The following op-ed piece, written by Loyd Case, appeared on ExtremeTech this morning. For all you Heinlein fans out there, this is a must read!

October 23, 2006 Heinlein's Children By Loyd Case

Isaac Asimov reportedly once said, "Everyone has a golden age, and that age is 12." But this isn't about Asimov. When I was twelve, I lived on an army base in Bamberg, (then West) Germany. My dad was a motor pool sergeant back then, tending to the health of the self-propelled artillery of the 1st. Bn., 75th artillery. Being the sort of dreamy, nerdy kid I was, I spent most of my time either at the post movie theater or the library. I still have fond memories of hours spent in that library. It was there I discovered many volumes of Charles Addams cartoons, mostly reprinted from the New Yorker, which probably warped my sense of humor more than any other experience growing up. But I digress. Perhaps the most absorbing discovery was the science fiction section. Bamberg wasn't a particularly large base, but the library had a healthy SF section. In the two years I was there, I spent the summers reading the books in that section, methodically working my way from Asimov to Zelazny. During that time, there was only one set of books I read through more than once, all by one author: Robert Heinlein. The books I most liked, however, were those volumes described today as being from his middle period and his "juveniles." Though those latter works may have been written for a younger audience, they were anything but juvenile. For example, I remember a passage from Space Cadet, in which the hero, Matt Dodson, has to take a test. The test consists of operating a machine and making it do some specific task. Matt reads the instructions, then reads them again, and is baffled. All around him, other cadets are poking and prodding at the machine, with lights flashing and various other effects occurring. He takes it to the test proctor and informs him that something is wrong, because you can't do what the instructions say you can do. The proctor takes the directions from young Matt and tells him he's done. It was an early lesson in RTFM. In the same book, Matt learns that you have to adjust your thinking when faced with the mores of another culture—if they "eat peas with a knife", then so do you, when you're in their home. Then there was The Rolling Stones, about an eccentric, space-faring family that jets around the solar system. One of the passages that still sticks in my mind is the wonder the twins have at the thought of people actually driving their own cars. After all, automatic driving is faster and safer. In an era of traffic jams and air pollution, where only a few cars have rudimentary adaptive cruise control, I wonder sometimes why we still drive our own cars. Another book that leaves me wistful is Farmer in the Sky about a project to terraform and settle Ganymede, the largest moon of Jupiter. That wasn't one of Heinlein's best efforts, but I still feel a little twinge, and wonder why aren't we trying to terraform Ganymede today? The book that informed the person I became, perhaps more than any other, was Heinlein's Citizen of the Galaxy. This work begins with the story of a young slave named Thorby, who is rescued by Baslim, who turns out to be more than he seems. After a series of harrowing adventures, Thorby discovers his heritage as a member of a wealthy, powerful family, and how his upbringing and adventures shape his perception of how wealth and power should be wielded. As I grew older, I kept reading Heinlein, but I never became particularly fond of his later period. Starship Troopers is probably the last of his works I recall fondly. Even that classic that many of my friends seem to worship&8212;The Moon is a Harsh Mistress&8212;didn't really do much for me. Neither did Stranger in a Strange Land, which made Heinlein something of a household word. Maybe by the time I actually read those, as the quote from Asimov suggested, I'd already outgrown my own golden age. Or perhaps Heinlein and I just moved along separate paths. That doesn't matter, because what I did read when I was twelve and thirteen inspired me to learn more about science, technology—and to write. There's certainly no more I could ask from a wondrous heap of work I discovered in an army base library in 1968. Oh, if you're at all interested in Heinlein, next year is the centennial of his birth. There's even a celebration in his home town of Kansas City, Missouri, aptly named the Heinlein Centennial. I'm not sure it's my cup of tea, but if you're at all interested in Heinlein's work, or just want to hang around like-minded people, it's worth going. If you do, tell Tim Kyger I said hello.

This Press Release was written by Kamal Nawash, President of The Free Muslims Coalition

The Free Muslims Coalition, a national Muslims organization, condemns Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who carry alcoholic beverages.

Recently a dispute arose over a large number of Somali taxi cabdrivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who are refusing to take passengers who carry wine or alcoholic beverages. These drivers are claiming that Islam prohibits them from driving passengers with alcohol. The cab drivers also asked dispatchers not to call them to pick up passengers heading to liquor stores and bars.

The drivers, whose beliefs are not shared by most Muslims, say the airport should accommodate a deeply held religious tenet. Others say the Muslims are discriminating against people of other faiths and attempting to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims.

For two years the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which regulates taxi service at the airport, had been in discussions with cab drivers about how to accommodate them. The commission said it had agreed to let cabbies use lights on top of the cabs to identify drivers who won't transport alcohol so airport employees could direct passengers with alcohol to a willing driver.

However, the proposal created a public backlash by non-Muslims and Muslims who don't agree with the cab drivers. Consequently, the commission rejected the proposal. That means those drivers who will not transport alcohol must go to the back of the taxi line which can force a cabbie to wait another three hours for a fare.

Most Muslims don't agree that cab drivers are prohibited from transporting alcohol. Islam merely prohibits Muslims from drinking alcohol and those drivers are seeking to impose their religious values on others. The Free Muslims Coalition is disgusted by their behavior.

When the cab drivers chose to drive a cab they interred into an agreement to perform a public service that is essential to the economy of any city. They have no right to refuse a fare because the passenger is holding a bottle of wine or other spirits.

The Free Muslims Coalition believes that the cab drivers should be banned all together from picking up passengers at the airport and we would even support the cancellation of their taxi permits.

These Somali drivers are choosing to impose a minority view in Islam on the general population and this is simply unacceptable.

Please respond to this article by posting your comments in our Free Speech Zone at: http://freemuslims.org/blog/

Please support the Free Muslims by making a contribution at: http://freemuslims.org/support/donate.php

For more information, visit our website at www.freemuslims.org

AWOL is subtitled “The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service – and How It Hurts Our Country,” which sums up the basic theme of this book. Organized in a she-said, he-said, they-said fashion, AWOL gives the reader an inside view of how the Upper Classes view today’s military through the eyes of coauthor Kathy Roth-Douquet, while simultaneously counterbalancing this with a solidly middle class counterpoint from Frank Schaeffer.

While Kathy and Frank peel back the layers of this problem, meticulously documenting their arguments, another story emerges. Kathy is the product of privilege and position, staunchly and unquestioningly Democrat, but she found herself falling in love with a young Marine Corps Officer. As she stepped outside the corridors of privilege to pursue her passion, she discovered a world she never imagined, a world so different from what she thought, that it forever changed her.

Frank is the product of solid middle-class values who became a bohemian novelist on the fringes of his Republican heritage. When his son joined the Marines, Frank’s life came into sharp focus.

Together, Kathy and Frank explore the role the military plays in our society, and the roles played by members of various cultural and social groups within our society as they relate to the military. They argue persuasively that when a country’s leaders are derived primarily from the Upper Classes, and when they have no military experience to speak of, and when their children sidestep military service, a serious gap develops between society and the military. This gap, they argue, is a growing problem that threatens to undermine the very fabric of our society.

I was moved to tears on several occasions as I read of the heroic sacrifice of young men in battle, and of their immediate superiors who took the time to write home, and I experienced anguish and depression by the rejection of these heroics by otherwise decent Americans who simply didn’t understand, because they never experienced first hand what it is all about.

AWOL is an affirmation of everything that is good and decent about America and its military might, and a siren call for participation by every American. Despite her wealth and privilege, and her Democrat background, Kathy urges voluntary persuasion to entice privileged youth to participate in America’s military. Frank, whose Republican tradition supports volunteerism, urges a universal draft to solve the problem. But both agree that, unless we solve this looming problem, our country is headed for a clouded future, where leaders have no experience with and no stake in the military they send into battle.

AWOL needs to be read by every thinking American, from all levels in society. As General Tommy Franks wrote in his introduction: “When we look for balance in a dangerous and complex world, AWOL is a good place to start.”

This morning I viewed an interview on CNBC with PG&E Chairman and CEO, Peter A. Darbee. It seems that his company has just initiated a new energy project that uses cow manure as a source for natural gas. Now, I've got to tell you that this is a great idea, so long as it is cost effective. It makes good economic sense to make use of this otherwise underused resource.

Unfortunately, however, when Darbee was asked to compare manure sourced natural gas with anthracite coal, he stated that the natural gas burns much cleaner, since the coal produces a whole lot of carbon dioxide – unlike natural gas.

Say what?

At first I thought this was just a misspoken comment, and that he surely meant that coal produced lots of other pollutants such as sulfur derivatives, nitrogen oxides, and other stuff, whereas natural gas produces primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor. But in the course of the conversation, he said the same thing three times, in slightly different contexts, so that I am left with the distinct feeling that this gent really doesn't have a clue  about this subject.

If Darbee with all of his power and wealth doesn't understand the concept, how can we expect the regular Joe on the street to understand?

The world really needs my book, The Chicken Little Agenda – Debunking "Experts'" Lies. You can find out more about the book here, and can order the book from this link.

This article is an excerpt from Chapter One in my new book The Chicken Little Factor - Debunking Experts’ Lies. You can find out more about the book here, and can order the book from this link.

The Greens have “alerted” all of us to the alarming possibility that we are destroying the Earth’s ozone layer and threatening all life on Earth.

It’s an interesting premise. Let’s examine this acorn more closely.

Ozone is an unstable molecule formed when free oxygen atoms are released in an oxygen-rich atmos­phere. That fresh smell following a thunderstorm is the ozone created by the electric bolts we call light­ning. O³ – ozone – is a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms, unlike O² – oxygen – which consists of two oxygen atoms. Free oxygen atoms cannot exist by themselves. They immediately combine to form O², oxygen. When free atoms of oxygen are released in an oxygen atmosphere, one of two things happens: they either combine with each other to form more O², or they combine with O² to form O³ – ozone. Because ozone is naturally unstable, over time it will decay, los­ing one of the oxygen atoms. The free oxygen atoms so formed combine with themselves to form O².

In our atmosphere, most ozone is created when nor­mal oxygen molecules are split apart near the top of the atmosphere by the action of ultraviolet light in normal sunshine. In the process, the ultraviolet is absorbed, so that it never reaches the Earth’s surface – hence the “protection” that the ozone layer is said to provide to our planet. Of course, this occurs near the top of the atmosphere, where the ultraviolet first encounters the oxygen. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not ozone that forms a protective layer, but rather ozone is formed as a consequence of the “protective” process, where O² splits into oxygen atoms while absorbing the ultraviolet. Of course, all the ozone that is created also absorbs ultraviolet—hence the “protective ozone layer.”

As mentioned earlier, ozone decays naturally. It is broken apart faster in the presence of CFCs (refriger­ants and propellants), oxides of nitrogen (auto emis­sions, power plants, forest fires, and volcanoes), and methane (agriculture and volcanoes). The chemistry is a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that when these gases are present and mix with ozone, more of the ozone decays than when these gases are not pres­ent. Thus, ozone that drifts into the lower atmosphere tends to be destroyed. The opposite is also true. When these gases drift into the upper atmosphere, they increase the natural decay rate of the ozone.

When ozone molecules break up spontaneously at the top of the atmosphere, new ozone is created imme­diately by the sun’s ultraviolet light. Studies on how long this process takes indicate that ozone regenerates fast enough to preclude significant ultraviolet effects at the Earth’s surface. Put another way, when a ray of ultraviolet sunlight manages to slip past the initial clumping of ozone, because an O³ molecule happens not to be there, it runs smack into a regular old oxygen molecule and splits it apart, getting absorbed in the process and, by the way, generating replacement ozone.

This process is not an absolute. Some ultraviolet always reaches the Earth’s surface. Since the thick­ness of the ozone varies continuously, the amount of ultraviolet at any spot on the Earth’s surface also changes continuously, not to mention the effects of clouds, water vapor, smog, etc.

The Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic, which means that the Earth’s axis forms a 23.5 degree angle to the plane formed by the Earth’s orbit around the sun. As the Earth moves along its orbital path, at mid­summer in the Northern Hemisphere the North Pole is tilted to its maximum towards the sun. Six months later it is tilted to its maximum away from the sun. In between, the tilt is parallel. What this means at the poles is that the sun never sets in the summer; it just goes around and around the horizon, reaching a height of 23.5 degrees at midsummer. At the autumnal equinox, the sun rolls on the horizon, and then it begins to move below the horizon, until it reaches a maximum amount of 23.5 degrees below at midwinter. It then ascends again, reaching the horizon at spring equinox, and repeats the cycle. In simple terms, this amounts to three months of direct sunlight, three months of twilight, three months of darkness, and three more months of twilight. Remember what hap­pens to ozone when it is left by itself: it decays away; it becomes plain oxygen.

So let’s put this acorn together.

For three summer months at the poles, the sun’s ultraviolet light generates and maintains a distinct ozone layer atop the Earth’s oxygen atmosphere. Then follow nine months of twilight and night and twilight again, during which – as they say – the “sun don’t shine.” But the ozone continues to decay . . . so guess what? The “ozone layer” gets really thin up there. A thinning of the ozone layer – a “hole”—appears above the polar region. It always has and always will.

The “hole” is an artifact of the polar night. The effect is enhanced by the presence of CFCs, nitrogen oxides, and methane, but it is not caused by these agents.

Buildup of CFCs, nitrogen oxides, and methane may inevitably result in an overall thinning of the ozone layer, but the amount of these substances that would cause immediate dissolution of each ozone molecule the moment it forms would wreak direct havoc on our atmosphere long before it would totally prevent the formation of an ozone layer. Ozone-layer thinning caused by “normal industrial amounts” of CFCs will be insignificant, especially when compared to the effects of volcanic eruptions combined with summer methane production from Northern Hemisphere agriculture (you know – cows!).

Prof. S. Fred Singer, who is on leave from the University of Virginia, directs the Washington-based Science & Environmental Policy Project. He recently served as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation and earlier as the first director of the

U.S. Weather Satellite Program. Some of his scientific accomplishments relate to the ozone issue. He devised the ozone monitor used in satellites and was the first to publish on ozone destruction by anthropogenic methane. Dr. Singer has written extensively on the ozone issue for both professional and popular audi­ences. He points out several times that if one were to take the worst-case scenario for ozone depletion and subsequent increase in ultraviolet activity at the Earth’s surface, it would produce a total change in ultraviolet levels roughly equivalent to moving from New York City to Miami.

It was the austral summer, 1981. I was at the geo­graphic South Pole – Amundson-Scott Station, they call it. I was in charge of South Polar atmospheric monitoring for the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the auspices of GMCC – Geophysical Monitoring for Climate Change. Part of my duties was to measure the ozone layer from the surface using a Dobson Meter, a device that generates a relative measure of the thickness of the ozone at the top of the atmosphere. During this period, I was able to coordinate my meas­urements with measurements made simultaneously from the Nimbus 7 polar-orbiting satellite. For the first time in history, we were able to establish an absolute measure of the ozone-layer thickness. This was pretty heady stuff.

During the summer, Amundson-Scott Station has a relatively high number of visitors. Among others, we hosted a group of senators and their assistants, and a group of news people. One of these was Dale Van Atta, who was there representing Pulitzer Prize winner and investigative reporter Jack Anderson. Dale came out to my lab looking for something out of the ordinary. In my capacity as a uniformed officer with NOAA, I did not want to contribute directly to his mischief, but I did tell him about our ozone measuring success. I also pointed him towards a female scientist working at McMurdo Station. This lady was especially attractive, and I had learned during a visit there that she was hugely upset that the 1,000 male occupants of the sta­tion insisted on viewing her as a female instead of a scientist. I thought she might have a thing or two to say to Dale Van Atta.

It turned out that essentially everyone in Antarctica had heard about our linking the ground and satellite measurements of the ozone thinning. In other words, the hole was no longer just hypothetical – we had actu­ally established its existence. As I said, it was pretty heady stuff. It was this acorn that the lady scientist chose to drop on Mr. Van Atta. Apparently, she paint­ed a dramatic picture for him of ultraviolet poisoning, widespread environmental damage, and massive human cancers. And sure enough, shortly after he returned to the United States, the story broke in the New York Times.

In reaction, Congress passed legislation financing massive new atmospheric research. For the first time in their professional lives, atmospheric scientists had sufficient funds. These guys weren’t stupid. They used the money well. And when the furor began to die down, NASA sent a plane into the high Arctic during the polar spring, and guess what they found: another hole. Acorns were falling everywhere. And, of course, Congress appropriated more money.

I should add that along with the money, under pres­sure from the Greens and their sympathizers, Congress legislated a phaseout of CFCs and certain other chemicals that were thought to be the root cause of the first hole. With the “discovery” of the other hole in the Arctic, Congress accelerated this phaseout, to the delight of those same forces and, of course, the commercial interests who benefited from the phase-in of the replacement technologies and chemicals.

All good things must end. Eventually, in the late 1990s, NASA announced that recent research had produced a surprising result: the ozone layer was repairing itself much more quickly than had been expected. The picnic was over.

But from the acorn grew a mighty oak that reached to the sky.

Back on October 2, 2005, I wrote “To Live Forever - Or at Least as Long as Possible.” In that article I made one particular point:

The single most significant discovery thus far is caloric intake's effect on aging. In test animals, with all other things being equal, the animal with the lowest caloric intake consistent with otherwise healthy living, lives longer by a significant factor – 20% or more. Translated into human terms, this has the potential for extending the maximum lifespan from 120 to 144 years, and the average from 75 to 90 years.

I went on to write that

The key seems to be restricting calories, not restricting fat, protein, or carbohydrates specifically. Weight still needs to be controlled by keeping carbohydrates within certain limits, complete protein is needed for muscle building and cell replacement, and certain fats are needed to maintain the health of various body systems. But with these elements properly balanced, then the total amount of calories needs to be kept as low as possible consistent with weight maintenance.

That was eighteen months ago. The data was from test animals, and my application of this information to humans was conjecture – reasonable, but still conjecture. On April 5, 2006, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported the effects of caloric restriction over a six-month period in a group of overweight human adults. The subjects were divided into a moderate caloric-restriction group, a very low-calorie group, and a control group with no caloric restrictions. The results were astonishing.

The moderate caloric-restriction group experienced a 25% reduction in body fat, and the very low-calorie group experienced a 32% reduction in body fat, when compared to the non-restricted group.

By themselves, these results are worth celebrating, since other sources have recently reported that two out of three Americans are overweight. Another result, however, goes directly to the bottom line of human existence – longevity. In both reduced calorie groups, fasting insulin levels plummeted. This is important, because excess insulin devastates nearly every cell and organ system in the body.

According to the Life Extension Foundation, excess serum insulin promotes high blood pressure and can severely compromise the vascular system. Excess insulin also increases the risk for and progression of certain cancers. It may contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s disease, and even contributes to prostate enlargement. Insulin resistance is associated with abdominal obesity, atherosclerosis, and impotence. Furthermore, insulin resistance and obesity are risk factors for type II diabetes.

The simplest way to evaluate the effect of excess insulin is to examine how it effects human mortality. One ten-year study showed that the risk of dying was almost twice as great for those with the highest insulin levels than for those with the lowest levels. The authors state that decreasing excess insulin by enhancing insulin sensitivity and improving the function of the cells that produce insulin in the body is a crucial component in the quest for longevity.

The JAMA study also examined several known markers of aging in their subjects. They found that, while fasting insulin levels decreased significantly, DHEA-S and glucose remained steady, whereas in normal aging fasting insulin goes up, and DHEA-S and glucose go either up or down, depending on the underlying cause, wherein both conditions are bad and lead to premature aging.

The calorie restricted group lost 10% body weight and about 25% body fat, and the very low-calorie group lost nearly 14% body weight and 32% body fat. Furthermore, core temperatures dropped and absolute 24-hour energy expenditure dropped, leading the researchers to conclude that the subject’s metabolic baseline rate had been reduced. This means that their bodies had shifted into a lower gear, so that all their cells were actually running slower – that is aging slower. Furthermore, follow-on tests revealed that DNA damage decreased from baseline levels, and this decrease plays a significant role in increasing longevity. DNA damage leads to cell damage and eventual cell death, resulting in accelerated aging. Lower DNA damage extends cell life, resulting in slower overall aging and longer life.

Simply stated, the best way to live longer – much longer – is to eat less and lose weight.

While this is easy to say, in reality it is very difficult to accomplish. When we diet – when we restrict our calorie intake – all of us get hungry. And few of us have the sustained willpower to stick with it, especially if the plan is to restrict calories continuously going forward. Inevitably, this means we fall off the wagon.

If you are serious about living significantly longer, you really have no option. Reduce calories or die sooner – it’s that simple.

Fortunately, in late March, 2006, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society (AGFD 117), an honest-to-gosh, real-life, easy-to-implement solution popped seemingly out of nowhere. A group of scientists described the results of a double-blind, placebo controlled trial to test how pinolenic acid affected feelings of satiety and hunger.

Pinolenic acid is derived from the Korean pine nut, and is taken without prescription as a supplement, like a vitamin tablet.

The researchers found that test subjects who ingested pinolenic acid every day increased their production of two hormones that are critical in creating the feeling of satiety and removing the feeling of hunger. Cholecystokinin (CCK) increased by 60%, and Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) increased by 25%. In the real world of you and me trying to live longer, this translated into a 29% lower desire to eat, and a 36% lower prospective food intake.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to put these elements together. If you want to live forever – or at least as long as possible: (1) Eat less and lose weight, and you will live longer; and (2) Take a daily pinolenic acid supplement in order to eat less.

Pelican Publishing has just released my new book:

The Chicken Little Agenda - Debunking “Experts” Lies.
(Click the link for detailed information on the book.)

Review the announcement from the Pelican Spring Catalog here.

“Robert Williscroft has masterfully debunked what masquerades as science in a range of hot
button topics from the environment and energy to education and government.
He’s made his arguments accessible to the ordinary person supplying
him with intellectual ammunition to confront the experts.“

Walter E. Williams
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics
George Mason University

Price is $18.50 plus $3.95 for shipping and handling for the first book, and $.60 each for any additional books.

Excerpted from Brigitte Gabriel’s speech delivered at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC, Saturday February 18, 2006.
[Thanks to John Howland of USNA-At-Large]

We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The west has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.

I was ten years old when my home exploded around me burying me under the rubble drinking my blood to survive as the perpetrators shouted Allah Akbar.

My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. I learned at 10 years old the meaning of the word “infidel.” I had a crash course in survival not in girl scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of thirteen I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night waiting to be slaughtered and by the age of 20 I had buried most of my friends who were killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London, we were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.

 As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12th 2001 asking themselves “Why do they hate us?” The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World? If America and the west were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to even ask the question. Simply put, they hate me and you because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word, “infidels.”

 Under the banner of Islam “la, ilaha illa allah, muhammad rasoulu allah,” there is no God but Allah, Muhammad is his prophet, they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews out of Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then and for their indifference and shortsightedness infidels worldwide are paying the price now.

Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn’t buy protection, it earns disrespect and loathing in the enemy’s eyes. Apathy is the weapon by which the west is committing suicide. Political correctness is the shackles around our ankles by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.

America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy. Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims are wonderful moderates. I hope the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence from around the world in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed from burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, or to warnings to be prepared for the real holocaust, has given you a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. The news pictures and video of these events represents a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source. Authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared “Intifada” on the West.

America and the west can no longer afford to lie in their lazy state of overweight ignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body and if they don’t take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon.

If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world. This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting.

We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering human basic instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors, and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them.

The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror. Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people. The radical Islamists’ deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran Hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage” our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievances”. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.

Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever it raised its ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.

If we don’t wake up and challenge our Muslims community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don’t believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our shortsighted delusion.

For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America’s learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lie supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.

[This article was written by The Free Muslims Coalition and distributed on February 23, 2006]

The Bush administration recently approved an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in six major American cities. The sale to a company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is strongly supported by President Bush but has caused bitter opposition by many politicians on Capitol Hill and with the governors of Maryland and New York. Presently, the right to manage those American ports is owned by a non-American company located in Britain.

In response to fierce criticism, President Bush fired back by saying: "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company." President Bush praised the United Arab Emirates as a great friend of the United States and warned congressional critics against sending the wrong message to the Arab world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned. Furthermore, President Bush stated that the deal was fully scrutinized by government officials, who concluded that the deal poses no threat to national security.

The Free Muslims Coalition supports President Bush in his backing of the sale of the management of the Ports to an Arab owned company. The Free Muslims have been the biggest critics of Islamic terrorism and extremism. We have taken numerous positions that were unpopular among our communities when we felt it was the right thing to do. However, just as we have a zero tolerance approach towards terrorism, we also have a zero tolerance approach toward bigotry against Arabs.

As stated above, the company that presently manages those American ports is not American owned. If critics of the deal were objecting because they did not want a foreign company to manage U.S. ports that would be perfectly fine. However, it is wrong to accept management by one foreign owned company and reject another foreign owned company when both companies are located in nations that are strong allies of the United States.

Indeed, the United Arab Emirates is a great friend to the United States. They have been loyal friends in the war on terror and they are excellent friends to the U.S. military. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region.

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates has adopted American style capitalism and tolerance. The UAE is a success story that is helping to shape the Arab world in a positive way. The UAE has opened its doors completely to Americans and American businesses. Relations between the UAE and United States are so good that the UAE spends billions of dollars in America and only accepts U.S. Dollars for the sale of their oil and gas. Their loyalty to the United States helps keep the American Dollar strong and the American economy moving forward. Thus, just as the UAE opens its arms to America, America should open its arms to the UAE.

Finally, by closing the door on one of our closest allies, the U.S. would be sending the wrong message to voices of moderation in the Middle East and a gift to voices of extremism. We are certain that Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and HAMAS would jump on this issue by arguing that Americans hate all Arabs and Muslims including their allies. The Free Muslims have argued time and time again that the United States must do a better job of supporting moderate Arabs and Muslims. The uproar against this ports deal is misplaced and the Free Muslims stand by President Bush for fighting back against the voices of bigotry.

Please RESPOND to this article by sharing your views on our Free Speech Zone (Blog) at: www.freemuslims.org/blog/

For more information, visit our website at www.freemuslims.org

No Right Turn posted the following:

The sickness spreads

I posted the following comment:

Washington D.C. ­– Senator John McCain sent the following letter to Senator Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

[This article was produced by The Center for Military Readiness - brought to us courtesy of John Howland at USNA-at-Large]

O’Beirne’s Overview of the Feminist World

Almost every edition of CMR [Center for Military Readiness] Notes mentions feminists. Who are they, and why are they so powerful? For the answer to that question, read Women Who Make the World Worse, by National Review Washington editor Kate O’Beirne. The 230 page book is thorough, intelligent, and often as funny as Kate herself when she effortlessly pokes holes in liberal arguments on TV.

Mrs. O’Beirne is a West Point wife, mother of two sons, and was a respected leader in public policy circles long before she became a welcome voice of reason on CNN’s Capital Gang and NBC’s Meet the Press. Kate explains why and how major institutions in American life — our families, several generations of children, schools, sports, and the military — have been negatively affected by “women’s leaders.” Targets of Kate’s illuminating criticism are hit not with harsh rhetoric, but with their own words, quoted briefly and accurately.

Kate zeroes in on “Feminists [who] argue there are no innate sex differences — except where there are.” Attempts to apply that inconsistent philosophy have changed the culture of many institutions, including the armed forces.

O’Beirne praises military women for their admirable service, but criticizes Pentagon leaders who ask them to serve where they do not have an equal chance to survive. Expressing compassion for single mother Lori Piestewa, the first female soldier killed in Iraq, Kate notes that Piestewa’s best friend Jessica Lynch was almost killed by captors who sexually abused and beat her while unconscious for several hours. Former Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder and aggressive feminists who came to power during the Clinton Administration demanded but did not warn female soldiers about the new, more hazardous “conditions of employment” they would face in time of war.

Kate writes about Pentagon official Sara Lister, who re-established co-ed basic training in the Army, known to be less effective than separate gender training, which still benefits men and women in the Marine Corps. She goes on to quote author Linda Francke, who approvingly wrote that the modern military has become a “mecca for single parents.”

Feminists show little concern about “pediatric postwar syndrome” among children left behind in recent wars, but demand millions more defense dollars for professional childcare — the largest system in the world. O’Beirne scores gender-based recruiting quotas, demanded by feminists for years, noting that almost 47% of enlisted women leave the service in less than three years, compared with about 28% of men. The illogic of that is explained only by the peculiar way in which men in authority keep trying to please implacable feminists.

Properly referring to women’s exemption (not exclusion) from involuntary combat assignments, Kate writes about her service as a member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. On a visit to a Marine base Commissioner O’Beirne asked an enlisted woman whether women should serve in combat. “Not if it’s not good for the Corps, ma’am.” If the men who run the Pentagon made decisions by the same standard, the military would avoid many social problems that make negative headlines on a regular basis.

In a particularly enlightening chapter, O’Beirne demolishes the belief that feminists must be catered to because they have the power to decisively influence elections. To the contrary, virtually every promise and threat made by feminist ideologues has failed. Myths about their power live on.

O’Beirne has been attacked by a few commentators who resent her frank exposure of Women Who Make the World Worse, but those reviews reflect the power of the book, which provides fresh insight for policy makers in almost every field. Many institutions have been weakened by feminist influence, but the military is the only one on which our national security depends.

Jakarta, Indonesia - February 3, 2006 (Thanks to Errol Phillips - An Independent Jewish Conservative)

Yesterday, Indonesian Muslims stormed the Danish Embassy in Jakarta, vowing to “annihilate those who insult Islam!” - apparently in order to prove that they aren't violent, as suggested in the Danish newspaper cartoons depicting Mohammad and other Muslims as violent prone, including showing the Prophet with a bomb-shaped turban.

HERE - FOR ALL TO SEE - ARE THE TWELVE “FORBIDDEN“ CARTOONS
(with thanks to Michele Malkin) 

YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP!

This Saturday morning a Muslim mob sacked and burned the Danish Embassy in Damascus, Syria - again to prove their non-violent nature.

Bassem Tellawi-Associated Press

BY CONTRAST, HERE IS WHAT THE FREE MUSLIMS COALITION HAD TO SAY ABOUT THESE REACTIONS

The Free Muslims Coalition condemns the reaction of American Muslim Organizations and Muslim governments to the unfavorable depiction of Prophet Mohammad in European News papers.

Protests have spread across the Muslim world over the publication in European news papers of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. Outrage over the cartoons has ignited demonstrations from Turkey to the Gaza Strip, and prompted a boycott of Danish products throughout the Middle East.

In Pakistan, hundreds demonstrated on Thursday, chanting "Death to Denmark" and burning Danish and French flags. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak warned that the decision by some European papers to publish the cartoons could encourage terrorists. Consequently, government ministers from 17 Arab nations have asked the Danish government to punish the newspaper for what they called an "offense to Islam" and some countries have even pulled their ambassadors from Denmark.

The controversy intensified on Wednesday when a French news paper, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here".

The response by Muslims to the cartoons is absolutely pathetic and depressing but revealing. The reason Muslims are responding with anger and threats of violence is because most Muslims live in countries where democracy and freedom of speech are alien concepts.

Moreover, the Muslim world suffers from a lack of visionary leadership. In this particular case, when Muslim leaders, including American Muslim leaders, realized that Muslims are furious they joined the chorus of fury rather than explain to their people that they must be reasonable and that freedom of speech is healthy even if it is insulting. What is even more disgusting is that most American Muslim organizations, who should know better, have joined the chorus of instigators rather than taking this opportunity to teach their members about the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance.

One would think that Muslims have learned a lesson from the mishaps of the radical Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini when in 1989, he called on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book, The Satanic Verses. The childish and stupid reaction by Khomeini caused an otherwise poor book to become a number one seller. Similarly today, the stupid reaction by Muslims has caused many more news papers to publish insulting images of the Prophet Mohammed.

When will Muslims wake up and realize that their intolerance of opposing opinions is keeping them in the dark ages? When will Muslims realize that respect must be earned and not forced through violence and coercion? When will Muslims realize that individual liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights? When will American Muslim organization provide solutions to Muslims rather than instigate problems? The Free Muslims Coalition hopes that the answer to all these questions is soon.

For more information visit: www.FreeMuslims.org

Kamal Nawash, 202-776-7190, 301-905-6438, president@freemuslims.org

Here is the latest scoop on the publication of my forthcoming book The Chicken Little Agenda - Debunking Experts’ Lies. The book will be published in April, 2006, by Pelican Books. You can review the announcement from the Pelican Spring Catalog here.

This is the transcript of the Bill Handel Show on KFI640 in Los Angeles on the morning of January 30, 2006:

Interesting news that happened actually started January 12^th, on the morning show, the day of the Hajj in Mecca. A few hundred people were trampled to death as sometimes happens in Mecca, it’s a problem they’ve had for many many years.

And we did a little skit that morning, about them desperately needing a helicopter in the sky, and a traffic reporter to guide traffic. We did a little skit on that, and Paul did it in his accent, as an Arab helicopter/traffic reporter.

You never know, whenever we do something on a show, when it hits a nerve. Who are we going to offend today, and what is going to reverberate? I have no idea! I mean we start at 5:00 am in the morning offending people. That’s what this show is about, we make fun of everybody! There is no group that is off limits to us. There is no religion that is off limits to us, there is no ethnic group, no nationality. Nothing is off limits! You just never know who we offend, and every once in a while we hit and nerve, and BOOM, off it goes. And with two things happening…number one, the Internet and its ability to marshal emails throughout the world and groups out there, the righteous groups that monitor for offensive comments. With these, you’ve got an interesting combination, and there is our story.

It broke last Thursday, that this group CAIR, the Counsel of American Islamic Relations, found what we had done on January 12^th offensive, because we made fun of Muslims. Yes, we did, we make fun of everybody. Get in line, because we make fun of everybody. You think we are only making fun of you? HA! Well, they demanded of KFI and me, an apology and reprimand. They wanted me to apologize to Muslims for making fun of them, and they wanted a reprimand. As a matter of fact, we received emails, and I’m going to share with you a quick email sent to Mr. Greg Ashlock, Regional Vice President of Clear Channel Radio. (He reads the following email):

Dear Mr. Ashlock,

I am writing to kindly ask KFI radio and Clear Channel Communications to issue a formal apology and to reprimand Mr. Bill Handel for making Islamophobic remarks on one of his recently aired shows.

On January 12, Mr. Handel mocked the deaths of hundreds of Muslims while performing their annual pilgrimage to Mecca. He also described the event as a stampede, characterized Islam as a “strange religion,” and portrayed Muslims as anti-Semites.

Mr. Handel’s comments are not only incorrect; they also demonstrate a reckless and insensitive attitude toward the loss of human life and toward a religion that is practiced by 1.3 billion people around the globe.

Needless to say Mr. Handel’s comments about Muslims’attitudes toward Jews are stereotypical and they only serve to increase tension and conflict among people of Abrahamic faiths.

I urge KFI and Clear Channel Communications to distance themselves from Mr. Handel’s repeated Islamophobic remarks by issuing a formal apology and a reprimand.

Looking forward to your reply,

Now, we got hundreds of these, hundreds! Beijing, China…Saudi Arabia…Jordan…Kuwait…needless to say all through America, too. Strangely enough, every one of them are identical! (Re-reads the first line of the email). How to you get hundreds of emails that say exactly, precisely the same thing? Why, you have an organization that sends emails out to all of its people and says please write to these folks because they have offended. Any by the way, not one of these people actually listen to the show. Nobody knows who Bill Handel is, nobody’s ever heard of Clear Channel. Why you think, Susan Baker in Bakrain, is buying a Select Comfort Bed because I’m pitching here at KFI? COME ON! Nope, it is about the organization CAIR. And they call themselves a civil rights organization, which I find hilarious. This is an organization, by the way, that has been accused of having ties, and was started by the folks that are part of Hamas. The very same people that on the news this morning, asked the world to continue sending aid to the people of Palestine. And the world says, all you need to do is say that Israel has a right to exist, and you’re going to give up terrorism. NOPE! They won’t do that.

So, CAIR has asked me for an apology for making fun of Muslims. Or in this case, specifically, for making light of the fact that hundreds of Muslims died while performing their annual pilgrimage to Mecca, and I was wrong in describing the event as a “stampede.” Although, I don’t know what other word you would use, when you have hundreds of people…stampeding, but so be it. And, characterizing Islam as a “strange religion…I sure did…I characterize Judaism as a strange religion, I characterize Catholicism as a strange religion, and every other religion as a strange religion, across the board. But, I guess when you are an Islamic organization; all you care about is, when I make fun of that particular religion. And I portray Muslims as Anti-Semites. Yeah, I got to apologize for that one, because I don’t know where the hell I ever got the idea that Muslims are Anti-Semites. Where would I ever get that idea?!! You’re right, you’re right; I guess I manufactured that out of a whole cloth.

So, CAIR, which by the way, has some of its own problems, in terms of how it was created, and who it’s connected to, and things that it has done. For example, several years ago, when a billboard showed a picture of Osama Bin Laden, here in Southern California, and it said something like “this guy is a threat.” They immediately said, “take that down,” they complained about some billboard company saying Osama is a threat, saying that’s anti-Muslim, how dare you do that.

So, bottom line, this is my response, I put it in writing, because it is going to be issued, and I want it verbatim.

I have been asked to apologize to the Muslim community, on behalf of CAIR, for comments I made on a January 12^th broadcast, that it claims I was insensitive to Muslims. I have taken this request into consideration, and I am willing to issue a formal apology. I will issue a formal apology; live on the air, provided that CAIR clearly defines its positions on several issues. As has been widely reported, CAIR has been the subject of a number of investigations for ties to terrorism. If CAIR will publicly acknowledge the following three statements, I will recognize it as an organization that TRULY represents law-abiding, peace loving, American Muslim citizens. Not merely a front for people who advocate terrorism. Number one, CAIR denounces all bombings, attacks, where the intended victims were innocent civilians. Such as all bus, market, restaurant bombings in Israel, the 2004 train bombing in Madrid, and the 2005 subway and bus bombings in London. Denounce those as terrorism. Number two, Israel is a sovereign nation. Recognized by the world community, has a right to exist with defensible borders. CAIR will never say that. Three, CAIR, and its associates have no ties, nor have they ever had any ties with individuals or known terrorist organizations, whatsoever, financially or otherwise, including but not limited to, Hamas, Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al Qaeda. Can’t say that one either, they can try, but I doubt they will. Because if you look at the history of CAIR and how it started, you will see many of its founders in jail, tied to terrorism, financially tied to terrorism. But that’s up to them.

So here’s a question I have for them. I’m going to throw the gauntlet down now. I’ll be more than happy to apologize for offending people. I’ll apologize all day long. What I want to know is why the AP and our local television stations carry the banner when they describe themselves as civil rights organization. I would like reporters, media, print, radio, television reporters, to ask CAIR…how do you respond to Handel? You’ve demanded that Handel apologize, Handel has come back and said, I’ll be more than happy to apologize, if you denounce bombings as terrorism. The way the do it, is bombings against Israelis is that of a freedom fighter. And attacks from Israelis to Palestinians are terrorism. See how that works? Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter, to these people. The attacks on civilians are simply a revolution, to get out the bad guys. I want reporters to ask CAIR, respond! Do you denounce all bombings as terrorism, doesn’t matter of political motivation, doesn’t matter if an Israeli does it, doesn’t matter if a Palestinian does it, doesn’t matter if a Chinese guy does it, doesn’t matter if an Irish Republican Army guy does it, it is terrorism, if the victims are innocent civilians. Number two; Israel is a sovereign nation recognized by the world, has a right to exist. And you’ve never had any ties to anybody associated with terrorism…Hamas, Islamic jihad, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda. I’d love to see that. Then you get your apology. By the way, we have called CAIR, all through the weekend, left messages to their communications director, and we have not gotten a response. I would like to them to come, and respond on the AIR, and respond to these charges. I’m sure their response will be, that’s not the issue. Yes, it is the issue. I’ll be more than happy to talk about your issue if you talk about my issue. Maybe, they’ll shock me. You are invited to come on the show, and respond, because I am accusing you of all three of those allegations, and I’d like you to respond.