‘War in Iraq lost,’ says US Democrat leader

‘War in Iraq lost,’ says US Democrat leader
 
AFP
 
WASHINGTON: The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said on Thursday.   

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid told journalists.   

Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.   

Congress is seeking to tie funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a timetable to withdraw US troops from Iraq next year, but Bush has vowed to veto any such bill and no breakthrough was reported from the White House talks.   

Bush on Thursday was addressing an Ohio town hall meeting and defending the war on terror launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.   

“It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect our country from harm,” Bush told the invited audience in Tipp, Ohio.   

“A lesson learned was that — at least in my opinion — that in order to protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so that we do not have to face them here.”   

The comments came a day after bombers killed more than 200 people in a slew of car bombings in Baghdad, dealing a savage blow to the US security plan which aims to deploy an extra 30,000 troops in the country to quell sectarian unrest.   

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates fly into Iraq Thursday on an unannounced visit for talks with top US military commanders there.   

He met with General David Petraeus, chief of coalition forces in Iraq, his deputy Lieutenant Colonel Ray Odierno and Admiral William Fallon, chief of US forces in the Middle East.   

Is UN Nuke Watchdog Working for Iran?

Is UN Nuke Watchdog Working for Iran?

The top United Nations nuclear watchdog–is he an Iranian agent of influence?

It’s a fair question, given his recent statements. Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is basically conducting a propaganda and disinformation campaign aimed (a) at helping Islamist Iran stall for time in its nuclear standoff with the West, and (b) at disarming–or, at least, discrediting and isolating–Israel ahead of an Arab/Iranian attack.

ElBaradei is an enemy of the Jewish state. He made that clear Sunday when he said both Israel and Iran should be denied nuclear weapons–that a Middle East free of nuclear weapons was key to ensuring regional stability.

“At the end of the day, the Middle East should be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, a zone in which Israel and Iran are both members,” ElBaradei said on a visit to Jordan. “This is the last chance to build a security system in the Middle East based on cooperation and trust and not the possession of nuclear weapons.”

Israel has the region’s only atomic arsena–arguably, one reason the country is still alive. Jerusalem has said it could enter talks on regional disarmament, but only after a comprehensive peace deal is secured.

ElBaradei spoke up for Iran on Tuesday, telling reporters in Vienna the mullahocracy does not pose an immediate nuclear threat and the world must act cautiously to avoid repeating mistakes made with Iraq and North Korea. The international community shouldn’t “jump the gun” with erroneous information as the American-led coalition did in Iraq in 2003, he said. Nor should the world push Iran into retaliation as international sanctions did in North Korea, he added.

The next day, the IAEA sent a confidential documen to the 35 member states of its board of governors, informing them that Iran has assembled some 1,300 centrifuges at Natanz, a key underground nuclear plant, and has started to feed them with the uranium gas necessary for enriching uranium.

The document contradicts the IAWA position of only a week ago–namely, that Iran has yet to achieve industrial-scale uranium enrichment in keeping with its boast.

Iran has eight cascades of 164 centrifuges each at a heavily-bunkered underground facility in Natanz and “some UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) is being fed,” the document said.

ElBaradei is an Egyptian, who began his career in 1964, under Nasser, in the Egyptian Diplomatic Service in New York and Geneva, where he served during the Six-Day War of 1967 and the 1973 war waged by Anwar Sadat.

Twenty-Year Plan: Islam Targets America A MUST read

Twenty-Year Plan: Islam Targets America

By Anis Shorrosh

IHC Abstract
Dr. Shorrosh offers the following 20-point analysis of the Islamist agenda to take over America by the year 2020:

1. Replace America’s freedom of speech with hate crime bills nation-wide.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion. Strangely, no one states the fact that it was Arab Muslims who captured and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same: Abed.

3. Engage the American public on the virtues of Islam.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office.

5. Take control of the media and the internet by buying the corporations or a
controlling stock.

6. Encourage the fear of imminent shut-off of Middle Eastern oil supply.

7. Protest any time Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Ever notice how many doctors in America are Muslim, when their countries of origin need them more desperately?

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

  • Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
  • Marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually)
  • Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (2000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida) .

    10. Mosques and student centers (now 1500) should teach hatred of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. Hundreds of Muslim schools are firstly loyal to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.

    11. Provide grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies”.

    12. Tell the world that terrorists have hijacked Islam, but not the truth, that Islam hijacked the terrorists.

    13. Appeal to Americans for sympathy towards the Muslims in America, who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

    14. Undermine America’s sense of security with misinformation of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

    15. Instigate prison riots demanding Islamic Sharia, not America’s justice system.

    16. Increase charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism.

    17. Raise interest in Islam on college campuses by insisting that freshmen take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the instructor is American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran while stressing its peaceful, spiritual and religious aspects only.

    18. Consolidate all Muslim lobbies, mosques, Islamic student centers and media via the internet and hold an annual convention to coordinate plans to propagate the faith.

    19. Send intimidating messages to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by any means.
    20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US, by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethnic groups in America.

    The IHC recommends that you read this article in full.


    Dr. Anis Shorrosh, D.Min, D.Phil, and a member of Oxford Society of Scholars, is a Palestinian Arab Christian American, who is an author, lecturer and producer of documentaries. He is author of “Islam Revealed” and “Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.”

    Source: Sullivan Country

    www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/rob_nothink.htm

    Abstract written by Giv Cornfield, Ph.D., an IHC volunteer

    Abstract Copyrighted © Israel Hasbara Committee, 19 April 2007

    Edited by IHC staff, http://www.infoisrael.net

  • Two houses symbolize two Americas

    Two houses symbolize two Americas

    Ethel C. Fenig
    Yes, there apparently are two Americas; one is the lavish lifestyle of the Democrats who are willing to tax others so they too can live the Democratic way while the other is low keyed and unassuming, earlier known as cloth coat Republicans.
    As befits the rewards of a former  Senator, a former Vice President of the USA, a former presidential candidate, recent Academy Award winner, oh so deeply concerned environmentalist and oh yes, heir, Al Gore lives in

    A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by natural gas.

    Add on a pool ( and a pool house ) and a separate guest house,  all heated by gas.

    In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year.

    The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.

    In natural gas alone,  this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. 

    “Approximately four times the size of the average new American home” Gore’s  Nashville home

    consumes electricity at a rate of about 12 times the average for a typical house”

    in that Southern city with a relatively mild climate.
    Defending his excessive “carbon footprint”, Gore purchases “carbon offsets” from someone, some thing with an apparently tiny paw print which justifies the hypocrisy. 
    Perhaps Gore could have learned from another wealthy, successful individual in the South who quietly, without fanfare, lives in a home incorporating

    every “green”  feature current home construction can provide.

    The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on an arid,  high prairie in the American southwest.

    A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water ( Usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.

    The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system.

    Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers,  sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern.   The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.

    Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

    Located in Crawford, Texas and dubbed the Texas White House by the press, this is the home of President George and Laura Bush.
    And that’s the truth–inconvenient or otherwise. 

    Democrats Embrace Al Sharpton’s Racist National Action Network

    Democrats Embrace Al Sharpton’s Racist National Action Network

    by Bill Levinson

    While it might be refreshing to pull the D lever after eight years of “Not Gore” and “Not Kerry,” it is now totally impossible for us to do so. It is in fact triply impossible for a “white interloper ” and “[Jewish] diamond merchant” (to use Al Sharpton’s own terms for us) who lived in Wappingers Falls NY in 1988 to even bother looking at the platforms of anyone who appears in public with an infamous racist whose anti-Semitic hate speech helped incite two incidents of fatal violence.

    While it is obvious that no “cracker” or “bloodsucking Jew” (terminology used by National Action Network people while they were killing a Jew in Crown Heights and burning down a Jewish-owned store in Harlem) who knows anything about Sharpton could possibly vote for anyone who consorts with him, neither can any self-respecting African-American. Racists and anti-Semites appeal universally to the absolute dregs of the societies for which they claim to speak. If former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke appeals to the lowest class of white person, the kind of Black whose vote Al Sharpton can actually deliver is self-evident. By acting as though Al Sharpton can “deliver the Black vote,” Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden (the one who effectively called Obama a credit to his race) have effectively equated all African-Americans to the class of white people who regard David Duke as a leader.

    Democrats Scramble to Court Sharpton
    Presidential Candidates Scramble to Pursue Black Voters in the ‘Al Sharpton Primary’
    NEW YORK Apr 18, 2007 (AP)— Democratic presidential contenders are scrambling for support in what’s being dubbed the Al Sharpton primary. The civil rights leader livened up the 2004 Democratic primary with his pompadour hairdo and sharp, witty oratory. This election, the high-profile Sharpton, fresh from the fight over Don Imus’ derogatory remarks, is attracting all the party’s major candidates this week for his annual National Action Network convention.

    There we have it: all six Democratic candidates have agreed to appear at, and thus give credibility to, the African-American equivalent of a Ku Klux Klan meeting. This should automatically disqualify all six of them from even being considered by any decent American. For those who do not remember exactly what Al Sharpton is and what he has done, Fred Siegel’s outstanding Democrats Embrace ‘Impresario of Hatred’

    It would have taken no great effort for the reporters covering the Apollo debate to have walked across 125th Street from the theater to visit Freddy’s Fashion Mart, where in 1995 eight people died in a murderous rampage inspired by Mr. Sharpton.

    Mr. Sharpton is best-known for the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which he insisted that a 15-year-old black girl had been abducted and raped by a band of white men practicing Irish Republican Army rituals. In fact she had made up the story to protect herself from her violent stepfather.

    But at Freddy’s, Mr. Sharpton was even more malevolent. He turned a landlord-tenant dispute between the Jewish owner of Freddy’s and a black subtenant into a theater of hatred. Picketers from Mr. Sharpton’s National Action Network, sometimes joined by “the Rev.” himself, marched daily outside the store, screaming about “bloodsucking Jews” and “Jew bastards” and threatening to burn the building down.

    After weeks of increasingly violent rhetoric, one of the protesters, Roland Smith, took Mr. Sharpton’s words about ousting the “white interloper” to heart. He ran into the store shouting, “It’s on!” He shot and wounded three whites and a Pakistani, whom he apparently mistook for a Jew. Then he set the fire, which killed five Hispanics, one Guyanese and one African-American–a security guard whom protesters had taunted as a “cracker lover.” Smith then fatally shot himself.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/20Mar00/nordlinger032000.html adds,

    There was more, of course-always more. In the spring of 1989, the Central Park “wilding” occurred. That was the monstrous rape and beating of a young white woman, known to most of the world as “the jogger.” The hatred heaped on her by Sharpton and his claque is almost impossible to fathom, and wrenching to review. …Outside the courthouse, they [Sharpton and his entourage] chanted, “The boyfriend did it! The boyfriend did it!” They denounced the victim as “Whore!” They screamed her name, over and over (because most publications refused to print it, though several black-owned ones did). Sharpton brought Tawana Brawley to the trial one day, to show her, he said, the difference between white justice and black justice. He arranged for her to meet the jogger’s attackers, whom she greeted with comradely warmth. In another of his publicity stunts, he appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim. “It doesn’t even have to be a black psychiatrist,” he said, generously. He added: “We’re not endorsing the damage to the girl — if there was this damage.”

    …But the torching, so to speak, continued. In 1995-four years into the putative New Sharpton-there was another, fatal case in which Sharpton had a guilty hand: Freddy’s Fashion Mart. In Harlem, a white store owner — no, worse: a Jewish one — was accused of driving a black store owner out of business. At one of the many rallies meant to scare the Jewish owner away [can anyone say, “burning crosses meant to scare the Negro owner away?”], Sharpton charged that “there is a systemic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear . . . that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s colleague, Morris Powell, said of the Jewish owner — Sharpton’s “white interloper” — “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers. Reverend Sharpton is on it.”

    This pretty much puts Al Sharpton in the same class of white supremacists who incite, at least indirectly, the actual lynching of African-Americans: in other words, the worst and most violent elements of the Ku Klux Klan and Tom Metzger’s White Aryan Resistance (WAR).

    he attracted nationwide publicity in 1990, when an Oregon jury rendered a $12.5 million judgment against him and his son, John, for inciting the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant by skinheads.

    Compare this to what was said above:

    After weeks of increasingly violent rhetoric, one of the protesters, Roland Smith, took Mr. Sharpton’s words about ousting the “white interloper” to heart. He ran into the store shouting, “It’s on!” He shot and wounded three whites and a Pakistani, whom he apparently mistook for a Jew. Then he set the fire, which killed five Hispanics, one Guyanese and one African-American–a security guard whom protesters had taunted as a “cracker lover.” Smith then fatally shot himself.

    Al Sharpton is therefore the African-American equivalent of Tom Metzger, and that is the kind of individual with whom the six Democratic candidates have chosen to appear. Note that the above excerpt shows that Sharpton himself, as opposed to a rogue follower, was responsible for the “white interloper” remark. He was essentially saying that a Caucasian did not belong in Harlem (and, by implication, should be driven out) just as white supremacists say, “We don’t want any Negroes in our neighborhood.” “Negroes” is, of course, not exactly the word they use. Sharpton was also personally responsible for statements about “[Jewish] diamond merchants,” “Greek homos,” and even “N***er,” the latter being applied to a Black person he didn’t like. http://www.nationalreview.com/20Mar00/nordlinger032000.html “Once he [Sharpton] had referred to [David] Dinkins as “that nigger whore turning tricks in City Hall.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Accusations_of_racism_and_homophobia
    Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at Kean College in 1994 that, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires … We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” Sharpton defended his comments by noting that the term “homo” was not homophobic but added that he no longer uses the term.

    As far as we know, “homo” is indeed a derogatory term for a gay person, just as “cracker” is a derogatory term for a Caucasian and “bloodsucking Jew” is a derogatory term for a Jew. Sharpton apparently thinks he is Humpty Dumpty, who proclaimed that, when he used a word, it meant exactly what he wanted it to mean: no more and no less.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Crown_Heights_Riot
    A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting “Kill the Jew.” Sharpton has been seen by some commentators as inflaming tensions with remarks such as “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” and referring to Jews as “diamond merchants.”

    Sharpton (we will not address you as “Mister” or “Reverend” or with any other title of respect), we have wanted to get it on with you ever since you brought your lying face to Wappingers Falls in 1988. Now we are going to wrap you around the Democrats’ necks like the stinking-to-high-heaven racist and anti-Semitic bigot you are, and it is going to cost them next year’s election–unless the party finds someone else between now and then.

    Posted by Bill Levinson @ 7:17 pm |

    Son of Sacrifice

    Son of Sacrifice
    By Jerry Bowyer
    TCSDaily.com | April 19, 2007

    First it was Johnny Muhammad, now it was Cho Sueng Hui aka Ismail Ax. Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it? Islam has become the tribe of choice of those who hate American society. I’m not talking about people who grew up as Muslims, confident and secure in their faith, good fathers, sons and neighbors. I’m talking about the angry, malignant, narcissist loners who want to reject their community utterly, to throw off their ‘slave name’ and represent the downtrodden of the earth by shooting their friends and neighbors.

    This morning I read that the  shooter died with the name Ismail Ax written in red ink on his arm. The mainstream press doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what this might mean. To quote Indiana Jones, “Didn’t any of you guys go to Sunday School?”

    The story starts with a man named Abraham. He is the father of the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians. He was born in Iraq, the son of a wealthy idol manufacturer. He came to believe that there was only one true God and, according to tradition, took up his ax and destroyed his father’s idols.

    Eventually he left Iraq and moved to what is now known as Israel. He had a son with his concubine whom she named Ishmael. The Muslim world prefers the Arabic spelling of the name: Ismail. Eventually Abraham had a son by his rightful wife and named the son Isaac. Ishmael and his mother were disinherited and sent out into what is now Saudi Arabia. Isaac became the heir.

    Eventually, God decided to test Abraham by telling him to kill his son, Isaac. Abraham took up the knife, but God stopped him at the last moment. Isaac lived and eventually became a man of great wealth. Ishmael became a desert warrior chieftain.

    The Jews are the descendants of Isaac, the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael.

    In the 7th Century, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, re-wrote the story, claiming that Ismail was the true faithful descendant of Abraham and that it was he, not Isaac, who God told Abraham to sacrifice. Ismail was the one saved. For Muslims, Ismail (not Isaac) was the true ‘Son of Sacrifice.’ In the original version of the story, Abraham used a knife, in some of the later Muslim versions, he used an Ax.

    Flash forward 1,400 years: a sullen, angry young man who rages against rich people and apparently against Christians, writes a play in which a mother and son try to kill his step-father, but in the end the boy (age about 13, the age many think Ismail was when he was exiled) is murdered by the step-father with ‘a deadly blow’. Father issues? Yeah, I think so.

    Cho Sueng-hui cum Ismail Ax hated the American society to which he had been brought 15 years earlier. His play McBeef (a poor pun from an English Lit major on Macbeth) is one endless screed against the corruption of American culture. A cheesy re-telling of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it involves a young man abused by his step-father, a former NFL football player. The son, throws epithets at his father calling him a ‘Catholic priest’. And makes derisive comments about McDonalds. It seems that none of the foundational structures of Western Civilization, Christianity, capitalism, family, are spared his rage. In other words, he really meant what he said in his last words: “you (that is us, America) made me do this.”

    Iran’s First Official Nuclear Threat
    By Steve Schippert
    FrontPageMagazine.com | April 19, 2007

    Last week,
    Iran announced that it has graduated into the industrial production phase in their nuclear program, claiming to have enriched uranium in a 3,000-centrifuge cascade.  “I proudly announce that as of today

    Iran is among the countries which produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale,” boasted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  But while the Iranian claims are questionable, it is what Ahmadinejad said soon after that should garner the lion’s share of attention from the observant.  What followed is nothing short of
    Iran’s first official nuclear threat. Ahmadinejad forewarned the United States and Europe about its opposition to
    Iran’s nuclear weapons program by announcing, “
    Iran has so far moved in a completely peaceful path and wants to continue following this path, they should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behavior.”  And with that,
    Iran seeks to shift responsibility for the coming Iranian nuclear weapons production.  A nuclear armed
    Iran will thus be the fault of the
    United States and
    Europe. This psychology is important to both acknowledge and understand.
    If by “completely peaceful path” Ahmadinejad means that
    Iran has “so far” not produced a nuclear weapon, he’d be quite right.  But Western populations should note that
    Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program went swiftly and officially under military control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ command the moment the extent of its once-clandestine program was revealed by Iranian dissidents 2003.  
     

    The psychology of Ahmadinejad’s threat is revelatory and supported by past behavior in that regard.  First, the voting public in Western democracies should understand that the statement targets them much more their current leaderships.   

    What
    Iran is trying to do – with some success – is to portray itself as the victim of unfair and oppressive behavior and not the aggressor.  As this applies to their nuclear gambit, if it weren’t for the aggressive elected leadership in the United States, Britain, France and elsewhere, Iran would not one day have to ‘switch over’ to producing nuclear weapons. 
    Iran is setting the stage for as many voters as possible to perceive the emergence of its nuclear weapons as the fault of Western aggression, an unfortunate diversion from their original peaceful aims of nothing more than kilowatt-hours. 
     

    This is the psychological imagery the regime also employed during the recent British hostage situation.  The British sailors and Royal Marines were not only shown ‘confessing’ on tape and over the air, but also smiling, thanking Ahmadinejad for his hospitality and toting home goodie bags filled with Persian gifts.  After their release, the regime made sure to counter later claims of mistreatment with more imagery and footage of the same individuals comfortably playing chess and other pastimes.  Hospitable and benevolent
    Iran.  That’s the message.  Never mind that the sailors were abducted from Iraqi waters.  They left with smiles and goodie bags.
     

    To close the psychological loop, consider by contrast the images aired and published of the Iranian freed from
    Iraq soon after the Brits were sent home.  Jalal Sharafi, described as the Second Secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, is visible at a Wednesday Tehran press conference – days after his release – at the microphones dressed in blue hospital scrubs, lest anyone forget he is hospitalized for his mistreatment.  For good measure, a doctor in his white medical robe is placed behind him and always within camera range of Sharafi. 
    Iran, the victim of
    US aggression.  That is the message.
     

    And the electorates of the West are the primary intended recipients.  The leaderships of those countries are already committed to a track of economic sanctions – weak as they may be – on an
    Iran whose economy can endure little outside pressure without profoundly dangerous consequences for the regime’s stability.  But those electorates are seen as receptive, particularly in
    America where President Bush’s popularity is so low as to usher in a sweeping change in Congressional leadership. 
     

    And if that leadership is maverick enough to ignore the sitting president and conduct parallel foreign policy with Iranian ally
    Syria, surely there is opportunity in the cards for the mullahcracy.  That, of course, is the plan, as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and others have announced their desire to trek to
    Tehran soon.  And welcome they would be.
     

    One member of Pelosi’s Congressional junket, Representative Tom Lantos, is quoted in Bashar Assad’s regime-controlled Syrian Arab News Agency as saying of the Assad policy meetings, “The visit expressed in a marvelous way interests of the
    US, that led to embarrassment of the current
    US administration which has closed doors for dialogue with
    Syria.”  Lantos continued that Assad “strongly encourages the continuation of the Syrian-American dialogue.” 
     

    Well of course he would.  The visiting members of Congress are effectively doing Assad’s bidding against President Bush and he is quite pleased that their actions have “led to embarrassment of the current
    US administration.”  Assad could never have accomplished this alone. 
    Iran too wants a visit and Lantos said he was “ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning” for
    Tehran to oblige.
     

    Astonishingly, Lantos says he is anxious to discuss a ‘new’ United States House of Representatives initiative to establish a world “nuclear fuel bank” that would supply
    Iran with it’s nuclear fuel necessary to run its envisioned nuclear electric plant.  Unfortunately, this idea has already been broached by both the Europeans and the Russians in the past 3½ years of ‘negotiations.’  Not surprisingly, the Iranians rejected this novel idea already and sent the Russians and Europeans packing.  You see, the issue is not about kilo-watt hours.  It remains about
    Iran’s domestic mastery and control of the nuclear fuel cycle, affording them the ability to ultimately produce nuclear weapons.
     

    When it comes to the upstart Congressional Foreign Policy Czars, we should apparently never mind that they are being used by the regimes.  Never mind too that the responsibility for foreign diplomacy lies – Constitutionally – solely with the Executive Branch.   

    Do mind, however, that Iran is still training those who attack and kill our troops in
    Iraq.  Do mind that
    Iran is still supplying arms and funds to Hamas who,
    Israel has learned, has been planning major attacks against her.  Do mind that over 100 al-Qaeda terrorists, including leadership, remain operating freely – under ‘house arrest’ – in
    Iran.  And, of course, do mind that
    Iran has already rejected Congressman Lantos’ planned international ‘nuclear fuel bank’ solution. 
     


    Iran has said time and again that uranium enrichment is non-negotiable.  At some point, this oft repeated position will have to be acknowledged. 
     

    And while
    Iran is busy not negotiating its nuclear program, it welcomes talks with
    Europe and, surely, American congressmen.  It would be prudent for such American elected officials to bear in mind that
    Iran is clearly also busy making their first nuclear threat, as Ahmadinejad warns that the West “should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behavior.” 
     

    Perhaps it would indeed be wise to “review its behavior” as the world’s premier state sponsor of international terrorism.  But given the West’s lack of appetite to substantively derail the Iranian nuclear weapons program,
    Iran likely sees little cause for concern.  This week’s first official Iranian nuclear threat looks more likely to be eventually followed by nuclear blackmail or worse.  Least likely of all is a solution magically negotiated through the prescient wisdom of American congressman.
     

    But come on over. 
    Iran has always sought a diplomatic solution to the West’s unnecessary nuclear concerns, and who better to broach the subject than the new American Foreign Ministry?  Warm presidential hospitality and Persian goodie bags await.

    Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

    Indoctrinate U — analyzes political correctness on college campuses

    Indoctrinate U
    By Jamie Glazov
    FrontPageMagazine.com | April 19, 2007

    Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Evan Coyne Maloney, an early pioneer of video blogging. He is currently working on a project – Indoctrinate U – that analyzes political correctness on college campuses. His website is Brain-Terminal.com.

    Preview Image

    FP: Evan Coyne Maloney, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

     

    Maloney: Thanks a lot for the opportunity. 

    FP: Tell us a little bit about how your first short video, “Protesting the Protestors,” and how it helped get you started.  

    Maloney: In the run-up to the
    Iraq war, there were a lot of peace protests getting a fair amount of media attention. But what I noticed was, none of the reporters bothered to look at the extremist organizations organizing these protests. The Workers World Party, the International Socialist Organization and International ANSWER are rather extreme groups, yet I didn’t see anyone in the media looking into their involvement with the protest movement.

    If the K.K.K. sponsored rallies in
    Washington, and tens of thousands of people showed up, media coverage would undoubtedly include some mention of the extremism of the people who set it up. Yet these organizations are every bit as extreme as the K.K.K., and their involvement was being ignored.

    I also noticed that the media refused to cover the radical element that did show up. There were people who were openly supporting suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. There were people comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler, and nobody was questioning it. You don’t have to like President Bush, but if you think he and Hitler are one and the same, then I think you’re pretty ignorant of history.

    So I decided to pick up a video camera and cover the element of the protesters that the media was ignoring, and the result was Protesting the Protesters.

    It got e-mailed around so much that it became one of those Internet phenomena. Within a day of posting that video, my relatively obscure website, Brain-Terminal.com, was getting mentioned by Rush Limbaugh and national television newscasters like Brit Hume. 

    FP: You mention the protestors who openly support suicide bombings against Jewish civilians. The Left thinks of itself as being a progressive force that cares about justice and humanitarianism etc. Yet in this terror war, the Left has ended up being on the side of an ugly totalitarian ideology – an ideology that is based on hatred of pluralism, hatred of women, hatred of minorities, hatred of homosexuals and hatred of almost everything else on earth.  What is the psychology of the Left in this context do you think? 

    Maloney: That’s what boggles my mind. Women are second-class citizens in a large part of the world, treated as property, and it is not only acceptable for their husbands to beat them, but it is expected. Rape victims are stoned to death in “honor” killings while gang-rapists face no punishment. And yet the West’s feminists are silent. In a large part of the world, gays can be jailed and subject to chemical treatments in an attempt to change their gender preference. They are hanged and beheaded simply for being gay. And yet the gay rights activists in the West are silent.

    I really don’t get it. There are very severe offenses against humanity occurring all over the world, and yet the left ignores them. It seems they are constitutionally incapable of recognizing any injustice unless they can somehow blame it on the West, on white males, on Christians or Jews, or on the
    United States.

    FP: Zilla Huma Usman, a Pakistani minister and woman’s activist, was, as you know, recently shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil. There wasn’t one peep about this from the Left in general and from the feminist left in particular. Just a deafening silence. I think this serves as a hint of what the Left really cares about and what it doesn’t care about at all.  

    So what short videos have you produced since “Protesting the Protestors”?

     

    Maloney: I’ve produced a total 14 short videos that are all freely available on Brain-Terminal.com. 

    FP: Your interview with Michael Moore set you on the path of being a full-time documentarian, correct? Can you share the experience with us and how it set you on the road you are on?

     

    Maloney: It was after McCain-Feingold became law, and it occurred to me that the campaign finance laws had a huge loophole in them, what I call the Michael Moore loophole. Whereas private citizens like you or me could not buy airtime to express our views within 90 days of a general election–it would be illegal–
    Hollywood was exempt. So people in
    Hollywood would have a huge megaphone with which to promote their views, while people like us–people who didn’t have access to the
    Hollywood distribution machine–are shut up and shut out of the process.

    I didn’t think it was fair that Michael Moore could put out a two-hour political ad in the form of movie, but I as a private citizen could not buy airtime to express my own views (not like I could afford it anyway, but it was the principle of the thing).

    So I decided I would try to find Michael Moore to ask him what he thought about that. I staked him out for four days, and ultimately, I got him on camera. The discussion was a little contentious at first, but he did admit that
    Hollywood should be more inclusive of different views. He encouraged me to continue working in documentary film. And he even admitted that there’s a market for documentary films other than what
    Hollywood typically puts out. Now all I need to do is convince all the folks who put out films like his that he is indeed correct.

    They don’t see a market for documentaries unless they hew to the Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview. But I’m going to prove them wrong.

     

    FP: What is the Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview?

     

    Maloney: To me, it’s a worldview that believes that the solution to all human problems is for more government and for greater subservience to government. That the world would be utopia if only we willingly handed over control to a group of hand-picked experts who would be responsible for running things. And that this utopia can be brought about through social engineering if only the will of the individual could be suppressed enough to allow this to happen. 

    FP: And it’s a worldview that spawned hell on earth every time it achieved earthly incarnation. 

    Tell us about “Brainwashing 101” and its sequel. What responses were there to these films?

     

    Maloney: It’s funny. We had a great response from the audiences who saw the short films “Brainwashing 101” and “Brainwashing 201.” Both films won awards at film festivals, and we got a great reception from the students who got a chance to see them. Even a number of professors were supportive.

    But school administrators were another story. It is in their best interests to limit the flow of information leaving campus to glossy admissions brochures and warm-and-fuzzy alumni newsletters designed to encourage graduates to open their wallets. Anything beyond that is a problem for them, especially a film that exposes the dirty little secrets of higher education.

    In producing “Indoctrinate U”, we had the police called on us about a half-dozen times. And when we were screening the short film “Brainwashing 101” at

    Bucknell
    University–my alma mater–the head of security was brought in to threaten me with arrest in front of an audience assembled to watch my film.

    I never thought my own alma mater would try to shut down the career of one of its own alumni. It was pretty eye-opening.

     

    FP: So share with us your current project: ”

    Indoctrinate
    U.” When will it be released?

     

    Maloney: We’re going to have a media screening for the film at the end of April, at the

    Tribeca
    Film
    Center here in
    New York. (For more information, see
    the film’s website.

     

    Unfortunately, it’s a little difficult to predict when the film will be released. You see, films are like new cars. The minute you drive them off the lot–or in the case of a film, hold public screenings–they lose significant value. Distributors like to “own the premiere”; they want virgin films. So we’re holding off on any timetables until we’ve exhausted all our options with distributors. And if we still can’t find a distributor, we’ll put it out ourselves. But we’re still trying to give
    Hollywood a chance to prove that they’re not the same one-party state that campuses have become.
     

    FP: Why do you think that
    Hollywood and the academic campus are one-Party states?
     

    Maloney: If the question is why do I perceive them that way, the answer is pretty simple: ample evidence demonstrates them to be that way.

    When you see
    Hollywood celebrities expressing their political opinions, very rarely do you see anyone express anything other than a left-wing worldview; it almost never happens. Similarly, when you take a look at the documentaries put out by
    Hollywood, to whatever extent they contain a political perspective, it is also invariably left-of-center. Quite simply, that is the default position in
    Hollywood.

    As far as higher education, there have been several studies showing that academics are much further to the left than the rest of society. The fact is, when political speech is suppressed on campus, it is almost always (not always, but most of the time) right-of-center speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-partisan civil rights organization that defends the free speech and free thought rights of students and professors in academia, states that most of the cases they receive are of conservatives who’ve had their rights trampled on campus. And FIRE is an organization that defends all comers. So the slant of the cases they receive is a symptom of the overwhelming slant in academia.

    Now, if the question is why Hollywood and academia are that way–i.e., how did they get that way–that is a question that I could probably spend decades studying and only begin to approximate an answer.

    In a general sense, I think that communities tend to be self-reinforcing, and that when any community passes a certain threshold of uniformity, the self-reinforcing nature of the community becomes exaggerated and more extreme. People who, as individuals, would never think of trying to punish someone simply for their political perspective become much more willing to stand by and let that happen if it appears that such a thing is what the community desires. And as the community becomes increasingly extreme in how it treats dissidents, people who simply stood by when it happened in less extreme cases become afraid to speak out against the increasing extremism, lest they be punished or cast out of the community themselves.

    It’s simple group dynamics, and I don’t think any particular part of the ideological spectrum has a monopoly on groupthink and the negative consequences to which it leads. It is a human frailty, not a liberal or conservative thing. 

    FP: Share with us some of the innovative things you are doing to make yourself a force that 
    Hollywood can’t ignore.

    Maloney: I don’t really care whether I’m a force in
    Hollywood, and a lot of  things in
    Hollywood would have to change before someone like me could  be considered a force there.

    But we are doing a few innovative things to prove that there are lots of people interested in the topics we’re covering in ”

    Indoctrinate 
    U.” On our website, we’ve got
    a Google Map where people can type in their zip codes to express an interest in seeing the film near them. And when they plug in their zip codes, it puts a pin in the map, showing graphically that there’s interest all over the country in seeing this film. Already, without spending a single dime promoting the film, we’ve had nearly 150,000 page views on our website, and we’ve got thousands and thousands of towns with pins in them. And we haven’t even spent a dime promoting the website yet.

     

    Preview Image

    So, while we have far to go before this grassroots campaign is noticed in
    Hollywood, the fact that we’ve gotten this far this fast is very encouraging.

    Of course, we need the help of everyone who cares about free thought in higher education, and we need the help of everyone who wishes Hollywood would every once in a while put out a documentary that speaks to them. If people get involved, I think we can help them bring about a lot of positive change.

     

    FP: So what are some ways people can get involved and help?

     

    Maloney: Right now, our biggest hurdle is convincing
    Hollywood that there is a market for a different kind of documentary film, one that doesn’t necessarily have the same old perspective that the industry routinely churns out. And that’s where people can help.

    If people visit our website and plug in their zip codes, we can prove that a market exists for this film. If they watch the trailer and forward a link to all of their contacts, I think we can get over 100,000 people to punch in their zip codes. And if we do, I think we can get mainstream distribution for this film.

    That’s what is needed to help open
    America’s eyes. I think many people suspect that these problems exist within academia, but I don’t think they have any idea just how pervasive or severe the problem is. No level of academia is immune, nor is any particular geographic region. Most colleges and universities in
    America seem to be this way, and it is important that Americans begin to question the environment on campus and address the problem.

    FP: Evan Coyne Maloney, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview and we wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

     

    Maloney: Thank you very much.

     

    Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.