AHMADINEJAD VOWS U.S & ISRAEL WILL SOON BE “ANNIHILATED”: Israeli leader says war may be “unavoidable”

http://joelrosenberg.blogspot.com/

AHMADINEJAD VOWS U.S & ISRAEL WILL SOON BE “ANNIHILATED”: Israeli leader says war may be “unavoidable”

 

UPDATED: Using some of his most apocalyptic rhetoric yet, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is vowing that the United States and Israel will soon be “annihilated,” even as he refuses to abandon Iran’s nuclear program. Marking the 19th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: “Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.” He also insisted that “I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.”….In Japan this week, Ahmadinejad explicitly ruled out the notion of Iran halting its uranium enrichment program…..During the same visit, Ahmadinejad urged the Japanse to prepare with Iran for a world without the United States, echoing an address he delivered to the Muslim world back in October 2005…..“The US domination is on the fall,” Ahmadinejad said ni a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukada earlier this week. “Iran and Japan as two civilized and influential nations should get ready for a world minus the U.S.”….So, are Israeli leaders planning to launch a massive air attack on Iran before the end of the year? Or are they trying to persuade the U.S. to do it before President Bush leaves office? Perhaps both. Which underscores the point I’ve been making for some time — while we intensify our efforts to pray for peace in the epicenter, we also need to be intensifying our efforts to prepare for war….“An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks ‘unavoidable’ given the apparent failure of Western sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential,” Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said Friday, according to Reuters report. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” said Mofaz.“It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should United Nations Security Council sanctions fail to achieve the desired abandonment of nuclear development by Tehran. Iran, which denies seeking nuclear weapons, has defied Western pressure to abandon its uranium enrichment projects. The leadership in Tehran has also threatened to retaliate against Israel — believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal — and U.S. targets in the Gulf for any attack on Iranian turf. Mofaz also said in the interview that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, ‘would disappear before Israel does.’”….“[T]he White House sidestepped questions about the Israeli threat to attack Iranian nuclear sites, saying it would not respond to hypothetical question,” reported Ynet News in Israel. “‘The world community, I believe, is united in the desire to make sure that Iran doesn’t develop a nuclear weapon and have a severe threat that we don’t want to see come to fruition,’ White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters. But asked specifically whether the United States would support an Israeli strike on Iran, he said, ‘I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals. I think we’ve been pretty clear in recent weeks and months about our approach on Iran.’”…Meanwhile, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is warning that Israel may soon be forced to launch a major military operation in Gaza to stop thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles which continue raining down on the southern cities and towns of the Jewish State….Reports the Jerusalem Post: “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert returned to Israel from the US on Friday morning and, echoing the previous day’s remarks by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, hinted that Gaza’s day of reckoning was fast approaching. ‘We are constantly evaluating between the possibility [of a deal] to reach complete quiet and the lack of a possibility of reaching such an agreement,’ he said. ‘The absence of the latter option will draw us closer to an operation that will be much harsher and tougher against the [terror] groups..’..’According to the information we have now, the pendulum is closer to a decision to embark on a harsh operation in the Gaza Strip than it is to an agreement with the terror organizations,’ continued Olmert. Olmert’s comments came a day after Amnon Rozenberg, 51, a father of three, was killed by a Gaza shell that hit the Nirlat paint factory at Kibbutz Nir Oz. The Security Cabinet is set to convene on Tuesday to discuss a response to the incessant attacks from Gaza. Olmert told an Israel Radio reporter that Israel was exploring all the options available in order to achieve complete quiet for southerners without the need to enter into a violent and severe confrontation with terror groups in the Strip, adding, however, that there was a distinct possibility Israel would need to embark on an offensive and extensive operation against Palestinian terror groups.”

Read what some kids are taking home from school.

The Execution of Britain

The Execution of Britain

Created 2008-06-05 12:14

I will defend all Western and indeed infidel countries against Islamic Jihad, but I admit I feel especially close to Britain, not just because of the long cultural and historic ties between Scandinavia and the British Isles, but also because I appreciate the good that has come out of British culture. It makes me all the more sad to see how humiliated this great nation is today, and how many natives feel forced to leave what once was their country.

In May 2008, 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped in a routine check. The police officer noticed an English flag on the parcel shelf and ordered him to remove it because it was “racist towards immigrants.” One of the first things foreign powers usually do when they invade a country is to ban its national symbols. The fact that you can no longer run your flag in parts of Britain – and the Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc. – shows that the country is de facto under occupation, not just by Muslims, but by Multiculturalists and Globalists of all kinds.

In an essay entitled Put away the flags, Howard Zinn, the Leftist author of the best-selling book A People’s History of the United States, writes that “On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?” He concludes that “We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.”

The problem is, rights can only be protected by sovereign states upholding their territorial integrity. How is “the global community” or “the human race” going to protect Mr. Zinn’s liberties? For a free society to function, the state has to pass laws in the best interest of its citizenry and enforce these within its territory. Otherwise, self-government is impossible. In order to defend this territory from outside aggression, people need to identify with it as something more than just a random space on a map. By removing sovereign states, you remove the very foundations of a free society. Maybe some groups actually desire this?

The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the European Union should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. Since the EU involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are thus opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims at a time when native Europeans already feel like aliens in their own cities. It’s the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization and it has been planned for many years, as those who have read Bat Ye’or‘s writings about Eurabia will know.

I believe native Europeans should seriously consider creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement to protect our interests. Our authorities currently reward those who use violence and punish those who don’t. Native Europeans are ignored if we protest peacefully against mass immigration or the expanding pan-European superstate. Muslims get concessions while we are treated with increasing hostility from those who are supposed to be our leaders.

Muslims in Jordan, a country that takes part in the Barcelona process of “Euro-Mediterranean cooperation” and thus a likely future EU member, recently sued the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad for “blasphemy” against Islam, a “crime” that potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia law. Not too many years into the future, we could face a situation where citizens of, say, Denmark could be arrested by their own authorities and handed over to be tried for “crimes against Islam” in one of the Arab “partner countries” of the EU. If this sounds unthinkable to you, look at the case of the Dutch cartoonist who was recently arrested by a dozen police officers for the crime of publishing cartoons insulting immigrants.

PM Tony Blair expressed “profound relief” over the end of a hostage crisis in 2007 where British soldiers had been kidnapped by the Islamic Republic of Iran, telling the mullahs that “we bear you no ill will.” Blair will be remembered as one of the worst leaders in history. Even Chamberlain didn’t flood his country with enemies and present this as something positive. Mass immigration has been going on for decades but showed a spectacular increase under Blair’s and Brown’s Labour regime. The spike was so powerful that it is tempting to speculate whether the authorities had deliberately set out to dismantle their own nation.

According to newspaper columnist Leo McKinstry, the English are being turned into second-class citizens in their own country: “England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.”

Similar things are happening all over the Western world, not just in England or Britain, but Britain is definitely one of the worst countries, yes. I’ve been debating with people which country is most likely to get the first Eurabian civil war triggered by mass immigration. There are several possible candidates, but my money is on Britain, because the anger among ordinary citizens is only rivaled by the brutal political repression tactics.

In a survey published in April 2008, one in three medical doctors in Britain said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. At the same time, Muslim men with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits. The “welfare state” now means that the natives should watch grandma die because she’s getting old anyway and we need the money to pay Muslims with multiple wives and numerous children so that they can feel comfortable while colonizing the country.

Also in April 2008, David T, a stunned dad and his little boy, were banned from swimming at a popular public sports center in east London because this was a “Muslim men-only swimming” session. Several Christian priests have been physically attacked by Muslims in east London, leading one bishop to worry about “no-go-zones” for Christian in some parts of the country. In early June, a Muslim police community support officer ordered Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. They were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. In March 2008, two Islamic terrorists were moved to different prisons after complaining that their fellow inmates were “too white.” Dhiren Barot had masterminded a radioactive bomb plot involving limousines packed with nails and explosives and Omar Khyam plotted to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.

How do native Brits react to this? Well, some get angry, as they should. Bryan Cork, 49, was jailed for six months for “racist slurs” after he had shouted insults at Muslim worshippers outside a Cumbria mosque, including “proud to be British” and “go back to where you came from.” This was after the London Jihadist bombings in 2005. Judge Paul Batty told him that racism in any form would not be tolerated. I hear much talk about “national suicide” these days, but Mr. Cork apparently had no desire to commit national suicide, he was held down by his own authorities for refusing to accept the organized destruction of his nation. What we are dealing with here isn’t suicide; it’s an execution of an entire nation, perhaps an entire civilization, the greatest civilization ever created by man.

Even children face this kind of ideological intimidation. Codie Stott, a teenage British schoolgirl, was forced to spend hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers for “racism.” She had objected, in the mildest possible terms, to being placed during class with a group of South Asian immigrants who talked among themselves in a language she didn’t understand. For this, she was dragged to the local police station and had her fingerprints and photograph taken. 18-year-old Jamie who has Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old was charged with “racism” after an argument with an immigrant. Meanwhile, the UK is being brought to its knees in an epidemic of violent crime and white native girls get raped by immigrants in spectacular numbers, just like all over Western Europe.

Why do people still take this lying down? I wonder about that sometimes. Maybe they feel that their votes don’t matter and have resigned into a state of quiet apathy. Since many are dependent upon government support and being branded a “bigot” could cause you to lose your livelihood, people still have too much to lose by openly opposing these policies. Such subtle blackmail can be quite effective in suppressing dissent. This could, however, change rapidly in the event of a serious economic downturn. Another crucial element is confusion. People are deliberately kept in the dark by the media and the authorities regarding the full scale of what they are facing. Combined with Muslim violence and intimidation of critics, we have a climate of fear and confusion. People who are scared and confused can be easily controlled.

I’ve recently been re-reading the books of American evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, especially Guns, Germs, and Steel. He has some points, but his most important flaw is his complete failure to explain how the Greater Middle East went from being a global center of civilization, which it was in ancient times, to being a global center of anti-civilization. This was not caused by smallpox or because zebras are more difficult to domesticate than water buffaloes. It was caused by Islam. Diamond, with his emphasis on historical materialism, fails to explain the rise of the West and especially why English, not Arabic, Chinese or Mayan, became the global lingua franca. What’s so special about those rainy and foggy islands?

As Australian author Keith Windschuttle told a New Zealand audience, “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena.” He warns that the survival of this great achievement now depends entirely “on whether we have the intelligence to understand their true value and the will to face down their enemies.”

No other civilization on earth ever created an equivalent of the European university system. One of the most important reasons why Europe surpassed China during the early modern age is more political freedom and free speech. The reason why English became the dominant language is because Britain and its offspring enjoyed great political liberty even by Western standards, and a corresponding economic dynamism.

Probably no empire in world history has been more benevolent than the British Empire, yet a report from February 2008 recommended that patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous.” I suppose Islamic history isn’t, with almost 1400 years of brutal Jihad warfare on several continents?

I’m sure the British are being told that the ongoing mass immigration is a result of their “colonial history.” I live in a country with no colonial history, yet we are still subject to mass immigration. We are also being told that we should allow Pakistani or Nigerian flags to celebrate our Constitution Day because this will be “good for integration.” This has nothing to do with colonialism. So what does it have to do with? Well, I’m starting to wonder whether it has something to do with the Western love affair with free speech and political liberty. Those who desire a world where society is regulated and everybody does what the authorities tell them to do fear this Western preference for political self-determination.

If we look at the West during the past thousand years, we have generally enjoyed an unusually high degree of freedom and power sharing. This has been the case more in some periods and countries than in others, but in the big scheme of things this remains true. However, although this arrangement has been good for our civilization as a whole, some of our elites apparently are jealous of the more authoritarian system in other cultures. They want to turn the West into a “normal,” meaning more corrupt and less free, civilization, aided by the forces of globalization. We are witnessing rising nepotism, and perhaps those at the top desire this.

The political elites no longer believe in stupid things such as borders, cultures and national sovereignty. Islam upsets their world-view, so they ignore it and move on with their project of globalization, anyway. The most hardcore Leftists actively side with Islam because its hatred of the West and its concept of a global umma coincide with their own globalist outlook. Yes, I know that Socrates stated “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world,” but I don’t think he meant it quite as literally as Western elites do now. Socrates didn’t have an entire village of Muslims transplanted to his street during the space of a single generation, and he didn’t have his daughters or female relatives raped by Muslims in his own country.

Our traditional freedoms were the result of a specific culture, developed over centuries of hard struggles. Maybe other cultures have to go through similar struggles of their own to achieve this, and some will perhaps never be able to do so. We should protect our freedoms at home before we try to export them, and we should protect them by preserving the European-derived culture which created them.

Our enemies, internal and external, want to destroy the Western world because we represent liberty, and they want to destroy Britain in particular because it gave birth to the most powerful pro-liberty culture within the Western tradition. I hope the British can regain their strength and throw off their traitor class, but they need to do so soon. We cannot allow the greatest nation in human history to be destroyed by the planet’s most barbaric cultures. The British people, like their Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish and Danish counterparts, have every right to desire self-determination and self-preservation, and limit or even completely halt immigration as they see fit to ensure this. Those who say otherwise are evil, and need to be exposed as such. The Western world is under attack by a global Islamic Jihad. To support continued mass immigration of Muslims in this situation should be regarded as high treason, and punished as such.

 
See also:

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement
, 6 April 2008

 


Why Islamists Persecute the Baha’is

Why Islamists Persecute the Baha’is Print
Friday, 06 June 2008
This is the best of times and the worst of times, as the saying goes. Humanity is struggling on the one hand to free itself from the vestiges of its barbaric past while embarking on an exhilarating new way of life. It is the same story. The old is doggedly fighting the new on many fronts. And the new in this case is a huge paradigm shift of ideas and beliefs that demands total eradication of all.  This has kept mankind in a quagmire of wars, injustice and misery.In this realm of ideas, religions play pivotal roles and the old and the new clash, often violently. Ideas and beliefs are our software that determines how we behave. And the software of the past is no longer working because it is out of phase with the needs of the time as well as infected with destructive viruses.

Even a cursory look is enough to show that the software of Islam, over time, is so greatly manipulated by numberless sects, sub-sects and schools that it can hardly be considered a unitary belief system. And people are their ideas. Any assault on beliefs and ideas provokes the assailed to action.

This clash of beliefs is the reason for Islamists to unleash their power against the upstart iconoclastic Baha’i faith. In fact, the Baha’is revere Islam and respect all other religions. Baha’i faith has many teachings in common with Islam, so much so that some call it “Islam light,” because, while it retains some of Islam’s principles, it also abrogates a number of outdated and counterproductive Islamic laws and practices. Baha’is say their faith is not a wrecking ball that aims to demolish the schoolhouse of God called religion: a badly divided schoolhouse where everyone claims to worship the same God, yet keep oppressing, fighting and killing each other in the name of the same God.

Baha’is have a very rosy and possibly unrealistic view of humanity. They say that their goal is for every human being, irrespective of any and all considerations, to be granted all his God-given rights and be allowed to worship his creator the way he sees fit. They have a sort of lovey-dovey vision of the world where everyone will live as a valued member of the larger human family. Apparently they have hit a responsive enough cord with some 6-7 million people of the world from every ethnic, religious and national stratum. This vision may not convert the remaining 6-7 billion people any time soon, but it sure beats hands down the Islamists’ idea to force the world under their so called Ummeh with its stone-age shariah law.

Baha’is believe that God sends his teachers to his school, from time to time with new lessons, to help advance the people to a higher and higher level of humanness. Trouble is, they believe, that people cling to the old school-work and the old teacher and doggedly resist accepting the new teacher and his teachings. Baha’is think of God’s prophets as renovators who come from time to time to tear down walls of separation and to bring God’s children together in an open-air general classroom out of their own foolishly walled-in dungeons of exclusivity and ignorance.

Below are some of the Baha’i teachings that clash heads on with Islam’s and provoke the Islamists to do all they can to destroy the new religion.

* The people of God. Muslims believe that they are the chosen people of Allah and recognize no other system of belief as legitimate. Baha’is believe that all people are the chosen people of God: that there is only one God, one religion of God, and one people of God, the entire human race.

* Pearls on a string. Muslims contend that Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets; that God sent his best and final messenger to mankind, and any other claimant is an imposter worthy of death. Baha’is believe that God has always sent his teachers with new and updated lessons to educate humanity and shall do so in the future. There have been numberless divine teachers in the course of human history who have appeared to various people. They say that these teachers are like pearls on a string and that Baha’u’llah is the latest, but not the last pearl.

* Independent thinking. Blind imitation is anathema to Baha’is. Baha’is believe that the human mind and the gift of reason should guide the person in making decisions about all matters. To this end, they place a premium on education and independent investigation of truth.

Baha’is consider the education of women as important as that of men, since women are the early teachers of children and can play their valuable part by being themselves educated. By contrast, Muslims look to religious authorities for guidance and often deprive women of education and independent thinking.

In recognition of the importance of independent thinking, no one is born Baha’i. Once one is born to a Muslim, he is considered Muslim for life. If he decides to leave Islam, he is labeled apostate and, apostates are automatically condemned to death. By contrast, every child born in a Baha’i family is required to make his own independent decision regarding whether or not he wishes to be a Baha’i. Freedom to choose and independent thinking are cherished values of the Baha’is, in stark contrast to that of the closed-minded Islamists.

* Religion or science.
Baha’is believe that truth transcends all boundaries. Scientific and religious truth emanate from the same universal source. They are like the two sides of the same coin. To Baha’is, science and religion are as two wings of a bird that enable humanity’s flight toward the summit of its potential; that any religious belief that contradicts science is superstition. Muslims believe that their religious scripture and dogma, irrespective of their proven falsehood, are superior to that of science.

* Gender equality.
Muslims hold the view, expressly stated in the Qur’an, that men are rulers over women. Baha’is reject this notion and subscribe to the unconditional equality of rights for the two sexes. This Baha’i principle emancipates one half of humanity from the status of subservient domestic to that of a fully participating and self-actualized human. It aims to put an end to the heartless exploitation of women and demands that women be treated with all due respect under the law.

* Participatory decision-making.
Islam, by its very nature, is patriarchal and authoritarian. Baha’is believe in the value of decision making through the practice of consultation; a process where everyone, irrespective of any and all considerations, has a voice in making decisions. This participatory decision-making principle abrogates a major prerogative of Islamic clergy who have been dictating matters to their liking and advantage. Also, at all levels of society, including the family, all affected members have the opportunity, even the responsibility, to make their views known without fear. Baha’i teachings clearly emphasize this commitment to a democratic decision-making in their scripture, “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”

* World-embracing outlook.
Baha’is love their native countries, yet extend that same love to the entire planet and its people. Baha’is believe that love has no limit and need not have limits. One can love his country and love the world at the same time. This love of the world is frequently used as a pretense by the Islamists to accuse the Baha’is of Iran as traitors to their own homeland. It is for this reason that the present mullahs ruling Iran falsely claim that the Baha’is are agents of the Zionist Israel and its American sponsor.

* Eradication of prejudice.
Prejudice of any type is alien to the Baha’i faith and severely undermines its pivotal principle of the oneness of humanity. Muslims are notorious when it comes to prejudice. Prejudice against others is thoroughly exploited by the Islamists. In contrast, Baha’i scriptures say, “…again, as to religious, racial, national and political bias: all these prejudices strike at the very root of human life; one and all they beget bloodshed, and the ruination of the world. So long as these prejudices survive, there will be continuous and fearsome wars.”

* Abolition of priesthood.
A major point of conflict involves the abolition of the clergy. Baha’is believe that humanity has matured enough that it no longer needs a cast of professional clergy to serve peoples’ religious needs. By one stroke, this Baha’i teaching puts hundreds of thousands of mullahs and imams out of business and arouses the powerful cast of the do-nothing clergy to fight to retain their highly privileged parasitic positions.

It is imperative for the free people of the world to defend freedom of conscience, including freedom of religion, irrespective of one’s own personal belief. It is for this reason that as a person who is not a Baha’i, I find it my solemn duty to speak up on behalf of a peaceful people, severely-persecuted by the savage Islamists.  

Obama’s Gitmo Delegation

Obama’s Gitmo Delegation

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election 2008: It’s fitting that an ex-Muslim chaplain who once insisted there weren’t any terrorists at Gitmo is a delegate for Barack Obama, who’s itching to shut down Gitmo.


Read More: Election 2008


 

James “Yousef” Yee, a former Army Muslim chaplain charged with espionage while serving at Gitmo, will represent Washington state for Obama at the Democratic National Convention, where he’ll likely have a center-stage speaking role.

The two are a perfect match. Obama promises to not only close Gitmo, but “reform” the USA Patriot Act. He apparently plans to take those steps in between tea parties with state sponsors of terror.

Since the Pentagon in 2004 dropped charges against him, Yee has become a poster boy of the anti-war movement. He’s cashed in on his ignominy with a book claiming he was the target of “sheer bigotry” and was silenced for exposing “systemic” abuse of prisoners at Gitmo.

One of his biggest boosters in Washington is Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the Muslim convert who insisted on taking the oath of office on the Quran. Ellison is an Obama superdelegate who’s been doing advance work for Obama’s planned tea parties in the Middle East.

Last month, he told an Egyptian weekly that Yee’s “case was dropped because there was no case to begin with.”

Nice try. Here are the facts:

1. Yee was caught returning to the U.S. with maps of Gitmo prison facilities, among other classified materials, and was arrested at a U.S. airport.

2. He was charged with espionage, mishandling classified documents and lying to investigators.

3. He served hard time in a South Carolina stockade.

4. Two of his Muslim cronies at Gitmo were convicted of stealing or mishandling classified documents.

5. Far from being exonerated, the military dropped charges against him to protect national security.

Guantanamo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who originally accused Yee of spying, explained that there were “national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence” if the case moved to trial.

There’s no question that Yee, a captain who converted to Islam, was sympathetic to al-Qaida and Taliban captives at Gitmo.

At times, in fact, he acted more like a defense attorney for the terrorists. He complained that guards subjected them to cruel “abuse” and “psychological torture.”

Waterboarding? Electric shock? No, they committed the sadistic act of mishandling copies of the Quran that Yee had made sure each inmate received.

He also saw to it that each copy of the Quran came with a surgical mask to cradle the Muslim holy book above ground to keep it safe and clean.

In addition, Yee convinced his superiors to provide the Muslim prisoners with prayer beads, prayer oils, prayer caps and up to half a dozen books on Islam from the library, which he stocked with some $26,000 worth of Arabic and English titles.

Thanks to him, the terrorists have been able to brush up on their jihad as they await repatriation to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan.

But not to worry, Yee says, he didn’t see any terrorists there. “It’s safe to say there weren’t any prisoners who could be definitely connected to hard-core terrorism,” he recently told BBC Radio.

What’s scary is, the Democrat presidential candidate he’s supporting seems to agree with the fairy tale, which is why Obama has also earned the endorsement of the lawyers for Gitmo detainees.

Maybe they’ll get to speak in Denver, too — an entire Gitmo delegation for Obama.

 

Israeli PM raises spectre of military operation in Gaza

Obama: Racist & Terrorist Friends, Stupid Wife, Anti-American Pastor

Israeli Minister Says ‘We Will Attack Iran’ If Nuke Program Continues

The Fine Art of Blaming America for EverythingEd Lasky

The Fine Art of Blaming America for Everything

Ed Lasky

The source of the liberal, far-left mindset, blame America, counsels isolationism in the face of threats, standing down instead of standing up for people in distress who labor under dictatorial rule. This is not a policy that John F. Kennedy would follow. He promised “America would bear any burden, meet any hardship. oppose any foe, in order to assure the surviavl and success of liberty”
After all , Barack Obama himself blamed Iranian attacks on US soldiers in Iraq on America being in Iran’s neighborhood ; has counseled listening to the grievances of Muslim tyrants via a Muslim nation summit should he become President; has talked of the legitimate grievances of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Now the Los Angeles Times blamese America for Hugo Chavez’s dictatorship?

Perhaps Chavez’s lust for power would have led him to this point regardless of external events. Yet because the intelligence decree is designed to minimize assassination or coup plots and other national security threats, Washington’s culpability in fueling his paranoia cannot be overlooked.

This is how the Bush administration’s failed policy in South America — sending guns and military equipment while ignoring the desperate poverty of the masses, treating the region’s elected leaders with disdain and, yes, tacitly supporting a 2002 coup attempt against Chavez — has played out. Instead of agile diplomacy,Washington has delivered blunders, bluster and gaffes that confound diplomatic efforts and exacerbate tensions. The intrusion of a U.S. Navy jet into Venezuela’s airspace is one recent example. Venezuela says the jet was on a spy mission to test whether its presence would be detected; Pentagon officials say it experienced navigational difficulties. What’s certain is that the incident gave credence to Chavez’s allegations of U.S. plotting.

The best course now for Washington is to do nothing. Venezuelans beat back Chavez’s first power grab, defeating his constitutional referendum in December, and there is already vigorous opposition to the intelligence decree. For the U.S. to interfere would only validate Chavez’s suspicions and weaken the opposition.

Washington is “culpable” for Chavez’s “lust for power?”

This goes far beyond blaming America first and enters territory usually reserved for the truly paranoid whackos among us.

Considering the source, perhaps we shouldn’t be so surprised.

 

Global Whining vs. the Truth

Global Whining vs. the Truth

By Brian Sussman

“105° tomorrow?  We’ll be sending you out live,” the television producer informed me.

Like most TV Meteorologists, I loathed the heat wave live-remotes.  I would much rather work in a controlled environment, complete with air conditioning and a green Chroma-key screen.  And during extreme weather events, the studio lent itself to professionalism rather than playing on emotion.

 

“Let me guess, the bank in Walnut Creek?” I said sarcastically.  I had been through this drill many times.

 

“Perfect location.  Plus, a lot of viewers with ratings meters out there.”

 

Walnut Creek is an upscale town 30 miles east of San Francisco.  It is sheltered from the cooling influences of the coast and the Bay by a modest mountain range.  As a result, in the summer that region can bake.  The bank not only referenced the name of the town, but had a thermometer that was several degrees off, thanks to the heat absorbing black asphalt on the adjacent multi-lane street and the pavement of the nearby parking lot.  The producer knew 105° would easily read 110°.  On air, I always quickly explained the reason for the soaring temperature reading for our audience, but it was not enough.  The misleading visual message was absolutely clear:  110° in Walnut Creek-another sign of climate doom!  No doubt about it, the climate was under assault.  It had to be global warming.

No, it’s global whining.

Even without the bogus bank thermometer, a heat wave-or even a hot year-does not indicate global warming.  More important, such weather does not point to any warming created by mankind’s utilization of fossil fuels.  But telling that to the stooges on Capital Hill who are debating energy policies like Cap and Trade is like trying to tell the TV producer not to mislead the audience by sending the weatherguy to the bank thermometer in Walnut Creek.
           

The world’s most thorough historical temperature record is found amongst the 1,221 official, government-sanctioned weather monitoring stations that have been recognized as a part of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).  Most of the stations within this network have records that date back to the 1800s.  The beauty of this system is that in so many cases the environs where the thermometer is housed has changed little over the decades, providing critical data to determine major long-term trends. 
In some instances thermometers within the Network have been encroached upon by urban sprawl and their readings notably have trended upward. However, for the locations that have remained relatively stable, the temperature record hardly reeks of global warming.       

A perfect illustration is found when comparing the USHCN temperature records from Central Park in New York City to those taken a mere 55 miles away at West Point.

Readings in Central Park have been regularly measured since 1835 when the city’s population had just surpassed 200,000.  Today, surrounded by a metropolis of eight million people filled with some of the world’s tallest buildings, a massive underground subway system, an extensive sewer system, power generation facilities, and millions of cars, buses, and taxis, the Central Park temperatures have been greatly altered by urbanization.  And, as one might expect, the Central Park historical temperature plot illustrates an incredible warming increase of nearly 4°F.

The West Point readings have also been meticulously maintained since 1835, but the environment surrounding the thermometer shelter has experienced significantly less manmade interference then the one in Central Park.  The West Point readings illustrate a significantly lower warming increase of only about 0.6°F over the same 170-year period. This is remarkable given that the year 1835 is considered to be the last gasp of the Little Ice Age — a significant period of global cooling that stretched back several hundred years.

Cries of out of control global warming become more dubious when one looks at the hottest decade in modern history, the 1930s.

 

The summer of 1930 marked the beginning of the longest drought of the 20th Century.  From June 1 to August 3, Washington, D.C. experienced twenty-one days of high temperatures of at least 100°.  During that record-shattering heat wave, there were maximum temperatures set on nine different days that remain unbroken more than three-quarters-of-a-century later.  In 1934, bone dry regions stretched from New York, across the Great Plains, and into the Southwest.  A “dust bowl” covered about 50 million acres in the south-central plains during the winter of 1935-1936.  In some areas, the drought never broke until 1938.
According to the National Climatic Data Center, 1936 experienced the hottest overall summer on record in the continental United States.  In fact, out of 50 states, 22 recorded their all-time high temperature during the 1930s, including:

 

  • 110º Millsboro, Delaware, July 21, 1930
  • 100º Pahala, Hawaii, April 27, 1931
  • 109º Monticello, Florida, June 29, 1931
  • 118º Keokuk, Iowa, July 20, 1934
  • 111º Phoenixsville, Pennsylvania, July 10, 1936
  • 120º Seymour, Texas, August 12, 1936
  • 121º Steele, North Dakota, July 6, 1936
  • 117º Medicine Lake, Montana, July 5, 1937.

 

One might make the argument that the incredible rise in temperatures in the 1930s coincided with the first notable increase in CO2, thus, the gas can be linked to global warming  — but not honestly.  While levels of carbon dioxide continued to increase during the following three decades, temperatures actually decreased.

According to NASA, the average temperature on the planet between 1940 and 1970 dropped .6°F.  By the mid-Seventies the media was abuzz with notions of the next Ice Age.  In its June 24, 1974 edition, Time magazine warned,

 

“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age”

 

But those warning of global cooling soon became disappointed, as from 1970 to 1998 there was a slight increase in temperature (.34°F), noted in both USGCN record and verified by satellite observations (which only became available in the Seventies).

Since 1998 there has been no additional warming and indeed, a global dip in temperature began in 2007 and has continued into this year.

All this said, when examining the data from the most trusted sites within the Historical Network beginning in 1930 to present, there has actually been a net-decrease in temperature.  This decrease is noted in all quarters of the continental United States.

Thus, the biggest chunk of global warming that has supposedly coincided with the Industrial Revolution and the increase in evil carbon dioxide, mostly occurred after the Little Ice Age and prior to 1940.

 

And Congress needs to understand this: carbon dioxide is not our foe.  It is a fertilizer that is essential for life on planet earth; it is no more a poison or pollutant than oxygen or water.

CO2 is also the byproduct of progress.  The cars that allow us to drive to important places like work, worship, our kids’ sporting events, the beach or the mountains, run on a very efficient portable form of energy known as gasoline, derived from petroleum.  Our homes are heated, cooled, and lighted more often than not from natural gas.  Companies that make the products essential to our lives also rely on these two forms of energy to create and deliver their wares.  The carbon dioxide produced from these forms of energy is identical to the gas that is gently being emitted from your lungs as you read right now. 

 

You are not expelling pollution: you are contributing to our planet’s carbon cycle. And the earth has a variety of built in mechanisms to recycle your CO2.

Carbon dioxide accounts for only slightly more than 3/10000ths of our planet’s atmosphere.  And what percentage of the miniscule amount of gas is produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossil fuels?  According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, only 3.207% — well within historical norms.  And how much has CO2 increased in the atmosphere over the past 150 years?  Approximately 35%.  

In his must-read eco-thriller, State of Fear, Michael Crichton creates a brilliant visual to assist us in wrapping our minds around the components of Earth’s atmosphere.  On page 387, he likens the atmosphere to a football field.  The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen.  Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line.  The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires.  Three of the remaining four inches is crammed with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane.  And the last inch?  Carbon dioxide.  One inch out of a hundred-yard field!  At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line.  And the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities?  Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.
Are you still worried about the dangers of CO2?

 

Me, neither.

And historically, CO2 has been significantly higher than today.  In data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago.  Many theorize that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such sizes because of the indescribable abundance of carbon fed foliage and overall atmospheric conditions present during that era.  Certainly the SUV could not be blamed for those high levels of CO2.  Dinosaur flatulence, perhaps?

Despite the cries of Congress, the Earth does not have a fever and carbon dioxide is no more dangerous than the breath of life.  During the fall elections we need to cap the rhetoric from some of these political whiners by trading them in for people who know a good thermometer when they see it.

Back to you in the studio…

 

Brian Sussman is a radio talk show host on KSFO-AM in San Francisco and formerly an award-winning television meteorologist.  His forthcoming book, “Global Whining, a Denier’s Handbook” is being represented by WordServe Literary Group, Ltd. 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers