Your Healthy Video Addiction is Here: Laura Ingraham at CPAC

Laura Ingraham has the best talk radio program on the airwaves these days.

This week she had the honour of introducing Mitt Romney at CPAC.

Here's video of her brief introductory speech.

Boy did the New York Times get it wrong

Here's further proof that the U.S. State Department is and was inhabited by people who don't have a clue what the hell they're doing. Please note the date.

The Declining Terrorist Threat
By LARRY C. JOHNSON
Published: July 10, 2001
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

None of these beliefs are based in fact.

. . .

The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia -- or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia -- you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.

Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend.

. . .

I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist.

(Hat Tip Atlas Shrugs)

Geert Wilders' surprise ending

In an interview with Dutch GPD news agency, MP Geert Wilders has revealed more details about his controversial upcoming film about the Koran.

Dutch authorities are concerned about riots breaking out because there are rumours that Wilders will burn a Koran in the documentary.

Wilders, however, gave a hint in his interview about what may cause Muslim anger, but it has to do with an image of Mohammed, not the Koran.

Wilders also gave some more details about what would be shown in the film, which for months has been causing concern in the Netherlands.

It would lead viewers through the Koran, Islam's holy book, he said, and show texts illustrated by documentary video images to show the Koran is not a symbolic text "but that Islam can take away our freedom unless we act against it".

In the end the film returns to the situation in the Netherlands and finishes with a picture of the prophet Mohammed, he explained. Muslims consider images of their religion's founder to be blasphemous.

"Something will happen to that picture but I won't say what," Wilders said.

Iran: Death penalty proposed for apostates

Why not? They already have it for suspected adultry.

From Compass Direct News

ISTANBUL, February 8 (Compass Direct News) – The Iranian parliament may mandate the death penalty for citizens who leave Islam, a human rights group announced this week.

For the first time in Iranian history, a proposed penal code demands the death penalty for “apostates,” according to a February 5 statement by the Institute on Religion and Public Policy (IRPP).

“Apostasy was always illegal, but the court could hand down a jail term, hard labor or the death penalty,” said IRPP President Joseph Grieboski. “Now apostasy [would only] get the death penalty.”

Iran has used the “apostasy” law to target Muslim converts to Christianity, liberal thinkers and members of Iran’s Baha’i religious minority.

“This is not something new, they just want to be more harsh towards those who are leaving Islam,” an Iranian pastor told Compass.

No converts to Christianity have been convicted of “apostasy” since international pressure forced officials to drop the death sentence of Christian convert Mehdi Dibaj in 1994. But in the years following the convert’s release, Dibaj and four other Protestant pastors, both converts and those working with converts, have been brutally murdered.

The murderers of the Christians have never been brought to justice. Local believers suspect the government played a role in the killings.

“They began assassinating pastors and Christian workers,” said the Iranian pastor, who requested anonymity. “Legally, they did not take them to court, but they just killed them and said that they hanged themselves and gave some other excuses.”


‘Hardship’ for Women

The penal code proposal, already approved by the Iranian cabinet a month ago, appears to have the necessary parliamentary backing to be passed, an Iranian Christian told Compass.

Article 225 of the draft, posted on the IRPP website, stipulates two kinds of “apostasy,” “innate and parental,” both of which warrant the death penalty.

Innate “apostates” are those who grow up with at least one Muslim parent, are Muslims at the age of maturity and then later leave the faith, the article states.

“Punishment for an Innate Apostate is death,” section seven of the article stipulates.

Known as “parental apostates,” citizens who grow up in non-Muslim homes, convert to Islam as adults and then later decide to leave are to be given a chance to repent before their execution, the draft states.

“… After the final sentencing for three days, he/she would be guided to the right path and encouraged to recant his/her belief,” the article stipulates. “… If he/she refused, the death penalty would be carried out.”

Though sections of the draft appear to indicate that both men and women can be executed for apostasy, others limit execution to males who leave Islam. Section 225-10 states that convicted female “apostates” will be imprisoned for life.

The proposed law stipulates that “hardship” will be exercised on a female “apostate,” who will be immediately released if she recants. “The condition of hardship will be determined according to the religious laws,” the draft states.

Death Penalty for Drunkard

It remains unclear how far the government will go in implementing the revised apostasy law. In recent years no Christians are known to have been convicted of apostasy.

In May 2005 a former military officer and Muslim convert to Christianity was acquitted of apostasy by an Islamic court in Bandar-i Bushehr.

“This [new penal code] might open the hands of the fanatics to do more harm,” said the Iranian pastor. “It just depends which group [in the government] has more power, the radicals or the moderates.”

The new draft also extends the government’s jurisdiction to all actions taken outside of Iran, the IRPP reported. Article 112-3-1 of the draft refers to actions against “the internal and external security of the country,” but leaves the definition of “security” open to interpretation.

“Our concern lies in the fact that any movement anywhere can be tried if the government considers it being against Islam,” IRPP president Grieboski said.

A number of crimes, including repeated drunkenness, rape, murder, armed robbery, drug trafficking, “apostasy,” adultery and male homosexuality are capital offenses in Iran.

Last week, a Tehran criminal court sentenced a 22-year-old man to death after he was caught a fourth time in possession of alcohol and in a state of drunkenness.

At least 28 convicts were executed in January, the BBC reported. According to the news agency, human rights groups said that Iran carried out the death penalty on nearly 300 people last year.

The Implausibility of Nuclear Terrorism

From Human Events.

Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a recent presentation at the University of Chicago, "the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be vanishingly small."

The events required to make that happen comprise a multitude of Herculean tasks. First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia's inventory of decommissioned warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing.

Besides, those devices are probably no longer a danger, since weapons that are not scrupulously maintained (as those have not been) quickly become what one expert calls "radioactive scrap metal." If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a bomb to an ally -- for reasons even the Iranians can grasp.

Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. The terrorists, notes Mueller, would then have to spirit it "hundreds of miles out of the country over unfamiliar terrain, and probably while being pursued by security forces."

Then comes the task of building a bomb. It's not something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment -- plus people with specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. And if al-Qaida could make a prototype, another obstacle would emerge: There is no guarantee it would work, and there is no way to test it.

Assuming the jihadists vault over those Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in contraband all the time -- but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion. This, like every other step in the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what's going on, multiplying the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up.

Mueller recalls that after the Irish Republican Army failed in an attempt to blow up British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it said, "We only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." Al-Qaida, he says, faces a very different challenge: For it to carry out a nuclear attack, everything has to go right. For us to escape, only one thing has to go wrong.

That has heartening implications. If Osama bin Laden embarks on the project, he has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the formidable odds, he probably won't bother.

None of this means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist communications and improving port screening. But it offers good reason to think that in this war, it appears, the worst eventuality is one that will never happen.

Hundreds in Toronto get extra welfare for polygamous unions

On the weekend, I was astonished to learn of a new policy approved in Britain that would give legal recognition to polygamy. I had a good chuckle.

Today, I'm shocked to discover, according to a Muslim community leader, that the same thing is already happening in my own province.

Hundreds of GTA {CG: Greater Toronto Area} Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.

Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.

"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."

He estimates "several hundred" GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is permitted to have up to four spouses.

However, city and provincial officials said legally a welfare applicant can claim only one spouse. Other adults living in the same household can apply for welfare independently.

The average recipient with a child can receive about $1,500 monthly, city officials said.

FAMILY LAW ACT

In addressing the issue of polygamous marriages, the preamble to the Ontario Family Law Act states: "In the definition of 'spouse,' a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (2)."

"There are many people in the community who are taking advantage of this," Ali said. "This is a law and there's nothing wrong with it."

Immigration officials said yesterday that polygamous marriages aren't allowed in Canada, but that contradicts the provincial law.

"Canada is a very liberal-minded country," Ali said. "Canada is way ahead of Britain in this respect."

He said Britain recently began permitting husbands to collect benefits for each of their wives.

The British government recently admitted that nearly a thousand men are living legally with multiple wives in Britain. Although the families are entitled to claim social security for each wife, the department for work and pensions said it has not counted how many are on benefits.

In Canada, Ali said, the man and his main wife and children enter Canada as landed immigrants. The other spouses are sponsored or arrive as visitors to join their husband to share one home.

POSSIBLE FRAUD

The families receiving benefits didn't want their identities released because it can lead to questions by authorities on how they entered Canada and can mean an end to their benefits, Ali said.

Brenda Nesbitt, the city's director of social services, said benefits are only paid to one spouse and names and addresses are cross-checked for possible fraud.

"There may be polygamous cases we are not aware off," Nesbitt said yesterday. "They can apply as single people and we won't know."

Ontario Community and Social Services spokesman Erike Botond said a social assistance benefit may only include one spouse. "Other adults residing in the same dwelling place as a recipient and their spouse may apply as individuals."

"I can assure you that polygamy is not recognized under immigration legislation," immigration spokesman Karen Shadd-Evelyn said yesterday. "A conjugal relationship, whether involving marriage or a common-law partnership, must be exclusive."

Mark Steyn says:

It's clear Canada, Britain and much of Europe have boarded the Sharia Train. What makes you think it's a stopping service that'll allow you to disembark at a station halfway down the track, rather than an express service to an inevitable destination?

Romney the next Reagan?

Bryan at Hot Air is not ready to say that yet, but he's making a lot of suggestions that could make Romney the next leader of the conservative movement.

In dropping out of the GOP race Thursday, Mitt Romney showed a great deal of class and a flair for the dramatic. But what’s next? In particular, if he really does see 2008 as 1976, what does he have to do to convince conservatives that he could be the next Reagan?

Mitt Romney is not the next Ronald Reagan, at least not yet. That’s not a personal criticism of him, it’s just a reflection of the fact that Reagan spent a good 30 years prior to 1976 studying and speaking out on the Communist threat, he spent two terms as the governor of the country’s most populous state, and built and led a movement that was always larger than himself. Reagan was always about the battle of ideas and moving the country away from big government and toward smaller government. In a serious way, Reagan led an ideological war against Communism that culminated the year after he left office, when the Berlin Wall came down. There is no analogous political figure on the scene today, who has spent decades studying the threat we face now from al Qaeda and its ideological allies. There just isn’t. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that there is and no one at this point has earned Reagan’s mantle.

. . .


The good news for him is that he has a few years in which the conservative mantle is up for grabs. No one owns it or has earned it. It could be his if he chooses to earn it. Reagan changed his positions on some issues over time, so it’s not the case that an honest change of mind is permanent political poison. It’s not. But Romney has to prove that where he is now is where he will always be and that he’s a studied and worthy leader.

Depending on the outcome this fall, Romney either has 4 or 8 years to prove that he is in his ideological home for good. To do that, we’ll need to hear from him through the years. Reagan didn’t go away after 1976. He stayed active and kept ready for 1980.

Romney’s personal wealth gives him an advantage over a Mike Huckabee when it comes to establishing himself as a conservative center of gravity. He can and probably will hold summits with fellow conservatives, maybe his own version of Restoration Weekend or even a kind of CPAC, but he should also stay active in events and groups like that that already exist. Build your own but not at their expense to expand the conservative movement’s arsenal rather than create factions and fissures. He can use his wealth to engage in entrepreneurial conservatism, by building or publicly supporting new media alternatives to the Soros-backed MoveOn, Media Matters and the like. And he can also continue to generate more money for the conservative cause through private enterprise and personal persuasion.

But over and above that, he has to show conservatives that he’s engaged in the battle of ideas personally and not just throwing money at them. He has to study up, in a serious and patient way, on the jihadist threat, the broader security threat environment including the role that border insecurity plays not only in terrorism but in violent crime, drug and human trafficking and identity theft. And he has to show that his social conservatism wasn’t forged out of convenience.