Gingrich and the New York Times

Chris Wallace (Fox News Sunday): Why do you think that some Democrats want to start pulling out troops even before General Petraeus gets a chance to issue his progress report in September?

Newt Gingrich: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American Defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

--Parital transcript from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on July 29, 2007

Viewed from Iraq, where we spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.

--Excerpt from A War We Just Might Win from the New York Times, July 30, 2007

[Emphasis mine]

The New York Times and Newt are agreeing on at least one point, we are making significant progress in Iraq. For an icon of the conservative movement, and a bastion of the liberal left to agree either means there is a coming apocalypse, or we should sit up and take note. Where McCain was laughed at for saying he could stroll through parts of Baghdad without body armor a few weeks ago, the New York Times now makes the same claim. Could it be that the United States is winning in Iraq?

The New York Times tempered their enthusiasm, with this cautious note,"… there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." But it is still optimism. Optimism seems to be something many of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate seem to lack. And consider what it means that a liberal newspaper is discussing the surge working in Iraq.

Newt is correct in describing the bloodbath that will happen if we leave Iraq. I have written on this site before about the dire consequences of pulling out of Iraq. There is no military force on the planet that can defeat the United States Military. Our enemies know that they can only win by turning public opinion in the United States against our military, by turning us against ourselves. The Democrats seem to have fallen for this tactic. However, if the New York Times can change its opinion, then it is time for Reid, Obama, Clinton, and the rest to reexamine their stance on the war. Will they be puppets to the ultra left wing of their party, or will they put aside their partisan differences and do what's right for the country.

Help Protect John Doe

The House and Senate Conference Committee on Homeland Security has been debating an amendment that should enjoy support from both the right and left. The amendment has been called the “John Doe” measure because it is designed to protect people when they report suspicious activity from being sued. The post 9/11 mantra of “If you see something, say something,” should be protected and encouraged.

This measure came about in response to the six “flying imams” who were taken off a Northwest Airlines flight last year. I wrote at the time that the actions of these imams were suspicious, and may have been done simply to get a reaction. After protesting in front of Northwest and after calling the passengers on the flight racist, the imams decided to attempt to sue the unknown passengers that reported them. I have said all along that I felt this was a planned attempt to weaken security at airports and to make passengers question whether they should say something about suspicious activities. Remember, these imams were causing a disturbance on the plane; they weren’t simply sitting in their seats and minding their own business.

After the imams announced plans to file suit, lawmakers quickly passed measures in both the House and the Senate to protect people who report suspicious activity. However, Democrats in the House and Senate Committee tried to block this measure from part of a new homeland security bill. Senator Pat Leahy spoke against it for some time on the floor. Luckily, concerned members of both chambers have been able to keep the measure in the bill thus far. However, these same Democrats are now talking about limiting the number of amendments to this bill so they can target the John Doe measure for removal.

Today, Fox News reported that TSA officials have issued an alert to be on the lookout for terrorist attempting a dry run with explosive components. The TSA sites increased seizures of improvised components as one of the reasons to issue the alert. One example given was of a device that was seized in San Diego. The device consisted of a checked bag with two ice packs wrapped in duct tape. The gel had been removed from the packs and replaced with clay.

It would appear the terrorist mean what they say when the promise to attack us on U.S. soil again. Why would any elected official, Democrat or Republican, want to put our citizens at risk by not protecting them? Shouldn’t concerned citizens be protected when they are making a good faith effort to alert law enforcement and protect themselves and others? Why would we allow lawsuits that may make people cautious about reporting suspicious behavior? I simply can’t see any reason someone in our government would be against this measure.

Feminism vs. Muslim Women?

I have often wondered why some of the most vocal critics of America’s involvement in Iraq are some of those who would have the most to loose under Sharia law. Where would the ACLU, Moveon.org, and assorted gay rights groups be if they were forced to live under Sharia Law. I don’t understand why some of these groups don’t make a common cause with those fighting for the same rights in Iraq and the Middle East.

For example, under Muslim law, women have very few rights. While most citizens in the Middle East have very little influence over their government, many women are in even worse shape. How often have we seen articles in the news about honor killings? How many female genital mutilations are performed in the Middle East without the consent of the girl being exposed to this barbaric practice? How many girls are sentenced to prison because they were raped?

I recently read an article in the Weekly Standard from May of 2007 by Christina Hoff Sommers that ask some of these same questions. She asks why there aren’t more demonstrations here in the United States to help women in Muslim countries. Ms. Sommers points out, “[d]uring the 1980’s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.” Ms. Sommers argues that while the, “…condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age...” too many feminist groups today are focused on attacking the United States and not on examining the condition of women outside of the U.S.

I did a random sampling of feminist groups in the United States to see if Ms. Sommers was being fair in her characterization of these groups. Very few of the websites I visited talked at all about women outside the United States. In a domestic violence study on the Center for the Advancement of Women, the group mentions talking to what it considers a diverse group: non-minority, African-American, Asian, Latina, adult and teenage women. Since the study does bring up religion, I was surprised there was no mention of Muslim women.

A more prominent group, The National Organization for Women (NOW), list as their top priorities: Abortion Rights / Reproductive Issues, Violence against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity / Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights, and Economic Justice. “Global Feminism” appears as bullet point five under “Other Important Issues”. You will be happy to know that at number four in this same category is “Fighting the Right”. Under “Global Feminism” the most recent article is dated October of 2006. I did a quick search on Google for “honor killings” and found articles on CNN, The Christian Science Monitor, and other sources much more recent than that.

However, not being active in any of these organizations, maybe I was missing something. Going back to the homepage for NOW, I looked to see what the most pressing issues facing today’s women are. The first article was “Breaking News: Cleavage on Display”. This insightful bit of reporting was referring to Hilary Clinton’s “brazen step” to wear a low neckline. Here is the link to the story if you think I am making this up. And this was the headline as of the writing of this article.

There are feminist movements active in the Middle East. Occasionally American feminist will try to help these movements only to be attacked by organizations such as NOW. In her article, Ms. Sommers points out that these movements are gaining some momentum, and that they don’t like what they see in their American counterparts. A 1998 book quoted in the article said that some Iraqi women’s advocates don’t like what they see as trying to divide men from women, and separating women from their family.

In her article, Mrs. Sommers points out, “A reviewer of Irshad Manji’s manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, ‘This could be Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare.’ Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream.” American Feminist should take a step back from the political parties and look at their own ideals. If women’s issues, and especially all women’s issues, are what their organizations are about, how can they not support an effort to provide women in the Middle East with a stable democracy to live in? Are feminist in these groups so against the Republican party and George Bush that they would want the women of the Middle East to live in conditions they would never, ever, dream of here in the U.S.?

To drive the point home, the cover of The Weekly Standard with Ms. Sommers article shows three women who are coverd except for their face and their hands. The center woman has some hair showing on the top of her head. The caption for this cover is "Government agents in Tehran warn a woman about her clothing and hair during a crackdown to enforce the regime's dress code, April 22, 2007." Is this really the environment that NOW wants women living in?

What Happens if We Leave Iraq?

There is a growing political argument to leave Iraq. Some Republicans have jumped ship to ask the President for a new course. The Senate exercised more political theatrics last night by staying up all night to debate calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. In the end, the bill failed. I think we have all seen a lot of debate on whether or not we should be in Iraq. But what would happen if we left?

As the war in Iraq has been fought, many have drawn comparisons with the U.S. war in Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Military was winning on the ground. However, the political war was being lost. Much like then, our enemies in Iraq know that while they can’t beat our military, they can use our media to defeat our political will. There have been 3,600 military deaths in Iraq to date. For a “bloody civil war” that is a relatively low body count. The deaths in Iraq are nothing compared to what happened in Vietnam.

At the end of Vietnam, when our politicians voted to cut off all funding to our allies, there was an incredible blood bath. The North Vietnamese swept into South Vietnam and brutally killed and tortured untold numbers. The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 2 million people in Cambodia. This was done in the name of giving the people of that region peace. Is this the peace we want for Iraq?

I think we should all take a step back and try to imagine a world where the President has given in to the demands of the Democratic Party and pulled out of Iraq. If we were to leave, Al-Queda and Iran would quickly carve up the pieces of Iraq they wanted like a Thanksgiving feast. Turkey would probably move in to grab the Kurdish area of Iraq. Iraqis would try to resist all of this. There would be violence in Iraq unlike anything we have seen there to date. Very likely, this violence would spread into the surrounding areas as well.

And in case you’re thinking, “That is tragic, but at least American soldiers won’t be trapped there anymore.” They wouldn’t be in Iraq, but they would still be in Afghanistan. What would that suddenly look like? Our enemies would draw their own comparisons. If they look back at our history, at Vietnam, at Beirut, at Somalia, and now at Iraq, what lesson would they learn? They would quickly learn that Osama bin Laden is right; if you hit the United States hard enough, it will walk away. If they study their history, what do you think they would do in Afghanistan? And how long before those same politicians who are now saying that we need to focus on Afghanistan decide that the death toll in Afghanistan is now too much?

People can argue on what the best course of action is in Iraq. Do we ignore the short term political gain for a possible long term gain with a stable Iraq? Do we stand by an ally and help to repair our image or do we live up to the “Paper Tiger” label? Do we decide that our military doesn’t know what it’s doing and 3,600 deaths is simply too many in war? And exactly what should we tell our allies that are now going to suffer violence we can only begin to imagine?

Visit Me at Textual Relations!

I have a post up at a site I just found called Textual Relations. This one is on some of the information coming out of Iraq. Drop by and let me know what you think. Also, let me know what you think of the site. I am always interested in what my readers think of the other sites I write for. If you like it, leave a comment, it might submit more stuff for them.

Global Cooling: A case study in Liberal Debate

A few weeks ago I posted a blog entry on a study by Canadian Geologist Dr. R. Timothy Patterson. In his study, Dr. Patterson used cores from Western Canadian fjords to argue that the sun is a primary driver behind Global Climate change on Earth. Dr. Patterson stated, "[o]ur finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change." The purpose of my reviewing Dr. Patterson's work was not to convince my readers that "global cooling" was imminent. My intent was to highlight the work of a respected scientist who disagrees with the theory of "man-made global warming".

I believe man doesn't know enough about how the planet works, or how we affect the planet, to know if we are causing global warming. I have stated I believe there needs to be more research in the field. If individuals wish to change their lifestyle based on a belief in global warming, then good for them. Legislating how we are to live based on a knee jerk reaction to unproven science is dangerous and can have far reaching and unintended consequences.

My call for more study and debate has been met with the typical liberal hysterics. The first negative response to my article was to attack the character and reputation of Dr. Patterson. That was quickly followed by the always nefarious insinuation that he got, "…money from the oil and gas industry." While the critic (who was unwilling to identify himself) quickly stated that this money didn't mean he is on the take, it was, "…interesting."

Finally, a critic posted a response saying that Dr. Patterson had been, "definitively proven wrong". This very high sounding claim was made from a Reuters review of an opposing scientific study. This new study argued that the sun could not alone account for the temperature changes from the last two decades. Since my critic had posted a link to this article, I read it for myself to see what they had to say about Dr. Patterson. I found that there were a few conditions put into the study that I didn't understand. For example, the study has apparently taken out sunspot data. Dr. Patterson's study seemed to include sunspot data. The study also stated that there was, "…little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the century, but… researchers said it could not explain recent warming." This seemed contradictory to me. How can the sun not be a cause in global warming, and still have been a factor in the first half of the century? This new study seemed to focus in on temperature changes since 1980. Instead of a 1 degree over 100 year change, we are now focusing in on a 0.4 degree change over 20 years. The researchers seem to argue that a portion of that 0.4 degree is accounted for by the sun, but the remainder is due to man. The article does not state what percent that may or may not be. I posed these questions to my readers.

The response from my anonymous critic was not any sort of response to the science, but a quick post attacking me and my statements. While I wouldn't expect to change an opinion based on one study, my critics have insulted me for not doing that. Would someone who believes in man-made global warming change their minds after reading one argument against the position?

My criticism on the "man-made global warming" debate is that many who support this view don't like to discuss the facts. They wish to present a study or two, or even fall back on the bastion of truth that is the United Nations, then insult anyone who disagrees with them. They will attack a dissenter's character, ideals, and even question their funding before they will begin to discuss the facts. I invite everyone to read my original post and the subsequent comments. Look at who presents facts, and debates the issues, and who simply attacks and calls everyone else names.

The Evil we face in Iraq

Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett have both talked about a story from Michael Yon's blog over the last couple of days. On Mr. Yon's blog, he lists a few other news sources that have run with the story. I was unable to find any of the big named media groups (except Fox News) on his list. This story needs to be reported and repeated until every American can repeat it word for word. Here is the part everyone is talking about:

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

We are currently engaged in a war with enemies who are as evil as anything we have ever faced. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all cut from the same cloth that made the Nazis and S. S. of World War II. Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are kindred spirits cut from the same cloth. Democrats and some Republicans have been playing at being at war. It is time for America to realize exactly what it is up against.

This morning the New York Daily News ran an editorial by Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Hillary Clinton. The editorial is a great example of 9/10 thinking. I think it says a lot about a Presidential Candidate when she writes and editorial demanding we withdrawal from Iraq when there are atrocities like the one above being committed by our enemies. It says a lot about Mrs. Clinton that she would write an op-ed piece and share the byline with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Mrs. Clinton and every Presidential candidate should proclaim that the United States will not allow this type of evil to attack Democracies.

This morning, after repeating the story of these families, Bill Bennett said that we must stay in Iraq even if we lose ten times as many soldiers as we have lost. I agree. We must commit this country to winning Iraq as if our own continuation depended on it. Democracies must protect other Democracies. As Dr. Bennett said, we cannot allow people like this to occupy the same planet as we do. Democracies must also protect mankind from the kind of evil that would commit this evil against another person. If the full plight of the Jewish people had been known during WW II, no one would have argued to withdraw from the War. How can we as sane people discuss withdrawing from this one, knowing what Al-Queda is likely to do when we leave?

Why we should stay in Iraq

For the past few weeks, the news from Iraq has taken a back seat. The papers have been taken with covering Paris Hilton, Scooter Libby, and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. Now that those stories seem to have played out, the press and many politicians are back on the attack with Iraq. Unfortunately, they are on the wrong side.

The United States is actively involved in a war that should be easy to support. We have liberated a country from an evil tyrant. We are fighting terrorist who would like any opportunity to kill us. We are fighting a proxy war against Iran. In case you have spent too much time following Paris Hilton, Iran is the country doing everything in it’s power to get a nuclear weapon to use against either a) Israel, b) Europe, c) the United States, or d) any and all of the above.

When boiled down to its basics, there really should be very little reason to oppose the war in Iraq. However, some have lost focus on why we are there, while others believe we have no right to be there. This second group doesn’t care what happens in Iraq. They want us out and they want us out now. For more information on this group, do a Google search for “Sheehan threatens Pelosi”.

The real dirty secret is that the plan we are executing in Iraq is starting to work. We still have a long way to go. In the words of David Kilcullen, “…this is the end of the beginning: we are now starting to put things onto a viable long-term footing.” Mr. Kilcullen would know. According to The Weekly Standard, he is a former Australian officer and an expert on counterinsurgency warfare. He is also finishing a tour of duty in Iraq. All of this puts him in a much better position to characterize what is happening in Iraq than many on the hill. Kilcullen also points out that we are now trying to clear “human terrain” and not physical terrain. The effort is now focused on marginalizing Al-Queda and extremist militias.

Natan Sharansky writes today, “People of goodwill can certainly disagree over how to handle Iraq, but human rights should be a part of any responsible calculus.” We have promised our help to an ally in Iraq. To withdraw now after relatively minor losses would be a terrible thing to do. Mr. Sharansky argues that if we leave now, we should be prepared for a much larger blood bath in both Iraq and the surrounding area. If we leave now, we should expect Iran to become the dominant force in the Middle East. Staying in Iraq, even for a long time, is in our best national interests and is the right thing to do.

Book Review: Epicenter

A co-worker recently gave me a copy of Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg to read. The co-worker reads my site from time to time and thought I might be interested in the book. He was dead on the money. Epicenter is a little under 300 pages, and it is a page turner.

I wasn’t familiar with Joel Rosenberg before reading this book. He has gotten a lot of attention because of his fictional books. His books The Last Jihad, The Last Days, The Ezekiel Option, and the Copper Scroll follow a fictional war between the United States and Islamic fundamentalist. The thing that has sparked a lot of interest is that these books seem to predict many of the major things that have happened in our real world before they happen. For example, in The Last Jihad, Mr. Rosenberg describes a suicide attack by terrorist against the United States using an airplane. He wrote this before September 11^th. Other similarities his books seem to have predicted have included a U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Death of Yasser Arafat, Iran’s nuclear threat to Israel, and a Democratic and pro-west Iraqi government. Mr. Rosenberg points out that not everything he discusses in his books comes true. However, enough of them have come true that he has done interviews on CNN, MSNBC, CBN, the New York Times, and U.S. News and World Report.

Mr. Rosenberg is often asked where he has gained the knowledge to predict the events in his book. He believes world events must be looked at through the lens of politics and economics, but also the third lens of scripture. He and others are convinced that the biblical events in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 are fast approaching. Ezekiel predicts an apocalyptic war called the war of Gog and Magog. Mr. Rosenberg argues that this is a coming war with Russia and Iran against Israel. Mr. Rosenberg wrote his books as if those events are coming true before our eyes. He has lived in the Middle East, and studied in Israel. In researching for his book Epicenter, he met with a list of prominent figures in the Middle East such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Natan Sharansky.

Mr. Rosenberg states that he wrote this book not to, “…persuade anyone of what is coming.” Instead, he lays out why he wrote the events in his fictional book and how he interprets Ezekiel. He leaves it up to the reader to decide if his arguments are accurate. He includes ten predictions he expects we will see in the coming years. He lays out his arguments in a way that is easy to understand and very hard to argue with. He includes the entire text of Ezekiel 38 and 39 for readers to see for themselves what is written there.

If you are interested in the Middle East or biblical prophesies, I would strongly encourage you to read Epicenter. As I read the book, I was struck by how many headlines from today’s papers seem to fit with the predictions of Epicenter.

Happy July 4th

Happy Independence Day to everyone out there. I hope your family and friends are safe today if they are traveling. Take some time to remember our soldiers, both at home and overseas, who have protected our nation since before July 4th, 1776.

Political Friends turns 100

With my last post on Iran, Political Friends reached 100 posts. I wanted to take a moment and thank everyone who reads the articles I post on here. I also wanted to say a special thank you for those of you who regularly comment on here. Keep checking back, I hope to have another successful 100.

Russia aides Iran in Quest for Nuke's

The day after I posted my blog on Iran, a news story broke out of Iran that fit in directly with my post. Iran has instituted a fuel rationing system in expectation of sanctions being placed against it for its nuclear program. There have been riots in the street with buildings and gas pumps being burned. FOX News reported that many Iranians believe they are entitled to cheap gas because of the oil reserves found in Iran. Ahmadinejad is being heavily criticized for both the rationing and the way it was broken to the public.

This morning, another news story appeared that I believe is important. I have argued against the effectiveness of the United Nations. In my post from Tuesday, I commended Peter Schweizer for his article recommending action against Iran. I commended him because he never calls for the United Nations to assist in the economic warfare he lays out against Iran. The riots over gas rationing show that Iran would be hurt if we prevented it from importing gasoline, a news story from this morning shows why we shouldn’t involve the United Nations.

FOX News is reporting that Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman is attempting to invest heavily in the Iranian market. His company, Alfa Group, is trying to buy a controlling share in an Iranian mobile phone company. Why is this important? Because in doing so, Alfa Group is making financial deals with Bank Saderat. Bank Saderat has been providing funding to Hezbollah. There is evidence that the deal by Alfa group would dilute the control of a political rival of Ahmadinejad’s thereby helping him to consolidate power.

Russia has had a history of both supplying Iran with conventional weapons, and blocking any sanctions against Iran. Russia has also sold Iran a $1 billion nuclear reactor which is currently under construction. Russia has shown it has a vested interest in helping the Iranian government. With Russia working actively against sanctions on Iran, can the United Nations impose any sanction that might actually work to bring Iran back from its nuclear course?

As I said on Tuesday, Iran can not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Some have offered that we should avoid military action until Iran gets to the testing stage of a nuclear weapon. I counter that by then it would be too late. Ahmadinejad and the mullah’s of Iran believe there is a religious component to their quest for nuclear power. They believe they are preordained to hasten the arrival of the 12^th Imam. They also believe the best way to do that is to begin a war with Israel. With nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad could make his desire to destroy Israel a reality. Because of that, there is no reason to believe Ahmadinejad won’t consider “testing” his nuke’s in Israel. Russia could also give him cover by allowing a test in Russia, and thereby hide the fact he is even testing weapons.

If we continue to wait to act in Iran, Ahmadinejad will get nuclear weapons. Once he gets nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before he uses them.

Time for Action against Iran

There are two interesting news articles today that I thought might represent a good departure from the global warming debate. With the temperatures of some of my readers getting high enough to force certain “Anonymous” readers away from my blog, I thought it might be worth discussing something that is more likely to destroy the world than global warming. What is this terror that Al Gore is ignoring? Iran.

I have written previous post on this site arguing that Iran represents a clear and present danger to the United States. I am for the use of the military in Iran if we decide it is the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran. With the mindset of the rulers of Iran what it currently is, I believe Iran would not hesitate to use a nuclear warhead if it was able to get one. Mutually assured destruction means next to nothing if you believe you are preordained to usher in a new world order.

Iran has been at war with the United States and Europe since at least 1979. The latest salvo appears to be the use of the Iranian military to place bombs in Iraq. This story has been reported inThe Sun Online. This is still a developing story as I haven’t seen it reported anywhere else yet. The Sun sites an intelligence source as saying that British forces have seen Iranian helicopters ferrying soldiers into Iraq so they can place IED’s. The Sun says this claim is backed up by, “…very senior military sources.” However, the Sun is the only place reporting this story. Is this enough to go to war with Iran over? No. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only piece of evidence that Iran is at war with the West.

Peter Schweizer has a very good piece in USA Today outlining some of the other marks against Iran. Among other things, Iran is providing military equipment and funding to our enemies in Iraq. They captured British sailors and continue to hold 4 United States citizens. The Iranian President has stated more than once his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I am inclined to take people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their word. If he wants to destroy the Little Satan because he says he can win a war of attrition between Jews and Muslims, the West should be very concerned.

As I said earlier, I am for a military strike in Iran to keep them from acquiring a nuke. However, Mr. Schweizer lays out an economic war that I could support. He believes in a two prong assault, the first is a full gasoline embargo. This would be enforced by the United States Navy Fifth Fleet. Mr. Schweizer says that Iran imports almost half of its gasoline and is particularly vulnerable in this area. Secondly, he argues that the United States should begin counterfeiting Iranian currency. As I stated in another post attacking China for this very ploy, counterfeiting another nation’s currency is an act of war. However, in this case, Iran has been at war with the United States for decades. We can stick our head in the sand and hope the bully leaves us alone, or we can fight and stand up to these bullies.

The other very interesting part of this article is that Mr. Schweizer never once calls for aid or approval from the United Nations. Whether this course of action is taken or not, Mr. Schweizer should be applauded for this. It is time the United States shows that she is willing to stand up to those who would kill us, and we are willing to do it without international approval. The United States is the lone Superpower in the world. It is time we started acting like it.

"Global Cooling"

Many who subscribe to the belief of “man-made global warming” simply can't believe legitimate scientist disagree with the theory. An article I came across this week seems to disprove this theory.

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson has an article in Canada.com describing his current research. In case you’re wondering what Dr. Patterson’s credentials are, I have done a little homework. Dr. Patterson obtained his B. Sc Biology and B.A. Geology at Dalhousie University. He later obtained his PhD Geology form UCLA. He is Principal Investigator of a Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and the Canadian Leader of the International Geological Correlation Program “Quaternary Land-Ocean Interactions”. In the bio for the article, he is listed as Director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Science, Carleton University.

The article, “Read the Sunspots”, argues that the Sun and stars are the major driving force behind climate change on our planet. Dr. Patterson states, “Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth.” Dr. Patterson’s research has involved looking at cores from the mud of Western Canadian fjords. I have provided the link in case anyone wishes to read the research as presented on Canada.com. The core results are summarized quite well by Dr. Patterson:

“Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called “proxies”) is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.”

CO2 levels do find their way into Dr. Patterson’s paper. When they appear, it probably isn’t in a form most would expect in an article from a professor of Earth Sciences. Dr. Patterson says, “…CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.”

Dr. Patterson’s work found that as solar activity increases cloud activity decreases; as cloud activity decreases, global temperature increases. Dr. Patterson believes that by 2020, solar activity will be decreasing; hence our global temperature will decrease. He believes we really need to be worried about “Global Cooling”.

I wanted to point out this article because it illustrates one important thing: How much consensus isn’t present in global warming. As Dr. Patterson states, “In a 2003 pool conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that ‘the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.’ About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.” I have been criticized here for it, but I have constantly called for more research in this field. Humans simply don’t know enough about our environment to begin passing laws regulating industry with the hopes of changing a 1 degree temperature over 100 years.

The UN blames Global Warming for Darfur

Writing on Saturday, the Secretary General of the United Nations illustrated why the United Nations is no longer taken seriously. Ban Ki-moon said that man-made global warming was to blame in Darfur for the deaths of 200,000 or more people. How exactly did global warming spark the fighting between the government and rebels? The Secretary General would have us believe that a decrease in rain over the last two decades has led to the violence we are witnessing today. Please keep in mind that Sudan has been independent for the last 51 years. In that time, civil war has raged for 40 of those years.

How did war start in Sudan? That is a very complicated question. It also depends on which war you are talking about. After spending some time searching for writings on Darfur and Sudan, it is quickly apparent that war has been with this country for some time. The most recent version seems to have started around 2003 because rebel groups felt the government was neglecting certain areas of the country. Many have accused the government of participating in genocide in Darfur. The rebels have accused the government of using Arab militia’s, referred to as “Janjaweed”. The Janjaweed groups attack villages after the government has softened the targets up with air power. Most agree that there are active Arab militias in the country doing whatever they wish. The UN has launched its own investigation and doesn’t believe there is genocide going on in Darfur, but in an interesting play on words, acknowledges that there are those who have the intent to commit genocide.

If we weren’t talking about the deaths of 200,000 to 400,000 people, this might be a joke. If the UN itself was capable of doing anything in Sudan, one might be concerned about the thoughts of the Secretary General. However, for the Secretary General to say this may be caused by global warming is simply one further illustration that the United Nations should be ignored. Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere aren’t causing Muslims to kill each other in huge quantities. Hummers in America aren’t raping women for walking to far from home at night in search of water or firewood. “Big Oil” isn’t ……actually….there is a problem with “Big Oil” in Sudan. However, this big oil comes in the form of China and Russia.

There is a very limited African Union force in Darfur (7,000 to 9,000). Many want to boast that number. However, two of the veto votes on the Security Council (Russia and China) have blocked those attempts because of their own trade contracts in the Sudan. Perhaps instead of citing climate change Mr. Ki-moon should look at the United Nations and seriously consider that it might be part of the problem in Sudan. Instead of the United Nations conjuring phantoms to blame for it’s own incompetence, perhaps the UN should recognize that some of its own members are helping to continue the problem in Darfur.

Terrorist Operating Charities in Boston

Floyd Abrams wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that has not gotten the attention it deserves. In his article, Mr. Abrams explains that suing someone in court isn’t always the smartest course of action. “Be Careful What You Sue For” provides a few examples of cases where parties sued in court for things said about them only to have the suit bite them in the proverbial rear end.


The latest example, and a case Mr. Abrams was part of, is what I wish to direct this post towards. Recently, the Islamic Society of Boston sued 17 assorted individuals for libel. The Society had obtained a piece of property from the Boston Redevelopment Authority for a price far below its market value. Numerous parties including Mr. Abrams client, terrorist expert Steve Emerson, raised concerns about the transaction. Mr. Emerson and others urged, “…Boston authorities to reconsider their decision to provide the land on such favorable terms…to an organization whose present or former leaders had close connections with or who had otherwise supported terrorist organizations.” Remember, we are talking about a charity operating in the United States and dealing with a local government.


As the court case began to unfold, things started looking bad for the Islamic Society of Boston. The founder of the Society, Abdurahman Alamoudi, “…had been indicted in 2003 for his role in a terrorism financing scheme, pleaded guilty, and had been sentenced to a 23-year prison term.” But really, can we judge one charity based on the founder being a terrorist? Not so quick…


One of the members of the board of trustees, Yusef Al-Qaradawi, also had a few skeletons. Al-Qaradawi has been identified by the US Treasury as a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaradawi also endorsed the killing of Americans in Iraq and Jews everywhere. Is this enough to be suspicious of the Society…


Walid Fitaihi, a director of the Islamic Society of Boston, had written endorsing the killing of Jews for their, “oppression, murder and rape of the worshipers of Allah.” He had also accused the Jews of committing the “worst of evils” and of bringing “…the worst corruption to the earth.” And in case you still have any doubts, bank records revealed that the Society had raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation and the Benevolance International Foundation. Both of these charities have been identified as groups that raise money for Hamas (in the case of the Holy Land Fund) and Al-Queda (the Benevolance International Foundation).


At the end of the article, Mr. Abrams points out the lessons to be learned from this and similar cases. The first is that individuals or groups suing for libel should carefully consider what may happen if they sue. Secondly, counsel fees should be awarded to the winning side in cases similar to this. Both of these lessons are important, but I think Mr. Abrams misses the bigger lesson, a charity was shown to have terrorist ties in a court of law.


These are details that were brought as the case was pursued. An Islamic Charity is operating in the United States, and continues to operate in the US that has been proven to have terrorist ties. While I am not surprised this isn’t getting more coverage, I am greatly troubled that it isn’t. How can we even be debating some of the issues in Congress right now, when we allow a group to raise funds and associate with terrorist in our own backyard? Boston has plans for this group to give lectures regarding Islam to the local community. Do we really want to provide a venue for terrorist to teach the public here in our home towns?

Mr. Gore....in his own words.

This clip comes from Rush Limbaugh. I was listening to his show today when he discussed this clip. It is from Al Gore on the campaign trail when he and Clinton were running for their first term. If you have read this blog, you can probably guess my feelings towards Mr. Gore. Even if you don’t agree with me, or Rush for that matter, you should listen to the Mr. Gore in his own words.

As Rush said, this leads us with some very “inconvenient” conclusions. Was Mr. Gore being less than honest with the American Public? Did he change his mind when the next Bush came along and did what he and Clinton didn’t do? Should we remember this clip when we watch “An Inconvenient Truth”?

Megga Dittos to Rush for getting this out.

Senate listens to American people

The comprehensive immigration reform bill that has been heavily discussed in the Senate this past week has been shelved. While the bill is not “officially” dead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pulled it off the table for the time being. I believe pulling this bill off the schedule is the right thing to do. Many Senators on both sides have already talked about making amendments in the coming weeks to get this bill back on track.

I believe this has been a small victory for the American people. This bill has been polling at lower and lower numbers. There are aspects of this bill that those on the left and the right disagree with. However, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the President have been pushing very heavily to get this bill made into law.

I know there are many people that don’t believe their voices matter in Washington. They think the two parties control everything and our voices don’t matter. I think the American response to this bill illustrates a different reality. If enough people don’t like something, and they are willing to speak out against it, our officials have no choice but to listen. That is what happened with this bill.

I think this should be celebrated because the voice of the voters was heard over everything else in Washington. For those who didn’t believe, we now know that our voices have weight.

In the coming weeks, the Senate will try to revive this bill. They will want to let the noise die off and try again. Our jobs as voters is to watch them, and when they bring it back up, we must let them know what we think. If they backed down from the voters once, we can make them do it again.

Global Warming Advocates attack NASA

Recently NASA Chief Administrator Michael Griffin has been under attack for comments he made to NPR regarding Man-Made Global Warming. In an interview on May 31^st, Mr. Griffin was asked by the NPR interviewer if he was concerned about global warming. The NPR interviewer said some people claim NASA isn’t spending enough money to study climate change from space. Mr. Griffin responded that he was,”…aware that global warming exists.” He restated much of the global warming argument. This argument states that over the last 100 years, the earth has experienced a temperature increase of about 1 degree centigrade plus or minus about 20%. Mr. Griffin even stated that it appears “nailed down” that much of this is manmade. If the interview had stopped here, I doubt many would have even known the NASA Administrator did the interview on NPR that day. However, it was the question and answer that came next that has caused such a controversy. As provided by NPR;

(NPR) Q: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

(Michael Griffin) A: I have no doubt… a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings – where and when – are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.

This is a fair answer. Administrator Griffin was asked if global warming is a problem we should wrestle with. He raises a very good point in his answer: how do we know this is the best climate for the planet, and who gets to make that kind of a decision?

Responding to the interview on The Hill’s website, Mr. Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters indignantly wrote, “Griffin’s remarks are not only ignorant, but insensitive,” [emphasis mine]. Mr. Karpinski also wrote the following:

“As the world’s most renowned scientist concluded in the [IPCC] reports this year, the debate on global warming is over: global warming is occurring, humans are contributing to the problem and we need to curb the greenhouse gasses that cause it.

It’s not rocket science.”

Mr. Karpinski has illustrated the real problem with the global warming debate: any opposition viewpoint is attacked and not considered on its merits. Scientist who disagree with the man-made global warming theory are called insensitive. In the case of the NASA Administrator, his critics have even begun calling for his resignation. One would think Mr. Griffins comments, as NASA Administrator, would be worthy of some consideration. Instead, critics invoke flippant remarks such as, Mr. Karpinski’s statement that, “[Global Warming is] not rocket science”.

If this statement is true, then there are a few troubling facts about global warming Mr. Karpinski and others should be quite willing to explain. For example, if the science is as simple as we are lead to believe, why are there no computer models that can accurately predict global warming? Surely something so simple can be modeled. Perhaps Mr. Karpinski can explain why CO2 which represents such a miniscule portion of our atmosphere can cause such global catastrophe. How about explaining why other planets in our solar system (such as Mars) are also exhibiting signs of global warming. Presumably these planets don’t have a man-made source of increased CO2 emissions.

Many proponents of Man-Made Global Warming have increasingly cited the “consensus” of renowned scientist. Setting aside the fact that consensus is not part of the Scientific Method, the statement is false. Lawrence Solomon has been writing a series about prominent scientists who challenge the climate change debate. He originally started the series to simply profile six high ranking scientists. He wanted to illustrate that there is credible dissent within the scientific community. He has now profiled more than 20 scientist and isn’t sure when he will stop. Mr. Solomon writes, “Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. “ He continues, “…there is no consensus at the top echelons of scientists…and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientist…”

The truth of the matter is that Global Warming, both man made and not, is an extremely complex issue. It is worthy of study by the best and the brightest. However, like many things in our universe, man simply hasn’t reached the point where we can scientifically prove many of our theories. Mr. Karpinski and other critics should remember that rocket science has quantitative measurements, repeatable experiments, and accurate computer models. Instead of insulting the NASA Administrator and calling for his resignation, global warming advocates should focus on improving the science surrounding global warming. We need legitimate study and research and not insulting remarks regarding those who disagree.

Can the Senate and the President be trusted?

The Senate is feverishly working to pass a “comprehensive immigration reform bill”. This bill has been produced from negotiations between republicans, democrats, and the President. It is very sweeping in its nature and has upset many on both the right and the left.

Those on the left are upset that the bill includes fines and limits to the number of legal immigrants that will be allowed in. Those on the right are upset at what they perceive to be amnesty. Both sides have legitimate concerns for what is a very far reaching bill. I personally have many concerns with the bill. However, if I had faith in the President and Congress to enforce these bills, I could tolerate the bill.

I think many Americans feel the same way. We have lost faith in our elected officials to do what they say they will do. The President (with an approval rating of around 33.3%) and many in Congress (approval rating of around 33.4%) are defending a bill that has an approval rating of around 26%. There are aspects of this bill that I actually like and think will work. If I knew these aspects would be enforced, and would be enacted as the supporters say it would be, I would try to stomach the aspects I don’t like. However, I simply don’t believe it will happen. I think many Americans would agree. I think many believe the parts of this bill they like will be ignored, and the parts they don’t like may (and I mean “may”) be enforced.

The President and the Senate have not acted like they want to convince us that these fears are unfounded. The bill was announced and there was an attempt to have it voted on without any floor debate. I believe many Americans get very nervous when they hear that a particular bill is going to be passed without any time for the public to review it. Supporters of the bill have also been less than forthcoming about the cost of this bill. Projections done by the Heritage Foundation have placed the cost of this bill around $12 Trillion. I have yet to hear any rebuttal from those who support this bill.

McCain and others would say,”If you don’t like it so much, what’s your solution?” I think the Senate needs to back up, and try to pass something of a smaller scale. Show the American public that they can be trusted. Pass a portion of the immigration bill (like the border protection aspects) and act on that bill. Don’t simply say you want to secure our borders, do it. Surely no immigration reform can have any meaning without providing a control to the number of illegal immigrants coming through our border. If Congress and the President can pass a meaningful border security measure AND actually implement the bill, then come back to the compromise table.

Prove to the American public that our officials will do what they say they will do. Once the Senate proves it can be trusted, then pass something that will keep us from having this exact same conversation twenty years from now.