Iran poised to strike in wealthy Gulf states

Iran poised to strike in wealthy Gulf states

1938 Alert — and not just for the West, but for the Sunni states of the Persian Gulf region also. By Colin Freeman in the Sunday Telegraph, with thanks to Jay Tuch:

Iran has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear programme, a former Iranian diplomat has told The Sunday Telegraph. Spies working as teachers, doctors and nurses at Iranian-owned schools and hospitals have formed sleeper cells ready to be “unleashed” at the first sign of any serious threat to Teheran, it is claimed.Trained by Iranian intelligence services, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shias in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalised by the Gulf’s ruling Sunni Arab clans.

Were America or Israel to attack Iran, such cells would be instructed to foment long-dormant sectarian grievances and attack the ex-tensive American and European business interests in wealthy states such as Dubai and Saudi Arabia. Such a scenario would bring chaos to the Gulf, one of the few areas of the Middle East that remains prosperous and has largely pro-Western governments.

The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran’s consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry. They came as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, made a formal visit to Saudi Arabia yesterday in what was widely seen as an attempt to defuse growing Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East.

The Look-at-Me Generation

The Look-at-Me Generation
By Christopher Orlet
Published 3/2/2007 12:08:03 AM

Kids these days. They’ve got these things called blogs and Myspace, and they post nekkid photographs and videos of themselves doing crazy things on the Internets. I don’t get it. It frightens and confuses me…

Okay, I’m not that old. On occasion I blog myself. My girlfriend has a Myspace page. Who hasn’t seen a Ted Kennedy in his cups call the junior senator from Illinois “Osama bin Ladin” on YouTube?

On the other hand, I’m one of the last of the Boomers — or first of the Gen Xers — so I wasn’t part of that millennial generation raised on an overdose of self-esteem and self-promoting technology that have combined to create a perfect storm of narcissism.

Nor was I surprised to read that a study led by San Diego State University psychologists finds that about two-thirds of college students have above average scores in self-adulation. That’s thirty percent more than when I was in college in 1982. These millennials make Narcissus look like a self-hating Greek.

But while millennials are more confident, assertive, and head over heels in love with themselves, they have less reason to be. The study’s authors note that Gen Y is shallower than its parents’ generation and less well educated. It is emotionally challenged. And more miserable.

Perhaps the biggest clue to its shallowness can be found in its priorities. Asked what they most want out of life, most millennials answer “wealth and fame.” Riches are most important to more than 80 percent of college students, and fame came in a near second. Ironically, today’s generation has become the little materialists and “fame whores” (New York Magazine‘s term) their boomer parents so reviled.

And despite MTV’s Rock the Vote efforts, they are the least socially aware generation in decades. The study contradicts the common view that millennials are civic-minded, public-service do-gooders who volunteer en masse to help hurricane and tsunami victims, who, rather than booze and sex it up on spring break, prefer to donate their time vaccinating poor children in sub-equatorial Ecuador. Instead, researchers noted that much of that community spirit is due to the fact that high schools require “mandatory” volunteer service, which also conveniently serves as a way to pad one’s resume.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN a great fan of the Baby Boom Generation, which was no slacker in the Ego Overload Sweepstakes; Tom Wolfe, after all, dubbed it the “Me Generation.” But at least that gang’s number one priority, according to a 1967 college survey, was to find “a meaningful philosophy of life.” Unfortunately, that “meaningful philosophy of life” entailed overly permissive parenting and systematic ego inflation. The millennials have had every aspect of their lives recorded and photographed and documented from the time they were pulled screaming from the womb. And it was the boomers who stressed self-esteem over learning, who lavished excessive praise on their kids and presented them awards for everything from their first bowel movement to just showing up. No wonder that this overindulged generation’s heroes are vacuous celebrities like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton who is famous for a reality TV show and a sex video.

Oh, and you’ll probably want to be careful when criticizing your younger employees. Millennials don’t take criticism very well, the report says. They also tend to have less stable relationships and are to be more prone to violent behavior than their parents’ generation. Why? According to the report, people with an inflated sense of self are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, and lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors. “I’m concerned we are heading to a society where people are going to treat each other badly, either on the street or in relationships,” the report’s lead researcher Dr. Jean Twenge, of San Diego State University, told the Los Angeles Times.

Of course not everyone agrees. For an alternative view, some researchers regard narcissistic behavior not as the fault of bad boomer parenting, but as an adoptive mechanism in a culture that prizes the bottom-line over learning and cooperation.

“This is a bottom-line society, so students are smart to seek the most direct route to the bottom line,” Marc Flacks, an assistant professor of sociology, said in the Times. “If you don’t have a me-first attitude, you won’t succeed….The old model was a collegial one in which students and professors alike sought knowledge for knowledge’s sake. The new model is ‘I paid my money, give me my grade and degree.'”

So next time you are stuck on an elevator with a young person who is screaming into his cell phone, try to remember that he isn’t just some rude, vacuous millennial, he is rather a new model of bottom-line, free-market capitalism. And grin and bear it.


Well worth the read!


by Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. This will be a one time attempt to reach some of those who are confused by far-left and their ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow. As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I’ll never forget the language, “I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia”. On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, “Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?” I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don’t remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I’ll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDill AFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone’s favorite—Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakingly shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton’s antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn’t real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln’s prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat—one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious that WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF REDISTRUBITION OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don’t believe in political correctness. So, let’s look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONCENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country’s economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster’s, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to “fix” all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again.

We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight some where other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can’t say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don’t care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, (ret.)
349 Jib Lane Lakeside, Montana



William Fisher wrote: HARSH YOU SAY??

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for

elections, all government business will be conducted in our language.

Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no

health care, or other government assistance programs.

Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000

times the daily minimum wage.

If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be

restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home.

If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

Harsh, you say?……………..

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of….” MEXICO “

Europe’s tolerance finds its limit: Death of multiculturalism


Europe’s tolerance finds its limit: Death of multiculturalism

National Post

Tolerance may have died in Europe the day Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.On the morning of Nov. 2, 2004, as Mr. van Gogh cycled to work in Amsterdam, the bearded young man in a long Middle-Eastern-style shirt fired at him with a handgun.

The mortally wounded filmmaker tried to run for cover. But the killer chased him, shot him once more and slit his throat from ear to ear.

Then, he plunged two knives, one with a five-page letter attached, into the body.

The note began: “This is my last word, riddled with bullets, baptized in blood … ”

It was filled with jihadist slogans and threats and contained a blood-curdling diatribe against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch politician who had written the script of Mr. van Gogh’s last film, Submission. The 10-minute short about the abuse of Muslim women had upset some Muslims because it showed sacred Koranic texts superimposed on a semi-naked woman.

Bouyeri’s missive ended with a threatening chant: “I know for sure that you, O America, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Europe, are going to meet with disaster. I know for sure that you, O Holland, are going to meet with disaster.”

The savagery of the killing triggered revulsion across Europe. Today, the continent is attempting to cope with increasingly bitter racial and religious squabbles and is riven with doubts about its future.

Decades of open-door immigration policies have transformed Europe through the arrival of several million immigrants, mostly Muslims, from North Africa, Turkey and Southwest Asia.

But as the region became one of the most multicultural regions on Earth, its people have gradually turned against the policies that made it this way.

From Amsterdam to Paris and Brussels to Berlin, politicians want to restrict immigration and force recent arrivals to integrate more thoroughly into their new homelands.

The Netherlands, where 6% of the country’s 16 million people come from Islamic countries, has found itself at the forefront of a general hardening of European attitudes toward Muslim minorities.

In the two years since Mr. van Gogh’s murder, the Dutch government has adopted sweeping reforms aimed at forcing immigrants to integrate more fully into society. Immigrants must now pass a language test within five years of arrival or risk being deported. They must also take special integration classes when they apply for a visa.

Rotterdam has published a code of conduct suggesting that immigrants speak Dutch when out in public and the government runs courses to train imams in Western values.

This week, elections in the Netherlands seemed to reinforce the growing distrust between the native and immigrant populations when the Freedom Party, a previously insignificant far-right fringe group, won nine seats in parliament.

Led by Geert Wilders, a strident radical who goes out of his way to insult Muslims and warn that the Netherlands is about to be engulfed by an “Islamic tsunami,” the Freedom Party is now the fifth- largest in the Dutch parliament.

Mr. Wilders is the political heir of Pim Fortuyn, a populist politician who campaigned on immigration issues and was assassinated in 2002 just before elections.

This time around, Mr. Wilders called for an end to immigration and demanded bans on building religious schools and mosques.

“We need more decency in this country, more education and less Islam,” he recently told Dutch television.

“We have had enough Islam in the Netherlands. I believe Islam is a violent religion and the Koran is a violent book. There is no such thing as moderate Islam.”

Similar far-right movements are flourishing, along with large Muslim immigrant populations, in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Italy.

In France, one citizen in five voted for right-wing extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 presidential election.

Now, Nicolas Sarkozy, the hardline Interior Minister who hopes to represent the centre-right in next April’s presidential contest, has begun to court the anti-immigrant vote, unveiling a proposed immigration act that is a virtual copy of the Dutch regulations.

“The French way of integration no longer works,” he said recently, referring to last year’s riots in immigrant neighbourhoods, the worst civil unrest in the country in decades.

But it’s not just the far right that is declaring the death of multiculturalism.

Britain’s ruling Labour party has abandoned the laissez-faire pluralism of the past and introduced a U.S.-style citizenship ceremony, complete with declarations of loyalty. Naturalizing immigrants must also pass language and citizenship tests.

More recently, Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary, created a huge controversy when he declared he wanted Muslim women to abandon the veil.

He insisted he didn’t want to be “prescriptive,” but felt that covering people’s faces makes it more difficult to communicate.

“Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers — people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able to pass the time of day,” he said.

“That’s made more difficult if people are wearing a veil.”

The comments caused many Muslims to insist they are being persecuted simply for being different.

“The implication is clear: niqab- or hijab-wearing women, and, through them, European Muslims are being asked to submit not to the law of the land, but to each country’s dominant way of life,” Naima Bouteldja, a French journalist, wrote in The Guardian newspaper.

“The mounting campaign against multiculturalism by politicians, pundits and the press, in Britain and across Europe, is neither innocent nor innocuous,” said Ambalavaner Sivanandan, director of Britain’s Institute of Race Relations.

“It is a prelude to a policy that deems there is one dominant culture, one unique set of values, one nativist loyalty — a policy of assimilation.”

Still, in the wake of last summer’s suicide bombings on London’s transit system by home-grown terrorists, there are growing fears multiculturalism protects and preserves every culture — except the host culture.

The native-born terrorist has become a symbol of multiculturalism’s failure. Usually, these new extremists do not feel at home in the West but have only the most tenuous ties to their families’ original homelands.

As a result, they are susceptible to arguments of religious certainty and promises of eternal glory.

The cultural isolation encouraged by multiculturalism also lets Islamist activists find refuge and anonymity in Europe’s immigrant communities.

“The fruits of 30 years of state-endorsed multiculturalism have only increased inter-racial tension and inter-racial sectarianism,” analyst Patrick West wrote in a recent report for the British think-tank Civitas.

“The fact that the London suicide bombers of July 7 [2005] were born and bred in Britain — and encouraged by the state to be different — illustrates that hard multiculturalism has the capacity to be not only divisive but decidedly lethal.

On the other hand, Trevor Phillips, a black political journalist who heads Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality, suggests multiculturalism is outdated because it fails to address cultural differences or reinforce common values.

Britain could be “sleepwalking” towards segregation, he warns, saying, “We have allowed tolerance of diversity to harden into the effective isolation of communities.”

“The multiculturalism beloved by our political and civic bureaucracies has not only failed to deliver peace, but is the partial cause of alienation and extremism,” said Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani-born Anglican Bishop of Rochester.

When that isolation and extremism combine with the simmering resentments of Europe’s immigrants, neither tolerance nor understanding are likely.

In such a globalized clash of cultures, multiculturalism seems doomed to be eclipsed by anger and fear.



Danes used to pride themselves on their multiculturalism. Then last fall the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed.

Muslims around the world were outraged.

By the time things settled, Danes were beginning to see their 200,000 Muslim immigrants as a threat to their own national identity.

In recent years the Danish government has adopted several policies that aim to hasten the integration of the 5% of the population who are immigrants — mainly Muslims — from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq.

Family members, for instance, must now pass an “attachment test” showing their loyalty to Danish society and values.


France has the largest Islamic presence of any country in Western Europe — its more than six million Muslims, half of them citizens, make up nearly 10% of the population. Many live in drab suburbs that have become no-go areas for the authorities, plagued with drugs, gang rapes and fear. Periodically they erupt in violent protests such as the two weeks of riots in November, 2005.

France’s official policy is of assimilation and integration, but such laws as the 2004 ban on female students wearing Muslim headscarves are fuelling resentment and reinforcing immigrants’ sense of exclusion.

A new “social integration contract” requires immigrants to take a half-day civics class and, if necessary, up to 500 hours of language instruction.

Immigrants would receive a 10-year residence permit and discrimination protections in return for undertaking to learn French and get a job.


Getting German citizenship was once as simple as swearing an oath of allegiance to the country’s constitution.

Now prospective Muslim immigrants in Baden-Wuerttemberg are questioned on their personal political and cultural views.

Candidates are asked their opinions on religious freedom, sexual equality and homosexuality, with questions as blunt as, “Do you think a woman should obey her husband and that he can beat her if she is disobedient?”

In the past Germany did not even acknowledge it had immigrants. They were “guest workers” who would one day go home.

Some 3.3 million Muslims now live in Germany and, like the rest of Europe, the country has begun to adjust its laws to try to force greater integration.

The government provides new migrants with 600 hours of language training and 30 hours of civics instruction.


For decades Sweden has had some of Europe’s most liberal asylum laws.

As a result, it has one of its fastest-growing immigrant populations.

Of the nine million Swedish citizens, about 1.08 million are foreign-born and up to 40,000 asylum seekers are waiting to be approved.

Once proud of its multi-ethnic, multicultural reputation, Sweden has recently become aware it is a house divided. Immigrants dominate in some areas — they form nearly 40% of the population of Malmo, the third-largest city.

They feature largely on welfare rolls, have higher jobless rates and push up crime.

There are also fears radical Islamic groups are finding terrorism recruits in Sweden.

In October, 2005, a 19-year-old Swede, a refugee from Yugoslavia, was arrested in Sarajevo in an apartment that contained suicide-bomb vests and explosives.

To encourage greater integration and to underline efforts to re-emphasize Sweden’s Western values, the government wants to ban girls under 15 from wearing veils, introduce mandatory medical examinations to detect ritual genital mutilation, end arranged marriages and cut off state funding for religious schools.

Coulter vesus Maher

Coulter vesus Maher

Jerome Schmitt
In the uproar over Ann Coulter’s tasteless “joke” at the CPAC Conference, Bill Maher’s much more egregious call for Dick Cheney’s assassination and the applause of his audience have been ignored, as Newsbusters showed

As for Maher, I conclude that by lamenting that the assassination attempt failed — because he concluded it would “save lives” — Maher is indeed calling for further attempts.  But contrarily, if one were inclined to invert Maher’s twisted logic, one could propose that those who are not wholeheartedly in step with the war-effort are showing America’s disunity which only emboldens the Islamic terrorists to commit more car bombings etc.; thus the death of such an American anti-war advocate would “save lives”. 

Fortunately, I cannot remember seeing conservatives calling for assassination of America’s liberal politicians.
Do Liberals really want to invite a return of political violence to America?  Aren’t the lessons from the assassinations of Lincoln, JFK, MLK, RFK, and attempts on Ford and Reagan yet learned by the Left? 
Coulter comment was almost immediately denounced by leading Republicans including most of the presidential candidates.  It will be illuminating to see the response if any of Democrats to Maher’s awful comments, beginning with Barney Frank who was on Maher’s show.

Iran: Some More Questions

Iran: Some More Questions

By Rachel Neuwirth

The big question concerning Iran is just how close they are to having a nuclear weapon. Some officials assure us that it will require 5-10 years before they produce a bomb. Making such a confident assertion is strange for at least three reasons.

1. Our intelligence people admit that they lack human intelligence from inside Iran which is essential for an accurate assessment – so how can they make such a confident estimate? Is politics driving this assertion?
2. Our intelligence has been critically wrong before. We did not even know how close the former Soviet Union was to economic collapse before they imploded. Our intelligence people were surprised to learn that Saddam Hussein was within a year of the atom bomb after the first Gulf War in 1991. And our intelligence failed again before 9/11.
3. Hasn’t anyone noticed that it is taking Iran an inordinately long time to produce their first bomb? They began seeking the bomb about 1980. It is now some 27 years later and we are told they may need another 5-10 years!! All of the other nuclear powers took far less time. The U.S., Russia, China, England, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea, all produced their bomb in far less than 27 years.
One might argue that Iran in 1980 was very backward in the technology needed to produce the bomb. But there are also other important factors that work in Iran’s favor. Note that Pakistan and North Korea were not high tech societies before they developed the bomb and they achieved that in a short time. Iraq’s Osirak reactor was destroyed in 1981 by Israel and yet ten years later Saddam Hussein was within a year of his first bomb. After the war U.S. intelligence was surprised to discover just how close Saddam was and this was yet another intelligence failure on our part.
Iran has ample oil revenues to fund nuclear research and development. Iran could draw on the expertise of A.Q. Kahn the Pakistani nuclear scientist who was involved in proliferating nuclear expertise among other Muslim regimes. Iran is receiving nuclear expertise from Russia and now from North Korea. Iran has been able to buy commercial technology from European countries that, while ostensibly non-sensitive, can still be used to build important parts of the nuclear infrastructure. America built its first nuclear bomb in less than 5 years using 1940’s technology. Today Iran can employ technology that is far more advanced.
Iran has gone to great lengths to disperse, protect and hide their nuclear program. It has been reported that they have facilities deep underground with walls of concrete and lined with metal that can completely hide their spinning centrifuges from detection by our most sensitive satellites.
The inordinately long time it is taking Iran to go nuclear suggests other possibilities that should at least be considered. Iran may already have produced their first bomb(s) and may have already acquired nuclear weapons from rogue elements inside the former Soviet Union. If that is true it would also make sense for Iran to keep all this secret. They could be operating two independent programs. The public program we hear about and which is the subject of contention and negotiation and which serves as a diversion. And the totally secret program which is hidden inside Iran and perhaps also in other Muslim countries such as Syria and Sudan.
It would make sense for Iran to keep their early progress secret lest it trigger a powerful international response before they are ready At the least they could face draconian sanctions instead of the limited ones now in force. It could also trigger a military response from America and or Israel which would then destroy Iran’s nuclear program before it became fully developed. While the world is focused on halting the program we know about, we may be totally blind to the one we don’t know about. History shows that nations can sometimes succeed in implementing great deceptions against their adversaries.
During the Cold War with the former Soviet Union our military planners tried to anticipate various scenarios, no matter how far fetched, that could threaten national security and to plan possible responses. Mindful of the 9/11 Commissions’ warning about our failure to be prepared for the 9/11 attack due to ‘a lack of imagination’, perhaps we should try on the following scenario for size.
In the near future President Bush feels it is too dangerous to wait any longer before confronting Iran. He issues an ultimatum to Iran. He demands that they open up all of their nuclear facilities and allow the dismantling of anything related to a weapons program or face military attack on those facilities. With two U.S. carrier task forces plus NATO contingents nearby, Iran knows this is no bluff.
In response Iran issues their own ultimatum to America and Europe. It might read as follows:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has long prepared for the time when America, the Great Satan, would dare to issue such an arrogant ‘ultimatum’. You should know better than to threaten us. We have told you repeatedly that our determination is unshakable and not subject to bribes nor threats of any kind. Our faith in Allah is total. We are strong and willing to die for our cause. We know that your society is weak and cannot endure pain. Even if you destroy Iran there are nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who will become even more enraged against you and even more determined to wage jihad until the final victory of Islam over the Crusaders.
“Over the years we have installed many sleeper cells in both America and in western Europe. Your open borders made it easy to place our agents. They are equipped with chemical, biological and nuclear devices. They remain invisible to you because they are easily hidden inside the Muslim communities and with ample funds from us they need not seek work or other forms of public exposure. There has been no attack inside America since 9/11 because we chose to wait and not because your security is so good. Striking sooner would have been premature before we were fully prepared.
“Your modern infrastructure makes your society highly vulnerable to attack from within. We have studied all of your weak points and are capable of wreaking havoc on any scale, and sustained over any time period, that we choose. We can attack your electric grid, your gas pipe lines, your communications, your food supply, your financial networks, and much more. We can cause panic and terror that will greatly compound the physical damage. It would not be just one blow at one spot but many blows, in many places, over weeks and even months. We built a navy that can attack oil tankers on the international sea lanes and well as oil facilities in the Middle East. We can collapse the economies of the West which depend so much on oil. We will demolish your infrastructure. We will demolish your national self-confidence. You will live in chaos and in permanent fear of us.
“You are in no position to issue an ultimatum to us. We Muslims can hurt you far more than you can hurt us. It is we who now issue our ultimatum to you. You will promptly begin the total withdrawal of all U.S. and European forces from all Middle East countries. Europe and America will cease all trade and all aid to the Zionist entity that occupies the holy land of Palestine. Europe and America will facilitate the resettlement of all Jews from occupied Palestine. If you like Jews so much then you can move them to your countries. You must warn the Zionist entity that they must totally disarm their military including their nuclear weapons. Their disarming and their resettlement elsewhere is their only chance to survive. If Iran is attacked by the Zionists then Iran will attack Jews globally and also attack with full force inside America. You will have to choose how many American cities, and how many American lives, you are willing to lose to defend your Zionist friends. We strongly suspect that your answer will be “none” “.
The above ‘ultimatum’ from Iran may strike some people as fantasy and nonsense. It is easy to dismiss, to ignore and to be in denial. Perhaps such a threat is unlikely but we have already been told that Iran is preparing the capability for a nuclear Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack where a single nuclear bomb, launched from a ‘civilian’ ship off shore and detonated 200 miles above the U.S., could burn out our delicate electronic circuits and paralyze the nation. If any part of the preceding scenario is possible shouldn’t we be giving this our full attention

‘Global Warming Is Lies’ Claims Documentary

‘Global Warming Is Lies’ Claims Documentary

Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04

Accepted theories about man causing global warming are “lies” claims a controversial new TV documentary.

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ – backed by eminent scientists – is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the “propaganda” that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

A source at Channel 4 said: “It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for.”

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: “You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you – it’s taken ten years to get this commissioned.

“I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists – people with qualifications – are the bad guys.

“It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

“It’s very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

“Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round.”

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ‘memory effect’ is responsible for the lag.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.

The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.

The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying: “Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.

“They are saying the world’s poorest people should have the world’s most expensive form of form of energy – really saying they can’t have electricity.”

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change.

‘The Chilling Stars’ was written with Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark who published a scientific paper, claiming cosmic rays cause clouds to form, reducing the global temperature. The theory is shown in the programme.

Mr Calder said: “Henrik Svensmark saw that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars – when there are more cosmic rays, there are more clouds.

“However, solar winds bat away many of the cosmic rays and the sun is currently in its most active phase, which would be an explanation for global warming.

“I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong.

“For me this is a cracking science story – I don’t come from any political position and I’m certainly not funded by the multinationals, although my bank manager would like me to be.

“I talk to scientists and come up with one story, and Al Gore talks to another set of scientists and comes up with a different story.

“So knowing which scientists to talk to is part of the skill. Some, who appear to be disinterested, are themselves getting billions of dollars of research money from the government.

“The few millions of dollars of research money from multinationals can’t compare to government funding, so you find the American scientific establishment is all for man-made global warming.

“We have the same situation in Britain The government’s chief scientific advisor Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change.”

The programme shows how the global warming research drive began when Margaret Thatcher gave money to scientists to ‘prove’ burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her drive for nuclear power.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London , who also features in the film warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: “The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can’t say that just one factor can have this effect.

“The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

“It’s ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C.”

Mr Stott said the film could mark the point where scientists advocating the greenhouse effect theory, began to lose the argument.

He continued: “It is a brave programme at the moment to give excluded voices their say, and maybe it is just the beginning.

“At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion and this is dangerous.”

In the programme Nigel Calder says: “The greenhouse effect is seen as a religion and if you don’t agree, you are a heretic.

He added: “However, I think this programme will help further debate and scientists not directly involved in global warming studies may begin to study what is being said, become more open-minded and more questioning, but this will happen slowly.”