Here's the original blog. Many articles have been written about "Dr." Cullen and her assertion that any meteorologist who doesn't buy into her and Al Gore's global warming crisis should have his/her certification pulled, and career ruined. Debate is not what she wants. She wants capitulation and adoration. Read here, and here, and here for an assortment of the hubbub.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.

Perhaps, but that's not the effect. Seems like nothing but a publicity stunt to me. Here's a person who most people have never heard of until now, shrieking like a banshee, calling for the heads (and careers) of anyone who disagrees with her. What a maroon. What a moron.

The crux of her argument is that industrialized society burns fossil fuel, which causes global warming, and hey, the sky's falling. What Chicken Little doesn't get into is how much of that can be proven to be caused by humans vs. volcanos, for instance. She mostly spews greenhouse gas theory, yet doesn't mention that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. No amount of government funding will eradicate water vapor, nor should it. Water is essential to life on this planet.  Every mammal on this planet exhales CO2--the gas about which she whines. We also exhale water vapor.

Yes, Dr. Cullen, we are guilty of breathing. So are you.

I can't help but love this article from the UK Times. At least they didn't call him Osama.

At a meeting of activists in New York last week, the Rev Jesse Jackson, the first black candidate to run for president, declined to endorse Obama. “Our focus right now is not on who’s running, because there are a number of allies running,” Jackson said.

The Rev Al Sharpton, the fiery New York preacher who joined the Democratic primary race in 2004, said he was considering another presidential run of his own. And Harry Belafonte, the calypso singer who became an influential civil rights activist, said America needed to be “careful” about Obama: “We don’t know what he’s truly about.”

Attention, voters.  Harry Belafonte does not want you to vote for Obama.  In the immortal words of Laura Ingraham, "shut up and sing."

Clinton was applauded at a breakfast meeting for her attacks on President George W Bush’s economic policies of “tax breaks for the rich”. She added: “It is not rich Americans who have made this country great. It is hard-working Americans who have worked hard to lift themselves and their children up.”

Hillary, dear, if the "little people," as Leona Helmsley used to call them, have worked so hard to elevate themselves, and make this country great, then why are they still in such dire straits?  Oh, right--they aren't citizens.  They're illegal aliens.  Get this straight--they don't pay taxes, and they can't vote for you, except maybe in Chicago.  Those who can vote for you, legally, probably don't appreciate your belittling them.

Speaking of Sharpton:

When asked about Obama’s likely candidacy, the preacher, renowned for outrageous self-publicising antics, shrugged: “Right now we’re hearing a lot of media razzle-dazzle. I’m not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we’ll find out if it’s just fat, or if there’s some real meat there.”

Throw your carcass in the fire, Al, and we know it's all fat.  Lots and lots of fat.  Plus hair gel.  Flammable, but short lived.

Here's a precious quote from Belafonte:

“He’s a young man in many ways to be admired,” Belafonte said. “Obviously very bright, speaks very well, cuts a handsome figure. But all of that is just the king’s clothes. Who’s the king?”

Obviously not you, Harry. 

In one interview last week, Sharpton warned that Obama could not take the black vote for granted. A strategist pointed out, however, that Obama could emerge as a “model of reason, compared to that blowhard Al (Sharpton)”.

Amen.

FoxNews carried an AP piece about Cindy Sheehan protesting in Guantanamo.


Last time I heard, it was illegal for ordinary American citizens to travel to Cuba.  Through which country did Sheehan pass before heading to Havana?  Will she be arrested upon her arrival back in the U.S.?  No, of course not.  She's the "peace mom."  Can you imagine what Pelosi would have to say if Sheehan were to be arrested for the crime of visiting an off-limits country for a photo-op?

What's hilarious, is that Sheehan is alternately listed as being from Vacaville, CA, or Crawford, TX.  Nearest I can tell, she lives in neither place.  Where does she live?  The woman's a traveling circus with a criminal record, having been arrested more than once while protesting the war.

Can you imagine making a cottage industry out of your own misery, parlaying it into a "career" consisting of  generating photo-ops?  I don't know what her source of income is, if indeed she has one.  Perhaps she doesn't need one, if sympathizers feed and house her, but geez!  The woman's become a punch line, on par with Paris Hilton, but at least the latter gets paid for a number of her "appearances."

The West Palm Beach NBC affiliate reported that a male assistant principal barged into the girls' locker room and choked a student.


Several questions come to mind.  One, what on earth was a male administrator doing barging into the girls' locker room when people were changing?  Two, why would the teacher who noticed the strapless top go run to rat on the girl?  While the article doesn't specifically say that the teacher (gender not specified) ran out to get the assistant prinicpal, he wouldn't have barged in had he not been alerted.  Three, why isn't she or her parents filing assault charges against the assistant principal?


Normally, I wouldn't be so quick to side with the student.  Did she make any rude or obscene gestures?  I don't know.  The article doesn't explore that possibility, nor the possibility that the student may have argued with the teacher or the assistant principal.  But even if she did, it still doesn't warrant the guy barging into a locker room where he doesn't belong, let alone choking her, and slapping her with assault charges.  I'm inclined to believe she struggled to get free.  That's not the same as felony assault.  Neither is belligerence, even if she had copped an attitude, which is unclear.

One thing in particular that bothers me is that the school officials are keeping mum about what happened, citing the fact that she's a juvenile.  Sure, she's a juvenile, but that excuse is pure baloney.  It smacks of cover-up.  They obviously had to cite some facts about what happened to the cops.  No need to mention her name to the press, but not even stating simple facts about the sequence of events makes me think the school administrators know the assistant principal was wrong, and simply want the whole incident to blow over.

In my day, we didn't have dress codes per se, but it seems to me that a violation would warrant perhaps a two day suspension, or something like that.  This particular assistant principal's reaction was way overblown.  Let's see . . . corporal punishment is illegal in most states in public schools, yet an administrator can put a choke hold on a student and claim he was being assaulted?  Something's very wrong with that!

And whatever happened to grabbing a female teacher to go into the locker room to fetch the girl to bring her out, if you're a male?  Never, ever would a male teacher or administrator have dared to set foot in the girls' locker room when I was in junior high and high school.  It simply wasn't done.

The UK Times reports that North Koreans will be eating. Forget "a chicken in every pot." Hasenpfeffer, anyone? North Koreans will be eating super-bunny!

Szmolinsky, from Eberswalde, in the east of Germany, was contacted by the North Korean Embassy in Berlin in October after Robert attracted press coverage. “They want to boost meat production. They’ve arranged for me to go to Pyongyang in April to advise them on setting up a breeding farm,” Szmolinsky, who is 68 next month, told The Times.

He breeds German gray giants, which are among the world’s biggest rabbits, and sells his annual crop of 60 to 80 to other breeders in Germany. He said that an attaché at the embassy came to his home and asked to see his rabbits. The diplomat was so impressed that he placed an order for eight females and four males, which were shipped to North Korea a few weeks later.

There are far worse things on which to dine than rabbit, but I don't think the North Koreans ever considered how much kibble these rabbits themselves require. What will the rabbits eat? PETA should be all over this one like a bad rash.

Robert was among the first consignment. “I don’t know how many more they want and whether I’ll be getting any more orders,” Szmolinsky said.

He has also received a request for rabbits from a Chinese buyer. He said he believed that the monster bunny program — one rabbit yields 7kg (15lb) of meat — was aimed at feeding the North Korean people rather than the “Dear Leader”, Kim Jong Il, who is said to favor lobster.

That's Robert the rabbit in the image link. Maybe the rabbits will be fed lobster to fatten them up for the starving masses? Perhaps Kim could let his countrymen wash it down with a swig of his French cognac. Way to go, Kim. You da man! Once again, your megalomaniac pea-brain has devised a brilliant plan.

The Washington Times had an interesting article on Hillary's latest poll results.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's popularity in Democratic presidential-preference polls has fallen in the nation's first caucus and primary states in the face of increasing support for her chief rivals for the 2008 nomination.

Why does this not surprise me?  We have Obama the "rock star," and Edwards the "pretty boy."  Personally, I don't think Edwards is much of a threat.  He didn't even carry his own district in the last presidential primary, and thus ended up running with Flip-Flop Kerry.  But Obama has momentum.

"I think Hillary strikes these voters the same way Senator John Kerry did in 2004. They would really like to vote for someone they really like this time. Hillary doesn't fit that characterization right now," said pollster Del Ali of Research 2000, who conducted polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

By this, I think Ali means that people simply don't like Hillary.  That may be, but I think it misses the point.  What's telling is that her leftist base is abandoning her for being too centrist.  She's never been centrist in her life!  She's pulling the wool over her own constituency in a misguided effort to suck in moderate Democrats.  The wolves are buying her sheep disguise, and don't like it.

His findings mirror more recent polling showing a similar national decline in support. "There's been erosion," said pollster John Zogby. "She's polling in the low- to mid-40s nationally."

Anyone familiar with Zogby and his research polls knows that he's a dyed in the wool Democrat.  These findings must cut him to the core.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama drew 22 percent and 21 percent respectively late last month, while Mr. Edwards took third place with 16 percent. One month before, Mr. Obama was trailing Mrs. Clinton by 23 points.
    Mr. Ali, who interviewed 600 likely voters in New Hampshire, said its electorate was made up of "a lot of independents. These are the same people who loathe [President] Bush, loathe the Iraq war. But deep down, they don't like Hillary Clinton," he told the Concord Monitor.
    In a telephone interview with The Washington Times, he said, "Her chief rivals are very much against the Iraq war and prefer that we begin withdrawal. I don't think they trust her, to be honest with you.

Mr. Ali, with whom I'm not familiar as a pollster, is dead on with his last remark.  Forget whether they like her or not--they don't trust her.  And why should they?  She blows with the wind.  Or blows wind.  Which one depends on your perspective.

Breitbart had an article about the Democrats' reaction to Bush's speech and plans to send more troops to Iraq to get the job done, and quit pussyfooting around.

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

Baloney. Given your druthers, Obama, you would get up and walk out on the kids, leaving them home alone. Don't you think it the least bit insulting to Iraqis to equate them with babies? People can get arrested for leaving their children home alone, yet that's effectively what you're proposing with your cut-and-run tactic. Your attitude is essentially "The kids are getting a little unruly, so the heck with them--I'm outta here!" Nice attitude for a self-described babysitter.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told CBS' "The Early Show" that since the new Democratic-led Congress convened last week, "questions are now being asked of this administration that haven't been asked for almost four years."

No, Dick. These questions have been asked, but you haven't been listening to the answers. Unless you're the one doing the asking, you have no interest in the answer.

Democratic options were limited, however. Party leaders have mulled a resolution of disapproval, but that would be nonbinding, and there also has been talk of attaching a host of conditions to approval of a spending bill to cover the costs of the buildup.

It should be pointed out that any non-binding resolution has no teeth. But the Democrats at this point simply want to register their frustration. Anything with enough teeth to force a total pull-out would leave them vulnerable to criticism when all hell breaks loose over there, because nobody's going to mistake it for a Republican tactic.

Here's my advice to Democrats higher than a kite on their power trip. Go ahead and force a troop pullout--the sooner, the better. Drop-kick Iraq to the curb. Let it descend into anarchy. If you think it's chaotic now, just wait--you ain't seen nothin' yet. Do it. I dare you. Here's a goal you might want to keep in mind before you give a knee-jerk reaction: 2008.

From the UK Times:

Moscow abruptly halted millions of barrels of oil destined for the EU via Belarus in an increasingly hostile wrangle with its neighbour.

The move raised further questions over whether Western Europe can trust Mr Putin for its energy supply. Experts said that Russia had a deeply entrenched habit of manipulating oil and gas supplies as a substitute for diplomatic policy.

Was there ever any question that Putin could not be trusted?  Since when has the KGB been known for diplomacy?  The KGB mindset simply cannot be exorcised from Putin.

The oil dispute centres on a tit-for-tat row over taxes. Minsk introduced a penalty on January 1 on Russian oil crossing Belarus to Europe, in retaliation against Moscow’s decision to slap a duty on oil it sold to Belarus. A government delegation from Belarus flew to Moscow last night to try to negotiate a settlement. But Mr Sharonov said that there would be no talks until Minsk cancelled its tax.

The way I read this is that Belarus reluctantly had to accept a doubling of its price of oil from Russia.  Having done so, it wanted to recoup some of that cost by imposing a tax on the oil it sends along through to Europe.  Russia got its knickers in a twist accusing Belarus of cutting off its European market, so Belarus is now caught in the middle.

All in a day's work, Mr. Putin, right?

From Breitbart:

Following an initiative by the Italian capital's left-wing mayor Walter Veltroni, the arches of the world-famous 2,000-year-old Roman era stadium were lit up as night fell.

The way I see it, the only thing bungled about Saddam Hussein's hanging was the fact that someone managed to sneak a camera phone in there to shoot the video.  Saddam's death, by all accounts, was pretty instantaneous.  What was bungled about that?

Okay, so Italy's against the death penalty.  It managed to get 85 U.N. member countries to sign a non-binding resolution for a global moratorium on the death penalty.  Note the key word is "non-binding."  It'll never happen.

Am I the only one to note the hilarious irony behind the Italians using the Colosseum to make their point about the death penalty?  Site of human bloodsport.  Home of the gladiators, and site of Christians being thrown to the lions.  Did this ever occur to the genius who decided the Colosseum would be the ideal symbol to highlight a stance against the death penalty?  Hello?  People were executed there for the crime of being monotheist, and in far less humane ways than a quick broken neck.  Yes, folks, the land of "bread and circus" is using a location with a very bloody history to make its point about death.  Brilliant, that.

The father of Madonna's adopted Malawian boy, Yohane Banda, wants to know about the welfare of his son, David. That, I would think, is natural. Yet in most adoptions, the parents don't know who the adoptive parents are, and in such cases, it makes a whole lot more sense to be worried, because they have no idea (save what the adoption agency tells them), about the type of home in which the child will be raised. That is certainly not the case here.

From a Reuters article:

"I don't have her phone and mailing addresses. All I want is to find out how my son is but I don't know how I can do it," Malawi's Daily Times newspaper quoted Yohane Banda as saying.

"I only talked to her once at the High Court and I want to talk to her now and find out about my child."

The father of one-year-old David Banda made the comments after the newspaper presented him with a 400 pound ($788) check from Scottish nun, Christine Webster, who told the paper she believes Banda would have been better off staying in Malawi.

And later in the article:

Banda dismissed any suggestions that he wants the child back and asked human rights groups not to interfere in his attempts to speak with Madonna.

"All I want is to find out how my child is doing and not to have him back," he was quoted as saying.

Granted, I'm quite cynical, but why is this only coming to light and getting press attention after he was handed $800 by the newspaper to which he made the statement? And why was the last time he was in the press talking about this adoption also after he admitted that he was under intense pressure from several groups to not adopt out the child?

I certainly don't begrudge the guy the donation from the nun, via the newspaper, but would she have cut the check if she didn't think she could manipulate the guy into making a press statement to gain attention for herself and her opinion/anti-adoption cause? I think not.

Madonna never seems to make headlines for her child-handling gaffes, as do, say, Britney or Michael Jackson. That's got to count for something. This just smacks of publicity stunt.

 

The news this morning is chock-full of articles about Saddam's execution. I'll just quote from and comment about some snippets that grabbed my attention.

From Reuters:

Many said his hanging for crimes against humanity, on the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, would worsen violence in Iraq.

"I don't have any sorrow or compassion for the man, but the timing is very stupid and Muslims will think this was done to provoke their feelings," said Ehab Abdel-Hamid, 30, a novelist and senior editor at Cairo's independent al-Dostour newspaper.

I'd like to point out that it was the Iraqi judge who made the comment that there was no reason for delay, and that the Iraqis set the timing.

In Afghanistan, which preceded Iraq as the first target in the U.S.-declared "war on terror", a top commander of the resurgent Islamist Taliban movement said Saddam's death would galvanize Muslim opposition to the United States.

This is a Taliban guy saying this; consider the source. For one thing, the U.S. is merely an excuse for these guys who first and foremost repressed their own countrymen during their brief rule, and for another, any rational Muslim knows that Saddam went through the Iraqi court system, was condemned to die by Iraqis, and was executed by Iraqis.

From Newsweek, we have this:

By Michael Hastings

Newsweek

Updated: 2:14 a.m. ET Dec 30, 2006

Dec. 30, 2006 - Ali Al Massedy was 3 feet away from Saddam Hussein when he died. The 38 year old, normally Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's official videographer, was the man responsible for filming the late dictator's execution at dawn on Saturday. "I saw fear, he was afraid," Ali told NEWSWEEK minutes after returning from the execution. Wearing a rumpled green suit and holding a Sony HDTV video camera in his right hand, Ali recalled the dictator's last moments. "He was saying things about injustice, about resistance, about how these guys are terrorists," he says. On the way to the gallows, according to Ali, "Saddam said, ‘Iraq without me is nothing.’"

Of course the guy was afraid. If he wasn't afraid, he wouldn't have had to rule Iraq with an iron fist during his dictatorship, and have an elite inner circle of bodyguards and food tasters to fend off coup and assassination attempts. Peace of mind was never really on his checklist of assets. Yet, his megalomania was there to the very end.

"He died absolutely, he died instantly." Ali said Saddam's body twitched, "shaking, very shaking," but "no blood," he said, and "no spit."

That's about how an elderly cat or dog goes, by lethal injection at the vet. The first shot, then the second shot, and a quick twitch after death of neuromotor function. It's quick and painless.

And from the NY Times:

His execution at 6:10 a.m. was announced on state-run Iraqiya television. Witnesses said 14 Iraqi officials had attended the hanging, at the former military intelligence building in northern Baghdad, now part of an American base. Those in the room said that Mr. Hussein was dressed entirely in black and carrying a Koran and that he was compliant as the noose was draped around his neck.

“He just gave up,” said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser. “We were astonished. It was strange. He just gave up.”

He added: “Saddam Hussein is gone. All Iraqis will look to the future after the end of this era.”

No doubt he knew there was no way he could stage an escape. He didn't get the firing squad he had demanded a couple of months ago or so, but it was still over in an instant. All I can hope is that al-Rubaie is correct about his assessment of the future of Iraq.

From Canada's National Post comes a fascinating article about Islamic fundamentalism:

He's a disarmingly gentle and courteous man. But he's determined to tell a complacent North America what he knows about fundamentalist Muslim imperialism.

"Yes, 'imperialism,' " he tells me. "The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe."

It's refreshing to hear it labeled what it really is, by a Muslim former believer in the "cause."  I never doubted that it was "imperialism."  But it's ironic that the word itself is flung back at Americans by suicide-bomber jihadis as their excuse to do to us what they falsely claim we do to them.  Sort of like Bill Clinton telling me that I (not he) had sex with Monica Lewinsky . . .

"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."

His analysis is fascinating. Muslim fundamentalists believe, he insists, that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah. Thus the extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Kingdom to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation. The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia.

"We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."

That explains a lot about this next little gem:

He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis. Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.

"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."

So . . . it's all about sex.  They can't even look at women outside marriage, but it's perfectly fine to beat the crap out of them for noticing that the creeps are leering at their head-to-toe robes.  "You caught me leering at you, so you must die."  That's just sick.  Why can't you just go poke your own eyes out instead?  "An eye for an eye," and all that . . .

"The sexual aspect is, of course, just one part of this. But I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?"

He's exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. "Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."

I couldn't have put it better myself.  Wake up you stupid moonbat apologists.  It's not about you.  It's about them.

My Way News reports that just in time for Christmas the U.N. security council voted to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program:

The U.N. Security Council resolution - the result of two months of tough negotiation - orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes the Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

What do they mean if Iran refuses to comply?  It's a given that Iran won't comply.  As it is, Russia and China helped take the teeth out of the resolution because, let's face it, they have deep economic ties with Iran.

The Bush administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, balked.

To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified the banned items and technologies.

Let me get this straight.  The nuclear scientists are free to travel to countries that have nuclear technology and are willing to fork it over for a price.  Exactly who at Iran border's going to stop these guys from bringing back plans if not actual material to build a nuclear bomb?  These scientists will be whisked right past customs and immigration into some awaiting limo.  And if they hop a flight from Moscow or Beijing to Tehran, you can bet the Russians and Chinese officials will be given instructions to wave these guys right through.  Nobody's going to take away their, er, toothpaste.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Security Council would regret voting in favor of the sanctions, saying he was sorry the West lost its chance to make amends with Iran.

"I am sorry for you who lost the opportunity for friendship with the nation of Iran. You yourself know that you cannot damage the nation of Iran an iota," the state-run news agency, IRNA, quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

I just laughed when I read that.  Of what friendship is Ahmadinejad talking?  The last time Iran had friendly relations with the West was in the 1970s when Reza Pahlavi was still in power.  Still, it smacks of desperation and stereotypical rhetoric.

Sadly, Ahmadinejad is probably right about these sanctions being essentially worthless.  If this report is correct, Iran is using these sanctions as an excuse to plow ahead at full steam.

Earlier Sunday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said the resolution made his country more "decisive in realizing our nuclear aims."

"From Sunday morning, we will begin activities at Natanz - site of 3,000-centrifuge machines - and we will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the resolution," Iran's Kayhan newspaper quoted Larijani as saying.

The U.N. is a joke.  Note this little gem, U.N.--Iran equates you with the U.S., which has to leave a bad taste in your proverbial mouth.  And yes, France, that includes you.  Quelle horreur!

Iran's parliament on Sunday voted to urge the country's administration to revise its cooperation with the IAEA but did not set a timeline or provide further details. Many legislators chanted "Death to America" after the vote.

Iran essentially told the U.N. to go fly a kite.  No surpise there.


Gee, I can't think why.  Could it possibly be that Ahmadinejad is running amok with hubris?  Could it be that the U.N. is totally useless?


Um, that means approximately nothing, other than the U.N. will make a token protest.  It's famous for those.  Wag a finger, then go away.


In other words, Tehran thinks as little of the U.N. as we Americans do.  How gullible are you?

Congratulations, Al-Qaeda, for winning the American midterm elections.  I'm sure Howard "The Scream" Dean and Nancy Pelosi would beg to differ with you.  After all, you're stealing their thunder.  Even worse guys, you're stealing the thunder from the MSM over here in the states, and we can't have that, now, can we.  From ABC News, we have this:


That's telling them!  Why didn't you take credit for winning the election in Spain awhile back, while you were at it?  Oh, right--that's ancient history by now.


So, what "treasures of the Muslims" did Americans steal?  Bootleg CDs and DVDs from the black market operators in Baghdad?  As I recall, it was Iraqis looting Persian antiquities from the museums after the fall of Baghdad, not the Americans.  As I also recall, it was the Taliban that destroyed the ancient Buddhas carved into the side of that bluff.  Oh right--those weren't Muslim antiquities, so they don't count.  My mistake.

By the way, Al-Qaeda, don't forget that the Jews were there thousands of years before you, and the Christians were there hundreds of years before you, so your claim to Israeli land is merely third on the religion timeline.  And that's what this is really all about isn't it?  It's not even about Iraq nor Afghanistan--it's about Israel.