About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Michelle Malkin on the Second Amendment

Posted by on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:13:55 AM
Michelle Malkin has an absolute must-read up on NRO regarding the most important and precious amendment in the Bill of Rights. That would be the Second Amendment for all of you on the Left that failed Constitutional Studies in college (or in my case, high school):

“The Second Amendment,” Charlton Heston used to say, “is America’s first freedom.” The Second secures the rest.

It’s a message narcissistic journalists need to hear again. A decade ago, Heston chastised the media in a National Press Club speech for its collective ignorance, apathy and open hostility toward gun owners’ rights: “Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition’s tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed.”

Alas, Heston’s prayers have yet to be answered. While courts have recently bolstered Second Amendment rights, endangering gun owners in the name of free speech continues to be the blood sport of the Fourth Estate.

Two weeks ago, the Roanoke Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper’s community under the sanctimonious guise of “Sunshine Week.” The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: “I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It’s nobody’s business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone’s business.”

Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed carry permit holders list was “about being for or against guns.” But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: “A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.”The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Trejbal admitted that he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate — but published it anyway: “

As a Sunshine Week gift, the Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all [emphasis added], online at www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun.”

Let me just say for the record that I'm personally disgusted by this sort of cr*p from the MSM. The New York Times and WaPo can get away with blowing classified programs that the government is using to combat our enemies abroad. Now local papers have decided to release this sort of information to the public. Where is the right to privacy that those on the Left claim they stand for? Do firearms owners not have the same right? Trejbal claims that because the government dispenses the permits that it's everyone's business.

That's a fallacy. Are medical records -- also kept watch by the government especially if you are enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid -- fair game? What about juvenile criminal records? The government, too, has a hand in that, yet those are to be sealed when we turn eighteen. The government's involved in marriage via licenses so does that give the media the right to publicize what my wife and I do in the privacy of our own home? In essence folks, who died and left the media in charge of what is and isn't to be kept private and away from the prying eyes of the public. Trejbal's argument doesn't wash, and I'm personally offended by his assertion that he, and he alone, decided what should and shouldn't be released to the public.

Michelle continues:

After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database. Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: “Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it’s still a public record.” Let’s review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals — and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.

Public disclosure of concealed carry licenses varies from state to state. Eighteen states protect permit holders’ privacy from public view. Virginia is one of 17 states that make licensee records public. If information is public, does it make it right for a newspaper to publish it? The media exercise discretion all the time in withholding the names of minors or rape victims. Why should the privacy of law-abiding concealed handgun permit holders be treated with any less concern?

While the Roanoake Times has retreated, the witch hunt against gun owners continues. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a “sting” operation targeting gun shops in five states for allegedly selling guns illegally. Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation report that Bloomberg sent unauthorized private investigators to conduct the operation — without notifying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):

“The odor ripened when Bloomberg filed civil lawsuits against these gun shops, rather than turn over evidence to the proper authorities for criminal prosecution. Bloomberg’s office refused to turn over that evidence, and instead the billionaire mayor launched a high-profile media campaign demonizing the targeted gun shop operators.”

So while we celebrate the DC Circuit Court's decision that owning firearms is an individual right, we see more attacks from the most virulent anti-gun opponents on the most basic right or protection we have. For you nutter Leftys, firearms ownership wasn't just for hunting and warding off the hostile Indians when this nation was first setled and founded. The Founding Fathers recognized this as the most basic right, and one that protects all the others. Without it, nothing will stop the march of tyranny against a free society. The Founding Fathers knew this weel in lessons from England where private arms ownership was forbidden or strictly regulated by the government.

In this nation we shouldn't have to worry about that. But people like Trejbal feel no remorse for the damage that they've done, and personal crusaders like Bloomberg continue along unabated despite overstepping their boundaries. It's time the Supreme Court took this matter up, and ended the debate once and for all. Firearms ownership is an individual right, and on\e that is absolutely near and dear to the hearts of any American that understands the responsibility of owning such things. They are tools, and in the hands of an expert that knows how to use them, it's the difference between life and death. THAT is the lesson that our Founding Fathers wanted us to learn. For them, the owning of a firearm was the difference between life and death, but it was in regard to liberty itself.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems Try To Get Their Ducks In A Row; Strong-arming Colleagues And Ideological Foes Alike

Posted by on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:04:54 AM
 Democrats are playing the game again, only this time they are closer to the votes they need in the House according to the story Allah @ Hot Air picked up from the WaPo:

To be sure, House Democratic leaders appear to be making progress toward securing the votes to pass a $124 billion emergency war spending bill that would establish strict readiness standards for deploying combat forces and set a firm deadline of Aug. 31, 2008, to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Clyburn and other House Democratic leaders locked down two critical Democratic converts -- one liberal, one conservative -- yesterday.

At a closed-door gathering of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and an early opponent of the bill, announced that she had changed her position and will support it when it comes to a vote.

After the caucus meeting, Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, said that he, too, will vote for the bill. "The alternative is an open-ended bleeding of our blood and treasure, with no end in sight and no pressure on the Iraqi government to make the changes necessary," he said.
But their late conversions only pointed up the difficulties in the whip organization. Schakowsky, like Waters, is one of nine chief deputy whips, and her early statements of opposition had stunned leaders. She pledged yesterday to press liberal members of the House Out of Iraq Caucus and Progressive Caucus to fall into line.

Tanner, the Blue Dog representative on the chief deputy whip's team, had been undecided until yesterday morning. Now that he is on board, he hastened to add that he is not about to start leaning on his Blue Dog colleagues. "I don't ask people to vote on the leadership's behalf, particularly on a vote like this," he said.

Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for Clyburn, said the Democrats' whip organization is broad and diverse, precisely so that a few defections over policy would not affect the vote-counting operation. The days of lock-step discipline under the threat of retribution went out with the Republican majority, she said.

But defections have consequences. With Woolsey adamantly opposed to the bill, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), a fellow Western regional whip, has to do the work of two. Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) said leaders are pulling in members from outside the whip organization, handing out the names of undecided Democrats to anyone willing to step in.

Confronted yesterday about his balky whip organization, Clyburn was all smiles. Lewis is a pacifist who has earned, in the trenches of the civil rights movement, the right to oppose any additional funding for the war, Clyburn said. Besides, he added, Lewis will not actively work against the bill.

This is not a "line up, sound off, and be heard" sort of a vote coming up. Allah notes some serious strong-arm tactics going on:

The most outspoken critics of the $124 billion wartime spending bill in the House are facing withering support in their fight to defeat it.

California Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey said that many of their liberal colleagues were caving under pressure from Democratic leaders who, according to at least one congressman, have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district.

They also cited MoveOn.org's endorsement of the measure Monday as a blow to their efforts.

"For people who are undecided and looking for a reason to vote for the supplemental, MoveOn is going to make a difference, providing instant cover for these members," Woolsey said. ...

... "This is a vote of conscience," Waters said. "Jim Clyburn said he was doing an assessment, so that's what I was doing. Now that he's whipping, I'm going to start whipping."

Clyburn disputed her assertion. "That's not what she told me," he said. "I beg to differ that there's anybody whipping against this bill."

One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill, singling out Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as especially forceful.

"I really resent this," the lawmaker said. "Rahm Emanuel told us a vote against this bill is a vote to give the Republicans victory."

The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had "made clear" to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure. ...

... Some anti-war activists assailed MoveOn.org's approach to the Iraq bill, alleging that the organization had used a skewed poll to conclude that 85 percent of its members backed the measure.

"MoveOn put out a dishonest poll that did not offer its members a real choice to end the war, and now the peace movement is lobbying activists to reform MoveOn or drop off its list," David Swanson, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, said in an e-mail to The Politico. "I unsubscribed from MoveOn this morning."

In the poll, MoveOn.org gave its members a choice of supporting, opposing or being "not sure" of the plan proposed by the Democratic leadership, according to an e-mail sent to members Sunday by MoveOn.org official Eli Pariser.

It did not mention a more aggressive withdrawal proposal backed by Woolsey, Waters and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

Pariser said MoveOn.org had held out as long as possible before backing the leadership proposal.

"We were basically declining to take a position as long as we could to strengthen the hand of the progressives. We did the poll at the last time we felt we could have an impact on the final vote."

He said he would support the progressive proposal if it came to a vote. "We'll encourage people to vote for that and for the supplemental," he said. "We are trying to end the war. That's the mandate."

Democratic leaders are pressing hard on the bill even though some members of their whip operation are themselves opposed. Waters, one of nine chief deputy whips, has said she will not whip for a bill she staunchly opposes.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The Democrats are up to it again, playing politics with the troops and national security. Now we all know that should this bill miraculously pass the House and the Senate, the president will veto it. And while they may have the votes to make the initial passage, the problem then comes down to the sheer and simple fact that they lack the necessary majority to override his veto.

While there may, indeed, be a couple of defections from the Republicans in the House, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will keep the GOP in line in the Senate. The Democrats should be wary of the bill making it to the Senate if they cannot get the necessary defections because Joe Lieberman will defect into the GOP camp on this vote. The new "Zell Miller" of the Senate is well aware of how antiwar and fringe his party has become in the last couple of years. He ran on a platform of supporting the troops and the war. He wil not abandon them in this vote.

As things stand now, the Democrats are short a number of votes. They need 218 to pass it, and the Politico has a hard count, as of right now, of 204 -- 14 shy of the necessary votes. But they also have 48 hours to brow beat their colleagues, and place pressure on the Republicans. One thing is certain: This will get ugly in the home stretch, and I expect some feathers to be ruffled over this vote.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PJM: Iraqi Tribes Engaging Al-Qaeda Terrorists

Posted by on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:19:52 PM
 I am back now that dinner is done, and I wanted readers to take note of this story picked up by Professor Glenn Reynolds who noticed it on Pajamas Media:

The Al-bu Issa tribes in Amiriyat al-Fallujah, backed by local police and the MNF, clashed today with members of the al-Qaeda linked “Islamic State in Iraq” terror organization, according to al-Hurra TV.

The tribe involved in the clashes has opposed al-Qaeda for months now and is part of the Awakening Council

The battles that are still ongoing have so far left 39 terrorists killed including the “ministers of oil and war” of the terror organization. Six policemen and 11 tribal fighters were also killed during the fighting.

The report adds that US troops found and securely detonated a tanker filled with chlorine gas the terrorists were planning to use in chemical attacks on the area.

Meanwhile, a police force of 500, conducting raids in northern and central parts of Ramadi, captured weapons and bomb-making material, and arrested dozens of suspects.

Tracking….

UPDATE: More on the tribes involved — “These tribes have been sending thousands of young men to join the government security forces or their paramilitary units to cooperate with US and Iraqi commanders to fight insurgents.” (AFP)

This just goes to show that we are not the only ones involved in the surge. The Iraqis are behind us, as well, even if they are not wearing the uniform of Iraqi military or security force personnel. I wonder if al-Qaeda realizes that they have bitten off considerably more than they can chew?

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Children being used in carbomb attacks: Just sick, folks

Posted by on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:53:47 PM
 This is sick, and readers should take heart I didn't let Marcie see this. She wouldn't be pleased seeing this from Allah at Hot Air. From Reuters AlertNet:

A U.S. general on Tuesday said Iraqi insurgents used children in a suicide attack this weekend, raising worries that the insurgency has adopted a new tactic to get through security checkpoints with bombs.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations in the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, said adults in a vehicle with two children in the backseat were allowed through a Baghdad checkpoint. The adults then abandoned the vehicle and detonated it with the children still inside, he said.

"Children in the back seat, lower suspicion, we let it move through," he said. "They parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back."

"The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed," Barbero said.

The general called that incident a new tactic, but noted U.S. forces had only seen one such occurrence involving children.

The use of chemical bombings has increased and become a tool of the insurgency, as the three chlorine bombs detonated this past weekend brought the total to six such bombings since January, the general said.

"High-profile" suicide and car bomb attacks by Sunnis against Shi'ites also have not abated, Barbero said.

But he said increased force in Iraq's capital had yielded some success, such as a reduction in murders and executions of civilians. He also said hundreds of families have returned to Baghdad and the number of tips from Iraqi civilians about insurgent activity hit its highest mark ever in February.

First, on the barbaric new tactic, this should be the headlines in every MSM outlet reporting on the war. Why? So America understands the depths with which our enemy is going to. This goes back to their cowardly tactic of using civilians as shields, and the various carbomb tactics they've employed. It's sick the level of barbarism these animals show, and the utter lack of respect they have for human life, in general. (Kind of makes you wonder if they're registered Democrats in hiding.) OK, bad joke, but one that makes it's point.

Secondly, more news that the suge is working in the drop of murders and executions. As long as the troops are patrolling the streets and engaging these animals, there wil be less indigenous killings, and people wil feel safer in those areas. The evidence of which is present in the rise in tips to the soldiers as to where these animals are. And when we find them, we engage them. Either they're killed, or they're captured. Either way, we're winning the surge, and the enemy is losing.

Do we have our good days and bad days. Yep. You bet. We will because it's a war folks. But the good is outweighing the bad exponentially in Iraq since our newest offensive began in January. With the surge reinforcements, the hits keep on coming to the enemy, and they can't adjust to our new tactics. The ROEs they had grown used to having to face in our troops are gone; tossed aside by General Petreus for ones that are far more effective. But the successes can't dwarf the cruelty and unhumanity of our enemy.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NY Post: More signs the surge is working

Posted by on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:36:54 PM
 More good news on the Iraq surge from the NY Post and Rich Lowry. The Post is discussing why the surge is working:

'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."

What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen." ...

BINGO! And it's no easy task when the Iraqis are able to see the partisan defeatists over here trying to kill the war. But the success in the surge thus far has emboldened the public in Iraq to help the US and coalition forces, and the Iraqi security forces. They understand now that we aren't going anywhere until the job is done, and that the president and General Petreus are going to fight for them. They also understand, as is evident in the Iraqi Parliament and their threats to Maliki to straighten up, or they'll toss him out.

But Rich Lowry picked up on this, which has been a sticky subject for us when it comes to the war, in general:

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."

The ROEs were a consistent gripe of ours, and General Petreus is correct: The changes made by junior officers weren't wise, or even helpful. If anything, they brought more problems to the engagements we had with the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq; usually with deadly consequences. And to quell the fears of those on the Left who worry about civilian casualties, yes I'm sure we're still taking care to avoid it when it's at all possible. BUT, in a firefight where our enemies may be using them civilians, directly or indirectly, as shields, our troops aren't going to sit on their triggers like many reports we have seen come from CENTCOM. They WILL return fire to protect themselves, and take the best care to avoid civilian casualties.

Detractors and critics of the surge need to remember that areas of Iraq -- Baghdad and the Anbar Province, specifically -- are still hotbeds. There's still fighting in those areas, and barring a complete removal of civilians, there will be casualties. Need we remind those same critics that while it was tragic in World War II, we didn't not strike a target or engage the enemy because too many civilians were in the area. When you go to war, you do so unconditionally, and with all assets at your disposal. Some will be hurt, and some will die, but not nearly as many if we cede the field to the enemy. Remember, our enemy used to go into towns that US, coalition and Iraqi forces labled as "secured," and behead the men in town.

General Petreus is the leading anti-insurgency expert in the Army. We think it's high time the Democrats zip it, quit trying to interfere, and let the professionals finish the job. They're not helping anyone with their continued antics.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The President Warns Democrats To Take The Offer Or Suffer The Embarrassing Consequences

Posted by on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:54:14 PM
That is, he does if he is serious, and it certainly sounds like he is; at least from this story:

President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to allow top aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said in a statement from the White House. "I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

Democrats' response to Bush's offer was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call to his longtime friend and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," the president said.

Honestly speaking, we are in favor of him sticking to his guns today, and should the Democrats push the issue. This is a perfectly amicable solution to the problem, and the fringe nuts need to keep silent on this. The president could cite executive privilege, and end the debate entirely. The firings of these eight attorneys is an executive branch matter alone.

The Congress has no say in the hirings and firings of regular attorneys for the Justice Department, and a minimal role for the attorneys assigned to the various districts in the United States. Their role is advise and consent, provided that it does not interfere with the law amended by the Patriot Act in Section 502. In those regards, then their role is even more miniscule; that being virtually nonexistent.

The president was well within his bounds in approving of the firings. Alberto Gonzales's sole mistake in this whole, overblown fiasco is that he bungled it along the way. But calling for his head is inappropriate. He committed no crime, nor serious mistake that is a removable offense. I know that many conservatives are not happy with him, and that is understandable given some of his more controversial stances such as immigration, and even some of his own judicial philosophies. (Let us thank all that is holy that he was not nominated to the high court.)

The deal is one the Democrats should take. They wil get their answers. If they do not, then they are in for a fight that they wil surely lose provided the president stands his ground. The law is on his side, not on the Democrat's, and it is high time he puts Congress back in it's proper place. If they push this, the president needs to look at them and say, "Fine, roll the dice, take your chances, and call your mommies. It will be a long ride, and you wil not like it."

Marcie

UPDATE: Marcie just relinquished the computer, missing this, I picked it up from NRO's Corner. Byron York just posted up a conversation he had with Tony Snow about the offer from the White House. I'm not going to cite the whole thing, but I will touch on the last two paragraphs:

The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid "hearings or the trappings of hearings" when White House officials talk to Congress. "They're looking for hands up, cameras on," Snow said of Democrats. "They're talking about a show trial."

Finally, I asked whether the White House believes this is a battle the president can win. "Yes," Snow said. "In terms of presidential prerogative, in terms of preserving confidential communications with your staff — yes."

For the nutters out there who think they know what they're talking about, and believe this is a "gotcha" moment for the White House, think again. Tony Snow is correct in asserting that their defense will revolve around "confidential communications" among White House staff and their superiors. And the Democrats are definitely looking for a show trial. They're still ticked that Fitzie-boy didn't get Rove, which is why they want him testifying before them.

It won't be under oath, and if they file subpoenas, they're going to be disappointed because the Constitution -- Executive Authority, specifically -- supports the president and not the Democrats.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WSJ On The Investigation Into Rafik Hariri's Assassination

Posted by on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:34:54 AM
 Now this one is a heck of a story. Since 2005, UN and Lebanese investigators have been working to uncover who was involved in the death of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister assassinated via car bomb. Today, the Wall Street Journal has a story about that investigation, and how the Lebanese investigators were able to finger Syria in it. For anyone who has been interested in the Hariri story since his death, this is a must-read piece:

After a 2,200-lb. bomb killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005, Beirut police detectives quickly found key evidence was disappearing from the crime scene.

A security detail carted away the charred remnants of Mr. Hariri's convoy, according to Lebanese officers. A bulldozer started filling the crater left by the blast. For three weeks, nobody bothered to seal off the site. "The crime scene was totally compromised," says Maj. Gen. Achraf Rifi, who today heads Lebanon's police, called the Internal Security Forces. ...

... By March, growing outrage over Mr. Hariri's death sent nearly one million Lebanese onto the streets of central Beirut and forced Syrian President Assad to withdraw his troops from Lebanon in late April. Elections, free of Syrian influence, brought to power a government headed by Mr. Hariri's closest allies, and Gen. Rifi took over as ISF commander.

Gen. Rifi played a leading role in pursuing the investigation, reporting directly to Mr. Mehlis during the probe's first six months. A 33-year veteran of the ISF, Gen. Rifi headed the ISF's counternarcotics and special investigation units and keenly understood Lebanon's fractious political and religious divisions. The Tripoli native was close to Mr. Hariri, and once headed the prime minister's security detail.

Freed from Damascus's yoke, Gen. Rifi's men worked with their U.N. counterparts to pick up important leads into the Hariri case that had previously been ignored by pro-Syrian intelligence agents. A principal area of focus was the widening political feud that developed between Messrs. Hariri and Assad during the last months of the Lebanese leader's life. Syria's president had grown convinced, according to U.N. reports and Mr. Hariri's aides, that Lebanon's prime minister was working with the U.S. and France to weaken Damascus and liberate Lebanon. The tensions came to a head, according to these sources, when the prime minister publicly broke with Mr. Assad's decision to extend the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a former general who was close to the Syrians. Convening a 15-minute meeting in Damascus on Aug. 26, 2004, Mr. Assad told Mr. Hariri that he would "break Lebanon" on Mr. Hariri's head if he didn't support the Syrian president's decision concerning Mr. Lahoud, according to Mr. Hariri's aides. According to a U.N. report, Syria's top intelligence chief in Lebanon at the time, Rustum Ghazali, told a senior Lebanese official in an intercepted telephone conversation that Mr. Hariri would be forced "to resign like a dog" for betraying President Assad. Mr. Hariri did ultimately resign in October of 2004, four months before his death.

The evidence has pointed to Assad in Syria since the start, but just having that suspicion is not enough to warrant putting his worthless hide on trial. The Lebanese needed more, and their investigation -- despite the best efforts to cover up the evidence by pro-Syrian intelligence people -- bore the fruit needed to put Syria firmly behind this assassination. And right now, Assad has to be sweating. As the Journal goes on to note, there have been a string of assassination attempts on the investigators, including those who worked for the UN.

The Lebanese know who was behind the death of their beloved prime minister, and they let Syria know in the Cedar Revolution protests. Hezbollah has been a proxy in Lebnanon trying to play its little game within their government, and Siniora has not exactly been too pleased with them. He surely was not happy when they ignited the conflict with Israel last year. He also knows that Hezbollah could very well be the proxies trying to take out investigators so that international, criminal charges could not be brought against Assad.

Assad hated Hariri for the sheer fact that Hariri commanded the respect of the Lebanese people, and that he was adamantly against the Syrian occupation. It was Assad's fault for igniting this firestorm. Had he not kiled Hariri, Syrian forces might still be in Lebanon today. When he had him killed, he overplayed his hand, and it blew up in his face, literally. Pressure from protesting Lebanese, from the UN, and from the West forced Syria out. Had they not killed Hariri, they could have likely cut him off after his resignation; nullifying his influence among the people. That, in and of itself, could have been a risky proposition, but killing the man, and making him a martyr for Lebanese independence was not exactly the brightest idea that Assad had. Instead of it working to his advantage, it backfired badly. Maybe someone close to him should have warned him about making someone a martyr for a righteous cause.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putin To Ahmadinejad -- NYET

Posted by on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:07:03 AM
 This has to stick in someone's craw, especially with the gamble that Ahmadinejad took on the whole deal. But it seems that Russia is done playing games with Ahmadinejad:

Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran’s nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials said.

The ultimatum was delivered in Moscow last week by Igor Ivanov, Russia’s Security Council Secretary, to Ali Hosseini Tash, Iran’s deputy chief nuclear negotiator, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a confidential diplomatic exchange between two governments was involved.

For years, President Bush has been pressing President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to cut off help to Iran on the nuclear reactor, which is Tehran’s first serious effort to produce nuclear energy and has been highly profitable for Russia. But Mr. Putin has resisted.

Recently, however, Moscow and Tehran have been engaged in a public argument about whether Iran has paid its bills, in a dispute that may explain Russia’s apparent shift. The ultimatum may also reflect Moscow’s increasing displeasure and frustration with Iran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium at its vast facility at Natanz.

“We’re not sure what mix of commercial and political motives are at play here,” one senior Bush administration official said in Washington. “But clearly the Russians and the Iranians are getting on each other’s nerves — and that’s not all bad.”

“We consider this a very important decision by the Russians,” a senior European official said. “It shows that our disagreements with the Russians about the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program are tactical. Fundamentally, the Russians don’t want a nuclear Iran.”

This spat has been going on for a couple of months now, and when Russia first made it public that Iran had an unpaid bill, it embarrassed Ahmadinejad, He denied it, of course, but he couldn't get around the fact that Russia was not budging, and they refused to give in on the agreement. So, the question is what really happened here?

Is this really over an unpaid bill? Seriously, Russia floated Saddam Hussein for years. The same goes for France and Germany. Why the mad rush for Putin to be paid when he sat in limbo for at least a couple of years with Saddam? Could he be coming to his senses, as the New York Times says; that he really does not wish to see a nuclear Iran, or was it something more?

Captain Ed thinks it may have something to do with an under the table warning from us or others. Like their G-8 status, maybe? Putin's gamble seemed to be working in Tehran. He had a level of power there, and now it seems that he is backing away from that.

And what about Ahmadinejad? He took an even larger gamble on the Bushehr plant. He forced his people to sacrifice more while he jumped on this endeavor, and he has paid a smal;l price thus far. After all, he is not too interested in the dissidents that mock him and protest him, but because he stuck his neck out on this deal, the mullahs were counting on his success. Now, that is apparently not the case.

Either way one looks at this, it is a win for the West. The plant is not being completed until these two kiss and make up. I would honestly not hold my breath on that anytime soon. Indeed, it could be a cool summer between these two nations, and that is all the better for the world, as a whole.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Barone Discusses The "Blame America First" Moonbats

Posted by on Monday, March 19, 2007 4:43:57 PM
 Michael Barone has a must-read column today on the "Blame America First" crowd:

(Hat-Tip: Scott Johnson @ PowerLine)

"They always blame America first." That was Jeane Kirkpatrick, describing the "San Francisco Democrats" in 1984. But it could be said about a lot of Americans, especially highly educated Americans, today.

In their assessment of what is going on in the world, they seem to start off with a default assumption that we are in the wrong. The "we" can take different forms: the United States government, the vast mass of middle-class Americans, white people, affluent people, churchgoing people or the advanced English-speaking countries. Such people are seen as privileged and selfish, greedy and bigoted, rash and violent. If something bad happens, the default assumption is that it's their fault. They always blame America -- or the parts of America they don't like -- first. ...

... On campuses, students are bombarded with denunciations of dead white males and urged to engage in the deconstruction of all past learning and scholarship.

Not all of this takes, of course. Most students have enough good sense to see that the campus radicals' description of the world is wildly at odds with reality. But this battering away at ideas of truth and goodness does have some effect. Very many of our university graduates emerge with the default assumption thoroughly wired into their mental software. And, it seems, they carry it with them for most of their adult lives.

The default assumption predisposes them to believe that if there is slaughter in Darfur, it is our fault; if there are IEDs in Iraq, it is our fault; if peasants in Latin America are living in squalor, it is our fault; if there are climate changes that have any bad effect on anybody, it is our fault. ...

... The default assumption gets this almost precisely upside down. Yes, there are faults in our past. But Americans and the English-speaking peoples have been far more often the lifters of oppression than the oppressors.

"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said in a speech last week. What is profoundly wrong is that too many of us are operating off the default assumption and have lost sight of who our real enemies are.

Indeed. I can vouch for Mr. Barone's assertion about the Left-leaning socialist mindset of the activists on college campuses. I am a student in my last year of undergrad work before moving onto law school. Many of the friends I had back in high school that arew attending ASU with me have fallen prey to the simplistic talking points and radical ideas that America is, somehow, the nation to blame for all the world's ils. Yet when confronted with the fact that we have been one of the greatest sources of freedom in the world, they are left speechless, or worse, they go on the attack.

Had it not been for America's intervention in World War II, Europe very well may have been swallowed up by Hitler's mad Nazi regime. Japan may have become a superpower in Asia that would have been a serious problem for the United States. Granted, FDR's bungling at Yalta led us to the Cold War with the Soviets, yet it was subsequent presidents -- Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan -- that stood up to the Soviets, and eventually defeated them. Now, we have President Bush dealing with a problem that was created back in the late seventies with the feckless mindset that Islamic radicals could be appeased and ignored. As we were reminded throughout the eighties, nineties, and early 21st Century, that is not the case.

But, the "Blame America First" crowd wants to see this nation humbled and wounded, grievously. They have this predisposed idea that we are to blame, and they cite a host of black eyes that America has been involved in -- from slavery to the treatment of the Indians; from civil rights woes to government corruption -- yet that are not willing to acknowledge the good that this nation has brought to the world. Not just in terms of freedom and hope, but also in technological advances in industry and medicine.

This is a part of the culture war being waged in the nation today, and the prize to be won is America's heart and soul. It is a never-ending battle that is, quite literally, winner take all. Will the "Blame America" people ever truly be beaten? Not likely. But they do bring a significant benefit to America that is missing from many of the nations around the world.

They, like us, have the freedom to speak out, and voice their opinions. And we meet them head on at every tunr, in every engagement; giving them no quarter and yielding nothing. Yes, it is an argument. It is a debate. But we are a free nation that is able to have it. While they may blame this nation for the world's problems, it is the freedom within this nation that gives them their voice. Let them spew their rhetoric. We wil be waiting to meet them again on the intellectual field of battle.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Totten Brings Back Good News From Iraq

Posted by on Monday, March 19, 2007 4:11:05 PM
 The MSM are the first to step up and remind people in America that a war is still going on in Iraq, and that our soldiers are still fighting and dying over there. But they never touch on the good news in Iraq. Michael Totten has, and in Northern Iraq a new power is emerging:

(Hat-Tip: Professor Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit)

ERBIL, IRAQ – What a difference a year makes.

Fourteen months ago I flew to Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, from Beirut, Lebanon, on the dubiously named Flying Carpet Airlines. Flying Carpet’s entire fleet is one small noisy plane with propellers, cramped seats, and thin cabin pressure. Only nineteen passengers joined me on that once-a-week flight. Everyone but me was a Lebanese businessman. They were paranoid of me and of each other. What kind of crazy person books a flight to Iraq, even if it is to the safe and relatively prosperous Kurdistan region? I felt completely bereft of sense going to Iraq without a gun and without any bodyguards, and it took a week for my on-again off-again twitchiness to subside.

Last week I flew to Erbil from Vienna on Austrian Airlines to work for a few weeks as a private sector consultant with my colleague Patrick Lasswell. This time I didn’t feel anything like a fool. Almost half the passengers were women. Children played on their seats and in the aisle with toys handed out by the crew. We watched an in-flight movie and ate the usual airline lunch fare served by an attractive long legged stewardess. The cabin erupted with applause when the wheels touched down on the runway. The pilot announced the weather (sunny and 60) in three languages and cheerfully told us all to have a great day. Have a great day may seem an odd thing to say to people who just arrived in Iraq, but this is Kurdistan. I did, indeed, have a great day. ...

... As he drove us into the city I felt none of the fear and apprehension I experienced the first time I came here. Instead I saw considerable signs of progress. The first time I drove from the airport into Erbil I felt that I had arrived in a dodgy and ramshackle backwater. This time I felt – properly, I must say – that I had arrived in the capital of a serious and rising new power in the Middle East.

Nation-building is a hard and violent slog in the center and south of Iraq, and it might not ever work out. But in Kurdistan, in the north, it already is a reality.

Massive new construction projects are literally everywhere. Most of those that had started when I arrived for the first time are finished, and ambitious new projects are well underway. ..

... Dingy and banged up road signs were replaced in the last couple of months with crisp shiny new ones. It may not seem like much, but the new signs give the city a more serious and modern look and heft.

The so-called Naza Mall recently opened to much fanfare in Erbil, and it made me wonder if the Kurds even know what a mall is. Naza Mall is a store, and it isn’t a particularly large one. But a new Western-style mall under construction next to the old souk downtown will be home for 6,000 stores and offices when it is finished. ...

...Erbil isn’t pretty, as Paris and Vienna are pretty. Some of it is aesthetically brutal, and much of it is still rough around the edges. But it’s stimulating and interesting all the same. The go-go-go and build-build-build attitude is infectious. Every time I come here it looks cleaner, and richer, and more like a normal place. ..

... I have never seen so much construction going up so quickly anywhere. (There is more in Dubai, but I have never been there.)

The Hilton hotel chain is building a massive full-service tourist resort that will take five years to construct. It may seem dumb to build a tourist resort in Iraq of all places, but this is Erbil Province, not Anbar Province – there is no war, no insurgency, and no terrorism here whatsoever. The Middle East is a funny place. One part of a country may be consumed by blood, fire, and mayhem, but that rarely means the whole country is dangerous -- even when that country is Iraq. ...

... Three major obstacles to independence remain. The first is Iraqi Kurdistan’s relationship with Turkey. That relastionship is bad but improving despite the Turkish military’s well-publicized threats to invade Northern Iraq to eject the (Turkish) Kurdistan Worker’s Party, the PKK, from using Iraqi soil to launch attacks against military and civilian targets in Turkey. Relations between the (Iraqi) Kurdistan Regional Government and the Turkish government have quietly improved at the same time. Iraq’s Kurds genuinely want a civil relationship with Turkey because they can’t safely declare independence without it.

The Turks fear nothing more than Turkish Kurdistan declaring itself independent and attaching itself to a free Iraqi Kurdistan. A bitter civil war is still simmering in Turkey between the PKK and the Turkish state. Ethnic Kurds make up almost 25 percent of Turkey’s population. If they leave and take their land with them, the Turks will lose a huge amount of the eastern part of their country. A truly independent Kurdish state in Iraq would likely embolden Kurdish militants in Turkey – or so the Turks fear.

Iraqi Kurdistan is land-locked and surrounded on all sides by hostile people and states. They cannot survive on their own without first building a physical infrastructure that will allow them to survive border blockades as well as military invasions.

Kurdistan, unfortunately, is still connected to Iraq’s main electrical grid. And that means, as often as not, there is no power. If you want 24-hour electricity, buy a generator. And keep it topped off with fuel. (Generators are everywhere, and the large ones are louder than lawnmowers.)

Erbil Province is building a brand-new electrical grid that should work 24 hours a day and can’t be shut down by sabateurs in the Sunni Triangle or by a hostile government in Baghdad. As soon as all of Iraqi Kurdistan is electrically severed from Baghdad, the Kurds’ only remaining physical need is an oil refinery of their own.

Please, head on over to Mr. Totten's site and read the whole thing. Take a look at the pictures he has posted from his recent trip there. Journalists like him -- independent from agenda-driven bias -- are the ones showing the world that Iraq is not completely engulfed in the chaos the MSM push on the unassuming public every day. Trust me, a visit to his post today will not be wasted when you read and see what is going on in Northern Iraq. And indeed, this is the Iraq that so many of us have hope for. And here the Kurds are, just four short years later. If they can do it, then so can the rest of the country. That is why the success of our surge is that important.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bob Kerrey shows his "brilliance": With "friends" like him, who needs terrorists?

Posted by on Monday, March 19, 2007 3:34:46 PM
 We warned readers this past weekend that this debate was heating up. Now Mark Levin notes that Bob Kerrey thinks KSM should be tried here in our criminal justice system:

In Sunday's New York Daily News, Bob Kerrey writes, in part:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be brought to New York City to stand trial for the crime of murdering nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001. President Bush should intervene in the process that is now taking place in Guantanamo, Cuba, and appeal to Congress to modify the Military Commissions Act so that justice can be done on U.S. soil - in our civilian criminal court system.

This is a dumb idea. If this mass-murderer is brought to the U.S. for trial in our civilian court system, all the rights granted to defendants in the civilian court system would be available to him. Plus, all the confidential information used to develop a case against him would be compromised. Frankly, it's embarrassing to listen to these politicians and their boneheaded ideas. Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham watched this terrorist's military hearing and came way with concern that he may have been mistreated during his detention and interrogation. They issued a joint release stating that they might want to modify current law to address KSM's allegation of abuse. This is a Mohammed in Wunderland approach to fighting terrorism. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is responsible for plotting 9/11!

I dealt with this issue yesterday morning. The Moussaoui trial showed this nation enough proof that the average citizen can't comprehend the idea of terrorism, or what motivates a terrorist. During the Moussaoui trial, his lawyers painted a picture for the jury about an "abused and neglected" young man -- bitter at the world for his plight in life.

OK, so he had a tough life, but does that excuse him from the acts of terrorism that he participated in? The testimony of Khalid Sheik Mohammed includes a confession of all the acts of terrorism he either participated in, or helped plan and execute. Pages 17 through 19 contains a full list of his activities and crimes that he admits to. I know there are bleeding hearts on the Left out there that claim that he was tortured to admit this, and I sincerely doubt it. Folks, we may use techniques that make the feminized Left a little squeamish, but these guys aren't going to simply come out and brag about what they've done. In the case of KSM though, he knows he's at the end of a very long and violent life. For him, seventy-two virgins won't be waiting to greet him when he dies. So I think he made this confession to make sure he is accounted for in all his evil deeds.

Bob Kerrey is a moron. Those involved in acts of terrorism should undergo the tribunals that were painstakingly created by Congress. The same tribunals the Supreme Court stated had no constitutional backing without congressional establishment. The president complied. Congress complied. The tribunals were created, and that's where KSM is going to get his just desserts. Furthermore, Mark's correct. If we let him enter our criminal justice system, just as it was done with Moussaoui, KSM would be entitled to all the protections that we citizens have when we're charged with a crime. But he's not a citizen, and it's completely nuts to give him protections that he doesn't deserve.

I suggest Bob Kerrey lay down with a couple of aspirin, and leave the prosecution of KSM to the professionals. It should be a cold day in Hell before that terrorist enters any US criminal courtroom.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pakistan: Still cutting deals with the enemy

Posted by on Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:05:59 PM
 You'd think Pakistan would've learned the from their earlier mistake in cutting deals with the tribal leaders in their country. But apparently memories are short, as Allah observes from Hot Air. Over at The Fourth Rail, Bill Roggio notes that this makes Musharraf's THIRD deal with Taliban elements in the tribal regions:

The much anticipated Bajaur Accord – a peace agreement purportedly with the local tribal leaders of the Mamoond tribe and the government - has been signed in Pakistan's lawless tribal agency. The details of the agreement are not yet available, however the Daily Times has described it as “a step towards a North Waziristan-like peace accord. Bajaur Agency.” Pakistan conveniently finished negotiations as international attention is on the crisis over the removal of Pakistan's chief justice.

It appears, like in the North and South Waziristan deals, that the government has openly negotiated with the Taliban and al Qaeda. “We hope that a North Waziristan-like deal is also reached between the government and tribal militants, led by Faqir Mohammad,” sources told Dawnon condition of anonymity. Faqir Muhammad is a senior leader within the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM, or Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad's Sharia Law), the “Pakistani Taliban” who has sent over 10,000 foot soldiers to fight alongside the Taliban during the U.S. invasion in 2001.

TNSM is a banned terrorist movement inside Pakistan, and has been implicated in terrorist activity inside the country, including a suicide attack on Pakistani Army training base in Dargai in the Northwest Frontier Province in October of 2006. The attack killed over 45 soldiers. Faqir Mohammad is believed to have sheltered none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command. An attack in Damadola in January of 2006 on Faqir's compound was aimed at Zawahiri, but killed upwards of 5 senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Abu Khabab al-Masri, al-Qaeda's chief of its weapons of mass destruction program.

An airstrike on the Chingai madrassa, which doubled as a Taliban training camp, killed up to 84 Taliban, including Liaquat Hussain, the leader of the madrassa, and Faqir's deputy. The attack came just days before the expected signing of the Bajaur Accord in October of 2006. Just days before the raid, Faqir openly praised al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Faqir referred to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar as “heroes of the Muslim world,” and he vowed joint efforts to fight the “enemies of peace” in the Bajaur Agency. Faqir calls the United States the enemy of peace.

There's more, and you should read it. But pay special attention to the map Allah points out. (The RED areas are controlled by the Taliban; the YELLOW areas are those threatened by the Taliban, and that's a lot of ground they have there.) He's got a point, and it's one that should, in all honesty, end any cooperation between us and Musharraf. Sorry, but this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" BS is garbage. Each time we start to gain ground on the Taliban, and we think we have them, Pakistan steps in and cuts a deal. This is more like "the enemy of my enemy is also stabbing me in the back."

Enough it enough. Either Pakistan is with us on this one, or they can become a target. This is the equivalent to what the Taliban did with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This time, however, they're a recognized nation -- a government we can declare war on (as opposed to and idea or group, like with the authorization for the use of military force in 2001; however that does allow us to go after other nations that are harboring them). Somebody at the White House had beter be making a phone call asking Musharraf what's up with his lack of a brain. This deal can only go south like the one in Waziristan did.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John McCain -- Still trying to fix it, and not even close to a solution

Posted by on Sunday, March 18, 2007 6:29:10 PM
 You gotta hand it to Johnny. He's trying. Really, he is, but it never fails. He always seems to shoot himself in the foot right in front of the base that has a serious problem with him. Today is no different, as the Telegraph reports:

John McCain, formerly the leading Republican presidential contender, has told The Sunday Telegraph that restoring America's sullied reputation abroad will be "a top priority" if he wins the White House.

The Arizona senator, an Iraq war hawk, was talking aboard the revived Straight Talk Express - the vehicle that made his name during the 2000 presidential election and that he hopes will revive his faltering fortunes this time round.

The bus ferried the senator, his aides, and journalists, to a series of public meetings throughout the flat, snow-covered farmland of rural Iowa, where voters will be the first to express their preferences for the party nominations next January.

Of America's poor image abroad, even with long-time allies, Sen McCain acknowledged candidly: "It is a very dispiriting situation and I know we will have to work hard to improve it." ...

... In a sign that he wants to distance himself from the president - to whom he lost in an ugly campaign in 2000 - Sen McCain outlined a series of measures to roll back Bush policies and counter the "ugly American" image.

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

Um, excuse me senator, but you're running for president of the United States, not the European Union. And frankly speaking, your base could give a rip less what's important to the nuanced Europeans who at this stage in the war on terror believe capitulation to their Muslim populations is more preferable. In addition, the base doesn't buy the global warming garbage being peddled by Al Gore, and you're not helping your cause by buying it either. We knew he was a nutjob in 2000, and in 2007 we still know he's not all there upstairs. Adding fuel to the fire is Claude Allegre. Mr. Allegre started the global warming movement, and he came out recently and acknowledged in Canada's National Post that global warming is not "settled science" and that the climate changes can't be blamed on man:

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

And we know that Johnny has always been on the second-tier of politics. But his steps to repair our image didn't start with global warming. It started with Gitmo, and the insane idea of transferring the detainees from the Marine base at Gitmo to Ft. Leavenworth, KY; right here in the good ol' USA. Such a move would be a gross mistake. Our enemies here on our soil would raise all sorts of security worries. Should they find a way to escape, the surrounding areas would be at their mercy. Furthermore, what if the cells here help them escape and arm them? Could we imagine the potential disaster?

No, I'm sorry, but Gitmo is non-negotiable unless there is another place they can be sent that isn't on US soil. And such stances aren't going to help him in the eyes of the base that already doesn't trust him, and with good reason. He's done a great job of ticking us off over the last six years, which is the reason why he's not the front-runner right now. Hugh Hewitt and James Carville -- hardly ideological allies -- agree that John McCain will end up dropping out of the race after the primaries begin; possibly even before then. He has no chance, and never really had any. His best two chances were in 2000, before his meltdown, and in 2004 when John Kerry was trying to bring him on as his veep candidate.

Sorry to all the McCain supporters out there, but Johnny's sell-by date is long past due, and he'd be wise to drop out now before he takes any more blows from the base, or other candidates.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Steve Chapman On The DC Circuit Ccourt Ruling Regarding The Second Amendment

Posted by on Sunday, March 18, 2007 5:50:15 PM
 Steve Chapman @ Real Clear Politics addresses an issue that is near and dear to our hearts; that being the recent decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to address the DC gun ban. In essence, the court did what Second Amendment advocates have been hoping for since 1939 -- identifying the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, guaranteed to United States citizens:

For nearly 70 years, the Second Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions -- missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. The right to keep and bear arms, though treasured by many Americans, was a complete stranger to the Supreme Court. But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment.

The District of Columbia statute in question is one of the most stringent in the country. It bans the ownership of handguns except those registered before 1976, and it requires rifles or shotguns to be not only registered but kept unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock. Such tight restrictions, the appeals court said, can't be reconciled with the Bill of Rights.

The decision does not prove that the Second Amendment is alive and well. But it does mean that, finally, we are likely to get an answer from the Supreme Court on a question that has generated endless debate: Is the Second Amendment a meaningless anachronism, or a live guarantee? The court will be confronting the issue at a time when legal scholarship is increasingly inclined to say there is indeed a right to keep and bear arms. ...

... The amendment is a puzzle because of those two separate clauses, one about militias and one about gun rights. Gun control supporters generally read the first to nullify the second, while gun control opponents do just the opposite. And trying to determine what the framers meant is hard because they barely discussed the right and what it might entail.

Second Amendment skeptics think any right is a collective one related to militias that no longer exist. But just because the colonial Minutemen have vanished doesn't mean they took the rest of the Second Amendment with them. It's hard to know exactly what the Second Amendment means by a right to keep and bear arms, but it must mean something.

Even some liberal constitutional experts now agree that gun ownership enjoys constitutional protection. The most notable is Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who once subscribed to the collective rights theory. The amendment, he writes, recognizes "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes." The appeals court agreed, striking down D.C.'s prohibition of handguns in the home, as well as regulations on other guns. ...

... So if this decision is upheld, it will not change our treatment of guns very much. Complete bans would be off-limits, but they are already rarer than white buffaloes. Most other gun control laws would remain on the books, and anti-gun groups would be free to press for additional ones.

The only obstacle would be the one that has stymied them in the past: insufficient public support. It wasn't the constitutional right to keep and bear arms that induced Congress to let the federal ban on "assault weapons" expire, or that persuaded 40 states to allow the carrying of concealed handguns. Those choices were the product of sentiment among citizens and legislators who see most restrictions on firearms as futile at best and dangerous at worst.

The bad news for gun control advocates is that the Supreme Court may adopt an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The worse news is that's the least of their troubles.

As we are self-described Constitutional conservatives, there is no argument in our support of the Second Amendment. Granted, we do not advocate the ownership of a firearm that, quite literally, does not belong in the hands of the average citizen. This would include military arms that, with all due respect, the average citizen would not have the first clue as to how to operate it properly. However many states -- Arizona included -- does allow it's citizens to posess such firearms with the proper licensing and background checks. Those gun owners we have no problem with. They do know how to operate them, and they do enjoy shooting them at whaever range they may venture to.

The DC gun ban was wholly unconstitutional, and since its inception the citizens living in DC were at the mercy of criminals that prowled the streets. While it was not a complete ban, the restrictions put in place were so restrictive that most just simply did not want to go through the effort of buyiung one, and having to jump through the restrictions' hoops.

Mr. Chapman is correct in his final point of the article. Gun control proponents are not likely to be pleased with the appeal made to the Supreme Court. Now the door is open for them to either strike down the DC court's decision, or reinforce it. Could it be possible to have the high court side with the DC court? Indeed it is. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on the court, and in the past he has made references to the Second Amendment being an individual right, as opposed to the more activist-friendly collective right. If the dice were to be rolled on that case, I would wager the court would declare, by a 5-4 majority, that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the individual's right to keep and bear a firearm.

On the flip side, we should not pat ourselves on the back. As Mr. Chapman also notes, the DC court did acknowledge the ability of the States to levy restrictions regarding firearms, i.e., forbidding concealed carry, demanding trigger locks, and even demanding registration of firearms owners in their states, and even at the local level. So, pro-gun control people are equally happy, too.

Will the DC ruling have any direct effect across the nation. Indeed it does. They have stated that no government - be it federal, state, or local -- may ban firearms. In essence they made it to where the only way such a ban could exist is with a suspension of the Constitution. We know that there is only one real way for that to happen, and that is with a declaration of martial law. That has never happened in America, and we should pray it never does. As Thomas and I have have noted, repeatedly, if we lose the Second Amendment, then we lose the rest of them because there will be no way to protect them.

Marcie
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

KSM shouldn't be tried in the criminal justice system

Posted by on Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:30:51 PM
There is a debate heating up across the 'Net since the confession of Khalid Sheik Mohammed during his Gitmo Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The first one, which we find deplorable is that many in the media still continue to A) Deny the veracity of his confession, despite repeated admissions that he was not forcefully coerced, or B) That this is some sort of put-up job by the military because the vast majority of detainees at Gitmo are "innocent." Here's a memo to those nutters in the media: The vast majority of people at Gitmo were caught on the field of battle, engaged with US and/or coalition forces. The worst of the worst are still being detained. The lackeys have been released.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed falls into the former category, and we don't care whether or no the media or the fever swampers believe what he's said. After going over the tribunal transcript, there is no way one can't disavow his crimes. He admits to thirty-one separate crimes, and professes to be a senior AQ leader. In short, this guy isn't a soprano in the Vienna Boys Choir.

The debate, it seems, is that there are a few that want him put on trial in the US Criminal Court system. Are these guys for real? Did they not learn from the Moussaoui trial that the criminal system isn't for terrorists? The American public can't fathom the depths of depravity that these animals profess. Zacarrias Moussaoui should have had the death sentenced passed on him, but his lawyers (ones so slick it makes John Edwards jealous) did a great job of humanizing him in front of a jury, and that jury felt sorry for him; having such a tragic upbringing and all. (Too bad the jury didn't know that his upbringing is no different than most in such a harsh and rigid society.)

If we want to see a replay of the Moussaoui trial -- where a dangerous terrorist is sentenced to life in prison rather than death -- then the criminal justice system is the way to go. But if we're a sensible society, then the tribunals established by Congress is the route to take. Only is such a forum can the crimes he committed truly be addressed. That's not to say that it won't be a fair trial. Take a look at the transcript from his review and it is evident that the military is acting in a unbiased manner. Yes, Khalid Sheik Mohammed has committed crimes against the United States, but they haven't let that get in the way of their thinking. Even to the military, his guilt must be established. His confession is part of that, but he is still afforded a trial.

But it shouldn't be one in our criminal justice system. That's a mistake I'd prefer we not make again.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…1516Next »