromms-cafe/37602-misplaced-minister-ireland-israel%92s-alan-shatter.html

benjarvus green ellis shaka smart hungergames bagpipes aspirin aspirin 21 jump street

PFT: Redskins facing new legal challenge to name

Vikings Packers FootballAP

Packers cornerback Tramon Williams suffered a right shoulder injury in the first game of the 2011 season. A year and a half later, he?s still feeling its effects.

Williams said on 105.7 The Fan that after sitting out Week Two of 2011 with that injury, he decided to tough it out and keep playing through it for the rest of 2011. The shoulder was still bothering him when the 2012 season started, but he kept toughing it out last year, too. As a result, he says, the injury still hasn?t fully healed.

?I had some tears in my shoulder and I had nerve damage in my shoulder, and it was tough,? Williams said, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. ?I only missed one game because of it, but it should have been one of those things to where I should have sat down for quite a few games. But at the same time, I haven?t been hurt at any point in my career. So you always want to be that guy who shows up and sends a message to your teammates like, ?OK, this guy, he?s hurt but he?s out here for his teammates.? And that?s what I wanted to show. I wanted to show that I could play through that and I did. I got through it. Everyone goes through adversity at some point in their career ? that was one of my points, and I got through it.?

Williams? shoulder injury was not listed on the Packers? injury report last season, apparently because Williams never considered missing any time with it. But he acknowledged that he?s not as good a cornerback with a bad shoulder because he can?t jam receivers at the line of scrimmage the way he?d like.

?We press a lot in Green Bay so I wasn?t able to do it at that point, wasn?t able to do anything,? Williams said. ?So it was kind of hard to sit back, because when you?re off you?re kind of giving away some throws. You don?t want to give up anything. So you have to kind of compensate your game for the injury, but like I said, I got through it and just continue to progress. Like I said, I had nerve damage, so that?s one thing that takes time. It could be a year, it could be two years to come back. And it?s made progress, but it?s still coming. So it?s one of those deals to where my shoulder?s still getting better at this point. I?m still working on it and hopefully it comes all the way back this year.?

In a sign of how much his teammates appreciated him fighting through that injury, the Packers voted Williams the winner of their Ed Block Courage Award.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/06/new-challenge-coming-for-redskins-trademark/related/

joe biden michelle obama lupe fiasco jason wu jason wu Mavericks Surf Stonewall

MTV Movie Awards: Was 2012 The Year Of The Dude?

It's not rare for a specific year at the movies to have an overarching theme. The similarities in the biggest films of the year are often easiest to distinguish during awards season, when we get a nice snapshot of the year that was, and 2012 was no different. Cast your vote for the 2013 MTV [...]

Source: http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2013/03/06/mtv-movie-awards-best-movie/

kirby sarah palin cbi the shins atomic clock daylight savings time john mccain

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Would You Pay For Ad-Free YouTube?

Reports from both Fortune and The Guardian indicate that Google is planning to start a subscription music service like Spotify soon. But the craziest little nugget buried in the reports: YouTube might be getting an ad-free option. Imagine no more Vevo ads. Hello, holy grail. More »


Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/Bce_9SHadis/would-you-pay-for-ad+free-youtube

Remember Remember The 5th Of November African painted dogs What Time Do Polls Open Krysten Ritter v for vendetta Time Voting Locations

Concern over gene patents | Nouse

Eleanor Walton reports on a ruling on a gene patent in Australia that could change the landscape of patent law and genetic research

mr. t in dc

mr. t in dc

The code of life is patentable; according to a recent ruling by the Australian federal court. On 15th February, Justice John Nicholas ruled that Myriad Genetics would be able to keep and enforce their Australian patent of a gene linked to breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1, much to the furore of many cancer charities and scientists worldwide.

The patenting of genes has caused great divide between those that believe that companies should be able to protect their investment in genetics and those that believe that being able to patent something that naturally occurs in the human body is unpractical, and in the case of BRCA1, can lead to patient harm.

Myriad first filed for US patents on BRCA1 and the closely related BRCA2 back in 1999, and have also filed patents in Europe and Australia, most of which have been granted by the relevant patent offices.

Charities and patient groups have been trying to overturn these ever since. The result of the Australia court case is likely to reflect the outcome of outstanding appeals against Myriad across the globe. This issue will be played out again in America?s Supreme Court on 15 April, between Myriad Genetics Inc. and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

The result of this patent gives the company the monopoly on genetic screening in countries where they enforce their patent. It is this fact which is the most worrying for cancer charities. So far, public outcry has prevented Myriad enforcing this in Australia, although there is no legal reason why they cannot. In countries like America, where Myriad do impose their legal rights, all tests are performed in their Salt Lake City lab and can cost between $300 and $3000 for each test, depending on the level of scrutiny. Without any competition for tests, these prices may be inflated.

However, genetic testing is still fallible and it has been reported that tests provided by Myriad Genetics still misses 10-20% of BRCA mutations. Myriad?s monopoly means that people cannot get a second opinion on inconclusive tests, leaving those considering prophylactic mastectomy more confused.

So why is BRCA so important? DNA is a form of nucleic acid which codes all of the information necessary to build and orchestrate the day-to-day running of cells. Damage to DNA can cause all kinds of chaos for cells and trigger the death of that cell to protect the rest of the organism. Cancer is the result of failure of multiple safe guards leading to uncontrolled cell division.

BRCA1 encodes a protein that helps to fix damaged DNA. Eradicating it increases the risk that DNA damage will go unchecked resulting in cancers. According to Myriad?s website, a damaged or mutant copy of BRCA genes give a person an ?87% chance of developing breast cancer and up to 44% for developing ovarian cancer by age 70.?

The main reason Justice John Nicholas upheld the patent is because what they have patented is the isolated nucleic acid, something that could not exist without human intervention. This was despite his statement that the nucleic acid has ?precisely the same chemical composition and structure as that found in the cells of some human beings? and that the techniques used to extract the gene are not unique.

New Scientist described isolating DNA in this way as ?snapping a leaf from a tree? as the ?process is so commonplace, it doesn?t represent a substantially artificial state of affairs?.

The patent covers all forms of isolated nucleic acid, including naturally modified forms and shorter versions. This means the patents affect both rights to screening tests and external scientific research into BRAC mutations. Although the Australian government has had the fortitude to add an ?experimental use defence? to shield research, this protection is not universal.

While Myriad Genetics is not currently stopping researchers from working on BRCA1 & BRCA2, it no longer shares its own information with the scientific community, slowing down the research process. Additionally, if another group were to identify a detrimental mutation of BRCA in the course of their research they cannot inform the individual due to patent law (providing that the samples have not been anonymised under ethic laws).

If the trend in international patent law continues as predicted, the issue of who owns your genes is likely to become increasing complicated.

Source: http://www.nouse.co.uk/2013/03/05/concern-over-gene-patents/

good morning america jon hamm jon hamm kim kardashian law school rankings ncaa bracket predictions jeff foxworthy heather morris