Archive for May, 2009

THE DEATH OF ISRAEL

May 26, 2009

 By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on May 24, 2009
 

 

From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news.  An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu’s government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel “read the riot act” to the government warning against an attack on Iran.
More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons.  She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”
She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.”  She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel’s doing, not Iran’s.
In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.
Obama’s end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action.  As Metternich wrote “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.”  By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat.  The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.
All this means is that Israel’s life is in danger.  If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews.  No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference.  One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death.  Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence.  Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility.  Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons.  And Israel will be dead and gone.
Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel.  We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country.  If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.
Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb.  And neither is Hillary Clinton.
Obama may have held the first White House cedar, but he’s not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news.  An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu’s government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel “read the riot act” to the government warning against an attack on Iran.
More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons.  She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”
She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.”  She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel’s doing, not Iran’s.
In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.
Obama’s end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action.  As Metternich wrote “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.”  By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat.  The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.
All this means is that Israel’s life is in danger.  If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews.  No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference.  One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death.  Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence.  Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility.  Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons.  And Israel will be dead and gone.
Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel.  We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country.  If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.
Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb.  And neither is Hillary Clinton.
Obama may have held the first White House cedar, but he’s not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
Advertisements

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WW II MOVIE STARS?

May 26, 2009

 

Some of you younger guys probably have not even heard of 
 these ‘old movie stars’… some contrast between 
 these men and the anti-American movie stars of today.  
 
 
 
 
Hope you find this as informative and interesting as I did.
 
 
 
 
In contrast to the ideals, opinions and feelings of today’s “Hollywonk,
 ” the real actors of yester-year loved the United States …  
They had both class and integrity. With the advent of World War II 
 many of our actors went to fight rather 
than stand and rant against this country we all love.
 
 
 
 
They gave up their wealth, position and fame to become service 
 men & women, many as simple “enlisted men”.
 
 
 
 
This page lists but a few, but from this group of only 
 18 men came  over 70 medals in honor of their valor, 
spanning from Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Distinguish Service Cross’, 
 Purple Hearts and one Congressional Medal of Honor.
 
 
So remember; while the “Entertainers of 2005-2006” have 
been in all of the news media lately I would like to remind
the people of what the entertainers of 1943 were doing, (65 years ago).
 
Most of these brave men have since passed on.
“Real Hollywood Heroes”
Alec Guinness (Star Wars) operated a British Royal 
 Navy landing craft on D-Day.
Error! Filename not specified.
James Doohan (“Scotty” on Star Trek) 
 landed in Normandy with the U. S. Army on D-Day.
Donald Pleasance (The Great Escape) really 
was an R.. A. F. pilot who was shot down, 
 held prisoner and tortured by the Germans.
David Niven was a Sandhurst graduate 
 and Lt. Colonel of the British Commandos in Normandy .
James Stewart entered the Army Air Force as a private 
and worked his way to the rank of Colonel.  
During World War II, Stewart served as a bomber pilot, 
his service record crediting him with leading 
more than 20 missions over Germany , 
and taking part in hundreds of air strikes during his tour of duty.
Stewart earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, 
France ‘S Croix de Guerre, and 7 Battle Stars during 
World War II.  In peace time, Stewart continued to 
be an active member of the Air Force as a reservist, 
 reaching the rank of Brigadier General before retiring in the late 1950s.
Clark Gable (Mega-Movie Star when war broke out)
Although he was beyond the draft age at
the time the U.S. entered WW II,
Clark Gable enlisted as a private in the AAF on Aug. 12, 1942
at Los Angeles . He attended the Officers’ Candidate
School at Miami Beach , Fla. and graduated as a second lieutenant on Oct. 28, 1942.
He then attended aerial gunnery school and in Feb 1943
he was assigned to the 351st Bomb Group at Polebrook
where flew operational missions over Europe in B-17s.
Capt. Gable returned to the U.S. in Oct. 1943
and was relieved from active duty as a major
on Jun. 12, 1944 at his own request,
since he was over-age for combat.
 
Charlton Heston was an Army Air Corps
Sergeant in Kodiak.
 
Ernest Borgnine was a U. S. Navy Gunners Mate
1935-1945.
(Maybe that’s why he starred in “McHale’s Navy”) 
 
Charles Durning was a U. S. Army Ranger at Normandy
earning a Silver Star and awarded the Purple Heart.
Charles Bronson was a tail gunner in the
Army Air Corps, more specifically on B-29’s
in the 20th Air Force out of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan
George C. Scott was a decorated U. S. Marine.
Eddie Albert (Green Acres TV) was awarded
a Bronze Star for his heroic action  as a U. S.
Naval officer aiding Marines at the horrific
battle on the island of Tarawa in the Pacific Nov. 1943.
Brian Keith served as a US . Marine rear gunner
in several actions against the
Japanese on Rabal in the Pacific.
Lee Marvin was a U.S. Marine on Saipan
during the Marianas campaign when he was
wounded earning the Purple Heart.
John Russell: In 1942, he enlisted in the Marine
Corps where he received a battlefield commission
and was wounded and highly decorated for valor at Guadalcanal .
Robert Ryan was a U.. S. Marine who
served with the O. S. S. in Yugoslavia .
h 0 DATASIZE=”13597″ ID=”15″ SRC=”aoladp://MA24876176-0018/image016.jpg”>
Tyrone Power (an established movie star
when Pearl Harbor was bombed) joined the
U.S. Marines, was a pilot flying supplies
into, and wounded Marines out of, Iwo Jima and Okinawa .
Audie Murphy, little 5’5″ tall 110 pound guy from Texas who played cowboy parts:
Most Decorated serviceman of WWII and earned: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, 2 Silver Star Medals, Legion of Merit, 2 Bronze Star Medals with “V”, 2 Purple Hearts, U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, 2 Distinguished Unit Emblems, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily and Southern France) World War II Victory Medal Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar, Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar, French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre, French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier, French Croix de Guerre W ith Silver Star, French Croix de Guerre with Palm, Medal of Liberated France, Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm
So how do you feel the real heroes of the silver screen acted when compared to the hollywonks today who spew out anti-American drivel as they bite the hand that feeds them?
Can you imagine these stars of yester-year
saying they hate our flag, making anti-war speeches,
marching in anti-American parades and saying they hate our president?
I thought not, neither did I!
Some of you younger guys probably have not even heard of 
 these ‘old movie stars’… some contrast between 
 these men and the anti-American movie stars of today.  
 
Hope you find this as informative and interesting as I did.
In contrast to the ideals, opinions and feelings of today’s “Hollywonk,
 ” the real actors of yester-year loved the United States …  
They had both class and integrity. With the advent of World War II 
 many of our actors went to fight rather 
than stand and rant against this country we all love.
 
 
 
 
They gave up their wealth, position and fame to become service 
 men & women, many as simple “enlisted men”.
 
 
 
 
This page lists but a few, but from this group of only 
 18 men came  over 70 medals in honor of their valor, 
spanning from Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Distinguish Service Cross’, 
 Purple Hearts and one Congressional Medal of Honor.
 
 
So remember; while the “Entertainers of 2005-2006” have 
been in all of the news media lately I would like to remind
the people of what the entertainers of 1943 were doing, (65 years ago).
 
Most of these brave men have since passed on.
“Real Hollywood Heroes”

Alec Guinness (Star Wars) operated a British Royal 
 Navy landing craft on D-Day.
Error! Filename not specified.
James Doohan (“Scotty” on Star Trek) 
 landed in Normandy with the U. S. Army on D-Day.

Donald Pleasance (The Great Escape) really 
was an R.. A. F. pilot who was shot down, 
 held prisoner and tortured by the Germans.

David Niven was a Sandhurst graduate 
 and Lt. Colonel of the British Commandos in Normandy .

James Stewart entered the Army Air Force as a private 
and worked his way to the rank of Colonel.  
During World War II, Stewart served as a bomber pilot, 
his service record crediting him with leading 
more than 20 missions over Germany , 
and taking part in hundreds of air strikes during his tour of duty.
Stewart earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, 
France ‘S Croix de Guerre, and 7 Battle Stars during 
World War II.  In peace time, Stewart continued to 
be an active member of the Air Force as a reservist, 
 reaching the rank of Brigadier General before retiring in the late 1950s.

Clark Gable (Mega-Movie Star when war broke out)
Although he was beyond the draft age at
the time the U.S. entered WW II,
Clark Gable enlisted as a private in the AAF on Aug. 12, 1942
at Los Angeles . He attended the Officers’ Candidate
School at Miami Beach , Fla. and graduated as a second lieutenant on Oct. 28, 1942.
He then attended aerial gunnery school and in Feb 1943
he was assigned to the 351st Bomb Group at Polebrook
where flew operational missions over Europe in B-17s.
Capt. Gable returned to the U.S. in Oct. 1943
and was relieved from active duty as a major
on Jun. 12, 1944 at his own request,
since he was over-age for combat.
 
Charlton Heston was an Army Air Corps
Sergeant in Kodiak.
 
Ernest Borgnine was a U. S. Navy Gunners Mate
1935-1945.
(Maybe that’s why he starred in “McHale’s Navy”) 
 

Charles Durning was a U. S. Army Ranger at Normandy
earning a Silver Star and awarded the Purple Heart.

Charles Bronson was a tail gunner in the
Army Air Corps, more specifically on B-29’s
in the 20th Air Force out of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan

George C. Scott was a decorated U. S. Marine.

Eddie Albert (Green Acres TV) was awarded
a Bronze Star for his heroic action  as a U. S.
Naval officer aiding Marines at the horrific
battle on the island of Tarawa in the Pacific Nov. 1943.

Brian Keith served as a US . Marine rear gunner
in several actions against the
Japanese on Rabal in the Pacific.

Lee Marvin was a U.S. Marine on Saipan
during the Marianas campaign when he was
wounded earning the Purple Heart.

John Russell: In 1942, he enlisted in the Marine
Corps where he received a battlefield commission
and was wounded and highly decorated for valor at Guadalcanal .

Robert Ryan was a U.. S. Marine who
served with the O. S. S. in Yugoslavia .

Tyrone Power (an established movie star
when Pearl Harbor was bombed) joined the
U.S. Marines, was a pilot flying supplies
into, and wounded Marines out of, Iwo Jima and Okinawa .

Audie Murphy, little 5’5″ tall 110 pound guy from Texas who played cowboy parts:
Most Decorated serviceman of WWII and earned: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, 2 Silver Star Medals, Legion of Merit, 2 Bronze Star Medals with “V”, 2 Purple Hearts, U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, 2 Distinguished Unit Emblems, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily and Southern France) World War II Victory Medal Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar, Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar, French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre, French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier, French Croix de Guerre W ith Silver Star, French Croix de Guerre with Palm, Medal of Liberated France, Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm
So how do you feel the real heroes of the silver screen acted when compared to the hollywonks today who spew out anti-American drivel as they bite the hand that feeds them?
Can you imagine these stars of yester-year
saying they hate our flag, making anti-war speeches,
marching in anti-American parades and saying they hate our president?
I thought not, neither did I!

Half of Israelis back immediate strike on Iran

May 25, 2009

May 24 02:36 AM US/Eastern

Read entire article here
Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday.
Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University.But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama’s efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.

Israel, widely considered to be the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear armed state, considers Iran its arch-foe after repeated statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the Jewish state to be “wiped off the map.”

Israel and Washington accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.

Opinion is split among left- and right-wingers about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, with 63 percent of those leaning to the right favouring a strike, compared with 38 percent of those leaning to the left, the poll said.

It was carried out by Tel Aviv University’s Centre for Iranian Studies among 509 Israeli adults and had a 4.5-percent margin of error.

Iran general says could stop Israel in ‘one strike’

May 25, 2009

May 24 09:52 AM US/Eastern
Read entire article here 

Iran’s former Revolutionary Guards chief Mohsen Rezai warned on Sunday he could stop Israel with “one strike” and said it would not dare to threaten the Islamic republic if he is elected president.

“My government… understands missiles and tanks as well as foreign policy and knows exactly where Israel’s sensitive spots are. It could stop them forever with one strike,” Rezai told a news conference.

“If government falls into our hands Israel will not dare threaten Iran because the Israelis and the Americans know us and our friends,” said Rezai, who is one of three candidates challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the June 12 election.

“Our presence in government will act as a deterrent to threats,” said the veteran conservative who headed the elite Guards force for 16 years to 1997, including during Iran’s war with Iraq in the 1980s.

His comments came after an opinion poll by Tel Aviv University showed one in two Israelis back an immediate attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel and Washington accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.

Israel, widely considered to be the Middle East’s sole if undeclared nuclear armed state, considers Iran its main enemy following the hardline anti-Israeli stance adopted by Ahmadinejad who has said the Jewish state is doomed to be “wiped off the map.”

Rezai has harshly criticised the hardline president, accusing him of adventurism and pushing Iran to the edge of a “precipice.”

 

A Letter to President Obama

May 24, 2009

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500

 

Mr. Obama:

I have had it with you and your administration, sir.  Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America .  You are responsible to the citizens of the United States .  You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world..  Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe ?  Are you brain dead?  What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about?  Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country?  Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States ?  This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage.  Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans.  Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia .  You don’t show Great Britain , our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia .  How dare you, sir!  How dare you!

You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey .  You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves.  What’s the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you..

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses.  What do you intend to do about them?  Anything?  I seriously doubt it. 

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves?  I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus..  I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer.  You haven’t said anything about that.  Who authorized that?  I surely didn’t!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses.  In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take.   Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do.  We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you.  I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities.  I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Stacy Peterson May have been found

May 22, 2009

 

(CNN) — A preliminary autopsy Thursday did not reveal any identifying information on remains found on the bank of a river, less than 30 miles from the homes of two missing Illinois women.
Partial skeletal remains were found on the south bank of the Des Plaines River near Channahon, Illinois.
The “partial skeletal remains” were found on the south bank of the Des Plaines River near Channahon, Illinois, according to Will County Coroner Patrick O’Neil’s office.
A statement issued by O’Neil’s office said a forensic examination was inconclusive as to identity, race or sex of the body parts, which consisted of a rib cage, spinal column and partial left and right femur bones.
A marine cleanup crew, which discovered the remains Wednesday, also found shreds of blue jeans and a small amount of money.
The Illinois State Police Forensic Crime Laboratory is expediting a DNA analysis, which will take at least two weeks, the statement said.
Illinois State Police were on the scene Thursday conducting additional searches, said spokesman Sgt. Tom Burek.
On Sunday, Michelle Williams found a blue barrel in Channahon, Illinois, along the river and called police.
 
Channahon is 20 miles from Bolingbrook, Illinois, where Stacy Peterson lived with her husband, former police officer Drew Peterson. The former officer’s stepbrother told police he helped Drew Peterson move a heavy blue barrel shortly after his wife’s disappearance police uncover skeletal remains »
Williams said she didn’t initially make any connection regarding the barrel, but she did call police.
“It wasn’t until yesterday afternoon when the news broke that their had been skeletal remains washing up on shore and that far away from the blue barrel, I had a sick feeling to my stomach when I heard that,” Williams told CNN’s Nancy Grace.
Stacy Peterson disappeared in October 2007. Her husband has been named a suspect in her disappearance, but he has maintained his innocence, saying she left him for another man.
Stacy Peterson, 23 when she was last seen, was Drew Peterson’s fourth wife. This month, Drew Peterson, 55, was indicted on murder charges in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, while the two were in the midst of a nasty divorce. He has pleaded not guilty.
Savio’s death was originally deemed an accident, but authorities took a second look at the case after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.
Channahon is also 15 miles from Plainfield, Illinois, where Lisa Stebic was last seen in April 2007.
On the day she went missing, she petitioned a court to have her husband, Craig, evicted from their Plainfield home. Craig Stebic told police he was working in the backyard when his 37-year-old wife left home about 6 p.m., taking her cell phone and purse.
Authorities have said they believe that Lisa Stebic was the victim of foul play and have named Craig Stebic a suspect. 
(CNN) — A preliminary autopsy Thursday did not reveal any identifying information on remains found on the bank of a river, less than 30 miles from the homes of two missing Illinois women.
Partial skeletal remains were found on the south bank of the Des Plaines River near Channahon, Illinois.
The “partial skeletal remains” were found on the south bank of the Des Plaines River near Channahon, Illinois, according to Will County Coroner Patrick O’Neil’s office.
A statement issued by O’Neil’s office said a forensic examination was inconclusive as to identity, race or sex of the body parts, which consisted of a rib cage, spinal column and partial left and right femur bones.
A marine cleanup crew, which discovered the remains Wednesday, also found shreds of blue jeans and a small amount of money.
The Illinois State Police Forensic Crime Laboratory is expediting a DNA analysis, which will take at least two weeks, the statement said.
Illinois State Police were on the scene Thursday conducting additional searches, said spokesman Sgt. Tom Burek.
On Sunday, Michelle Williams found a blue barrel in Channahon, Illinois, along the river and called police.
 
Channahon is 20 miles from Bolingbrook, Illinois, where Stacy Peterson lived with her husband, former police officer Drew Peterson. The former officer’s stepbrother told police he helped Drew Peterson move a heavy blue barrel shortly after his wife’s disappearance police uncover skeletal remains »
Williams said she didn’t initially make any connection regarding the barrel, but she did call police.
“It wasn’t until yesterday afternoon when the news broke that their had been skeletal remains washing up on shore and that far away from the blue barrel, I had a sick feeling to my stomach when I heard that,” Williams told CNN’s Nancy Grace.
Stacy Peterson disappeared in October 2007. Her husband has been named a suspect in her disappearance, but he has maintained his innocence, saying she left him for another man.
Stacy Peterson, 23 when she was last seen, was Drew Peterson’s fourth wife. This month, Drew Peterson, 55, was indicted on murder charges in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, while the two were in the midst of a nasty divorce. He has pleaded not guilty.
Savio’s death was originally deemed an accident, but authorities took a second look at the case after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.
 

Obama Steps up Attacks against American People

May 22, 2009

 

Tyranny Watch 2: ‘Hate crimes’ against the American people are in full play
Obama Steps up Attacks against American People
Sher Zieve  Bio
Email Article
 By Sher Zieve  Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Under Supreme Leader Obama’s directive of ‘I’m in power now, I’ve seized your country to destroy it as I choose and none of you can do anything about it’, new attacks (which could logically be called “hate crimes”) against the American people are in full play.  Laughing almost as gleefully during his daily television appearance on Tuesday 19 May—as he probably did while he watched his TV showing the masses in New York running from his flyover 747 and two fighter jets—the US Dictator Obama smiled while delivering the news that essentially said that US citizens will probably no longer be able to afford electricity.  With his and the Democrats’ “Cap and Trade” legislation—which will result in a minimum additional $3,100/year/household—Obama is planning to tax it out of existence. 
Note:  Now is the time to stock up on HUGE caches of wood and fans.  And as the burning of wood should create a great deal more pollution, Obama is likely planning to tax it in the future.  Prepare to be taxed on the wood and the fans. 
As liberals and leftists—liberal Republican included—continue to tell us “man made global warming is more dangerous than Islamist terrorists,” the also continue to pilfer our personal resources.  Even though this hoax has been fully exposed, the liberals continue to use the bogus argument as a way to continue to pilfer and steal from We-the-People.  And We-the-People have yet to really fight back against the tyrants who now rule—not work for—us.  Even Obama’s VP Joe Biden ranked terrorist attacks behind air pollution and corn syrup when he said “air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack.” It may sound as if liberals are truly insane.  The masses of liberals and leftists may just be.  However, their leaders are not.  They know that the lies the populations have been taught since they were children in government-run schools have made them compliant to these rulers’ eventual theft of everything the people used to own.  Or as every good liberal and leftist (AKA Socialist and/or Fascist) worth his or her salt says:  “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” and “the State will provide for our needs.” Those who belong to the mind-numbed classes don’t ever seem to realize that “the State” is pillaging all of their wealth and doling out smaller and smaller portions back to them.  Note:  This stance is even stronger in their leaders.
What can we do?  At this juncture, FLOOD the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, ask for your representatives and senators and tell them to stop their thievery and oppression of the American citizen.  Tell them to vote “NO” on Obama’s cap, trade and theft bill.  If they do not, the cooking fires and creeks for washing will soon replace our appliances.  But, that is—after all—the usurper Obama’s plan.  A poor population is a more compliant one.
By the way, these leaders are ostensibly working to stop CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions.  We and all other mammals breathe out Carbon Dioxide.  Plants need CO2 to manufacture Oxygen.  In other words, they are attempting to implement a plan that will ultimately end lives—not save them.  I’m reminded of the recent animated film “The Tale of Despereaux.” One of the lines in the film is “What happens when you make something that is a natural part of the world illegal?” Even a mouse knows the answer. 
Tyranny Watch 2: ‘Hate crimes’ against the American people are in full play
 By Sher Zieve  Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Under Supreme Leader Obama’s directive of ‘I’m in power now, I’ve seized your country to destroy it as I choose and none of you can do anything about it’, new attacks (which could logically be called “hate crimes”) against the American people are in full play.  Laughing almost as gleefully during his daily television appearance on Tuesday 19 May—as he probably did while he watched his TV showing the masses in New York running from his flyover 747 and two fighter jets—the US Dictator Obama smiled while delivering the news that essentially said that US citizens will probably no longer be able to afford electricity.  With his and the Democrats’ “Cap and Trade” legislation—which will result in a minimum additional $3,100/year/household—Obama is planning to tax it out of existence. 
Note:  Now is the time to stock up on HUGE caches of wood and fans.  And as the burning of wood should create a great deal more pollution, Obama is likely planning to tax it in the future.  Prepare to be taxed on the wood and the fans. 
As liberals and leftists—liberal Republican included—continue to tell us “man made global warming is more dangerous than Islamist terrorists,” the also continue to pilfer our personal resources.  Even though this hoax has been fully exposed, the liberals continue to use the bogus argument as a way to continue to pilfer and steal from We-the-People.  And We-the-People have yet to really fight back against the tyrants who now rule—not work for—us.  Even Obama’s VP Joe Biden ranked terrorist attacks behind air pollution and corn syrup when he said “air that has too much coal in it, corn syrup next, then a terrorist attack.” It may sound as if liberals are truly insane.  The masses of liberals and leftists may just be.  However, their leaders are not.  They know that the lies the populations have been taught since they were children in government-run schools have made them compliant to these rulers’ eventual theft of everything the people used to own.  Or as every good liberal and leftist (AKA Socialist and/or Fascist) worth his or her salt says:  “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” and “the State will provide for our needs.” Those who belong to the mind-numbed classes don’t ever seem to realize that “the State” is pillaging all of their wealth and doling out smaller and smaller portions back to them.  Note:  This stance is even stronger in their leaders.
What can we do?  At this juncture, FLOOD the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, ask for your representatives and senators and tell them to stop their thievery and oppression of the American citizen.  Tell them to vote “NO” on Obama’s cap, trade and theft bill.  If they do not, the cooking fires and creeks for washing will soon replace our appliances.  But, that is—after all—the usurper Obama’s plan.  A poor population is a more compliant one.
By the way, these leaders are ostensibly working to stop CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions.  We and all other mammals breathe out Carbon Dioxide.  Plants need CO2 to manufacture Oxygen.  In other words, they are attempting to implement a plan that will ultimately end lives—not save them.  I’m reminded of the recent animated film “The Tale of Despereaux.” One of the lines in the film is “What happens when you make something that is a natural part of the world illegal?” Even a mouse knows the answer. 

WHY PELOSI MUST GO

May 22, 2009

 

From: Dick Morris Reports
Subject: WHY PELOSI MUST GO
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:20 PM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 19, 2009 
Printer-Friendly Version
It’s obvious that either Leon Panetta, Obama’s head of the CIA, or Nancy Pelosi, his party’s Speaker of the House, has to go. No administration can tolerate a permanent, public civil war between two such high-ranking officials.
Especially when their disagreement stems not from issues of policy but from matters of veracity and credibility, the battle must end in one of their resignations. You cannot have the head of the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism calling the Speaker of the House a liar and being attacked by her in turn.
Obviously, Obama cannot fire Panetta. First of all, he just appointed him. And second, to cave in to Pelosi (D-Calif.) would earn him the massive disrespect and disapproval of the very operatives on whom he must depend to keep the nation safe.
 Already skeptical of his leftist credentials, the analysts at the CIA would regard it as a massive vote of no confidence if their chief were fired for believing in them.
Like Clinton — whose draft-dodging made his relationship with the military problematic — Obama takes office amid reservations about him on the part of the intelligence community. He has taken pains to reach out to both the uniformed and white-collar intelligence officials to smooth his way and win their trust.
Panetta took over as CIA chief under the cloud of his agency’s distrust of the man who appointed him. Now he is standing firm for his agency and winning its loyalty and support.
Obama cannot pull the rug out from under him without incurring the agency’s permanent animosity. Before Sept. 11, 2001, that may have been an acceptable risk. Now it is not.
But Pelosi is expendable. The job of a Democratic Speaker is to pass the program of the Democratic president. Her ability and track record is measured on a scale of effectiveness. If she is ineffective, she’s not up to the job.
There is no way that Nancy Pelosi can be effective while she is engaged in a war of words with the Democratic head of the CIA.
House members have a shark’s instinct for blood in the water and know full well that satisfying Pelosi is likely to be an unrewarding occupation.
With House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) waiting in the wings, few congressmen would be willing to treat the IOUs from Pelosi they get for casting difficult votes as worth much more than Confederate currency.
Remember that Pelosi won by only 118-95 in her election as Speaker. Her support was not overwhelming to begin with. She is a movement liberal. Her political antecedents come from the McGovern wing of the party. She is a leftist/reformer. An insurgent.
But Hoyer is a regular Democrat. Representing a district in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland, he is almost a civil servant himself. He is no radical.
While he can be counted on to pass Obama’s programs like a good Democrat, he is not the kind of guy who will get out in front of the president to upstage or pressure him.
He will fit right in, unobtrusively backing the president. (Full disclosure: He’s a former client. Very former.)
Above all, Obama cannot allow the distraction and disruption of a feud between Speaker and CIA head to sow the image of an administration at war with itself.
The Speaker is the hired help. She exists to serve her president. And, right now, he needs this fight like he needs a hole in the head.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!
From: Dick Morris Reports
Subject: WHY PELOSI MUST GO
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:20 PM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 19, 2009 
Printer-Friendly Version
It’s obvious that either Leon Panetta, Obama’s head of the CIA, or Nancy Pelosi, his party’s Speaker of the House, has to go. No administration can tolerate a permanent, public civil war between two such high-ranking officials.
Especially when their disagreement stems not from issues of policy but from matters of veracity and credibility, the battle must end in one of their resignations. You cannot have the head of the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism calling the Speaker of the House a liar and being attacked by her in turn.
Obviously, Obama cannot fire Panetta. First of all, he just appointed him. And second, to cave in to Pelosi (D-Calif.) would earn him the massive disrespect and disapproval of the very operatives on whom he must depend to keep the nation safe.
 Already skeptical of his leftist credentials, the analysts at the CIA would regard it as a massive vote of no confidence if their chief were fired for believing in them.
Like Clinton — whose draft-dodging made his relationship with the military problematic — Obama takes office amid reservations about him on the part of the intelligence community. He has taken pains to reach out to both the uniformed and white-collar intelligence officials to smooth his way and win their trust.
Panetta took over as CIA chief under the cloud of his agency’s distrust of the man who appointed him. Now he is standing firm for his agency and winning its loyalty and support.
Obama cannot pull the rug out from under him without incurring the agency’s permanent animosity. Before Sept. 11, 2001, that may have been an acceptable risk. Now it is not.
But Pelosi is expendable. The job of a Democratic Speaker is to pass the program of the Democratic president. Her ability and track record is measured on a scale of effectiveness. If she is ineffective, she’s not up to the job.
There is no way that Nancy Pelosi can be effective while she is engaged in a war of words with the Democratic head of the CIA.
House members have a shark’s instinct for blood in the water and know full well that satisfying Pelosi is likely to be an unrewarding occupation.
With House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) waiting in the wings, few congressmen would be willing to treat the IOUs from Pelosi they get for casting difficult votes as worth much more than Confederate currency.
Remember that Pelosi won by only 118-95 in her election as Speaker. Her support was not overwhelming to begin with. She is a movement liberal. Her political antecedents come from the McGovern wing of the party. She is a leftist/reformer. An insurgent.
But Hoyer is a regular Democrat. Representing a district in the D.C. suburbs of Maryland, he is almost a civil servant himself. He is no radical.
While he can be counted on to pass Obama’s programs like a good Democrat, he is not the kind of guy who will get out in front of the president to upstage or pressure him.
He will fit right in, unobtrusively backing the president. (Full disclosure: He’s a former client. Very former.)
Above all, Obama cannot allow the distraction and disruption of a feud between Speaker and CIA head to sow the image of an administration at war with itself.
The Speaker is the hired help. She exists to serve her president. And, right now, he needs this fight like he needs a hole in the head.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick’s columns!

Outlawing Opinion

May 22, 2009

OP/ED: Outlawing Opinion
By Chuck Norris
It greatly alarms me that Americans’ constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.
    Several years ago, I watched then-20/20 correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics.
    Surprisingly naive of America’s constitutional basis, Saddam asked, “Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?” (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -and somewhat at a loss for words herself – Diane quipped back in answering his question, “They host television talk shows!” Saddam’s facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.
    Sounds so far-out, doesn’t it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track – a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.
    For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.
    If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: “Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.”
    The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents’ Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function?
    When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine – which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation — is right around the corner.
    Government isn’t the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean’s – who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up – giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions she’s been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.
    I don’t care what your cause is. I don’t care what your mission is. I don’t care what the issue is. I don’t care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen’s constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone’s offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?
    It’s simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam’s Iraq!
    When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we’ve drifted from our roots. Isn’t it time we returned home to the Constitution?

OP/ED: Outlawing Opinion

By Chuck Norris

It greatly alarms me that Americans’ constitutional right of freedom of speech is being squeezed out of our culture.

    Several years ago, I watched then-20/20 correspondent Diane Sawyer interview Saddam Hussein, who was dictator of Iraq at the time. She respectfully confronted him for the atrocities and executions he used as punishments for people who merely spoke out against him, his rule or his politics.

    Surprisingly naive of America’s constitutional basis, Saddam asked, “Well, what happens to those who speak against your president?” (He clearly was expecting that such speech was also a crime in the U.S. and punishable by law.) Shocked by his sheer ignorance of the U.S. -and somewhat at a loss for words herself – Diane quipped back in answering his question, “They host television talk shows!” Saddam’s facial expression revealed that he was totally confused by her answer.

    Sounds so far-out, doesn’t it? Offensive speech being punishable by law? But it might not be that far off for America, especially if the course of free speech continues on its present track – a path of progressive restrictions, both from our government and our culture.

    For example, presently bill S. 909 is on the fast track through the Senate, poised under the guise of the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, once enacted, local justices could expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. In the end, it could not only criminalize opinions (an unconstitutional act) but also provide elevated protection to pedophiles.

    If our policymakers understood and followed the constitutional government our Founders laid down for us, they never would advocate any so-called hate crimes bill. As Rep. Ron Paul once wrote: “Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.”

    The limiting of free speech is happening through not only legal ends but also social avenues. It was tragic to watch at the recent White House Correspondents’ Association dinner how the present administration provided the platform for and then laughed at a parade of mean-spirited, cruel jokes about Rush Limbaugh, which made fun of his history of addiction to painkillers, wished him kidney failure, and suggested he might have been the 20th hijacker involved in 9/11. Is that even funny? Despite the fact that I believe even this offensive language is protected by the First Amendment, is it the type of belittling humor we should expect at a White House function?

    When the feds seek to silence their critics through intimidation and social demise, have they not failed to properly lead a blended nation and uphold the heart of the Constitution? Mark my words that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine – which would subject talk radio, among other media, to government regulation — is right around the corner.

    Government isn’t the only one restricting free speech. We recently witnessed many in our culture clamping down on that basic American right via the travesty of the response to Carrie Prejean’s – who is Miss California and the Miss USA runner-up – giving her honest opinion when a question was posed by a judge during the Miss USA contest. As a result of her respectfully giving her personal convictions she’s been persecuted and even has received death threats from those who oppose her.

    I don’t care what your cause is. I don’t care what your mission is. I don’t care what the issue is. I don’t care what your beliefs are. It is every American citizen’s constitutional right to speak freely, without fear of repercussion. If the First Amendment is not there to protect anyone’s offensive speech, then what type of speech is it protecting?

    It’s simply un-American and unconstitutional to impede, harass, threaten or persecute anyone who is guilty of nothing more than sharing his opinion or even exercising his right to vote. This is America, not Saddam’s Iraq!

    When free speech is restricted or punished, we can be certain that we’ve drifted from our roots. Isn’t it time we returned home to the Constitution?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

S 909 IS

 

 

111th CONGRESS

 

 

1st Session

 

 

S. 909

 

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

 

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

 

April 28, 2009

Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BAYH, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. AKAKA)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 


 

A BILL

 

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act’.

     

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  •  
    •  

        (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

         

        (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

         

        (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

         

        (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

         

        (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

         

    • (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.

       

      (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

       

      (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

       

      (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

       

      (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

       

      (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

       

      (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

       

      (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

       

      (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

       

      (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.

       

  • Congress makes the following findings:

     

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

  •  

      (1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

       

      (2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994note); and

       

      (3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.

       

  • In this Act–

     

 

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

  •  
    •  

        (A) constitutes a crime of violence;

         

        (B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and

         

        (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

         

    • (1) IN GENERAL- At the request of State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that–

       

      (2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.

       

    •  
      •  

          (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

           

          (ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

           

          (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and

           

          (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

           

      • (A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

         

        (B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

         

        (C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall–

         

    • (1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

       

      (2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

       

      (3) APPLICATION-

       

      (4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

       

      (5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.

       

      (6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2010, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

       

      (7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

       

  • (a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

     

    (b) Grants-

     

 

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

     

    (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

     

 

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.

     

 

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

    (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     

 

‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

  •  
    •  
      •  

          ‘(i) death results from the offense; or

           

          ‘(ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

           

      • ‘(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

         

        ‘(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

         

      •  
        •  

            ‘(I) death results from the offense; or

             

            ‘(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

             

        • ‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

           

          ‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

           

        •  

            ‘(I) across a State line or national border; or

             

            ‘(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

             

            ‘(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

             

            ‘(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

             

        • ‘(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–

           

          ‘(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

           

          ‘(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

           

          ‘(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–

           

      • ‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

         

        ‘(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

         

    • ‘(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

       

      ‘(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

       

      ‘(3) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.

       

    •  

        ‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

         

        ‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

         

        ‘(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or

         

        ‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.

         

    • ‘(1) IN GENERAL- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or his designee, that–

       

      ‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.

       

      ‘(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;

       

      ‘(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;

       

      ‘(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and

       

      ‘(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’.

       

      ‘249. Hate crime acts.’.

       

  • ‘(a) In General-

     

    ‘(b) Certification Requirement-

     

    ‘(c) Definitions- In this section–

     

    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     

 

SEC. 8. STATISTICS.

    (a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race,’.

     

    (b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after ‘data acquired under this section’.

     

 

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     

 

SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

  •  

      (1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.

       

      (2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.

       

      (3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.CommentsPermalink

       

      (4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

  • For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:

     

 

Pelosi tries to backpedal on CIA criticism

May 16, 2009
Posted: 05/16/09 11:32 AM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has backed down slightly in her fight with the CIA, saying that she really meant only to criticize the Bush administration rather than career officials. 

“My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe,” Pelosi said in a statement.

Pelosi caused an uproar Thursday when she accused the CIA of lying to her about its use of waterboarding – which she considers torture – on terrorism suspects.

Her comment came after President Obama’s CIA director, Leon Panetta, challenged her version of events, insisting that his agency told her the truth in a controversial September 2002 briefing. 

Panetta, who served with Pelosi in Congress as a fellow California Democrat, had issued a memo to CIA staff Friday reiterating that agency records show “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'” according to CIA records.

“We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication,” Panetta said in the memo. “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”

In her statement and answers Thursday, Pelosi had switched back and forth between criticizing the CIA and Bush administration officials. Republicans said she was unfairly criticizing non-political career officials doing the briefing when she claimed “they mislead us all the time.”

In what is so far the most difficult episode of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the abusive interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration and when she knew it.

At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.

Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as “torture” when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. One lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi  Friday to step down as Speaker.

At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn’t push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn’t co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.

“No letter could change the policy,” she said on May 14 at a news conference. “It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part.”

 

Is Nancy Pelosi’s speakership in trouble? Click here to join the discussion.

RELATED:

View the documents that detail which members were briefed on interrogation techniques
PANETTA: CIA director says Pelosi was told the truth 
AVOIDANCE: White House ducks Pelosi-CIA battle 
THE STORM: Pelosi deflects waterboarding criticism
PROBE: Lindsey Graham threatens to call speaker
NO. 2: Hoyer wants all the facts out  

 Read entire article here

Somali Pirates go High Tech

May 12, 2009

It seems that the Somali pirates are getting some high tech help. It is reported that they have ‘friends’ in London who relay to them which ships to target and which to avoid.

Read copyrighted AFP 2008 article here

Montana Attempts to Negate Federal Gun Laws

May 10, 2009

Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law Executive Summary – The USA state of Montana has signed into power a revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of Montana has defied the federal government and their gun laws. This will prompt a showdown between the federal government and the State of Montana . The federal government fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one common goal – confiscation of privately owned firearms.
Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand. They have challenged the Federal Government. The fed now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal agents have no right to violate their state gun laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to watch. Montana could go to voting for secession from the union, which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama’s face. If the federal government does nothing they lose face. Gotta love it.
Important Points – If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the federal firearms laws have no applicability since the federal government only has the power to control commerce across state lines. Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA start following their own laws especially the constitution of the USA , the very document that empowers the USA .
Silencers made in Montana and sol in Montana would be fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. They were also useful as devices to control noise when practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.
Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel. Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the sound very well except on the silver screen. The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the slide recoils back.
Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places. Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.
There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. So in a short period of time there would be millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in Montana . Way to go Montana !
Discussion – Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they will probably vote to secede from the USA . The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal money because he does not want to agree to the conditions that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right they have as sort of a threat.. Things are no longer the same with the USA . Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same, it is not.

Text of the New Law HOUSE BILL NO. 246

INTRODUCED BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT, BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA ; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA :
Section 1. Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the “Montana Firearms Freedom Act”.
Section 2. Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is the following:
(1) The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.
(4) The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
(5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution, which was approved by congress and the people of Montana , and the right exists, as it was understood at the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) “Borders of Montana ” means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889 Montana constitution.
(2) “Firearms accessories” means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) “Generic and insignificant parts” includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) “Manufactured” means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.
Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana …
Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words “Made in Montana ” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1 through 6].
Section 8. Applicability. [This act] applies to firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3], and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.

White House Celebrates National Day of Prayer

May 8, 2009

Today President Obama celebrated the National Day of Prayer by going into the White House Press Room and having the press corp fall to their knees before him.
What a guy.

Go to Boston, Get a Free Car

May 8, 2009

Gov. Deval Patrick’s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work.

But the program – fueled by a funding boost despite the state’s fiscal crash – allows those who end up back on welfare to keep the cars anyway.

“It’s mind-boggling. You’ve got people out there saying, ‘I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?’ ” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading).

Read entire Boston Herald article here

Nancy Pelosi has Foot-in-Mouth Disease

May 8, 2009

First it was Bill Clinton saying ” I never had sex with that woman.”. Now, not to be outdone Nancy Pelosi says “I never had torture with that terrorist.”. Hello!??!?!? Do these politicians really think we are all that stupid? I guess they do. I am tired of politicians urinating on my leg and then trying to tell me it’s raining.

Read The CIA memo here

Read the Washington Post article here

Are You An Extreemist? DHS Says We All Are

May 7, 2009

Read the official DHS Lexicon here and decide for yourself

1 million attend tea parties in 50 states

May 2, 2009

A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA

‘Obama has awakened a sleeping giant’

Read entire article here

An estimated 1 million Americans participated in at least 1,000 tea parties, according to reports by organizers tabulating the nationwide numbers, with documented protests held in 50 states.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform told WND, “The Obama administration has awakened a sleeping giant.”

Tax Day Tea Party national event coordinator Amy Kremer told WND she has confirmed that more than 850 parties took place. She has at least 100 more reports in her e-mail inbox that have not been posted.

Sign a petition calling on Congress and the president to halt out-of-control spending

Asked how many people attended the events, she responded, “I would estimate it at over 1 million. I’m waiting on more numbers to come in from organizers right now. I can tell you it is absolutely over 750,000 right now.”

The largest protests occurred in Atlanta, Ga., with 15,000 participants. As many as 10,000 protesters participating in Sacramento, Calif., and Overland Park, Kan., according to data compiled by Americans for Tax Reform on more than 207 tea parties.

Americans for Tax Reform has established an Internet page on the group’s website where organizers of tea parties can submit attendance estimates to be included in the running tally.

Michael DePrimo, special counsel to American Family Association President Tim Wildmon, told WND that AFA’s tea party website,Tea Party Day, had 2,031 confirmations that tea parties were to be held in as many cities.

“Since yesterday, we have had 394 cities give us reports, many with photographs, about the tea parties that were held,” he said. “We have not been able to get all the information up. We expect more to come in as the days go by.”

Glenn Beck reported yesterday on his Fox News program that official estimates of the participation in the Tea Party held in San Antonio, Texas, reached as many as 20,000 people.

The Glenn Beck show broadcast on Fox News live on April 15, from the Tea Party held at the Alamo in San Antonio.

“The establishment in Washington, D.C., is terrified,” Norquist said. “There were no such demonstrations four months into the administrations of Democratic presidents Carter or Clinton.”

Norquist told WND that the Obama administration was taken by surprise by the nationwide protests because the administration had calculated increased government spending was supposed to be the popular part of President Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

Instead, Norquist said, the tea parties held in every state on Wednesday proved Americans nationwide are demonstrating in anger and disappointment against Obama administration plans for massive deficit spending.

“Imagine what happens when President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid begin to pay for their ‘spend-fest’ with higher taxes and inflation,” Norquist said.

Kremer said the mainstream media have completely neglected their duty to accurately report on this nationwide movement.

“It’s amazing that the mainstream media is reporting it the way that they are,” she said. “It’s just crazy. It’s basically just going to come down to us. We’re now reporting it ourselves because they are not reporting it accurately.”

Many say the mainstream media attempted either to ignore the protests altogether or characterized tea partiers as disgruntled Republicans unable to accept that “they lost” the 2008 presidential campaign or as “rich taxpayers” unwilling to pay their fair burden of taxes.

However, Kremer said she is constantly receiving reports from organizers about the movement’s resounding success.

“I think it was an absolute success,” she said. “We want to send a message to them: We hired them; we can fire them. They work for us. They seem to have forgotten that.”

She continued, “If it means we have to go after every incumbent in office from now until 2012, we will do that. But the American people are tired of sitting by, and they are starting to step forward and take notice.”

Give Barack Obama Power of Attorney

May 2, 2009

“I (fill in your name and address)

do hereby appoint Barack Obama, my attorney in fact, to act in my name, place, and stead in respect to the following matters:  the vehicle I drive, the salary and bonuses I receive, the job I get, the education my children get, all medical matters, and all tax matters.

 This durable power of attorney shall extend through his entire term as president, and beyond: through the rest of his remaining years as a mortal walking the sod of planet Earth,” and then you simply sign it, and you get a notary public out there to day-date and signature it and so forth, and your problems are over.

Your cares have ended; your worries cease to exist, all because you realize the greatness you found yourself among on the one-hundredth day of his presidency: blessed with the smartest president in our nation’s history, more than smart, he’s wise.

 He knows what’s best for our country; he knows what’s best for our allies.  

He knows what’s best for the world!  He knows what’s best energy-wise.  

Why, you sign over your power of attorney to Barack Obama, and you never again have to worry about a thing!  

McDonald’s will always have McNuggets, and you’ll never, ever have to call 911 when they don’t.  

There’s also a simpler way, ladies and gentlemen, to sign the Barack Obama Power of Attorney Letter, and that’s just vote for the guy.

Andrew McCarthy’s Letter to Attorney General Holder

May 2, 2009

May 1, 2009

 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.  20530-0001

 

Dear Attorney General Holder:

 

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases.  An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

 

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants — or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.”  I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith.  Nevertheless, it is quite clear — most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany — that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States).  Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues.  I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people.  Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct.  Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government. 

 

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities.  This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case.  Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.”  Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [administration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay….  President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]”  (Emphasis added.)

 

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting.  After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

 

For what it may be worth, I will say this much.  For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated.  Essentially, there have been two camps.  One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s.  The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission.  Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people. 

 

There are differences in these various proposals.  But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing:  Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted.  We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans.  Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

 

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight.  Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year.  The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried.  Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy.  It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

 

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance.  I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees.  According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training.  Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from theUnited States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law. 

 

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness.  But I can decline to participate in the charade. 

 

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York.  It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties.  It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States.  I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment.  In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology.  Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial.  It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

 

                                                                                    Very truly yours,

 

                                                                                    /S/       

 

                                                                                    Andrew C. McCarthy

 

cc:        Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue

National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section