THE TALK SHOW AMERICA SHOW

DNC Credentials Disrespect The Flag

2008-08-20T10:45:00.004-04:00

Some viewers contacted 9NEWS Saturday, questioning the design of the credentials to see Sen. Barack Obama accept the Democratic Party's presidential nomination at INVESCO Field at Mile High.

The viewers say with the stars and blue field in the lower left corner, it looks like an upside down American flag. Published flag etiquette states the stars should always be displayed in the upper left corner. An upside down flag represents an international symbol of extreme distress.

Matt Chandler with the Obama campaign says the flag is not upside down. He says it is a stylized flag designed to blend the stars on Senator Obama's shirt with the flag blowing in the wind.

Natalie Wyeth with the Democratic National Convention Committee sent 9NEWS the following statement Saturday night: "The DNCC community credentials incorporate patriotic design elements. They do not depict an actual American flag.

J.R.'s Take: More proof that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the Anti-America crowd who won't pledge allegiance to the flag, wont salute the flag and take every opportunity to disrespect it !

Electoral Map (including leaners) Shows McCain Victory

2008-08-20T10:20:00.002-04:00

The website Real Clear Politics reports that the Electoral College Map has John McCain winning the election:

John McCain 274
Barack Obama 264

Click Here: RealClearPolitics - Electoral Map

McCain Takes 5-point Lead Over Obama

2008-08-20T09:48:00.002-04:00

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

Al-Qaida Prisoners Plan Beheading

2008-08-16T09:42:00.003-04:00

British intelligence discovers threat to attack prison guard and behead him.

According to a report from WorldNet Daily, Britian's M15 Intelligence Service has uncovered a plot by convicted Al-Qaida terrorists to kidnap a prison guard, behead him and then show the images on the internet.

The plot is centered on Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire and Frankland jail in County Durham. Between them, they house more than a dozen convicted terrorists.

"In all eight prisons, there is mounting racial tension, but the specific threat to execute an officer and film it on mobile phones is new,"

states the MI5 report.

Details of the plot were discovered during a four hour riot in Frankland's segregation unit this week, where convicted terrorists are confined.

Inmates demanding they be transferred to another prison did more than $40,000 in damage.

One prison officer who was involved in trying to quell the riot wrote in his report:

"They were shouting that they were going to cut off the head of one of our officers and film it on their cell phones."

Cell Phones ? These morons have cell phones ? They are in prison for being convicted of terrorist acts and the British allow them to have cell phones in prison ! Where is the logic in that ?

If the left in our country have their way we could be facing the same thing, if we close Gitmo. It shores up what I have been saying all along, why would we want to house enemy combatants in prisons on American soil. These are the types of problems you would face along with giving Al-Qaida access to a perfect training ground full of willing trainees.

DEAD MUSLIM HAD MASSIVE AMOUNT OF CYANIDE

2008-08-15T11:33:00.004-04:00

Recently a muslim man was found dead in his Denver hotel room with a large container of sodium cyanide. Adding to the situation is the fact that the man,Saleman Abdirahman Dirie, 29, appears to be from outside the U.S. No passport was found on Dirie, who is believed to have entered the country from Canada.

"Our Joint Terrorism Task Force is involved in this simply because the victim here is from another country and it just kind of makes sense that our terrorism guys would take a look a look at this"
FBI Special Agent in Charge James Davis

"I don't see how anybody could do anything but look into the possibility that this is a potential terrorist attack,"
Dr. Andrew Ternay, a Department of Defense contractor.

"The very first thought that came to my mind was murder, or somebody who's got to kill an awful lot of rodents because years ago cyanide used to be used to kill rats and roaches," said Ternay. "A tablespoon would be enough to kill you. Less actually."

Cyanide can be made from plants in very small amounts. It can be a gas, liquid or powder. It prevents the body from using oxygen and therefore is more harmful to the heart and brain than other organs.

"It was used in concentration camps in World War II and by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds in the 1990s," CBD4 Medical Editor Dr. Dave Hnida said. "And put it in a little capsule, it is in fact used as a suicide pill just like you see in the movies."

Officials said cyanide can be used as a terrorist weapon if it is dumped in water put in food, sprayed as a gas, or many other methods.

I'll report more on this as soon as I find out more Folks.

Read more here:http://cbs4denver.com/local/burnsley.hotel.death.2.793573.html

Hat Tip To: Atlas Shrugs

Talk Show America 8/14/2008

2008-08-14T16:53:00.003-04:00

Conservatives and Republicans Need To Stick Together or Obama Will Walk Into the White House, US Official: WMDs Went to Syria, US and European Armada Headed For Persian Gulf: Could a Blockade of Iran be Next ?

2008-08-14T13_50_27-07_00.mp3

Massive US and European Armada Headed for Persian Gulf ?

2008-08-13T16:53:00.005-04:00

The Middle East Times is reporting that Kuwait is activating its "Emergency War Plan" as a US and European Aramda is reportedly steaming toward the Persian Gulf.

There is speculation that a major confrontation with Iran could be likely along with a blockade on Iran.

The naval force consists of a U.S. Navy super carrier battle group and is accompanied by an expeditionary carrier battle group, a British Royal Navy carrier battle group and a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine.

The deployment is the largest naval task force from the United States and allied countries to assemble in the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf since the two Gulf wars.

The object of the naval deployment would be to enforce an eventual blockade on Iran, if current negotiations with the Islamic republic over its insistence to pursue enrichment of uranium, allowing it, eventually, to produce nuclear weapons yields no results.

Although Iran is a major oil producer and exporter, the country lacks refining facilities having to re-import its own oil once refined.

Folks, as you know from listening to my show, I have told you that Iran, one of the largest oil rich countries, has a limited capacity to refine oil. I also suggested during the show that if we eliminated that capacity, and then set up a blockade, stopping all refined product from entering Iran, that in a few weeks Iran would be crippled. Its economy, its military (you need gasoline and diesel to move an army), and its citizenry, would grind to a virtual halt.

U.S. Official: WMDs Sent to Syria

2008-07-31T15:54:00.004-04:00

Don Bordenkircher, who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq, told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria."

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."

The prisoners were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military, often stationed at munitions facilities, according to Bordenkircher. He said he was told the WMDs were shipped by truck into Syria, and some ended up in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley.

Other Iraqi military personnel, including former top Saddam associates, have made the same claim.

In early 2006, Saddam's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's WMDs were moved into Syria six weeks before the war started.

WND also reported in 2006 a former general and friend of Saddam who defected alleged WMDs were hidden in Syria and said the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions. Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti, the southern regional commander for Saddam's militia in the late 1980s, said the regime had contingency plans established as far back as the 1980s in the event either Baghdad or Damascus was taken over.

Among other claims, WND also reported a former U.S. federal agent and counter-terrorism specialist deployed to Iraq before the war said he waged a three-year, unsuccessful battle to get officials to search four sites where he believed the former Saddam regime buried weapons of mass destruction.

Bordenkircher said four of the Iraqi prisoners who separately offered to speak to the "right" people about Saddam's alleged transport of WMD later became involved with U.S. and Iraqi intelligence agencies.

Some prisoners said the drivers, upon return from transporting the WMDs out of Iraq, discussed the movement. They said, according to Bordenkircher, the materials shipped out would return once Iraq got "a clean bill of health from the U.N., and then the program could be kick-started easily."

Four of the prisoners, civilians attached to the Iraqi military, said they worked at the al-Muthana Chemical Industries site. They said the cargo included nitrogen mustard gas warheads for Tariq I and II missiles.

Bordenkircher said the stories of the military personnel and the civilians matched and did not contradict one another.

Bordenkircher also said prisoners confirmed al-Qaida had a presence in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, specifically in Mosul and Kirkuk.

Iraqis under the command of Uday Hussein, one of Saddam Hussein's sons, supported the al-Qaida elements in the country with training and providing safe harbor, they said.

Talk Show America 7/31/2008

2008-07-31T12:13:00.005-04:00

Majority Support Military Tribunals and Gitmo, Majority Believe US Winning War on Terror, Target of Flight 93 was "Dome", 5 of The Top Ten Reasons Obama Should Not Be President.
claim-my-podcast-in-podbean{scid-dGFsa3Nob3dhbWVyaWNh-ecid}
2008-07-31T08_17_37-07_00.mp3

Majority Support Military Tribunals For Terrorists

2008-07-24T12:52:00.001-04:00

Most Americans believe suspected terrorists should be tried by military tribunals rather than in U.S. courts, as the first such trial began this week at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba.

Seventy-one percent (71%) say the suspects should not be given the rights U.S. citizens have in court, while only 18% think they should, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey.

While some politicians, foreign officials and non-government groups like Amnesty International argue that the Bush administration is acting outside of the law in its treatment of these terrorist suspects, just 30% of Americans believe they should have access to U.S. courts, as opposed to 54% who favor the special military trials.

Nearly six out of 10 Americans (59%) also say the special prison camp for terrorists at Guantanamo, where the United States now detains 280 inmates, should not be closed. Twenty-six percent (26%) believe it should be.

Bin Laden Described Target of United 93 As "The Dome"

2008-07-24T09:18:00.004-04:00

In his opening statement in the military commission trial of Osama Bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, the prosecutor said he would show that Hamdan heard Bin Laden describe the target of United Flight 93.

According to the prosecutor, Bin Laden had said the plane was headed for "the dome," apparently in reference to the U.S. Capitol.

Hamdan, who was detained in November, 2001, is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. He faces a potential life term if convicted.

Separately, five men accused of organizing the 9/11 attacks are awaiting trial for the deaths of some 3,000 people.

Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan by the Afghans. He was transferred to Gitmo where he was interrogated by an FBI agent three times.

Each time he was tortured(sac) by the FBI agent by bringing him McDonald's fish sandwiches, (there's a Mickey D's, Pizza Hut and Starbucks in Gitmo) a car magazine, and allowing him to call his wife.

Oh, the horror of it all, that poor man. (sac)

Of course the NYT tries to tarnish the story by noting the differences between civilian trials and those held by the military commission. The NYT pointed out that the FBI agent did not advise Hamdan that he did not have to incriminate himself, because in Gitmo the agent didn't have to.

Majority: US Winning the War on Terror

2008-07-23T10:17:00.003-04:00

Over half of American voters (51%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, the highest figure recorded in nearly four years by Rasmussen Reports in a nationwide survey.

Last July, just 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. At that time, an equal number-36%--thought the terrorists were ahead.

Other indicators in the survey also show that Americans have growing confidence that things are looking up in the war on terror.

Forty-two percent (42%) now think the situation in Iraq will improve over the next six months. That's up from 37% a week ago and 23% a year ago.

Only 23% now expect things to get worse in Iraq, down from 49% last July.

The gap also is narrowing dramatically between those who think history will judge the war in Iraq as a success - 36% now - versus those who think it will be viewed as a failure (39%).

Now 35 points separate those who think the U.S. is ahead as opposed to the terrorists.

For the first time in months, more Democrats (35%) also think the U.S. is winning versus the number who credit the terrorists with being ahead (26%), although nearly a third (31%) are undecided. Last week, only 27% of Democrats thought the U.S. was winning.

Still in new polling this week McCain is again trusted by voters more than Obama when it comes to Iraq and the broader issue of national security.

Now 61% of men think the U.S. and its allies are winning the war on terror, up from 54% last week and 49% the week before. The number of women who agree has held steady at 43% for two weeks in a row, up from 37% a week earlier.

The percentage of Republicans who see the U.S. and its allies ahead also stayed roughly the same at 78%. Forty-five percent (45%) of unaffiliated voters, a bloc critical to the upcoming presidential election, agree, up two percentage points from a week earlier and 36% the week before that.

Talk Show America 7/21/2008

2008-07-21T15:31:00.002-04:00

What if We Won A War and the Main Stream News Media Didn't Report It ?, We Are Winning the War on Terror !

We're Winning The War On Terror

2008-07-21T14:16:00.002-04:00

The evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum:

"Success against the Taliban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!"

Since it is remarkable how pervasive this pessimism is, it's worth recapping what has been achieved in the past few years.

Afghanistan has been a signal success. There has been much focus on the latest counter-offensive by the Taleban in the southeast of the country and it would be churlish to minimise the ferocity with which the terrorists are fighting, but it would be much more foolish to understate the scale of the continuing Nato achievement. Establishing a stable government for the whole nation is painstaking work, years in the making. It might never be completed. But that was not the principal objective of the war there.

Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda.

In the past three years there has been no attack on anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.

Next time you hear someone say that the war in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility ask them this:

do they seriously think that if the US and its allies had not ousted the Taleban and sustained an offensive against them for six years that there would have been no more terrorist attacks in the West?

What characterised Islamist terrorism before the Afghan war was increasing sophistication, boldness and terrifying efficiency. What has characterised the terrorist attacks in the past few years has been their crudeness, insignificance and a faintly comical ineptitude (remember Glasgow airport?)

The second great advance in the War on Terror has been in Iraq. There's no need to recapitulate the disasters of the US-led war from the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 to his execution at the end of 2006. We may never fully make up for three and a half lost years of hubris and incompetence but in the last 18 months the change has been startling.

The "surge", despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings, the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.

The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed and its appeal.

This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the surge to be so effective.

But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists.

Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have turned against the movement.

There ought to be no surprise here.

It's only their apologists in the Western media who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists.

Those who have had to live with it have never been in much doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the Taleban.

This is why we fight. Primarily, of course, to protect ourselves from the immediate threat of terrorist carnage, but also because we know that extending the embrace of a civilisation that liberates everyone makes us all safer.

Every death is an unspeakable tragedy. It's right that each time a soldier is killed in action we ask why. Was it really worth it?

The right response to the loss of brave souls such as Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British woman to die in Afghanistan, is not an immediate call for retreat. It is, first of all, pride; a great, deep conviction that it is on such sacrifice that our own freedoms have always rested. Then, defiance. How foolish is the enemy that it might think our grief is really some prelude to their victory? Finally, confidence. We are prevailing in this struggle. We know it. And everywhere: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and among Muslims around the world, the enemy knows it too.

What If We Won A War and The Media Didn't Report It ?

2008-07-21T11:54:00.004-04:00

This editorial was published by Investor's Business Daily in regards to an article published by The London Sunday Times:

Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.

We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.

Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.

Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks - a big change for the better from a year ago.

Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad - an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

Talk Show America 7/15/2008

2008-07-15T13:20:00.005-04:00

Poll: Americans Support For More Drilling up, Climate Change Down, Obama Says Illegal Immigration Enforcement Equals Terror.

2008-07-15T09_42_43-07_00.mp3

Poll: Support For Drilling Up, Climate Change Down

2008-07-15T13:04:00.003-04:00

Contrary to claims by Al Gore and others that global warming is the greatest challenge of our time, Americans by better than 3-to-1 say the price of gasoline is a bigger problem now, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll.

Moreover, they stand willing to do something about it, including and especially drilling for oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and in federal shale reserves in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

Even drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is backed by a plurality of Americans.

The poll of 920 adults taken last week shows that 73% think "fuel prices at the pump" are a bigger problem for the country than climate change, the new term for global warming.

Only 23% say climate change is more important.

Support for offshore drilling and oil shale development is also broad-based, with the former favored by 64% of respondents and the latter by 65%.

The results suggest President Bush has strong public support as he puts pressure on Congress to back more exploration for oil.

Republicans favor ANWR development by 68% to 27%; Democrats oppose it 56% to 40%.

Independents are split down the middle.

Bush has proposed opening ANWR for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil-shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.

On Monday, Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that had stood since his father was president.

By itself, the move will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

Two prohibitions on offshore drilling exist - one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by the first President Bush in 1990.

The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself. On Monday, he moved ahead anyway.

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said in a statement in the Rose Garden. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court."

Bush criticized Congress for failing to lift its ban on offshore drilling.

"For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump."

A succession of presidents, including Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

Congressional Democrats have rejected the push to lift the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.

Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, though it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other lawmakers have backed legislation to allow offshore exploration. Their measure would also pursue other ways to expand energy sources.

"Now the only thing standing between consumers at the pump and the increased American energy they are demanding is the Democrat leadership in Congress," McConnell said. "We should act and act now."

Talk Show America 7/9/2008

2008-07-09T12:28:00.005-04:00

US Moves Yellowcake Uranium (WMDs) from Iraq to Canada, Attacks in Iraq Down 80 Percent, IED Casualties in Iraq Down 89 Percent, 31,000 Scientists Reject Global Warming

Yellowcake Uranium (WMDs) from Iraq Moved to Canada

2008-07-09T00:19:00.005-04:00

The Investor's Buisness Daily recently published an editorial entitled "Saddam's Nukes":

It's a little known fact that, after invading Iraq in 2003, the U.S. found massive amounts of uranium yellowcake, the stuff that can be refined into nuclear weapons or nuclear fuel, at a facility in Tuwaitha outside of Baghdad. (Unless of course you listen to Talk Show America or read the Blog)

In recent weeks, the U.S. secretly has helped the Iraqi government ship it all to Canada, where it was bought by a Canadian company for further processing into nuclear fuel — thus keeping it from potential use by terrorists or unsavory regimes in the region.

This has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Yet, as the AP reported, this marks a "significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy."

This more or less proves Saddam in 2003 had a program on hold for building WMD and that he planned to boot it up again soon.

This is clear, since Saddam acquired most of his uranium before 1991, but still had it in 2003, when invading U.S. troops found the stuff. (The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to have known about the yellowcake in the 1990s, but did nothing to force Saddam to get rid of it. It's duplicating its error today with Iran and North Korea).

That means Saddam held onto it for more than a decade. Why? He hoped to wait out U.N. sanctions on Iraq and start his WMD program anew. This would seem to vindicate Bush's decision to invade.

The American Thinker Web site reported four years ago on the scary math behind Saddam's uranium hoard: 500 tons of yellowcake, once refined, could make 142 nuclear weapons.

But yellowcake wasn't all they found at Tuwaitha. According to the AP, the military also discovered "four devices for controlled radiation exposure . . . that could potentially be used in a weapon."

By the way, this should put to rest the canard peddled by the American left and by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking yellowcake from the African country of Niger.

Given what we know, including comments by officials in Niger's government, Iraq did make overtures to buy uranium. And it's quite possible all or part of the 550 tons came from there.

What's more, if Bush hadn't acted, we might today see a nuclear Iraq, an Iran on the way to having a weapon, Libya with an expanded nuclear program, and Syria - with its close ties to Saddam - on the way to having a nuke.

Tour of Tuwaitha, Iraq WMD Lab (Slide show of the prohibited nuclear material found at Tuwaitha Nuke lab complex. This was found in the fall of 2003)

EnvironMental Wacko's Wild Past Predictions

2008-07-08T11:25:00.006-04:00

In May of this year Professor Walter E. Williams wrote an article entitled: Environmentalists' Wild Predictions. In the article he clearly points out the failed predictions of this movement in the past:

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

He then asks:

In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Professor Williams then notes:

Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

My Question is with all the failed predictions of the past, how can anyone still take these people seriously ?

Attacks in Iraq Down 80 Percent

2008-07-08T06:45:00.002-04:00

The number of weekly attacks in Iraq has dropped from about 1,200 a week in June 2007to about 200 a week now, the commander of the tactical unit responsible for command and control of operations in Iraq said June 23.

Mirroring this reduction in violence has been a 70 percent decrease in roadside-bomb attacks and an 85 percent spike in the number of weapons caches Coalition forces have found over the past year, Army Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of Multi-National Corps - Iraq, told reporters via satellite from Baghdad at a Pentagon news conference.

"I attribute most of these hard-fought gains in security to a few key factors: our Coalition forces aggressively pursuing the enemy, the improving capability of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the Iraqi people participating in the rebuilding process of Iraq."

The general praised Coalition troops for having al-Qaida "on its heels," yet he identified the organization as the "primary threat" remaining in Iraq.

"Even though we assess that they are on the run, they are still capable of launching spectacular attacks," Austin said, noting yesterday's bombing in the Diyala province city. "As a result, our operations in the north are focused on defeating their capability to perform these attacks."

"We continue to aggressively pursue al-Qaida and to take away their safe havens and to close off all their escape routes when they try to flee."

Fake Certificate: Obama may not be "natural born" US citizen

2008-06-26T08:20:00.008-04:00

The Israeli Insider had this article posted recently:

It is now a certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake.

The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?

There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.

Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

Read More Here

IED Casualties Down 89 Percent in Iraq

2008-06-22T09:40:00.002-04:00

Deploying more U.S. troops in Iraq has resulted in a dramatic decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in that country.

IED-caused casualties have dropped 89 percent since the surge went full force last June, according to a Cybercast News Service database of Iraq casualties.

IED-caused casualties spiked in the early part of last year as the surge began. In January 2007, the U.S. started deploying an additional 30,000 troops to the country. The surge in forces was completed in mid-June.

The Cybercast News Service database shows that U.S. IED-caused casualties in Iraq peaked at 84 in May 2007, the month before the surge was completed.

In June 2007, as Petraeus launched his operations into al Qaeda sanctuaries, IED-caused casualties dropped to 71. In July 2007, they dropped to 36. By December, they were down to 8, the lowest number since August and September of 2003, the first year of the war.

U.S. IED-caused casualties spiked again in early 2008, rising to 23 in January. This was a byproduct of new offensive operations launched in the northern part of Iraq, Fred Kagan, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and an advocate of the surge strategy, has said.

However, overall U.S. casualty figures in Iraq have begun to fall off again, reaching their lowest levels in four years, and IED casualties have closely tracked this downward trend.

There were 37 U.S. IED-caused casualties in January 2007 compared to the 23 this January, a decline of about 38 percent.

There were 25 in February 2007 compared to 18 in February 2008, a decline of 28 percent. There were 54 in March 2007 compared to 20 in March 2008, a decline of nearly 63 percent.

Over the past several weeks, the decline in IED-caused casualties has been even steeper. There were 63 IED casualties reported last April versus 14 this April, a drop of 78 percent. And from May to May, casualties dropped from 84 to 9, a decline of almost 90 percent.

"The networks that build, finance and place IEDs have been disrupted, and more of the stockpiles are being uncovered before they can be used," said James Phillips, a Middle East expert with the Heritage Foundation. "There is also greater cooperation from the Iraqi civilians and better intelligence on the cells that plant IEDs."

The "Anbar Awakening" and the "shift in Sunni opinion" most certainly figure into the progress that has been in canceling out IED explosions that would otherwise lead to casualties, Phillips added.

Haditha Marine May Sue Murtha

2008-06-21T12:57:00.003-04:00

The lead attorney for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani said he and his client will look into suing Murtha and the Time magazine reporter, Tim McGuirk, who first published the accusations by Iraqi insurgents.

A military judge at Camp Pendleton in California yesterday dismissed charges that Chessani failed to properly investigate the Nov. 19, 2005 incident in which 24 Iraqi men, women and children were killed.

Rooney, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center who served a tour of duty in Iraq himself, is urging citizens to tell their representatives in Congress and military officials that they want the case to come to an end.

"At some point you have to have somebody in the chain of command, whether it's civilian or military, saying enough is enough," said Rooney, who served with Chessani in the second battle of Fallujah.

Rooney says the Haditha case is the largest investigation in the history of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, with 65 agents assigned by the government.

"This is the most important case since Vietnam, if not before," Rooney said. "There's no doubt about it."

31,000 Scientists Reject Global Warming Theory

2008-05-18T20:05:00.011-04:00

The names of over 31,000 American scientists that reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are to be revealed on Monday.

Although this will occur at the National Press Club in Washington, DC., it seems a metaphysical certitude media will completely ignore the event.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

With over 31,000 now on the list, all with degrees in science -- including 9,000 PhDs! -- what might this do to the nonsensical premise of there being a consensus concerning this issue?

Probably not much, because apart from conservative websites, talk radio hosts, and Fox News, nobody is going to report it.