The Front Of The War On Terror Is Iran

Iran continues to repeat and repeat nonsense about the Holocaust. Yesterday, the Iranian regime once again branded the Holocaust a "big lie" created to place the Islamic republic's arch-foe Israel in the Middle East.

"The Holocaust is a concept coming from a big lie in order to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world," Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told a conference on Gaza in central Iran's religious city of Qom.

Of course, the big lie about the Holocaust has been a government message since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad branded the Holocaust a "myth" in 2005.

Yesterday was a particularly convenient day for Iran to try and rewrite the history books since the United Nations designated January 27 as International Holocaust Memorial Day in 2005. The date observes the day that Soviet troops liberated the largest Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Poland.

It all never happened according to Iran. The Holocaust is a lie and the Iranian nuclear program is really designed for peace and not for political and military power.

Yesterday, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates accused Iran of "subversive activity" in Latin America. Its not very surprising since Iran has been the most active sponsor of international terrorism since 1979. The Iranian regime openly supports many terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah and the People's Mujahedeen terrorist Organization in Iran.

So, its not too hard to find the mother regime and the front of the War on Terror. Its not in Afghanistan and its not in Pakistan. Indeed, the front in the war on terror can be found in what soon will be a nuclear Iran.

Also Read Todays Daily Vu: The Mystery Ship Of Terror From Iran

CCTV Can See But Nobody Is Watching

There are estimates that there are 500,000 surveillance cameras around the city of London and that an average Londoner is seen on camera 300 times each day.

In fact, there is estimated to be more than 4 million surveillance cameras throughout the United Kingdom, with about 1.5 million closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) in city centers, train and subway stations, airports, and major retail areas .

However, despite spending billions of dollars on surveillance cameras, a recent report by the Police Chiefs of the United Kingdom concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV.

So, what happened to make CCTV such a bad investment? Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, the officer in charge of the Metropolitan police unit provides an answer in his speech at the Security Document World Conference in London as follows:

"CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure. Billions of pounds have been spent on it, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It's been an utter fiasco: There's no fear of CCTV. Why don't people fear it? They think the cameras are not working."

Of course, the security cameras are working but it is very expensive to hire CCTV operators that have to endlessly look at all those security screens. Placing security cameras in millions of locations is one thing. Monitoring all those locations at all times by human beings in real time is another thing indeed.

Spending billions on security without any real return in the United Kingdom has not stopped New York City from following in their path. More than 3,000 new public and privately-owned cameras will be in service in the city by the end of this year.

Meanwhile new advanced CCTV cameras which try to 'predict' if a crime is about to take place are now being introduced on Britain's streets. The cameras can alert operators to suspicious behaviour, such as loitering and unusually slow walking.

However, as seen through the experience in the United Kingdom, there is no evidence that expensive security cameras act as a crime deterrent. In addition, few crimes are actually solved due to the hard work involved in retrieving images from the system. Certainly, it is not money well spent, if the police are not properly trained and the system is not useful in the prevention of crime.

The truth is that all these expensive CCTV security cameras have not made us much safer. Our personal privacy concerns have not yet been realized. This is because CCTV can see but nobody is watching.

Terrorism Could Mean Death In Outsourcing To India

The last several days were a stark international reminder that we live in a dangerous age of terrorism. Ten armed terrorists killed nearly 200 people in India as that country's totally unprepared police force looked on.

In fact, policemen trying to disarm terrorists linked to a Pakistani militant group associated with al-Queda had only batons or World War I-era rifles to use as weapons.

As a result, India's top law enforcement official has just resigned, bowing to criticism that the attackers appeared better trained, better coordinated and better armed than police. The truth is that India does not even have a trained SWAT team.

These international headlines about a lack of homeland security in India must give corporations that have already outsourced their business functions to that country a reason for concern.

The fact is that Information technology and IT-enabled services will employ 4 million people in 2008 and account for 7% of gross domestic product and 33% of India's foreign-exchange inflows, according to Nasscom, an Indian IT industry organization.

Meanwhile, employee wages are rising rapidly in India and fast becoming more competitive with the rest of the world. The cost advantage for outsourcing to India used to be at least 1:6. Today, the ratio is down to 1:3 and worker attrition is high.

Indeed, the increase in wage inflation in the last several years is staggering. Salaries in India rose 15.1% in 2007, up from 14.4% the previous year. The 2008 forecast is an increase of 15.2% and it marks the fifth consecutive year of salary growth above 10%.

So, after this recent terrorist attack, security against terrorism will become yet another issue for international corporations to consider before outsourcing jobs to India.

As a result, the last few days of terror in India may have ramifications well beyond international politics and the tragic human cost. With worker wages skyrocketing, a lack of national security against terrorism could well mean the death of international business outsourcing to India.

Illegal Immigration Report Shows Why Laws Should Be Enforced

The latest report just released on illegal immigration from the Center of Immigration Studies shows a dramatic drop in New York and other States. The report called Homeward Bound indicates that illegal immigration plunged nationwide by eleven percent in the last year.

Of course about a year ago, after the immigration reform law co-sponsored by John McCain and backed by the White House was abandoned due to overwheming public pressure, the federal government actually began enforcing the illegal immigration laws already on the books.

The fact that immigration laws were not enforced for many years can be seen just by looking at the enforcement results of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law provided for penalties against companies that hire undocumented workers. In 1999, under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. government collected a meager $3.69 million from 890 companies in fines. By 2004, under George Bush, the amount collected in fines from companies hiring undocumented workers was zero.

In addition, the border with Mexico has never been properly secured, with only 9500 border agents trying to police an eight thousand mile border until 2005. As a result, it is estimated that in the year 2004 alone, three million illegal immigrants entered the United States.

So, a lack of border security and a lack of illegal immigration law enforcement has resulted in the fact that eleven million illegal immigrants still remain in the United States even after the 11% drop of the last year (according to the Center of Immigration Studies Report).

George Bush's low approval rating (now below 30%) began its steep descent in the spring of 2006 when illegal immigrants were marching in the streets demanding their rights. Its hard to understand in an age of terrorism, how the American public can feel secure with more than eleven million people running around the country that are not here legally.

If people want to change the current immigration laws, there is a way to do that since we have representative government. In the meantime, the country's existing laws should be properly enforced. The data from the recent Center of Immigration Studies Report shows why.