Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Ellen Goodman refers to the gaps between what she calls "Republican science and Democratic science," and is amazed that "23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it."

The explanation is easy, most college educated Democrats are schooled in the liberal arts and most college educated Republicans are educated in the sciences and engineering.

The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?"

The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"

The graduate with an accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"

The graduate with an arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

1. IF global warming is being contributed to by human activity;

2. and IF the contribution is significant;

3. and IF the results of GW are bad;

4. and IF humans can effect a change;

5. and IF a change can be demonstrated to help without harm;

6. and IF buy-in by all the governments is realized;

Then, we, the residents of earth, can begin to move on this circumstance.

BUT, that's an awful lot of IFs, and I for one am not willing to allow a unilateral solution to be imposed on me and exclude someone else, until all the If’s are resolved.

beowulfe writes

ExxonMobil donated almost $16 million to 43 different foundations that include people who dare to not walk lockstep, unquestioningly, with the scaremongers between 1998 and 2005. In case you are counting, that is an average donation of $46,000 per foundation per year. Please keep in mind that in 2005 ALONE, that very same "evil" ExxonMobil donated $150,000 to Habitat for Humanity, yet I don't hear any of the same kooks calling Jimmy Carter a "shill" to the oil companies.

BUT here's the REAL kicker: the US federal government ALONE funneled over $1.6 BILLION JUST LAST YEAR to various global warming scaremongers. That is ***100 times*** what ExxonMobil spent over an 8 year period.

So tell me, based upon the monetary payoffs, who is the "shill" to whom again?

JFP writes: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:18 AM

The case(s) for skepticism whatever the reality of global warming is, the reality of our epistemic situation with respect to global warming is that there's ample reason for skepticism. The "true believers" are asserting four claims, each of which can be challenged:

1. Reality is objective and science can discover the nature of that objective reality.

Lots of humanities professors -- and these are LEFTIST professors -- have denied this. It started with Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argued that scientific theories are always replaced by quite different theories, and that scientific facts are based on observation, which is always "theory-laden." That is, observers see what their theories tell them to see. Result? Science is unreliable.

2. Science has determined that global warming is happening.

In spite of all the claims about how every scientist believes in it and that there are no peer-reviewed articles to the contrary, one can still be skeptical. Science, IN THE LONG RUN, will get things right, but that doesn't mean it can't screw up in the short run. We are talking about some very complicated science here, and the fact that everyone is saying something makes me think that the process has been politicized. There's no counter-evidence, you say? I'd be more inclined to believe in global warming if there was less consensus than if there was more.

3. Science has determined that this warming is caused by humans.

Those ice caps on Mars need to be explained.

4. The only way to solve the problem is to ratify Kyoto and cap greenhouse emissions.

There's plenty of room for skepticism here. One could say that there are better solutions, one could say this solution won't work but others will, one could say that capping greenhouse emissions won't work unless China and India are on board, or one could say that nothing will work at this point.

The true believers imagine that they are standing on rock, whereas the rest of us think they are way out on a very fragile limb.

Happy Jake (http://happyjake.townhall.com) writes: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:40 AM

Basic Facts of Global Warming

Point 1: As has been mentioned by many, including Michael Crichton in the factual afterward of his novel "State of Fear", those who write articles saying anything critical of Global Warming theory are ostracized from the scientific community. AJR writes that 100% of scientists in peer-reviewed journals agree that Humans cause global warming. That's what happens when you only have one choice. Articles written that oppose the theory don't make it into the journals. Scientists are paid by people who want results. Most often, climatologists are paid by people who want a specific result. As such, they will do what they can to achieve it. Peer review journals come out of academia, and we all know just how middle-of-the-road and politically centered THEY are.

Point 2: As Burt says in his column, EVERYTHING is attributed to global warming (or racism or both, as was Hurricane Katrina). Even things like earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis (the one in 2004 had some eco-happies whining about global warming, if I recall correctly.) that have NOTHING to do with the climate. (That leap was also apparently made in "The Day After Tomorrow" which movie a number of politicians called an accurate assessment of what would happen because of Global Warming). The record-setting, extremely heavy 2005 Hurricane season (which included Katrina) was "due to global warming" and (and I'm not making this up) the unusually LOW number of tropical storms in 2006 was attributed to global warming (More desert in Africa made dust that seeded the clouds and made them lose their energy so they couldn't produce the big storms.) Burt is also not kidding when he says that hot weather AND cold weather are blamed on global warming. I've heard THAT one before, too.

Point 3. The best guess we have (and it is a guess) is that the Middle Ages included a long period where it was warmer, worldwide, than it is now (It might have been the 1400's, but I don't remember exactly. Maybe someone else does.) In any event, we have no accurate measurements for worldwide temperature before about the 1960s when we started putting up satellites and no measurements at all for even local temperatures before the last 150-200 years or so. We can make guesses based on tree rings and ice layers, but those are guesses and can be interpreted in several ways.

Point 4: The estimates keep getting lower, and the impending catastrophe keeps getting worse. 20 years ago, they were saying we would be under water right about now. They keep changing the story and what they change it to never seems to bear itself out.

Point 5: We aren't even sure that a one-degree rise in temperature over the next 100 years will have any real effect on anything. And even if it does, we don't know for sure that it will be a disaster. Theoretically it could open up vast areas of farmland in the three biggest countries (in land area) in the world, Russia, Canada and the US (Alaska, specifically).

Point 6: Any measures proposed by such things as Kyoto are woefully inadequate even by the eco-happy's own admission. If Kyoto were implemented as written, it would stave off the impending doom by 10 years. That's it. And that's because it's not intended to solve or even ameliorate global warming, but to hurt the US and its standing in the world. The biggest polluters are exempt from the treaty, and we're the only country that would have to put a severe damper on our economy to make it work. And crushing our economy won't yield any benefit whatsoever. None. 10 years isn't a benefit. It's a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound, with the bullet still lodged. So even if you accept the doom and gloom scenarios, the solutions put forth don't address the problem (presuming the problem is Global Warming and not the industrial dominance of the US.) Besides all of that, we saw just how well the "Oil-for-Food" treaty worked out. The US was the only ones who abided by it (not even the UN, who wrote the thing in the first place bothered to abide by it.)

If the problem doesn't exist, then shut up about it. If it does exist, then propose a solution that (A) will work and (B) won't cost more than it's worth and (C) will apply to everyone, not just those who are political targets

.

Moonbat Exterminator writes: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:44 AM

Happy Jake Great post filled with factual info. A couple of additional points:

1. Climate records have only been recorded for less than 200 years, which in the life cycle of a planet is less than the blink of an eye. To base the linear regression projections that global warming advocates make, based on a statistically insignificant sample is foolish.

2. Most of the global warming predictions are based on computer models, which are mainly based on correlation between independent factors like temperature and CO2 concentration. What's absent from these analyses is any demonstrated causality i.e. a.)the mechanism by which temp is affected by CO2 b.)complete breakdowns of all CO2 sources, and c.) how human produced CO2 is more harmful than that from other sources.

3. Right now where I live we are in the grip of an Arctic blast scheduled to get worse over the weekend (high temp Mon in single digits). 65 million years ago, the area was a subtropical swamp inhabited by dinosaurs, 100,000 yrs ago, it was under a glacier. How did human activity end the Ice Age?

Global warming pundits are doing the equivalent of trying to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Per Happy Jake

Has anyone read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"? Yes, I realize it's a Science Fiction novel, and written to be an engaging story (which it is, by the way.) However, a few points from that book bear noting.

1. Crichton is not a world-renowned conservative. At best he's apolitical.

2. Crichton (as he does in all his novels) uses real science and applies it to a "what would happen if" motif. Specifically, in this book, he spends a lot of time debunking just about every Global Warming model at one point showing that the globe was probably warmer in the 1600s than it is now.

3. Even if you don't read the novel for the science, read the authors notes at the end. In it Crichton makes very plain the point he's trying to make: Scientists are people. They are driven by the same motives that drive everyone else. If you are paid to find a particular conclusion, you'll find it, even if you have to use really flimsy evidence. In the modern political climate, scientists get a lot more money and publication if they lock-step with the Global Warming mantra.

Someone mentioned Galileo and Copernicus as scientists who bucked the conventional wisdom and were proven right. It was the same story then as now, if you don't go along with the conformists, your professional life is ended. There's only a few scientists who speak up against global warming, because there's only a few who are brave enough to go against the grain. What the global warming debate lacks is any real debate. We can't predict the weather for tomorrow, how can we expect to predict it 100 years from now? More to the point, presuming Global Warming exists and there's anything at all we can do about it (the latter of which I seriously doubt) how do we know what the effects are going to be when we can't even say what the effects of it are now (presuming there are any).

Of course, the Global Warming alarmists screamed loudly that the record high 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season was proof of disastrous global warming. But did you know that those same people claimed that the exceptionally QUIET 2006 season was ALSO caused by global warming? (Apparently, dust from the Sahara seeded the clouds and made them lose their energy before they could become dangerous storms). Record hot summers are caused by global warming, just as are record cold winters. (I'm not making this up, folks).

A few facts about the politics of global warming:

1. As I alluded to: any disastrous natural event recently has been attributed by someone to global warming. Heat, cold, high storm seasons, low storm seasons, drought, flooding, etc. If I'm not wrong (and I may be, so take this with a grain of salt) that includes the Christmas 2004 Tsunami.

2. The Kyoto treaty was written to specificaly target the United States. The other countries that are affected by it were already, because of their long stagnant economies, at or very near the levels of "greenhouse gases" they needed to get to. Germany, because it had just been reunified with the communist (and heavy polluter) East Germany in 1989, was actually already BELOW the 1990 levels of pollution in 2000.

3. The other "Major Polluters" like China, India and some African and southeast Asian nations are exempt from the treaty because they are "developing economies." This despite the fact that they produce far more pollution per capita than the US (and China and India having much larger populations than the US, contribute far more polution to the world than we do.) The framers of Kyoto know that the treaty would ruin the economy of any major polluter that tried to implement it. That's why they exempt the poor countries. So who gets to carry the burden? Us. (Oh, by the way, that's why when Bush un-signed the treaty, everyone called it dead. Without us, no one is affected and nothing happens.)

4. Best case scenario if Kyoto is implemented (as seen by the Environmentalists): The impending disaster caused by global warming is delayed for ten years. Yes, I said 10, ten, one-zero, diez, decem, the number between 9 and 11. One decade. That's it. We completely ruin the US economy, turn us into a third-world country, and all we get out of it is 10 lousy years.

Do we need to reduce polution? Sure. Less polution is always good. But we have to do it in such a way that it will actually benefit us. Ten more years isn't a benefit, it's a delay.

When Criminals have their own lobby against law-abiding citizens having the means for self-defense: example: Handgun Control, Inc, Violence Policy Center

---
When your government wants its citizens to be more dependent on the government then themselves by over taxing them: what the government wants: Make you a government pet

---
When government elected officials have a different and better pension and medical plan than ordinary citizens

---
When the government taxes the dead through inheritance taxes (grave robbers),

---
When I dig up your coffin and steal your assets, I'm called a grave robber, when the government digs up your coffin and steals your assets, it called an estate tax. The message from the government to you: screw the dead

---
A shoplifter sues the store she stole from. When being pursued by employees runs her car into a tree and kills her daughter

---
When you have op-ed writers using the 1st Amendment to campaign for restrictions to the 2nd amendment

---
When you knock my door down it is breaking and entering, when the Government does it is "dynamic entry"

---
When a person can be prosecuted and jailed for selling his product in English units instead of government mandated Metric units

---
When a person can be kicked out of school for having a BB gun under their car seat or a bread knife in the bed of his pickup

---
When you take my property, it is stealing, when the Government takes my property it is called taxes and asset forfeiture and I have to pay a lawyer to fight to get my property back

---
An employee slices off their finger while cutting up a salami, he blames the restaurant.

---
A drunk driver crashes into a tree on the way home and blames the bartender

---
A smoker of 4 packs a day for 40 years dies of lung cancer, the survivors blame the tobacco company

---
Children are brats and have no manners, the TV is blamed

---
When elected officials are sworn in and agree to uphold the constitution and then pass laws that are unconstitutional, and private citizens have to spend their own money fighting their own government to get a law declared unconstitutional

---
When criminals can sue their victims for personal injury during the crime and win

---
City government pays for sex change operations for employees

---
Favoritism (racial discrimination) is Federally engineered (affirmative action)

---
When a person get drunk, passes out in the cold, suffers frost bite and loses 4 fingers and is paid worker's comp because he was on a business trip

---
When a National Merit Scholar senior in high school about to graduate is arrested and denied graduation participation because a kitchen knife was found in her car

---
Environmentalists get laws passed that put the environment before people

---
Federal Government is prosecuting a soldier because he refuses to take a vaccination and the government can't prove it is safe

---
A person can't use a weapon in self defense and can't sue the police force for not protecting him from a criminal act

---
Selection process (hiring, government contracts, college admission, etc.) is driven by consensus of the lowest and slowest common denominator

--
DEA can't tell the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana grade hemp

---
It's against the law to publish the voting record of an elected official 60 days before and election

---
National catastrophic event (world trade center terrorist attack) due to government malpractice (failure to prevent a terrorist attack), survivors are paid benefits and told half of it will be taxed

---
A lady hangs herself in jail, leaves instructions for her lawyer to sue the jail for letting her hang herself, so the money from the lawsuit will support the two kids she left behind

---
The Navy will be forbidden to use sonar during its upcoming war games ('http://starbulletin.com/2006/07/04/news/story03.html'), The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports. A judge ruled that environmentalists’ concerns about whales outweighed the need for America’s military to train for combat against the quiet submarines used by such nations as China, Iran and North Korea. July 2006

---
Not only does the government pay farmers to plant certain crops instead of others or not to plant at all, but it even spends enormous sums to subsidize landowners who aren’t farmers at all ('http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html'). The Washington Post reports that “the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all.” July 2006

---
England: police advised to limited the distribution of wanted posted so as not to invade the privacy of those most wanted

---
Catch and release illegal immigrants

---
When the TSA has a female employee at the airport wearing a Muslim headscarf

---
When the TSA spends more time looking for fingernail clippers than looking for terrorist