Thursday, June 30, 2005

Q&A w/ David Roeder, Iranian hostage in '79

Hostage Roeder: "Ahmadinejad Threatened to Kidnap My Son"

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are claiming that the newly elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of those involved in taking and holding you hostage in Iran from November 1979 to January 1981. How can you be sure?

Roeder: He was present at at least a third of my personal interrogations, which took place nightly for a little over a month early on in the hostage-taking situation. He seemed to be calling the shots, but from the background. The interrogators would ask a question and it would then be translated from Farsi into English by a woman interpreter.


SPIEGEL ONLINE: How did you realize that your hostage-taker had been elected as president of Iran?

Roeder: I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the elections because whoever runs there has to be approved by the theocracy and the mullahs. It didn't surprise anybody that the winner would be a hardliner approved by the theocracy. But when I saw him on television the other night, I knew immediately. It's his mannerisms more than anything else that stopped me cold. I have no doubt that it's the same guy.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't think you could have forgotten him after all these years?

Roeder: No, absolutely not. Not when he was involved in threatening my son.


Note he doesn't mention the picture, but seeing him on TV as to what sparked his memory.

I'd hate to be the one that tosses a bucket of cold water on this but..........

Is it the same guy? [New Iran Pres.] (New profile pic)

I should note that I'm not saying the new Iranian Pres. wasn't there in '79 or he isn't who the hostages say he is. I just don't think the guy in the pic is him.


Mom sells face space for tattoo advertisement

By Aaron Falk
Deseret Morning News

You can read the story but I think the picture pretty much sums it up....

I thought this was a funny line though.

"It feels like someone is taking a pin and just stabbing you with it,"

That's because IT IS!!!


This is funny too....

"Will it go numb?" she asked.

"It'll go as numb as your brain," Brouse replied.

"My brain is already numb," she said, laughing.

Don Brouse tattoos "" on Kari Smith's forehead. Brouse and his staff at ASI Tattoo spent nearly seven hours trying to talk Smith out of it.


UN Tsunami aid ship hijacked

NAIROBI - A United Nations-chartered vessel carrying aid for Somali tsunami victims has been hijacked off the coast of Somalia amid a flurry of new piracy warnings for the area, the World Food Programme (WFP) has said.

The freighter hauling 850 tons of Japanese and German food aid was seized by unidentified pirates on Monday between Haradhere and Hobyo, about 300km north-east of Mogadishu, WFP said.

"It is against international humanitarian law to hinder the passage of humanitarian assistance and there is no justification for hijacking," it said.


I guess the pirates didn't get that memo.

And since when do pirates follow international humanitarian law?


PUTIN pockets suberbowl ring......

BOSTONRussian President Vladimir Putin walked off with New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft's diamond-encrusted 2005 Super Bowl ring during a recent meeting with U.S. business executives.

But not to worry: Kraft says the ring was a gift to Putin, presented out of "respect and admiration."

Earlier, Russian media had speculated that Kraft hadn't meant to give away the ring.

"I showed the president my most recent Super Bowl ring," Kraft said in a statement released Wednesday. The Russian president "was clearly taken with its uniqueness," Kraft said.

"At that point, I decided to give him the ring as a symbol of the respect and admiration that I have for the Russian people and the leadership of President Putin," Kraft said. [Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....]

Putin met with the businessmen Saturday at Konstantinovsky Palace near St. Petersburg, Russia. Near the end of the meeting, Kraft took off the ring, and handed it to Putin. Putin tried it on, put it in his pocket and left, according to Russian news reports.

According to Patriots spokesman Stacey James, the ring - which is encrusted with 124 diamonds - has a value of "substantially more" than the previously reported $15,000.


I think Kraft wanted to make sure he made it out of Russia alive.........

Maybe there was a bit of miscommunication, but I can't understand why Putin would care about a little diamond ring.

Do you know how many diamonds Russia has?

Ahmadinejad to export 'new Islamic revolution' [IRANIAN NEWS]

OH JOY..............

LONDON, June 30 (IranMania) - Iran's president-elect Mahmood Ahmadinejad hailed his election win as a new Islamic revolution which he said he hoped would now spread its way throughout the world.

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 (the current Iranian year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world," the IRNA agency quoted the ultra-conservative as saying.

"The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end," he said, in an apparent reference to Iran's arch-foe the United States. "The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world,"

"In one night, the martyrs strode down a path of 100 years," he added.

Ahmadinejad has previously been at pains to present a moderate face to the world, avoiding religious rhetoric at his post-election news conference in favour of pledges of friendship and compassion to all at home and abroad.

However these latest comments were made to a markedly different audience -- the families of over 70 victims, including several MPs and the former chief justice, killed in a 1981 attack at the headquarters of the once powerful post-revolution Islamic Republic Party.

The tone of the remarks harks back to the first years after 1979 Islamic revolution, when the country's leaders frequently pledged to take the revolution beyond Iran.

Ahmadinejad has frequently extolled the "purity" of those early days.

However Iran subsequently abandoned attempts to export the revolution, which the regime believes prompted Western countries and most Arab states to side with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its 1980-1988 war with the Islamic republic.

The return to such expansionist rhetoric could set alarm bells ringing in European capitals already worried about Ahmadinejad's stance in future talks on Iran's nuclear programme, as well as in neighbouring Arab countries.

Ahmadinejad, who is due to take office in early August, meanwhile hinted that he would be prepared to include outstanding ministerial officials from the outgoing government in his new administration.

"I think... that there are competent directors in the country and today there are ministers who deserve to serve the people and I will use all the capacities," he was quoted in local media as saying.

However he played down speculation about the future policies and composition of his government, saying "apart from me no-one knows the proposals of the government... what has been announced is people's personal opinions."


Ex-Hostages Say Iran Leader-Elect a Captor in '79

Iran leader linked to '79 embassy crisis

By Joyce Howard Priceand David R. Sands
June 30, 2005

Americans held in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran said yesterday they clearly recall Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad playing a central role in the takeover, interrogating captives and demanding harsher treatment for the hostages.

"As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard," said retired Army Col. Charles Scott, 73, a former hostage who lives in Jonesboro, Ga.

"He was one of the top two or three leaders," Col. Scott said in a telephone interview. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist."


"I know he was an interrogator," said Capt. Sharer, now 64 and living in Bedford, Iowa. He said he was personally questioned by Mr. Ahmadinejad on one occasion but does not recall the subject of the interrogation.

Col. Scott recalled an incident when Mr. Ahmadinejad berated a friendly Iranian guard who had allowed the two Americans to visit another U.S. hostage in a neighboring cell. Col. Scott, who understands Farsi, said Mr. Ahmadinejad told the guard, "You shouldn't let these pigs out of their cells."


Another former hostage, Kevin Hermening of Mosinee, Wis., said he came into contact with Mr. Ahmadinejad right after the takeover.

"He was involved in interrogating me the day we were taken captive," recalled Mr. Hermening, who, at 20, was the youngest hostage.

Mr. Hermening, a Marine security guard at the Tehran embassy, said his interrogators were seeking the combinations for "safes and other things that were locked."

"There is absolutely no reason the United States should be trying to normalize relations with a man who seems intent on trying to force-feed the world with state-sponsored terrorism," Mr. Hermening said.


SAVANNAH, Ga. -- A quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran's new president-elect. Watching coverage of Iran's presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion -- the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Ga. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."

Scott and former hostages David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer told The Associated Press on Wednesday they have no doubt Ahmadinejad, 49, was one of the hostage-takers. A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos.

Not everyone agrees. Former hostage and retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer, of Peoria, Ariz., said he doesn't recognize Ahmadinejad, by face or name, as one of his captors.

Several former students among the hostage-takers also said Ahmadinejad did not participate. And a close aide to Ahmadinejad denied the president-elect took part in the seizure of the embassy or in holding Americans hostage.

Militant students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days to protest Washington's refusal to hand over the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for trial. The shah fled Iran earlier that year after he was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution.

The aide, Meisan Rowhani, told the AP from Tehran that Ahmadinejad was asked during recent private meetings if he had a role in the hostage taking. Rowhani said he replied, "No. I believed that if we do that the world will swallow us."

Another former hostage, Paul Lewis, said he thought Ahmadinejad looked vaguely familiar when he saw a picture of him on the news last week, but the former Marine embassy guard said he could not be certain.

"My memories were more of the gun barrel, not the people behind it," said Lewis, who lives in the central Illinois town of Sidney.

Ex-hostage Alan Golacinski also said he couldn't be certain.

"I can't identify this individual as one of my interrogators because I was blindfolded during all of my interrogations," said Golacinski, who was an embassy security officer. However, Golacinski said, "He did look somewhat familiar."

Scott and Roeder both said they were sure Ahmadinejad was present while they were interrogated.

"I can absolutely guarantee you he was not only one of the hostage-takers, he was present at my personal interrogation," Roeder said in an interview from his home in Pinehurst, N.C.

Daugherty, who worked for the CIA in Iran and now lives in Savannah, said a man he's convinced was Ahmadinejad was among a group of ringleaders escorting a Vatican representative during a visit in the early days of the hostage crisis.

"It's impossible to forget a guy like that," Daugherty said. "Clearly the way he acted, the fact he gave orders, that he was older, most certainly he was one of the ringleaders."

Ahmadinejad, the hard-line mayor of Tehran, was declared winner Wednesday of Iran's presidential runoff election, defeating one of Iran's best-known statesmen, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. The stunning upset put conservatives firmly in control of all branches of power in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Scott, Roeder, Daugherty and Sharer said they have been exchanging e-mails since seeing Ahmadinejad emerge as a serious contender in Iran's elections.

"He was extremely cruel," said Sharer, of Bedford, Ind. "He's one of the hard-liners. So that tells you where their government's going to stand for the next four to five years."

After seeing recent newspaper photos, Sharer said, "I don't have any doubts" that Ahmadinejad was a hostage-taker.

A memory expert cautioned that people who discuss their recollections can influence one another in reinforcing false memories. Also, it's harder to identify from memory someone of a different race or ethnicity, said psychologist Elizabeth Loftus of the University of California, Irvine.

(CBS Photo)

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

ATT: MOONBATS If Al Qaeda had nothing to do w/ Iraq would you please explain THIS!

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

View Related Topics

November 5, 1998, Thursday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 2; Foreign Desk

LENGTH: 1093 words



A Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment yesterday charging the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa in August and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad.

Government officials immediately announced that they were offering two rewards of $5 million each for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Mr. bin Laden and another man charged yesterday, Muhammad Atef, who was described as Mr. bin Laden's chief military commander.

Mr. bin Laden is believed to be living in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, the Islamic fundamentalist movement that rules that country.

Mr. Atef's whereabouts are unknown.

It is uncertain whether Mr. bin Laden will ever stand trial in the United States. But if he does, prosecutors said, he could face life in prison or the death penalty if he is convicted.
Prosecutors also unsealed an earlier indictment, issued in June, that included similar but less detailed charges against Mr. bin Laden.

That indictment was returned before the embassy bombings and resulted from a two-year grand jury investigation of his activities in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, as well as reports that he had connections to a circle of Islamic militants in Brooklyn.

The new indictment, which supersedes the June action, accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations. Excerpts, page A8.

But the indictment gives few details of Mr. bin Laden's alleged involvement in the embassy attacks. The indictment does not, for example, specify whether prosecutors have evidence that Mr. bin Laden gave direct orders to those who carried out the attacks.

Nothing in the document indicates why the original indictment was kept secret for months. But the secret charges were returned about the time that American officials were plotting a possible military attack into Afghanistan to arrest Mr. bin Laden.

Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, said, "It's very common to have sealed indictments when you're trying to apprehend those who are indicted."

Both indictments offer new information about Mr. bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for Mr. bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country.

No details were given about whether the alleged deal with Iraq led to the development of actual weapons for Mr. bin Laden's group, which is called Al Qaeda.

The Government said yesterday that Mr. bin Laden's group had made use of private relief groups "as conduits for transmitting funds" for Al Qaeda.

The groups were not identified.

Prosecutors also said Mr. bin Laden's group had conducted internal investigations of its members and their associates, trying to detect who might be acting as informants, and had killed those who had been suspected of collaborating with enemies of the organization.

The Government indicated earlier that its knowledge of Mr. bin Laden's activities stemmed in part from the cooperation of one such informant, who it said yesterday had worked for Mr. bin Laden, transporting weapons to terrorists, helping to buy land for his training camps and assisting in running his finances.

The June indictment against Mr. bin Laden suggested that the Government had a considerable amount of knowledge of his dealings in the months before the attacks on the embassies, one in Tanzania and one in Kenya.

But the new charges are an indication of how quickly the Government has worked to solve the embassy attacks, which occurred just three months ago.

Ms. White said that Mr. bin Laden was charged with "plotting and carrying out the most heinous acts of international terrorism and murder."

Citing the more than 250 people killed in the embassy attacks and the more than 1,000 wounded, she added, "In a greater sense, all of the citizens of the world are also victims whenever and wherever the cruel and cowardly acts of international terrorism strike."

The investigation of Mr. bin Laden is continuing, said Ms. White and Lewis D. Schiliro, assistant director of the F.B.I. in New York, whose agents have fanned out around the world to investigate the embassy attacks.

"Our investigative strategy is clear," Mr. Schiliro said.

"We will identify, locate and prosecute all those responsible, right up the line, from those who constructed and delivered the bombs to those who paid for them and ordered it done."

In charging Mr. Atef, the Government reported new details about what it called his role as Mr. bin Laden's military commander, referring to his "principal responsibility for the training of Al Qaeda members."

Mr. Atef was a member of a committee under Mr. bin Laden that approved all terrorist actions by Al Qaeda, the indictment said, and he also played a major role in coordinating attacks on United States and United Nations troops in Somalia in October 1993.

In those attacks, 18 American soldiers and hundreds of Somalis were killed. Americans were shocked by the images of the body of one of the Americans being dragged through the streets, and the violence provoked a furor over the United States role in Somalia as part of the United Nations effort to pacify the country and supply food and medicine to the Somalis.

At the time, the battle was seen as one with Somali warlords. But yesterday's charges made clear that the Government now contends that Mr. bin Laden had a critical role in instigating the fighting.

In late 1992 and 1993, when Mr. bin Laden's group was based in Sudan, Mr. Atef went to Somalia to determine "how best to cause violence to the United States and United Nations military forces stationed there," and reported back to Mr. bin Laden at his headquarters in Khartoum, Sudan's capital, the indictment said.

Prosecutors said that in the spring of 1993, Mr. Atef and other members of Al Qaeda, including Haroun Fazil and Mohammed Saddiq Odeh, both of whom have been charged in the embassy attacks, traveled to Somalia and trained Somalis opposed to the United Nation's intervention.
On Oct. 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, Somali soldiers trained by Al Qaeda took part in the attacks on the soldiers, according to the June 10 indictment that was unsealed yesterday.

GRAPHIC: Photos: Mary Jo White, a United States Attorney, at a news conference yesterday with a portrait of Osama bin Laden, a Saudi exile indicted on charges of conspiracy in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. (Ruby Washington/The New York Times); Prosecutors say this photo shows Osama bin Laden, left, and Muhammad Atef, who were indicted yesterday on terrorism charges. (United States Attorney's Office)(pg. A8)

06 November 1998

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN ~ United States District Court Southern District of New York

Oh you're not going to believe this!! Guess what famous picture IRAN's new pres. was in in 1979?

London, Jun. 29 - Iran Focus has learnt that the photograph of Iran’s newly-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, holding the arm of a blindfolded American hostage on the premises of the United States embassy in Tehran was taken by an Associated Press photographer in November 1979.

Prior to the first round of the presidential elections on June 17, Iran Focus was the first news service to reveal Ahmadinejad’s role in the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

The identity of Ahmadinejad in the photograph was revealed to Iran Focus by a source in Tehran, whose identity could not be revealed for fear of persecution.

Soon after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Ahmadinejad, who was studying in Tehran’s University of Science and Technology, became a member of the central council of the Office for Strengthening of Unity Between Universities and Theological Seminaries, the main pro-Khomeini student body.

The OSU played a central role in the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran in November 1979. Members of the OSU central council, who included Ahmadinejad as well as Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, Mohsen Mirdamadi, Mohsen Kadivar, Hashem Aghajari, and Abbas Abdi, were regularly received by Khomeini himself.

Former OSU officials involved in the takeover of the U.S. embassy said Ahmadinejad was in charge of security during the occupation, a key role that put him in direct contact with the nascent security organizations of the clerical regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, which he later joined.

After the 444-day occupation of the U.S. embassy, Ahmadinejad joined the special forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office, based in Evin Prison. The “Revolutionary Prosecutor” was Assadollah Lajevardi, who earned the nickname the Butcher of Evin after the execution of thousands of political dissidents in the 1980s.

Defectors from the clerical regime’s security forces have revealed that Ahmadinejad led the firing squads that carried out many of the executions. He personally fired coup de grace shots at the heads of prisoners after their execution and became known as “Tir Khalas Zan” (literally, the Terminator).



London, Jun. 29
A veteran British journalist said that he had interviewed the newly-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back in 1979, when he was a leading activist who took over the United States embassy in Tehran, holding American diplomats hostage for 444 days.


Thursday update.....

This pic is from CBS and is much clearer.

And a side shot.....

China tells U.S. not to meddle in oil deal

Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:41:23 AM EST

BEIJING, June 29 (UPI) -- China expressed opposition to interference in a government-controlled oil company's bid for the U.S.-based oil company Unocal, state media said Wednesday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said that China National Offshore Oil Corporation's $18.5 billion offer for Unocal was "normal commercial activity between enterprises."

Liu said "economic cooperation between China and the U.S. serves the interests of both sides and commercial activities should not be interfered in or disturbed by political elements."

There are growing concerns in Washington over the deal as some U.S. officials are uncomfortable with CNOOC, 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, controlling a major player in the U.S. energy sector.

Sino-U.S. commercial ties are strained on a variety of fronts as China emerges as major economic power, including a massive trade imbalance, widespread copyright and intellectual property infringements plus accusations the country manipulates its currency.

Xinhua reported Wednesday that CNOOC Chief Executive Fu Chengyu is heading to the United States for negotiations and to dispel concerns over the deal.

First off this would be a bad bad bad idea if Unocal sells to China. You think gas prices are high now, wait till China takes 100% of the oil production they acquire from Unocal and directs it all to China.

Second........China can go take a long walk of a short pier!

For 5 months 'I stayed in the box' [A must read]

By James H. Warner
June 29, 2005

As a Marine Corps officer, I spent five years and five months in a prisoner of war camp in North Vietnam. I believe this gives me a benchmark against which to measure the treatment which Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat, complained of at the Camp of Detention for Islamo-fascists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The senator's argument is silly. If he believes what he has said his judgment is so poor that his countrymen, assuming, of course, that he considers us his countrymen, have no reason not to dismiss him as a witless boob. On the other hand, if he does not believe what he said, the other members of the Senate may wish to consider censure.

Consider nutrition. I have severe peripheral neuropathy in both legs as a residual of beriberi. I am fortunate. Some of my comrades suffer partial blindness or ischemic heart disease as a result of beriberi, a degenerate disease of peripheral nerves caused by a lack of thiamin, vitamin B-1. It is easily treated but is extremely painful.

Did Mr. Durbin say that some of the Islamo-fascist prisoners are suffering from beriberi? Actually, the diet enjoyed by the prisoners seems to be healthy. I saw the menu that Rep. Duncan Hunter presented a few days ago. It looks as though the food given the detainees at Guantanamo is wholesome, nutritious and appealing. I would be curious to hear Mr. Durbin explain how orange glazed chicken and rice pilaf can be compared to moldy bread laced with rat droppings.

In May 1969, I was taken out for interrogation on suspicion of planning an escape. I was forced to remain awake for long periods of time -- three weeks on one occasion.

On the first of June, I was put in a cement box with a steel door, which sat out in the tropical summer sun. There, I was put in leg irons which were then wired to a small stool. In this position I could neither sit nor stand comfortably. Within 10 days, every muscle in my body was in pain (here began a shoulder injury which is now inoperable). The heat was almost beyond bearing. My feet had swollen, literally, to the size of footballs. I cannot describe the pain. When they took the leg irons off, they had to actually dig them out of the swollen flesh. It was five days before I could walk, because the weight of the leg irons on my Achilles tendons had paralyzed them and hamstrung me. I stayed in the box from June 1 until Nov. 10, 1969. While in the box, I lost at least 30 pounds. I would be curious to hear Mr. Durbin explain how this compares with having a female invade my private space, and whether a box in which the heat nearly killed me is the same as turning up the air conditioning.

The detainees at Guantanamo receive new Korans and prayer rugs, and the guards are instructed not to disturb the inmates' prayers. Compare this with my experience in February 1971, when I watched as armed men dragged from our cell, successively, four of my cell mates after having led us in the Lord's Prayer. Their prayers were in defiance of a January 1971 regulation in which the Communists forbade any religious observances in our cells. Does Mr. Durbin somehow argue that our behavior is the equivalent of the behavior of the Communists?

Actually, I was one of the lucky ones. At another camp, during the time I was being interrogated in the summer of 1969, one man was tortured to death and several were severely beaten. In fact, according to Headquarters Marine Corps, 20 percent of my fellow Marines failed to survive captivity. Have 20 percent of the Islamo-fascists failed to survive Guantanamo?

The argument that detainees at Guantanamo are being treated badly is specious and silly. In the eyes of normal Americans, Democrats believe this argument because, as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said 20 years ago, they "always blame America first." This contributes to the increasing suspicion, in red states, a problem that Democrats are aware of and are trying to counter, that Democrats cannot be trusted with our national security. Only the Democrats can change this perception, most recently articulated by White House adviser Karl Rove. The ball is in their court and I am certain there are steps that they can take to change this perception, but making silly arguments about imaginary bad treatment of enemy detainees is not a move in the right direction.

James H. Warner is corporate counsel practicing intellectual property law in Northern Virginia. He served as domestic policy adviser during the second Reagan administration.

No connection between Iraq and Terrorism or preventing another 9/11?

By: Seth Leibsohn from Bill Bennett's morning radio show..

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, master terrorists Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abu Zarqawi lived and operated in Iraq.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein invaded an ally and attempted to invade another to control the world's oil supply.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein fired missiles into Israel.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein endowed and paid homicide bombers in Israel (bombers with American blood on their hands).

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on Kurds and Shiites.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein fired at British and American planes in the no-fly zones.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Saddam Hussein ran a terrorist training camp in Salman Pak.

--Prior to our liberating Iraq, Al Qaeda bombed the USS COLE. The USS COLE was bombed in Yemen because it was enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Containment did not work!

Knowing that we should have liberated Afghanistan before 9/11; would it be smarter to have left this regime in place?

Richard Clarke was a hero for saying we should have taken out Afghanistan before they could attack us; the liberation of Iraq was our first effort to act in prevention of another state-sponsored attack on us.


Get Ready...........[SCOTUS]

A little birdie few into my computer yesterday and told me there would be an announcement today, a retirement announcement, a Supreme Court Justice retirement announcement.........

Take it how ever you like, but I'm betting it's gonna happen.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

DAMN!! Some of you Democrats are dumb.......

In watching the MSM'S (CNN, MSNBC) remarks after Pres. Bush's speech I noticed a common theme. They all seemed to be trying to say Pres. Bush was once again saying Iraq had something to do with 9-11 (It did but that beside the point right now).



Add Rangel on FNC to that list.....

What I Saw at Gitmo: By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu | June 27, 2005

Last week, I was privileged to be part of a Department of Defense trip to the Joint Task Force - Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I got to see the operations of this “controversial” facility up-close – something particularly important after Sen. Richard Durbin’s comparison of its guard to Nazi stormtroopers and calls of leftists to shut the center down. Our group went to GITMO to check out tales that the military was being too tough on these terrorist detainees. We left convinced that America is being extraordinarily lenient – far too lenient.

After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.


Democrats report no abuse at Gitmo

By Stephen Dinan
June 28, 2005

Two Democratic senators just back from reviewing U.S. detention facilities and interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said they saw no signs of abuse and said it would actually be worse to close the facility and transfer the detainees elsewhere.

"I strongly prefer the improved practices and conditions at Camp Delta to the outsourcing of interrogation to countries with a far less significant commitment to human rights," said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, who toured the U.S. facility along with Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat.


"Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different," Mr. Nelson said.


Hummmmmm I wonder why that quote wasn't in the NYT story?

And we let these guys go free?!?!!?

The government of Pakistan has released 17 men who were imprisoned in Lahore for some months after being freed from Guantanamo Bay:

The men were apparently released (from GITMO) on the theory that they were innocent, but all six who were interviewed by the Associated Press acknowledged that "they were arrested in Afghanistan after going there to fight the U.S.-led coalition that ousted the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network." One said, "If I get a chance to fight jihad again, I will definitely go. I will not miss it." Keep that in mind next time you read about those poor innocents who have been released from Guantanamo Bay because they had no connection to terrorism.


Senators Laud Treatment of Detainees in Guantánamo

...............And the NYT BURIES this story on page A-19

You'd think after the last week of hearing how horrible GITMO was this would be front page news....but no, this gets buried.

Could it be because of what the DEMOCRATS said regarding GITMO??

Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - Senators from both sides of the aisle competed on Monday to extol the humane treatment of detainees whom they said they saw on a weekend trip to the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. All said they opposed closing the center.

"I feel very good" about the detainees' treatment, Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said.

That feeling was also expressed by another Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

On Monday, Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said he learned while visiting Guantánamo that some detainees "even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers."

Another Republican, Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, said soldiers and sailors at the camp "get more abuse from the detainees than they give to the detainees."

In the last month, several senators, including some Republicans, have suggested that Congress should investigate reports of abuses at the detention center or that the military should close it to remove a blot on the country's image.

One senator, Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, has come under criticism and apologized repeatedly for comparing reported abuses at the camps to treatment in Soviet gulags or Nazi concentration camps.

Mr. Wyden and Mr. Nelson were in Cuba primarily to discuss new agricultural trade and visited Guantánamo on Sunday. They ran into Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo and Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia, who traveled to Guantánamo for the day on Sunday "to see for ourselves what all the so-called fuss is about down there," as Mr. Bunning put it.

After the trip, Mr. Wyden argued that Congress should establish treatment standards for detainees like those at Guantánamo who are neither uniformed members of foreign military forces under the Geneva Conventions nor citizens under the United States justice system.

In contrast, Mr. Crapo praised the current military procedures, calling for a new international standard to cover terrorism suspects and other nonmilitary prisoners.

An official of Amnesty International, Jumana Musa, dismissed the visits as "this little Congressional show and tell." Ms. Musa said the statements did not address what she called the inadequate investigation of reported abuses.

"Whether or not people are being fed orange chicken," Ms. Musa said, "does not get at the heart of the issue."

POWERLINE: Oops, Never Mind [GITMO]

June 26, 2005

The Democrats' anti-military PR offensive is petering out. A bipartisan group of Congressmen is touring Guantanamo Bay;..........[snip]

Cornyn steps up......[eminent domain]


S. 1313. A bill to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce new legislation, entitled the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. I introduce this legislation in response to a controversial ruling of the United States Supreme Court issued just last Thursday.

The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is:

the first principle of association, ``the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.''

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that ``private property'' shall not ``be taken for public use without just compensation.'' The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only ``for public use.''

On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that ruling, the Court acknowledged that ``it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B,''

[Page: S7430]

and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only ``for public use.''

Yet the Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.

This is an alarming decision. As the Houston Chronicle editorialized this past weekend:

It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week. Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes and businesses so that other private entities can develop the land into enterprises that generate higher taxes.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. CORNYN. The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has:

effectively ..... delete[d] the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thereby ``refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution.''

Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns,

[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

She further warns that, under Kelo,

[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, [and] the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Indeed, as an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted:

[a]bsent a true public use requirement, the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.

In a way, the Kelo decision at least vindicates supporters of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

The Houston Chronicle has called upon lawmakers to take action, editorializing this past weekend that:

lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this distasteful form of eminent domain.

I firmly agree.

It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain.

That is why I am introducing today the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. The legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only ``for public use,'' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development. The act would apply this standard to two areas of government action which are clearly within Congress's authority to regulate: (1) All exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

It would likewise be appropriate for states to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, ``nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.''

The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. The Kelo decision was a disappointment, but I congratulate the attorneys at the Institute for Justice for their exceptional legal work and for their devotion to liberty. We must not give up, and I know that the talented lawyers at the Institute for Justice have no intention of giving up. In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005.

Exhibit 1

Stealing Home

It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week. Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes and businesses so that other private entities can develop the land into enterprises that generate higher taxes.

The Supreme Court found, 5-4, that local elected officials are not barred by the Constitution from condemning whole neighborhoods and small businesses if, in their view, doing so would lead to redevelopment that increases tax collections.

A majority on the court was convinced that the possibility of improving the tax base for the benefit of the wider community satisfies the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property can be taken by eminent domain only for a public purpose.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented, pinpointed the problem with the majority's argument. It cedes ``disproportionate influence and power'' to a community's most powerful and well-connected residents.

Public parks, schools and right of way for thoroughfares traditionally have provided the sort of public purpose to justify government's use of eminent domain. Grand redevelopment schemes, especially when they are cooked up by government officials, often lack a sound economic basis and carry the potential of becoming boondoggles that hurt taxpayers.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that local officials are qualified judges of whether an economic development project will benefit the community. In this case, city officials in New London, Conn., plan to tear down private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, offices and a fitness club.

``The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue,'' Stevens wrote.

But is that universally true? Municipal and county governing bodies frequently miscalculate or wildly overestimate the benefits of tax abatements and other incentives.

Besides that, individual taxpayers don't necessarily benefit from increased government revenues.

Sometimes the increased revenue proves insufficient to cover the cost of providing services to new development. Sometimes increased revenues are wasted on things other than essential services.

Now that the high court has cleared the way for elected officeholders to trump private property rights, abuse of eminent domain becomes more likely, particularly in neighborhoods populated by the least influential citizens. In Texas, lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this distasteful form of eminent domain.

Monday, June 27, 2005

One last toon for today...

SCOTUS ----- Sandblast the Ten Commandments.

WHAT THE F*#K!?!?!?

Are they going to take down the one on the SCOTUS building?

This is so wrong...


And in case you weren't aware the guy that brought the case in TX is a BUM. Not a bum in the sense of him being an incompetent, insignificant, or obnoxious person. I mean a BUM as in a HOMELESS guy.



Looks like the SCOTUS said you can't have the 10Cs IN the court house but outside is OK.........I'm confused...


Update II:

How is it the ACLU on one hand is arguing that the Ten Commandments must be stripped from public view but at the same time demanding the US Gov't provide detainees down at GITMO with every bit of religious paraphernalia they can think of? (Paid for w/ taxpayer dollars of course.)



June 27, 2005

In different rulings, the justices ban displays of the Ten Commandments at courthouses, but allow them to be placed on government land.

The Courthouse Ruling:

Opinion (McCreary County v. ACLU)

The ACLU's Attorney

Attorney for Liberty Counsel

Case Docket

The Government Land Ruling:

Opinion (Van Orden v. Perry)

Attorney for Texas


Having a bad day?

Just take a look at this pic I took on Saturday and be glad you're not in this guys predicament.

Yes that the underside of a car, a Jeep Cherokee to be precise.

103rd St. was FLOOOOOOOOOODED on the west side. Traffic had to drive on the median to get by. All that water you see is the road not a creek....

Ward Churchill should be arrested for treason/sedition...

Ward Churchill backs fragging
Controversial '9-11 prof' suggests rolling grenades under line officers

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal," he said. "But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?"

Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"


Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and
''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new
units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes,
and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Section 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally

(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence
the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces
of the United States:
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the
United States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or
printed matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the
military or naval forces of the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term ''military or
naval forces of the United States'' includes the Army of the United
States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the
United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the
Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the
master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or
conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of
the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or
willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the
United States, to the injury of the service or the United States,
or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as
within the United States.

Section 2389. Recruiting for service against United States

Whoever recruits soldiers or sailors within the United States, or
in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to engage in
armed hostility against the same; or
Whoever opens within the United States, or in any place subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, a recruiting station for the
enlistment of such soldiers or sailors to serve in any manner in
armed hostility against the United States -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.

Say hello to IRAN'S new Pres.

Iran vows to restart nuke program

TEHRAN -- Iran's hard-line president-elect, at once defiant and at ease, vowed yesterday to restart the nation's nuclear energy program and told European negotiators that building trust required a mutual effort.

Asked about relations with the United States during his first press conference since Friday's election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran "is taking the path of progress based on self-reliance. It doesn't need the United States significantly on this path."


The United States thinks the program is aimed at building atomic weapons. Iran insists it is only interested in generating electricity. Uranium enriched to low levels has energy uses, while highly enriched uranium can be used in bombs.

Iran suspended all uranium-enrichment-related activities in November to avoid sanctions from the United Nations Security Council, but it said all along the suspension was temporary. France, Britain and Germany have offered economic incentives in hopes of persuading Iran to halt enrichment permanently.

"Iran's peaceful technology is the outcome of the scientific achievements of Iran's youth," Mr. Ahmadinejad said. "We need the peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medical and agricultural purposes and our scientific progress. We will continue this."

He said Iran's decision would not change, but he did not say when the work would resume.
"This is the final path we have taken," he said.

Concerning Iran's negotiations with France, Britain and Germany, Mr. Ahmadinejad said he was waiting for specific offers to break the stalemate.

"We will continue talks with Europeans while preserving our national interests and insistence on the right of the Iranian nation to use nuclear energy," he said. "If there is to be trust-building, then it should be mutual."


Oh joy................

But make no mistake, this guy is still in charge...

You think he's called Iran's "supreme leader" cause it has a nice ring to it?

Sunday, June 26, 2005


1. Nets Skipped or Barely Touched Durbin & Clinton, Now Jump on Rove

2. Morning Shows Pounce on Rove, Unlike Handling of Dem Comments

3. Washington Post Buried Durbin, But Puts Rove on the Front Page

4. Hardball Panel Frets GOP Making National Security a "Wedge Issue"

The results will shock you........well, not really. The media bit onto Rove like a Pit-Bull on a poodle and they treated Durbin like Sgt. Schultz treated Hogan. "I hear nothing! I see nothing! Nothing!"

Friday, June 24, 2005

30 days of TROP propaganda

I am shocked, shocked!!

You're telling me the same guy that showed Ted Kennedy wanting to raise the minimum wage (during the 1st "30 days" episode) has an agenda!!

Michelle Malkin
has linked to a good article by Debbie Schlussel who was asked to appear on the upcoming "30 days" episode dealing with muslims.

Schlussel has a few eye opening things to say about the show.

No, the producers told me. "Morgan wants the show to demonstrate to America that we are Islamophobic and that 9/11's biggest victims are Muslims."

Sorry, I think the biggest victims were the ones MURDERED on 9-11!!

I've seen commercials for this episode. I figured we would be shown as the bad guy and the muslims would be the victims


There's more here over on Debbie's Blog.

Stacy's Muslim family was selected with the help of Haaris Ahmad, an activist in CAIR..

Another shocker......


President Welcomes Iraqi Prime Minister Jaafari to the White House

Q: Mr. Prime Minister, if I may, does the decline in American support for the mission in Iraq have any impact on your government and the people of your country?

PRIME MINISTER JAAFARI: Thank you very much. As for the question on the reduction of support, Iraq's -- the Iraqi people had a specific request which is toppling down Saddam Hussein for reasons relating to their dignity and their policy -- their politics. And after Saddam Hussein was removed, through the different efforts of international efforts and Iraqis, this was achieved. Right now we have another danger, which is terrorism, which is against not only the Iraqi people but all the world of the country -- of the world, and at any time, doesn't have any particular land, but it works everywhere. Geography of terrorism is the human beings, themselves. And those people who are doing it are the enemies of humanity.

Once they do it in Washington, once in Spain, once in Iraq, so fighting the terrorism, and limiting their impact and in order to keep the human dignity and civilization requires that we all act together. It's not only the duty of Iraqi people but other countries, as well. As you know, Iraq is rich in oil, in water, in cultivation, as strategy and (inaudible), and also -- but because of the exception of circumstances of Iraq, now it has become a poor country, so we have to have the impact and the support from other countries.

The success of our Iraqi people is your own success. The people of Iraq is civilized. I look forward to support from all other countries of the world. You have given us something more than money -- you have given us a lot of your sons, your children that were killed beside our own children in Iraq. Of course this is more precious than any other kind of support we receive. You have to be proud before your own people that you presented us for the maintenance of democracy in Iraq and to remove the dictatorship. We do not forget those who stood beside us at hard times, and they are decided to go forward. And there is a lot of difference between one month and another, between one week and another. Iraqi people are insistent on going along the path for their economy and their security, but we do need the help of other countries who will help us, to stand beside us.

Thank you.

But of course this won't be played in the news tonight. Instead we'll see re-runs of Fat Teddy calling for Rummy to resign......

Bush is now a Greek God?

Schumer was red in the face yesterday talking responding the Republicans explaining how wrong the Democrats are about the "advice" of judges.

Any way Schumer said this and I thought it was kinda funny.

"The ball is in the President's court. He can determine whether we have the kind of process the American people want--careful, thorough but harmonious, without acrimony, by consulting--or he can be like Zeus from Mount Olympus and throw down judicial thunderbolts and say: This is the nominee. Then maybe some of his minions will say: You cannot admit this fact about the nominee or that fact about the nominee or that fact about the nominee. That is not legitimate. That will not create a harmonious process in this body."

Damn it's gonna be funny to see the Democrats explode when Pres. Bush puts his first SCJ up.

Pataki knocked Hillary for a loop..

Where did Pataki come from? He knocked the crap out of Hillary!

Is he running against her for her Senate seat?

New York Gov. George Pataki: "I think it's a little hypocritical for Sen. Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comment, when she never asked Sen. Durbin to repudiate his comments, She never responded when asked to respond [about Durbin], She never responded to Howard Dean's insult to every single Republican, saying that they never earned an honest day's living.

She never responded to Sen. Reid's unfair criticism of the president - he called the president a loser and a liar. He's never apologized - she never requested that.

She never called for an apology or clarification when called for moderation and restraint in response to the terrorist attacks.

So, when she does that, I'll be glad to listen to her call for me to ask someone to apologize."



Karl Rove is a master....

How does he do it?

There's nothing better than having your enemies take the bait and walk straight into a trap you set.

Wednesday night during a New York Conservative Party Rove said this.

"But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

The dems went ballistic and are now calling for Rove to be fired.

I think that's kinda funny. A democrat (Durbin) can slander the troops and all Americans by comparing them to Nazis, Soviets, & Pol-Pot and the Democrats circle the wagons and/or not comment on his remarks at all, but when Karl Rove points out the truth these same democrats want ten pounds of flesh.

And I guess that's all the lib/dems read because he qualifies his statement in the next sentences.

"But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

And the RNC's release just backs up Rove's statement even more.

“It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments.”
- RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

Liberal Third Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:

Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”

* “We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,”, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

* “We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,”, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

* “[W]e Demand That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction, And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live In A World Free Of Such Arms.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,”, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

Just After 9/11, Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided “Terror And Bloodshed” Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “All Hail Moore,” The New York Times, 6/26/04)

* Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism” And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me.…Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website Archive, “Death, Downtown,” Posted 9/12/01,, Accessed 7/27/04)

* Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: “Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood this, Tim.” (CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” 10/19/02)

Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)

* Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.” “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)

* Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)

Liberal Democrats Urged Restraint, Blamed America:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “‘The Time For Peace Is Now,’ [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. … Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

* Kucinich: “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)

Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

“The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)

* Kerry: “[W]hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

Thursday, June 23, 2005

KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON [Property Rights Opinions]

June 23, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, rules that the "Takings Clause" in the U.S. Constitutiona permits local governments can seize residential and commerical property for private development. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice O'Connor rebukes the majority's conclusion, asserting that "the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process," giving government a "license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."

Majority Opinion

Justice O'Connor's Dissent

Case Docket

Property can be taken by city - U.S. Supreme court

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a city can take a person's home as part of a private development project aimed at boosting tax revenues and revitalizing a local economy, a decision that could have nationwide impact.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld a ruling that New London, Connecticut, can seize the homes and businesses owned by seven families for a private development project that will complement a nearby research facility by the Pfizer Inc. drug company.




Hillary Clinton: "We're Going to Take Things Away From You on Behalf of the Common Good"

I bet she's happy today!!


You libs happy now?

Still think the democrats should get to pick out and approve the next Supreme Court Justice(s)?


Update: Michelle Malkin has some good links on this HERE.