by Regina Sztajer

A Los Angeles Times editorial insisted that “such core American principals as academic freedom and freedom of speech “were shown” to be disrespect by critics of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejah’s speech’s at Columbia University and the United Nations General Assembly this past week.(www.townhall.com 9/28/07 Jonah Goldberg.) But free speech has nothing to do with this devious dictator. Not every controversial statement is a free-speech issue. A time honored saying about the subject has been, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” (www.townhall.com 9/28/07.) If someone no matter who has an opinion that is downright wrong and dangerous it is cowardly to defend them. For example, Colorado Professor Ward Churchill compared the victims of 9/11 to Holocaust planner Adolf Eichmann and he was applauded for the right to academic freedom of speech and kept his tenured job at the taxpayer’s expense. Finally cooler heads prevailed and he got the boot!!!

Ahmadinejad is not truthful and his lies are dangerous to an extent. He came to Columbia University and the United Nations for the purpose of spreading Islamic propaganda as the dictator of an aggressive regime. He is a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebels all rolled into one. The anti- Bush crowd felt he was demonizing the Iranian regime and Columbia University academia wanted to douse the flames. It backfired because it was not freedom of speech the university was considering but rather they were dabbling in foreign policy creating a great deal of controversy. Ahmadinejad complained Columbia University President Lee Bollinger’s speech had contained “insults” and amounted to “unfriendly treatment.”( www.iht.com 9/28/207 Associated Press.)

Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and is supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with deadly weapons that are killing U.S. troops and they complain America is a bully. His propaganda rhetoric was to extol his vision of Islamic global domination. He rejected the UN Security Council’s authority to force Iran to stop its illicit nuclear weapons program, he champion’s the Palestinian cause and destruction of Israel, and also continues his denial of Iranian support for terrorism and attacks on U.S. troops. He even insists Iranian women have full rights in their nation and there are no homosexuals in their country!!!!!

He boasted of his vision of a global Islamic domination which could not co-exist with western civilization and the subject was non- negotiable!!! His pursuit of nuclear energy was done in the name of Islam and was therefore legitimate. Refusing to allow Islam the pursuit of nuclear energy was an assault on GOD he insisted. His case for Islamic supremacy was……

1. After WW 11, ” the victors of the war drew the road maps for global domination and formulated their policies on the basis of justice but it was really for ensuring the interests over the vanquished nations.” He ignored the Marshall Plan with which both Germany and Japan rebuilt and economically returned to become a member nations of the United Nations. He twists facts to suit his propaganda!!!!!

2. “The second and more important factor is some big powers “disregard of morals, divine values, the teaching of prophets and instruction by the Almighty GOD…Unfortunately they have put themselves in the position of God!” (www.real politics 9/29/07 Caroline Glick.) What he does not say is that Islam was the cradle of civilization and then stopped to achieve and modernize while the rest of the world grew and prospered while they stagnated. Now they suffer from an extreme case of jealousy for the success of the world at large and wants to continue the reign of terror to take over the world by intimidation.

Iran, al-Qaida, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbolah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fundamentalist groups all have one goal for global domination of the world beginning with the destruction of the State of Israel. Christians, Jews and secular Muslims are infidels and should expect death because only Muslims who accept their ideals are not infidels will survive. Moderate Islamic regimes are in danger as well and Osama -Laden has called for a Jihad by Pakistanis against the President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf. The west must not ignore these terrorists groups and Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man. Islamic fundamentalism has been trying to become a world power for 1300 years using terrorism to try to conquer the world. We must learn from the mistakes of 1939, when we ignored Hitler’s ranting’s and the Jews suffered a Holocaust and the world was in inflames.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

This is a perfect example of the lefts attempt to stick every single Americans head into the sand, to bring back the days of appeasement, to bring back an American Chamberlain and "be great again."  Because you see dear reader, the days in which we pretended there was no evil, that there was no one who wanted us all dead or enslaved, were the days when we were "great."

Sigh….

Times columnists are not allowed to endorse candidates, but there’s no rule against saying who will not get my vote: I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don’t need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12. I will only vote for the 9/12 candidate.

What does that mean? This: 9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. For me, the candidate of 9/12 is the one who will not only understand who our enemies are, but who we are….

We can’t afford to keep being this stupid! We have got to get our groove back. We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy. Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12, we are about the Fourth of July — which is why I hope that anyone who runs on the 9/11 platform gets trounced.

Nevermind that we stuck our heads in the sand for 22 years prior to 9/11.  Didn’t work out so well did it?  But ok,  why worry about that when we could just build a hospital for Cubans.  That will fix everything:

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

There it is, we should care more about what people think of our country rather then protecting our country.  A perfect illustration of your typical lefties thinking process. 

Now be careful with the following passage, do not drink any fluid while reading or you may ruin your computer monitor:

I just attended the China clean car conference, where Chinese automakers were boasting that their 2008 cars will meet “Euro 4” — European Union — emissions standards. We used to be the gold standard. We aren’t anymore.

Yeah, China cares soooooo much about the environment.  Why can’t we be just like them Daddy?

So Thomas Friedman longs for the days when illegal immigration is not worried about, when Osama and al-Qaeda isn’t worried about, when terrorism as a whole isn’t worried about.  4,000 Americans dead…..so what, they couldn’t possibly do that again could they?

Sep 13, 2001 Paris embassy attack (foiled)
Fall of 2001, anthrax attacks in US
Dec 22, 2001 Reid the Shoe Bomber tries to take down airline
Dec 2001, Singapore US and EU embassy attacks (foiled)
Oct 2002, Bali Bombings
Oct 23, 2002, Moscow Theatre attack
Dec 21, 2002, Kurnool, India train attack
Dec 27, 2001, Chechen Parliament Bombing
May 12, 2003 Riyadh Compound Bombings
May 16, 2003, Casablanca Bombings
Feb 6, 2004, Moscow Metro Bombing
March 11, 2004, Madrid Train Bombings
May 29, 2004, al-Kohbar Complex massacre in Saudi Arabia
Sep 1, 2004, Beslan School Massacre
Jul 7, 2005, London 7/7 bombings of Underground trains and buses
Jul 23, 2005, Bombings of Egyptian tourist sites
Oct 13, 2005, Coordinated Chechen attacks across multiple Russian government buildings
Oct 29, 2005, Delhi India bombings
Nov 9, Amman Jordan Bombings
Jul 11, 2006, Mumbai, India train bombings
Jul 31, Train bombings in Dortmund and Koblenz, Germany (foiled)
Aug 10,. 2006, Massive trans-atlantic airline bomb plot foiled in UK
Jun 2007, London car bombs (foiled) and Glasgow car bomb attack

(h/t The Strata-Sphere)

I’m just glad that Americans didn’t listen to the Thomas Friedmans of the world after December 7th, 1941.  They were out there to be sure, but they were marginalized, as this man should be.  We have enemies who wish to see us gone, sticking your head in the sand will not make them go away.  Taking precautions against further attacks and then taking the fight to them will.

by Kathy

You’d think that the girl was applying to start a heroin injecting room or something, perhaps a brothel or a porn shop, the way they’re carrying on over it. You can bet your backside if it had been a pro-abortion group, they’d have found a way to accommodate!!

A Stafford County high school student is suing the county’s school system for refusing to let her start an anti-abortion club. The conservative Alliance Defense Fund is representing the student, who is not named in the lawsuit because she’s a minor claiming her constitutional rights were violated. Alliance Defense Fund lawyer David Cortman says the school should immediately permit the formation of the “pro-life club.”

Colonial Forge High School Principal Lisa Martin denied the request for the club, saying it doesn’t relate to the curriculum. In a letter to the student, Martin said the family life curriculum prohibits teachers from discussing abortion. But Cortman says the school has other clubs that don’t appear to be directly linked with studies, like the Young Republicans and Young Democrats. FOXNews.

Er Principal Martin… you know those kids that you are supposed to teach and model to become tomorrow’s leaders and good citizens, they were once babies you know. And this might come as a tremendous shock to you, but before that they were in their mother’s wombs, and if they had been aborted, they wouldn’t be in your school. Stay with me now Principal Martin, I know it’s confusing but focus dammit, if they aren’t in your school, there wouldn’t be any need for you, you’d be out of a job, hanging around the local dumpster perhaps.

So it’s in your best interests to encourage people to have more children, not less. And if that doesn’t get through your titanium-thick skull, think of it this way, pro-life means encouraging human life and just so you know most parents, you know the ones that brought your pupils into the world, and normal folks are in favor of human life.

I waited to post about this because I wanted to be able to see the whole transcript instead of the cherry picked portions the left used to get their readers all up in arms.

The transcript can be found at The Rush Limbaugh website:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today?

RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.

CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there’s actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war?

RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don’t want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can’t think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement.

CALLER: I’m not talking about the senators. I’m talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose –

RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can’t handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I’m not also hitting Republicans? I don’t know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.

CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you’re right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don’t think it’s winnable. I’m not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you’re wrong.

RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I’m not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag.

CALLER: I’m not saying that, I’m not saying anything like that.

RUSH: Of course you are.

CALLER: No, I’m not!

RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike.

CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let’s get out of there and let’s be done with it. We won it.

RUSH: I’m never going to be able to retire. It’s not going to work. You are depressing me.

CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts.

RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can’t believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you’ve heard me say what I’m going to say to you. War is never “plottable” on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it’s going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing.

CALLER: That’s true.

RUSH: Thank you. So what’s happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can’t cave in defeat and run out of there and say, “Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam.” We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we’re just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost.

CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we’re going to have to be there to take care of it?

RUSH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can’t be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.
(more…)

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

But I thought there was nothing wrong with FISA the way it was set up in the 70′s?  Could these soldiers lives had been saved?
I guess we will never know.  But we do know that for over 12 hours intelligence agencies couldn’t get an emergency warrant to listen in on the kidnappers of three American soldiers. 

A rundown of the times by ABC:

May 12, 2007: :Three US solider were reported missing and believed to have been captured by Iraqi insurgents…SIGINT [signal intelligence] assets responded by dedicating all available resources to obtaining intelligence concerning the attack."

13& 14th: Intelligence community began to develop leads.

May 15: 10:00am "key US agencies met to discuss options for colleting additional intelligence."

10:52am: "NSA notified..DOJ of its desire to collect communications that require a FISA order…it was determined some FISA coverage already existed."

12:53pm to 5:15pm :"Administration lawyers and intelligence officials discussed various legal and operational issues associated with the surveillance."

5:15pm: DOJ’s FISA Office the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) received a call formally requesting emergency authority to conduct surveillance."

5:30pm: "The OIPR attorney on duty attempted to reach the Solicitor General who was the Acting Attorney General while Attorney General Gonzales was addressing a United States Attorney’s Conference in Texas. However the Solicitor General had left for the day and the decision was made to attempt to reach Attorney General in Texas."

OIPR contacted DOJ command center and requested to locate the Attorney General. "After Several telephone calls with the staff accompanying the Attorney General, the OIPR lawyers were able to speak directly with the Attorney General and brief him on the fact of the emergency request."

" At 7:18pm, the Attorney General authorized the requested surveillance, the Justice Department attorney’s immediately notified the FBI."

"At 7:28pm, the FBI notified the key intelligence agencies and personnel of the approval."

"At 7:38pm, surveillance began."

And here is Powerline’s take on the argument that the 72 hour rule should allow the eavesdropping:

Seattle Slough claims that FISA allows eavesdropping to happen with a warrant applied for 72 hours later. So that should take care of it, then, he asserts.

Wrong. And when I say wrong, understand I am not 100% sure of this, but I’m pretty sure he’s wrong. The old law permits the AG and the AG only (well, I guess the President too) to authorize this "emergency authorization" to permit eavedropping without court-issued warrant. However, the law requires the eavesdropping stop until this emergency authorization is approved, and furthermore, the law requires those seeking the authorization to determine all necessary facts to the extent possible (that these are foreigners not entitled to full Constitutional protections, that time is of the essence, etc.) and make a detailed case with a fully supported paper trail for later review.

So no, Seattle, I don’t think it’s the case you can just continue eavesdropping and take all the time you like to apply for that warrant 72 hours later. I believe the law requires extensive and time-consuming pseudo-warrant-applications just to get the emergency authorization in order to continue the eavesdropping until the warrant is actually secured.

This is just further evidence that FISA needs to be dismantled piece by piece.

UPDATE

Ace with some great commentary on a typical lefty tactic:

Confronted with the bad outcomes caused by their ridiculous laws, Democrats always seem to argue, basically, that people should ignore the law when necessary. They insinuated that when the DoJ determined it did not have legal cause to examine Zaccharias Moussaui’s laptop without a warrant, for example: They should have just had the foresight to know they should ignore the law and search for 9/11 plots on that laptop.

This is not a tolerable view of the law nor how the law should function. True enough, there will be cases where any sane man will ignore the law when life hangs in the balance. But the Democrats just continue to pander to their paranoid BDS MoveOn voters with very restrictive and impractical laws, and then just parry criticisms of these laws away with vague insinuations that soldiers and CIA operatives ought to be brave enough to risk their careers in ignoring the laws they’ve made when "appropriate." "Appropriate" being defined as when it turns out, in the perfect clarity of hindsight, that their laws cost human lives.

Your damned if you do and damned if you don’t type of argument.  Lets put up walls of paper and authorizations to eavesdrop on foreign calls but when its found that those restrictions caused many people to lose their lives they then insist that the intelligence agencies should of just been smarter, or more thorough.  You know, like in the movies.

Sigh….

by Haider Ajina

Life returns to normal in al-Mutanabbi St. after curfew lifted

Baghdad, Sept 23, ( Voices of Iraq) – Many Iraqi intellectuals and writers rejoiced at the Iraqi government’s decision lifting a long-imposed curfew on Baghdad’s al-Mutanabbi Street on Friday afternoons that aimed at putting an end to attacks against worshippers.

Al-Mutanabbi Street , named after one of the greatest Arab poets, was once the center of Baghdad ‘s intellectual and literary life. In March 2007, a car bomb was detonated in the poet’s street, killing 30 book merchants, buyers, and publishers, and wounding dozens others. The blast also destroyed many buildings and bookstores, including al-Maktabah al-Asriyya [The modern bookstore], the oldest of its kind in al-Mutannabi, in addition to al-Shabandar Café, considered by many as one of Baghdad ‘s most famous landmarks.

In an interview with the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI), Fadil Thamir, the head of Iraqi Writers’ Union , said, “The lifting of the curfew will help restore the cultural life to the street.”

The curfew put an end to all cultural activities and gatherings in al-Mutanabbi and prevented scores of Iraqi intellectuals from practicing their Friday morning habit of buying books from the street.

“The terrorist attack that ripped through the street a few months ago targeted the Iraqi mind and a great cultural symbol (the street),” Thamir indicated.

Suheil Najm, a translator and writer, said that Iraqi culture will flourish despite all security, social, and political complications. “The existence of al-Mutanabbi is an indication of Iraqi cultural cohesion.”

Meanwhile, Nasir Falih, an Iraqi poet, said that the lifting of the curfew that had been imposed on Friday afternoons demonstrates a remarkable improvement in the security situation in the capital.

“This means life has returned to normal in the street,” he noted.

Describing the street as “one of the main victims of the new situation in Iraq,” Ali al-Fawwaz, an Iraqi poet and critic, said that the street’s literary cafes have turned into a political battlefield, given its location in the hot spot stretching from al-Bab al-Muazzam neighborhood, al-Fadl, Bab al-Sheikh to al-Maydan.

“Restoring cultural life to al-Mutanabbi means restoring life to all of Baghdad ‘s streets and alleys,” al-Fawwaz concluded.

From MNF-Iraq

Pushing the bad guys out

Thursday, 27 September 2007

East of Ramadi, an Iraqi Policeman marches through a field in Abu Bali during a sweep for insurgents in clearance missions. Photo taken by U.S. Army Spc. Ricardo Branch 1st BCT Public Affairs.BAGHDAD — A year ago the area to the east of Ramadi was a haven for insurgents who attacked the city. These days much has changed in the surrounding rural lands of the east.

The once violent lands of the east are patrolled and guarded by the Abu-Bali Iraqi Police (IP) and Soldiers from Company A, 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment. Their latest mission was a joint operation, which gathered intelligence and pushed insurgents further from the city of Ramadi and its outlying towns.

“Today, we did routine clearance missions east of Ramadi,” said 1st Lt. Cory Sharbo, a platoon leader with Co. A, 3-69 Armor. “Normally we work alongside the IP, but today we’re only here to supervise.”
(more…)

Today’s enemy is Democratic presidential candidate and bonafide phony John Edwards. In this article from the Washington Post, Edwards chides fellow candidate Hillary Clinton for demonstrating some semblance of sensibility by stating that she would keep combat forces in Iraq if elected President.

Edwards has campaigned on the premise that he would unequivocally withdraw all American military forces from the Iraq theater within a few months.

What does this mean? Well, Edwards is essentially telegraphing our surrender to terrorists. Furthermore, he’s handing a huge ideological victory to the violent Islam in the form of an all-important recruiting tool.

Thanks John. Thanks for espousing weakness and defeatism; all to appease the dangerous Leftist Netroots elements. You’re securing our defeat in the region merely to satisfy a few loudmouths with no connection to reality.

Moreover, you’re basically conveying to Iran that 1.) their nuclear ambitions cannot be stopped, for this country lacks the fortitude and will to halt these objectives; 2.) they can have free reign in the Middle East as a Shia hegemony.

Here’s the complete article:

Edwards vs. Clinton on Ending the War

In one of the sharpest cuts taken at Hillary Clinton in last night’s Democratic debate at Dartmouth College, John Edwards criticized the senator from New York for stating recently that she planned to keep some combat forces in Iraq for years to come. “I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq,” Edwards said, referring to Clinton’s remarks on the political talk shows. “To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq. When I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee come fall 2008 I’m going to make clear I’m for ending the war.”

Edwards’ hope was to paint Clinton as a hawk who would not deliver the clean break from President Bush’s Iraq policy that most Democratic voters long for. But is Edwards’ thinking on Iraq really all that much different? Even as he attacks Clinton for her plan to “continue combat missions,” he has made clear in recent months that after pulling troops out of Iraq, he would leave some behind in the region — most likely Kuwait — for the express purpose of conducting targeted combat missions inside Iraq, whether to attack Al Qaeda strongholds, quell a genocide or protect the U.S. Embassy. In a Sept. 7 speech in lower Manhattan in which he laid out his counter-terrorism platform, Edwards said, “Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, I will redeploy forces, troops, into quick reaction forces outside of Iraq to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent genocide or a regional spillover of civil war.”

Is there really much difference between having such a quick reaction force stationed in a remote base in the Iraqi desert versus having it just across the country’s border in Kuwait? The Edwards campaign argues there is — Clinton’s troops stationed inside Iraq would be greater risk of attack, would loom as provocative symbols of a lingering “occupation,” and would inevitably get drawn into fighting much like they are engaged in today. Edwards’ envisioned combat missions for troops stationed elsewhere would be far more narrowly defined, the campaign says.

“Senator Clinton keeps combat troops in Iraq. That means she continues the war,” Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said today. “John Edwards will end the war. Being just a little bit better than the Republicans is not a good enough reason to be President of the United States.”

The debate shows no sign of fading. Edwards was pressed on the finer points of his plan today by an eighth-grader at a New Hampshire school, who asked Edwards why he couldn’t guarantee that all U.S. forces would be out of Iraq by the end of the next president’s first term. “Last night, I watched the debate and Congressman Kucinich said he would end the war in three months and you said it would take a whole term, and I was wondering why,” said the student, James Harvard, according to the Associated Press. Edwards responded that the United States has troops in many parts of the world for various purposes, and that some forces might have to remain in Iraq. But, returning to his distinction vis a vis Clinton, he said that the key was combat troops — and that he would have those out of Iraq “in about nine months.”

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

Orin Kerr:

District Judge Ann Aiken of the United States District Court in Oregon has just handed down a surprising opinion striking down parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and specifically 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, as facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

I would add:

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Oregon
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 7, 1997

Just another opinion that will be overturned once again by the Supreme Court.  We all know the 9th won’t overturn it but the Supremes will.

UPDATE

Orin with his thoughts on the ruling:

My tentative bottom line: I found Judge Aiken’s decision unpersuasive on the question of Article III standing. On the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue, I think the law is just too murky to call this one way or the other: Judge Aiken’s result appears plausible, although so does the contrary result embraced in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Shameful is the word that came to mind after reading this report from Newsday. In it, “The Senate on Wednesday approved a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, a move aimed at bringing additional economic pressure on Iran.”

On the surface, this is an all-important win for Western Civilization. Despite roadblocks from the Left, Russia, China, and the United Nations; as well as ramblings from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country DOES see the dangers originating from Persia. The country DOES recognize that Iran IS waging a proxy war against our soldiers, and has been since 1979.

Yet, the Democrats, so foolhardy and shameful in their pandering, refuse to classify an Iranian paramilitary group as a terrorist organization. INSTEAD, they pander to the Left-wing loonies who abhor any military conflict, regardless of the rationale. Furthermore, they refuse to chide the Iranians MERELY due to their hatred of President Bush and all-things RIGHT.

Shameful…

Note some of the rhetoric from the Left:

“Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was among those voting against the amendment. Dodd referred to the 2002 congressional vote authorizing the use of force that led to President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq: ‘We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this president again,’ Dodd said in a statement.”
“Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., branded the Lieberman-Kyl measure as Vice President Dick Cheney’s ‘fondest pipe dream.’”

Rather than defend our young men and women serving in Iraq and subsequently hurt by Iranian-made IED’s, they stab the military in the back ONCE AGAIN.

Not only are the Democrats advocating defeat, assuring the terrorists a valuable propaganda victory, they are also guaranteeing regional supremacy on behalf of the Iranians.

Here’s the complete article:

Senate approves Lieberman resolution on Iran
By ANDREW MIGA | Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Wednesday approved a resolution urging the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, a move aimed at bringing additional economic pressure on Iran.
The measure passed 76-22.
The proposal by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support. But a small group of Democrats said they feared that labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was among those voting against the amendment. Dodd referred to the 2002 congressional vote authorizing the use of force that led to President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

Comptroller Peter Franchot unleashed this criticism of the O’Malley tax plan this week:

State Comptroller Peter Franchot criticized government leaders this week by saying it would be “reckless” to add $2 billion of tax burdens in a special session before December revenue estimates can show whether the economy is tanking.

The volatility of the local, state and world economies – and the lack of analysis in the budget plans put forward so far by Gov. Martin O’Malley – have Mr. Franchot concerned the administration is not fully considering the effects of new taxes.
The governor’s piecemeal rollout of the different tax options to address a projected $1.7 billion deficit next year has made it difficult to see how all the proposals fit together, he told The Capital’s Editorial Board this week.

“We have an opportunity to reform the tax code and instead we have treated it a little bit like a take-out menu,” he said. “It’s just not comprehensive or inclusive (and) ultimately I don’t think it ends up being fair.”

Read the whole thing, but I ask you this: is this the start of Peter Franchot’s primary challenge to Governor O’Malley in 2010?

The left is jumping over a report out of Spain that they say affirms their belief that Bush was going to go into Iraq no matter what happens:

According to a new report published today by El Pais, Spain’s largest daily newspaper, Bush told then-Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the time that he was going to invade Iraq no matter what happened. Spanish speakers can read the transcript of their discussion — I’m a little rusty — but E&P has a report on the revelations.

El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The conversation took place on the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain’s ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq in March “if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not…. We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March.”

He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s good cop.

According to the transcript, Aznar asked Bush to be more patient and emphasized the importance of a U.N. resolution. The president said he was out of patience. Aznar said he was worried that Bush was overly optimistic about what would happen. Bush reportedly said, “I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself.” Barcepundit:

Editor and Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious.

[...]What it says is that the US would be in Iraq in mid-March whether there was a second UN resolution or not, one that Bush said he would try to get by all means, which is an entirely different matter. As everybody knows, there’s certainly a debate on whether the first resolution was enough or not -many reputable experts think it was, though there’s not unanimity on this, certainly. But the issue is different.

Oh, the first resolution was most definitely enough, there was no need for a second resolution and Bush knew this. 

Here is his translation:

[Bush: Saddam won't change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That's it. As for me, from now on I'll try to use the softest rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that by then Saddam is dead or has flown. But these possibilities won’t exist until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there are big chances that he’ll get killed.

We’d like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do with great precision and focalizing our targets to the biggest degree. We’ll decimate the loyal troops and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. … We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are working already in the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies. — note: my emphasis and translation]

Interesting that Saddam wanted to take his WMD plans huh?  I mean if we are to believe the left then Saddam really never wanted WMD’s and any WMD program he had was no danger to anyone.  But here he is insisting that he wanted to take his WMD plans with him.

Wonder why that would be?  Sigh….

Barcepundit also notes that the correct translation depicts Bush as someone who DID NOT want war, he was no warmongerer:

["I don't want war. I know what wars are like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wifes of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars" — again, my emphasis and translation]

The translations shows us the exact opposite of what the left is telling us it says, unfortunately for them.  But I find it curious that the Zapatero administration would leak this info to a paper sympathetic to their cause.  Why now?  A bit late in the game isn’t it since the Democrats will not pull the troops out and run like cowards, no matter how much they want to, and Bush isn’t running for a third term as President.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Yahoo News’ Opinion Writer Robert Scheer is the latest liberal to espouse defeatism while exhorting the “colonialism” of the United States in this article.

The Twin Cities Conservative though you might get a chuckle (for laughter is the best medicine) out of the mindless, elitist rhetoric demonstrated by the out-of-touch Scheer.

Let’s review a few of the author’s inane remarks:

First, right off the bat, he targets the Bush administration for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, presumably, in his opinion, without any provocation. Scheer and his Leftist friends typify the conception that 9/11 has been forgotten; furthermore, they conveniently forget that President Clinton, the United Nations, and several global intelligence agencies believed Saddam Hussein to either possess WMD or developing a clandestine weapons program.

They forget this fact. They expediently forget that double-digit UN Resolutions that Saddam violated that called for actionable force.

Furthermore, Scheer and his cronies forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (mostly Shia and Kurd) that were butchered by Saddam’s death squads. They conveniently lose their memory regarding the use of chemical weapons on his civilians and Iranian soldiers (during the 80’s) that violated international weapons bans.

Second, this is how whacky the author is: he chides Democratic Senator Joe Biden for being a “hawk.” Uh, yeah…right. Biden, like a vast majority of his Leftist brethren, have been espousing surrender in the form of “cut and run” for many months now.

Third, Scheer denounces the United States for blatant colonialism. In his words, our military is developing weapons, vehicles, etc. for an ongoing “occupation” of Iraq: “This leader of the loyal opposition rises not to criticize Caesar, but to one-up him. The panic button that Bush is using this time is the need for more MRAPs, fortified troop carriers that cost a million bucks apiece but evidently provide better protection against roadside bombs. Bush wants to spend about a quarter of the new money on the rapid production of MRAPs — a mere $12 billion. But that’s not good enough for Biden, who introduced legislation to increase spending on MRAPs by $23.6 billion, arguing, ‘We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines.’”

Note the last line: “we have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines.” Here’s where the Left displays its true colors. Predictably, they abhor the military…in their collective minds, they’re nothing more than baby-killers, committing atrocities, and butchering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians while plundering countries like Iraq and Afghanistan of their natural resources.

Give me a break…

Here’s the complete article:

More Money Down the Iraq Drain

In for a penny, in for a pound. What the heck — the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already soaked up $808 billion, so why quarrel about the Bush administration’s request this week for another $50 billion in supplementary spending? That’s on top of the $141 billion in supplementary spending already added to the 2008 budget for the Iraq disaster.

Understand that “supplementary” means, in this case, an allocation of funds beyond the $750 billion U.S. taxpayers spend each year on the regular defense budget. And that’s a conservative estimate made by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Phillip Coyle in an interview on Truthdig. As Coyle points out, this is money spent largely without significant oversight, particularly during the years after the 9-11 trauma heightened the already irrational evaluation of our national security needs.

To read the entire entry, go to The Twin Cities Conservative

crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative

The MoveOn.org’s ad attacking the credibility of General Petraeus, before he testified, has backfired against them according to Rasmussen.

It will probably backfire against every Democratic politicians that did not vote to condemn that ad in the Cornyn amendment also.

25 Democratic Senators will live to regret voting against that amendment.

Rasmussen shows that 58% of Americans disapproved of the ad making false accusations against General Petraeus and only 23% approve.

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us?” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

Self-identified liberals were evenly divided—45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

It gets worse for MoveOn.org and the Democrats:

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that “stunts like the MoveOn.org ad” hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.

Captain’s Quarters explains how the news gets even worse from looking at the cross tabs over at Rasmussen.

The NYT has also been seeing fallout from placing that ad and offering MoveOn a major discount for the ad.

This Rasmussen polls follows a Gallup poll that showed that General Petraeus took a 9 point jump in approval after his testimony, going from 52% before he testified to 61% after he testified.

According to LA Times, MoveOn is not only feeling the heat from their pathetic attempt to discredit a General that has served his country with honor for over 35 years, but that MoveOn is also a tad touchy about the subject.

MoveOn.org’s excessively discounted broadside against General David Petraeus in the New York Times two weeks ago won’t rank as its most successful tactic. The full-page nastygram appears not only to have solidified Republican opposition in the Senate for proposals to curtail the Iraq war effort, but also to have shaken the group’s rich Hollywood funding base.
So it’s not too surprising that the liberal advocacy group would be a mite touchy from all the blowback online, even though it should be used to the abuse by now. So touchy, in fact, that it’s been sending out cease-and-desist letters to CafePress, a website that lets people offer custom-designed t-shirts, coffee mugs and the like for sale. Last week it demanded that the site remove eight items, arguing that they violated MoveOn’s merchandising trademarks.

Trademark law doesn’t confer monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however, and it wasn’t created simply to protect the trademark owner’s interests. Instead, it’s designed to protect consumers against being misled or confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of parodies and critiques; that’s why www.famousbrandnamesucks.com doesn’t violate famousbrandname’s trademark. And most, if not all, of the items targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers into thinking they were the group’s products.

Beyond that, it’s amazing that MoveOn would try to squelch political speech. That’s another clear purpose of the targeted items. Take, for example, this message on a t-shirt designed by a lifelong Democrat from Southern California:

General Petraeus has done more for this country than MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org, the worst friend a Democrat could have! Move Away from Move On!

To its credit, CafePress refused to take down five bumper stickers, and it reinstated a t-shirt that it had taken down briefly in response to MoveOn’s initial request. “While we understand that negative commentary is unsavory, our shopkeepers’ parodies of the MoveOn.org trademark are permissible here, especially when one considers the First Amendment implications raised by the social and political importance of your organization, the policies it advocates, and the countervailing messages conveyed by the parodies,” wrote Daniel Pontes of CafePress to Carrie Olson, MoveOn’s chief operating officer. Olson had been the one requesting the takedown.

Looks like MoveOn can dish out the attacks but cannot take them.

Poor things.

Reminds me of the saying, watch what you ask for, you might just get it.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

You, on the Left, represent a contemptible faction in this country. “What? Who, me?” You ask?
Yes, you…While you blithely castigate President Bush, Vice President Cheney, et al. with purportedly usurping civil liberties in the name of security, your legion of anti-war defeatist hounds have sullied this country with it’s surrender rhetoric.

Whether it’s your uncanny ability to blame the United States for all woes in the world, or turning a blind eye to endless and senseless hypocrisy in the Muslim (while embracing terrorists as “insurgents” and “freedom fighters), or ramming your progressive agenda down our throats, you do not represent the majority of the American citizenry.

Consider this condemnation, but The Twin Cities Conservative institution was absolutely incensed after reading this article from RealClearPolitics. In it, Senator Joe Lieberman, FORMER Democrat and now Independent, is attempting to accomplish the following:

-pass a condemnation of Iran

-categorize the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group

YET, the Democrats stand in his way. Why? Because they blithely believe that the United States will, in their words, wage an illegal act of aggression against peaceful Iran.

Note some of the rhetoric from the Left, whether it’s an elected official, or a Leftist loon who claims to speak for America, and it’s easy to see our country, if led by Democrats (with the far-Left as their puppet masters), is headed in a downward spiral.

First, we have the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid: ““I’m being very, very cautious on this.”

Next, we have American disgrace Tom Andrews, one-time Maine congressman now the director of Win Without War, a coalition of anti-war groups, “The resolution ‘opens the door for U.S. military operations within Iran, would put our nation on a dangerous and deadly course, and sets conditions for war with Iran. At a time when U.S. troops are already stuck in Iraq’s unwinnable civil war, it is unconscionable that the United States Senate would seek to escalate tensions with Iran.’”

This type of defeatist rhetoric occurs on a regular basis in the Leftist world. Rather than identify the true enemy (terrorists), they set their sites on President Bush, conservatives, Christianity, and our soldiers.

I work with a man who was served in Iraq; his convoy was hit by an IRANIAN-made IED; thankfully, only his arm was injured. Nevertheless the point is this: the Iranians are responsible for killing and injuring American soldiers.

Yet, the Democrats refuse to condemn Iran, despite this proxy war, their rhetoric towards Israel, and their defiance regarding their burgeoning nuclear programs. Their motivation? Simply to emasculate President Bush and those of us on the Right.

Here’s the complete article:

Parties war over condemning Iran

By: Martin Kady II
Sep 25, 2007 07:26 PM EST

In theory, a Senate resolution condemning a terrorist organization in Iran should be a slam-dunk.

But in the poisoned atmosphere that pervades the war debate in Congress, even a simple “sense of the Senate” resolution is much more complicated.

Republicans on Tuesday rallied support for a resolution that would label Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

But while most Democrats say they support the resolution in concept, the level of mistrust between the parties has elevated a nonbinding resolution to a larger discussion about whether Republicans are pushing for military action against Iran.

In fact, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), the co-sponsor of the Iran resolution, had to repeatedly point out on Tuesday that “this amendment is not about starting a war with Iran.”

But Democrats simply don’t trust Republicans — or Lieberman — to be the lead congressional voice in making declarative statements about Middle East policy these days.

“I’m being very, very cautious on this,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Reid’s reticence led to a significant amount of rewriting and softening of the resolution — a process that took so long that efforts to reach agreement Tuesday stalled. A vote on the measure could come Wednesday.

Anti-war groups, already consumed by Iraq, tried to mobilize an effort against the Iran resolution, sending out e-mail alerts calling on their members to bombard Senate offices with phone calls opposing the Iran resolution.

The resolution “opens the door for U.S. military operations within Iran, would put our nation on a dangerous and deadly course, and sets conditions for war with Iran,” said Tom Andrews, a former congressman from Maine who is now director of Win Without War, a coalition of anti-war groups. “At a time when U.S. troops are already stuck in Iraq’s unwinnable civil war, it is unconscionable that the United States Senate would seek to escalate tensions with Iran.”

The resolution says nothing about military action or use of force, but the anti-war voices are largely reacting to combative rhetoric about Iran from conservatives rather than the actual legislative language. (more…)

Crossposted from Red Maryland

There is a pathetic quality to watching the O’Malley administration gouging about to find money to close a gaping hole in the state budget while simultaneously promising not to reduce aid to counties, to retain current programs and spending levels, to give the middle class a tax break, and to “invest” some $400 million in transportation.

These promises are made, like a lot of political promises, with full knowledge that they cannot be kept but the O’Malley administration seems to think that it can find the silver bullet that will allow it to accomplish some of these objectives.

More to the point, the administration views each of the revenue producing gimmicks as occurring in a vaccuum, totally unrelated to each other.

As my colleague Brian Griffiths points out below, we can make a safe bet that slots revenue will disappoint. For a lot of reasons. Right now Charlestown, Dover Downs, and Pennsylvania are available to Marylanders who wish to indulge in this form of gambling favored by the mathematically impaired and those with ADHD. The locating of slots in Maryland does nothing to expand the market but rather cannibalizes the existing market.

The same applies to other taxes. Maryland is realtively small state and raising tobacco, sales, and gas taxes in Maryland doesn’t guarantee a linear increase in revenues. To the contrary. It is cheaper for me to drive across the Potomac and buy gas in Loudoun County, VA than it is to fill up near my house. Tobacco? Ditto.

The administration is at least publicly pushing the notion that the relatively small number of jobs moving to Maryland under BRAC will bring some kind of significant benefit. Maryland already has a reputation for a rapacious government and the idea that families will relocate to a high tax state which is getting higher taxes rather than chosing to live in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or Northern Virginia simply presumes that those people can’t read.

O’Malley has promised virtually every demographic in the state something for nothing. These promises have been made one at a time without regards for their impact on the economy. If the General Assembly follows the governor’s lead we will have succeeded in raising taxes, hurting most Marylanders, and retaining the $1.7 billion (or whatever it is today) “structural deficit.” That is quite a hat trick, isn’t it? (more…)

by Kathy

Finally the Supreme Court is going to hear and rule on the Voter ID laws. I have never understood the case made by Democrats that showing your id at the polls was discrimination against anyone except those who are cheating. Hopefully this case is the beginning of the end of this nonsense.

A voter seeking to cast a ballot is first told to produce a photo ID. Is that intimidation or a prudent safeguard against election fraud?

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it intends to decide, stepping into a controversy that blends race, partisan politics and the Constitution.

Officially, the justices said they would consider a challenge to the constitutionality of an Indiana law. But several other states have enacted various forms of voter ID legislation in the past five years, and the court’s ruling could affect them, as well.

“Indiana’s voter identification law is currently the most onerous in effect in the nation,” opponents alleged in legal papers filed with the court. They contended that “the restrictive conditions imposed in Indiana are a harbinger of future regulations” elsewhere, and urged the justices to rule before the 2008 elections.

Despite the claim of unconstitutionality, a federal judge upheld the Indiana measure, and an appeals court did likewise. “The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in his majority opinion.

Even if the Supreme Court settles the legal issue, it is unlikely to end the political combat that often surrounds such legislation.

The Indiana law was passed by a Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by a Republican governor over the objections of many Democrats. The constitutional challenge was brought by the state Democratic Party, a county Democratic committee and two Democratic office holders, as well as organizations including the NAACP.

Underscoring the national political alignment, the Republican National Committee’s official Web site includes a section devoted to recent cases of alleged voter fraud. Following the court’s announcement, an aide directed reporters to a recent posting on two guilty pleas last week in cases of voter fraud in Indiana.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee responded cautiously to the court’s announcement. “We are pleased that the Supreme Court is bringing attention to this important issue,” said Danny Diaz.

“This is another step to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote will have that right and their vote will count.”

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who heads the DNC Voting Rights Institute, likened voter ID requirements to a “modern-day poll tax” designed to disenfranchise black and poor voters.

“Some of us in the voting rights community are very nervous because we fear the court will make matters worse,” she added.

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip and highest ranking black member of Congress, added that “combatting voting fraud is best addressed through measures that modernize our voting technologies and ensure transparency in our election system, not by enacting laws that deter minorities and others from casting their votes.”

Seeking the Supreme Court hearing, critics of the law asserted in legal papers that evidence “shows that this voter identification requirement will deter eligible citizens from voting.” They added that Indiana enacted its law “without any showing that it responds to an actual problem in an appropriately tailored manner.”

Lawyers on the other side, representing the secretary of state and other officials, unsuccessfully urged the justices not to accept the case for review.

Even so, Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican and defendant in the case, said he was confident about the final outcome.

“This case has been through the courts and more importantly, it’s been in the court called Election Day,” he said.

Before the law’s passage, an Indiana voter had only to sign a poll book at the polling place, where a photo copy of the voter’s signature was kept on file for comparison.

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Michigan and, most recently, Georgia, but struck down one in Missouri.

The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25.

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Will wonders never cease?

Clearly feeling the heat of a political firestorm for inviting the Hitler of the 21st Century to speak at Columbia, University President Lee Bollinger showed liberals it is possible to have a spine after all….

President Lee C. Bollinger’s Introductory Remarks at SIPA-World Leaders Forum with President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Columbia University
Sept. 24, 2007

…[T]o those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.
…
[T]o be clear on another matter – this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.
…
We cannot make war or peace. We can only make minds. And to do this we must have the most full freedom of inquiry.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

–THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES …The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today’s speaker to even appear on this campus.

But at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more.

Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called “soft revolution”. This has included jailing and forced retirements of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government “believes that the United States . . . is planning a Velvet Revolution” in Iran.

In this very room last year we learned something about Velvet Revolutions from Vaclav Havel. And we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening – President Michelle Bachelet Jeria of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won’t be shy in criticizing yours.

Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha’i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

Why in a letter last week to the Secretary General of the UN did Akbar Gangi, Iran’s leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world’s attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran? In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.

Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked that you to speak here today. And while my colleague at the Law School Michael Dorf spoke to Radio Free Europe [sic, Voice of America] viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country, I propose going further than that. Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?

–THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST
In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

–THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

–FUNDING TERRORISM According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

–PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

–FINALLY, IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS
This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government’s refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

Ouch! That’s got to leave a mark! And for every left winger in denial about the threat Iran poses to world peace and their beloved concept of "social justice" we can direct them to this statement from the president of one of the most liberal universities in the nation. Hard to argue Bollinger is part of some neocon conspiracy.

Of course the downside of Mahmoud’s appearance is that it lends him legitimacy in Iran, where his visit will be used for propaganda purposes. And just to prove that point:

IRI President addresses students at Colombia (sic) University New York
Islamic Republic News Agency
Sept 25,2007

Despite entire US media objections, negative propagation and hue and cry in recent days over IRI President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s scheduled address at Colombia University, he gave his lecture and answered students questions here on Monday afternoon.

On second day of his entry in New York, and amid standing ovation of the audience that had attended the hall where the Iranian President was to give his lecture as of early hours of the day, Ahmadinejad said that Iran is not going to attack any country in the world.

Before President Ahamadinejad’s address, Colombia University Chancellor in a brief address told the audience that they would have the chance to hear Iran’s stands as the Iranian President would put them forth.

He said that the Iranians are a peace loving nation, they hate war, and all types of aggression.

Referring to the technological achievements of the Iranian nation in the course of recent years, the president considered them as a sign for the Iranians’ resolute will for achieving sustainable development and rapid advancement.

The audience on repeated occasion applauded Ahmadinejad when he touched on international crises.

At the end of his address President Ahmadinejad answered the students’ questions on such issues as Israel, Palestine, Iran’s nuclear program, the status of women in Iran and a number of other matters.

And of course nothing in the Iranian press about the absurd statements little Mahmoud made at C.U. But members of the "Petty and Cruel Dictators" club were eager to show their support. Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez said: ""I congratulate him, in the name of the Venezuelan people, before a new aggression of the U.S. empire," Chavez said, adding that it seemed Ahmadinejad was the subject of "an ambush."

Maybe Columbia needs to invite Chavez up for a discussion and have environmentalists ask him why he wants to cut a 5,000 km path through the Brazilian Rain Forest for a natural gas pipeline? (4th item here)

New York Media Whacks Ahmad!

full size image here

full size image here

full size image here

Even the Spanish newspaper got it:

full size image here

U.S. House Votes Economic Sanctions on Iran

In a stunningly swift move, the U.S. House of Representatives today voted overwhelmingly (397-16 roll call here) for economic sanctions against Iran.

Sponsor Tom Lantos (D-CA) described the bill (summary here) this way: "Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick," said Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place."

In another direct rebuke to Iran, French President Nicholas Sarkozy told the United Nations in his maiden speech that: "if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world…weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war."

It’s about time we had more stick and less carrot where Iran is concerned. How many more Americans will Iran kill before we respond in a way they understand?

I wonder if the media will cover this like it did the Mohammed cartoons! I doubt it, unless you think Christians will hit the streets in riots burning everything in site.

Organizers of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair — sponsored by Miller Brewing Co. — have portrayed Christ and his disciples as half-naked homosexual sadomasochists in the event’s promotional advertisement, and the conservative group Concerned Women for America is complaining about the hypocrisy of it.

“The bread and wine representing Christ’s broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper,” CWA said on its Web site.

“‘Gay’ activists disingenuously call Christians ‘haters’ and ‘homophobes’ for honoring the Bible, but then lash out in this hateful manner toward the very people they accuse,” said said Matt Barber, CWA’s policy director for cultural issues.

“In their version of The Last Supper, Christ, Who gave His life for our sins, is despicably replaced by sin itself as the object of worship.”

CWA is calling on California politicians — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sens. Feinstein and Boxer among them — to “publicly condemn this unprovoked attack against Christ and His followers.

“We further challenge the media to cover this affront to Christianity with the same vigor as recent stories about cartoon depictions of Mohammed and other items offensive to the Muslim community,” CWA said.

I think the only thing shocking is that groups keep thinking it is soooo artsy to mock Christ, yet culturally insensitive to mock Islam.

Oh…and I won’t be drinking Miller!

Miller contact info…

Miller Brewing Company
P.O. Box 482
Milwaukee, WI 53201

or
Miller Brewing Company

3939 W. Highland Blvd, Milwaukee, WI 53208
(414) 931-2000

no email address to be found

call between hours are 8am-5pm

Oh, and San Fran can host this, but ROTC causes traffic problems???? And now they attack the Blue Angels? How long before Sodom sinks into the Pacific?
From Stop The ACLU

I won’t say, “This is an attack on Christianity, and a double standard, as this would have never happenned to the Muslims,” because that is obvious. Here is the advertisement, by the way:

People like to call Christians intolerant, but I see something entirely different. My friend Brujo stated this in an article earlier:

I read a Liberty Counsel Alert dated August 24, 2007 regarding an incident that is central to my point. There is a church in New Jersey, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which is a ministry of the Methodist Church that happens to own some prime beach side real estate that is used for church services, gospel concerts, Bible studies and weddings. It seems there was a lesbian couple that wanted to get ‘married.’ They attempted to rent this facility and were turned down because of the religious beliefs and practices of this church. Their doctrine (religious belief) prohibits civil unions of same sex individuals. The women complained to the state that the church was violating state anti-discrimination laws and the state initiated an investigation.

I find it interesting that the state would even consider such an investigation. This church, like many Bible believing Christian organizations, live their religion. The do no commit crimes such as murder because of a religious belief and not out of concern for man’s law. They will not violate the tenants of their religion. The U.S. Constitution as primary law of the land is supposed to protect religious practice. Can you imagine the results of a church being ordered to lend its facilities to support an act they consider a religious abomination? (This is the USA. We can believe in abomination at least until the ACLU criminalizes it.)

It has become apparent that the state of New Jersey is going to take a stab at regulating this church and its activities. The claim is that because they allow anyone to enter they have become a public institution and therefore subject to the anti discrimination laws. I submit that if this was a Hasidic Jewish facility or a Mosque there would be no question regarding the homosexual agenda. Christian churches are traditionally open to the all for worship services. Because they do not lock the doors to only allow their membership access does not give government license to regulate.

Now some of the Gay and Lesbian groups are petitioning local and state government in New Jersey to review the tax exempt status of this church. This is a very strong weapon. Many churches and other religious groups cannot afford to pay property taxes and if required to do so they would have to dispose of the property.

I do not really give two damns would people do in the bedroom as long as it is consentual and the participants are over the legal age. But I also see a gay-rights movement more and more hostile to Christianity, and more willing to chip away to freedom of speech and religion to get to it as these new hate crime laws do. All of us should be threatened by these actions. And this, far more then anything else, is my biggest disagreement with the gay rights movement.

Crossposted from Red Maryland

This mysteriously was nowhere to be found in the Sun, but the O’Malley administration got cut off at the pass yesterday by the courts:

A Maryland judge yesterday issued a temporary restraining order against Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration, saying the governor acted unconstitutionally in signing an executive order to unionize child care workers.

The order by Judge Dexter M. Thompson Jr. of the Circuit Court for Cecil County bars Mr. O’Malley, a Democrat, from enforcing the executive order he signed last month.

“Continuing to enforce the provisions of … the executive order would result in immediate, substantial and irreparable harm to the plaintiffs,” wrote Judge Thompson. The judge stated he made the ruling because the executive order breeches the separation of powers as detailed in the state constitution and because the independent child care workers should not have a union negotiator forced upon them as a result of the order.

Delegate Michael D. Smigiel Sr., Eastern Shore Republican and an attorney, argued the case.

Mr. Smigiel said he brought the case before the court because the executive branch has been “usurping” the powers of the General Assembly.

“It is a victory for the legislative process and following the [Maryland] Constitution,” he also said.

Mr. O’Malley quietly signed two executive orders last month, allowing in-home health care workers and child care providers to form unions.

Mr. Smigiel and others then questioned the constitutionality of the move, saying the governor made an “end-run” around the Assembly by signing the orders.

I’m sure that the same liberals who assail the Bush Administration for allegedly violating the separation of powers between the branches will now chastise the court for not allowing O’Malley to do whatever he wants to do.

Of course, I have no idea what possessed the O’Malley Administration to go around the General Assembly in the first place. I mean, what gives the Executive Branch the unilateral authority to decide who does and does not get to be unionized? Why does he get to decide, and not the people’s elected representatives?

Can you imagine if Governor Ehrlich had unilaterally declared Maryland to be a “right-to-work” state? Organized labor would have descended on Annapolis like you wouldn’t believe, protesting and filing suit after suit after suit?

If child care workers should get the right to unionize (and I’m not saying they shouldn’t) then it needs to be decided in the General Assembly. No matter how strong the Executive Branch is in Maryland, Governor O’Malley is not “The Decider” on issues like this. Perhaps his administration will now respect the separation of powers put forth in our state Constitution….

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

The AP printed a typical scaremongering article last week on global warming that is creating some backlash from climate scientists.  A sampling from their trashy article:

Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.

In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

~~~

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

~~~

Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians-the Bushes’ Kennebunkport and John Edwards’ place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.

~~~

This past summer’s flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans’ Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands-which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes-are previews of what’s to come there.

Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA’s director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said.

And now a bit of backlash:

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant and a UN IPCC expert reviewer ridiculed the AP article.

“Rarely have I read such a collection of unsubstantiated and scare-mongering twaddle. [Curt - my favorite line in the whole article] Not only do real studies show no increase to rate of sea level change, the [AP] article gives reasons for concern that are nonsense,”

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand slammed the article as well:

“This [AP article] is a typical scare story based on no evidence or facts, but only on the ‘opinions’ and ‘beliefs’ of ‘experts’, all of whom have a financial interest in the promotion of their computer models,”

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, stated that the AP mischaracterized his views on sea level in the article promoting climate fears a hundred years from now.

“[My] discussion [with the AP reporter Seth Borenstein] was primarily about the storm surges which come from hurricanes – that’s the real vulnerability. The sea level is rising around 1 inch per decade, but sea level is like any other climate parameter – its either rising or falling all the time.  To me, 16 inches per century is not a significant problem to deal with. But since storm surges of 15 to 30 feet occur in 6 hours, any preventive strategy, like an extra 3 feet of elevation, would be helpful,”

“Thinking that legislation can change sea level is hubris.  I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100.  The answer is 1.4 cm – about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.) Also, there doesn’t seem to be any acceleration of the slow trend,”

State of Florida Climatologist Dr. Jim O’Brien of Florida State University countered the AP article.

“The best measurements of sea level rise are from satellite instrument called altimeters. Currently they measure 14 inches in 100 years. Everyone agrees that there is no acceleration. Even the UN IPCC quotes this,”

“If you increase the rate of rise by four times, it will take 146 years to rise to five feet. Sea level rise is the ‘scare tactic’ for these guys,”

Climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990:

The IPCC never makes ‘predictions’, only ‘projections’; what might happen, or be ‘likely" if you believe the assumptions in the model. No computer model has ever been shown to be capable of successful prediction,”

“Actual data on sea levels are unreliable. Long term figures are based on tide-gauge measurements near port cities prone to subsidence and damage of equipment from severe weather. Many recent and more reliable measurements show little recent change. Satellite measurements have shown a recent rise which may be temporary,”

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a retired Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland:

“Even the worst case scenario is half of that quoted by Associated Press. This is a hype of the worst order. This whole scare builds on GCM’s which we know mimic Earth processes very simplistically and are thus most unreliable,”

“I, as a marine geologist, am abhorred. I just looked at the USGS (US Geological Survey) site and am astonished that none of the references or fact sheets seem to refer to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released this spring,”

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant and a UN IPCC expert reviewer:

“Global sea level has been rising for the 10,000 years since the last ice age, and no significant change to the rate of sea level rise has been observed recently,”

"A continuing rise of ~2 mm/year for the next 100 years would raise sea level by ~0.2 m as it did during the twentieth century.  And it is hard to see any justification for Andrew Weaver’s claim (as quoted by AP) that ‘We’re going to get a meter and there’s nothing we can do about it, unless Weaver is talking about the next 500 years,”

“Simply, there is no reason to suppose that sea level rise will be more of a problem in this century than it was in the last century or each of the previous ten centuries,”

That’s just a sampling, much more here.

Problem is that the AP article was read by many while only a few will ever hear of the many scientists who discount their scaremongering.  News is a business and fear sells.