Thursday, July 27, 2006

Charlie Rangel Criticizes "HULLABAZOO"

With all of the fun that some folks poke at Pres. Bush, I thought I'd share Rep. Rangel's little gaffe on the floor of the House the other day. As all of the Dems came to speak out in support of Israel and against Hezbollah, Rep. Rangel called them "Hizbaloo," and "Hullabazoo." No big thing, but just as funny as our "misunderestimated" president's gaffes are.

That "Hullabazoo" one cracked me up.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

ACLU Encouraged by U.N. Questioning of U.S. Government

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

ACLU Website:

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND -- A United Nations human rights body expressed
grave concerns today about the record of human rights in the United States. The
American Civil Liberties Union with a delegation of 10 and working with a broad
coalition of other groups is in Geneva to monitor the examination of the United
States the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC).

In a two-day session that concluded today, the committee members pressured the
United States for answers on the following issues:

The sentencing of children to life without parole and the disproportionate
incarceration of minorities;
The militarization of the border;
The failure to prevent human rights violations and respond in a non
discriminatory manner to Hurricane Katrina;
The failure to end racial profiling practices, specifically the profiling of South Asian
convenience store employees in Georgia;
Warrantless spying on ordinary Americans;
The abuse of women in prison; and
The indefinite detention, rendition and torture of non-citizens.

“The U.S. should be ashamed of itself,” said Ann Beeson, Director of the ACLU’s
Human Rights Program. “The review by the Human Rights Committee was a stark and
all too accurate condemnation of the state of rights in America.”

No, the ACLU should be ashamed of itself. The review by the Human Rights
Committee which includes member states Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China ,and
ensures that violaters are included, is a joke and nowhere near

Jim Hoft has covered this well.

Religious persecutors, Womens Rights violators, Communist Regimes, and illegal organ harvesters will make up the new UN Human Rights Council.

And this is the organization that the ACLU want to hold the U.S. accountable to?
The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world. They are both
seeking to destroy America’s credibility and soverignty. The U.N. are a corrupt
joke when it comes to human rights, and they have absolutely zero credibility to
make any judgement on America in that area.

The ACLU, who provided the list called "Dimming the
Beacon of Freedom", to this corrupt organization that can't even clean up its
own human rights violations are an embarrassement to this great nation. It is
shameful that their list included our efforts to spy on the enemy, protect our
borders, and several other accusations without evidence. I also wonder if their
accusation to "abuse" of women in prison would be not providing them
with abortions at the expense of taxpayers.

Besides the issues within our own judicial system and its decay, the ACLU is
also turning to international sources to undermine our nation's sovereignty and
national security.

For instance, the ACLU filed a formal complaint with the United
Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention against the United States, stating
that the United States violated international law when it detained 765 Arab
Americans and Muslims for security reasons after the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attack on our nation. Eventually, 478 were deported. ACLU Executive
Director Anthony Romero said, "With today's action, we are sending a strong
message of solidarity to advocates in other countries who have decried the
impact of U.S. policies on the human rights of their citizens. We are filing
this complaint before the United Nations to ensure that U.S. policies and
practices reflect not just domestic constitutional standards, but accepted
international human rights principles regarding liberty and its deprivations." Source

Romero, of course, makes the United States sound like some rogue nation with no
regard for human rights, not the beacon of liberty that so many have come to
escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression.

All of this should concern you. You may think that it doesn't directly affect
you in your everyday life, but it will eventually. The ACLU's embrace of
international law seeks to hypocritically do the opposite of what the ACLU claim
to protect, and the Constitution forbids; prohibit the free exercise of

In spring 2003, a group from the United Nations Human Rights
Commission, of which former ACLU officials Paul Hoffman and John Shattuck are a
part, met and discussed a resolution to add "sexual orientation" to the UNHRC's
discrimination list. Homosexual activists at the meeting called for a "showdown
with religion," clearly intending to use international law to silence religious speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. Source

The ACLU's actions are a direct threat to our very freedom of speech, religious
exercise, security, and soverignity. In some countries, laws are being pushed,
and in some cases, enacted that essentially criminalize forms of religious
speech and activity that does not affirm homosexual behavior.

If we are going to turn the interpretation of our laws to international
jurisprudence, and decisions of foreign courts, judges, and legislatures, the
question begs...why did we fight a war of independence? If the ACLU are
successful in their agenda for international law, the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution will eventually become irrelevant
documents. More and more of America's freedoms, and our very soverignty will be
sacrificed for international law. Our freedoms will vanish. The ACLU's vision
of freedom that includes the public sale of child pornography, the silencing of
churchs and ministries, and unlimited abortion and euthanasia will replace them.
To many Americans, these sound more like human rights violations than anything
on the ACLU's list.

On October 27, 1787, Alexander Hamilton predicted that a “dangerous ambition”
would one day tyrannize the gangling young American Republic, all the while
lurking “behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people.” It
could almost be said that Hamilton had a prophecy of the ACLU.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us,
please email Jay
or Gribbit. You will be
added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006


This is from Rob Port, the author of the Say Anything blog. It's a follow-up to his July 16th post, New York Times Photographer On The Wrong Side, which is worth reading first.

Over the weekend the appearance of a photo showing an Iraqi terrorist firing on U.S. soldiers which appeared in the New York Times caused something of a stir in the blogosphere.

Today Jon Henke has some further thoughts on the subject:

Many on the Right have recently argued that one negative consequence of extending Geneva Convention protections to unlawful combatants will be the death of more innocent civilians. Similarly, if journalists—even just a few—begin operating as explicit accessories to one side or the other, what do you suppose the consequences will be for other journalists? If journalists become camera-wielding extensions of the US military, the consequence will be that more journalists are killed on sight. And why not? As far as a military force is concerned, an enemy is an enemy.
Why, I ask ironically, does The Ugly American want patriotic journalists to die?

Jon goes on to explain that if the media isn't neutral in Iraq they will either not cover the stories coming out of that country or die.

Personally, I think that's something of an absurd statement.

First, let's consider history. During the 1940's the press seemed capable of covering WWII without embedding reporters with Nazi fighters engaged in killing Allied troops. Granted the press was, generally, pro-war during WWII but even during the Vietnam war it seems as though the battles were covered by reporters without sending them out to the front lines with the enemy.

The idea that the media can't cover the stories coming out of Iraq unless they actually embed themselves with the enemy just doesn't make sense. They can, it's just that they choose to embed themselves with the enemy to enhance their coverage.

Fine. That's their decision, but it brings me to my next point: When the media embeds themselves with terrorists they grant a sense of legitimacy to the cause of those terrorists.

It should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the people we're fighting in Iraq are nothing if not experts at manipulating the media. Our enemies in Iraq routinely surround themselves with women and children so that when they're attacked by U.S. forces they can point to the bodies and cry "massacre." They also use false allegations of abuse which our journalists are all too happy to eat up (see: Newsweek's Koran flushing story) to heap scorn on the U.S. military. These are just a couple of the ways our enemies in Iraq turn journalists into their useful idiots, and I think sending our reporters to follow around these terrorists and take their picture/interview them just encourages more of this manipulation.

Not to mention the fact that it emboldens our enemies.

Terrorism is all about getting attention. That doesn't mean terror attacks aren't perfectly legitimate fodder for journalism, but neither does it mean that we need to flatter the terrorists by sending out reporters to glorify their "cause" with dramatic photos and a forum for their views. Last year ABC News sent out a reporter to interview Chechen terrorist Shamil Bayasev, who was responsible for a massacre at a Russian school in Beslan. ABC ran that story without once reporting to Russian authorities any information as to Bayasev's whereabouts despite the fact that Bayasev was one of Russia's most wanted terrorists.

I don't think there is any way to reasonably defend ABC's actions in giving Bayasev a forum to air his opinions in rather than turning him over to the authorities, nor do I think there is any way to defend the Times' decision to put journalists on the ground alongside terrorists who are actively engaged in killing Americans.

Some things are just wrong no matter how you try to justify them.

Great stuff, Rob!


I saw a Syrian spokesman on the PBS NEWSHOUR last night, and couldn't believe what I heard. This guy was saying that Israel "kidnapped," or "illegally detained" over 9,000 Palestinians, among them the 9 Palestinian Hamas legislators. I wasn't born yesterday, and can see this for the load of crap this is.

I have an idea: why doesn't Israel offer a three for three trade of the "hostages?" The Syrian spokesman seemed to make a big point of how small a trespass the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was, and how awful the arrest of the Hamas legislators was. Doesn't it stand to reason that any exchange of "prisoners" should be a fair trade, and not a ridiculously unbalanced exchange?

The Hamas legislators should be worth much more, in relation to the Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah, of course, doesn't give a s#!t about the Hamas legislators, or the Palestinians. Lebanon is facing the consequences of not fighting the terrorists in their midst, after giving Hezbollah free reign in the south of their country, and continuing to permit terrorist training camps in the Bekka valley.

Further, I take issue with the whole "illegaly detained" charge against Israel. I don't know of any society that has lived under such circumstances that has not had restrictive arrest policies. Any body, national or international, that criticizes this policy is hypocritical, because they would probably use harsher methods if they were the targets of this kind of terrorism (Or they would run, like the UN did after one big terrorist attack in Iraq).

I suppose I should thank PBS for broadcasting the Syrian representative's propaganda, but I resented them putting the Syrian on second, giving him the opportunity to rebut the Israeli spokesman, but not vice-versa. They had a good panel debate after the interviews, with Bill Kristol getting a few words in. I still don't understand why libs are so reluctant to condemn this terror, other than hatred of Israel. WHY? Maybe because they're a US ally?

Sunday, July 16, 2006


I write this post for those who say that "we're stretched to thin," implying that we don't have the capacity to handle further military action beyond Iraq. Another implication of this argument is that we could not handle all of the "hot spots," meaning Iraq, Iran, No. Korea, Israel, India, among others, going critical at once.

I refer readers to the biography of Gen. George Marshall, who reluctantly gave his name to the famous Marshall Plan, in his post-military years. During his service, and at the onset of WW II, he was charged with building a military out of next to nothing. I think that he would be happy with the strength of our military against the threats we face today.

President Bush named these three states as "the Axis of Evil." Did that provoke them to their latest level of malevolence? Were they not always "state sponsors" of terrorism, and inhuman treatment of their own people, as well? Iraq shows the difficulty involved in changing any of these regimes, and the need for a long-term commitment.

This is where Gen. Marshall comes in again. He reluctantly backed what was to be called the "Marshall Plan," which ended up with a democratic Germany and Japan, and not without terrible hatreds being displayed from all sides.

The war on terror is just beginning, for the US. Afghanistan and Iraq are only the first rounds that we've actually fought in. Russia, India, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, France, Germany...all of the nations of the world are affected by this scourge. All have fought it, to a greater or lesser degree. Lebanon's getting on board against Hezbollah, from the latest news reports. Welcome to the club, old-timer.

By the way, why is it that so many see the Iraq war as a failure? We got rid of one of the biggest terror sponsors in the world (Three, if you count Uday and Kusay Hussein, may they rot in Hell), and we are now fighting to make sure another terror sponsor doesn't take his place.

I am fully aware of this, even if the media and "opposition" aren't. Gen. Marshall saw many more deaths in the training of troops for WW II than we have had in Iraq. One might not want to compare those, but I'll offer this, by way of explanation:

Shortly after 9/11, when we still thought the death count was around 6,000, I had an email exchange with my buddy John Elder. He was worried about the casualties involved in invading Afghanistan. I told him that my thoughts on the limit of "acceptable" deaths, to the public would be 12,000, or twice as many as we thought had died on 9/11. My rationale was that the deaths of volunteer military servicemen would stir less public outrage than innocent people that were just going to work.

This was my state of mind, in the weeks following 9/11. Military personnel volunteer their lives for their country. They are expected to kill, or be killed. This is also the mindset of our enemies, and which is why we must kill them, before they kill more of us. It is war, with a diplomatic veneer, that we face.

If all of the flashpoints in the world explode at once, I hope that we have a Gen. Marshall (or Gen. Colin Powell?) to help get us through it. I have faith that we can supersede our critics, both internal and foreign. To do less against the menaces of the world today dishonors our very heritage.

Friday, July 14, 2006


Crossposted excerpt from Assorted Babble By Suzie

I call on my Christian friends to pray for our President while at the G8 Summit in Russia Thursday. Throughout my research for months now, I feel President VLadimir Putin is or may be a terrorist and perhaps a larger threat than Iran, N.Korea and/or UBL. A little background below and other links on this subject...Is Vladimir Putin reverting back to his roots as a KGB leader and communist? Putin is showing two personalities, but has a real motive behind his masquerade. Is he sharing nuclear weapons and/or secrets with our enemies including Al-Qaeda? Below you will read a quote from our VP Cheney about the change in attitude with Russia.

Russia refuses to vote to sanction Iran and North Korea. In January according to Moscow News, they report on several articles, one it is not profitable for Russia to impose sanctions on Iran and this may be the case with North Korea also. Iran and Russia have very close ties and common goals. At the beginning of the year, Russia sold Iran nearly $1 billion dollars worth of weapons and offered to allow Iran to enrich at Russia’s power plants which later Iran rejected and wanted to do that in their own country. (I feel it was part of the chess game for stalling for more time) Another added huge interest between the two is the Caspian Sea, the benefits of this area can be gained by either side. Syria plays an additional role in all this, both Russia and Syria have more advanced weapons to offer to Iran. Back to Syria, they are smack in the middle of this war supporting Hamas along with Iran supplying Hamas against Israel.

In Feb 2006, Iran's President visiting Hamas leader on Feb 20, 2006 jpost reports: [Another Hamas PLC member from Gaza, Dr. Atef Adwan, told The Post that accepting Iranian money would make "Hamas a tool of [Iran's] policy and this is not good for Hamas and not good for the region." ] from previous post.

Russia is connected to Iran, Syria, Hamas, North Korea, and the list continues....most especially Islamic countries. Putin was in the KGB during the Cold War during the time Khan and other Russian scientists designed nuclear weapons. Read more about how Putin is reverting back to communism.

Based on the Confessions by the Father of Pakistan’s Atomic Bomb, that
would be the
Abdul Qadeer Khan, (picture in link) in case you are not familiar with this man along with other Russian scientists that made nuclear weapons during the Cold War. After the fall of the USSR, these scientists went to help Iran achieve its dreams of developing nuclear weapons. Keep in mind Russia's Putin was in leadership during this period of time that Mr. Khan was in the Soviet Union.

Just a thought....Is Russia reverting back to a communist country such as the former USSR and has China sold its soul to the enemies of the West? President Vladimir Putin is not our friend..... just look at his past from the KGB to what control he has now and his goals for the future. As my bible refers to....Russia is the bear, the north....actually Moscow is due north of... Jerusalem which is the center of our universe. An article of interest KGB Back at Power .....Don't forget the confessions by Abdul Qadeer Khan - "Father of Pakistan's Atomic Bomb", who worked for the USSR. In Jan 2006 Russia and Iran met and according to Albawaba Middle East News a quote "The focal point of our talks in Moscow will not be restricted to nuclear issues and we will hold talks on all fields," said Larijani.

Read her whole post, and update, linked above.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

American Criminal Liberties Union: STOP THE ACLU Blogburst!

Crossposted from STOP THE ACLU

I am going to assume that most people can agree that America's population is
found across a vast political spectrum. From libertarians and liberals to
moderates and conservatives we find each other across a broad field on ideas and
issues. Many times we can all agree that certain things are problems within
society yet be on the opposite extremes on how to solve that problem. One of
the problems of society that most people can agree on is that of crime. The
solution to reducing this problem most likely is found somewhere in the middle
and not the extremes.

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure domestic
tranquility. Due process, the Fifth Amendment right, is a procedural right, one
that defines the methods that can properly be used to ensure domestic
tranquility. Without both, there can be no liberty. Domestic tranquility can
easily be achieved without respect for due process, as dictatorships throughout
history have shown. It is also quite possible to have a society where due process is respected-even considered sacrosanct-and still lack for
domestic tranquility. The latter predicament more closely resembles the
situation in the United States today.Source

The ACLU in its extreme ideals of society unravels due process from the reasons
it was created to serve. The ACLU maintains that it is their purpose to ensure
due process and the police to tend to domestic tranquility. I agree that the
roles should be separate. I think the opposite would be an invitation to
disaster. The ACLU's sincerity in their statement might be more believable if,
as we shall show, they were not so often in opposition of law enforcement. It
is generally accepted that domestic tranquility is absolutely necessary to the
process of liberty. What is often less understood is how the exclusive concern
for due process can also be damaging to liberty.

I think we can all agree on how important domestic tranquility is to maintaining liberty. What good are all of our freedoms if
we are afraid to practice them? The only liberties worth having are ones that
we can enjoy without fear. This simply can't be done if a society is filled
with crime and violence.

The ACLU do not share these moderate views on society. They have a much more
extreme viewpoint.

"According to the ACLU," writes Jeffrey Leeds, "there is no right to
live in a quiet or pleasant society, but there is a right to speak, to seek to
persuade, to have unpopular or even stupid views. Moreover, there is no right
even to live in a safe society. The ACLU will work to vindicate a convicted
criminal's rights to due process, even if it means setting a killer free."Source

Leeds isn't exaggerating. One ACLU official Dorothy Ehrlich can be quoted as
saying, "the citizens' need to be 'free from criminal activity' not, in
the legal sense, a 'right' at all (and thus is nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights)
but, rather, an essential social good, like fire prevention, or adequate medical
care, or the prevention of famine." Source

Funny that an official from the ACLU is stating that if a right isn't mentioned
in the Constitution then it isn't a right at all. After all, this is the
organization that defends abortion on demand, and the sale of child porn. These are not
mentioned in the Constitution either.

The ACLU's skewed views toward crime can also be seen in its approach toward
crime victims. The ACLU has shown very little interest in the rights of crime
victims. When it comes down to it, the rights of criminals seem to always
override the rights of the victims. For example, the ACLU opposes the use of a
crime victim impact statement in capital sentencing because it "unconstitutionally requires
consideration of factors which have no bearing on the defendant's responsibility
or guilt." Of course the courts have ruled otherwise.

While the ACLU says they have our liberty as its mission, its policies in the
area of criminal justice have only aggravated and accelerated the already
terrible problems of maintaining domestic tranquility. Their opposition to the death penalty doesn't bother me by itself.
It is the ACLU general attitude toward criminal justice as a whole that I deem
dangerous. Throughout its history it has fought many court battles to:

Eliminate all prison sentencing from criminal judicial procedure
except in a few "extreme" cases of utter incorrigibility-and only then as the
penalty of last resort.Source

Let me briefly interrupt my list for a little perspective on this particular

In conjunction with their opposition to the death penalty in all
this particular policy is quite disturbing to me. It would seem
that the ACLU wants rehabilitation and probation to be the primary means of
preventing crime in all but the most extreme cases.

"Deprivation of an individual's physical freedom is one of the most
severe interferences with liberty that the state can impose. Moreover,
imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive, and costly." This explains
why the ACLU holds that "a suspended sentence with probation should be the
preferred sentence, to be chosen generally unless the circumstances plainly call
for greater severity." The Union favors alternative sentencing and lists the
reintegration of the offender into the community as "the most appropriate
correctional approach." Here's the clincher: "probation should be authorized by
the legislature in every case and exceptions to the principle are not favored."
Prior to 1991, when this policy was revised, the Union said that only such
serious crimes as "murder or treason" should qualify as exceptions. The
explicit referencing of those two crimes was deleted because of the public
embarrassment it caused the organization.Source

Let us continue with the list:

Disallow capital punishment in any and all
situations as a violation of the constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment"

Discredit deterrence as a basis for incarceration;

Oppose rehabilitative confinement;

Block all sentencing guidelines that seek restitution to the victims of criminal

Mandate suspended sentences with probation as the primary form of "treatment"
for criminal offenders;

Restrict all court sentencing discretion through the legislative process or
direct judicial intervention in trial proceedings-thus severely crippling the principle of trial
by jury;

Eliminate all mandatory sentencing laws;

Facilitate mandatory early parole and release programs;

And, oppose new construction or expansion of jails, prisons, and detention
centers. Source

In addition the ACLU is also involved in limiting the power of law enforcement
to maintain domestic tranquility:

Severely restrict search and arrest procedures even when evidence of
guilt is available;

Hinder protective or corrective police action at crime scenes;

Invalidate airport bomb detectors, drunk driving checkpoints, periodic or random
drug screening, and other preventative security measures;

Prohibit the free exchange of criminal records between law enforcement agencies;

Limit even the most sound and non-prejudicial police interrogation and
investigation techniques;

Institute national or regional bureaucratic control over law enforcement
agencies-thus effectively, removing local accountability;

Severely restrict riot control, swat team, and antiterrorist activities and

Make most surveillance operations, stakeout procedures, and community crackdowns

Prohibit the eviction of drug dealers and other incorrigibles from public
housing projects;

Deregulate and decriminalize all "victimless crimes"-such as prostitution, drug use and abuse, gambling, sodomy, or the production ,
exhibition, and sale of vile and obscene materials-despite the proven link
between such vices and serious crime.Source

There is one recommendation that the ACLU makes on how to stem crime: strong gun control
It adopted its first gun-control policy in the late
sixties which was actually pretty reasonable. For the sake of brevity on such a
broad topic I will not quote it. Suffice it to say that most of today's
liberals would not agree with it.


In 1971 the Union took the position that the ownership of guns, any
guns, aside from guns owned by the militia, was not constitutionally protected.Source

The ACLU's policy towards the second amendment is:

“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing
interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that
the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military
purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of

It is strange for the ACLU to use such a dated ruling as precedent, when many
more recent cases have ruled otherwise.

The ACLU's approach to crime, its prevention, and punishment clearly are not in
the mainstream opinion of most Americans. The organization has consistently
been an adversary of law enforcement. The Union's perspective is almost
entirely focused on the criminal which makes many people conclude that rather
being a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU is actually the champion of criminal liberties.

Roger Baldwin once actually admitted that he could not in good
conscience serve on a jury because he simply "would never take part in
convicting anyone." When asked how society could possibly continue to exist
without some sort of penal justice system, eh tersely snapped, "That's your

The ACLU's pandering to criminals, lack of interest in true victims, and
opposition to law enforcement are not solutions to society's burden with crime.
I advise everyone to use common sense, and not to follow the extreme positions
of the ACLU when it comes to preventing and punishing crime.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us,
please email Jay
or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.


Alright, I'm going to tie this all together. North Korea is tied to Iran, who pulls strings in Syria, who controls elements in Hamas, with more Iranian control over Hezbollah. Kim Jong "Ill" needs to get off of the World stage right now. The Palestinians are meat in the grinder for the terror masters' political distraction. In fact, I will predict that North Korea will not launch another missile, anytime soon. The rest is pure "conspiracy theory" conjecture.

The truth is that I question the timing of the newest attack on Israel, by Hezbollah. The relationships I mention above are facts. Would they risk war with Israel to help North Korea? Kim is the most likely avenue for a terrorist to get a nuclear weapon; more than Iran, China, or Russia. They may be willing to risk much for the potential levelling of a Western city.

(I think back, to the '93 WTC bombing. Shortly after his conviction, the the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman said to the man who would become the WTC's head of security weeks before 9/11, and died there that day (I paraphrase): "They will come down. Enough time and money, and they will come down." This is why I take terrorism so seriously.)

Why would Hezbollah launch this new attack? Perhaps to try the old trick of stirring up anti-Israeli serntiment in Lebanon, perhaps starting another civil war there? Didn't they just do that to the PA? Is there no end to the repetitions of this behavior? The terror masters are thugs, who care nothing for those they use to further their ends.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006


Crossposted from California Yankee, a great blogger I have added to my blogroll!

James Haldeman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel, is running as a Republican for the South Kingstown seat held by Democrat John Patrick Shanley Jr., is
endorsed by the mayor of Fallujah, Iraq:

The endorsement letter from Mayor Dhari Abdul Hadi al-Irssan describes Haldeman as Fallujah's "favorite USA colonel." Al-Irssan said he would support Haldeman
for president if he chose to run for that post as well.
"As flattered as I am," Haldeman said. "I think that to serve in (House) District 35 will be plenty for me right now."

Haldeman, a pilot for American Airlines, came out of military retirement to go to Fallujah.

According to The Providence Journal, as commander of the civil military operations center in Fallujah, Haldeman oversaw reconstruction of water-treatment and power plants, schools and hospitals, and led efforts to encourage social interaction between Iraqis and the U.S. military and among the various factions of the city's population:

"We tried to renew their passion to become free citizens again," Haldeman said.

We are so fortunate to have men such as Haldeman willing to serve.


To: HAMAS in the PA

cc: Mahmoud Abbas, and FATAH

Re: Release Cpl. Gilad Shalit

End all hostilites in Gaza. It is within your power. Release Cpl. Shalit, and stop the rockets from raining over the border with Israel. Is Palestine to be a martyr nation, killed before it has a chance to be born? Whose bidding do you serve, to destroy your own people so? The holding of hostages is prohibited, under Geneva, and most legal systems in the world.

The polls say that the Palestinian people support this terrorist act. I see this as a product of over 20 years of brainwashing, not as any shred of legitimacy to your actions. We in the US are not going to sit by, as you try to get public opinion against Israel over the arrest of Hamas legislators. The old game is over, and you can no longer compare a terrorist kidnapping with legitimate arrests.

You have the power to coexist peacefully in your hands. If you can supress the terrorists in your midst, and free Cpl. Shalit, the suffering you bring will end. I have a question, as well: "Is it too late; can Palestinians accept Israel's existence?" Palestine will never officialy "exist" until a majority of Palestinians can do that, and elect people who can admit it openly.

That's a long road, but you have to take the first step. Release Cpl. Shalit, please.You have enough problems without this. Turn against your foreign masters, and join the international community by rejecting these terrorist methods!

Friday, July 07, 2006


Perhaps they're learning, perhaps not. Read this excerpt from a recent NYCLU email alert:

Dear Christopher Leavitt, Today the New York Court of Appeals turned its back on same sex couples and their families by denying them the protections that come with legal marriage. But all is not lost. Now it's up to the state Legislature to right this wrong and pass a law that respects the same-sex couples' right to marry and protect their families.

If NY's liberal judiciary is rejecting gay marriage as judicial legislation, even the ACLU should get it by now. Somehow, I don't think they will. At least they're being forced to go through the proper channels to achieve their goal, in this case.

This was a (belated) production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us,please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

PS: Think "civil unions," my gay freinds.


More of Bloomy's blowhard testimony from the Senate immigration hearings, this time regarding the criminal aspect of illegal immigration.

Excerpted from the NY POST

July 6, 2006 -- PHILADELPHIA - Fake green cards are a "dime a dozen" on the streets, Mayor Bloomberg testified yesterday before a Senate Committee - after a Post investigation revealed how easy it is to buy the forged documents.

Bloomberg testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing
held by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that it's all too easy to get - and use - the fake documents.

"Fake green cards are a dime a dozen," Bloomberg said in an
emotionally charged, 16-minute speech at Independence Hall.
"You can buy one for $50 to $100. Fake Social Security cards are also easily obtained. And for $125 cash, you can get both cards."

"Such a deal!"

The Post reported yesterday that one of its reporters was able to
get a high-quality, forged green card and Social Security card for $110 - in under three hours.

Bloomberg said yesterday he wasn't surprised by the
paper's findings. In fact, he joked that Post reporter Douglas Montero, who was able to buy a set of fake cards in Queens, paid too much.

"It looks to me like they paid retail because my understanding is that, for half the price, they could've gotten just as good a green card or Social Security card or driver's license," Bloomberg told reporters after testifying.

"The truth of the matter is, you can buy fake IDs everyplace for next to nothing," he said.

Bloomberg blamed the federal government for turning a blind eye.
"The federal laws prevent employers from being able to check to see whether the ID is legit," he said, referring to legislation passed in 1986 that required employers to request identification, but didn't give them the authority to verify whether it's real or forged.
Bloomberg said the current laws are a joke.

"As a business owner, I know the absurdity of our existing immigration regulations all too well," he said.

"Employers are required to check the status of all job applicants but not to do anything more than eyeball their documents."

He added, "In fact, hypocritically, under a federal law that Congress wrote, employers are not even permitted to ask probing questions."

This, from a mayor who has signed "sanctuary" laws that contravene federal law regarding illegal immigration? Apparently, he finds it funny that any potential terrorist can get ID as easily as Mr. Montero did. Bloomy for President, anyone?


A caller on today's Limbaugh show made an interesting comment about Mayor Bloomberg's testimony at the Senate immigration hearing in Philadelphia. Specifically, this portion:"Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders . . . our city's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," Bloomberg said. "The same holds true for the nation."

The caller pointed out that this is similar to the economic arguments made by the South before emancipation. The analogy isn't perfect, but the argument is the same. In the current situation, Bloomberg wants to "legalize" an underclass of workers, but says nothing about increasing their wages. In fact, his argument depends on being able to pay these workers the minimum wage, which may be more than some make now. How else would his economic "collapse" happen, if not that companies would have to pay higher wages, to replace the depleted work force, and the resulting cost of living increases?

Mayor Bloomberg, besides being a gazillionaire, previously headed one of the largest financial news and information services around. He knows about the economy, or should. Either way, his argument is flawed. His views are based on his Wall Street experience, which depends on cheap labor to make companies more profitable, and his liberal ideology that says the state can take care of paying the extra costs: that is, the health care, education, and social costs of these semi-, or unskilled workers.

The truth is that the loss of illegal immigrants will happen either way we go on this issue, unless we fail to secure the border. If we legalize them, they will move into higher paying jobs, not having to hide in the shadows. There will not be a fresh supply of the cheapest labor (with a secure border), and wages will have to rise to attract new workers. I realize that I've probably raised more questions than I have answers to, but one thing is certain. The southern border must be secured against illegal immigration.

How is it that a mayor of New York can advocate this policy, when so many illegal immigrants live under slave labor conditions in his own city? How many of these will even come forward to be "legalized?" I didn't even mention the criminal element in the illegal population, which is higher than the overall population, both immigrant and native. More on Bloomy's testimony about that in another column.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006


North Korea test-fired seven missiles on July fourth, after threatening the U.S. with nuclear annihilation if it interfered. We needn't have bothered. Six of the seven were nodong scuds, and one was their new taepodong, purportedly able to reach U.S. soil. The taepodong failed less than forty seconds after launch. The nodongs, while disturbing, are a weapon No. Korea has beeen known to posess. Kim Jong Il is madman, but his bark is worse than his bite, as was shown on the fourth of July.

It's a good bet that China, being the key player in this situation, is limiting No. Korea's expertise with their missile program. They have no desire to see any nuclear retaliation aimed at a country on their border. I don't see that this helps No. Korea at all with that relationship. Russia will also feel pressure to redefine their relationship with their former "client-state." Japan will find more political support for expanding their military capabilities, which is also good news for us, bad for NK.

South Korea is the most directly threatened nation, but is in a unique position. I don't see them reacting in the media coverage yet, and do not expect to. They are in the eye of the storm, with their "sunshine" policy. We must make every effort not to be baited by North Korea's efforts to extort more aid from the world. This death camp of a nation has existed for far too long. It must be strangled off of the face of the Earth, preferably without a war, nuclear or conventional.

I'm not so optimistic about those odds, though.

Trackbacked at STOP THE ACLU.

Monday, July 03, 2006


This is Cindy Adams' July 4th column. Republished with respect, but not permission.

June 28, 2006 -- I'M thinking July 4. I'm thinking 1776. I'm thinking patriotism. I'm thinking when all Americans were united in loving and supporting their country.

WWII. 1942. A True Story magazine article headed "Movie Stars Honor and Serve Our Country." It featured Pvt. Mickey Rooney, who took basic at Fort Riley, Kan., and was in the European theater of operations. Besides latrine and KP duties like everyone else, he did jokes for the guys like, "You know what a troop train is? A bunch of compartments separated by crap games."

It had photos of Lt. Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Cmdr. Wallace Beery and Robert Montgomery, who was our embassy's naval attaché in London. It featured a layout on Oscar winner Jimmy Stewart, who had joined up. There was Lt. Tyrone Power, Lauren Bacall's future husband Humphrey Bogart in the Navy, and Sgt. Glenn Ford, always to be remembered playing opposite Rita Hayworth in "Gilda." Plus one actor nobody will forget - Capt. Ronald Reagan. And "Gone With the Wind" 's Clark Gable, a captain. And big star Barbara Stanwyck, who was married to big star Robert Taylor, whose role then was lieutenant. If you don't remember him, you may remember his Mandeville Canyon 112-acre ranch complete with in-house casino, which is now owned by entrepreneur Ken Roberts and is where Hillary-for-senator's first fund-raiser was held.

That particular issue listed five reasons to buy "War Bonds": 1) World's safest place for your savings. 2) Written promise the U.S.A. will repay every penny. 3) 2.9 percent interest. 4) Cash back in 60 days if you need the money. 5) Can't go down in value.

One feature, "The Spirit of '76 in '42," read in part: "July Fourth, 1776 was the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed. This supremely confident and challenging statement of the promise of American life - a promise, which has now become the hope of the world - was made amidst the dismal failure of Revolutionary armies."

The booklet "Historic New York" records some of these failures: In 1776 Nathan Hale, a 21-year-old Yale grad from Connecticut, led a battalion that joined George Washington against the massive British forces out to seize N.Y.C. When Washington retreated to northern Manhattan, this lone volunteer to spy behind British lines left Harlem Heights for his secret mission. Caught carrying sketches of British military positions and his Yale diploma, Nathan Hale was hanged after his famous last words: "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

A plaque at 66th and Third marks the probable site of Hale's execution. A plaque in the shadow of 44th and Vanderbilt's Yale Club honors Nathan Hale. His statue stands at the Broadway and Murray streets' entrance to City Hall.

Enter Battle of Saratoga hero Benedict Arnold. Bitter at not being promoted, Arnold chose betrayal. In patriot Benjamin Franklin's evacuated home in occupied Philadelphia lived British Adjutant General John André, 30. Arnold arranged to turn over West Point's fort in return for a generalship in the British army. Andre was captured in Tarrytown and hanged in Tappan, maybe a tollbooth away from our now Tappan Zee Bridge.

When Americans declared independence in 1776, the enemy sent 500 ships carrying 30,000 troops to secure N.Y.C. Until D-Day, 1944, the largest naval attack in history. Washington and his overmatched army escaped New York to avoid capture. Thousands of New York rebels died. Thousands more on British prisons ships anchored in the Hudson.

In New York, the heart of our nation's Revolution, stands Fraunces Tavern, 54 Pearl St. It is where George Washington thanked his generals after the British surrender.

The Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 patriots. Merchants, farmers, lawyers, physicians, 10 were pastors' sons. Roger Sherman of Connecticut was a shoemaker's apprentice. Another, George Taylor, sailed to the New World as a bond servant. Benjamin Franklin, the eldest, was 70. South Carolina's Edward Rutledge, the youngest, 26. Virginia's Thomas Jefferson, 33. President of the First Continental Congress John Hancock of Massachusetts, 39. And it was deputy Patrick Henry, in the town of Richmond, on March 23 who said: "Give me liberty or give me death."

If caught, death was the penalty for their treason. The Plymouth Rock Foundation's "They Signed for Us" reminds us they risked their lives to sign for us. They were plundered, brutalized, destroyed, bankrupted, imprisoned, shot and hunted like animals so that today's citizens could trample our flag and set fire to it.

It must never be - no matter what our individual beliefs - that the spirit of the United States of America, the best country in this whole world, can ever be gone.

Have a safe Fourth of July. My big mouth and I return on July 5