From the Investor’s Business Daily:

Oil prices jumped to nearly $58 a barrel Thursday in Singapore in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Benchmark crude for June delivery was up $1.31 at $57.68 on expectations for a global economic recovery by year’s end and rising demand for the fossil fuel.

As oil prices rise again, the Guardian reports that Russia is planning a fleet of floating and submersible nuclear reactors to provide power for drilling and exploration for oil and natural gas in Arctic areas that Moscow claims as its own…

A prototype floating nuclear power station being constructed at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk is due to be completed next year. Four more 70-megawatt plants, each of which would consist of two reactors aboard giant steel platforms, are planned.

The self-propelled vessels would store their own waste and fuel and would need to be serviced only once every 12 to 14 years. Russia’s stimulus program for energy includes planned submersible nuclear-powered drilling rigs that could allow eight wells to be drilled at a time.

The U.S. Geological Survey believes the Arctic holds up to 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves, leading some experts to call the region the next Saudi Arabia. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin underscored that point at an April 14 Interior Department field hearing in Anchorage chaired by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Palin testified: “The world-class potential of Arctic Alaska was verified in the recently released Circum-Arctic Oil and Gas Assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey, which highlighted that Arctic Alaska was second only to the West Siberian Basin in total Arctic petroleum potential and the highest Arctic potential for oil.”

The Russians fully intend to develop the West Siberian Basin and any other Arctic areas their technology can reach. We may someday find ourselves importing Russian oil extracted off the Alaskan coast by Gazprom instead of Exxon or Shell.

As Palin pointed out to Salazar, the USGS assessment “estimates that Arctic Alaska has mean technically recoverable resources of approximately 30 billion barrels of oil, 6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids and 221 trillion cubic feet of conventional natural gas.”

Continued Arctic exploration is also necessary for the continued viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Production at Prudhoe Bay is in decline. North Slope production is one-third of its peak, and unless we are allowed to produce oil and gas from ANWR and in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Palin said, reduced flow will cause the pipeline to close.

The [US] administration’s game plan is to force energy prices to “skyrocket” to make alternative sources of energy more competitive. We don’t see the Russians dotting Siberia with wind turbines and solar panels. They recognize the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.

Alaska’s environmentally friendly natural gas, according to the Energy Information Agency in its 2009 Energy Outlook, would lower the cost to consumers by 63 cents per thousand cubic feet in 2002.

The only way we might be able to get at these resources may be to sell Alaska back to the Russians.

From The Heritage Foundation, by Dan Holler:

“On this Earth Day,” President Obama declared April 22, “[I]t is time for us to lay a new foundation for economic growth by beginning a new era of energy exploration in America.” 

Sure, the current era of energy exploration — oil, gas, coal and nuclear — has been marred by lousy government policy and radical environmentalists. But it’s hardly over. America’s ability to harness affordable, abundant and reliable energy sources created a strong foundation for the world’s largest, most dynamic economy.   

If the energy of the “past” were scarce or prohibitively expensive, starting a new chapter would make sense, but that isn’t the case. Rather, the President’s desire to scrap our economy’s current foundation in favor of expensive, unproven technologies is colored by his stated belief that human activity is causing global warming. 

Bizarrely, in his Earth Day address, the President said, “We still need more oil, we still need more gas.” Although Obama seems to recognize the essential role carbon-based fuels play in our economy, he clearly wants to see them phased out as quickly as possible. His $3.6 trillion budget request makes seven significant changes in the tax code and essentially declares war on domestic oil and natural gas production!

The most outlandish is a tax on production in the Gulf of Mexico, from which the nation produces significant quantities of oil and natural gas. Several tax deductions are targeted for elimination…

The budget also takes aim at what many consider the only silver bullet in the debate on energy and climate: nuclear power… But nuclear energy is critically important to our future…

It’s important to note that nearly 85% of our nation’s energy is carbon-based … Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is doing his part to  reduce energy by shutting off access to many of our nation’s most promising energy reserves. One of those reserves, the Green River Formation, contains an estimated 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of shale oil. Saudi Arabia’s official reserves pale in comparison, with a mere 289 billion barrels of oil.

Why does Salazar believe more R&D into this vast resource is unnecessary? Again, the answer is simple: He realizes we cannot have a new energy economy if the “old” is nowhere close to being depleted. Salazar has also repealed valid leases in Utah without a hearing and constructed hurdles that could prevent natural gas exploration in Colorado and oil exploration on Alaska’s North Slope.         

As if that weren’t enough, the President’s chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, believes coal and even nuclear may be things of the past, saying, “We may not need any, ever.” Combined, those two sources provide nearly 70% of our nation’s electricity supply. At least Wellinghoff acknowledges, “Natural gas is going to be there for a while, because it’s going to be there to get us through this transition that’s going to take 30 or more years.”

Enter House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). He’s on a back-door mission to stop natural gas production in the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania. A process known as “hydraulic fracturing” is necessary to gain access to the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas there. The state has regulated that process for the past 60 years, but Waxman would like to use the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate it, thus giving the final authority on its use to the anti-carbon Environmental Protection Agency.

In less than four months in office, the President has laid the groundwork to transform our energy infrastructure by making “clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.” Of course, all that requires making traditional energy more expensive to struggling American families and businesses.

Some very powerful individuals, Wellinghoff included, believe we can increase our renewable electricity generation 23-fold with almost no economic or consumer pain… In truth, no one knows exactly how much renewable energy will cost or if it is even possible. But the fact that vast amounts of conventional resources remain available at a much lower price suggests the government will have to engage in severe market manipulation if it hopes to achieve its goal. 

Last summer’s record gasoline prices should serve as a reminder of how a misguided energy policy can weaken America. For nearly four decades, the federal government has placed restrictions and outright bans on both onshore and offshore energy deposits. A systemic abuse of the legal and regulatory systems by radical environmentalists has been equally as damaging. According to the Chamber of Commerce, environmental groups “have organized local opposition, changed zoning laws, opposed permits, filed lawsuits, and bled projects dry of their financing.”

Ironically, these radicals oppose projects that will actually produce cleaner energy than today’s infrastructure, including relatively clean coal, nuclear and windmills. Their obstruction combined with inept government policies has undermined economic growth, weakened American energy security and actually prevented pollution-saving technology from being implemented. A radical, government-mandated, expensive conversion to renewable resources will create many more problems than it pretends to solve…

Every day, the Liberal American education system teaches about the global warming ‘crisis.’ Recently, a student friend of mine was presented with a 115 item list of things he could do to help ‘save’ the environment. Here are a few gems:

1. Use cloth diapers. Wonderful – now, instead of throwing away my baby’s diapers, I can wash ’em and reuse ’em. Welcome to 40 years ago.
2. Invest in well-made, functional clothing. Saving our environment, one pair of used overalls at a time.
3. Explore and learn about your community. I don’t stalk and am not a peeping Tom.
4. Learn where your waste and sewage goes. Yes, the journey of poop is a thrilling one. Tell it to be home by 11:00 PM!
5. Research socially responsible investments. Remember to kiss your money goodbye.
6. “Adopt a grandparent” from the local senior center. That’ll annoy the old chap.
7. Following on from the item above: volunteer to cook for senior citizens.
8. Sponsor a clothes swap. I hope that the clothes swapped are ‘well-made and functional.’
9. Educate yourself on global and ‘third world’ (their quotes) issues. May I suggest tyranny, mass murder, slavery, and starvation?
10. Spend time visualizing world peace. I can’t, can you?
11. Vote for candidates who support Green values. Is that a Liberal I smell?
12. Put toxic substances out of reach of children. Because children could potentially damage the environment once they enjoy a quick shot of Drano.
13. Communicate openly with your friends and coworkers. Gather ’round the water cooler for a heart-to-heart chat.
14. Work to unlearn cultural sexism and racism. Because everyone is sexist and racist. Except the racists, of course.
15. Ecotourism and ecoconsumerism. Yes, let’s enjoy two things that don’t even exist.
16. Decrease TV watching and increase creative learning. It’s been proven: sitting in front of a TV produces over 7 tons of CO2 per HOUR. Creative learning on the other hand, produces only 4 (or less if you buy carbon credits).

The packet ends with ‘have fun and be joyful.’ This to me is an invitation to get into my Hummer, put it in park, and hold the gas pedal down for a good twenty minutes. Nothing feels quite as good as a V8 revving up.

Have any of our readers encountered such Green ‘advice?’ Please tell us about it; it’s very entertaining.

Between 1968 and 1990, about 95% of the terrorist groups doing their murderous work all over the world were Marxist, backed verbally at least and in many cases with training and arms, by the Soviet Union.

Now, David Solway writes, about 95% of the terrorist groups doing their murderous work all over the world are Islamic:

One may argue that most Muslims are not terrorists, but there is no denying that most terrorists are Muslims. Unless one is wearing blinders. The Dalai Lama, for example, whose celebrity status in the West is in inverse proportion to his political acumen and intellectual vigour, tells us that “Muslims cannot be terrorists. If a person is a terrorist, he cannot be a Muslim” (Rediff.com, June 1, 2008). Such pablum only weakens the corporate will to resist what is nothing less than a historically verified and scripturally sanctioned campaign of terror, the evidence for which stares us daily in the face.

Surveys show that over 95% of global terrorism is Islamic in origin. One may legitimately wonder whether fanaticism has not become commonplace, as the hysterical reaction that swept the Muslim world over the publication of satirical cartoons in certain European newspapers would appear to demonstrate. These were not merely rent-a-mob protestors, as some attenuating commentators have held; on the contrary, their numbers are legion and the damage they have caused is substantial. The uproar following Pope Benedict XVI’s citation of a medieval text faulting Islam for spreading the faith by the sword, which resulted in the burning of churches and the murder of a nun, is only par for the course. Ditto the commotion provoked by Geert Wilders’ video Fitna, an assemblage of pre-existent materials which correlates scenes of violence with well-known Koranic passages (and which most Western websites found too hot to handle).

Such disturbances would not cut so wide a swath through the entire Muslim world were popular anti-Western sentiment not so easily harnessed and ignited by Islamic autocrats intent on shoring up their regimes. Events of this nature and the feeling which animates them are far more representative of the historic impulsion of the faith than we are willing to concede, since doing so would require the courage and lucidity we are now scarcely able to muster.

The same is true of Muslim anti-protestor protestation, which has been even scantier. One may ask whether this deafening absence of public opposition may not be owing to the possibility that professedly moderate Muslims have been overtaken by the extremists among them, the expunging of whom from the body of the faith seems highly unlikely. On the contrary, the sense of no exit permeates the Muslim world…

We enjoy reading Mike Adams, and see eye-to-eye with him on many political issues.

Where we do not agree with him – as with the otherwise admirable Ann Coulter – is on religion.

Well, we’re atheist conservatives and they are Christians, so that’s no surprise.

Today in an article in Townhall titled ‘Liberty and Tyranny’ – well worth reading in full – Mike Adams criticizes statism, progressivism, and the left’s ideal of equality. We share his views on them. Then he comes to the question of ‘rights’.

He asks ‘a serious question: If rights are not bestowed by a Creator, then under what conditions do they exist? In other words, who bestows them?’

The answer is nobody unless the state. A right can only be granted in law. Because we do not believe in a supernatural lawmaker, a Creator of our universe and us, we do not accept the idea of ‘human rights’ at all, or of ‘natural rights’.

We prefer to say that we human beings are – or ought to be – FREE to do whatever we choose provided we break no laws. Law sets limits on our freedom, and should do so rationally and equally.

Nobody’s ‘right’ whether in sentiment or law should ever impose an obligation on another person, except the obligation of restraint. Whoever it was who said, ‘the freedom of your fist ends where my nose begins,’ expressed it perfectly. A list of rights according to Franklin Roosevelt – as quoted by Adams – includes: a right to a useful and remunerative job and a wage adequate to provide food and clothing and recreation; a farmer’s right sell his produce for enough to give him a decent living; everyone’s right to a home, medical care, pensions, education and more. It is an endorsement of the Marxist notion: ‘to each according to his need’. Those who hold to that creed believe that a man should receive in exchange for something he sells – his labor, an artifact, or whatever he offers – the payment that he wants.

But our wants are limitless, while the value of what we have to sell is not.

Only the free market can determine value. A buyer will pay as much as the thing he is buying is worth to him. The more buyers who want the thing on offer, the higher the price will be.

The only alternative to economic freedom is distribution by tyrannical government. A government that arbitrarily distributes the wealth of the people is by definition a tyranny.

You can never have liberty and equality. The choice is between freedom and equality. (By which we mean economic equality: equality before the law is essential to freedom.)

In freedom, if an individual wants to earn more, he can do so by providing more and better goods and services. That is to say, we assess our needs for ourselves and work as well as we can to get the money to pay for them: which could be summed up as ‘from each according to his need’.

Will we get as much as we want? That will depend on our individual ability.

So we reverse the Marxist tag ‘from each according to his ability and to each according to his need,’ and make ours, ‘from each according to his need and to each according to his ability.’

The market will decide the reward. All we can do is our best. We have no ‘right’ to demand handouts from others on the grounds that we ‘need’ what they have.

To put it another way, socialism is theft.

Here in full is Melanie Phillips’s article in the Spectator (and please click on the link to Sultan Knish):

As predicted here repeatedly – Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he’s getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told the Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Sunday that efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. General James Jones, National Security Adviser to Obama, reportedly told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be ‘forceful’ with Israel. Ha’aretz reports:

Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine ‘a satisfactory endgame solution.’ The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations.

Of course not. If you are going to throw a country under the bus, you don’t invite it to discuss the manner of its destruction with the assassins who are co-ordinating the crime. As I said here months ago, the appointment of Jones and the elevation of his post of National Security Adviser at the expense of the Secretary of State was all part of the strategy to centralise power in the hands of those who want to do Israel harm.

Yesterday Vice-President Joe Biden and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry turned the thumbscrews tighter, telling Israel to stop building more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.

This is all not only evil but exceptionally stupid. The idea that a Palestine state will help build a coalition against Iran is demonstrably absurd. The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran.

The idea that if a Palestine state comes into being it will be easier to handle Iran is the opposite of the case: a Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense thatit will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel’s security is ludicrous.

It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession – giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year — only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so.

It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas’s repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace.

But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel’s security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security – the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to prevent more Israelis being murdered – and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons – which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which several billion Arabs remain pledged.

Of course Obama doesn’t care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn’t care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world’s body politic that has to be purged altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration’s collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran’s work for it.

None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama’s background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.

American Jews, meanwhile, are reacting as predicted – with a total absence of spine.  As IsraelMatzav reports, AIPAC was sending delegates to visit Congress to ‘convince’ Representatives and Senators to sign a petition calling for a two-state solution. Inspired! Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America’s elite.

But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America’s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.

This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.

Ben Shapiro writes in Townhall:

One hundred days into Barack Obama’s presidency, he demonstrated cowardice abroad and demagogic tyranny at home. On the 105th day of his presidency, he demonstrated his clear-cut anti-Semitism.

On Monday, Rahm Emanuel, the president’s hatchet man, delivered a message to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. According to the Jerusalem Post, Emanuel stated, “Thwarting Iran’s nuclear program is conditional on progress in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.” The message is clear: America will bar any action against Iran unless Israel makes concessions to the Palestinian Arab thugs who seek to eviscerate all Jewish presence east of the Mediterranean.

Emanuel isn’t the first Obama lackey to link American opposition to Iran with Israeli concessions. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress, “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts.” The two issues — Iranian nuclear development and the Israeli-Arab conflict — “go hand in hand.”

This is pure nonsense. The Iranian nuclear program threatens not only Israel, but U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government of Turkey, the government of Saudi Arabia, and the territory of Eastern Europe. Iran’s centrifuges make it a regional power, able to leverage its calculated irrationality into fearful appeasement by the West. America’s interest in the Iranian nuclear program has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The Obama administration knows this. They simply don’t care. Their position is clear: America’s ally, Israel, is no longer valuable. Sacrificing it in order to win Obama global popularity points is a worthwhile pursuit. The Obama administration offers Israel a choice between being a victim of suicide via territorial concessions to the Palestinian Arabs, or a victim of homicide via Iran. And the Obama administration forces that choice so that Obama can smile and wave at cheering throngs of Jew-hating maniacs who populate the Muslim world.

This is anti-Semitism at its finest. Not even in the heyday of the Carter administration did such anti-Semitism find expression in American foreign policy.

Obama’s defenders no doubt scoff at such accusations.

Obama, the Man of Tolerance, an anti-Semite?

Yes. An anti-Semite…

Obama is concerned when a Muslim state [Pakistan] populated by radical Muslim sympathizers makes territorial concessions to those radical Muslim sympathizers. He is concerned that those Muslim terrorists will be within 100 miles of a Muslim capital. And he is worried that Muslim terrorist attacks on Muslims will escalate.

Yet Obama advocates for territorial concessions by Jews to radical Muslims. He presses Jews to hand over territory not 100 miles from the capital, but constituting half the capital itself. He knows that each time Israel has made territorial concessions, Muslim terrorists have upped the ante — most recently in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. And he knows that the Palestinian Arabs have never and will never lay down their arms. Yet he threatens Israel with allowing its nuclear annihilation if Israel refuses to authorize euthanasia.

During the election campaign, I wrote that Obama was “the most dangerous candidate for the state of Israel since its creation in 1948.” I wrote, “Any American Jew who votes for Obama ought to be ashamed of him or herself.” My words were not strong enough. Any Jew who continues to support Obama’s foreign policy should turn in his badge as a Jew — that means you, Rahm Emanuel. And all Americans who support Israel must stand up against a president who values the genocidal murderers in Muslim lands over our democratic allies in the Jewish State.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will apparently have full legal force in the US.

This means that American moms may not smack their kids or – O boy, will they be in for it!  

But  – liberals be assured – it does not forbid you to kill them if they’re born alive when you try to abort them.   

And it will not stop little boys in Africa being armed with Kalashnikovs and sent into battles to kill and be killed. It will not stop the seizure or purchase of children by African and Arab slave dealers. It will not stop children being held and exploited as slaves for labour and sex. It will not save little Muslim girls from having their genitals sawn off. It will not stop the ritual killing of children as human sacrifices by certain African and Far Eastern religious cults. It will not stop Hamas from using children as human shields. And it will not stop Islamic moms and dads having their children blow up in suicide bombings. 

 The dear leader said (July 17, 2009): 

There isn’t really a choice. Iran, with the active help of the UN and the passive help of the decaying West, will win. Lebanon will be a bunker. 

 From the Investor’s Business Daily:

The Feb. 14, 2005, assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in a car bombing also killed 22 others and sparked a nationwide protest that became known as the Cedar Revolution.

It soon forced the withdrawal of Syria’s army after decades of de facto occupation of a neighbor it had refused to formally recognize, a sovereign nation it viewed as a lost province of a Greater Syria.

In the aftermath of the assassination, a U.N. commission was formed to determine who killed Hariri and to bring them to justice. Most fingers pointed at Lebanon’s former occupier, Syria, which not surprisingly failed to cooperate in the investigation.

The initial report by Detlev Mehlis, the chief U.N. investigator into Hariri’s assassination, said the decision to kill Hariri, who Damascus feared would rally Lebanese opposition to Syrian influence, "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials" and their Lebanese operatives.

On Wednesday, it became clear that Hariri’s assassins might never be brought to justice and that the U.N. isn’t serious about dealing with that assault on Lebanese democracy — part of a long series of assassinations of anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians and journalists.

Judge Daniel Franzen ordered four Lebanese generals suspected of involvement in Hariri’s murder freed on the grounds there was insufficient evidence for keeping them jailed. In fact, it was not so much a lack of evidence as it was a lack of will by the international community, which refused to press Syria on the issue.

After Hariri’s assassination, the formation of the international tribunal into his death and the withdrawal of Syrian forces gave a boost to those hoping Syrian influence and control were at an end and Lebanese democracy was safe. But much has changed in the last four years.

In 2006, the terrorist group Hezbollah, heavily armed and financed by Damascus and Tehran, provoked a war with Israel using Lebanon and its people as a human shield.

Despite U.N. Resolution 1559, which demanded all militia groups disarm, Hezbollah kept its weapons and added more while it began a two-year campaign marked by additional violence and assassinations to destabilize the government of Lebanon.

The campaign culminated in early 2008 with Hezbollah laying siege to government buildings and storming pro-government militia headquarters in West Beirut. The violence subsided after talks in Doha, Qatar, gave Hezbollah (the Party of Allah) its long sought veto power over government decisions in a new Cabinet of national unity. But Hezbollah wants more and in the upcoming June 7 parliamentary elections, may win it all.

Sources in Lebanon say that in recent months Iran has smuggled upward of a billion dollars into Lebanon to help its puppet creation, Hezbollah, buy the election. "Hezbollah intends to win these elections at all costs," says Toni Nissi, secretary-general of the National Council for the Cedar Revolution. "This election victory will allow them to transform their illegal institutions into legal ones." …

Many fear this election could be as disastrous for Middle East peace as the 2006 election that brought Hamas to power in Gaza.

"The choice is between Lebanon as a beach and Lebanon as a bunker," Middle East expert Amir Taheri recently quoted a Lebanese businessman as saying. "Lebanon could either become an extension of Europe in the Middle East or a bridgehead for Iran in the Mediterranean."

All that will be needed for Iran to triumph will be for the West to continue to do virtually nothing.