by kathy

It was only a matter of time until these kinds of plots reached the United States. Israel has been dealing with this nonsense for decades.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Map, News) – A Somali immigrant the government says plotted to blow up an Ohio shopping mall pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Nuradin Abdi, 35, entered his plea before U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley a week before the expected Aug. 6 start of his trial. He answered each of the judge’s questions with a quiet, ‘Yes, Your Honor.’ Under a plea deal, Abdi is expected to receive a 10-year sentence on the count, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years. Three additional charges were dropped in exchange for the plea.

The Justice Department accused Abdi of suggesting the plan to attack an unidentified Columbus shopping mall during an August 2002 coffee shop meeting with now-convicted al-Qaida terrorist Iyman Faris and a third suspect, Christopher Paul. Faris is serving 20 years in a maximum-security federal prison in Florence, Colo., for his role in an al-Qaida plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris scouted the bridge and told al-Qaida its plans wouldn’t work, court papers have said.

Federal agents arrested Abdi the morning of Nov. 28, 2003, the day after Thanksgiving, out of fear the attack would be carried out on the heavy shopping day. He was arrested at 6 a.m. while leaving his Columbus home for morning prayers. Prosecutors say Abdi gave stolen credit card numbers to a man accused of buying gear for al-Qaida, and lied on immigration documents to visit a jihadist training camp.

Did you notice they called him an immigrant instead of a terrorist? Immigrants do not visit jihadist training camps nor plan to blow up shopping malls full of people. What does it take for the MSM to stop this politically correct reporting? Why can’t we just call a spade a spade, an Islamic fanatic plotted to murder Americans in the name of Allah. How hard was that?

Let’s review what the actual indictment said about Abdi; Abdi had first immigrated to the United States in January 1999, and then on April 27, 1999, he applied for a travel document so that he could travel to Germany and Saudi Arabia, to conceal his activities. Instead, Abdi went to Ethiopia to seek training in firearms, guerrilla warfare, and bomb-making and bomb-handling.

He left the United States in 1999 to attend a military-style training camp in Ogaden, Ethiopia for purposes of preparing himself for violent jihads overseas and any activities his al Qaeda co-conspirators might ask him to perform here in the United States.

Doesn’t sound like an ‘innocent’ hard-working immigrant just looking for a better way of life does it?

H/T: Jihad Watch

And I had once liked O’Reilly.

Posted by Robert Farrow

…well, not any more.

Hat Tip LGF

by Todd

I came across this op-ed piece from California Senator Dianne Feinstein regarding the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.

“On July 26, Lt. Col. Stephen E. Abraham testified on Capitol Hill that the Bush administration’s legal system at Guantanamo – used to determine which detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants – relied on shaky evidence and pressured officers to rush hundreds of hearings.

This is profoundly damaging to the United States’ reputation around the world. And it buttresses my belief that President Bush should close the facility within a year, and come up with a process for transferring detainees and ensuring that they face justice. “

Let’s examine her first contention that the facility is “profoundly damaging to the United States’ reputation around the world.” Nothing epitomizes the Democrats’ mindless, apoplectic, yet pacifistic catering more than a statement such as this. It is world opinion, and to a greater extent, the Muslim world’s opinion of us that truly counts. Disregard the fact that the as the leader of the free world, we, and we alone, seem to face this problem alone. We must set an example and not bow to demented international pressure regarding this all-important ideological war.

“Abraham is the first Guantanamo insider to go public, and his testimony is further evidence that the Bush administration has set up a separate and lesser system of justice for Guantanamo detainees. It is clear that the administration’s attempts to hold and process detainees at Guantanamo are another example of its efforts to expand presidential authority.”

Feinstein applies a certain twisted logic to the above statement. In her mind, as well as others on the Left, these detainees should either be released, or tried in American civilian courts. First, several detainees that have been released have resurfaced on the battlefield and eventually recaptured. Second, Feinstein assumes, almost obscenely to a fault, that Guantanamo Bay is massive torture center. By pandering to the groups on the Left with an axe to grind with Bush, she naturally accuses the administration of flagrant humans rights violations with at BEST, faulty evidence.

That’s “at best.” More than likely, and from every indication from credible sources, Guantanamo Bay is a virtual country club.

“A system that sets a double standard for detainees, holding them indefinitely on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, is inherently unfair and highly suspect. This is damaging, because it goes against America’s legal traditions and values, which are a model for the rest of the world.

Such a system does nothing to make America safer. In fact, it makes the world a more dangerous place for Americans, increasing the odds our troops will be denied their rights when captured on foreign battlefields.”

Again, the Senator completely applies faulty logic to this argument. Once again, she speaks on behalf of the Left and INCORRECTLY infers that al Qaeda terrorists captured on the battlefield should be afforded rights as defined by the Geneva Convention.

This is the mistake in the crux of the Left’s argument. They want to bestow rights to alien enemy combatants who, at best, serve as proxy for governments such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria.

“Days later, the U.S. Supreme Court – in a move not seen in decades – reversed itself and agreed to hear the appeals of two Guantanamo detainees, who assert that they should be able to challenge their incarceration before a judge in the American federal court system.”

Sadly, Feinstein and others of her ilk applaud this move essentially because they believe the men held at the detention facility are not enemy combatants. Moreover, they challenge the assertion that a war on terror even exists. With that being said, their charge is that these men are being held without being charged with anything.

Charged? These men were captured on a battlefield in places Afghanistan waging war against the United States military. Wretchedly, the Democrats cry havoc that these new age enemy combatants are being detained. (more…)

from Curt at Flopping Aces

Surge of Sanity Sweeping Swamps of Surrender?

"A War We Just Might Win" by liberals O’Hanlon and Pollack in the New York Times caused a stir in news and blog circles yesterday. But it was just the tip of the iceberg.

In the past week a wave of reports from top commanders in Iraq along with media and political figures is confirming that the surge is working and that things in Iraq, for now at least, are headed in the right direction.

Multi-National Forces Commander Lt. General Ray Odierno’s briefing last Thursday in Iraq chronicled the drop in violence, the lessening of sectarian conflict and the drop in U.S. troop deaths saying “We’ve started to see a slow but gradual reduction in casualties and it continues in July."

And Odierno’s optimism is echoed in the following statement:

I think there’s no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference. They’re definitely making a difference in Baghdad. Some of the crucial indicators of the war, metrics as the American command calls them, have moved in a positive direction from the American, and dare I say the Iraqi point of view, fewer car bombs, fewer bombs in general, lower levels of civilian casualties, quite remarkably lower levels of civilian casualties. And add in what they call the Baghdad belts, that’s to say the approaches to Baghdad, particularly in Diyala Province to the northeast, to in the area south of Baghdad in Babil Province, and to the west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, there’s no doubt that al Qaeda has taken something of a beating.

That wasn’t the opinion of a Bush cheerleader but New York Times Baghdad bureau chief, John F. Burns speaking last Friday to Hugh Hewitt.

Burns goes on to cite confidence in General Petraeus and every expectation that his report in September will be credible. He also notes that talk in Congress of a withdrawal designed to spur Iraqi political reconciliation has had the "opposite effect" causing rival elements in Iraq to hunker down and prepare for what would be a real civil war once we left.

And talk of a premature U.S. withdrawal is finally being recognized openly by the "news" media as a terrible idea. Here are a few snippets from Kelly O’Donnell of NBC, TIME Magazine’s Mike Duffy, David Ignatius of The Washington Post and CBS’ Gloria Borger on Chris Matthews’ Show Sunday:

O’DONNELL: People are beginning to learn that exiting is not easy. There are enormous costs.

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Okay. Batter if we stay there two –

O’DONNELL: Mechanically you can’t do it.

DUFFY: — have a thousand Iraqis dying a month at the current rate. That could explode, maybe ten times as many if the US leaves.

BORGER: This is such a problem right now for the Democrats. Privately, many of them will say — and Joe Biden has even said it publicly — that you can’t withdraw overnight.

VOICE: No!

BORGER: That it would be –

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Okay. How was –

BORGER: — dangerous for us to do.

MATTHEWS: We put it to the Matthews Meter, twelve of our regular panelists. Can Bush keep a hundred thousand troops or more in Iraq until he leaves office? It looks like he can. Eight of our group says, yes, he can.

What good does this Iraq war do to reduce the threat of terrorism here?"

IGNATIUS: These struggles are different fronts of the same war….

"These struggles are different fronts of the same war?" Someone in the "news" media has finally realized that? Astounding!

New York Times: Poll Until You Get the Answer You Want?

The news dynamic is also shifting public opinion. The New York Times has been polling the American people since the war began on the question of support for the U.S. invasion in 2003. They were so shocked that a modest uptick in support occurred in a recent poll that they sent the pollsters back to try again and see if they would get a different result. They didn’t.

(more…)

“HELP SAVE MARYLAND SIDEWALK PRESS CONFERENCE”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FILED

Help Save Maryland will conduct a Press Conference on the sidewalk in front of Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett’s office, from 8-9 a.m., Wednesday, August 1, 2007, 101 Monroe Street, Rockville 20850.

Concerned citizens of Montgomery County will read a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding operations at the County-funded Day Laborer Centers and County financial support for the pro-illegal alien group CASA of Maryland . The FOIA request will then be hand delivered to Mr. Leggett and Montgomery County Council President Praisner for immediate action.

As taxpaying citizens, we have the right to know who is using the County-funded Day Labor Centers and if the employers are paying their federal, state and social security taxes. We are also concerned about the cozy relationship between Ike Leggett, the County Council and CASA of Maryland . Millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are funneled into CASA for a variety of questionable programs and initiatives. The citizens of Montgomery County want a full accounting of this wasteful spending.

Montgomery County has been placed in the crosshairs of the illegal immigration issue because our elected officials refuse to enforce the law and protect our citizens. Montgomery County is a haven for illegal aliens who overrun our schools, housing and abuse our hospitals and other social services. Just recently, federal agents arrested a local restaurant owner for harboring illegal immigrants, laundering money, and not paying taxes; prosecuted MS-13 gang members for murder and rape; and arrested a major Mexican drug lord in Wheaton . These are clear signs that Ike Leggett, the County Council and the Montgomery County police are not doing their jobs.
(more…)

from Curt at Flopping Aces

Yes, this article written in one of the most liberal, biased, newspapers in the country by two men from a center-left think tank is quite shocking.  Shocking because the writers now agree somewhat with what many of us conservatives have been saying.  We can win this war.  I’ve never doubted it.  Almost everyone on the left doubted it and even some on the right jumped on onto the defeatist bandwagon.  But now two lefties have come back with some optimism.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.

The authors even point out that one big reason things have changed is we now have a common enemy.  al-Qaeda:

In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.

But here is the rub.  The Democrats have too much invested in the "Bush was wrong, Iraq is a disaster" mantra to actually concede that sending Gen. Petraeus was a brilliant move on Bush’s part.  That his ability to recognize the fact that what he and his Generals had done earlier did not work was key to his decision to change course.  Many stubborn leaders would have trudged on in failure.  But not Bush.

They will not concede any of this.  So look out New York Times.  While I give you kudos for having the balls to print this article I have a feeling the nutroots will be at your door with pitchforks ready to burn any words that dare to say…

Bush was right.

(more…)

By Robert Farrow

And I would have bet money that this poll would have been buried by the drive-by media.

Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq.

But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly.

However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared with 23 percent just last week.
Many of those who said the invasion was correct made it clear, however, that they are no longer convinced the United States should remain there.

“At the time that we went into Iraq, we had just come out of 9/11. The nation was in shock, frightened,” Sally Fisher of Garden City, Mich., said in a follow-up interview after the poll was conducted. “Looking back, I still think we should have gone in. Should we have stayed as long as we did? No.”

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday with 889 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus three percentage points and larger for subgroups.
The poll’s findings are in line with those of one conducted last week by The New York Times and CBS News. Although both polls show a similar rise in overall support for the invasion, there was no change in measures like Mr. Bush’s handling of the war or how well the increase in troops is working, making it difficult to discern what the public may be reacting to.

At the end of a week that included a contentious Senate debate leading to an all-night session, Americans have a low opinion of Congress. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in general. When asked specifically about their opinions of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are handling the war, disapproval ratings are similar — 65 percent disapprove of the Republicans’ handling of Iraq and 59 percent disapprove of the Democrats’.

“If Congress isn’t ready to really go over there with enough force to change things now we might as well get out,” said Shawn Taylor of Hardin, Mont. “Either push the envelope and make it happen or leave it alone.”

The modest gains in support for the invasion of Iraq come at a time when Bush administration and top military commanders have called attention to what they say are signs of progress, and have urged patience pending a report due this fall from the top American commander in Iraq. The administration has also issued new warnings about heightened terrorist activity. (more…)

by Kathy

Rep Murtha and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are at it again, engineering another strategy for defeat.

With Congress’s August recess less than one week away, it should hardly come as a surprise that Rep. John Murtha, the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is readying more legislative mischief. Mr. Murtha, a close political ally of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has made it clear that plans to use the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill, which comes to the floor this week, to short-circuit the current military campaign against jihadists in Iraq and shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo).

Murtha has a three point plan:

1. Set 60-day timeline to begin troop withdrawal from Iraq.
This of course would leave the Iraqi’s to defend Iraq on their own before they are able to do so on their own.

2. Implement the “slow-bleed” strategy
This is the withholding of funds for the war unless the military meets some unattainable standards for training and equipping the troops

3. Close Gitmo
Why does John Murtha care more about terrorist than his own soldiers, it has been proven time and time again that we treat our prisoners humanely, certainly better than the other side is treating ours. Ask John Murtha about the 4 American military men are still missing, why isn’t he fighting for them?

The New York Times today even says we are winning in Iraq, to even consider this proposal at this juncture would sabotage our own troops in favor of the enemy.

Why would these so-called representatives of the people (those in uniform too) even consider such a plan at this time? Why for appeasement of the far left wing of their party, even if their plans run counter to reality and American victory.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Bush administration tried in VAIN to operate an effective terrorist surveillance program with approval by BOTH Republicans and Democrats. This program was known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).

With the Democrats and the Left STILL crying foul over the perceived illegality surrounding the NSA wiretapping program, I thought it would be wise to reference this particular WSJ article, just to dispel the myths that seem to somehow live on in the Leftist world.

Let’s break down the details in a fashion that even the Left, presumably, can understand.

In one of the most shockingly seditious acts in American history, the New York Times in 2005 published a report “describing the TSP. Although it was clear from the beginning that the program targeted al Qaeda–a particular communication was intercepted based on the presence of a suspected al Qaeda operative on at least one end–and not directed at ordinary Americans going about their daily routines, the administration’s critics quickly wove the TSP into their favorite overarching anti-Bush narrative.”

Rather than allow the American government to wage a successful war on Islamic terrorism, the NYT exposed this top-secret program, effectively striking a blow the safety of American citizens, while simultaneously securing an important win for Islamic terror.

“Administration officials, including Attorney General Gonzales, repeatedly explained the TSP to Congress and the public, presumably to an extent consistent with continuing national security imperatives. In particular, they said that only communications where at least one party to the conversation was outside of the U.S. were intercepted; purely domestic calls were not in play.”

There’s the ultimate detail that the Left conveniently glosses over: that one party must be outside the United States. Instead, the Left committed a quasi-traitorous act and exposed this vital program, even though top Democrats were aware and, at least tacitly, approved of its existence and viability.

“The administration’s most immediate concern since 9/11 has understandably been whether al Qaeda sleeper agents, already inside the U.S., would carry out additional catastrophic strikes. To counter this real and continuing threat, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept a full range of al Qaeda communications, presumably on a global basis.”

Predictable Democrat ideology prohibits the Left from even admitting that 1.) a war against Islamic terror exists; 2.) if applying that twisted logic, it wouldn’t be necessary to even ponder the existence of al Qaeda sleeper cells here in our country.

“Rather than utilizing FISA’s cumbersome and restrictive procedures, the administration relied on the president’s inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime, as presidents have done since Lincoln’s day.”

Here’s where the crying from the Democrats gets fetid. Evidently, Congress believes that because it has power to declare, that it is they who truly command the troops. Furthermore, based on ineffectual leadership, as well as calls to retreat, are there any lingering doubts that this sham of an institution does not possess the wherewithal to protect American citizens?

“In addition, the administration correctly relied on Congress’s Sept. 18, 2001, authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that this statute authorized the president to employ all the ‘fundamental incident\[s\] of waging war.’ This, by any reasonable standard, would include secretly listening in on the enemy’s phone calls, and reading their faxes, emails and text messages.”

Rather than allow the President to use any tool to necessary to protect American lives and strike a blow to al Qaeda, the Democrats, and the entire Left institutional universe, hedged their bets and chose a different horse: Islamic terror. Due to twisted and perverse logic, they opted to placate radical Islam with such face-saving gestures as the New York Times shamefully attempting to expose the NSA wiretapping program in 2005, the incessant senatorial and congressional calls for surrender and retreat, as well as terror-apologist John Edwards triumphantly declaring that the war on terror was nothing more than a “bumper sticker slogan.”

Congressional officials, notably Democrats, deserved a well-placed rebuke. Rather than securing this country, they chose to take the ostrich route by sticking their hands in the sand.

In their estimation, we are not at war with militant Islam, but rather, George Bush.

Misguided? Yes…

Dangerous? Undoubtedly…

from the Oriole Post

Here’s an article I wrote for the DC Sports Box about Cal Ripken and his send-off, hope you enjoy..

***

Although the Washington D.C. Metropolitan area is pretty much awash with the red, white and blue of the Nationals, lest we forget many in the area for about four decades rooted, cheered and followed the Baltimore Orioles.

Our neighbors to the north have not had a lot to cheer about for the past decade, as the Orioles have had nine straight losing seasons, a dramatic decline attendance, and fan dissatisfaction towards owner Peter Angelos.

However, on Tuesday night before a match-up with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, fans got a chance to relive the glory days of the past as the Orioles honored Cal Ripken, Jr. in a “send-off to Cooperstown” celebration.

A crowd about 43,000 strong celebrated a universally-respected man who was not only a great baseball player, but also a part of Maryland heritage.

The crowd last night was boisterous, decked in black and orange, and you saw the number “8″ abound on jerseys, shirts and whatever else you could find.

With an elaborate display setup of a large inflatable jersey of Ripken’s number in center field, the number “2632” posted on the warehouse to commemorate the number of consecutive games that he played, along with a podium and seating in the infield, Tuesday was all about Cal.

Although the start time of the game was set back more than half-an-hour, dignitaries such as Baltimore mayor, Sheila Dixon; fellow Hall of Famers and former Orioles Eddie Murray, Brooks Robinson, and Earl Weaver were on hand to support and honor Cal Ripken.

Fans were shown a continuous loop of footage of the future Hall of Famer on the video screen in centerfield; therefore, as he was announced, Cal sat in a pristine Chevrolet Corvette as it drove along the warning track, waved to the crowd and tossed a few baseballs to a few lucky fans.

Like a scene out of a movie, fans watched and stood with amazement as they took photos, video and tried to get as close as they could to the field.

Cal addressed the crowd and spoke for about ten minutes with thoughts of his career, his upcoming induction to the Hall of Fame, and his work with kids via Ripken Baseball.

Afterwards, he threw out the first pitch of the ballgame to former teammate, Eddie Murray.
(more…)

By Brujo Blanco

“Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.” A. Conan Doyle

This quote is from one of the stories of Sherlock Holmes specifically from The Adventure of the Copper Beeches. It was written a long time ago but it exemplifies a point that I would like to make. When one is evaluating a crime being reported by the media one should be very careful about coming to conclusions. One should not assume that an investigation has been competently conducted and therefore should be accepted. A case in point is the legal riot now known as the Duke Lacrosse Case.

When a serious crime is committed there is a hue and cry for justice. In many cases justice rushed is justice denied. Essentially the cops get a complaint regarding an alleged racially motivated assault, a beheading, an explosion, or the murder of a child. As soon as the case hit’s the wire in a number of cases the investigative authorities lose control. Politicians and irate organizations may get involved. It has been demonstrated that someone at the top (keeping in mind that crap rolls downhill) is pushed on this type of case and then they push down the chain. Things happen that should not happen. For example, a political hack may tell a police commissioner to make an arrest within the week. If the commish has no scruples he will have an arrest made in that period of time right or wrong. You see when an arrest is made the pressure comes off prosecutors and coops substantially. When this malfunction of the system occurs we see other problems and one of them is rigid thinking. They have a suspect identified and an arrest is made. During the investigation it may be determined that they have the wrong guy or that there was no crime in the first place. Rigid thinking (or lack of thinking at all) pushes weak people in the system to stay the course even if it is wrong.

Let us take for example the situation with Richard Jewell at the 1996 Olympics. Jewell, a security guard, spotted a suspicious package and moved the public away from it and it ended up being a bomb. The FBI lacking a suspect identified Jewell as a ‘person of interest’. This is what I believe began a trend that I would consider irresponsible. Let me give you a hint: a person of interest is a suspect. It is a lazy cop or prosecutor’s tool in saying, “Well, we don’t have a good suspect but we have a person of interest.” Jewell was later determined to have been a hero, however, in the true pattern of the MSM this was not as newsworthy as Jewell having been a person of interest. The public, cops, and media focused on the crime and not the logic.

Then we have the situation with Dr. Steven Hatfill who worked at Ft Detrick, Maryland. He was identified as a person of interest in the alleged criminal use of anthrax. If you recall the stories they actually drained a pond looking for evidence in this case. They found nothing but they trashed the man in every other way. I have no opinion as to the Doc’s involvement in anything but I do regarding the mishandling of information. The problem is that the authorities should not be prematurely releasing information even if the public does not like it. The public, cops, and media focused on the crime and not the logic. There is a point, however, when the public should know what is going on.

I also believe that the Doyle quote may apply to the Scooter Libby case. It is universally a serious matter to out a covert intelligence agent. It ended up that Libby did not out an agent but was probably guilty of faulty memory. His case came down to are we to believe the faulty memories of the news media personnel that testified or the faulty memory of Libby. In this case there was a focus on the crime of outing a covert agent which ended up being a crime that did not occur. When I spoke to a number of my friends about this case they believe that he was convicted of outing a covert agent. Libby was convicted of lying not outing an agent. This is what the public is lead to believe. In fact it is known now that the prosecutor knew that there was no violation of law within days after beginning his duties, however, he did not have a defendant. I believe an ethical man would have dropped the case at that time. The public, cops, and media focused on the crime and not the logic.
(more…)

from Jerry Breen

from Curt at Flopping Aces

This is just incredible:

NEW YORK (AP) _ A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said. It was unclear if he was a student at the school. A message left at the Shmulevich home was not immediately returned.

The Islamic holy book was found in a toilet at Pace’s lower Manhattan campus by a teacher on Oct. 13. A student discovered another book in a toilet on Nov. 21, police said.

Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department’s hate crimes unit.

So someone can burn our nations flag and it’s not a hate crime.  It’s a form of expression.  That same person could throw a bible into a toilet and he would not be criminally charged.  But throw a koran into the toilet and your arrested for a FELONY:

First, Shmulevich was arrested and jailed for 24 hours. Second, he’s not facing misdemeanor charges—he’s being charged with two felonies, criminal mischief and aggravated harassment.

Felonies. For putting a book in a toilet.

Third, his income is on a borderline that disqualifies him for a public defender, so he stands to suffer incredible financial hardship as well.

Fourth, his name and photograph were published in several newspapers in New York, and he and his mother were ambushed outside the court by reporters. In a case like this, clearly with the potential to enrage radical Muslims, this is so irresponsible of the media that it borders on criminal.

CAIR is estatic and is quite possibly one of the main reasons why charges were brought forth in the first place.  Meanwhile this 23 year old is looking at prison time for expressing himself, he’s looking at financial ruin defending himself, and he’s looking at some serious violence coming his way from the fanatical Muslims amongst us.

But hey, burn our flag and he would have been patted on the back.  Put a cross in urine, get more pats and even some money for your effort.  How in the world can they justify felony charges against this man?

Please leave a comment with the university here.  We need to make a stink about this.  While I disagree mightedly with those who burn our flag I recognize this as a form of free speech, as this act is.  Charles at LGF set Mr. Shmulevich up with an account and he is asking for some legal advice.  If your a lawyer please visit there and see if you can help.

Oh, btw….where is the ACLU?

By DICK MORRIS

It took more than a decade of constant agitation for the elderly to win the right to charge their prescription medications to Medicare. Republican reluctance to spend the money combined with a Democratic willingness to put off action so as to keep the issue in partisan play. The result was that it took a Republican president to undo the political knot and pass a plan that finally offered senior citizens some relief.

We are now watching House Democrats play the same partisan game with the renewal of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires on Sept. 30. Meanwhile, the Senate on the one hand and President Bush on the other appear to have crafted a generous extension of the program that may now fall prey to the House Democratic desire to provoke a presidential veto — and the children be damned!

Bush opened the game by proposing a $5 billion expansion of the program to cover more children and to limit the focus of the program to child health insurance. This highly successful program, initiated in the middle of the Clinton administration, has now succeeded in reducing the proportion of uncovered children to less than 10 percent (many of whom could get Medicaid if their parents bothered to apply). States have moved to use the program to expand coverage of adults without insurance and the Bush administration wished to restrict the practice.

But the Senate went further and is pushing a $35 billion program, financed by an increase of at least 60 cents in the federal cigarette tax. The extra money would bring the five-year cost to $60 billion. Crafted by Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (Utah) along with Democrats Max Baucus (Mont.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the plan would make child coverage virtually universal and permit states to access food stamp and other assistance program data to locate uncovered children and bring them into the program. But it would restrict the coverage of adults.

Raising the tobacco levy is a good thing to do anyway, even if you don’t need the money. A higher cigarette tax has been demonstrably shown to cut teen smoking, and the increase, which would bring the total levy to $1 per pack, is a good step to improve national healthcare. (more…)

from Curt at Flopping Aces

You really have to see this video to believe.  It’s an interview of CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper in which he attempts to defend suing normal "John Does" who call in a suspicious person alert to authorities.  At one point he likens these "John Does" to Grand Wizards of the KKK and on another says to the host that maybe someday we will get a muslim-free flight but not today.  Race-baiting at its finest. 

He goes on to say that all they want to do is ask a question to the "John Does".  Of course that question costs these innocent good samaritans money and time to defend themselves against an frivolous lawsuit.

Remember….I DON’T CAIR!

by Regina Sztajer

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror as a means of repression. January 30, 1933, signaled the onset of a Nazi revolution in Germany which began with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power and a torchlight parade. A month later the Reichstag was consumed by flames ending the rule of the Weimar Republic. In April of that year the German Students Association announced an action against the un-German spirit, to cleanse Germany of liberal and decadent elements in German life. Students burned about 25,000 books, which began state censorship and the control of their culture.

The students described the action as a response to a worldwide Jewish smear campaign against Germany. With joyous celebration students threw books into a blazing bonfire chanting:
” People to arms! For Hitler, for freedom, for work, for bread, Germany awake! Death to Jewry! People to arms!” ( Fighting the Fire of Hate: America and the Nazi Book Burnings, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.) German culture had been purified by fire.

German authors were blacklisted, a great number were Jewish and American Jewish groups, writers and scholars recognized the ominous intent of the Nazi culture war. In New York City there was a massive demonstration on May 10, 1933. “Where one burns books, one will soon burn people,” wrote Heinrich Heine a nineteenth century German writer. ( Daily Worker Chicago May 11, 1933.)

American and worldwide reaction was too little and too late and six million Jews died in the Holocaust during World War II. The Nazi’s were true to their word and Holocaust is destruction by fire and terrorism by genocide. What began with a bonfire of books led to mass destruction of humans in Nazi crematoriums in death camps across Europe. (more…)

by Kathy

A so called “legal expert” Jean Edward Smith has proposed that the number of justices on the Supreme Court be expanded because the current court makeup does not meet his ideological agenda. Democrats were all too happy to have the court majority for decades voting in favor of their liberal agenda and now that the court has shifted back to the right they are looking for ways to re-stack the deck.

The number of justices on the Supreme Court should be increased because the “current five-man [conservative] majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values,” a legal expert has proposed, sparking debate and criticism.

“When a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics,” Jean Edward Smith, a biographer and political science professor at Marshall University, wrote in the New York Times Thursday.

Smith said Congress has various means at its disposal to impose a degree of control over the courts, including impeachment of justices, limiting court jurisdiction, and altering the number of Supreme Court justices. (source)

We know what he means by “impose a degree of control over the courts”, change it back to a liberal activist court . Others agree:

Quin Hillyer, senior editor for The American Spectator, also criticized Smith’s suggestion.”For decades, the left has thought that the Supreme Court belonged to them almost as if by natural right,”

“The left is apoplectic at the idea that they don’t get to dictate what I would call mis-interpretation of the Constitution anymore.”

He also criticized Smith’s assertion that the size of the Supreme Court could be perpetually mutable, saying that “having the size of the court be stable is a good thing. Governmental structure should not be changed at a whim. (more…)

by Frederick Meekins

“Dark Lord: The Rise Of Darth Vader” by James Luceno follows the exploits of the legendary Sith Lord as he hunts down a band of Jedi escaping the fate of their brethren as a result of a regiment of clonetroopers that refuse to implement order 66.

Towards the end of “Return Of The Jedi”, Darth Vader turns on the Emperor and hefts the villain to his fate at the bottom of some kind energy reactor. However, from “Dark Lord: The Rise Of Darth Vader“, readers learn that this was not necessarily the result of a sudden change of heart upon seeing Palpatine hurl lightening from his fingertips at little Luke.

Rather, it slowly unfolds throughout the novel that the relationship Vader has with the Emperor is not that of a worshipful underling but instead that of a resentful sycophant wanting what his superior possesses.

“Star Wars” fans will enjoy seeing the unfolding development of familiar characters rising to prominence in the years between the two trilogies such as Chewbacca, Grand Moff Tarkin, R2D2 and C-3P0. Also of interest to devoted Star Wars fans will be the prominence given to Kashyyyk and the Wookies in the novel’s climax.

Though “Star Wars” is known more for its faced paced action than its more cerebral counterpart “Star Trek“, “Dark Lord” is not without profound reflective moments relevant to the chaotic times in which we live.

In an exchange with Bail Organa of Alderan, Vader muses, “Harmony is the ideal of the New Order, Senator, not dissension.” And in another insightful passage, the text reads, “The ideals of democracy hadn’t been stamped out by Palpatine … the citizens of countless worlds and star systems, grown weary of the old system, had allowed democracy to die (319).” (more…)

by Kathy

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and its president Trita Parsi plan to organize a panel in the US House of Representatives on July 26th, 2007, titled “Human Rights in Iran and US Foreign Policy Options” . According to the published agenda, representatives from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will participate

(from agenda)
Alex Arriaga, Deputy Director for Advocacy and Director of Government Relations; Amnesty International
Joe Stork, Deputy Director, Middle East and North Africa; Human Rights Watch
Laura Secor; The New Yorker magazine
David Denehy (Invited), Senior Advisor; U.S. Department of State
Dr. John Tirman; Executive Director, Center for International Studies; Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Moderator: Trita Parsi, President, National Iranian American Council

The sponsors of the program (NIAC and Trita Parsi) are key players in the lobby enterprise of Tehran’s ayatollahs in the United States. The Iranian regime’s violations of human rights have reached unprecedented levels. Its barbaric suppression of women, workers, students and dissidents, and the stoning of a man after 11 years of imprisonment, have been the subject of broad international condemnation. The reason Iran’s lobby is organizing the program is twofold:

1. To present “human rights” as a negotiating item on the “engagement” table with hopes to have human rights entities argue for Tehran-friendly rapprochement, easing of sanctions and tolerance of a nuclear Iran. In a nut shell, the lobby’s message is that the more West pressures the regime, the more violent it becomes, hence, lift the pressure.

2. To uphold the Ayatollahs’ friends and inner circles in control of international reaction to Tehran’s human rights abuses.

The Iranian regime’s lobby has continuously tried to justify the Iran’s clerical behavior and especially its record of human rights violations, by arguing that its cause are external factors and US coercive policies. If the Iranian American scholars are arrested, blame the US administration for allocating funds for Iranian activists. If Ahmadinejad has embarked on a policy of total repression inside the country and antagonism abroad, the blame is on US administration for the famous axis of evil speech and not supporting Khatami.

Ahmadinejad hold the Holocaust conference and declared that “Israel should be wiped off from the map”, Trita Parsi and his cohorts not only did not condemn this anti-Iranian and anti-humanity act, but launched a campaign directed by Siamak Namazi (Parsi’s main partner in Tehran) to blame the fault on “neocon” media which intentionally misinterpreted Ahmadinejad’s declarations .

The lobby’s PR tactic on human rights issue in Iran is best presented in Trita Parsi’s own declarations. In 2005, he called for linking improvement of the human rights situation in Iran to guarantee of security of the mullahs and the lifting of sanctions.

“While the world has focused on discussions over Tehran’s nuclear capability, human rights in Iran have suffered severe setbacks…..With the rest of the world distracted by the nuclear issue, anti-democratic forces in Iran have clamped down on the Iranian democracy movement……. For Tehran, a nuclear arsenal is only really useful as a deterrent against possible US aggression. Iran does not need a nuclear deterrent against any other Middle Eastern country. …. Only security guarantees from the US, as part of a broader political arrangement, can convince Iran to agree to lasting compromises in the nuclear area.”

The mullahs’ message in this article is clear: If the west does not guarantee their uninterrupted rule (“security”) by providing ample financial resources (elimination of sanctions) and allowing an unimpeded path to super power status through development of nuclear capabilities, the regime will continue to suppress, kill and torture the Iranian people.

Binding accountability for Iran’s barbaric suppression of the population to nuclear issues and Iran’s meddling in Iraq per the demands of their US lobby, does the bidding of the ruling ayatollahs. The participation of international human rights organizations in this charade would be a grave mistake. (source)

We need only look at today’s headlines coming out of Iran to see examples of increased Human Rights abuses and oppression of the Iranian people; some examples here and here. This organization is pushing the belief that if “we be nice to them that they will be nice to their people”.

The Iranian government crackdown on dress code and the detention of activists for months without filing charges is not caused by sanctions, but instead implementation of extremist Islamic law upon the Iranian society.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have no business attending a conference that is holding up basic human rights as a bargaining chip.

by Kathy

The House of Representatives and its list of earmarks are in.. reaching a grand total of 1,776.

Porkbusters has the list of earmarks by Representative and who has the most requests…

The short list of the porkiest (is that a word) representatives:

1. Young, C.W. Bill -59
2. Murtha, John – 46
3. Lewis, Jerry – 38
4. Moran, James – 30
5. Visclosky, Peter – 28

You can find the complete list here.