“Religion Of Peace” Worshippers Stone Couple To Death

Somehow, the appelation “Religion of Peace” doesn’t seem to stick when I read stories like this.

From the Telegraph UK:

A man and woman have been stoned to death in northern Afghanistan after being accused by the Taliban of having an affair.

The 23-year-old woman and 28-year-old man were killed because “they had an affair,” said Mohammad Ayob, the governor of Imam Sahib district in Kunduz province.

“Two people were stoned to death by Taliban in Mullah Quli village late yesterday,” he said. The village is under the control of the Taliban.

The couple had their hands bound behind their backs and were forced to stand in an empty field as their sentence was carried out, he said.

A local Taliban commander, who contacted media but refused to give his name, confirmed the killings.

Earlier this month, the Taliban publicly flogged and then killed a pregnant widow for alleged “adultery” in western Badghis province.

Where is the outrage from the so-called “moderate” Muslims? If this were a Christian or Jewish happening, the entire world would be screaming with rage (including the Muslims). Where was the courageous Islamic who stood up in front of the crowd and said, “Let him who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone!”

But then, I’m sure that the apologists for the Islamics will assert that the couple was violently stoned to death in the most peaceful manner possible.

Taliban Kill Couple In Public Stoning
Foreign Staff
Telegraph UK
August 16, 2010

Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status

In a move similar to Arizona’s SB1070, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ruled that law enforcement officials in Virginia can check on the immigration status of suspects when they are arrested. This almost seems like Richmond daring the Obama Administration to launch a lawsuit directly across the Potomac River.

From Fox News:

In a decision that could lay the groundwork for an Arizona-style immigration policy, Virginia’s attorney general said state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone “stopped or arrested.”

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued the legal opinion Friday extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.

“It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested,” he wrote.

If Barack Obama was hoping that the immigration issue would “go away” after leftist judge Susan Bolton gutted the Arizona law, he must be sorely disappointed at this point.

Also, coming on the heels of a Federal judge allowing a Virginia lawsuit against Obamacare to move forward, this comes as a double whammy.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Virginia Attorney General Rules Police Can Check Immigration Status
FoxNews.com
August 2, 2010

Federal Judge Allows Virginia Lawsuit Against Obamacare To Move Forward

From the Wall Street Journal:

Virginia federal judge Henry Hudson on Monday ruled that he’ll let the state of Virginia’s challenge to the landmark health care law passed in March go forward, at least for the time being. Click here for the early Reuters story; here for the 32-page opinion.

The Department of Health and Human Services had moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in March, shortly after the passage of the law. But Judge Hudson on Monday denied the motion.

The ruling represents a setback that will force the Obama administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the law. The suit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (pictured), alleges that the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Virginia’s lawsuit is one of several trying to undo the health-care law. Another large one was filed in a Florida federal court by a handful of state attorneys general.

In his opinion, Judge Hudson ruled:

  • The guiding precedent [on the Commerce Clause] is informative but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element.

In other words, off to discovery we head.

And a whole lot of stuff is going to come out that the Obama administration and its supporters would rather not have a public debate about. Things like how the Republicans were locked out of meetings where the bill was written, the benefits offered to certain states so that their Senators would vote the right way, etc. This is going to be a very fun case to watch.

Thank God there is some sanity left in the Judiciary somewhere.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Virginia Judge: The Suit Against The Health Care Law Goes Forward
Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal
August 2, 2010

Leftist Judge Susan Bolton Sides With Illegals And Drug Lords Against America

No, that’s not sour grapes in the title. It’s the bare truth. Essentially, Susan Bolton is saying that Arizona cannot enforce Federal Law and that the Feds do not have to enforce their own laws.

Think I’m kidding? Here is what Investor’s Business Daily notes:

Bolton blocked the main provisions of Arizona’s law requiring state lawmen to ask people they come into legitimate contact with to show documentation if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re here illegally.

So now a van driver arrested by a state trooper for driving 120 miles per hour with 30 people stuffed under his floorboards will still get a speeding ticket, but the officer can’t ask about his immigration status. Nothing to see here; move along.

Bolton also blocked provisions requiring foreigners to carry papers at all times (as federal law already requires), as well as a section prohibiting public solicitation of work. Likewise, a section allowing warrantless arrests on probable cause was tossed.

Judging Arizona
Investor’s Business Daily
July 28, 2010

In essence, by tossing the Arizona law, Bolton also tossed Federal Law.

Now, we have nothing to contain the tide of illegals, drugs and other contraband that is coming across the Mexican border. Barack Obama has gotten his wish, as he expressed to Senator Kyl of Arizona:

Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package
Fox News
June 21, 2010

So, what we have here is a situation where the Federal Government is refusing to carry out its responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States and it is prohibiting the citizens from protecting themselves. That is a volatile combination, one that will either have mildly serious consequences or majorly serious consequences down the road.

I don’t know who, but someone once said: “When the government fails in its responsibility to protect its citizens, it is the duty of the citizen to take up that responsibility for himself.” That is going to come into play here very soon. It will come in two phases.

First, the November elections are coming up fast. The mood across the United States is clear. The Obama Administration is in the toilet and this ruling against a state law that enjoyed broad support across the United States is only going to make that worse. There were several Democrat Governors visiting the White House who expressed their concern that the actions against Arizona are “toxic” to the election and re-election hopes of Democrats.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns On Immigration
Abby Goodnough
New York Times
July 11, 2010

After the November elections, if the Federal Government doesn’t get the message from the American people, then the people will begin taking matters into their own hands. A nation that is truly free must have laws and those laws must be enforced by the government entrusted to enforce them. If the government decided to pick and choose which laws it will enforce and which laws it will ignore, it will destroy the confidence of the people and the people will respond accordingly.

We may very likely begin seeing a violent backlash against illegals in the country with a concurrent attempt by the government to stem this backlash. But that will only fuel the fire. People will see a government cracking down on its own citizens while ignoring the threat coming across the border. That will, in turn, result in more violence.

Think that’s exaggerating? Consider this:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer put on a brave face, saying the battle was “far from over” and her state would fight all the way to the Supreme Court. But this will take decades, giving Mexico’s murderous cartels many years of people-smuggling profits.

So the delay itself amounts to a victory for the law’s foes. In addition to paying for the expensive litigation, Arizona can look forward to a growing bill for housing, schooling, jailing and providing “free” health care for the illegals who will now flow into the state.

And it can’t say no. Isn’t that taxation without representation?

Some 15,000 Arizona state officers could be helping the federal government enforce the laws it isn’t enforcing now. Now, they’ll do other things instead. By the logic of Bolton’s ruling, the state trooper who arrested Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on a speeding violation in 1995 would now be prohibited from arresting him for the federal crime of the bombing, too.

If it wasn’t clear before, it is now: The federal government has no intent of enforcing the laws against rampant and brazen illegal immigration. Indeed, it will punish those states that try, leaving them at the mercy of the kidnappers, terrorists, gangsters, drug dealers and human traffickers that now freely cross our southern border.

Once that level has been achieved, the Federal government will have no way of controlling it. Think law enforcement agencies will be able to handle what is coming? No, it will be too big. Think using the military will work? No, most members of the military will refuse to take action against American citizens and will openly question why the illegal invasion was allowed to go unchecked in the first place.

Susan Bolton may very well have written the modern day Uncle Tom’s Cabin that will spark a modern civil war, a war that the Federal Government will not be able to win this time.

Black Panther Advocated Killing White Babies

And this is the same Black Panther (King Shamir Shabazz) who was standing out in front of a polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters.

From Hot Air:

When Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly reversed course and had the DoJ dismiss the voter-intimidation case against two New Black Panther Party activists stemming from an incident in 2008 in Philadelphia, many questioned why the DoJ would quit a case it had already won. Attorneys within the DoJ wondered why the federal government had suddenly become disinterested in voter intimidation. Some, like Christian Adams, Asheesh Agarwal, and Mark Corallo have gone public with their outrage, and also wonder where the hell Congress has gone in its duty to oversee the executive branch and its enforcement of laws Congress passed.

Well, look, maybe this was just a bad day for the defendants. Maybe they were just nice young men who took civic engagement to a momentary extreme of enthusiasm. They’re probably just nice guys caught in a single instance of bad judgment … right?

Let’s look at the video:

All that racial hatred from these people and yet Obama wanted to be the post-racial President. If he was so post-racial, why did he allow the Department of Justice to drop the case against such a racist scumbag as Shabazz?

You can access the original blog entry on-line here:

Video: The Nice Young Man Eric Holder Let Off The Hook
Ed Morrisey
HotAir.com
July 6, 2010

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says

It’s a sad day when the President of the United States sides with illegals over legitimate American citizens. This action shows where Obama’s heart really is, and it is not with the American people.

From Fox News:

Obama and other top officials have criticized the law as misguided, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has slammed the administration for pursuing a lawsuit. She claims the administration has not done enough to secure the border — a charge the administration denies.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

“We’ll meet them in court … and we will win,” she said, calling the administration’s actions a “disappointment.”

The Arizona law has touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona’s.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as “unenforceable” and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a “national standard” is needed and that he won’t “kick the can down the road” any longer.

There’s only one problem with Obama’s statements on the issue: The Arizona law mirrors current Federal law.

Lack Of Leadership In The Immigration Debate
Michael Zuckerman
CBS News
May 12, 2010

That’s right, 8 USC 1357 is the same law except that it is more permissive in it’s enforcement. The Arizona law is much more restrictive in how it can be applied.

Also remember that Eric Holder admitted that he had never read the Arizona law before offering criticism for it.

Far from being post-racial or any kind of a uniter, this latest action shows Obama in his true colors. He is a race-hustler and a class-warfare scam artist who holds non-Americans in higher regard than he holds legitimate Americans.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Justice Department Suit Against Arizona Imminent, Official Says
Fox News with Mike Levine
July 6, 2010

What? Mexico Wants To Dictate Internal U.S. Law?

This is nothing but complete hypocritical arrogance on the part of the Mexican government. Mexico encourages its citizens to illegally enter the U.S. and then turns around and slaps us in the face if we try to enforce our own, very Constitutional, immigration law.

First, let’s remember that Mexico is the progenitor of one of the largest human rights violations crises in the Western Hemisphere thanks to their own policy of dealing with illegals inside their own borders. You can read about those violations here:

Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning Mexican Immigration Policy

From Fox News:

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country’s own interests and its citizens’ rights are at stake.

Their own interest? Let’s see what that means. That means they can allow their drug lords unfettered access to the American border. That means they can send their citizens across the border to get free medical care from our Emergency Room’s at the expense of the American taxpayer. That means they can go on kidnapping and raping illegals within their own borders but cry foul at the very humane treatment we give illegals here. It’s all propanganda and Obama and the media have bought it hook, line and sinker.

Did you ever hear the joke about the Mexican who brought a knife to a gunfight? Well this case is a joke about a Mexican lawyer who brought an arrogant attitude to a Constitutional fight. If these Mexican lawyers were so good, then why didn’t they read 8 U.S.C. 1357. Had they done so, they would realize how idiotic their suit is considering that Arizona’s law is a mirror of existing Federal law. Before they can go after Arizona, they have to go after the U.S. Federal government. Do you think Obama is going to allow that?

Speaking of Obama, if he shows preference for the Mexicans over American citizens, then this nation will be entering into a dark age in which violence may very well result. Obama and his leftists cronies cannot keep throwing fuel onto this fire without expecting a flash-over at some point.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Mexico Joins Suit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law, Citing ‘Grave Concerns’
Fox News
June 23, 2010

Obama Supporter Turns Violent At Tea Party Protest

I can see it now. Libs and Dems all over the media world are going to renew their parroting that Tea Party Protesters are violent extremists. And yet, the only acts of violence ever recorded at Tea Party protests have been committed by leftists coming in to counter-protest.

Such is the latest video and story from Greensboro, North Carolina:

From Fox Channel 8:

Tabor says they were protesting a proposed amendment that would give companies money to help with rising credit card fees. He says he was videotaping the event when Govenor Spencer, of Greensboro, approached the protest.

“About that time a gentleman walks around the corner and walks into the middle of the crowd saying it’s all George W. Bush’s fault. It’s all Dick Cheney’s fault.” Tabor said.

The video shows Spencer and at least one protester arguing. Tabor says he stopped recording as the protest began to conclude and walked over to the sidewalk where his wife and 5-year-old daughter were standing.

“As I walked around the corner this gentleman pushed me. And when he pushed me the first time I turned my camera on and brought my camera up. I said please don’t push me. And when I said that he slapped my camera.” Tabor said. “He pushes me again. In the video you can see my body fall back. And I did not say anything to him, I didn’t engage him. I was going to, until he touched me wife.”

Tabor says Spencer pushed his wife and he pushed Spencer back. The video shows Spencer then punching Tabor in the face.

The video shows very clearly that Spencer was most definitely in the wrong.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

VIDEO: Man Punched During Protest Against Government Bailouts
Chad Tucker
Fox News Channel 8
June 9, 2010

Obama’s Chicago Politics: Selling Judgeships To Buy Health Care Votes?

You would think that with all that has gone wrong for Obama over the past year and after all the revelations of corruption in his cabinet and “czar” appointments that Obama would be more careful about things like appointing the brother of an undecided House Dem to the bench on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

From John McCormack of the Weekly Standard:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

You can find out who the ten Dems are here:

Chuck Todd Twitter

Now, Scott Matheson may be very qualified to be a judge, but the timing of this appointment couldn’t have been any worse, even if Obama had tried to make it worse.

More:

Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress.

Very suspicious looking. I guess you can take the boy out of Chicago, but you can’t take the gangster-style Chicago politics out of the Community Organizer.

Given all that has happened with appointees like Bill Richardson, Tim Geithner and other corruption tainted players, this looks (on the surface) like another “pay to play” scheme.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Now Selling Judgeships For Health Care Votes?
John McCormack
The Weekly Standard
March 4, 2010

Waterboarding Works! Detainee Cooperated After ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ Were Used

You certainly won’t hear Eric Holder or Barack Obama ever make this admission. In fact, I’m stunned that the leftist-leaning Washington Post even allowed this to go to print.

Khalid Shieik Mohammed, who refers to himself as the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, began to reveal a great deal of valuable information after CIA interrogators began using the technique known as “waterboarding” on him. Before that, he managed to resist interrogation quite effectively.

From Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate:

“KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete,” according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA’s then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general’s report and other documents released this week indicate.

Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

But here is what the interrogations yielded:

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal “supermax” prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific.

Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who “at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999,” according to the summary.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis “to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York.” Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

“Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals — many of who we had never heard of before — that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations,” according to the CIA summary.

Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his “overriding priority” was to strike the United States, but that he “realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures.” Most of the plots, as a result, were “opportunistic and limited,” according to the summary.

How many American lives were saved because of that information? How many attacks were thwarted because of the techniques used?

The average lib Democrat would rather see thousands of Americans killed than to see one terrorist suffer the least little bit. It would be nice if the Dems actually rooted for our side for once.

EITs work and we should continue using them. Holder and Obama should get out of the way and let the people charged with defending America do their jobs.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

How A Detainee Became An Asset
Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post
August 29, 2009

A Spy ‘Outing’ Game For Real

So, where are all the libs who were rallying around Valerie Plame a few years ago? They were all screaming about how horrible it was that Plame got “outed” as a CIA agent.

For some reason, all those same libs are now silent (I would say shamefully silent) about John Adams Project defense lawyers for the terrorists who will truly “out” current CIA operatives and expose their families as well. Whereas Valerie Plame showed how much her privacy had been violated by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair, a nationally circulated magazine, the current outings will put agents and their families in danger of reprisals from the terrorists themselves.

(I wonder if Barack Obama realizes this and if so, does he even care? He seems to care more about the terrorists than he does about American lives.)

Writing for the Washington Times, John Armor has the following:

First, the Plame Affair. According to the mainstream media, that was about the “outing” of a CIA “covert operative” in violation of federal law.

But that law applies only to people who had been a covert operative “within five years.” The only person who identified her as a CIA covert operative within five years of her service was her husband, who let the cat out of the bag in a Who’s Who entry. Mrs. Plame was not outed by anyone, per the law.

That’s right. Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald admitted that there was no violation of Federal law in the Plame case. But, he overstepped his bounds when he went after Scooter Libby on what were obviously trumped-up charges.

Read on:

However, the fraud of the Plame blame game does not detract from the real purpose of the CIA-protective law. It’s designed to protect covert CIA agents from being killed by enemies who would do so in a heartbeat if they knew who these agents are. That brings us to the current situation.

The defense counsel for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees is receiving help from the John Adams Project, a combined effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

According to numerous accounts, these defense lawyers have John Adams Project researchers taking photos of CIA covert operatives. And these lawyers have already shown these photos to their clients in Guantanamo Bay and are now seeking the legal right to release the photos to the public.

If the Plame affair were so infuriating to the libs, then they should be surrounding the Justice Department right now demanding that these photos never get released. Because, unlike the Plame situation in which Valerie was never in any danger, the agents that will be outed by this investigation will most certainly be in danger as will their families.

Clearly, The ACLU couldn’t care less about the safety of these people! If anyone from the ACLU wishes to refute this, please feel free to leave a response.

Armor goes on to say:

More likely these photos were taken in the home communities of these agents, placing not only them, but their families and neighbors in the cross hairs of murderers. And that is precisely why the law that never actually applied in the Plame Affair, does apply today.

It may be that just showing the photos of the CIA agents to their clients turns the assistants who photographed them and the lawyers who passed them on, into criminals themselves. Beyond that, there is the matter of what happens if these photos are offered as evidence in a trial.

The choice here is clear. If you support protecting innocent Americans, you will be against letting the ACLU out these agents. If you support the terrorists, you will agree with putting these agents and their families at risk by releasing these photos.

I will always go with protecting Americans. It’s clear that the ACLU and other libs want the opposite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Spy ‘Outing’ Game For Real
John Armor
Washington Times
August 26, 2009

The Real Ted Kennedy Legacy

I know that for the next several days that people are going to heap praise after praise on Ted Kennedy. They call him the “lion” (I would say “liar”) of the Senate and other such things, but what has he really accomplished?

Apart from being one of the most vocal proponents of just about every left-wing, socialistic policy ever put before Congress, there isn’t very much. Most of what he helped to put in place, for example the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which resulted in toxic assets causing a credit market freeze, will be done away with over time as people come to realize that such policies do way more harm than good.

So, what will Ted be remembered for?

Writing for ABC News, Susan Donaldson James has this:

In the summer of 1969, consiglieres of the former John F. Kennedy administration — Robert McNamara, Arthur Schlesinger and Ted Sorensen, among others — convened in Hyannisport to write the apology that would save the young Sen. Ted Kennedy from himself.

Only days before, Kennedy had left the scene of a fatal car crash on the small island of Chappaquiddick on Martha’s Vineyard, taking the life of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne.

The second-term senator waited nearly 10 hours to report the accident and offered virtually no explanation other than he “panicked.”

The details of the July 19 accident were salacious: a Regatta Weekend reunion party at a friend’s cottage with all married men (except one) and six women — the “boiler room girls” — who had worked together on Robert Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign.

After a day of sailing and heavy drinking, Kennedy drove his black Oldsmobile sedan off a small wooden bridge into Poucho Pond, trapping Kopechne in seven feet of water.

Edward Moore Kennedy — only 38 and up for re-election the following year– had violated one of the cardinal rules in politics: “Never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy.”

Many details of the scandal remain unresolved. Why was Kennedy’s wife not allowed to hear the speech his handlers crafted for him after Kopechne was killed? Why was the Kopechne family paid off for their silence?

That is what Ted Kennedy will be remembered for. And it is a bad legacy that he leaves behind.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Chappaquiddick: No Profile In Kennedy Courage
Susan Donaldson James
ABC News
August 26, 2009

Obama Administration To Give Terrorists More Fodder For Propaganda

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to move forward with prosecutions against CIA interrogators who protected American lives by extracting information from terrorists. Apparently, Obama doesn’t think it was right for those CIA interrogators to get that information.

So, Eric Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to go after those interrogators and bring them to trial.

From CBS News:

Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to determine whether or not any laws were broken during the interrogations.

First, let us remember the Valerie Plame affair in which Plame (a CIA analyst who was not in a covert status at the time) was allegedly “outed” by someone in the Bush Administration. The libs and Dems went crazy screaming about how Plame and her husband were having their privacy violated, even as they both posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Now, this investigation will most certainly “out” several CIA agents who are not only covert, but will now have their families exposed as well. That is a treasure trove of information for a terrorist to have. While some CIA interrogators may have threatened to kill a terrorist’s children, terrorists actually go out and kill innocent children.

So, to all you liberal Dems, why is it okay to “out” these interrogators and expose their families to terrorist reprisals but you came to the defense of Valerie Plame who wasn’t even in a covert status? I don’t think any amount of hypocritical reasoning will ever be able to justify that.

But even more far reaching is how the terrorists are going to use this as propaganda against us and stir-up even more anti-American sentiment in order to bring more fanatical recruits to their cause of killing as many innocent Americans as possible.

And here is something interesting:

President Obama has said that he does not want to prosecute the former Bush administration officials who created the interrogation policies. But Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has added that the Attorney General’s investigation into the legality of the interrogations is independent of the administration.

Didn’t Obama say that we should look forward and not back? Apparently, Holder didn’t get that memo. And given Gibbs’ response to the whole thing, it looks as though Obama doesn’t have any idea of what is going on over at Justice or how that department is forcing him to break one of his own pledges. Or Obama is pushing for these prosecutions while trying to keep his hands clean at the same time. I think this last possibility is most likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Admin. Official Criticizes CIA Probe
Dana Chivvis
CBS News
August 25, 2009

Dr. Thomas Sowell: A Tangled Web Of Racial Politics

In this post-racial America that was supposed to be Barack Obama’s hallmark, we find that things have not changed one little bit. Dr. Sowell reminds us that the recent Supreme Court decision which vailidated the complaints of several New Haven firefighters who were denied promotion because they were white may have been a good decision because it was fair, but also that the decision was a rare case of sanity in an insane political world.

In his latest column for Town Hall, he writes:

The original Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very straightforward in forbidding discrimination. But, even before that Act was passed, there were already people demanding more than equality of treatment. Some wanted equality of end results, some wanted restitution for past wrongs, and some just wanted as much as they could get.

Those that want equality of end results or simply to get as much as they can without having to work for it are the problem. Instead of making themselves better people, they play the race card or the victim card in the hopes of gaining something for little or no labor on their part.

More:

Opponents of the Civil Rights Act said that it would lead to racial quotas and reverse discrimination. Advocates of the Act not only denied this, they wrote the language of the law in a way designed to explicitly prevent such things. But judges, over the years, have “interpreted” the Civil Rights Act to mean what its opponents said it would mean, rather than what its advocates put into the plain language of the legislation.

A key notion that has created unending mischief, from its introduction by the Supreme Court in 1971 to the current firefighters’ case, is that of “disparate impact.” Any employment requirement that one racial or ethnic group meets far more often than another is said to have a “disparate impact” and is considered to be evidence of racial discrimination.

The problem is that there is no evidence of such racial discrimination in these cases. Having grown up in predominantly black Prince George’s County, Maryland, I have seen this up close. I went to public school with all my black peers. We all attended the same classes and were presented with the same study material. Those that scored better on the exams were those who applied themselves and made an effort to learn. Those that didn’t do so well were those who were lazy and didn’t do the work that was required of them.

It is that latter group that is most likely to play the race card or the victim card claiming some sort of discrimination when the truth is that they simply didn’t want to work.

Why does this mentality survive today?

Read on:

The dogma survives because it is politically useful, not because it has met any test of facts.

That’s it. No other reason. It is easy for leftists with political aspirations to buy votes by jumping on the victimology bandwagon and then promising to help those “victims” through government intervention. In other words, they promise to make other people pay by redistributing wealth.

But it is amazing that while minorities claim racial dicrimination in most areas, you won’t ever hear them complain about it in other areas, such as sports. Dr. Sowell gives us some good insight on that:

Does anybody seriously doubt that blacks usually play basketball better than whites?

So, why aren’t their any complaints of racial discrimination in the NBA or even the NFL? Because it would strip away the illusion of victimization.

If the Dems and other leftists were serious about transforming America into a “post-racial” society, their first step should be to tell all those who would play the race card to be quiet.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Tangled Web
Dr. Thomas Sowell
TownHall.com
July 7, 2009

Chrysler Deal Highlights The Democrats’ Culture Of Corrpution

You may get tired of hearing this, but it needs to be repeated over and over and over. Back in 2006, the Democrats campaigned on a Republican culture of corruption. Their claim was that they would bring back transparancy and fairness to Washington D.C.

Well, the Dems lied to us. They are more immersed in a culture of corrpution than the Republicans ever were, even more than they claimed the Republicans were. Now, we can see that this culture of corruption extends all the way to Barack Obama and the White House.

The Chrysler bankruptcy deal was supposed to sail through with no problems and Fiat would be the new majority owner at the end. But, the Obama administration didn’t count on a group of Indiana pension funds looking critically at the deal and finding out what was really going on.

This whole deal with Chrysler was about paying off union supporters at the expense of Joe and Jane Average American.

From the Dow Jones Newswires:

Fiat would initially own 20% of the new company, though it would have the option of increasing its stake to as much as 51%. A United Auto Workers health-care trust would initially get a 55% stake, while the U.S. and Canada, which are lending Chrysler $4.9 billion during the bankruptcy, would own 8% and 2%, respectively.

Senior lenders owed $6.9 billion would receive $2 billion, giving them a recovery of about 29 cents on the dollar. The Indiana funds own about $42 million of the senior debt.

The UAW’s health-care trust has an unsecured claim against Chrysler for about $10.5 billion. In addition to the equity stake in Chrysler that the trust, an unsecured creditor, would receive, it would also get a $4.5 billion note under the plan.

In other words, the UAW, a junior creditor, would be given preference over the Indiana pension funds, part of the senior lenders group. This is why the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the sale, to look at the legality of this situation.

Giving junior lenders preference over senior lenders is wrong. This is clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to pay off their leftist union supporters through the sale of Chrysler and screw over hard-wroking Americans in the process.

(BTW, didn’t Obama promise to get the automakers back on their feet? Why is he now so hot about selling them off?)

The concept of fairness and the due process clause in the Constitution dictate that senior lenders must be tended to first and junior lenders after that. Obama is trying to turn that around. In other words, he is changing the rules in mid-stream so that his supporters get the greater benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The Democrats’ culture of corruption now adds to Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson and Todd Blagovich the name of Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pension Funds Ask High Court To Delay Chrysler Sale
Mark H. Anderson
Dow Jones Newswire via Wall Street Journal
June 8, 2009

And another good analysis can be found on-line here:

Don’t Like the Game? Change the Rules
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 8, 2009

DPRK (North Korean) Communists Hold American Journalists; Threaten A Kangaroo Court

Communists don’t change. From Stalin to Mao to the current leadership of DPRK (Pronounced Dee-Perk), it has always been the same: Sustain a reign of terror, even if it means trying and convicting innocent people. Evidence and transparency are irrelevent, just make arrests and start tossing people in prison.

According to the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his epic work The Gulag Archipelago, that is how communists work. North Korea hasn’t changed one little bit along those lines.

From the Associated Press:

North Korea announced that two U.S. journalists were about to go on trial — then came the mysterious silence.

The day passed Friday with no updates of the criminal proceedings that were supposed to begin Thursday for TV reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee.

And what were these two supposed to go on trial for? Read on:

The journalists — working for former Vice President Al Gore’s California-based Current TV — were arrested March 17 as they were reporting about the trafficking of women. It’s unclear if they strayed into the North or were grabbed by aggressive border guards who crossed into China.

Although the Americans were accused of illegally entering North Korea and unspecified “hostile acts,” Pyongyong has yet to publicly announce the exact charges against them. South Korean legal experts have said a conviction for “hostility” or espionage could mean five to 10 years in a labor camp.

Given the track record of lies and distortions that make up the bulk of the history of communist regimes, I would venture to guess that aggressive border guards crossed into China. How can I make such a claim? Read the history of “justice” in DRPK:

Venezuelan poet Ali Lameda described to the human rights group Amnesty International in a written report his experience in a North Korean court that sentenced him to 20 years in a labor camp in 1967. Lameda, a member of the Venezuelan Communist Party, said he was working as a translator in Pyongyang when he was accused of spying, sabotage and infiltration — allegations he denied.

No evidence, formal charges or specific allegations were presented during the one-day proceeding, he said. Instead, court officials repeatedly demanded that Lameda confess his guilt. A defense lawyer was assigned to him, but the attorney gave a long speech praising the late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung before suggesting his client be sentenced to 20 years.

No, the communists haven’t changed one little bit.

Where is Barack Obama and why isn’t he demanding the release of these two Americans being illegally held by DPRK? He and the Democrats are certainly vocal enough when it is the U.S. holding legitimate terrorism suspects.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

North Korea Silent About US Journalists’ Trial
William Foreman, Jean H. Lee and Kwang-tae Kim
Associated press
June 5, 2009

Rapists, Muggers And Robbers Rejoice! You Now Have Free Reign In The National Parks!

Ever wonder how criminals select their targets for their next crime? Very few do so randomly. Most size up a situation and carefully consider the risks before going in and doing the dirty deed.

Rapists often stalk their victims before moving in to strike. Robbers case houses to determine which ones will be the easiest to break into and which ones will have the most loot. Muggers tend to go after those that look weakest and least able to fight back.

You get the picture.

Now, let’s say that you are a mugger, robber or rapist and you want to know where the most fertile hunting grounds are. That analysis has now been made simple for you by Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who presides in Washington D.C.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly has issued an order from the bench (judicial activism) that people with concealed weapon permits may no longer carry their firearms in National Parks.

Thus, if you happen to be a mugger, robber or rapist, you can pack your own illegal firearm, head into National Park and begin to mug, rob and rape knowing that no one on those trails or in those camp sites will be able to fight back against you.

According to the National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action:

On Thursday, March 19, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges.

In Thursday’s ruling, Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior rule that took effect on January 9, 2009. The revised rule allowed individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense in national parks and national wildlife refuges located in states that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

In recent years here in Virginia, we’ve had a few high-profile killings in the Parks and along the Appalachian Trail.

Judge Kollar-Ketelly has no common sense on this issue. Essentialy, she has sent a message to anyone who wishes to commit crimes: Go into the parks. No one will be able to stop you from inflicting harm on other people.

So, if you go hiking on a trail in a National Park, beware. You could run into a mugger or rapist or a drug-dealer who wants to protect his crop of marijuana plants.

BTW, please don’t try to say that Park Rangers will be able to protect everyone. The average response time for law enforcement in a poorly marked wooded area is more than long enough for a criminal to commit a crime and then get away virtually undetected. Besides, Park Rangers won’t respond until after the crime is committed.

You can access the original press release on-line here:

Concealed Carry In National Parks Suspended — NRA Files Motion To Appeal
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action
March 20, 2009

UK Senior Judge: Nothing “Honorable” About Muslims Abusing And Killing Their Own Families

How many times have we read stories about “honor killings” or forced marriages or abuse of Muslim children? Far too many times.

I used to think that most (if not all Europeans) were simply too scared to speak out in the face of a Muslim culture that is coming to dominate them. Well, over in the United Kingdom, at least one sane, rational voice is speaking out. That voice belongs to Lord Justice Wall, a senior judge in the U.K. judicial system.

According to the Daily Mail Online:

Lord Justice Wall, giving a ruling on a case involving three Muslim children put in the care of white foster parents, said the time had come to ‘re-think the phrase honour killing’.

He had heard that a mother had set fire to one of her three children and tried to burn down the house where they lived in an attempt to incriminate her sister-in-law.

The sister-in-law ‘presented a problem to the family’ and had fled the home after being beaten and her first child murdered by her husband, the mother’s brother.

The judge said: ‘The message from this case, which must be sent out loud and clear, is that this court applies a tolerant and human rights based rule of law: one which… regards parents as equals and the welfare of the child as paramount.

‘That is the law of England, and that is the law which applies in this case. Arson, domestic violence and potential revenge likely to result in abduction or death are criminal acts which will be treated as such.’

He said the activities brought to light by the case had ‘nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law’.

‘They are acts of simply sordid, criminal behaviour and a refusal to acknowledge them as such.’

Wow! Those are some strong words and they are exactly the words that needed to be said. Two things to note:

1. Abuse and killing of family members has “nothing to do with any concept of honour known to English law.”

2. The acts are “of simply sordid criminal behaviour.”

That is stripping the issue down to the bare-bones essentials. Islamics who abuse and kill their own family members have no place in the civilized society of the West. That much is clear from point Number 1.

Point Number 2 serves as a reminder that moral relativism has no place in the application of laws and that all laws must be applied equally to all people across the board. As such, Muslims who abuse and kill their own family members should not be considered as adherents to a different set of beliefs, but merely common criminals who need to be held accountable and punished for their crimes.

How bad can it get? Read on:

The mother of the children – a girl aged 11 and boys of nine and five – is 32 and serving a five-year jail sentence for arson.

One of her brothers had contracted a second marriage to a woman in Pakistan who came to England in 2003 pregnant with her first child.

That child was taken to hospital aged 27 months suffering from multiple injuries and died.

It was not known the motivation for the killing but among the injuries on the child were signs of chronic sexual abuse.

A 27-month-old child. That’s not even three years. What motivates a person to physically harm a defenseless little human being like that?

I went to school here in the West and we were never taught to do anything like that. In fact, we were taught that such behavior is simply evil and that those who engage in such actions should be severely punished.

But, in certain Muslim cultures, such behavior is acceptable and encouraged and when it happens, is justified under Sharia law.

Now, I know some Muslims out there will complain that these people do not represent mainstream Islam. But my response to this complaint is that instead of berating people like me, they should go after these abusers and murderers and tell them to stop claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

The people of Europe would do very well to listen to the admonitions of Lord Justice Wall. Maybe it’s not too late yet.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senior Judge Condemns Use Of The Word ‘Honour’ To Describe Abuse And Murder Within Muslim Families
Daily Mail Reporter
March 16, 2009

Gitmo Prisoners Defend ‘Blessed’ 9/11 Attack

Read this one carefully. Understand that terrorists like these five are the people that Barack Obama wants to defend with civil rights. Terrorists like this are people that liberals want to set free. Terrorists like this are the people that leftists all over the world claim are simply “misunderstood.”

From CNN:

Five Guantanamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation “blessed” and “great” and the accusations against them “badges of honor.”

The military commission set up to hear the men’s cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document Thursday, and a military judge ordered its release on Monday.

The five are members of the al Qaeda terror network. Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council.

“With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims,” the response stated.

And Barack Obama thinks that people like this can be negotiated with?

More:

Quranic verses were cited in the filing, and the men underscored their defense of “oppressed” Muslims.

“Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians and pagans. With God’s willing, we are terrorists to the bone.”

“We ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peak in paradise,” the response said, in reference to the al Qaeda militants who hijacked the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Would any leftist libs out there care to explain why you all are so hot on defending and/or releasing terrorists like these five? Or maybe you can explain why Barack Obama thinks that the Taliban can be reasoned with?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Gitmo Prisoners Defend ‘Blessed’ 9/11 Attack
CNN
March 10, 2009

Video Shows Third Planned Parenthood Clinic Hiding The Rape Of A Teenager

They say that the third time is the charm. Let’s hope so for the sake of future generations.

Lila Rose, leader of the Mona Lisa Project, released another video of another Planned Parenthood clinic breaking the law and hiding the sexual abuse of a 15-year-old. This time is happened in Tucson, Arizona. The first two videos were shot in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Planned Parenthood Caught On Video Covering Up The Rape Of A 13-Year-Old Girl
84rules
December 3, 2008

SECOND Planned Parenthood Hides Rape Of 13-Year-Old Girl
84rules
December 17, 2008

LiveAction.org released this statement back on February 3, 2009:

New hidden-camera footage from Tucson, AZ, implicates a third Planned Parenthood clinic in a multi-state child abuse scandal. In the video, UCLA student Lila Rose and her friend Jackie Stollar enter a Tucson Planned Parenthood clinic where Rose tells the nurse that Stollar, posing as a 15-year-old, is pregnant by her 27-year-old boyfriend. The nurse disregards the age difference and even cautions Stollar not to bring her “boyfriend” before the judicial hearing required in Arizona to waive parental consent for an abortion.

This negligence is punishable under Arizona law.

Why would Arizona consider this “negligence?” Read on:

This is not the first time Planned Parenthood of Arizona has failed to report sexual abuse. In 2002, an Arizona judge found the abortion provider negligent for failing to report the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl by her 23-year-old foster brother, who brought her to a Phoenix-area clinic for an abortion in 1998. After Planned Parenthood kept silent about the abuse, the sexual relationship continued and led to a second abortion six months later.

“Our footage gives the Arizona public and law enforcement a rare window into Planned Parenthood’s careless abortion-first ideology,” Rose stated. “With abortion as their first and only solution for the abused victim, Planned Parenthood assists sexual predators by violating the very Arizona state laws that protect children.”

How sick does an organization have to be that it lets child molesters go to molest again?

You can access the complete press release on-line here:

New Undercover Video Shows Tucson Planned Parenthood Hiding Sexual Abuse Of 15-Year-Old Girl
LiveAction.org
February 3, 2009

And you can see the video on-line here:

Undercover Video Shows Tucson Planned Parenthood Ignores Sexual Abuse Of 15-Year-Old Girl
LiveAction.org
February 3, 2009

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.