Another left-wing attack on the rreedom of speech.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and 14 other neo-fascists have introduced legislation in the House to criminalize any speech a left-winger may not like. Fairness Doctrine, "hate crime" legislation and now this. Left-wingers don't want ordinary people to have any freedom of speech - except for them. Do you think any left-wing neo-fascist prosecutor would go after someone criticizing George Bush? No. But criticize the One . . . and off to tne pokey with you. Real Americans had better start waking up fast.

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

Newt Gingrich on Obama's first hundred days - devestatingly successful

I can never make up my mind about Newt Gingrich. This time he is right on in casting Obama's first 100 days as devastatingly successful - which is terribly bad news for the nation.

In just 100 days, President Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.

Successfully Moving to a European Model of Government Control

At home, in everything from his economic policy to his energy policy to his just-announced science policy, President Obama has successfully moved the country from a traditional American model of entrepreneurship and private initiative to a European model of regulation and government control.

Abroad, he has succeeded in his apparent goal to be the un-George W. Bush; replacing aggressive, if sometimes flawed, American leadership with a humbled, weakened America on the world stage.

Judged by these standards, President Obama’s first 100 days have been a remarkable success.

To tell the truth

Noemie Emery has a great column the Weekly Standard on the left-wing hypocrisy over "torture".

Let's tell the truth about Bush's conduct of the war on terror, which is that it's been a success. His ultimate legacy hasn't been written--Iraq is improved, but not out of danger--but the one thing that can be said without reservation is that the country was kept safe. He delivered on the main charge of his office in time of emergency, in a crisis without guidelines or precedent. Attacks took place in Spain, and in London, in Indonesia and India, but not on American soil, which was the obvious target of choice. Bush couldn't say this before he left office, for obvious reasons, and after he left, attention switched to the new president. This little fact dropped down the memory hole, but with all this discussion, it will rise to the surface. Let the hearings begin!

Also dropped down the memory hole--along with the names of all the Democrats who thought Saddam was a menace who cried out for removal--is what the ambience was like in late 2001 and 2002, when fears of anthrax and suitcase bombs ran rampant, and people on all sides tried to seem tough. Let's tell the truth about all the liberals who went on record supporting real torture, not to mention the Democrats in Congress, when it was cool to want to seem tough on our enemies, who couldn't be too warlike. Then war and tough measures stopped being cool, and "world opinion" became more important. Nothing like statements under oath to revive ancient memories! And rewind the tapes.

Let's get at the truth too about the word "torture," which to different people, means different things. Some think "torture" means standing on the 98th floor of a burning skyscraper and realizing you have a choice between jumping and being incinerated. Some think torture is being crushed when a building implodes around you. Some think torture is not thinking you might drown for several minutes, but looking at burning buildings on television and knowing that people you love are inside them. They remember that being crushed, incinerated, or killed in a jump from the 98th story happened to almost 3,000 blameless Americans (as well as a number of foreigners), and that 125 Pentagon employees were killed at their desks, while many survivors suffered terrible burns. They think the choice between stopping this from happening again by slapping around or scaring the hell out of a cluster of brigands, or leaving the brigands alone and letting it happen again, is a no-brainer.

Read the whole thing.

Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Gerald Warner minces no words in his telegraph.co.uk piece on Obama's subordination of national security, not to mention common decency, to leftist partisan politics:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

Valid question: where was the outrage when Joe Biden said no to homosexual marriage?

A blogger named Andrea Tantaros, whom I hadn't encountered before, asks a penetrating question: where was the outrage when Joe Biden and Barack Obama said no to homosexual marriage?

Perez Hilton has since gone on an angry blogging tirade against Prejean’s answer calling her an absolutely reprehensible five-letter word and later an even more unacceptable four-letter word that begins with “c” on a mainstream news network. He later apologized for his remarks, but then retracted his apology. “She lost it because of that question,” he admitted. “She was definitely the front-runner before that.”

Let’s consider the source: Perez Hilton is an openly gay, unstable and unreasonable left-wing blogger who reports on rumors with great braggadocio — not even real news — and often outs closeted gays in the public eye. If he doesn’t have respect for other homosexuals or an individual’s right to privacy why would he have respect for anything else?

When people are arguing for tolerance and equal rights for gays they undermine their own argument when they resort to intolerant, hateful language that shows a complete disrespect for women. Whether you are talking about gay marriage or the price of coffee at Starbucks, it is absolutely unacceptable to use that language about females to advance your argument.

The double standard is astounding.

I didn’t hear the outrage when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama are against gay marriage. No incendiary language, no insults, no four letter obscenities.

Why is it acceptable for Obama and Biden to have this opinion but not a conservative female? And where are the women’s rights and feminist groups to speak out against this kind of language? Or gay rights groups to denounce this clown because he does nothing to advance their agenda of tolerance? The same place they were when other females who possessed traditional values or beliefs like Sarah Palin exercised their right to free speech and expressed these views: they’re nowhere to be found.

Show trials on the horizon?

President Obama's action in releasing the so-called torture memos without mentioning the results of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" in saving the nation from further attacks is highly questionable.

With the White House now opening the door to prosecution of former administration officials, the United States is on the brink of its first Kremlin like show trials.

Powerline blog has an excellent posting:

Why would the Obama administration not want the public to see detailed and previously undisclosed information about intelligence successes achieved through enhanced interrogation? Why does that information need to remain classified, when the administration is happy to give terrorists a road map to our interrogation techniques, along with assurances that those techniques are intended only to frighten, and they will never really be harmed? How could our security be compromised by giving the American people the details on how successful the CIA's program was?

It's hard to think of any non-political answers to these questions. The logical inference is that Obama wants to release information that he thinks will smear the Bush administration, but does not want the American public to be fully informed about the benefits that were gained from the Bush administration's policies--policies that he now proposes to abandon. All the more reason to join in Dick Cheney's request that, if the administration is going to open the book on enhanced interrogation, the American people should be able to see the whole record.

Sen. Feinstein wants $25 Billion to help hubby

The arrogance of our elected officials never ceases to amaze me.

The Washington Times informs us that Sen. Diane Feinstein wanted $25 billion in taxpayer money to help her husband's business. $25 billion dollars!

"On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars."

Simply unbelievable. Rangle. Murtha. Jefferson. Feinstein. Frank. Is there no end? Is there no punishment for any of these people?

Obama demands Christian symbols be hidden

Bet this wouldn't happen in, let's say, Jeremiah Wright's church.

Did Michelle Obama get paid for a no-show job?

Did Michelle Obama get paid for a no-show job? Sweetness-light blog thinks it is possible.


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/michelle-obama-got-63k-for-job-she-had-quit

Michelle Obama Got $63K For No Show Job?

First this report from her fans at the Associated Press:

Obamas report $2.7 million in income for 2008

By Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, millionaires from his best-selling books, made $2.7 million last year and paid just under one-third of their adjusted income in federal taxes. While the income, mostly his, was far more than the U.S. median household income of about $50,000, it was quite a decrease from the $4.2 million the Obamas made in 2007.

Both years, nearly all of the earnings came from Obama’s best-selling books. "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" — brought in about $2.5 million in royalties last year, according to copies of the returns released by the White House on Wednesday, the federal filing deadline.

Obama earned $139,204 as a Democratic senator from Illinois last year before leaving his seat after winning the November election. Michelle Obama received a salary of $62,709 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, where she was an executive.

The couple’s total federal tax came to $855,323. That was 32 percent of their adjusted gross income of $2,656,902.

The Obamas overpaid by $26,014, and elected to apply that amount to their 2009 taxes.

The couple’s federal tax deductions included about $50,000 in home mortgage interest.

They reported contributing $172,050 to charity last year, including $25,000 each to the CARE international relief agency and the United Negro College Fund. That $172,050 represented about 6.5 percent of the family’s adjusted gross income. That percentage is roughly two to three times the national average for household donations to charity, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The Obamas gave a total of $1,400 to five churches. In contrast to 2007, they gave nothing to the Trinity United Church of Christ. Barack Obama was a longtime member of the church, and gave it $26,270 in 2007, but resigned from it and cut ties with its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, after Wright made incendiary comments that became a campaign issue.

The Obamas’ total Illinois income tax was $78,765, their state return showed.

The White House also released Vice President Joe Biden’s tax returns. Biden and his wife, Jill, earned $269,256 last year.

The Bidens’ main sources of income were salaries from the Senate, Widener University, Delaware Technical & Community College and royalties from the audio rights to the vice president’s memoir, "Promises to Keep."

According to tax returns released by the vice president’s office, the Bidens paid $46,952 in federal income taxes and $11,164 in Delaware state income taxes. They donated $1,885 to charity.

Biden served in the Senate from 1973 until Jan. 15 of this year.

But as we noted at the time, the May 11, 2007 edition of the Washington Post breathlessly reported:

Michelle Obama’s Career Timeout

For Now, Weight Shifts in Work-Family Tug of War

By Anne E. Kornblut

Friday, May 11, 2007; Page A01

CHICAGO — For the first time in her adult life, Michelle Obama is about to be unemployed.

She never aspired to be a stay-at-home wife or mother. For years she wrestled with the issues that many professional women with families face, chiefly whether to quit her job. Now, that is what Obama, 43, has decided to do. And though she will hardly be homebound, she admits to being conflicted.

Since having her first child, Obama has struggled to decide work’s role in her life.

“It is very odd,” she said of the prospect of interrupting her career, during one of her first one-on-one interviews since her husband, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), announced he is running for president.

“Every other month [since] I’ve had children I’ve struggled with the notion of ‘Am I being a good parent? Can I stay home? Should I stay home? How do I balance it all?’ ” she said. “I have gone back and forth every year about whether I should work.”

When she finally winds down her duties as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals in the days ahead (she was promoted to the position soon after her husband joined the Senate), she said, it “will be the first time that I haven’t gotten up and gone to a job.” …

If Mrs. Obama did quit her (sinecure at the University Of Chicago Hospitals in May 2007, how was it that she got $$62,709 from the University Of Chicago Hospitals for her work as a chief executive?

Furthermore, as we have noted before, Mrs. Obama’s position was so vitally important to the University Of Chicago Hospital that once she left it – it was done away with.

From the University Of Chicago’s News Office:

Michelle Obama Resigns Position at University of Chicago Medical Center

January 9, 2009

Michelle Obama has resigned her leadership post at the University of Chicago Medical Center as she prepares to take on her new role at the White House as First Lady.

During the presidential campaign, she had been on leave as Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the Medical Center…

In light of her departure, Madara announced that the Medical Center’s Office of Community and External Affairs has been reorganized under the leadership of Dr. Eric Whitaker, Executive Vice President for Strategic Affiliations and Associate Dean for Community Based Research.

Madara said the move would enhance support for the Urban Health Initiative, an ambitious effort to reshape health care on Chicago’s South Side.

Leif Elsmo will continue his role as Executive Director of the Office of Community Affairs, reporting to Whitaker, and coordinating all aspects of the office’s functions…

So, officially, Mrs. Obama was on a ‘leave of absence’ since May 2007. (She didn’t quit, as the Post article had suggested, lest she not have a job if Mr. Obama lost the election.)

Still, we know this is Chicago, but isn’t $63,000 quite a lot for a no-show job?

And isn’t this exactly the kind of executive corruption that Mr. Obama rails against?

Of course, when you think about it, Mr. Obama was paid for a no-show job as well, when he collected his Senate pay. And Mr. Biden, too.

But we have come to expect as much from our public servants.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's "sting" - like in the movie

Charles Krauthammer has a very interesting column on Obama's "New Foundation" speech, which he likens to the centerpiece of the movie, 'The Sting". Worth reading.

Victor Davis Hanson comments on the President of the World

Victor Davis Hanson comments on Obama as president of the world. Good reading.

Fascism moves closer

The fascists are coming closer and gaining power. The power to suppress speech is frightening. The News-Observer has it all.

Protest stops Tancredo's UNC speech
By Jesse James DeConto - Staff Writer
Published: Wed, Apr. 15, 2009 04:57AM
Modified Wed, Apr. 15, 2009 03:04PM

CHAPEL HILL -- UNC-CH police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters Tuesday evening when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.
20090415 tancredo photo nosell
Photo by Ben Pierce/The Daily Tar Heel - Tom Tancredo, a former U.S. representative from Colorado, attempts to deal with protesters at a talk Tuesday evening on the UNC-CH campus. Tancredo was invited by a group to speak, but his speech lasted only five minutes. He left once protesters broke a window outside the classroom.


University Chancellor Holden Thorp said in an e-mail message to students and faculty that he had called Tancredo today to apologize for his treatment.

Campus police are investigating the incident and will pursue criminal charges if warranted, Thorp said. The students involved also could face Honor Court proceedings if there is sufficient evidence, he said.

Before the event, campus security removed two women who delayed Tancredo's speech by stretching a 12-foot banner across the front of the classroom. It read, "No dialogue with hate."

Police escorted the women into the hallway, amid more than 30 protesters who clashed with the officers trying to keep them out of the overcrowded classroom. After police released pepper spray and threatened the crowd with a Taser, the protesters gathered outside Bingham Hall.

Police spokesman Randy Young said the pepper spray was "broadcast" to clear the hallway. He said officers' use of force was under investigation by the department.

Inside the classroom, several student protesters screamed curses at Tancredo and Riley Matheson, president of the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Youth for Western Civilization.

"This is the free speech crowd, right?" Tancredo joked.

UNC-CH geography professor Alpha Cravey joined protesters in chanting the names of Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus.

But campus visitors and some faculty members in the capacity crowd of 150 urged the students to let Tancredo speak.

"We are the children of immigrants, and this concerns us," said junior Lizette Lopez, 22, vice president of the Carolina Hispanic Association. "So we would at least like to hear what he has to say if you want to hear what we have to say."

The protesters relented, and Tancredo began to speak, describing failed state and federal legislation aimed at providing in-state tuition benefits for undocumented immigrants.

Two women stretched out another banner, first along one of the aisles and then right in front of Tancredo. Tancredo grabbed the middle of the banner and tried to pull it away from one of the girls. "You don't want to hear what I have to say because you don't agree with me," he said.

The sound of breaking glass from behind a window shade interrupted the tug-of-war.

Tancredo was escorted from the room by campus police.

About 200 protesters reconvened outside the building. "We shut him down; no racists in our town," they shouted. "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!"

Reached by phone after his departure, Tancredo said he had never been silenced by protesters, even at American University where 400 of them recently attended one of his speeches.

Police spokesman Randy Young said he couldn't recall student protesters shutting down another campus event.

"Fascists are fascists," Tancredo said. "Their actions were probably the best speech I could ever give. They are what's wrong with America today. ... When all you can do is yell epithets, that means you are intellectually bankrupt."

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. "He was not able to practice his hate speech," said Oakley. "You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."

Lopez said she had mixed emotions about how the event ended.

"We were more interested in an intellectual conversation instead of a shouting match," she said. "Ironically, the people that are trying to get our voices heard silenced us."

Matheson, who formed UNC-YWC this year with seven other conservative students, said he knew Tancredo would be controversial but he never expected this kind of response.

"I didn't expect them to literally chase him out of the building," he said.

Staff writer Samuel Spies contributed to this report.
jesse.deconto@newsobserver.com or 919-932-8760

Hitler burned the Reichstag as an excuse: Obama uses a "report"

Powerline blog has a commentary on the Department of Homeland Security report on "right-wing" extremism:

Watch Out For Those Crazy Right Wingers!
April 14, 2009 Posted by John at 12:38 PM

The Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division of the Department of Homeland Security has released a report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." You can read it here.

Of course, there are crazies of all stripes, and it's possible that a small group of "right wingers" could pose a terrorist threat. In principle, there is nothing wrong with assessing such threats from whatever direction they may come. Still, this report is an odd document. It is almost entirely unmoored to any empirical reality and appears to be heavily influenced by the political views of its (unidentified) authors. This is the central theme of the report:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

The whole point of the report is that "right wing" extremism is undergoing a "resurgence" as leaders of extremist groups take advantage of the down economy and the Obama administration to recruit new members. Weirdly, however, the report makes no effort to document any such increased recruitment or extremist activity of any sort. As far as one can tell from the report, "right wing" militias and similar groups may be dying out rather than growing.

[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn--including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit--could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

I suppose that's possible. But why right wing extremists? Why not left wing? I would think that economic turmoil would be at least as likely to energize far-left groups. But whoever wrote the report made the automatic assumption--again, with no empirical data--that right-wing groups would benefit.

Another of the report's themes is that conditions today resemble those in the 1990s, when militia activity was a concern:

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers. ...

Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

In 1995, the economy was booming. Nor is there any obvious similarity between the "political climate" now and in the 1990s, except that we have a Democratic administration in power. I suspect that's what the authors are really worried about, although they never quite come out and say so.

The Homeland Security report lists the possibility of restrictions on firearms as a driving force behind extremist recruitment:

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.

On its face, this is pure speculation. It's true that firearms sales have increased, but what evidence is there that those buying guns are "planning and training for violence against the government"? None that the report discloses.

The authors describe "rightwing extremist chatter" on the internet:

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish "financial elites."

That's pretty sinister, all right: focusing on jobs and the economy. As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, you'll find much more of that on left-wing sites (including many that are considered mainstream) than on right-wing sites. That, though, must be the subject of another report.

Whoever wrote the report seems deeply hostile to conservatives' opposition to the agenda of the Obama administration. For example:

Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.

Millions of Americans--not just "rightwing extremists"--are concerned about the administration's positions on immigration and many other issues. Note that wherever possible, the authors slip race into the discussion, as with the reference to "expansion of social programs to minorities." I'm not aware of a single social program that the Obama administration has proposed to "expand to minorities." But the authors' assumption is, apparently, that anyone who opposes the expansion of social programs must be a racist. Once again we see the assertion that right wing extremists are "galvanized" and are "leveraging" these issues as "drivers for recruitment." But is recruitment up, down, or stable? The report doesn't say, and its authors evidently don't know.

The report returns to its theme of the similarity between conditions today and in the 1990s:

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.

What do abortion and gay marriage have to do with white supremacy? Nothing. Many millions of Americans oppose abortion and a majority oppose gay marriage, yet these commonplace views are somehow associated in the minds of the report's authors with "white supremacists." This tells us more, I think, about the people who wrote the report than it does about abortion and gay marriage opponents.

It's not hard to see where the authors stand on immigration, either:

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.

That, once again, is a view shared by many millions of Americans.

Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy
generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment,
but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

Is it just my imagination, or does the acknowledgement that debate over immigration policy is protected speech seem a bit grudging? The authors cite a single example in support of that last assertion:

In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.

I've not been able to find any reference to the alleged plot against Hispanics in any news account of this arrest. The link to immigration comes from "open source reporting;" does that mean that the report is relying on left-wing blogs? If not, what does it mean?

One of the report's most offensive features is its casual defamation of servicemen and veterans:

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."

The "prominent civil rights organization" is the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center. But what support is there for SPLC's assertion that there are "large numbers" of "white supremacists" serving in the armed forces--as opposed to, say, a "tiny handful"? The SPLC's full report is entirely anecdotal; the closest thing to data is this:

[Scott] Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, said he has identified and submitted evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year.

But even this alleged statistic appears to be false. Barfield was a gang investigator, and what he actually said was: "I have identified 320 soldiers as gang members from April 2002 to present." So we now have the Department of Homeland Security defaming our servicemen on the basis of a press release by a left-wing pressure group that misrepresented the principal empirical support for its claim. Nice.

The Homeland Security report further supports its suspicion of returning veterans by referring to an FBI report released last year:

The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

So, how many are "some"? You can read the FBI report, titled "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11," here. Notwithstanding the deliberate vagueness of the Homeland Security document, the FBI was actually very specific:

A review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period. This number is minuscule in comparison with the projected US veteran population of 23,816,000 as of 2 May 2008, or the 1,416,037 active duty military personnel as of 30 April 2008. ...

According to FBI information, an estimated 19 veterans (approximately 9 percent of the 203) have verified or unverified service in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There you have it: a whopping 19 actual or alleged veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan have joined the "extremist movement." (The FBI notes that some of these "may have inflated their resumes with fictional military experience to impress others within the movement.")

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this Homeland Security report is politically motivated, and reflects the authors' political prejudices more than an objective evaluation of a significant terrorist threat. In that context, the report's conclusion seems a bit ominous:

DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

Thomas Sowell on the meaning of words

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man. Today, he holds forth on the meaning of words:

Inflation also means that all the talk about how higher taxes will be confined to "the rich" is nonsense. Inflation is a hidden tax that takes away the value of money held by everyone at every income level.

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered "five," Lincoln told them that the answer was four. The fact that you called the tail a leg did not make it a leg.

It is too bad that Lincoln is not still around today. He might emancipate us all from our enslavement to words.

When you call something a "stimulus" package, that does not mean that it actually stimulates. The way individuals, banks and businesses in general are hanging onto their money suggests that "sedative" package might be more accurate.

is this the truth about Obama's involvement in the maritime rescue?

Does Pajamas Media have the full skinny on Obama's involvemen in the maritime rescue?

- Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com -

The Story of a Successful Rescue (and the Obama Adminstration’s Attempt to Claim Credit)

Posted By Jeff Emanuel On April 13, 2009 @ 12:24 am In . Column2 01 | 117 Comments

After four days of floating at sea on a raft shared with four Somali gunmen, Richard Phillips took matters into his own hands for a second time. With the small inflatable lifeboat in which he was being held captive being towed by the American missile destroyer USS Bainbridge, and Navy Special Warfare (NSWC) snipers on the fantail in position to take their shots at his captors as soon as the command was given, the captive captain of the M.V. Maersk-Alabama took his second leap in three days into the shark-infested waters of the Indian Ocean.

This diversion gave the Navy Special Warfare operators all the opening they needed. Snipers immediately took down the three Somali pirates still on board the life raft, SEAL operators hustled down the tow line connecting the two craft to confirm the kills, and a Navy RIB plucked Phillips from the water and sped him to safety aboard the Bainbridge, thus ending the four-day-and-counting hostage situation.

Phillips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Phillips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken. The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he’d had enough. Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK-47 one captor had leveled at Phillips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Phillips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spin-side to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four-day-and-counting standoff between a rag-tag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

On Friday, April 9, as the standoff reached the end of its third day, I called on President Obama to take action to free the American hostage from his Somali captors. I [2] outlined three possible operational tactics that could be used to do so; number 1 was the following:

(1) 2 helos, 2 snipers each: pop the [pirates] in their heads, then drop a rescue swimmer to escort the hostage up to one of the choppers. This works best if the hostage is aware of what is happening and can help without getting in the way — say, by hopping overboard as the gunships near, to divert attention and get out of the line of fire.

(This was written before the USS Bainbridge tethered the life raft to its stern, an action which eliminated the need for helicopters.)

However, instead of taking direct, decisive action against the rag-tag group of gunmen, the Obama administration dilly-dallied, dawdled, and eschewed any decisiveness whatsoever, even in the face of enemy fire, in hopes that the situation would somehow resolve itself without violence. Thus, the administration sent a clear message to all who would threaten U.S. interests abroad that the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has no idea how to respond to such situations — and no real willingness to use military force to resolve them.

Any who think they weren’t watching every minute of this are guilty — at best — of greatly underestimating our enemies.

Like the crew of the Alabama, which took swift and decisive action to take back their own ship rather than wait for help from Washington that they knew could not be counted on, Captain Phillips took matters into his own hands for the second time in three days, leaping into the water to create a diversion and allowing the NSWC team to eliminate his captors. The result, of course, was the best that could possibly be expected: three pirates dead, the captain unharmed, and a fourth Somali man who had surrendered late Saturday night in custody.

One thing that will bear watching will be what the Obama DOJ attempts to do with the captive pirate. My money is on a life of welfare checks, a plot of land (in a red state, naturally), and voting rights in Chicago, New York, and Seattle.

In all seriousness, though, who knows? Obama could decide to get tough on the last surviving participant in the first pirating of an American ship since Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S. Marine Corps to root out and destroy the Barbary pirates.

However, given the administration’s track record to date, I won’t be holding my breath on that one.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-story-of-a-successful-rescue-and-obamas-attempt-to-claim-credit/

URLs in this post:
[1] declared : http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Theda_Skocpol_C3BAED40-2FC3-4FA9-AB22-64CDE2283669.html
[2] outlined three possible operational tactics that could be used to do so: http://www.redstate.com/redhot/#post-2394

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2008 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.

Indian cows are destroying the world

Indolent cows languidly chewing their cud while befuddled motorists honk and maneuver their vehicles around them are images as stereotypically Indian as saffron-clad holy men and the Taj Mahal. Now, however, India's ubiquitous cows - of which there are 283 million, more than anywhere else in the world - have assumed a more menacing role as they become part of the climate change debate.

Imagine getting paid to dream up scare stories day after day.

Full story here.

All the world is a distraction to Obama

Mark Steyn has a wonderful column on the newest excuse for inaction by Obama to Somlian piracy, North Korean missiles and Iranian nukes: it's all a "distraction".

So many distractions, aren’t there? Only a week ago, the North Korean missile test was an “annoying distraction” from Barack Obama’s call for a world without nuclear weapons and his pledge that America would lead the way in disarming. And only a couple of days earlier the president insisted Iraq was a “distraction” — from what, I forget: The cooing press coverage of Michelle’s wardrobe? No doubt when the Iranians nuke Israel, that, too, will be an unwelcome distraction from the administration’s plans for federally subsidized daycare, just as Pearl Harbor was an annoying distraction from the New Deal, and the First World War was an annoying distraction from the Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s dinner plans.

Read it all here.

A sober analysis of Obama's bow to Islam

Does Obama's bow to the Saudi King have deeper meaning? Will it resonate in our relations with other nations?

Similarly, Obama’s obeisance should give nuke-seeking Iran even more hope in its endeavors. After all, if the leader of the free West so readily bends the knee to Wahhabi despotism, how long before he bows to Iran, the true heir of proskunesis-Persia? And if he does not fully bow willingly, that is only more incentive for Iran to hasten and acquire nukes, so he can be made to bow unwillingly.

Raymond Ibrahim thinks so. Read it all here.

Corruption at the Justice Department

Turns out that the prosecutor now under investigation for wrongdoing in the Ted Stevens case was also accused of improprieties in two other cases, including that of Scooter Libby.

Read it all here.

Obama goes for control of the internet in the United States

Powerline says it all:

Barack Obama, Civil Libertarian
April 10, 2009 Posted by John at 8:20 AM

The terrorist surveillance program initiated by the Bush administration was limited to international communications that involved a terrorist on at least one end. As such, as I argued here, it was well within the President's constitutional powers as delineated by the federal courts. Nevertheless, disclosure of the program drew howls of protest from the Left. For some reason, however, the Obama administration's continuation of the program has drawn no similar protests.

Now we have the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which goes far beyond anything ever contemplated by the Bush administration. The most controversial provisions are Sec. 18 (2), which gives the President authority to shut down all or any portions of the internet that he may designate as "critical infrastructure information systems and networks," and Sec. 14 (b)(1), which gives the Secretary of Commerce access to "all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." Critics have interpreted this clause as giving the Secretary the ability to access, without any sort of search warrant, any internet communication. That looks like a reasonable interpretation, as long as the President has designated the network "critical infrastructure," which he has unfettered (and unguided) discretion to do.

Yesterday's Examiner editorialized against the Act:

Civilian libertarians were apoplectic over former President George W. Bush's "warrantless wiretap" program, which sought to monitor communications from terrorist networks overseas. So why are they not screaming bloody murder now that President Barack Obama appears slated to receive unprecedented power to monitor all Internet traffic without a warrant and to even shut the system down completely on the pretext of national security? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 - introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, and cosponsor Olympia Snowe, R-ME - bypasses all existing privacy laws and allows White House political operatives to tap into any online communication without a warrant, including banking, medical, and business records and personal e-mail conversations. This amounts to warrantless wiretaps on steroids, directed at U.S. citizens instead of foreign terrorists.

What is most striking to me is how little actual concern for civil liberties there appears to be on the Left. Liberals are happy to use civil liberties concerns (like budget deficits) as clubs to bludgeon Republicans, whether justified or not. But anxiety about civil liberties appears to dissipate quickly when there is no political advantage to be gained.

Homelessness surges under Obama

When it is a Republican in the White House, homelessness is always the fault of the President. When it is a Democrat, you rarely see an article in the mainstream media on homelessness and, of course, the Democrat President is either not mentioned or becomes a hero.

Nothing changes as is the case in this New York Times article which avoids calling them "Barackvilles". They remember "Hoovervilles", though.

Read the whole story here.

Obama shaking hands with short people

Putting the lie to Obama:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225725/posts

Obama era ushers in suppression of vegan's First Amendment rights

ILVTOFU. Does that seem obscene to you? If it does, you might want to apply for a job at the Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR). When mother-of-three Kelley Coffman-Lee requested this combination of letters for a vanity license plate, she was turned down.

While Kelley wanted the world to know just how much she loves tofu, the DOR saw it as a profession of love for something else entirely. "I-LV-TOFU" was deemed too risque, the DOR thinking it could be misinterpreted as "I-LV-TO-F-U."

Shame! This noble example of politically correct citizenship (""I'm very expressive. I'm anti-fur, anti-rodeo, anti-circus when they come to Denver, and I thought, 'Here's a chance to be positive and say I love something.'"") is denied basic First Amendment rights.

Read the whole thing here.

Wouldn’t this be a better world without guns?

Don B. Kates, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, a criminologist and former professor of criminal and constitutional law says "no".

It is a very interesting and far too short column as Cates explains that 90% of murders are committed by those with a criminal record and that so-called gun control laws hinder only law-abiding citizens.

Barney Frank, Justice Scalia, Obama and the future Supreme Court

Ann Althouse writes in the Chicago Tribune of the background of Rep. Barney Frank's nonsensical attack on Justice Antoin Scalia for being a "homophobe". She then takes Obama's comments about the kind of person he intends to appoint to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: we're in trouble.

If Frank's accusations inflamed you, think hard about why Frank chose to portray Scalia the way he did. I suspect Frank would like to soften us up for future judicial nominations. Back in 2007, Barack Obama told us about "the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges": "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled or old."

If Obama delivers nominees who've demonstrated their heart and empathy by reaching outcomes that accord with liberal political preferences, will liberals forget that we need to test the soundness of their legal reasoning? If Frank succeeds in getting people to believe that judicial opinions are the kind wishes of good hearts, we will rubber-stamp these seemingly good people.

If we do that, we will have forgotten what law is, and our rights will depend on the continued beneficence of the judges we've empowered.

The Jihad of the Word - important reading

David Solway has an excellent essay on the war on freedom of expression underway in Canada. Read it all on PajamasMedia.

Clearly, considerable and entirely unnecessary damage is done by so skewed a parallel legal system, essentially a form of secular Sharia. These tribunals continue to stress that group rights retain precedence over other human rights and do not recognize that freedom of expression is a Charter value. Nothing daunts a Human Rights Commission. Its latest bit of mischief is the attempt to influence the courts to accept a Muslim woman’s right to be [15] veiled during a judicial proceeding. It has no compunction allowing a masked plaintiff or witness to trump the Charter right to a fair and open trial.

Banana republic budgeting should shame Obama, Congress

The Washington Examiner has an excellent article on the embarassing process by which the Democrat has eviscerated the budgeting process.

So how did Congress deal with this landmark legislation? The House of Representatives gave opponents exactly 20 minutes to present an alternative, then gaveled the Obama measure to approval. The Senate approved it after considering a handful of amendments. But note that even before the 2010 budget was approved, this Congress had approved spending more than $1.2 trillion, or $24 billion per day. That’s $1 billion every hour since the 111th Congress convened in January. Odds are that not even King Solomon – whose riches dazzled monarchs and tyrants throughout the ancient world – exhausted the fruit of the labor of his subjects and slaves at so breathtaking a pace as this president and this Congress. And they are doing it based on decisions most often made by Democratic leaders behind closed doors, who then run roughshod over the Republican minority. Is this really what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meant when they promised during the 2006 campaign “the most open and honest Congress ever”? And was Obama simply lying during the 2008 campaign when he promised a “net spending reduction” in Washington?

I wonder how many are feeling voter's remorse?

Inch by inch, Islam seeks to conquer

It is possible on the one hand to argue that other religions seek the same advantage. On the other, it seems that Islam seeks special privileges, whether it is a publicly financed foot bath in a Minnesota college or prohibiting s restaurant from serving alcohol.

This situation in Knoxville TN is thought provoking.

Obama's Justice Department - politics Chicago style

Back in the day, they accused George Bush of politicizing the Justice Department for firing federal attorneys - who, under the Constitution, serve at the will of the President.

Now along comes Eric Holder. Receiving an opinion he didn't like on the constitutionality of the District of Columbia having a voting representative in the House, he simply ignored it and went to the Solicitor General for a favorable opinion.

Politics. Crass, crude, raw. And the mainstream media has little to say about it. See an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post.

Only six years in prison for this murderous idiot?

The Associated Press reports that a California woman got six yeas in prison for killing someone with her car - while she was speeding and texting.

Not enough in my opinion.

A woman who crashed into a line of stopped vehicles while text-messaging on her cell phone has been sentenced to six years in a California prison for killing a woman in one of the vehicles.

Deborah Matis-Engle was sentenced Friday by a judge in Redding, Calif.

Investigators said Deborah Matis-Engle was speeding and text messaging when she slammed into the vehicles stopped at a construction zone in August 2007.

Obama's appointees live high off the hog

The people in the White House, Obama's appointees, certainly represent the "Other America" - the America where people earn a million dollars or more a year.

The Wall St. Journal has the details here.

What Obama's "green power" will really cost.

Power Line blog has an excellent recounting of the costs of "green power". It is based on a Spanish study reported by the Institute for Energy Research.

The bottom line: for every "green" job created, two other jobs are lost. The cost of "green" energy is substantially more expensive than other means.

"Green power" is a way to bankrupt a state.

Video explains new government auto warranty program

ReasonTVV provides this very informative video explaining Obama's government backed auto warranty program.