Friday, August 03, 2007

Spencer speaks to YAF

Middle East Forum reported The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum announces its support of Robert Spencer and the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the latest victims of what appears to be a targeted intimidation and defamation campaign by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) designed to silence critics of its organization.

Spencer, a well-respected author and the director of jihadwatch, spoke today for YAF on "The Truth about CAIR" on the campus of George Washington University.

Despite efforts by CAIR to silence him. If CAIR really believe Spencer distorts the Qur'an, why doesn't it send someone to debate him, and I don't mean a joint press conference, but let him make a point, then let CAIR refute it, and make a point, and let him refute it, and make another point, etc. I will tell you why they will not do that, and it is because everything Spencer says comes directly from the Qur'an (Holy Book), Hadith (traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), Tafsir (commentary on the Qur'an), and Sira (biographies of Muhammad, which, together with the Qur'an and the Hadith makes up the Sunnah). They just don't want you to know the truth.
As a consequence of this invitation, YAF's president Ron Robinson received a threatening and possibly defamatory letter written by CAIR's acting attorney, Joseph E. Sandler, of the law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C.


Flying Saucer

Sky News reported A "flying saucer" that glides three metres above the ground and carries two people has gone into commerical production. US company Moller International has begun to manufacture parts for its Jetsons-like personal flying pod, the M200G Volantor.... The flying saucer is designed to fly at an altitude of up to three metres, where it benefits from extra lift created by a cushion of air - known as ground effect. This allows the M200G to glide over terrain at 50mph, powered by eight of the company's Rotapower rotary engines.

Here is a video clip, but turn your speakers down, the music that goes along with it is loud.


Hanging in Iran

Many countries feel the death penalty is wrong. Others, like the US, feel it is appropriate in extreme cases, but even then, we usually use the quickest, least painful way to do it. Even in Iraq, when they hung Saddam Hussein, it was done on a gallows, which immediately breaks the neck of the condemned, so he does not suffer unnecessarily. In Iran, where they hang people for many different crimes besides murder, they use a crane to lift the condemned up by the neck where they strangle to death. Arash Kamangir blogged about the public hanging of a murderer. witnessed by children, and he has a album full of photos, showing the condemned looking up at what awaited him, and waiving goodbye to people once the noose was around his neck, etc. But the most telling image, in my opinion, is this one, which demonstrates their use of a crane.

Is there anyone that thinks Iran is a civilized country? There are certainly many Iranians who are definitely eager for 21st century life, but under their government they are still back in the Dark Ages.


Karl Rove's Immunity

Dan Froomkin wrote in WaPo No one actually expected Rove to show up. But Fielding's assertion of executive privilege yesterday to block his testimony was nevertheless surprising in its breadth.... In support of his position, Fielding attached a letter from principal deputy attorney general Steven G. Bradbury, who bases his argument for Rove's immunity on a Nixon-era memo by then-assistant attorney general William H. Rehnquist. Rehnquist wrote in 1971.... The Clinton Justice Department cited the same Rehnquist memo in 1999 when then-White House counsel Beth Nolan was subpoenaed by a House committee investigating President Clinton's grant of clemency to 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group.
Vlinton freeing terrorists? A trival matter, if he wanted their support for a political matter.
But as Nolan herself testified on the Hill this spring: "Recognizing the absence of judicial precedent for this position, however, the Attorney General appropriately also considered the balance of executive and legislative interests in the particular matter to conclude that my testimony was protected from congressional compulsion under the particular circumstances of that request. I subsequently testified before that same committee with respect to other pardons, after the President waived any privileges he might have asserted with respect to such testimony, just as he had done on prior occasions."
So Clinton did not say there was no Executive Privilige, he just agreen to waive it in this case.
Nolan explained: "We have little case law illuminating the contours of executive privilege, but what we do have makes one thing absolutely clear: the President's constitutional authority to assert executive privilege is not absolute, but is instead to be balanced against the legitimate needs of the coordinate branches of government in undertaking their constitutionally assigned responsibilities.
And is one of those duties fishing when the president has clear constitutional powers to do something (fire the lawyers), and when Clinton fired all of them, so he could put his own in?
The seminal Supreme Court case on executive privilege is, of course, United States v. Nixon, [a 1974 decision] in which the Court held that a privilege is a qualified one that may be outweighed by countervailing needs."
And that case involved cover up of a crime. If it is a crime for the President to fire a handful of lawyers, why is it not a crime to fire all of them?


I agree with Daniel

Daniel Finkelstein blogged Take your pick

  1. This is a brilliant idea, providing an unknown candidate with a cut-through gimmick that helps him be remembered. The campaign strategist is a genius.
  2. This is a lamentable idea, making a no-hope candidate look ridiculous, diminish his effectiveness as a Senator and reduce the chances of the only hope he has - that he might make VP on someone's else's ticket. The campaign strategist is a buffoon.
It's B for me.

I must agree with Daniel. Dodd is an idiot for going along with this.


Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Obama draw his gun, shoots self in foot

Yahoo! News Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

This is a fantastic way to show you are not naive. Publicly announce an intention to invade an ally with nuclear weapons. That is not naive. You would have to smarten up a lot to make it to naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

AJ Strata blogged Sen Obama’s attempt at showing his manliness illustrates once again his inexperience. it seems Sen Obama is just fine with attacking an ALLY of the US: Pakistan. It is not OK to attack our enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is OK to invade an ally. Yep, that stinks of inexperience all right. America is just itching for another war. I am all for taking out a KNOW al-Qaeda center. But to ‘hunt down’ al-Qaeda means long term invasion of a soveriegn nation. Hillary won’t do anything unless invited and Obama will go in and look around. Bush and Cheney wisely keep quiet and non-committal to any one option.

JammieWearingFool blogged One has to figure in order to burnish their foreign policy credentials, by the time the primaries actually roll around, the Democrats will probably be threatening to nuke every country on the planet.

Texcas Rainmaker blogged While continuing to bash the war in Iraq, Barack Obama is now giving a preview into what an Obama administration would look like in terms of foreign policy. And it’s not pretty. First, he’d meet unconditionally with Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Then the anti-war candidate would invade Pakistan.

Moe Lane blogged So. Now that we've gone over the geography, let's sum up. We have significant troop strength in Afghanistan. Senator Obama thinks that we should have even more troops there. He wants them, in fact, so that he can invade Pakistan. Pakistan is the country that we are currently depending on for logistical support, because all the other choices are worse. The end result? If Pakistan withdraws that support, we're left with the following options:
  1. Make a deal with another country bordering Afghanistan, all of which are run by distasteful regimes who will want very distasteful concessions;
  2. Bug out of Afghanistan itself;
  3. Write off the troops that are in Afghanistan;
  4. Invade Pakistan.
Aren't those just fun options to have? Just the sort of choices you want to see pop up in the new decade. You know, Senator Obama, I care very little for your colleague and rival Senator Hillary Clinton - but she pegged you with that "naive" thing, but good.

Tom Maguire blogged As to the policy itself - I have no doubt that when Rumsfeld's decision to cancel the "invasion of Pakistan" was reported in the Times a few weeks back the reflexive Bush-bashers bashed this (some flavor at Memeorandum). However... even if one thinks that we should have risked the collapse of the Musharraf government over this raid, I can't imagine that people further believe we should have announced out intentions in advance, as Obama is doing here - couldn't we at least preserve some implausible deniability, or wait until we have a few high-value captives to parade before we admit to violating the Pakistani border?

CQ blogged One would hope that this would mark the end of Barack Obama's credibility as a presidential candidate. Given the other options available in the campaign, it probably won't. Too bad -- because of all the war plans floated by the Democrats in this primary campaign, this is easily the stupidest of all, and that includes Joe Biden's "Three Iraqs" policy.

One of the reasons that Democrats insist that the war in Iraq was a mistake was because it unnecessarily radicalized Iraqis into jihadists. What does Obama think an invasion of Pakistan will do to its population? And if the former was a mistake, consider that Pakistan has a population of over 160 million people. How does Obama think they will react to a military invasion by a putative ally?

Those are just the political considerations. If we march across the border of a sovereign nation without their permission, that's an act of overt war. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and would be likely to use them in a last extreme. They could certainly shoot tactical nukes at our Navy ships that would have to support an invasion force. They may also be inclined to use them against our new ally, India, in the case of an invasion.

Not to demean Obama's vast military expertise, either, but has he looked at a map of Pakistan? It's shaped like a wedge, with the base on the Arabian Sea and the Waziristan region almost the farthest point from the water. How does Obama propose to create lines of communication for an invasion? Right now we rely on Pakistan for overflight to Afghanistan to supply our troops for the fight against the Taliban there. General Obama would eliminate those lines of communication overnight, leaving the invasion force critically isolated -- unless he thinks we can start resupplying Afghanistan through Iran.

Only an idiot would invade Pakistan from the north, if at all. Any war against Pakistan would have to seize the Arabian Sea ports first, and then roll through the center of Pakistan -- where all of the formerly moderate Pakistanis would have lived -- to get to a mountainous region that Pakistan itself has hesitated to engage.

And did we mention that Pakistan has a potential mobilization of 39 million troops?

Frankly, the only idea worse than invading Iran is invading Pakistan. One might expect a serious presidential candidate to avoid looking like an idiot while provoking an ally that still helps more than he hurts in that region. Obama seems determined to prove himself unserious.

Sister Toldja blogged Will be interesting to see how this plays with the hardcore anti-war base. Will cries of “chickenhawk” soon follow Senator Obama wherever he goes? It’s August. I give it another month or two before the mediots start to turn on the O-man - just like they did with Howard Dean. Obama’s seeming invincibility armor is starting to crack.

Michelle Malkin blogged ooks like the laughingstock Democrat presidential candidates have been eating their Wheaties. Yesterday, it was John Edwards flexing his imaginary muscles at Saudi Arabia. Today, it’s Barack Obama shaking his fist at Pakistan. ABC News reports on the first-term senator’s latest, greatest “bold” idea–invading Pakistan unilaterally. Diplomacy, international law, and the U.N. be damned! Behold, Obama the Cowboy.

Gaius blogged Let's see in a week or so we have had Obama say that stopping genocide was no reason to stay in Iraq, that he would personally meet with heads of rogue states and that he would invade a nuclear-armed ally. I think we may just have witnessed the implosion of Obamania. The darling of many of the nutrootz is willing to ignite a regional war against an ally. Good lord.

Paul blogged I'm sure the left wing of the party will love that one. The same guy who criticisted Bush for going into Iraq with an international coalition to enforce UN sanctions will now invade Pakistan unilaterally? The irony here is he said this to prove he wasn't "irresponsible and naive." Hilliary must be laughing in her Cheerios this morning.


Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Wearing socks

NY Daily News reported Failed shoe bomber Richard Reid fantasizes that Allah will free him from the Supermax prison cell where he lives in isolation - and in his socks.

Have they taken his shoes away?
"I had a couple of good dreams about my situation changing for the better in the not-so-distant future, so this is a blessing from Allah," Reid wrote in letters obtained by a British newspaper.
Dream on.
"I place my trust in Allah that he will bring that into fruition and ask him to give me patience until the time when that occurs."
There have been so many Muslims going to Hell for killing other Muslims, that He is having to add on a new wing. I am sure will call for you when it is ready.
The Mirror also secured exclusive photos of the 33-year-old Al Qaeda acolyte who tried to blow up a packed Miami-bound jet with booby-trapped sneakers - and who stares with crazy eyes at the camera.


Pigs may not fly, but they could be rain

Daily Mail reported A group of Muslims have opposed plans for a pet food factory to be built as possible pork emissions will violate their religious rights. Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families have complained to their residents' association about pork smells drifting into their garden.
No one likes foul odors, but I can think of a lot worse odors to be downwind of.
Muslim residents in the area also claim the pork will effectively "rain down" on their homes and gardens after the factory's 100ft chimney has pumped the meat extracts into the atmosphere.
Pigs may not fly, but they could be rain
The Coton Park Residential Association said they have received complaints from Muslims - who are directed to not eat pork by the Qur'an - and are taking the matter very seriously.... "Our religion expressly forbids us to consume pig meat in any form.
Don't feed it to any animal you will eat.
"Because of the way in which this meat material will leave the factory and give that the area can be 'rained upon' we will be consuming pork via inhalation of this 'rain'.
Hold your breath.
"Not only that but our clothes will be contaminated by pork."
They are already contaminated; they touched your bodies.
AllahPundit blogged If the mere smell of pork is so lethally haram, how do they manage to live in England at all? One wrong turn down an unfamiliar street and they might end up outside a butcher shop. What then? Or is there some de minimis exception where trace amounts of pig smell are okay so long as it’s not, um, “raining down”?

Howie blogged I suggest all non-Muslims protest the protest with a coordinated back yard hickory pork barbeque and beer bash. Ahh the sweet smell of boston butts roasting on a hickory fire. Mmmm, mmmm good. After the first few beers don't forget to yell, "Yeeeehaaaa!", or the British equivalent, really loud a few times, just for extra scaryness.


Bill Clinton in '08?

Brian E. Gray. professor at UC Hastings College of Law, writes in Los Angeles Times that he favors the Democratic ticket Obama-(Bill) Clinton 2008!

This is an interesting way to be sure a Dem is in the White House. Obama is unqualified to be President, and I am not really sure that a second term senator that was in the East end of the White House is qualified either, but she certainly has too much baggage to make her electable, but there are a lot of people (I am not among them) that love Bill Clinton, but he is not eligible to run, but Brian indicates he would be eligible to run for VP, and then if something happened to Obama, he could become President again.


Monday, July 30, 2007

Blowing Hot Air

USAtoday reports The number of hurricanes that develop each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday.

Paul blogged OK, let's disembowel this study in as few words as possible. I must be getting old as it took 2 google searches to do it. But on the other hand I got a great graphic form Wikipedia on the number of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms.... The top shows what methodology we used to find hurricanes when. Hint: We didn't have weather satellites in 1900.... recorded storm intensity increases with better technology. We now try to measure pressures right at the eyewall while they are still over open water. We didn't even know to do that 30 years ago.... You'll also notice this graphic DOES NOT yet include the 2006 season which as I linked above was almost non-existent.

If you are going to use statistics to lie, it helps to be able to choose the statistics to quote.
That would bring the 10 year average (the bold line) back down. A simple look at the red line shows that we're barely back to 1950 levels.

Gaius blogged Despite the confident claims, consider for a moment: Until the mid 1940s, there were no reliably consistent way to track the majority of storms. Unless a ship sailed through the storms itself - and reported that to someone - there would be no records. You can look at the compiled hurricane data yourself and notice that hurricane reporting from the 19th and early 20th century very often show no activity out in the middle of the Atlantic. At all. Does anyone in their right mind believe that? Also, how many ships gathered temperature data through the 19th and 20th centuries?

IowaVoice blogged It’s just another attempt to scare the living hell out of everyone and make them buy into the “global warming” scam being pushed by the left, who think man is evil and only they, through socialism, can save us from ourselves.

Sister Toldja blogged First it was “global warming reduces hurricanes.” Now it’s “global warming causes hurricanes.” I wish these ‘experts’ would make up their minds. Oh, and so much for that ‘consensus’ we keep hearing about …

Curt blogged Of course this doesn't stop the USA Today folks from fawning over the Goreacles science. Garbage in....garbage out.


Taliban shoot hostage

CNN reported Taliban kidnappers shot dead a male South Korean hostage on Monday, a spokesman said, accusing the Afghan government of not listening to rebel demands.
If they free prisoners just because you demand it, it just makes it more likely you will take more hostages.
.... "We shot dead a male captive
He, and all of the other hostages were "People of the Book"
because the government did not listen to our demands," spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf told Reuters by telephone.

He said the Taliban would kill more hostages if Kabul ignored their demand to release rebel prisoners, but gave no new deadline.


A War We Just Might Win

NYT reported Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.
If that is what it looks like to two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration, just think what it looks like to a really objective reporter.
As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory”
The NYT woould never let you call it a victory, because they are so desperate to see a Democrate elected in 2008.
but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

CQ blogged In fact, O'Hanlon and Pollack recommend that Congress stop talking about withdrawal. They conclude with a near-heresy: they recommend sustaining the current effort until 2008. Now that we have found a formula for success, have brought the Iraqis on board with our focus on their worst enemy, and have figured out the nation-building process, it would be a tragedy to throw all of this success away.

Bryan blogged This NYT article is significant both for what it says, and for who is saying it. Prior to the war, Kenneth Pollack was a Democrat who supported it, gave interviews to blogs like Talking Points Memo supporting it with some caveats, but like many Americans turned against the war as the problems and casualties mounted. Now, at least going by this article, he’s back on board. And importantly, he’s back on board because he has recently visited Iraq and seen tangible progress there.

Marc blogged The Left is going to go ballistic when they read this.

Gaius blogged

Sister Toldja blogged Wow - in one day, three prominent lefties are agreeing that the Iraq war is worth winning and winnable. The far left’s collective head must be spinning around on its neck a la Linda Blair in The Exorcist.

Betsy Newmark blogged Read the rest and remember - this is in the New York Times! Perhaps their editors read their own paper.

Noel Sheppard blogged I have to wonder if a staunchly anti-war media, after pushing for an expeditious withdrawal of troops for many months, are beginning to recognize the humanitarian disaster that certainly follows such a capricious act. Or, is it possible that the surge is indeed working, and rather than report that before it has fully succeeded, press members are slowly moving away from their previous cut-and-run posture to position themselves better for a possible victory? Either way, it was nonetheless refreshing to witness such an honest discussion about this crucial issue being had by such liberal journalists.

Curt blogged The Gray Lady Concedes - "We Are Finally Getting Somewhere In Iraq"