Archive for May, 2008
For decades terrorists have been attacking Israel. The violence has pretty much been relentless and barely garners much beyond half hearted condemnation by the vaunted international community. And on the off chance that there is even recognition of the violence the Israeli’s deal with such recognition usually also contains condemnation of Israel and demands “restraint” in defending themselves.
But golly gee wilikers! When Israel has had enough and goes on an all out butt whooping rampage against the terrorists and those that support them, the United Nations under the ever decisive leadership of Kofi Annan leaps into action like Superman! Well, at least we know what it takes to get the vaunted “international community” off their butts. Who cares when Israel is under attack right? But if terrorist thugs are threatened with annihilation they cannot wait to jump in and save those poor soles. Read the rest of this entry »
The Vietnam war – also known as the American War in Vietnam, Indochina War and the Vietnam Conflict – took place from the year 1959 all the way through to 1975. The war ended with a North Vietnamese victory some decade and a half later. The human cost of the war in Vietnam will never fade. Over one million military personnel and over one million civilians died. The war was between North Vietnam and South Vietnam – with the US backing the South. In the end the US withdrew, the Republic of Vietnam lost and both North and South ended up under the control of the communist government.
The United States government, and allied forces, opted to deploy a number of troops to South Vietnam following the First Indochina war, in 1954, all the way through to 1973. US military advisers had played a role in Vietnam since 1950, firstly helping French colonial forces. By 1956, these US advisers were responsible for training the South Vietnam armed forces. The number of US troops in Vietnam grew from the days of John F Kennedy, who was responsible for sending 16,000, to a more significant deployment under the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. While almost all of the armed forces departed following the Paris Peace Accords, the last troops left in April 1975.
During the Vietnam conflict, clashes took place in many different forms. Vietnam industry and infrastructure became a prime target during the conflict, which military tacticians generally target as a means of weakening their opponent and dampening morale – this was largely completed by US aircraft performing aerial bombings. Chemical Defoliants were also deployed as a means of reducing the ability for troops to seek cover in the mountains and jungles which were leveraged by North Vietnamese troops to initiate guerilla attacks. When the capital of South Vietnam, Saigon, fell the war came to an end culminating in a North Vietnamese victory.
By Alan Caruba
I really don’t care how many times Barack Hussein Obama says he is a Christian. I believe he is a Muslim and I believe he chosen to hide his true faith in the name of the jihad being waged by the militant branch of Islam through acts of terror and intimidation and the world.
Few in the West know of the doctrine of “taqiyya”, the concealment of a Muslim’s true faith. As Robert Spencer explained it in his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”, there are “two enduring Islamic principles: the permissibility of political assassination for the honor of the Prophet and his religion and the allowance for the practice of deception in wartime.” Indeed, Mohammed is quoted as saying that, “War is deceit.”
Jihad is war. It is a holy war. It is central to the practice of Islam.
To put the practice of deception in its historic context, Spencer notes that, “When Shiite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis. This practice is sanctioned by the Koran warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell—except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly.”
In Iraq, Sunni Muslims, fearful of being attacked by the Shiite majority, shared information about how to make themselves and their homes appear to be Shiite. The practice of taqiyya was applied and with good reason. It is worth noting that Sunnis are the majority sect of Islam, whereas Shiites are concentrated in Iraq and in neighboring Iran.
This is why Obama’s profession of faith as a Christian permits the concealment of being a Muslim in his heart. What he does not deny is that he was raised and educated as a Muslim, attended a Muslim school for four years while living in Indonesia. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the school taught Wahhabism, a fundamentalist version of Islam that has it roots in Saudi Arabia. At age 10, his twice-divorced mother moved to Hawaii.
If he were truly an apostate, a Muslim who had renounced Islam, the penalty for that is death.
By Alan Caruba
In late April, AccuWeather.com, led by Joe Bastardi, its chief meteorologist, issued a news release that was, to be kind, pure mush. The early warning forecast for 2008’s June to November hurricane season said that conditions like La Nina and a “continued warm water cycle in the Atlantic Basin” held forth the “chance for U.S. landfalling storms.”
The operative word here is “chance” when predicting hurricanes because it is largely a question of gaming odds on how many. What no self-respecting meteorologist, whether in private forecasting or working for the U.S. government’s weather service, wants you to know is that their highly sophisticated computer weather models quite simply cannot factor in a whole range of factors, not the least of which is clouds. Yes, clouds.
As I am fond of telling people, the best definition of the weather is “chaos” which is to say, beyond maybe four days, accurately predicting it is nearly impossible. This is not to denigrate the work of meteorologists and the scholarship of climatologists who study long-term trends and cycles. Bless them, bless them all!
Men have been trying to predict the weather since ancient shamans studied the entrails of chickens. The weather is one of the great determinant factors in all aspects of life on Earth and it is in a constant state of change.
A fine example is the last ten thousand years or so of temperate, even moderate, weather the planet has enjoyed. It gave rise to civilizations based on agriculture, allowing some to grow food while others engaged in conquest on foot, on horseback or sailing to places they then claimed for themselves. Nasty bunch those human beings. What we call history some might uncharitably call organized thievery, but farmers still want to know if it will rain next week.
Knowing about hurricanes takes on importance these days because most of the nation’s population lives within fifty miles of either coast. Since hurricanes are an East Coast and Gulf of Mexico event, the West Coast has to content itself with earthquakes (entirely unpredictable), wildfires, and other unpleasantries.
By Jim Kouri
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton finally agreed to appear on the highly-rated Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor. Her interview, which was taped earlier this
week while she was campaigning in South Bend, Indiana, was broadcast on The Factor over two consecutive nights.
On Thursday night, part two of “Hillary in the No Spin Zone” aired, and she was asked questions on the topics of foreign policy, the War on Terror, and illegal immigration. When Bill O’Reilly turned to the immigration debate, he asked, “Will you shut down sanctuary cities?” Hillary responded, “No, I will not.”
According to a new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the illegal immigrant population within the United States currently exceeds 13 million, an estimate that has almost doubled since 2000. Given this increasing trend, Hillary’s response should be frightening to American families, who are forced to live with frequent criminal activity committed by illegals in sanctuary cities. Even during the Senate debate of the Grand Amnesty bill last year, Senator Clinton voted against the Coleman Amendment which would have banned sanctuary cities (Roll Call 177).
“It is an outrage that Hillary Clinton is running to become President of the United States, yet she is openly admitting that she will not enforce America’s laws,” said Eagle Forum Executive Director Jessica Echard.
“Sanctuary city policies put all Americans in danger, and as an elected official, Hillary Clinton is well aware of that fact. Do we really want to elect someone who will enable criminal aliens to roam our streets?” she added
Last August, several African-American college-bound teenagers were brutally murdered while listening to music in a playground in Newark, New Jersey, one of many US sanctuary cities. Although Newark is no stranger to violence, the perpetrator was an illegal alien from Peru, who had been previously charged with raping a 5-year-old girl, but was released despite his obvious illegal presence in this country.
“If Hillary Clinton will not enforce the law against sanctuary cities, why should we believe she will enforce any other immigration laws or build the fence?” stated Echard. “She will simply continue the Bush open border policies which she pretends to condemn and that have allowed our illegal immigration population to nearly double since 2000.”
By Christopher Adamo
The American public, and Christians in particular, are being deluged once again with talk of the thoroughly ambiguous concept of “social justice.” It is, after all, election time. Thus the pseudo religious among us must make their pitch for the Christian vote, on whatever spurious terms they can concoct.
In its raw form, “social justice” merely references the prevailing societal attitudes of the day, relegating any defining standards of right or wrong, good or evil, and moral or immoral to a snapshot of the existing consensus. Biblical principles notwithstanding, “social justice” has throughout time been equally applicable to those crowds shouting “crucify him,” the burning of “heretics” at the stake during the inquisition, and even the holocaust.
It is therefore no great wonder that the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, in his venomous and racist rantings against America, would seek refuge under the umbrella of “social justice” when attempting to defend his positions.
In its modern form, it represents a conglomeration of environmental extremism, coupled with the Marxist concept of a government empowered to confiscate the property of one citizen for the purpose of purchasing the loyalty of another. But since the ultimate reality of such false generosity and sanctimony conflicts with foundational Biblical truth, substitute “truths” must be cited in their stead. No less a mutation of reality is sufficient to legitimize socialism or environmental extremism under the guise of “spirituality.”
Possibly the most notable and outlandish example in recent memory is Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s fabricated “scripture” asserting that one must worship the environment in order to worship God. Those who are truly familiar with Scripture know that the first chapter of Romans contains a stern admonition against that very notion. But while few among Pelosi’s ranks have ever had any interest in fact as derived from such dry and rigid source material, their current transparent attempts to redefine Christian citizenship merely represent a continuation of similar sordid efforts over the years.
The stunning collapse of Democrat fortunes in the 1994 elections caused party operatives to realize that they had suffered from an enormous disconnect from mainstream America and its traditional values. But, being thoroughly unwilling to actually embrace or even comprehend those values, liberal Democrats concluded that the only alternative, if they were ever to regain that portion of the electorate, was to offer an alternative set of “values” that might resonate with the American heartland while not conflicting with the liberal socialist agenda.
By Jeff Lukens
As the leader of the free world, the United States has a responsibility to lead. This has been our reality as a nation since the 1940s. As such, we need a well-funded military. Today, however, our military forces are desperately in need of recapitalization and modernization. We have been on a "procurement holiday" since the end of the Cold War, and catching up will be expensive.
During the 1980s, the active duty Army had 18 combat divisions. Since 1994, there have been only ten. In that same time, the number of tactical air wings in the Air Force has fallen from 37 to 20; and the Navy has been reduced from 600 ships to less than 300 today.
Our defense budget hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP in 1953 during the Korean War. At the height of Vietnam in 1968, it was 9.5%, and it was 6.8% in 1986 at the height of the Reagan buildup. In 2000, defense spending reached the lowest point on 3.0%. Today, seven years into the Global War on Terror, we are still spending a paltry 3.7% of GDP on defense.
Our procurement needs will, if anything, grow in the years ahead. For example, our primary air-supremacy jet, the F-15, is old, metal-fatigued, and coming apart. Stress cracks from age and overuse are causing them to crash. Many were built before the pilots flying them were even born. Now, one-third of all F-15s are either grounded or headed to the scrap yard.
The Air Force consists of roughly 6,000 aircraft, and is replacing approximately 60 piloted aircraft per year. You don't need to be a math wiz to figure out that it will take 100 years at that rate to modernize our air fleet.
The need for increased military funding, however, does not stop there. Long term, we may need to station 30 to 50 thousand troops in Iraq as we have done in Germany, Japan and Korea. Yes, we are going to be there a long time, and it is vitally necessary no matter what Democrats are saying. When a quarter of the world oil flows through the Persian Gulf, we need to be there to take care of business when things go haywire.
The High Cost of Climate Lies
By Alan Caruba
An energy-rationing bill has been introduced to address “global warming.” The “Climate Security Act” would impose caps on how much carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can be allowed and would institute an elaborate program to “trade” allowances among the industries and business affected.
Americans better hope that some members of Congress will ask if there truly is a threat of global warming and why a similar program in Europe has proven to be a resounding failure.
If you really wanted to undermine the nation’s economy, you could not devise a better way. It is the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol on steroids.
Little noted during all the headlines concerning Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize was the fact that it was shared with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among skeptical scientists I know, the emails were flying. Several had served as part of the vast array of scientists whose opinions on the various IPCC draft reports were requested and then ignored.
A lot of these expert reviewers are among the 2,000 scientists that the IPCC and Al Gore are always citing as being part of the “consensus” on global warming. The problem for both is that many really, really, really disagree that any planet-threatening global warming is occurring.
One of them is Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand-based climate scientist who has been a part of the reviewing process since the IPCC came into being. He is one of those scientists who will not and cannot be shut up despite the din of the IPCC propaganda.
Briefly, Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England, and his long career has included stints in France, Canada, China, and New Zealand. He has published more than a hundred scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.
By Alan Caruba
Having written about the energy industry and issues now for a long time, I hope I can be forgiven for being enraged by the comments by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) in response to President Bush’s press conference Tuesday morning. There is simply no way to describe them other than false.
The Democrat Party has long made “Big Oil” their favorite punching bag, confident that the public has no idea what influences the price and supply of oil. Saying anything favorable to Big Oil is immediately deemed evidence that one is in their pay and whatever facts are offered are therefore invalid.
There are, however, some simple truths about Big Oil that cannot and should not be ignored. To do so leaves everyone at the mercy of energy policies that have created the situation in which the United States finds itself today.
Fact #1. The combined ownership of oil reserves by the independent, investor-owned oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Conoco-Phillips, BP, Chevron and others is barely 4% of the total known oil reserves in the world. By itself, ExxonMobil’s share is 1.08%.
Fact #2. Oil is a global commodity sold on mercantile exchanges for whatever price it can command. Speculation in oil prices is the primary reason they have been driven to utterly insane costs per barrel. It has nothing to do with actual supply and demand.
Fact #3. No nation on Earth is or can be “energy independent.” The geopolitics of oil is complex, but as nations such as China and India have seen their economies grow, their need for oil grows with it and thus they compete with long established industrialized nations for existing oil supplies. This competition has an impact on prices.
Fact #4. The OPEC nations, those in the Middle East and including Venezuela, control 77% of the world’s known oil reserves. Like Russia and Mexico, where the oil industry is controlled by the state, it is generally poorly managed. Several Big Oil companies that were induced to undertake exploration and development in Russia and Venezuela actually had their assets nationalized or stolen at prices well below their investment and value.
Fact #5. Energy is the master resource. All nations with any hope of growing their economies require it, mostly in the form of electricity, but also for oil’s role in transportation. The failure to have a national long-range energy policy that is based in reality can severely impact energy prices.
By Alan Caruba
When the government of the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the fall was attributed to all kinds of reasons. There was the failed invasion of Afghanistan, the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and, after some desperate efforts by Mikhail Gorbechev, Communism as a guiding principle and economic system simply imploded. That’s the thumbnail version that passes for history, but Michael J. Economides and Donna Marie D’Aleo have another answer and it’s one you may not want to hear.
“In the second half of the 1980s the Soviet leadership came face to face with the problems that arose as a result of the dramatic drop in oil prices, and the necessity of increasing the volume of capital investments in western Siberia’s oil industry. They failed to provide adequate solutions to these problems. The consequences were a rapid decrease in oil production, a collapse of the consumer market, a growing deficit of the most basic consumer goods, and the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union.”
“From Soviet to Putin and Back: The Dominance of Energy in Today’s Russia” by the two authors cited above is not likely to leap on the bestseller lists, but for anyone who takes a serious interest in America’s future and in current world affairs, it is the book to read, not only for its excellent history of the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, and what replaced it, but for its unique insights regarding the role of energy.
Economides is Editor-in-Chief of Energy Tribune, a magazine for those who understand that (1) energy is the master resource, (2) is the primary force behind the rise of human civilization, and (3) is the grand determinant in geopolitical affairs. From our earliest times when muscle power was the only source to the modern era, energy in its many forms has ruled the affairs of man.