| February 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | ||||
In the Middle Ages, Muslims used to paint Mohammed all the time. Since then there have been large numbers of paintings and depictions of Mohammed throughout the world (same link). The only reason they're rioting now is that:
Crushing Islamofascist initiatives on both fronts would take much spirit out of the Islamofascist movement. Specifically:
WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE MOSQUES? One piece of evidence that U.S. mosques are centers of terrorist and jihadist sympathy and activity, is that they won't let us in. Anybody can go into any church and listen, but you can't go into a mosque. What are they hiding?
MOVEMENT ON OIL-SHALE DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO. I've posted recently on how the U.S. can be energy-independent via oil shale.
The Denver Post reports on movements by the government there to consider developing an oil shale industry:
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is soliciting public comments until Jan. 31 on its effort to open to commercial extraction oil-shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming within two years. Two meetings in Golden on Thursday followed meetings in Rifle on Wednesday. The BLM is rushing to complete its environmental-impact statement by summer 2007.
There's action on this in Utah as well:
VERNAL — Byron Merrell said his emotions were "somewhere between excitement and terror" recently when he learned his company's proposal for oil shale research and development had been chosen by the Bureau of Land Management as part of a landmark federal government program.
Merrell, a longtime inventor and former Uintah County commissioner, and Romit Bhattacharya said they were overwhelmed with joy by the announcement that their company, Oil-Tech Inc., was one of eight applicants whose plans to produce oil from shale is now eligible for "continued consideration" for coveted BLM leases.
That puts obscure Oil-Tech's name in the same breath as Chevron, Exxon and Shell. Pretty heady stuff for the man who owns a retort — a facility where oil shale is ground up and then heated to the point of vaporization to produce liquid oil — several miles southeast of Vernal. He has been struggling for years to unlock vast oil shale resources buried in the Green River formation of eastern Utah.
"Of course we have known we could do this and no one paid attention to it," Merrell said about his extraction process, which he says can produce oil at a cost of about $10 a barrel. "We're kind of like a cocklebur on a cow's tail — more of an annoyance rather than something to take interest in. Then when we show up in the same group as Chevron and Exxon, it causes you to pause a little bit."
Oil-Tech was selected from among a field of nominations the BLM received in response to a June 2005 call for proposals for 160-acre research and development leases on public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The companies that win approval for experimental works will get first rights to lease close to 5,000 additional acres surrounding their 160-acre parcels.
The financial rewards of the lease are substantial. Official estimates put the amount of recoverable oil in the Green River formation in these three states at 2.6 trillion barrels. That's roughly 60 percent of the world's known deposits, and it surpasses Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of 261 billion barrels.
(Hat tip to commenter Loren.)
"IT'S IN THE KORAN" -- a hilarious song. The site describes it as:
Radical Islam, or Islamism, or Islamic Fundamentalism, as it might be described by an honest adherent.
On January 23rd, Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education, addressed a U.N. Work group on Racism.
Littman first spoke about the mass murder of citizens in the Darfur region of Sudan. He was interrupted by the representative of Sudan -- and the interruption was supported by the Chairman of the meeting, Ambassador Juan Martabit, of Chile. Littman was told he was not permitted to reference Sudan.
Littman then discussed the recent statements by the President of Iran that the U.N. member nation of Israel should be destroyed. This time he was interrupted by the representative of Iran. And again the interrupted by the Chairman of the meeting, and Littman was told he was not to mention any country in that room.
Imagine a work group on racism at which the participants are forbidden to discuss the racist practices of specific nations. This is an example of how the U.N. is often an obstacle to free nations, and a supporter of murderous dictatorships.
It's as if the foxes were in the henhouse, and the farmers were told not to offend the foxes.
The text of the meeting was provided to this site by Mr. Littman. Excerpts (with boldfacing as in the original document):
Mr. Littman: Our 1st question, Sir, relates to this ghastly, racist tragedy - qualified as 'genocide' by a 566 to 6 vote in September 2004 by the Parliament of the European Union, and by others. Sir, have you received a reply from the Government of Sudan, and - in view of recent UN reports to which we have referred - will you now recommend that article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide be invoked for Darfur? [1st 'point of order': Sudan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman:
Mr. Littman, there is a point of order. Sudan has the floor on a 'point of order'.
Sudan (Minister Counsellor O. Omer Dahar F. Mohamed or Counsellor El Mubarar Salah):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the assistance and the help on this debate. This meeting is to last from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. In accordance with the agenda, the debate is globalization and racism. Mr. Chairman, could I ask you whether a statement like the one which is being made by a distinguished speaker - is that statement a part of the debate of globalization and racism, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman:
Yes, delegate of Sudan. Thank you for that 'point of order' and the way that you formulated it. I will say to Mr. Littman that he should confine his remarks to the subject of our debate and I would go a bit further. Mr. Littman, are you listening? [Speaking in English] Listen to me. I will speak slowly because I am thinking word by word what I will say to you. [Speaking Spanish again, interpreted into English]: It is not a debate on Sudan here. The debate that we are engaged in right now is general in nature. Please do not focus specifically on Sudan. If you wish to speak specifically about Sudan, than the NGO that you are representing could make a statement along the lines that you have been making in the General Assembly or in the Security Council of the United Nations [NGOs don't speak at either the GA ,or the SC], or in the Commission on Human Rights under the appropriate item of the agenda. [It was then not certain whether there would be a final 62nd 6-week session of the CHR from mid-March.] Right now we are meeting in a Working Group. I'm trying to be extremely constructive and I hope that all the delegates feel comfortable with this debate as it is. You - and we are also referring to the delegate of Sudan as well - you may be right in what you are saying. I am not saying, Mr. Littman, that you are not right, but I'm saying that this is not the right occasion to make this statement. We are in a working group, Mr. Littman, and I would like to extend……...[incoherent 5 words interpretation]. A Working Group has a different type of atmosphere. [This WG is under the auspices of the 62nd session of the Commission on Human Rights.] This is a Working Group, not a place for confrontational dialogue. If we were to engage in such confrontation, we would never achieve any of our goals. The objective on working group is to engage in a debate, not to have a confrontation of debate, even if the delegates in that confrontation may be right in some of their comments. In every part of the world now there are problems, in some areas of the world the problems are more serious than they are elsewhere but, at any rate, these are all delicate issues, because we're speaking about problems of human beings and violations of human rights. These violations occur everywhere in the world. In some cases these violations are worse than elsewhere. There are places in the world where there are real risks of genocide and true genocide. I'm not prejudging where this is happening or where there are serious threats or not, but the Working Group's task is not to discuss these issues. I would invite your NGO, with all due respect - and I have all due respect for you as well - you have other bodies: the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights [the Chairman here repeats himself], and here I am trying with the delegates seated here to do something different. None of the participants except for a few exceptions are ambassadors - no one can react in the appropriate way. We're talking about high-level officials, who have come together in a Working Group and have a very good understanding of the issues and have come, with a spirit of cooperation, to move forward on crucial issues. Have I made myself understood, Mr. Littman?
Mr. Littman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, may I continue.
Chairman (speaking in English):
Yes, please, you can continue, but please don't mention Sudan any more - it's clear? (laughter)
Mr. Littman:
Sir, I have only finished my first point to the Special Rapporteur.
Chairman:
Only the first point - I though you had finished.
Mr. Littman:
I did refer to the remarks of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan.
Chairman:
Please do not refer to Sudan and any particular country, please.
Mr. Littman:
Well, the 2nd point refers to a specific case, but I did refer to the racial discrimination remark of the Special Rapporteur on racism in reference to the country which you just named, which I will not. (general laughter)
II. Sir, on a second issue, and regarding your Report to the General Assembly of 19 August 2005 [A/60/283], we were struck by your analysis [§B 19] of a thematic discussion on genocide, which is quoted fully in our text.
Mr Chairman, at a Teheran conference on 26 October, the Iranian president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He predicted: "very soon the stain of this disgrace will be purged from the centre of the Islamic world." He warned peacemakers: "Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. (*)
[2nd 'point of order: Iran]
Chairman:
Mr. Littman, I think again your points are related specifically to countries where you may [incoherent words by interpretor], that you have every right to consider that there are problems of human rights, but please do not cite those countries in this room. I'm going to be as frank as possible because we're not going to get anywhere. The delegate of Iran is making a 'point of order.' She is right because she is going to respond, then you are going to respond and we're not going to get anywhere. Mr. Littman, listen to me, and all delegates. I'm here to contribute in my humble way, with my time and my competence, to build bridges, to deal with extremely complex issues. I don't think that anyone…everyone has the right to deal with problems, but please do not cite specific countries. You have mentioned Professor Doudou Diène and I will ask Doudou Diène to respond to the questions you have raised. Your problems with Sudan and Iran please raise them in a different meeting, not here. I'm going to be very blunt with you, and with everyone - if we're going to get into a country situation debate here at this Working Group, we will not make any progress. This doesn't mean that I am excluding or turning a blind eye to the problems that exist in different countries. If you have any positive examples to cite, you could mention those, but please do not create an atmosphere that would create tension and which will send us into a deadlock. I hope that you've finished Mr. Littman. Thank you very much. I will like to ask Prof. Doudou Diène…
Mr. Littman(microphone button not pressed, but his voice is just audible on the tape):
You have cut me, Sir. I am taking part in a debate next month in Holland regarding what is happening at the United Nations. To be stopped on such an issue, when I have not yet begun, is such that - after 20 years experience at the UN - I find incredible! Sir, if you allow me to continue, I shall be careful not to name another State.
Chairman:
OK, continue, please, but please don't mention any crucial issues of the international agenda of today by the name of the country. Continue, please.
[This is the most extraordinary - and noteworthy - remark made by the Chairman.]
The U.N. needs to be supplemented by a parallel organization open only to the world's free and democratic nations.
The complete document provided to this site by Mr. Littman is available here.
In the post right before this one, I noted:
Ahmadinejad wants to convince the world that, due to his control over a significant part of the world's oil supply, that position of affairs has already been reached -- Iran can use its oil to blackmail the world right now -- the world is already unable (so Ahmadinejad wants us to believe) to prevent Iran from forcing other nations to do its bidding.
Could this work? Could Ahmadinejad be right?
He's not right. First, the Arab nations want the money that they get from the U.S. They want those petrodollars. They have no intention of actually cutting off the only source of income to their otherwise bankrupt economies.
Second, the opposition of the U.S. Libs to war for oil, depends on the supply of oil not actually being threatened. If oil to the U.S. were cut off or severely restricted, all the Libs who are currently shouting, "No war for oil," would immediately start yelling, "War for oil!" so they could drive their S.U.V.'s.
Third of all, the Islamofascists do not actually have us in a situation with no options -- "over a barrel" so to speak. Within a few years we could have a domestic oil shale industry running that would make the U.S. energy independent. From the U.S. Department of Energy, April, 2005:
Gasoline via oil shale becomes financially viable at a price of $40 - $60 per barrel. Knowing all this should be enough to keep the Islamofascists from even trying to blackmail us. But if Iran gets the atomic bomb, they will use that for additional leverage. Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
The nonsense this past week about Islam telling the West that the West can no longer have free speech, is of a piece with an observation I made recently about Iran:
Ahmadinejad wants to convince the world that, due to his control over a significant part of the world's oil supply, that position of affairs has already been reached -- Iran can use its oil to blackmail the world right now -- the world is already unable (so Ahmadinejad wants us to believe) to prevent Iran from forcing other nations to do its bidding.
The surrender of Gaza by Israel to the Palestinians has no doubt encouraged this. Fundamentalist Islamists are so encouraged that they feel the time is right to declare themselves our masters.
It is likely that they also realize that with the tremendous gains of freedom in the Middle East, time may be running out for them to make such a declaration. From Mark Steyn (on 12-5-05):
Meanwhile, Iraq's experiment in Arab liberty has had ripple effects beyond its borders, pushing the Syrians most of the way out of Lebanon, and in Syria itself significantly weakening Baby Assad's regime. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who's spent years as a beleaguered democracy advocate in Egypt, told the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland the other day that, although he'd opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, he had to admit it had "unfrozen the Middle East, just as Napoleon's 1798 expedition did. Elections in Iraq force the theocrats and autocrats to put democracy on the agenda, even if only to fight against us. Look, neither Napoleon nor President Bush could impregnate the region with political change. But they were able to be the midwives."
The tide is turning against Islamic fundamentalism in the heart of the Mid-East; Islamists realize this may be their last chance to seek to blackmail the West via oil to do its bidding.
But the demands of the Islamofascists were met by a massive reprinting of the cartoons in many European publications, and the broadcasting of them on TV.
The greatest significance of this is that radical Islamists have made a potentially fatal misstep: they have threatened the very mainstream media on which they depend. Surely every reporter in the free world has just realized that his livelihood is threatened and that the fundamental Islamists would like to tape over his mouth.
(This is the third in a series of posts covering a panel event last Tuesday sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition).
After Walid Shoebat, Phillippe Karsenty spoke. Karsenty is the founder of the French organization Media Ratings, which monitors French media for inaccuracies and distortions. The publication has over 20,000 subscribers within French media and is considered to have wide influence.
Karsenty screened news footage of the French riots. All the shouting was in Arabic. The subtitles read, "Dirty Jew! Dirty Jew!" There was no way to avoid seeing that this was a racist Islamist riot -- not, as French media represented it, a riot unrelated to matters of Islamofascism. From my handwritten notes of Karsenty's remarks (not expected to be verbatim):
The riots that started in October never ceased. Tonight it is likely 100 cars will be burned. For those who believe the riots are over, on New Years' Eve, 425 cars were burned. A train was assaulted and women were raped.
The vast majority of the rioters -- 95% -- were Muslim. As they rioted, as you saw on the tape, they shouted "Allahu Akbar!" When they showed that film on TV, the words being shouted were "Sarkozy! Dirty Jew!" But the French media put the subtitle, "Sarkozy! Fascist!" The sound of the words is similar, but people didn't need to know what they said.
The rioters didn't burn the shops or cars of the Arabs and Muslims. French media hid the Muslim character of the riots. This is heavily influencing worldwide media coverage.
French media will tell you each day the exact number of Americans who died in Iraq, the exact number of Palestinians killed. But nobody in France knows how many died in the French riots. According to the media, everybody who died during that time died of a heart attack. This policeman -- heart attack. This person -- heart attack. You're watching TV and you say, "surely they're not going to say heart attack again," and they say, heart attack.
French TV can't even call them "rioters." They call them "les jeunes" -- the youth.
Media Ratings has documented that the famous Al-Dura footage, of a Palestinian boy supposedly shot dead by Israelis on the first day of the second Intifada, was staged and faked. The outtakes of the footage show the boy raising his hand, after he is supposedly dead. The outtakes have on the sound track the crowd shouting "The boy is dead! The boy is dead!" -- while the boy on film isn't even pretending to be dead yet. I first posted on this a year ago, citing the Media Ratings report, and did a follow-up post on this in September.
France Deux, the French TV outlet that "reported" the Al-Dura story, is suing Media Ratings over Media Ratings' exposure of France Deux's false reporting.
On December 14, 2006, the lawsuit will take place. If French justice is working, we will win. And actually French justice is working.. When we win, when this comes it's going to be a huge victory, because people will see that when the jihadists make up fictions, they can be beaten.
Listening to Phillippe made me realize that France is the front line of the jihadist war on the West. And France is losing.
France has the atomic bomb. France must not fall into Islamofascist hands.
(This is the second in a series of posts covering a panel event last Tuesday sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition).
The next speaker after Victor Davis Hanson, was Walid Shoebat (pronounced, show-bat). Walid's mother was a Westerner, who married a Muslim, and moved to the Palestinian territories. There his mother found herself a victim of the same oppression as other women, unable to even tell her own son her beliefs. Walid became a terrorist. He said it took 35 years before he realized what his mother already knew, that everything he'd been taught about Islamic jihad was a lie. He told us that after he and his mother had escaped and returned to the West, she said to him, "You are the only thing I could salvage from my entire life." Walid said:
She has no hair. She has no teeth from the abuse.
Since 1993, Walid has been a prominent voice warning the West about the dangers of Islamic Jihad. Prior to speaking to the crowd, Walid screened news footage of a jihadist imam, speaking to a very large room full of men, and urging them to commit suicide bombings. From my handwritten notes (not expected to be verbatim):
You can't understand the kind of mesmerism this does to the mind of a young Arab.
...The cost of speech is very costly. I believe that I should be pro-active, not just reactive. We need to win the media. [Regarding a Muslim friend who Walid asked to appear on TV]: My friend had over 400 phone calls between threats and insults. Now he has to scramble to find a place to live -- and this is in America.
I can't use credit cards. Things you take for granted, like going to a gas station and paying with a credit card, I can't do. When I go to a hotel I am concerned that the person behind the counter is going to recognize me and report to Islamic fundamentalists, where I am.People like me speak and we are called Islamophobes. Okay, I'm an Islamophobe. But guess what -- the Naziphobes were right.
I don't support a Palestinian state. Because the issue is not an issue of land. It has nothing to do with land.
I was asked to appear on BBC TV for an interview. They said, yes, but isn't the real problem, fundamentalism? I said, Christian fundamentalists will give you a headache. But Muslim fundamentalists will whack your head right off.
With the spread of fundamentalist Islam, we are potentially dealing with, not Nazi Germany, but with 10, 20 Nazi Germanies -- Turkey, Iran, Syria, etc.
When immigrants come to America, we should ask them questions such as, "Are you Islamist? Do you belong to a Muslim fundamentalist party?" If they say no, as they probably will, and it is later found out that they do, then there will be a right to deport them.
Many Muslims here are peaceful, particularly those from Iran. But ask me a question: "Have you ever been invited to speak in a mosque?" Why was I invited to speak on radio, on TV, at universities, but never at a mosque? Why is it my friend got 400 phone calls, and not one saying, "Good job what you are doing against terrorism?"
[In answer to a question from the audience about what should be done with the Palestinian state]: Hamas has been elected. What do you want to do? Do you want to play hudna games with the fundamentalist Islamists? Why should the Jews give up Judea? In 3 weeks the U.S. defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. In a few days you could take out the 40,000 machine guns the Palestinians have.
Walid is concerned for his own personal safety as a result of using his right to free speech here in the U.S. The terrorists are here. They are restricting free speech in our society. This is an unacceptable threat to our most cherished freedoms. Immigration from Islamic nations must be restricted, in the manner Walid suggests.
Not one mosque in the U.S. has invited Walid to speak. This is powerful evidence that all mosques in the U.S. are centers of sympathy for terrorism, and for terrorist actions.
Victor Davis Hanson.
In about 20 minutes I have to leave for a second event with Victor Davis Hanson, so I'll take this opportunity to post about what he said last night at the panel with Walid Shoebat and Phillipe Karsenty. The subject of the panel was the French riots; but the statements of the panelists took in a much larger universe of discourse. All three made very significant points; later today I'll post my notes of what Shoebat and Karsenty said.
From my handwritten notes (not expected to be verbatim) of Hanson's remarks:
What is it about what 5 or 6 million Muslims did for 3 weeks in France? Or a single politician in Holland who was murdered? A million people died in Rwanda and nobody blinked an eye. What gives these things such worldwide resonance? Right away, Israel comes up. Why do Muslims and the rest of the world care so much about Israel? Tibet is occupied. Cyprus is occupied.
Hamas announces that the Israeli flag should change. Why do we care? To quote Shakespeare, the answer is not in our stars, but in ourselves. We give them this power. Why do we do it? Two things: nuclear weapons and oil.
The world became dependent on a society that is flush with $500 billion a year in oil. That society is given a clout that is not deserved but is undeniable.
Nuclear weapons -- take away nuclear weapons and the President of Iran ceases to be a significant factor. Take away nuclear weapons from Pakistan, and we would have Bin Laden out of there in a cross-border action in a second.
[The aggression of fundamentalist Islam will continue to increase dangerously] unless the U.S. acts to avoid blackmail by nuclear roguery and ceases to provide $300 billion a year to such regimes for oil.
My note: Nuclear weapons -- oil -- and the other half of the statement -- a Koranic command for fundamentalist Islamists to kill all non-Muslims, or to make them accept second-class citizenship under Sharia law.
From Voice of America:
Israel Says No Tax Payments to Palestinians
Israeli officials say they are almost certain to suspend the transfer of millions of dollars in customs and tax revenues payments to the Palestinian Authority until they complete a policy review of the current situation in the Palestinian territories.
The review was ordered by acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert following last week's Palestinian legislative elections, which saw Hamas win 56 percent of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council.
"The whole idea that money would come from Israel and be transferred to the Palestinian Authority if that authority is led by an extremist terrorist group responsible for suicide bombings is almost as if we were to transfer money to have our own citizens killed in suicide bombings. There is no logic to that whatsoever," said Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry.
...Israeli spokesman Regev says Israel agreed to the payments under international accords - agreements that Hamas has rejected.
"The transfer of the money, which has been routine, is part of the accords signed between Israel and the PA [Palestinian Authority], part of the Oslo Agreement and the Paris Protocol," said Mark Regev. "Now Hamas, the new incoming leadership on the Palestinian side, say they reject all those agreements - from their point of view those agreements are null and void. So they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are against all these agreements and then, at the same time, expect Israel to keep the part of the agreement they want, which is the transfer of funds."
It's great to see Hamas at the mercy of the people it is devoted to destroy.
DEAN UNDER FIRE FROM PARTY DEMS; NEARLY ALL CASH SPENT
Mon Jan 30 2006 10:52:31 ET
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are privately bristling over Howard Dean's management of the Democratic National Committee and have made those sentiments clear after new fundraising numbers showed he has spent nearly all the committee's cash and has little left to support their efforts to gain seats this cycle, ROLL CALL reports.
Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee's $34 million.
Senate and House Minority Leaders Harry Reid (Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with the Senate and House campaign committee chairmen Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have made their concerns -- directly or indirectly -- known to Dean, claims the paper.
Emanuel was particularly upset last week upon seeing the latest DNC numbers.
"A lot of people are scratching their heads as to what's going on," said one senior Democratic aide.
Another Democratic source familiar with the party fundraising apparatus said there is "obvious displeasure" among the leaders.
What Happened To Dean's Money?
This item is buried in a Wall Street Journal story on yesterday's primary: "The major Democratic contenders all have nearly exhausted their campaign treasuries; advisers say that even Mr. Dean, who raised an unmatched $40 million in 2003, has less than $5 million left. That leaves all the candidates largely dependent on attention from the news media to reach voters as they move from small venues and intensive personal campaigning to far-flung contests that play out almost entirely on television screens."
Dan Conley makes the same observation and notes "the Dean campaign has burned through it's treasury faster than a five pool table dot-com company."
This irresponsible, unreliable loose cannon wanted to be President.
I JUST GOT BACK from a fantastic panel event with Victor Davis Hanson, Walid Shoebat, and Phillipe Karsenty. It's way past 12 am here. I haven't even seen the SOTU yet (I Tivo'd it). I've got tons of notes; I'll try to write them up and post them later today (Wednesday).
