Is NASA's Integrity Being Maligned By Global Warming Alarmists?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Well, as someone who runs a think tank I find it absolutely unbelievable how many folks submit their application and cite that their main goal and purpose is to stop global warming from hurting the planet or killing off humanity. As I talk with these folks they are sure that it has been proven, that global warming theory, is no longer a theory, rather it is a fact, and now they have called themselves to action to go do something about it. What they wish to do from here on out is to be involved with a group and lead the charge to save the world. Okay so let's talk about this for second shall we?

First, there is no proof that global warming is real, it is a theory, and remains a theory - the scientists, yes, even climate scientists have not agreed on very much at all. Most do not agree with the data, and are plus or minus on the data points and components of the theory which have been presented in various journals and climate science. Still, the mass media has blown this out of proportion, and every time there is any adverse weather, or any event anywhere in the world, everyone starts blaming global warming.

Earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, hot temperatures, and even cold temperatures they are blaming on this so-called warming trend which is caused by mankind's emissions of CO2. It's absolutely become a conspiracy theory of the masses and mass psychosis. In fact, just the other day I was listening to just such an individual who believed with all his heart, as a devout global warming theory religious indoctrinated fellow, that it has not only been proven, but that NASA says it is a fact.

Indeed, this appears to be amongst the last-ditch efforts of the Global Warming Alarmists who are now saying that mankind's CO2 is causing irreversible cataclysmic warming and NASA has proved this, they have proved the theory is fact. As one theory had put it; as the tundra and ice melts in the North, it will release methane and other greenhouse gases, which will lead to the runaway warming effect. Unfortunately that particular theory within the overall AGW theory has also been proven to be false, and perhaps even 10-times the amount and 50 times the effect - over embellished.

It would appear to me that NASA's integrity is being maligned by global warming alarmists who are now claiming that NASA says it is a fact. There are some folks in NASA who have used similar statements of AGW theory being real to promote their careers, and ensure more funding from the federal government. But it is not real, and NASA has made no such official statement that mankind's CO2 output is causing catastrophic warming leading to a cataclysmic event. It's just all nonsense, and I thought you should know.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

The President's Job Council - Hard Work, Crony Capitalism, Or A Substitute for Replacing Obama?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Yes, we all want more jobs and the America People have made that quite clear. Still, it seems rather crazy that we would believe that the government could actually create jobs in the free market. We know the government can create government jobs, but most of us don't want any higher taxes, nor do we want more government to control our daily lives.

What amazes me is that politicians can sit up in a podium, and promise the American people that if they are elected, they will ensure that jobs are created in America. There is no basis for that, they can't create jobs by expanding government, the only way to really create a net new number of jobs is to reduce the size of government, reduce the regulations, reduce the taxes, and get out of the way.

The Council on Foreign Relations recently had an interesting interview panel discussion on the most pressing issues of 2012 with regards to jobs. There is a YouTube Video of this I believe which was titled; "President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness Discussion," with a caption which stated;

"President Obama formed the Council on Jobs as a source of non-partisan advice and differing perspectives for the purpose of bolstering the economy through fostering job creation, innovation, growth, and competitiveness. At this meeting, experts discuss the Council's work and recommendations," and the Speaker line-up was pretty impressive actually;

Ellen Kullman
Robert Wolf
Jeffrey Zients
Garrick Utley

Now then, no one is going to knock a group of industry professionals from the real world working to help create jobs. In fact, I'm glad to see it and believe the Obama Administration is severely lacking in truly qualified folks with real-world, not merely academic experience. Nevertheless, I do question the coziness of such relationships. It's not that everyone close to government or the executive branch doesn't get some juice from being there, and it probably looks stellar on a resume even if it happened to be a less-than-competent President at the time - but I do have some thoughts on all this and some unanswered questions, so let me begin with my major comments here.

You see, I question a group of business people getting into bed with a crony capitalist populist socialist-leaning president. Rather, it might be best for all concerned to fire said crony capitalist president, reduce regulations, stop the incestuous relationship that Adam Smith warned us about and let everyone compete using our free-market capitalism motif. We would all be better off and we wouldn't need a jobs council at the White House, as we'd have full-employment and the opposite crisis - not enough labor to fulfill those jobs. See that point? Indeed, I ask that you please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Present Economic Challenges. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

The Making of an African Military Dictator

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

In the early days of the coup that brought General Haroun Al Mahmud to power in the Mountain Capital the Press of the World camped on State House lawns day and night, day after day. Their gear hung from every tree. Their goings-on created a stir. It was a carnival such as the city and the country had not seen.

The Strongman reveled in the media blitz. He paused for photos, granted interviews, he signed autographs. Overnight he had become a household name across the breadth and length of the World. He gave press conferences and now and then lavish luncheons and banquets at State House. In his eyes everything he did confirmed his was a great man.

One fine evening he ordered a barbecue and invited the Press of the World to eat, drink, dance and be merry. He said to them I want you to eat completely the whole barbecue. The wily journalists knew exactly what they wanted and they knew their man. They encouraged the Great Man's every fancy and idiosyncrasy, and busily made footage. A media hungry world waited.

In Lagos Nigeria a mother returning home after a punishing day at the city market, hearing sounds of BBC and CNN broadcasts, doubles up despite her fatigue. What has Al Haroun done again today? Has he killed another Archbishop? Folks like her were insatiable and they were legion. There was blood and there was fun.

At the court of General Haroun Al Mahmud at the Grand Imperial, that was the official name of the Presidential Palace, there was never a dull moment. A marriage bid today for the hand of the gorgeous daughter of one of Europe's ruling family. The next day battle plans in all earnest against one of the neighboring states; to teach them a lesson they will never forget and procure a corridor to the sea for his landlocked nation.

Now and then a mocking cable to Washington to the most powerful man in the World, timed to cause the President maximum discomfort. One fresh morning, there was a gift of a virgin, a young woman kidnapped the other day by State Security, along some village path. Now the General handed her over to his friend and companion the young Scottish doctor, who saved his life from the syphilis bug the General feared had silenced the manhood in him for good.

Now in the cool of the evening, barbecue sizzles, oriental and African aroma, mingle and add color to the night. Wine and conversation flow. The press of the world is in hot pursuit. Now they know their hour has come. They reach for their little packs. Trinkets, perfumes, handguns, electronics; gifts for the General from the labs and workshops of Europe, nothing has changed in Africa. A couple of centuries ago in the days of King Jaja Opobo, the Portuguese bought hundreds of slaves on the West African coast with a handful of cheep beads.

General Haroun Al Mahmud was a natural. Protocol abandoned, legs akimbo the General sprawls on the lawn, bantering and hollering. Soon wine and whisky take their toll. The moment arrives and the past returns. The General found himself back where he once belonged. As though in a dream, he heard a voice.

You and I must make a pack. We must bring salvation back. Where there is love I will be there. I'll reach out my hand to you; I will have faith in all you do. Just call my name and I will be there

It was the King of Pop, but in Michael's amplified voice the General heard instead the voice of his own mother. It brought hot tears streaming down his face. It brought him back to the river's mouth to the warmth and comfort of the old colonial barracks.

Away from power and pomp and intrigues, away from the slaughter of innocent men and women his men carried on a daily basis on his behalf, away from the haunting cries of the dying and the dead that haunt African men of power even today. The music made of General a free man again, truly saved by the music. Years ago his own dear mother writhed in agony on the dirt floor of their simple hut and bestowed upon him that silent night that precious gift only mothers could give.

After all these years, now here he was where it all began. Here where as a young man he and his buddies marched happily to the drill of the Scotsman's hoarse voice, Commander Neil Graham. Now in his mind's eyes the Union Jack flutters again, triumphant again in the cool African breeze as he and his buddies march proudly in tune with the crazed hollering of the Scotsman. He loved that voice and he longed to be crowned King of the Scots, just like Mary Queen of Scots, the woman he knew they murdered out of jealousy.

Eyes right! Halt! As one body with a thousand pairs of boots the men come to a thunderous stop and for a moment nothing moves, till the Scotsman's hoarse voice range out again. Present your arms! And so rifles click! As one body a thousand shinny rifles thrust forward. The band strikes God Save the Queen. With a jerk the General returned to the world where mortals live. Suddenly he was fully awake; back in the Country whose President he had just shot. To his amazement he found himself surrounded by the Press of the World fighting for a shot at his silly moon face.

The last quarter of the twentieth century saw in Africa the rise to power of some of the most vicious military regimes the world had known. Often they rose in the murky shadows of the old Cold War, with the tacit support of World Powers. Here is a true story from those years told by one who lived those days. John Otim is a poet, writer and journalist
http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=John_Otim

View the original article here

Parity in Politics - Why Women Don't Want It

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Marking the 20-year anniversary of the Year of the Woman, Karen Tumulty's front-page Washington Post article details the never-ending challenges of gender parity in American politics. While an informative piece about the United States' 78th world ranking in woman's representation in national legislatures, tied with Turkmenistan for those keeping track, it reflects a flawed conventional wisdom about why more women don't run for and win elected office.

In discussing why more women are not politically engaged, many well-know facts were listed:

• Women often wait until later in their careers and lives to run for office making it a challenge to rise through the ranks to high office

• Many women wait to be asked to run, instead of initiating a political campaign, often questioning their credentials and qualifications more so than their male-counterparts

• Often women feel that the electorate is biased against women candidates, with high-profile examples of Clinton, Palin, Pelosi and Bachman as media and partisan targets fresh in their minds

The answer to these challenges as espoused by numerous women's groups is to train more women to run for office. From political "boot camps" like Rutgers Center for American Women in Politics Ready to Run program to the newly minted 50-50 in 2020 women's groups throughout the country believe that if more women are trained to run for office they will.

The problem with this strategy is that it doesn't work-just look at the last 20 years the article details as proof.

In 1992, I was a young political consultant determined to bring parity to politics having grounded my early political life working for a rising star of women leaders, Debbie Stabenow, now one of just 17 females Senators. During that election cycle and for many to come, I flew around the country training women, helping with their campaigns and hopeful that the efforts of so many women who tirelessly gave of themselves, and for a lot less money than our male counterparts, would bring us closer to parity.

Eight years later and hundreds of thousands of frequent flyer miles behind me, I examined the challenge of woman in politics as I created a leadership course at the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University. The reason why women didn't run were clearly researched then and not significantly different that the facts presented today. The answer two decades ago was to prepare women to run for office and 20 years later it has had little impact. Why?

The truth is that preparing women for the battle of politics is not the answer. Woman are not running for office because they are choosing to spend their time and energy in ways other than engaging in the senseless, and all too often futile, act of policy making in contemporary politics. No amount of preparation is going to change the pragmatic nature of women who will choose to focus their energy and attention on real world solutions, rather than engage in politics that rarely creates meaningful change and when it does at a very high personal cost to one's quality of life.

In other words, politics is a very masculine game. Might makes right, the accumulation and wielding of power is rewarded and winners take all, hardly the environment to create meaningful solutions to societal challenges and enduring change for the betterment of the greater good. Which brings us full circle, as the literal and figurative "givers of life," women value the investment of their time and want to see that it has meaning.

Caring for children, the underserved in the community and family members disproportionately falls into female hands, professionally and personally. Are women going to spend their time, seeking the approval of the old boys club, asking strangers for money and launching attack ads against political opponents or are they going to roll up their sleeves and find a better way to teach art in failing schools, cleanup a neighborhood park and make meals for those who wouldn't otherwise eat?

True, better policies, more funding and compassionate policy-makers would make these endeavors easier, which leads to the white elephant in the room. For the most part, the women who do rise to the upper echelons of elective office have become so immerse in the pitched battle that they become more masculine than their male counterparts. While they may advocate for some women's issues, their conduct only further perpetuates the authoritarian rein of our political system instead of changing the tone, nature and outcome of a system design to bring people down instead of build them up.

Is it any wonder that women truly interested in change eschew elective office? As a girl, I wanted to be the first women president. I dreamed of the job not because I wanted to live in a big house and tell people what to do, rather I wanted to see people lifted out of poverty, to be able pursue their passions and to live in safe, caring and happy communities. Perhaps a bit utopian and if given the choice between giving it up to fight political battles or to work on it each day in the way I lead my life, the latter choice is the obvious one for me. And given what I see in my classrooms, with my clients and in the statistics-I am not the only one choosing to lead by example instead of in elected office.

Kathleen Schafer is at the forefront of leadership development with more than 20 years experience. Grounded in the rough and tumble world of politics, experienced in business, honed in academia and broadened by her own journey to create a balanced life, she brings remarkable insights on how individuals can develop their leadership potential to successfully create productive and fulfilling lives. Kathleen's personal presence in one-on-one coaching, seminars, and keynote presentations transforms people's perspective on what they can accomplish and how to walk it in the real world everyday. Her leadership tools are simple, easy to understand allow you to quickly integrate them into your life, starting now!

If you are interested in creating change in your life, your organization or your community, please visit http://www.leadershipconnection.net/ for additional resources, podcasts, on-line courses, and tools to start your leadership journey today.

View the original article here

What Would Republicans Do If They Controlled Washington?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Many have called this November's election "the most important of our lifetime." They have said that if President Obama gets a second term and if Republicans do not take both houses of Congress that America as we now know it will cease to exist. Let's take them at their word and try to imagine what Republicans would do if they were in charge again and controlled Washington.

How do we determine what Republicans would do if they controlled both house of Congress and the Presidency? We could point to the type of policies they enacted during George W. Bush's first 6 years in office. During that time Republicans passed two tax reform bills now referred to as the 'Bush tax cuts' using the process of reconciliation. They created the TSA and passed the Patriot Act to 'protect us' from terrorists. Republicans also went to war and put the bills on the side, racking up public debt in the process.

Today's Republicans claim they will not act like that again. They claim to be more fiscally conservative and will work to lower taxes and drive down the debt. Again, let's take them at their word. So what model can we look towards to determine what Republicans might do today? How about Georgia?

In Georgia, Republicans control both the Governor's office and both state houses. The Tea Party has a strong influence in the state, but it is not overrun by the Tea Party, much like in strong Republican areas in the country. Not a perfect model, but close enough for comparison. So what did Georgia Republicans do this legislative session when they controlled everything?

Two major things happened this legislative session in Georgia. First, on the last legislative day, Republicans were able to get through their new late-term abortion bill limiting abortions to before 20 weeks. Never mind the merits of the bill, the point is they passed a bill relating to social issues instead of focusing on jobs.

Second, Republicans passed a tax reform overhaul. At least that is what they are calling it. For the past couple of years Republicans in Georgia have wanted to pass tax reform and reduce/eliminate the state income tax. So you would expect that is what they did with this overhaul right? Wrong! You see they couldn't pass a bill that actually lowered rates across the board because making up the money from doing so would have been too difficult. So instead they choose winners and losers by cherry picking which people should get a tax benefit and which people should get a tax increase. They did it with very little debate and very little time for the public to weigh in on the tax changes.

Sounds sneaky. Sounds like something Democrats would do. Yet that is exactly what Republicans uncontrolled did in Georgia. That is what happens when one party controls the government. They are able to ram through anything without public debate. They are able to pick their own winners and losers. They are able to act like politicians. The Republicans of today are no different from the Republicans of yesterday as Georgia's example proves. If Republicans somehow gain control of Washington and are unchallenged don't expect things to change or get better. They won't.

David W Gray invites you to join The Political Zealot's community at http://thepoliticalzealot.com/ where we bring independent analysis of politics from a Millennial's point of view. Our goal at The Political Zealot is to strive to find ways to bridge the gaps of both sides of the political aisle and bring solutions to the table to solve the problems facing the nation today. Come join the community and post your comments at http://thepoliticalzealot.com/

View the original article here

Case Study - False Debates and Dragon Windmill Slaying

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Not long ago, I watched an interesting video on the CFR YouTube channel and it was an interview with the famous Senator Barney Franks who was talking about downsizing the military. He was explaining both sides of the argument from his view - his talking points, and what he believed to be the other side to have as theirs - thus, he was stating the opposition's case, and then defeating that argument. Never mind the fact with all the mixed metaphors and blizzard of hypocrisy they were opposition points that few in the real world would consider legitimate.

Basically, it was a debate by himself and of course he was winning. CFR (The Council on Foreign Relations) was careful to treat him with respect and let him give his talk. Still, this Don Quixote approach to foreign affairs, US military strength, and Federal Budget issues had me thinking that such a high-ranking Senator in all the right committees should have been on the top of his game if he is to serve at that level. This isn't the first time I've seen this with CFR, and I suspect far from the last.

For instance, there have been interesting debates in Foreign Affairs, with the same basic motif. Still in my view, it might make sense to actually find someone who really believes in the alternate point of view and can back up facts rather debating against false-arguments. That just makes things look cheesy. The media does this far too often, why emulate what doesn't work, it resembles more of an angry political think tank rogue blogger who couldn't make the grade and now feels all left out so they drive chaos and controversy to no avail. CFR should take the high-road or it will have little effect except being able to claim that it has friends in high-places.

Recently, I've begun calling CFR "The Council on Foreign Appeasement" and often that title is deserved, although sometimes I just use it for humor, so it's something everyone there should be thinking about. There are some principles that it's just not okay to relinquish in order to maintain the ears of folks who are just waiting for you to turn your back - so the appeasement factor, may look like temporary progress, but even if you have a secondary chess move, CFR just ends up with egg on their face.

So, standing on principles is good, agree to disagree more, not to the point of making Tsunami waves, creating animosity, or worse enemies, that serves no purpose, but standing firm on at least certain ideals that all "humans on the planet" are concerned about and for the principles of the United States; freedom and liberty. I see a lot of excuse making going on as to why it was the best policy to appease; to say this, that, or the other thing with CFR members and those they invite to speak. Nevertheless; accountability is important, excuses not so much.

Finally, I think that when CFR has folks sit in discussion sessions and puts those on YouTube, especially bureaucrats, CFR needs to consider that all this buzz-word jargon, and big word games which go on for minutes on end, aren't fooling anyone. The director of Homeland Security is notorious for this, but so too are other bureaucrats running huge Federal Agencies. It's rather obvious that a good chunk of folks are way in over their heads and are unfit to lead, and all they have going for them is the "nice speech" syndrome.

There is a difference between BS and knowing what one is doing. I really don't see CFR as uplifting its own status by allowing the political rhetoric to stand without challenging them, anyone can make things sound good, there's just too much talk, too many bureaucrat meetings, and far too much incompetence, yes, they are only humans, but this is the US and we are better than that.

CFR should hold everyone accountable and challenge them more, it gets somewhat pathetic to listen to everyone agree all the time, and merely re-identify all the problems that everyone already knows, and then for these folks to make excuses about why things are "Complicated" and therefore they can't fix it - leaves viewers shaking their heads more often than not. Who knows maybe CFR just wants to uplift their credibility by getting political celebrities to talk, but too often, everyone looks stupid.

Indeed, I hope you've enjoyed this case study, as there may be 100s more in the future just like this one.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on 2012 US Politics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

Ethnic/Religious Cleansing In Nigeria

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

It is a known fact that in the last 50 years, there has not been any other group of people in the world who has suffered more genocidal murders or ethnically/religiously cleansed than the Igbo/Biafra ethnic group. The Igbo/Biafra Genocide (also known as Biafra Genocide or Nigeria Genocide in Biafra) is broadly divided into two periods. For a more detailed study it is further divided into more periods. But for the sake of this discussion we shall restrict ourselves to the two broad divisions. The first period is known as the colonial genocidal era which took place in two separate years and in two Northern Nigeria cities. The first one happened in 1945 in the city of Jos and followed by the 1953 massacres in Kano. Nigeria was still a British colony and tens of thousands of Igbo children, women and men were murdered by the Islamic peoples of Northern Nigeria on the two occasions.

Then there is the post-independence or post-colonial period. This period runs from May 1966 till the present time, March 2012 and the end does not seem to be in sight yet. In this period it has been established that the Nigerian state and its citizens have so far murdered 5 million Igbo/Biafra ethnic peoples. This later period is also described as the pogrom/genocidal period because the Nigerian state has continued to actively participate in the brutal torture and murder of peoples who are supposedly its citizens.

Let's not just rush off to continue reading to the end of this article. Let's pause for a minute; for those who believe in the sanctity of every human life without minding whose life it is; we are talking about the crime of the most heinous kind here. And we may need to interject here that at no time should anyone ever become flippant or make light of the seriousness of the crime of genocide. When we talk of genocide or ethnic/religious cleansing its terribleness is only better imagined than witnessed. It is the killing of fellow human beings for none other reason than fear and hatred or prejudice. We shall attempt to give us a mental picture of what happened to Igbo/Biafrans in these periods of horror we are talking about. It always starts with mobs and or Nigerian state agents who meet their Igbo/Biafran victims on the streets, in their houses, at schools, in the market place and they kill them for who they are rather than for anything they have done. Let's take a moment and pause again because that is how the 5 million fellow human beings we are talking about here were murdered.

If we try to run this figure through our minds for even a brief second the sheer horror of it will never fail to shock us. It usually leaves a chill in the spine of even the worst uncaring sadist. Just the thought of it sobers and indeed frightens anyone with a mere casual interest. This is more so when we consider the fact that the victims included little children and their mothers. Suckling babies and pregnant women were beheaded, stomachs of the women were cut open and the fetuses were brought out and smashed hard on the ground. That is how Igbo/Biafra pregnant women were killed by Nigeria and Nigerians. Some were burnt alive along with their houses; men, children, women, their dogs and children's toys were all burnt in this way. Others were used to fill up both dry wells and wells with water and big stones were rolled over the mouths. Those that were taken to jails and detentions were fed feces and urines while others were skinned alive and subjected to slow painful death. The lucky ones were bombed, strafed, shot and shelled to death while they watched or in their sleep, and in their hospital beds. Igbo/Biafra women were raped by Nigerians, then bayoneted or pierced through with crude sticks and left to die, slowly. Some Igbo/Biafrans were buried alive after digging their own graves.

This is just a few of the many methods through which Igbo/Biafran ethnic people were and are still being tortured and cleansed out of Nigeria by the Nigerian state and its citizens. (To learn more about the horrific ways through which Nigeria and Nigerians killed Igbo/Biafran peoples, please read the two novels by Ben Okri; Dangerous Love and The Famished Road, they are both excellent depictions of the Biafran Story). The horrors are still so fresh and haunting not only because they are yet ongoing but that so many people who witnessed firsthand the beginning of these shameful acts of inhumanity of man against their fellows are still alive and still being tortured by the painful memories. Yet the perpetrators have shown no remorse or any sign of remission. So, the least that Igbo/Biafrans can do is to seek for a legal redress to stop Nigeria from further harming them and to mitigate their pain and suffering. They should take Nigeria and Nigerians to the International Criminal Court, ICC in The Hague.

Before going any further, let's try to put the 5 million-figure of the murdered Igbo/Biafrans in the perspective of some familiar societies in other places. The European nation of Switzerland has a population of 7.8 million and Norway is 4.8 million. Simple logic tells us that if such Islamic jihad as is going on against the Igbo/Biafran ethnic peoples had taken place in the country of Switzerland, about two thirds of that population would have been wiped out while the people of Norway would have been annihilated almost twice over. We definitely feel very uncomfortable, even disgusted to make such comparisons but sometimes the import of such atrocities only becomes clearer when we try to look at them from the angle of what is as against what could have been. The population of Igbo/Biafra ethnic group that have been wiped out by Nigeria's Islamic jihad in the past 45 years is nearly three times the population of the African state of the Gambia which is 1.7 million.

In the light of this most heinous crime against humanity, the worst of its kind anywhere in the modern time, it becomes hard to imagine if there is anyone who still has any doubt on the need for a responsible world to urgently take steps to stop the Nigerian state and its citizens from doing more damage to their victims? The world must make serious efforts to stop Nigeria and Nigerians and hold them accountable for the crimes. We are going to give us a few more reasons here why the rest of the world community cannot continue to fold their hands and watch while this evil continues. In the past few years the world community has been witnessing spillovers of the Nigerian Islamic jihad across its borders. In the recent time, not only has Nigeria impudently continued to murder Igbo/Biafran ethnic peoples within its borders, they have been posing serious dangers to other people outside. The Nigerian state has become a sponsor of Islamic terrorism around the world; it has turned its territory into a fertile breeding ground for the most dangerous kind of radical Islamic terrorists. In other words, Nigeria is now one of the most dangerous centers of world Islamic terrorism. For anyone who cares to find out about the global implications of the Nigerian problem, let them ask the Israelis who are victims of hundreds of katyusha rockets that fall all over their cities on a regular basis. They will tell you how the weapons are being rerouted from Iran through Nigeria to the Gaza Strip. Then there is the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the infamous 2009 Christmas Day Underwear Bomber episode in Detroit, United States. The incident remains fresh and vivid on the collective memory of the world. On 26 August 2011 there was the Suicide Bombing of United Nations Headquarters in Nigeria's capital city of Abuja, 30 people were killed. And it was carried out by the Nigerian indigenous Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram. (The group is fighting to establish an Islamic state out of the current Nigerian state). And only a few days ago this March 2012 the same Islamic jihadist group, Boko Haram beheaded two British and Italian construction workers in Sokoto Nigeria. They had kidnapped and held the two men since May of 2011.

In more sense than one the world, our world has increasingly become a global village and it comes with several opportunities and challenges. But it seems like the greatest challenge facing our world today as a result of this new order is the resurgent global Islamic terrorism. And no other people on Earth have suffered more from this scourge than the Igbo/Biafra ethnic peoples in the hands of their supposed fellow citizens and country, Nigerians and Nigeria. As we have explained earlier the rest of the world is being called on to quickly address the situation because gone are the days when what happens in one remote corner of our world hardly has any negative or positive impact on the other parts. Today our world is virtually so interconnected that the space between persons and societies in one remote corner of the world from the others at the other end of it has been reduced to mere fractions of seconds and minutes by the interconnectedness of the World Wide Web, intercontinental ballistic missiles and intercontinental supersonic jet travels.

As the program of Islamic ethnic/religious cleansing of Igbo/Biafrans from the Nigerian society continues unabated, so will the call to the international community to step up and play a responsible role in arresting this Nigerian threat to world peace and security continue to be relevant. Yet, though the call is quite in order, but we also know that the direct victims of the crime have even a greater responsibility: The Igbo/Biafran ethnic peoples, as we have said already, must take the initiative in this matter. Let them go to court as it is part of their fundamental human rights to fight and defend themselves both through the law courts and or take up arms in their self-defense.

The International Criminal Court, ICC as the name depicts is an international criminal justice system which was established by the world community to cater to the judicial rights and interests of peoples of various nations who otherwise would not obtain justice in their native places. ICC is headquartered in the European city of The Hague, Netherland. Oppressed peoples all over the world such as Igbo/Biafrans have the privilege to take matters to this court and expect fair hearing and justice so long as the state that oppresses them is a signatory to the founding charter of the court. And the Nigerian state happens to be one of the signatories to the charter that established the court.

When Biafrans go to court they should ask the court to order the conduct of a referendum to ascertain the opinion of the peoples in this matter. The Igbo/Biafrans must put up a strong case for separation from the Nigerian union. Let them take back their sovereignty and govern themselves independently. The 2011 Sudan and South Sudan example is very recent and should serve as a guide. The only sensible and justifiable redress for the victims of Nigeria's intolerance and lack of cohesive threads that make a state worth its name is the separation and removal of the victims far from the reaches of the persecuting and brutalizing establishment. Right now the Nigerian state is already a de facto Islamic state by every standard. About half of the country is fully practicing the Islamic sharia legal system as opposed to the country's constitution which provides that Nigeria is a secular state. Igbo/Biafrans are Christians and Animists who under no condition will accept to live under the Islamic sharia.

View the original article here