It's like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes...
http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/16/that-stimulus-is-so-freaking-aRead the whole thing and follow the links in those posts for more info.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Buchanan: Is America at war, or not?
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/11/16/is-america-at-war-or-not/
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Read the whole thing for more history on military tribunals and war crimes.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Connecting the Dots
The U.S. government was concerned enough with Awlaki and his jihadist connections that it continued to monitor his activities once he was back in Yemen. He broadcast his sermons on the Internet, his fluent English making it possible for him to reach audiences that other radical clerics couldn't penetrate. He regularly called for violent jihad against the United States--his native country.
In 2006, the U.S. government asked the Yemenis to detain Awlaki. The jihadist-friendly government in Yemen complied, for a while anyway. But by 2007, Awlaki had been freed and was using his recent confinement as a propaganda tool to expand his reach. Thousands downloaded his lectures and pledged fealty to his radical cause.
Among those he influenced were the six Muslim immigrants who plotted an attack on Fort Dix, a U.S. Army base in New Jersey, in 2007. ABC News reported that court documents show that at least two of the men said they drew inspiration from Awlaki's fiery rhetoric. Major Nidal Malik Hasan drew on the same source.
In December 2008, the NSA intercepted a series of emails--as many as 20--sent by Hasan to Awlaki. There was no investigation. In a press release on November 9, the FBI explained why:
Major Hasan came to the attention of the FBI in December 2008 as part of an unrelated investigation being conducted by one of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). JTTFs are FBI-led, multi-agency teams made up of FBI agents, other federal investigators--including those from the Department of Defense--and state and local law enforcement officers.
Read the whole thing.Investigators on the JTTF reviewed certain communications between Major Hasan and the subject of that investigation and assessed that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Major Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center. Because the content of the communications was explainable by his research and nothing else derogatory was found, the JTTF concluded that Major Hasan was not involved in terrorist activities or terrorist planning. Other communications of which the FBI was aware were similar to the ones reviewed by the JTTF.The "subject of that investigation" is Anwar al Awlaki. News stories that followed the FBI statement--driven no doubt by FBI officials speaking on background--almost all used the word "benign" to describe the messages Hasan had sent to Awlaki.
That may be correct. Those communications have not been released to the public, and it may very well be the case that Hasan was not taking direct orders from Awlaki. But that misses the point. Even if the content of the communications was benign, their mere existence should have been troubling: A Muslim officer in the U.S. Army was seeking guidance--spiritual? academic?--from an openly pro-jihad cleric whose past was so troubling he had been investigated by the U.S. intelligence community on three separate occasions and whose words had inspired a plot to attack a U.S. Army installation.
John Yoo: The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.
After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.
Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
Book Review: "Going Rogue" - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537882681089404.html
Mrs. Palin's veep candidacy ignited fury on the left and much skewed reporting in the mainstream media. It is probably too much to hope that a book that begins at the Right to Life booth at the Alaska State Fair will inspire her critics to read on. But if they do, they'll find themselves in the company of a woman whose views are more nuanced than they were portrayed to be during the campaign. As for her supporters on the right, they won't find much new ammunition with which to counter those who say that Mrs. Palin isn't ready for the rigors of the White House.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Burr Statement on the President's Decision to Bring 9/11 Terrorists to the U.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) issued the following statement in response to the Administration’s announcement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his 9/11 co-conspirators will be tried in a civilian Federal court in New York.“I am disappointed to learn of the President’s decision to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his co-defendants to New York to be tried in federal court. These are some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world; I find it shocking that the Administration would choose to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11 attacks to our shores.“Military Commissions were designed in a bipartisan effort specifically to provide terrorists a fair trial in a secure facility – without bringing them to our neighborhoods – and without undermining national security with exposure of sensitive information in civilian courts. Release of that information, including the possible disclosure of the sources and methods used to gather intelligence, puts American lives – civilian and military – at risk.”
The first duty of the President is to protect the country. Terrorists do not deserve the rights afforded common criminals by the Constitution. Obama is going out of his way to coddle terrorists in some misbegotten appeal to the far left in this country who seem to believe that America deserved to suffer the 9/11 attacks. The civilian protocols for discovery (including government anti-terrorist activities) will undermine national security. The deference shown these 9/11 attackers will give encouragement to terrorists around the world who wish to harm the United States.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
End Clinton-era military base gun ban
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Prof busted in Columbia gal 'punch'
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prof_busted_in_columbia_gal_punch_JmsXQ3NzaAt8uG6uUySGTN
A prominent Columbia architecture professor punched a female university employee in the face at a Harlem bar during a heated argument about race relations, cops said yesterday.Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, filed charges.McIntyre and Davis, who works as a production manager in the school's theater department, are both regulars at Toast, a popular university bar on Broadway and 125th Street, sources said.The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about "white privilege" with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said.
William McGurn: The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492620186.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
Now, some believe Republicans should have voted "present" on the Stupak amendment, on the grounds that the worse they could make the bill, the harder for Speaker Pelosi to get the magic 218 votes. That's pretty short-sighted, for several reasons. For one thing, in September all but a few Republican House members signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi demanding such a vote. Had Republicans defeated a pro-life amendment they had asked for, they would have paid a dear price for their cynicism.
For another, it's not even clear it would have worked. The Stupak alliance of Democrats was a broad one, from liberals like Minnesota's Jim Oberstar to conservatives like Mississippi's Gene Taylor. The danger of the cynical GOP strategy is that it could easily have backfired, freeing up Democrats to give Mrs. Pelosi her victory—and putting Republicans in the awkward position of being unable to press for funding restrictions they had explicitly defeated.
Bill Bennett connects the dots on Major Hasan
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTgwNjNkOTAwZGNkMDYzZjE1YTk3OTAzN2U0YzI2NzY=
Hasan was known — by the military, by the FBI, and by his fellow officers to be suspicious at the very least. If we can turn the Navy upside down over sexual harassment, if we can discharge officers for stating they are gay, why can we not separate officers suspected of having ties to terrorists and stating things like, “non-believers (infidels) should have their head cut off, and oil poured down their throat, and be set on fire”?Why are chiefs of staff of the army saying things like: “I think we have to be very careful. . . .Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse”?You connect those dots and you will have your answer. I’m used to this kind of talk in a university — perhaps a university that outlaws ROTC. I’m surprised to find this kind of talk and attitude from on high at institutions ROTC trains under and for, namely one of the last “hard places” in America.
Read the whole thing.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Peters - Call this horror by its name: Islamist terror
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/call_this_horror_by_its_name_islamist_HT78Wt6NkWoCGq5HIOwlII
On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.
What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.
But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?
A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized.
Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace."
The Hole at the Heart of Our Strategy by Mark Steyn
Mark Steyn provides links showing that the Ft. Hood shootings were an act of Islamic terrorism, and wonders if the US Government is willing to admit that political correctness is a security issue.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjczMmJkNzZhNDE3OTI3ZDhhYTk1N2MxYjEyNDg0YjA=And more here:I believe it was Derb a few months after 9/11 who said that for this new struggle our watchword was "Better screwed than rude." Major Hasan represents the institutionalization of that attitude. Thirteen people are dead, dozens more will live with their injuries for the rest of their days, and a lot of families have had a great big gaping hole blown out of their lives because of it.Anwar al-Awlaki and his chums have bet that such a society is too sick to survive. Watch the nothing-to-see-here media driveling on about pre-post-traumatic stress disorder like gibbering lunatics in a padded cell, and then think whether you'd really want to take that bet.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVmN2E4MjQwZTZkMDgyNTZiMTIxNzhjYzcxZTAxNzI=
But we’re scrupulously non-judgmental about the ideology that drives a man to fly into a building or self-detonate on the subway, and thus we have a hole at the heart of our strategy. We use rhetorical conveniences like “radical Islam” or, if that seems a wee bit Islamophobic, just plain old “radical extremism.” But we never make any effort to delineate the line which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam. Indeed, we go to great lengths to make it even fuzzier.
Fort Hood Shooter Tried to Contact al Qaeda Terrorists
U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hassan a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.
The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.
He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI, Awlaki moved to Yemen.
Friday, November 06, 2009
What Did NY-23 Mean?
Yeah, but it would have meant a lot more if Hoffman had won.The bottom line on NY-23: Doug Hoffman just won the Republican Primary. The general election is next year. [...] The story of NY-23 is "the Right starts dismantling the Republican establishment." This is about how the Republican Party is defined and who defines it.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Gingrich Almost Admits Mistake on NY 23
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572325,00.html
HANNITY: I want to give you a chance to explain your thoughts on this and maybe you have regrets, maybe not looking deeper into the fact that she really didn't support any conservative values.
GINGRICH: Well, let me start and say that as you know over the weekend I endorsed Hoffman and I worked very hard to get other people to endorse Hoffman as he was the only candidate who had a chance to win who would vote against Pelosi.
I think the entire Scozzafava was a mistake. I regret deeply that she was chosen by the 11 local county chairs. It's clear that in New York state, the Republicans have to get in the habit of coordinating with Mike Long and the conservatives and that they're not going to win any seats if they don't have a coordinated effort with the conservative party.
That's just an objective fact. And I deeply regret that we got into that kind of a mess, but as a long-term party leader who helped in 1980 with Reagan and in 1994 with the Contract with America, I find it very hard to overruled 11 county chairmen who unanimously voted for her.
I think the nomination was a mistake. I wish that we had gotten involved earlier, and if I had, I would have done everything I could to make sure she had not picked, and she clearly proved in the last few days that she was in no way a loyal Republican.
HANNITY: Yes. Do you -- in some ways, do you think that you were being put in a very difficult position? What do you say...
GINGRICH: Sure.
HANNITY: Let me ask the question a different way. What do you say to conservatives that have always liked Newt Gingrich that are right now angry with you about that particular support?
GINGRICH: I would say they have every right to be angry. I don't blame them. I took a position as somebody who had built national majorities and who really wants to find the last marginal vote to make sure that Nancy Pelosi doesn't stay as speaker, and wants to find the last marginal electoral vote to beat Obama. But I don't blame them for being upset. I think she was the wrong nominee and I think it was a terrible position.
I still like Newt, even though he was wrong to endorse Scozzafava. If he hadn't gotten involved, Hoffman may have done better.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Lessons from Election Night
Christie wins -- beyond the margin of fraud. This is another scandal for Acorn. If you can't steal an election in New Jersey, you don't deserve to call yourselves community organizers.
Chris Christie beat Jon Corzine by four points in a state that went for Obama by 15 points — and where a Republican hadn’t won in over ten years. Unlike Virginia, Obama campaigned heavily for Corzine, calling him his “partner” and putting his prestige on the line. Joe Biden made a couple of campaign appearances, too, and the White House supervised the campaign in the final weeks after Corzine initially fell behind. Obama made the argument for Corzine all about Obama — and New Jersey, one of the bluest states in the nation, rejected him.
Obama will still be president for another three years, but the mystique is gone. New Jersey just taught Democrats in Congress a big lesson — Obama can’t get them re-elected. Being the President’s “partner” on his radical agenda is not a winning position; it wasn’t for Corzine in what should have been a secure blue state, and it certainly won’t be in moderate or conservative districts and states held by Democrats in the House and Senate.
Hanson: The Discreet Charm of the Left-wing Plutocracy
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-discreet-charm-of-the-left-wing-plutocracy/
To distill Gorism is to live in a 1,000 sq. ft. solar house, bike to work, and take the train on long distances; but to promote Gorism, one lives in a mansion, jets on private planes, and is chauffeured from airport to conference center—a rather heavy carbon footprint indeed. I mention that because this week he has insisted that he only invested in what he believes in and is thus not a hypocrite—sort of like a 1990s Fannie or Freddie director saying he is only taking mega-bonuses because he believes in public support for housing.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Gore’s Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/gores-dual-role-in-spotlight-advocate-and-investor/
Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming skeptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiting from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, asserted at a hearing this year that Mr. Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.
Gore is using his political connections to make money off loser technologies at the expense of tax payers and naive investors. The only way most of these investments will pay off is if the government intervenes to force the adoption of these products, not because they actually make economic sense.
Monday, November 02, 2009
The Golden State isn't worth it
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story
According to a report issued earlier this year by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., Texas students "are, on average, one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age," even though per-pupil expenditures on public school students are 12% higher in California. The details of the Census Bureau data show that Texas not only spends its citizens' dollars more effectively than California but emphasizes priorities that are more broadly beneficial. Per capita spending on transportation was 5.9% lower in California, and highway expenditures in particular were 9.5% lower, a discovery both plausible and infuriating to any Los Angeles commuter losing the will to live while sitting in yet another freeway traffic jam.In what respects, then, does California "excel"? California's state and local government employees were the best compensated in America, according to the Census Bureau data for 2006. And the latest posting on the website of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility shows 9,223 former civil servants and educators receiving pensions worth more than $100,000 a year from California's public retirement funds. The "dues" paid by taxpayers in order to belong to Club California purchase benefits that, increasingly, are enjoyed by the staff instead of the members.None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
