|Teach Your Children Hate|
|By Christopher Orlet|
|Published 2/13/2007 12:05:33 AM|
|Teach Your Children Hate|
|By Christopher Orlet|
|Published 2/13/2007 12:05:33 AM|
Bosnian Muslim goes on a killing spree in US mallPolice have identified the victims shot at Trolley Square on Monday, as well as the man believed to be the shooter.
Killed were Jeffrey Walker, 52; Vanessa Quinn, 29; Teresa Ellis, 29; Brad Frantz, 24; and Kirsten Hinckley, 15.
Hospitalized were Allen Walker, 16, son of Jeffrey Walker; Carolyn Tuft, 44; Shawn Munns, 34; and Stacy Hansen, 53.
The 18-year-old man who shot and killed at least five people Monday night has been identified as Sulejmen Talovic, a Bosnian refugee who lived in Salt Lake City.
Little additional information was released about Talovic.
The Bosnian community, which numbers about 3,000 in Utah, planned a news conference later this afternoon.
Talovic parked his car in the west parking lot and walked into the mall, encountering two people, whom he shot. Then he walked further into the mall and shot a woman, said Police Chief Chris Burbank.
He then walked to a gift shop and shot five people. He shot several other people before he was gunned down by an off-duty Ogden police officer assisted by four Salt Lake City police officers, Burbank said.
He had a backpack that carried numerous rounds of ammunition as well as a .38-caliber handgun, said the chief.
Police have no motive in the killing.
Iraq says to close borders with Syria, Iran as part of the plan to secure Baghdad, Iraqi authorities informed.
Iraq decided on Tuesday to close two border posts with Syria and four others on Iraq’s borders with Iran for 72 hours.
Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, speaking to the nation on behalf of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, did not say when the borders would be closed.
The Iraqi government said the decision was part of efforts to implement the new security plan for Baghdad. According to the plan, Baghdad’s night time curfew would be extended by one hour when the security drive gets underway, starting from 8 pm and ending at 6 am.
Also today, a suicide explosives-laden truck bombing killed 6 and wounded 27 as people were entering a Trade Ministry office that administers ration cards in a mainly Shiite neighborhood. The office and warehouses storing sugar and other rationed foodstuffs are located next to the College of Economic Sciences, but no students were among the casualties, police said.
The U.S. military said a soldier was killed Sunday in fighting in volatile Anbar province, west of Baghdad, raising to 42 the number of American deaths this month.
The Middle East on a Collision Course (6): The Saudi Oil Weapon
In his just-published memoirs, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy relates the story of a meeting between three European foreign ministers together with Javier Solana of the European Union and President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The meeting, which took place at the United Nations on September 15, 2005, dealt with what Douste-Blazy characterized as “the generous European offer” to Iran regarding its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad was characterized by Douste-Blazy, a surgeon and a professor of medicine by profession, as stubborn, and the meeting was described as leading nowhere. Suddenly, Ahmadinejad changed the course of the conversation with the following aside: “Do you know why we should wish to have chaos at any price?” he asked rhetorically. “Because, after the chaos, we can see the greatness of Allah.” 
The response to this challenge came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which employed recently a quiet but effective diplomacy aimed at curbing Ahmadinejad’s inclination for chaos-making in their backyard.
U.N. Sanctions Against Iran
After protracted negotiations among the five permanent members of the Security Council – the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China, in addition to Germany, which was occupying one of the rotating seats in the council – the Security Council passed, on December 23, 2006, Resolution 1737, imposing watered-down sanctions on Iran for its failure to halt its uranium enrichment program. The resolution calls on all states “to prevent the supply, sale or transfer…of all items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology which could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapons delivery systems.”
From the standpoint of Ahmadinejad, the resolution was “a straw paper…by which they [i.e., mainly the Western powers] aim to scare Iranians….” Immediately afterwards, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who is in charge of Iran’s nuclear dossier, told the Iranian daily Kayhan, “Our immediate response to these sanctions is that tomorrow morning, 3,000 centrifuges will begin operation in Natanz.”
The Saudi Oil Weapon
Saudi Arabia, like other countries, is concerned both about Iran’s nuclear program and about its activities in Iraq in support of the Shi’a, in Lebanon and in Palestine. While being somewhat silent about Iran’s nuclear program, Saudi Arabia’s condemnation of Iran’s meddling in the Middle East was vocal. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal could not have been more blunt when he told the French daily Le Figaro, “We repeat what was said to the Iranians: Do not interfere in our affairs.” He characterized the Saudi-Iranian dialogue as an effort to explain to the Iranians the Saudi and Arab fears “about the Iranian influence on the Arab world.” For this reason he rejected the French attempt to send a delegation to Tehran to discuss the latter’s meddling in Lebanon as something “that cannot be accepted [because it] offers legitimacy to the Iranian intervention.”  The critical question is whether Saudi Arabia is prepared to translate its warning into action through the use of the “oil weapon.” If the Saudis are prepared to apply the oil weapon, the impact on Iran’s economic fortunes could be significant.
A brief analysis of the Saudi oil situation and the Iranian economic condition will demonstrate why Iran has every reason both to take seriously Saudi warnings about meddling in the Saudi backyard and to be apprehensive about the potent oil weapon.
The Saudi Budget Surplus
After deficits of $10.4 billion and $8 billion in 2003 and 2004, respectively, Saudi Arabia accumulated a surplus of revenues over expenditures of $58.2 billion and $70.6 billion in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The surplus for 2007 is conservatively estimated at $5.3 billion because the estimated revenues of $106 billion are calculated on the basis of crude oil export of 7.2 million b/d at an average price of $37/b, assuming a production cost of $2.50/b.  Since the price of oil in the first six weeks of 2007 has hovered around the mid- to upper 50s per barrel, and if there is no sudden and sharp reversal either in the price per barrel or the number of barrels exported, it is clear that Saudi Arabia will accumulate a much larger surplus than was estimated.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to expand production capacity to 12 million b/d by 2009 through investment of $80 billion. At this level of production 1.5 to 2 million b/d will be set aside for local consumption, leaving at least 10 million b/d for export which is about 3 million b/d over current level of export.
Providing this information, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Nuai’mi said at a Petrotec conference in New Delhi that his country could invest even more to generate higher levels of production to insure stability in the oil markets.  It is not certain that there is a refining capacity for such an additional supply of oil were it made available to the market, but it could nonetheless serve as a spare capacity that could be used by the Kingdom to leverage oil supply and prices in a manner compatible with its national interests, which are not necessarily compatible with those of Iran; indeed, the interests of the two nations may be very different.
If Saudi Arabia were to increase its export between one to two million barrels a day, it could bring down the price of oil quite close to the 2007 budget estimate of $37 barrel. If that were to happen, Saudi Arabia could absorb the shock, but Iran’s economy could fall into a serious crisis.
Iran‘s Economy in a Glance
While Iran is seeking to develop its nuclear weapon and thereby declare itself “a great power,” its economic health belies its ambitions.
Data drawn from the Central Bank of Iran  show an accumulated deficit spending in the last four [solar] years 1381-1384 and the second quarter of 1385, as follows:
|Year||Billion Riyals ($US equivalent at exchange rate of 9.17 riyal to the dollar in parentheses)|
|1381 (2003||85.6 (9.3)|
|1382 (2004)||99.4 (10.8)|
|1383 (2005)||128.5 (14.0)|
|1384 (2006)||130.5 (14.2)|
|1385 (2007) (2ndQrt.)||49.0 (5.3)|
To deal with the budget shortfalls and, at the same time, continue the president’s profligate populist policies, Iran has been drawing on the special foreign exchange account which was meant to cushion the country in the event of a rapid shortfall in oil revenues. According to the daily Etemad-i-Melli, the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) voted on January 24 to allow the government to withdraw from the account the equivalent of $700 million to finance shortfalls in the health and health-education sectors, including the payment of overdue wages. During a contentious debate in the Majlis on the government’s request, a member of the parliamentary Economic Committee, Elias Naderan, claimed that “the foreign-exchange reserve account has no cash in it to take out.” Another member of parliament, Ahmad Tavakkli, claimed that the fund had a balance of only $400 million and wondered where exactly the remaining $300 million would come from.
As for the 2007 budget which starts on March 1, there are conflicting reports on the estimated price of crude oil calculated for the revenue column. One report presumes a per barrel price of $33.70 while Nedaran, quoted earlier, maintains that government spending is based on the assumption of oil price of $45 per barrel.
At the same time, the inflation rate in Iran has been estimated at 15.8 percent, while unemployment was in excess of 10 percent. In a rare acknowledgement of the impact of the sanctions on Iran, Iranian oil minister Kazem Waziri Hamaneh told Shana, the oil ministry news agency, that Tehran was having trouble financing oil projects on which the economy depends. Foreign banks are not lending to Iran either because of U.S. pressure or because the banks are also “drawing their own conclusions.”  In this regard, Iran’s threats to use the oil weapon if attacked are hollow at best, because the country cannot fund the most basic programs for too long without the steady flow of oil revenues.
These concerns have generated calls from Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi for an acceleration of privatization plans and backing for private-sector activities both as a means of reducing subsidies to failed public enterprises and to help integrate the Iranian economy into the global system. 
Ahmadinejad has pursued a populist program to benefit the underclass in Iran. However, populism without funding will become empty slogans. This, in turn, could greatly weaken his authority and undermine his regime’s stability. There is already mounting pressures from the clerics to tone down his demagoguery, and a rise of discontent among the poor could quickly place him in political jeopardy. The oil option of Saudi Arabia, more than anything else, including the U.S.’s second aircraft carrier steaming into the Gulf, could expedite the process of his downfall or, at a minimum, cause him to limp for the remainder of his term of office.
Iran‘s Appeal to Saudi Arabia to Reduce Oil Export
It is hardly surprising that the Deputy Chairman of Iran’s Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy Mohammad Nabi Roudaki has made this statement:
“A number of Arab countries in the region and the Saudi government are inclined to help the U.S. and want to pressure Iran… We recommend to Saudi Arabia that it trust [only] itself, and that it bring about regional stability with the accompaniment of the forces in the region. It is best that Saudi Arabia do nothing [against Iran], since [otherwise] they will quickly face protest by their people. Saudi Arabia must reduce its oil exports so that the price of oil will balance out. Otherwise, tomorrow America will attack Saudi Arabia, on the pretext that it has no democracy and freedom.”
*Nimrod Raphaeli is Senior Analyst of MEMRI’s Middle East Economic Studies Program.
 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 4, 2007.
 Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London). February 1, 2007.
 The Middle East Economic Survey. January 2007.
 Al-Hayat (London), January 19, 2007.
 Bank Merkazi Iran, Second Quarter 2006-2007, No. 45. Key Economic Indicators.
 The Financial Times (London), December 21, 2006.
Speaker Of The House Hires A George Soros Activist
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
February 13, 2007 – Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently hired Joseph Onek to be her Senior Counsel. Most people have never heard of Onek before, but he was an operative in both the Carter and Clinton White House. While in the Carter Adminstration, Onek served as Deputy Counsel to Jimmy Carter. In the Clinton Administration, Onek was a deputy Associate Attorney General and was the Rule of Law Coordinator with the State Department.
Onek also served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and served as an Assistant Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But his more recent work as a Senior Policy Analyst with the Open Society Institute (OSI) should be of deep concern to all Americans. The Open Society Institute is a creation of billionaire atheist George Soros. This virulently anti-Christian man operates what some have called a “shadow government” in America – a network of groups and radical individuals who wish to control America’s social and national security policies.
Discoverthenetworks.org monitors the web of leftist organizations that seek to rule our nation. It describes this shadow government as being “conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic Party left.”
The OSI funnels millions of dollars into various leftist causes, including euthanasia, open borders, abortion, homosexual activism, marijuana legalization, the undermining of our nation’s war on terrorism and other neo-Marxist visions of social justice. A list of OSI’s grantees (posted on the “discoverthenetworks.org” web site) reads like a phone book of every anti-American, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual group in America.
Soros has a warped vision for America, and he’s pouring millions of dollars into public policy organizations that will push his agendas. He is also pouring money into elections. He spent $26 million to defeat Bush in 2004. Today, Soros has decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our next president and has anointed him for that purpose. He will provide Obama with funding plus whatever publicity he can generate for the senator through his various front groups.
Soros either funds or operates a whole range of such organizations, but the Open Society Institute is his flagship organization.
The current president of OSI is Aryeh Neier, who as director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy, founded the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) back in 1959. OSI’s Director of U.S. Advocacy is Morton Halperin, a man who has devoted his entire life to subverting America’s intelligence efforts to fight domestic and international threats. Halperin is a former Carter and Clinton official who has consistently attacked the work of the CIA.
George Soros must be pleased to have one of his operatives a heartbeat away from Speaker of the House Pelosi. Did Onek get his job with Pelosi through the influence of Soros? Was Onek placed in her office to direct policy decisions? What role does Onek play in Soros’ shadow government?
But, more to the point: What role does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi play in George Soros’ shadow government? Americans deserve answers to these questions.
Retired Pastor — 77 year old narrow-minded Conservative Christian.
A few weeks before the last election I wrote a post “Vote Like Your Life Depends on It.” (HERE)
Some were critical of my alarmist attitude.
Now, with a liberal House and Senate, helped along by “moderates” and “Conservatives,” our freedoms and faith are under constant attack.
There is no national leadership willing to take the risks to counter the loss of our liberty and, maybe sooner than later, the loss of our blessed country.
Please read all of this shocking but logical and well documented article by J. R. Nyquist, “The Destruction of the United States.”
Here are a few devastating excerpts:
“No country is immortal. No nation is invincible. To make the point less delicately, America will one day cease to exist. And it may be useful, especially given the multiple crises now developing, to contemplate the mortality of the world’s most powerful country. What would the world be like without the United States?”
“It is not nice to say that major powers like China or Russia seek the destruction of the United States. It is not nice to say that Russia and China are governed by thugs. But anyone who studies the foreign policies, chicanery, secret maneuvers and war preparations of Beijing and Moscow cannot honestly conclude otherwise.”
…. “We already know from defector testimony that Russia’s war plan incorporates the use of false flag terrorist diversionary operations in the early stages of the next world war. GRU defector Viktor Suvorov explained long ago that such operations were referred to as “gray terror.” The fact that Ayman al-Zawahri was named as a longtime agent of the KGB is the icing on the nuclear cake (as it were). The fact that Alexander Litvinenko – the man who fingered Zawahri – was recently poisoned by polonium-210, underscores the hardscrabble reality of the nuclear terror game. The United States government and President Bush aren’t looking at the problem squarely. They are looking away from the main threat, toward a tertiary threat. This is a fatal error, because the war we are in isn’t simply a war against Muslim extremists. It is a much broader, more deceptive conflict.
“The United States has never been nearer to destruction.”
Last November our country voted for a group of politicians who are dedicated to a weakened country with detent and dialog with those who have vowed to destroy America and Israel. America has no national leadership who recognizes the multiple threats against our country. our faith, our liberties, our families and our very lives. Our freedoms are at risk and very few understand or care. America voted — but look what we got.
Now, more than ever America needs Jesus Christ and Christians who are not afraid to share Him with others. We need national leaders who will not disparage Christians and Jews but with moral courage and principles, stand up for and defend our country and the Nation of Israel regardless of the cost.
By Daniel Dombey and Fidelius Schmid in Brussels
Published: February 12 2007 22:18 | Last updated: February 12 2007 22:18
Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.
In an admission of the international community’s failure to hold back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the document – compiled by the staff of Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief – says the atomic programme has been delayed only by technical limitations rather than diplomatic pressure. “Attempts to engage the Iranian administration in a negotiating process have not so far succeeded,” it states.
The downbeat conclusions of the “reflection paper” – seen by the Financial Times – are certain to be seized on by advocates of military action, who fear that Iran will be able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb over the next two to three years. Tehran insists its purposes are purely peaceful.
“At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme,” says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU’s 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday.
“In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone.”
The admission is a blow to hopes that a deal with Iran can be reached and comes at a sensitive time, when tensions between the US and Tehran are rising. Its implication that sanctions will prove ineffective will also be unwelcome to EU diplomats. Only yesterday the bloc agreed on how to apply United Nations sanctions on Tehran, overcoming a dispute between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar.
Iran has set up several hundred centrifuges to enrich uranium, a process that can yield both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade material. But analysts say that Iran is behind schedule on plans to install 3,000 centrifuges to produce enriched uranium on a larger scale.
Last year Ernst Uhrlau, the head of German intelligence, said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015.
The EU document is embarrassing for advocates of negotiations with Iran, since last year it was Mr Solana and his staff who spearheaded talks with Tehran on behalf of both the EU and the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
The paper adds that Tehran’s rejection of the offer put forward by Mr Solana “makes it difficult to believe that, at least in the short run, [Iran] would be ready to establish the conditions for the resumption of negotiations”.