From Powerline

Inside the Orlando mosque

The video below is an investigative report on the the June 2009 fundraiser for Hamas held at Masjid Al-Rahman mosque in Orlando, Florida. Featuring “that tool” George Galloway, the fundraiser was intended to raise money for Galloway’s Viva Palestina, then funneling money openly to the Islamist terrorist movement of Hamas in Gaza.

Big Peace comments that the video also serves as a backgrounder on the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States including the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Society of North America, both unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation prosecution. To this list I would add the North American Islamic Trust, which holds the title to many such mosques.

Patrick Poole asks where the feds are now. Let’s go to the tape.

also:

Our Goof, the President

It wouldn’t be fair to say that President Obama is dumb, but I think it is accurate to say that he is a goof. Thus his style, formerly described as analytical…cerebral…aloof…now appears deer-in-the-headlights clueless. The Drudge Report, in the unfair but funny style that it sometimes adopts, contrasts our President with Russia’s de facto ruler:

That’s unfair, but this isn’t: why can’t Obama be a man and admit that his predecessor, George Bush, deserves credit for the surge that has made possible the troop withdrawal for which Obama desperately takes credit? Byron York documents the Obama administration’s contortions on Iraq:

At Monday’s White House briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs gave reporters a preview of President Obama’s speech on Iraq. Obama will apparently take credit for withdrawing U.S. troops — “We are completing a drawdown of almost 100,000 troops that…many did not think was possible,” Gibbs said — but is unlikely to acknowledge any special role played by George W. Bush’s troop surge. …

“Does he believe that President Bush deserves any credit for the surge, laying the groundwork for troop withdrawal?” a reporter asked Gibbs.

“I’d point you to the many comments that the president has made throughout a number of years about the role that increasing the number of our troops has played, just as a Sunni Awakening has played, just as a better political environment has played,” Gibbs said. “I think that the president will get a chance to talk about a lot of that.”

Later, another reporter tried again. “Does the president believe the surge worked?”
(more…)

By Barry Rubin*

CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He’s probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.

Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that’s a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally-the most important actions damaging the group-took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.

But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida-a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta’s optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week-but how one should regard that organization.

In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group’s decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.

But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other–leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration’s policy.
(more…)

From Gateway Pundit

A top-ranking official in Hamas said Friday that the terror group is holding talks with the Obama Administration. They want to keep the meetings secret for fear it would rouse the Jewish lobby in the United States.
YNet News reported:

A senior Hamas figure said Friday that official and unofficial US sources have asked the Islamist group to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, this following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the Obama Administration.

The Hamas figure told the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper that the Americans fear discussing the talks publicly would “rouse the Jewish lobby and other pressure groups in the US and cause them to pressure the administration to suspend all talks with Hamas.”

The Hamas figure, who is close to Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of the government in Gaza, added, “This is a sensitive subject. The Americans don’t want anyone to comment on it because this would catch the attention of pressure groups (in the US) and cause problems.”

He said Hamas’ exiled leadership in Damascus is overseeing the contacts behind closed doors.

Related… A senior Israeli diplomat has warned that the Jewish state’s relationship with the United States has suffered a “tectonic rift”.

also:

Democratic-Media Complex Comes Under Attack After Weigel Kerkuffle

On Friday it was discovered that Dave Weigel, The Washington Post’s contributor on conservative issues, was also a member of “Journolist”, an exclusive leftist email list-serv. Weigel resigned from The Washington Post after his association with this far left group that frames the talking points and steers the message of the democratic-media complex was revealed.

Sung Chun Kim wrote in about this controversy at Instapundit Blog:

Why is no one calling for the outing of the 400 JournoList members and an investigation of whether there were any other attempts to collude and to coordinate the media narrative? Is no else as disturbed by this as I am? We’re constantly told that the media are special, that they’re the Fourth Estate, and that their proper functioning is vital to the health of the Republic. Well, is no one else profoundly disturbed that no one is watching the watchers? Or that the watchers are actually colluding in a virtual smoke-filled back room to massage and frame the narrative?

Imagine if a conservative listserv were discovered, and that it included Rupert Murdoch and 400 conservative pundits and journalists. Imagine if it were disclosed that the participants actively discussed coordination in framing stories so as to benefit the Republican Party. Do you think there would be a ho hum “Oh, it was just a private list” response? Of course not, the liberals would be howling to the rafters about the existential threat to the Republic.
(more…)

from Red State

A fellow by the name of Shahzad Faisal.

Police have arrested a Connecticut man in connection with the attempted car bombing of a busy Times Square street Saturday night, NBC is reporting. Shahzad Faisal, of Connecticut, was arrested within on Long Island within the last hour.

Associated Press, quoting two law enforcement officials, reported that he is the man who purchased the SUV involved in the attempted bombing.

@andylevy reports that there will be a DoJ press conference at 1 AM.

The implications of this – now that we’ve determined that the terrorist was not a domestic right-wing militia type against imposing carbon neutral insurance mandates on illegal immigrant stimulus project workers, or whatever the heck the Usual Suspects were guessing today – can wait for the morning, but I’d like to get this on the record: Mr. President, when it comes to successful counter-terrorism methodologies, hope is not a plan. And we cannot be lucky all the time.

also:

Bloomberg will be shocked as he thinks Times Square bomber was a TeaPartier

submitted by Laryn

Terrorism: Indonesia has fallen off the map of the most-terror-prone places on Earth, corporate intelligence forecasters say. How did that happen in a nation once plagued by Bali’s bombers? By annihilating the enemy.

This week, Britain’s Maplecroft group, an assessor of corporate risk, dropped Indonesia from its top 10 nations most likely to experience a mass-casualty terrorist attack. The group bases its Terrorism Risk Index entries on frequency and intensity of terror attacks and a nation’s history.

Likewise, the Swedish National Defense College has concluded that there’s a diminishing threat in Indonesia.

If that sounds academic, consider that Indonesian and U.S. officials said no significant security risks threaten President Obama ahead of his weeklong trip to Indonesia next month.

Now, to be sure, terrorism isn’t completely gone from Indonesia. But there’s been a lot of silence recently from that island country on the terror front. For a nation that experienced some fearsome terror attacks in past years, each quiet month is a sign of victory.
The reason isn’t hard to recognize:Last September, Indonesian commandos blew away a Malaysian terrorist named Noordin Mohammed Top, who had a hand in every major Indonesian terror attack since the first Bali bombing of 2002.

It says something that getting rid of a single terrorist kingpin could have such an impact on Indonesia’s outlook. But it did.

That offers a reminder of what it takes to win a war on terror. Miranda warnings, civilian trials and shaking down blue-haired ladies at airports don’t do it. Hunting and killing terrorists do.
(more…)

let’s start with Flopping Aces

Attorney General Eric Holder is going to take 5 of the most dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo Bay Prison and try them in a criminal court in New York City. If memory serves, he claims that he talked over this decision with his wife and brother. Governor Paterson indicated, in his own protest, that he was aware of this possibly happening 6 months ago.

We are given 3 basic reasons for this: (1) to show off our justice system to the world; (2) to bring these evil men to justice (although, I doubt that the Obama administration would ever use the word evil); and (3) to try these men in the shadow of the fallen towers, bringing them back to the scene of the crime.

Reasons 2 and 3 are hokey. A military trial would bring these men to justice more quickly and surely that would an open criminal trial. And, does anyone in their right mind think that these terrorists will see the faces in the courtroom, and know that they are down the street from the scene of the crime, and that this will somehow make them feel badly? How preposterous. This will be a victory for terrorists all over the world, regardless of the outcome.

The first reason is what Holder actually believes, but in a far different way than we think of it. First of all, this trial cannot match up with a normal, criminal trial for several reasons: (1) the defendants were not mirandized; (2) Evidence was not collected and preserved according to legal standards; and (3) criminals in this country have a right to a speedy trial. (4) Defendants are promised a jury of their unbiased peers. (5) Quite obviously, confessions cannot be obtained through torture, and the President of the United States has proclaimed waterboarding to be torture. (6) Eric Holder’s own law firm has defended terrorists, so that suggests a lack of objectivity as well.

In other words, in order to try this case, certain common aspects of our criminal justice system must be thrown out the window. How this is done legally perplexes me, but then, as Lindsay Graham pointed out painfully to Holder that this approach to terrorists is unprecedented. We have never once before taken an enemy of the United States man from a foreign country and given him a common criminal trial, affording him all of the rights of an American citizen. We have, on some occasions, done this for terrorists arrested on American soil.

Our own president has (1) said that these men were subject to torture and (2) both he and his attorney general have pronounced these men guilty.

So what is Holder’s real motivation?

I need to first paint a picture of the Obama administration to explain. This is an administration of amateur ideologues who are always in campaign mode. The one thing which they have done well is, they got Obama elected. We also know that these are ideologues, given people who have been in the administration. One who views Mao as a man she admires; another who is both an avowed Communist and a 9-11 truther, another who wants to solve global warming by painting everyone’s h roof white, etc. So, this is not an administration of moderates.

Since New York Governor Paterson first heard about this 6 months ago, that means this was an executive decision that came frpm higher up than Holder. However, since this administration is in campaign mode, they use a member of the cabinet as their attack dog, who does the dirty work. The president does not do any of the dirty work. So, this has to appear as if Holder woke up this morning, said to his wife, “I think I am going to try KSM in a New York criminal trial setting,” and she said, “That’s nice dear.” In other words, they do not want Obama fingerprints on this action (which may account for why they waited for some time to pass since the decision was made and timed the decision for when the president was outside of the country).

Ideologues hate the CIA. From the very beginning, Obama has done everything possible to neuter the CIA. All of their methods and all of their concern not to go too far was brought out in the public. This is an administration which will not even reveal the details of their contract for the website Recovery.gov; so transparency is not what they are going for. Neutering the CIA is what they wanted. The CIA is no longer dealing with terrorists who have been picked up, and all of their methods are made public, so terrorists can train to resist these methods if they are ever brought back.

This trial is not about the CIA, however; as they have already destroyed their effectiveness. This trial is all about the Bush administration. Here is where we can recognize that Holder (and Obama) want to hold up our legal system to the world to admire. They want to use this trial to pivot to the Bush administration and the tactics used to gain information (which Obama has proclaimed to be torture), and in a very big, and very public trial, the Obama administration will be forced to indict the Bush administration. It is going to look as though this is the natural outgrowth of a criminal trial. And Obama wants the world to see that, we are willing to indict members of government for such evils as torture and improper treatment of prisoners. Just like any 3rd world dictator does.

That is the end game and the purpose of all of this.

The secondary purpose is, this is going to grab a lot of newspaper space and take over cable television news. This means, less time will be available to closely watch what the executive and legislative branches are doing. Behind this barrage, the Obama administration is going to be able to draft its most radical legislation (which I believe will be comprehensive immigrant legislation, which will fast-track many of them to being voters before 2012). Maybe that is a bit too paranoid. Whatever it is, the Obama administration will be able to more effectively put through various bills and riders and amendments without the same close scrutiny that they are receiving now (from FoxNews, anyway).

So, as in a campaign mode, this seems to all come out naturally, without Obama’s fingerprints on it; they get to go after the real criminals of the people—namely, the Bush administration (and, to a much lesser degree, the CIA); and they get to sneak through radical legislation because we are not looking at what the other hand is doing.

Just as many of us have been struck dumb by the action of this administration in such a short time, this will be absolutely amazing, and an incredible thrill to the far, far left.

Powerline adds:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates are gearing up for a media spectacle:

A lawyer for one of five men facing trial for the Sept. 11 attacks says the men plan to plead not guilty and use the trial to express their political views. Attorney Scott Fenstermaker says his client Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and the others will not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but will tell the jury “why they did it.”

He says the men will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy.”

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. He says the men, including professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have discussed the trial among themselves.

Yes, I’ll bet they have. Eric Holder’s decision to give them a jury trial must have seemed like a gift from Allah.

Scott Fenstermaker is a criminal defense lawyer from New York who has represented a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

also:

CRU Emails – “Scientists Have Been Manipulating the Raw Temperature Figures”

Nigel Lawson from the London Times describes how the CRU emails have damaged, possibly permanently, the theory of man-made global warming:

…the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.

Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.

Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished.

Instead of debate those pimping the AGW version of warming have done their best to close the debate, with the help of our liberal MSM.

Finally:

Health Care Bills Violate Obama’s Principles & Campaign Promises

He promised to end the old Washington games yet plays along with health care gimmicks and lies!

It’s little more than a year now since Obama was elected. Plenty of time for the not so well informed public to forget the principles Obama campaigned on and the promises he made. Even as he repeated his “eight principles” in his budget message in February, he is set on a course that will violate nearly every one of them.

By now it should be painfully clear to all but the most diehard Obamaton that the current “reforms” violate every principle and promise Obama made to the American people regarding health care reform. The bills were negotiated in secret among Democrats. They won’t cover all uninsured Americans. Instead of lowering health care premiums the costs will increase. The bills are not “deficit neutral” but are actually the worst form of budget busters filled with the sort of gimmicks and secret deals Obama campaigned against. Millions of Americans will be forced onto the government plan and fined or get jail time if they do not enroll. And despite every promise Obama made during the campaing, taxes on those earning less than $250,000 will go up.

Finally, this message has begun to seep into the consciousness of the greater, often ambivalent, American public:

A budget-buster in the making
By David S. Broder
Washington Post
Sunday, November 22, 2009

It’s simply not true that America is ambivalent about everything when it comes to the Obama health plan.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

The case of terrorist Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who on November 5 murdered 13 people and wounded 33 more as he fired upon mostly weaponless victims at Fort Hood, is reflective of the perfect storm of the undeserved and unpatriotic sympathy dictated by the precepts of political correctness.

Sometimes examples are uncomplicated. Hasan lectured on, complained about, and attacked openly American policy regarding its erstwhile “war on terrorism.” What about his prolific communications with Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric in Yemen (but previously located in Washington)? Suffice it to say, as USA Today quotes one relevant observer: “Tom Kean, co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission…said Thursday that Hasan’s contact with [Anwar al-] Awlaki, the radical cleric, ‘should have risen to the very top’ of every agency involved…’This is a real bad guy,’ Kean said.”

Not according to initial interpretations. As I wrote earlier, see just two prototypical examples of early-on, excusing psychological interpretations: The Washington Post’s November 7 articles, “Ideology, Stress or Another Motive?” and “Psychiatric Stress Stretches Soldiers, System.”

American political correctness, even in its non-radicalized form, is all about presumption: a person who commits a violent act is presumed to be acting under the influence of factors beyond his or her control, including mental problems which allegedly impel the untoward acts. The agent is presumed to lack responsibility for his/her actions, and it is seen as unethical to argue otherwise unless and until the evidence for the opposite view is overwhelming.

As such, terrible miscreants are sometimes seen as presumptively “mentally ill,” acting because they “snapped.” The denial of the agency of intentional, pre-meditated action is the state that is assumed.

Unless cowardice is a new psychiatric diagnostic category, however, the irrelevance of psychiatric exculpation should be understood by every knee-jerk apologist for loathsome, premeditated political terrorism committed by haters of America.

(A parenthetical point, if I may: please spare me the worthless “angels on a pin” motivational distinctions of whether “terrorism” constitutes having acted to kill or to create fear, as if these can be parsed out in some meaningful way. These are distinctions without differences. Hasan doesn’t manifest clearly calibrated motivation: he wanted to cause as much misery and death as he could as an act of war because he hates the United States.)
(more…)

By Dick Morris

President Obama’s decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in New York City along with four others accused of helping destroy the World Trade Center and attack the Pentagon on 9-11 paints a bulls-eye for terrorists right on New York City, their favorite target. Now Obama has identified where the terrorists should focus their energies – on New York City.

His decision to bow to political correctness and not to try Mohammed at a secure military base and to try him in a civilian court, according him all the rights of an American citizen, raises important questions:

Most importantly, is the admissible evidence against Mohammed damning enough to secure a conviction? The evidentiary requirements protecting an American citizen on trial are far stricter than those which would apply to an enemy combatant before a military tribunal. We already watched how the twentieth hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui escaped the death penalty because the evidence the government could use against him in a civilian criminal court was limited by his civil liberties. As a result, the data from his computer, which had not been seized pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, could not be entered into evidence against him. Failing such evidence, the feds had to settle for a life sentence.

Since much of the evidence against Mohammed was gathered through interrogations before which he may not have been read his Miranda rights and during which he may have been water-boarded, one wonders how much of his statement that he was the mastermind of 9-11 is going to be admissible. It could be that he will use the very constitution of the very government he seeks to destroy to protect himself from the death penalty or even life in prison.

The decision to try him in a civilian court also confronts the Department of Justice with a difficult decision on how much of the evidence against Mohammed should be aired publicly. Our anti-terror investigations depend on secrecy and the FBI and Homeland Security agents may not relish having their methods publicized in open court. There is even the possibility that there will be a global backlash in favor of Mohammed as his defense lawyer – paid for by the American taxpayer – will make him appear to be the victim of over-zealous investigators and prosecutors rather than the perpetrator of one of the greatest mass murders in history.
(more…)

Winning wars against countries that attacked you are just not on the liberal agenda.

Official: Obama won’t take any current war options

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That push follows strong reservations about a possible troop buildup expressed by the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official. In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Powerline examines what led to this decision.

The Associated Press is reporting that President Obama “does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.” It has been obvious for some time that Obama has no intention of fighting to win in Afghanistan, as he promised during the presidential campaign. A battle plan that includes provisions for how and when the U.S. can extricate itself from the field is a blueprint for defeat, not victory.

The pretext for Obama’s decision to return to the drawing board is a report from newly appointed ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who has expressed misgivings about sending in more troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai is, in essence, the mayor of Kabul. The success of our troops is not contingent on Karzai’s leadership. The Afghan leadership that matters is that of the local leaders in areas where we are combatting the insurgency. But what matters most is our determination to protect civilians in these areas. Obama, it seems, lacks that determination.
(more…)

by Instapundit

Ft. Hood suspect reportedly shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’. On NPR I heard — I can’t find the story on their website yet — that he had given a presentation on the Koran at a professional conference where he claimed that unbelievers should be beheaded, burned, etc. to the discomfiture of the attendees.

UPDATE: Here’s the NPR segment. Key bit:

He gave a Grand Rounds presentation. . . You take turns giving a lecture on, you know, the correct treatment of schizophrenia, the right drugs to prescribe for personality disorder, you know, that sort of thing. But instead of giving an academic paper, he gave a lecture on the Koran, and they said it didn’t seem to be just an informational lecture, but it seemed to be his own beliefs. That’s what a lot of people thought.

He talked about how if you’re a nonbeliever the Koran says you should have your head cut off, you should have oil poured down your throat, you should be set on fire. And I said well couldn’t this just be his educating you? And the psychiatrist said yes, but one of the Muslims in the audience, another psychiatrist, raised his hand and was quite disturbed and he said you know, a lot of us don’t believe these things you’re saying, and that there was no place where Hasan couched it as this is what the Koran teaches but you know I don’t believe it. And people actually talked in the hallway afterwards about ‘is he one of these people that’s going to freak out and shoot people someday?’

MORE: Reader Dan Friedman writes to note that AP has changed the headline in the “Allahu Akhbar” story — the report is still there, now buried in the middle, but the headline now reads “Neighbor: Fort Hood suspect emptied his apartment.” Soft-pedaling?
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

Just how dumb are Obama voters? Well…dumb enough to have elected a man to the highest office based upon the same credentials that “earned” him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

So what’s their excuse today, now that they are witnessing President Obama’s executive leadership in action? Well, for one, more Americans are discovering their inner conservative. If 8 years of President Bush in no small measure lost us the ’08 election and set the conservative movement one step back, President Obama in one year’s worth of governance will most likely cost the Democrats 2010 (actually, Dems in Congress who choose to ignore the voices of their constituency will lose seats) and propel conservatism two steps forward.

The other side of this is that Obama supporters might not have jumped ship yet, because they have not been keeping up on the issues, other than to read the latest DNC talking points and Kos misinformation. According to the latest Pew Research Center’s latest News IQ Quiz. Mary Katharine Ham blogs:

Under a section called “Partisan Knowledge Gap,” we find Republicans were more knowledgeable by a double-digit factor on four issues. Although the Glenn Beck question is naturally easier for Republicans, the other three issues are basic political knowledge— what “cap-and-trade” means, who’s in control of the House, and who the new Supreme Court Justice is (a question that should perhaps be easier for Democrats). Republicans also led Democrats on identifying the unemployment rate, Fed chairman, Dow level, Max Baucus’ position. Republicans correctly answered an Iran/Israel question and an Afghanistan question more often than Dems. Republicans and Democrats were even on identifying the “public option” as a health-care plan.

But take heart, Democrats: You lead Republicans by five points on a whopping one question.

Take it for what it’s worth, with a grain of salt. But still, a nice bit of irritant to rub under the skin of liberal Democrats.

also:

Justice Done In Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian Murders

Rob wrote about the murders of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian back in 2007, which still gets many hits. People want to know about this case and find out if justice will be served.

Well it was today….with little media fanfare, unlike the Duke case which fit the particular narrative our media wants to present:

A Knox County jury today put torture-slaying alleged ringleader Lemaricus Davidson on the path to death.

With a sweeping set of guilty verdicts on all murder counts, the five-woman, seven-man jury set the stage for the state’s bid Thursday to seek Davidson’s life as punishment for the January 2007 deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.

“The people of Knox County are the ones who took care of our kids today,” said Deena Christian, mother of Channon Christian.

“We finally have the justice our kids deserve,” said Mary Newsom, mother of Chris Newsom.

Jurors also found Davidson, 28, guilty of the kidnapping and robbery of the couple, rejecting defense claims the pair went willingly to Davidson’s Chipman Street house.

They also deemed him guilty of multiple rapes of Christian, 21. They were unable to conclude whether Davidson raped Newsom, 23, and instead returned lesser verdicts of facilitation of Newsom’s rape.

Never did hear Sharpton or Jackson come out in disgust about these murders….wonder why?

Finally:

Flying Imam Settlement Makes Us Less Safe

The case of the Flying Imams reached a settlement; and it favors political correctness and misguided views on profiling and religious sensitivities over common sense.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which represented the imams, said the settlement is “a victory for civil rights.”

“The six imams are pleased,” Hooper said. “Their rights were maintained by the settlement.”

This is no victory for civil rights. These imams gave reasonable cause for alarm, based as much upon behavioral profiling as much as religious and ethnic profiling. The settlement sends a message that favors stupidity over safety:
(more…)

From Flopping Aces

Remember it was a bill that was too important not to pass immediately without reading!

The following is from Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI), the Ranking Member on the House Ways and Means Committee:

7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs
America Now Over 6 Million Jobs Shy of Administration’s Projections
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The table below compares the White House’s February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available). According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

With such a poor record of performance on jobs, what makes people think Democrats can deliver on their promises for health care?

also:

Another Study That Shows ObamaCare Will Ensure Cost Spiral Upward

Shocking!….not:

The nation’s medical costs will keep spiraling upward even faster than they are now under Democratic legislation pending in the House, a report from government economic experts concluded Wednesday.

Republicans said the report is a warning sign that health care legislation is likely to fall short of President Barack Obama’s goal of “bending the cost curve” by slowing torrid rates of medical inflation.

~~~

Unlike previous estimates that have focused mainly on the legislation’s impact on the federal deficit, the actuaries’ report looked at total costs, public and private, over the next 10 years. It found that the nation’s health care tab would increase somewhat more rapidly with the legislation than if nothing is done. The main reason: Newly insured people will seek medical care.

The nation’s health care tab, now at about $2.5 trillion annually, is projected to approach $4.7 trillion in 2019 without the legislation.

With the legislation, national health care spending would be nearly $4.8 trillion in 2019.

Health care would account for 21.3 percent of the U.S. economy in 2019, slightly more than an estimated share of 20.8 percent of the economy if no bill passes. Economists have warned such increases are unsustainable.

“With the exception of the proposed reductions in Medicare … (the legislation) would not have a significant impact on future health care cost growth rates,” the report said. Moreover, it’s “doubtful” that proposed Medicare cuts will stay in place, the analysts concluded.

~~~

It also cautioned that tens of millions of newly insured people could put a strain on the health care system.

“The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage,” the analysts concluded.

We all knew this to be the true months ago…well, those with common sense understood this. This study is just one more that shows the exact same thing, that ObamaCare will in no way reduce the amount of money spent on health care and in fact will worsen the system, worsen the health care product, worsen the service, and worsen our economy.

The public understands this now so Obama and company actually break the law to get it passed:

Senate Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is raising concerns that a Department of Health and Human Services Web site that urges visitors to send an e-mail to President Barack Obama praising his health care reform plan may violate rules against government-funded propaganda.

The Web page is accessed through a “state your support” button featured prominently on the HHS Web site and carries a disclaimer that the Web site is maintained by HHS.

In a letter sent to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Tuesday, Grassley warned that “any possible misuse of appropriated funds by the executive branch to engage in publicity or propaganda in support of an Administration priority is a matter that must be investigated and taken seriously,” noting that in 2005 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued that “the use of official funds for similar activities were ‘underhanded tactics’ and that these tactics ‘are not worthy of our great democracy.’”

It’s propaganda plain and simple.

But now Pelosi and the left think nothing of it.

Finally:

Former V.P. Cheney Offers Critical Review of Obama National Security Policy

And he answers the “blame Bush” theme still so prevalent in the Obama Administration!

On CNN’s State of the Union program on Sunday (transcript), White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was questioned about the Obama Administration’s indeciviseness in Afghanistan. Attempting to change the subject, Rahm fell back on the standard “blame Bush” defense suggesting that Afghanistan was just another mess that they had to clean up.

You have literally got into a situation, is there another way you can do this? And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Who would be better doing the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops, which is — not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path — before you make that decision, there’s a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it’s clear after eight years of war, that’s basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked.

And what I find interesting and just intriguing from this debate in Washington, is that a lot of people who all of a sudden say, this is now the epicenter of the war on terror, you must do this now, immediately approve what the general said — where, before, it never even got on the radar screen for them. That — everything was always about Iraq.

Amazing. As if no one will realize what a pack of lies that is.

Well, Dick Cheney realized it and in an address to the Center for Security Policy on Wednesday Cheney responded (transcript) (video of entire speech):

(more…)

By Barry Rubin

There are two basic strategies being put forth in the West and particularly the United States today in regard to the challenge from radical and Islamist forces. The narrower, terror-only strategy is a far more tempting one to follow. It is less expensive, less risky, and makes it far easier to claim success. That’s why it has such enormous appeal and is generally the one being adopted.

The Terror-Only Strategy

In this approach, the problem is defined as direct terror attacks on Western territory and facilities elsewhere like embassies. The enemy is those groups which directly target the West, meaning al-Qaida and its allies plus various independent local self-made terrorists (who are influenced, of course, by Jihadist propaganda).

Since these groups have no major state sponsor, this is a narrow counterterrorism strategy which does not require confrontation or conflict with any other country. It can be handled largely as a police and criminal matter. Success is measured by an ability to keep such attacks to an absolute minimum.

Moreover, it permits the luxury of ignoring attacks on or in other countries—including Israel especially—as not being a matter of much concern. [Even the United States has increasingly taken this stance. After the massive terror attack on Mumbai, India, Pakistan’s policy of sponsoring anti-Indian terrorism has been for all practical purposes ignored. U.S. aid to Pakistan climbs steeply with no conditionality about stopping attacks despite the fact that Pakistan has done nothing to punish the terrorists involved, much less the Pakistani intelligence officers who direct them. The Administration has conducted engagement of Syria with no serious reference to Syria’s sponsorship of terrorism against Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, or Israel. When Iraq protested Syrian involvement in a bloody recent attack the U.S. government declared its neutrality. (more…)

By Dick Morris

If only terrorists would be so accommodating as not to change cell phones, the new curbs on the Patriot Act being pushed by Democrats in Congress would not be so dangerous. But, unfortunately, even a book entitled Terrorism for Dummies would tell them to use multiple cell phones to plot their mayhem.

In the aftermath of Oklahoma City, President Clinton asked Congress for authority to order roving wiretaps, targeting the terror suspect rather than one specific phone. If he changed phones, the FBI could tap each new phone he used without getting a separate warrant. Congress unwisely and unaccountably refused. But when President Bush renewed the request, after 9-11, Congress included the authorization in the Patriot Act. But this provision and many other essential investigatory tools is subject to sunset at the end of the year. Unless affirmatively renewed by Congress, they will lapse.

Drug enforcement agents have long used roving wiretaps but anti-terror investigators will not be able to use them if Congress doesn’t extend the authority. Our anti-terror investigators will be back to the one phone-one warrant rule.

Former Bush Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, writing in an op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal notes that roving wiretaps “helped thwart a plot earlier this year to blow up synagogues in Riverdale, New York.” Yet liberal Democrats are fighting the renewal of the roving wiretap authority as part of a broad offensive against the very Patriot Act provisions which have kept us safe (often by narrow margins) since 9-11.

Other liberal targets include the statute which allows terror investigators to apply for court orders to search business records in national security investigations. The Democrats want to limit this authority to instances in which investigators can prove that their target is an agent of a foreign power. Since terrorists are unlikely to register under FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act), one wonders how investigators are supposed to be able to prove that they are foreign agents before they can investigate them! Even though investigators can only search the business records if they get the approval of the court, this safeguard does not impress the liberals. Ironically, the IRS can access these very same business records if they are connected with a tax investigation whether or not a foreign agent is involved. But terror investigators will have to face a more daunting hurdle. (more…)

Sarkozy Says Obama Is Very Naive and Conceited

Real Clear Politics describes Sarkozy’s contempt in detail.

The contempt with which the president of France regards the president of the United States was displayed in public last week.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

“We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth,” President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn’t call them on it.

‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons…but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993.”

“What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?” he asked rhetorically. “More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map.”

If the Security Council had imposed serious sanctions on the regimes which are flouting UN resolutions, the resolution Mr. Obama proposed about working toward nuclear disarmament wouldn’t have been so meaningless, Mr. Sarkozy implied.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce or own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

The extent of President Obama’s naivete – or duplicity – was on display Friday at the G20 summit when the president, flanked by Mr. Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, revealed to the American public that Iran had a second nuclear weapons site on a military base near the holy city of Qom.

News reports indicated Mr. Obama had been briefed on the site before his inauguration. But he’s been conducting his foreign policy as if the mullahs could be trusted.

“Iran has been put on notice,” President Obama said in Pittsburgh.

Iran responded to being “put on notice” by testing Monday two ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear warhead 1,200 miles.

It was to protect Europe from such missiles that the ABM system President Obama abruptly cancelled earlier this month was designed.

Obama administration officials said the ABM cancellation – regarded as a betrayal by Poland and the Czech Republic, where the missiles and radars were to be located – actually improved U.S. security, because it has made Russia more amenable to sanctions against Iran.

The UN Security Council has never passed strong sanctions against Iran because Russia and China have vetoed them. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he still doesn’t like economic sanctions, but will support them if diplomacy fails. China remains opposed.

President Obama shouldn’t count on Russian support, said Soviet expert David Satter.

“Words are cheap for the Kremlin and the Iranians are aware of this,” he said. “The Russians, having endorsed sanctions, will now find hundreds of reasons why any specific sanctions package is unfair…The reason is that support for Iran is Russia’s most important trump card in foreign relations and there is little likelihood they will give it up.”

Iran has been put on notice before. At the G8 meeting in Italy in July, Mr. Obama and other leaders set a “firm deadline” of Sep. 10 for the Iranians to make a serious offer to negotiate about their nuclear program. When the mullahs blew him off, Mr. Obama quietly extended the deadline until December.

December could be too late. “Tehran soon could have humankind’s most frightening weapon if substantial diplomatic progress is not made in the coming days,” Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Saturday (9/26).

If severe economic sanctions are not imposed immediately, in months if not in weeks, only a military strike will b e able to prevent an Iranian bomb.

But after sternly lecturing Iran on its international obligations Friday, President Obama didn’t call for sanctions. He called for more negotiations. And then, as the Iranians were spitting in his eye with the missile test, he jetted off to Copenhagen to lobby to have the 2016 Olympics held in Chicago.

No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy holds him in contempt. And I could not agree more.

Powerline adds to the argument with a theses on Obama and Iran.

If any sentient person had serious doubt, last week’s news that Iran has a covert uranium enrichment facility under construction at a military base outside Qom should serve to clarify Iran’s intent to obtain nuclear weapons. News that Obama had been briefed on the existence of this facility during the transition makes it difficult to understand what Obama has said and done about Iran since then. His statements and actions need to be reconsidered in light of the state of his knowledge. In the spirit of inquiry I offer the following premises and tentative theses:

1. In statements going back to the primary campaign, Obama repeatedly referred to Iran’s prospective acquisition of nuclear weapons as unacceptable and stated that no option to prevent it should be taken off the table. Yet Obama accepts the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program and will do nothing to retard it.

2. Obama has known about the second Iranian enrichment facility since the transition.

3. Obama has repeatedly demonstrated an eagerness to avoid confrontation with the Iranian regime — to the point of fawning over the regime. He prides himself on accepting the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. (more…)

From Flopping Aces

also:

Obama’s General May Resign If Not Given Enough Troops To Win

Now this is a new wrinkle:

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion “premature.” Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “time is not on our side”; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public “to take a deep breath.”

~~~

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

Granted, this is a report from Mclatchey AND it only repeats what some of his senior staff believed he would do if not given the resources to win the war….but even so, this is just more proof that Obama and company doesn’t care about winning. They care about how they look. How they are perceived.

One of the great qualities in George Bush was he could give a damn how he looked, how the polls were turning. He knew we HAD to win and gave the experts what they needed to accomplish that….polls be damned.

We have the exact polar opposite in the White House now.

Bill Roggio: (more…)

From Flopping Aces

Remember all that talk from Obama that Afghanistan was the war that needed to be won. The fight against the Taliban and Osama was the one that needed to be reinforced.

Well, now it’s time to see if these tough words were only words:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document’s five-page Commander’s Summary on a note of muted optimism: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”

But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

He provides extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistan’s prisons to recruit members and even plan operations.

McChrystal recommends fixing the huge corruption problem inside the Afghan government and, big shocker here, not to focus on killing the enemy. Rather we should focus on not hurting civilians. Now thats the way to win a war eh? Who cares about actually taking the fight to the enemy in war….

Sigh…

“Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”

McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”

McChrystal continues: “Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population.”

Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering “ISAF’s comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society.”

Focused on attacking insurgents? Omg….what were they thinking? This is a war, they shouldn’t be focused on winning, they should be focused on how to be buddy buddy with the locals.

He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending “as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases.” Strengthening Afghans’ sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition “cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people.”

McChrystal warns that in the short run, it “is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase.”

And then we will see how the tide turns. Obama said he would take the fight to Afghanistan during the election, but as he has proven over and over and over again since, these were only words. He has flip-flopped on virtually every promise. This one will be no different. His lefty baggage handlers want him out of Afghanistan….once the casualties go up up and up that will be his cue. He will do what the Democrat Congress did to Vietnam.

The last part of the article from Woodward lays out the three main enemy groups in Afghanistan which is quite interesting so read it all.

Overall what the report seems to say is that we need more troops in theater. We need to become more like Mister Rogers.

Becoming more like Mister Rogers isn’t all bad. We did a good job of that in Iraq but the overall objective of finding, capturing, and killing the enemy never wavered…it is now. And I’m taking bets on how long it will take Obama to cut and run.

also:

A Sneak and Peak Look at the JUSTICE Act

3 Provisions of the PATRIOT Act (“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”) are set to expire at the end of the year.

NYTimes:

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to consider extending crucial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil liberties groups and some Democratic lawmakers are gearing up to press for sweeping changes to surveillance laws.

Both the House and the Senate are set to hold their first committee hearings this week on whether to reauthorize three sections of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year. The provisions expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls in the course of a counterterrorism investigation.

Is this really an “expansion” of power? Or a matter of updating existing powers in order for the F.B.I. to effectively do its job of protecting American lives in wake of 21st century technological advancements?

(more…)

CIA Counter-Terrorism Expert: Obama and Holder ‘At War’ with Agency

Monday, August 31, 2009 7:59 PM

By: Kent Clizbe

In the early days and weeks after September 11, 2001, a small cadre of men (and a few women) with vast amounts of intelligence experience reported to the Langley, Virginia headquarters of the CIA. These unsung heroes were then dispatched across the globe to run operations against the Al-Qaeda conspirators who leveled the World Trade Center and struck the nerve center of the US military.

The FBI, a domestic law enforcement agency, did not have the ability or skills needed to track down and strike the attackers overseas. The Pentagon, with F22s, nuclear aircraft carriers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and battalions of the best armor in the history of mankind, was like an elephant attacked by a mouse—mighty, but helpless in its mammoth rage.

Our best hope lay with the grey-bearded intelligence professionals who fanned out across the world. Supplementing the skeleton crew of staff officers left in the wake of the Clintons’ anti-intelligence scourging of the CIA, the volunteers went to the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, to the most remote and isolated outposts in the world. Sometimes they worked with friendly forces, and sometimes they worked alone. They focused like a laser beam on one thing — stop the next attack. Their mission: Seek and destroy the terrorist planners, facilitators, trainers, financiers, and their infrastructure wherever they were.

Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, CIA officers, both the contractors and the over-extended staff officers, launched dozens of initiatives. The Counter-terrorist Center’s motto, “Deny, Disrupt, Destroy,” became the reason for our living. We left our families for months on end and sacrificed personal and professional lives to fight the Global War on Terror. Google “Jihadists in Paradise,” for an unauthorized account of one of my contributions (which I have been advised that I can neither confirm nor deny).

As I did my part in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa, my family tried to maintain a semblance of normalcy at home. My son was in eighth grade in September 2001. I did not see him graduate the next summer. I was home less than six months for each of the first three of his high school years. Even with my nightly phone calls, his attitude and grades plummeted in my absence. He went from a happy, engaged, charming 13 year old with straight A’s and a focus on the future, to a sullen, uncommunicative, high school flunky. I put my successful and lucrative executive recruiting business on hold for eight years. Finally, after five years of constant travel, my family sacrifice account was overdrawn. Coming home was an option for me, and I took it.

Others did not take that option, and they sacrificed the quality of their marriages, participation in their children’s and grandchildren’s lives, the profitability of their businesses, and more. Personal and professional issues festered and rotted while they fought to keep America safe and prevented further attacks on our homeland.

In contrast, where was Eric Holder? Before leaving President Clinton’s employ, he orchestrated the pardons of several Puerto Rican separatist terrorists. Then in 2003, as a partner in the Washington law firm of Covington & Burling, Mr Holder’s client, Chiquita Brands, admitted paying to support terrorist death squads in Colombia and paid a $25 million fine. During the time that my friends worked to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks threatening America, Holder’s firm represented — for free — 16 terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo.

Has he made any personal or professional sacrifices since his country was attacked in 2001? If he has, it is difficult to find them. When the Special Prosecutor comes calling, maybe someone from Covington & Burling can represent my colleagues for free, like they did for Lakhdar Boumedienne and ten other terrorists in Gitmo.

The Holder/Obama Global War on the CIA (GWCIA) has only just begun, as it debuted with “grisly revelations” of revving drills, gunshots in the next cell, and threats against a terrorist’s children. The GWOT is not for the faint of heart, nor the queasy. No war ever has been. There may be slight improprieties stashed in the CIA’s closets, but the liberal-appeasing GWCIA is foolhardy and dangerous.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

They got their 30 pieces of silver. The rest of us will be crucified!

The “Blue Dogs” in the House Democrat caucus caved in to pressure today and signaled they would no longer block health care “reform” legislation from moving forward. Their price? $100 billion in cuts from a bill set to cost a $trillion and up.

As Gomer Pyle used to say: “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!”

There were a few other changes in the bill which while welcome, do not overcome the fact that this will be another massive intrusion by the federal government into health care and it will accelerate the financial collapse of Medicare and Medicaid.

The one good point in today’s agreement is that no vote will take place until Congress reconvenes in September. That will give Americans time to understand how dangerous even this watered down Democrat bill is.

My fear is that the majority of voters will be so relieved that the original socialist makeover of health care was defeated that they will be ready to accept the socialist-lite version which is hardly an improvement.

also:

Only In Obama’s World Could We Talk With The Taliban While Doing Zelaya’s Bidding

The Obama world: (h/t Hot Air)

A concerted effort to start unprecedented talks between Taliban and British and American envoys was outlined yesterday in a significant change in tactics designed to bring about a breakthrough in the attritional, eight-year conflict in Afghanistan.

Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with “second-tier” local leaders now the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.

Meanwhile: (more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Appeasing terrorists only invites more killing!

It wasn’t enough for Obama to virtually ignore the repression and death Iran’s government inflicts on it’s own people. Now, he releases monsters that can only invite more killing of Americans.

Obama Frees Iranian Terror Masters
The release of the Irbil Five is a continuation of a shameful policy.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online
July 11, 2009

There are a few things you need to know about President Obama’s shameful release on Thursday of the “Irbil Five” — Quds Force commanders from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who were coordinating terrorist attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds — yes, hundreds — of American soldiers and Marines.

Also:

The Sotomayor Confirmation

So the Sotomayor confirmation hearings begin and we now get to see if the Republicans will just roll over and wag their tail, as they have proven to do over the years, or actually grow a pair and take her and her racist beliefs head on. Technically it won’t matter, since she has the votes anyway, but during the tenure of the last Democrat President we got Ginsburg and Breyer. Two horrible, ultra-liberal, justices and how many Republicans voted no on them? 3 and 9 respectively.

With Sotomayor there is no reason for any Republican to vote yes on someone who doesn’t value the Constitution and on someone who is obviously a activist judge. But apparently they’re hoping to get 23 no votes out of 40 Senators.

Pathetic.

Sessions came out swinging today thankfully:

Republicans came out firing at this morning’s confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, accused Sotomayor of being prejudiced.

Citing a controversial racial bias case in which a fire department discarded the results of a qualifying test when black firefighters scored too low, Sessions said Sotomayor was biased in favor of the minority employees. (more…)