...the SCOTUS decision in Hamden v. Rumsfeld, despite the soundbites you may be hearing or out-of-context snippets you may be reading, does NOT equal a victory for the moonbats who want GITMO closed and all the prisoners therein tried in our courts or released.
Hamdan
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
June 30, 2006; Page A12
The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, invalidating for now the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda and associated detainees, may be a setback for U.S. policy in the war on terror. But it is a setback with a sterling silver lining. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed.Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. Precisely because opponents of the Bush administration's detention policies have advanced these, or substantially similar claims, Hamdan has dealt them a decisive defeat. Together with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- directly affirming the government's right to capture and detain, without criminal charge or trial, al Qaeda and allied operatives until hostilities are concluded -- Hamdan vindicates the basic legal architecture relied upon by the administration in prosecuting this war.
Heh. Who knew I was a Constitutional scholar?
Did I mention my Dad went to Law School with Scalia, roomed below him at Harvard, had a roommate with an early "Hi-Fi" system that bugged the bejeezus out of Scalia's roommate, who later became one of my Dad's law partners? Must be where I get it...
(Yeah, yeah, I know he was in the minority dissent yesterday, but it doesn't matter, all of the justices thought GITMO was fine, holding these creeps without trial was fine, and military commissions would be fine too if Congress changes the law to allow it. Nothing inherently unconstitutional about them, just unconstitutional to set them up in total secret without Congress knowing about them or how they are administered.
OK Congress! Do your thang!
That would be the New York Times by their proper name.
Too bad Treasury Secretary Snow couldn't just come right out and call them that, although he came damn close. [Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for the link]
Dear Mr. Keller:The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
I have to highlight that one part of Snow's letter because it calls attention to one of the funniest parts of this whole story, the one that ought to blow the Times' argument right out of the water. They're arguing the "terrorists already know" about this program?
OK, so let me get this straight...The terrorists who want to kill us know more about what our government is doing to protect us than we do? I mean, that's what Keller is saying, right? If it were not so, then we'd already know too, and if that were true, then WHY PUBLISH THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
(On the front page above the fold no less).
I so wish just one MSM talking head would be smart enough to ask Keller or his defenders that question--"If it's not news to them, why is it news to us?" But of course they aren't. If they were, they'd know that the bigger story then would be "Why are the American people less well-informed than the terrorist?"
Oh, but that wouldn't do either because if that were true, then I guess we'd still have a reason to blame papers like the New York Times!
C'mon people, isn't it patently obvious that the Times was on a mission to make us more afraid of the Bush administration than of the terrorists? Many people who get this think it's because the Times hates Bush, but I'm not so sure. Michelle Malkin points out that the Times, they Aren't a Changin'!
My syndicated column today (now on Yahoo! News) offers a reminder that the blabbermouths at the New York Times have been implicated in terror tip-offs about our financial investigations before:I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation. As the New York Post reported last September, the Justice Department charged that "a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent warned an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that the FBI was about to raid its office -- potentially endangering the lives of federal agents." Times reporter Philip Shenon was accused of blowing the cover on a Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation.
"It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times," U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times' legal department.
I'm waaaaaaaaiting for my answer to that one Mr. Keller!
HOLY.SHIT.
The front page story in today's Charlotte Observer--ABOVE THE FOLD--has the headline "8 GIs Accused of Murder."
We've rotated over a million men and women through Iraq in the last five years, and 8 of them are accused of a crime and it's top of the page front page news, but when two of our own brave guys are brutally butchered, it's a one-day, one-off, below-the-fold, small type fucking AFTERTHOUGHT?????
There is a tenth circle of Dante's hell for journalists and editors like this. May their flesh erupt in ten thousand boils and their eyes ooze puss and their genitalia be eaten by leeches for all eternity for what they are doing to our ability to fight and win this war!
Can you tell I'm a little pissed off?
Excuse me. Have to place vitriolic phone call to Observer now to confirm the cancellation of my subscription.
I'm so fucking angry I could scream!
"Kin 'devastated' to hear of soldiers DEATHS"??? ["Deaths?" Like they dropped dead of heart attacks? And only the FOURTH link from the top in the "top stories" section of CNN.com. A story about alleged abuse by U.S. soldiers against Iraqis made number 1, naturally.]
"U.S. says bodies of two soldiers recovered were 'brutalized'"? [at least on the front page of the NYTimes, but was the "U.S. says..." really necessary?? Is there any doubt that beheading and hacking to death is the textbook definition of brutality? If it were Iraqis saying we'd put the twist-ties on one of the terrorists too tight, would they have used "Iraqis say" at the beginning of the headline "US Soldiers brutalize Iraqi civilian"? I'm guessing NOT.]
But hey, at least these media sources covered the story from the front page! The LA Times didn't include it in its top stories at all, and didn't even mention it on the home page. But Brangolina made it! Lord knows SHE'S more important than the brutal MURDER of two of our own soldiers, off defending OUR FREEDOM TO BE SO GOD DAMN FUCKING PIG IGNORANT!
AAAAAAARGH! I want to reach out and hurt someone at the BBC too. You can bet your ASS if a Palestinian suicide bomber were stopped and groped inappropriately on his way to blow up a bus of school kids in Tel Aviv, they'd be all over it, Human Rights Watch too, but in their coverage of the war today? Did the two soldiers who were barbarically tortured, mutilated and strewn by the side of a dirt road make the cut? NOPE. What did make it? A story about Bush wanting to close GITMO (yeah, in a pig's eye he wants it closed), and how our soldiers are going to be charged with murdering some Iraqis.
WHAT.THE.FUCK.
And my own hometown paper (a subscription to which I plan to cancel immediately) put the story below the fold (below a sad mournful account of the way the mean nasty GOP-led House plans to squish any hopes of a full-on invasion by the Mexican horde when it kills the beyond-asinine Senate bill). How do you think they titled their piece of excrement masquerading as journalism??
"Why were soldiers left isolated?" (I'd supply link but their site is down)
Yup. They weren't brutally murdered either. They were "found dead." So, if you were new to this planet, or only just crawled out from under a rock today, you would think these "soldiers" were no more than two school children out for a stroll unsupervised when they succumbed to what, the heat?! Poor wittle babies were left isolated and alone and this just HAPPENED to them?
No mention of the fucking savages who brutally attacked them, imprisoned them, tortured, beheaded, mutilated and defiled them. No, that would be icky. That wouldn't address the much more important point (apparently) that the military to which they belonged and the country they so valiantly defended are really to blame for their "deaths."
Of course if they were terrorists, or Iraqi citizens, or some schmo peacenik who purposely walked unarmed into the most dangerous part of town thinking he could befriend satan's new bitch, Zarqawi himself, THEN any violence or torture (even if it were merely "alleged") would be front page news. ALSO our fault of course regardless of who was dong the brutalizing, but at least front page news, complete with horrified tone and plenty of righteous indignation and calls for investigation and blame. And don't let the bastards lie to you that they aren't including the gorey details on account of their being too gorey. That didn't bother them when they saw fit to run over 35 front page stories (photos included of course) on Abu Ghraib "abuse" allegations.
What is wrong with journalists? Do they truly want us to lose? Are they so hell-bent on bringing down the current administration they'll sacrifice any sense of morality they might have had, EVER? Do they not "get" that their heads would lop off just as easily (although no less painfully) if these fuckers WIN and the terrorists are emboldened to try what the Toronto terrorists were already planning? Do they not GET that the reason those maniacs had to try in Canada is that Canada has already demonstrated that it lacks even more testicular fortitude than we do? They've emasculated their military completely, while simultaneously allowing every Tom, Dick and Mohammed in on the most spurious claims of "refugee" status. It is THEY who will deserve what they'll get if more people like the one's they caught manage to pull of an attack there.
I just wonder what it's going to take for these asshats to realize what we're up against here. A dirty bomb attack in New York City? A hundred thousand dead in D.C.? What's the breaking point beyond which even their hamster brains cannot justify barbarism in the name of religion of all things! Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?
These are the same writers who have seizures if someone uses the letters G-O and D in a sentence (not even strung together in a word) on public property, but when fanatics with scimitars lop off American heads in the name of their deity, somehow it's not only our fault for being in their way, it's a legitimate expression of their faith?
And if their moral bankruptcy is complete, what's it going to take for the rest of us to rise up and shut them down for good? What's it going to take for us to march through the streets with pitchforks ready to skewer people who could purposely craft headlines like today's?
What kind of person sits at a desk and thinks "Hmmmm....How can I turn the savage murders of two great kids into political fodder for my side? How can I USE their deaths to our advantage? How can I blame them for dying or at least blame them for being in the wrong place at the right time? And while I'm at it, how can I deflect the outrage that will surely come from those who wonder why I didn't do the same when it was Nick Berg's head on a stick?"
This is a dark day in our history folks. We are at a crossroads with this thing in Iraq. We will either commit ourselves 100% to winning, as a country, press included, or we will allow weak-kneed cowards full of venom and jealousy to force us to lose, all in the name of regaining power for themselves. And for what? Why do they want power so badly? They want it so they can continue to do more of the same without challenge, without end. They will stop at nothing less than reducing American power to that of Luxembourg or Belgium. Why? Because they are more concerned (apparently) with being "liked" by people than with being ALIVE.
FUCK THEM, FUCK THE PEOPLE THEY WORK FOR, and FUCK US FOR NOT DOING MORE TO SHUT THEM THE FUCK UP!
OK, I will now go wash my mouth out with soap so I can kiss my babies when they wake up from naps!
Dad sent this to me with the following comment:
I respect Weisel, but when has anyone been able to mobilize enough world opinion to prevent a fanatic anti-semite from trying to destgroy Jews? I guess we can hope...
Pop quiz:
Where would you feel safer:
A. Touring England
B. Incarcerated in the General Population of the average English prison
From the sound of things over there, I'll take the prison any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country, the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60 other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system.Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars. The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early.
Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear. Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and, brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an arsonist or thief.
I'm not kidding either. This week alone, my local TV news and paper have given tons of air time and layout space to stories about the "Perilous summer journey" of illegal aliens through the desert to cross our borders. They've shown photos of tiny babies at risk of death from dehydration and heat stroke, and they've heard from illegals who say no matter what we do to secure the border--fence, wall, national guard, you name it-- they'll keep trying to get in, even if it kills them. These stories are delivered in hushed voices literally dripping with pity for the illegals and loathing for our own country's attempt to maintain its sovereignty.
Meanwhile, the real story goes unreported, namely why do these people feel they have "no choice" but to leave Mexico? What is going on in Mexico that these people feel "forced" to break the law and risk life and limb doing so? What's in it for the powers that be on both sides? These are the stories no reporter wants to tackle.
And if you think the analogy is flawed, that illegal immigration and our attitude towards it has nothing to do with what's going on in England, you're missing what's wrong in Englandn entirely. It's not the way criminals are being protected, or the way law-abiding citizens are being villainized. It's the attitude that makes it all possible.
The minute we as a nation start making excuses for, or going out of our way to protect those who "break into" our country, we open the doors of our own homes to be broken into next. It is simply not possible for a society to allow such blatant disregard for the property rights and sovereighty of others en masse, and then turn around and protect the same for individuals.
My friend Peter sent this little missive from "Zarkman" in the hell-after.
I laughed so hard OJ came out my nose. Maybe you will too.
Think overpopulation is the biggest threat to our nation (or the world)?
Now I want to hear the pro-"choice," pro-socialism/welfare-statists out there tell me again how my fear of entitlements and loathing of abortion-on-demand is more irrational than their fear of global warming!
Asshats.
OK, for those of you who think she's gone off the deep end, let me suggest to you that there is genius in her madness. Seriously, do you think her message would EVER get out if she were PC about it?
Well, if you're liberal, you've hated her since way back in the way back, before the dinosaurs probably, so she's not talking to you any more than Al Franken is talking to me. If you're conservative, you might like her and already be reading her latest book, but if you weren't planning to, or are just too busy being sane, productive members of society to think you need to bother, you might not. And if you're in the vast middle, you're like "Ann who?"
My point is, she's making as big a noise as she can because she knows full well that the liberal MSM will only give her the time of day if she does offend the crap out of them and their ilk. Do you hear or see any press about any of the myriad books written about right-wing positions? (crickets chirping...) Do you hear or see TONS of press about Michael Moore's lastest bowel movement, or what about Ward Churchill? That guy calls the victims of 9/11 (all of them mind you, even those who were registered Democrats) "little Eichmanns!" The guy equates victims of 9/11 with Nazis and the ACLU, NYT, and every liberal rag under the sun not only gives him voice without criticizing him, they DEFEND his right to say it and applaud his courage in the face of so many "right-wing attempts at censorship."
Ann gets no such largesse from anyone, not even her usual fans, and she knows it.
So what should she do--to sell books yes, but also to get her message out? BE OUTRAGEOUS, that's what! And in so doing, she might become the story, yes, that's a risk, but as long as they give the microphone to her for a minute or two, she'll be able to say what she wants to say, and there will be people out there who will hear it and say "Hmmmm.... I think she actually has a point underneath all that vitriol! And damn, it's a GOOD one!"
What is that point? Well it's very simple really: Being a victim of anything, be it 9/11, a war, a car crash, a gun crime, whatever... Does not entitle you to spout your political positions (especially on subjects that may not even directly relate to the way in which you were victimized) without challenge!
That's the key here kids, Ann is saying that the "Jersey Girls" as they call themselves, are being trotted out as often as they are, and often for the sole purpose of raising money for liberal causes, simply because it's assumed no one will DARE challenge what they have to say on any subject because, well, they are widows.
Yes, it's sad. No, we have no way of knowing whether their husbands would approve of what they are doing or not, but isn't that the point? Frankly, I'd be pissed as shit if my husband used my untimely demise (at the merciless hands of terrorists no less) to run all over the country making money for whatever pet cause he had even before I died. Even if it were directly related to how I died, I would want my husband to be damn sure he wasn't being used or exploited by people whose only concern for him or my family was how "credible" a witness for their cause we would make. That's kind of SICK.
And if he decided to gain celebrity for himself for the purpose of expressing his political opinions (to which he has a right, but about which he is no more qualified to speak than the average Joe or Jane in the street), he damn well better expect to take as much as he dishes out, and defend his views not just snap back at people who disagree that they are "cruel" for attacking a victim. Once you step into the spotlight, you're asking for it, that's all there is to it.
What about MADD then? And other victims groups? Well, in their case, they are using what happened to their loved one to help PREVENT THE PREVENTABLE! Tell me please how the Jersey Girls are doing anything to prevent more terrorism? I actually think they are going a great distance towards bringing more to us, the represent a weakness in us--our inability to see who our real enemies are because of their fixation on Bush and his policies (which, after all, were not to blame for 9/11, how could they be, the guy was in office but a few months before it happened, and we know it took almost a decade to plan).
What Ann is also trying to point out is that she and other right-leaning pundits can call these people out, but they are then vilified, whereas the Ward Churchills and Cindy Sheehans of the world are canonized as saints on the spot, no matter who they hurt or offend.
Would I say things the way Ann does? Well, as bombastic as I can be, the answer is still no. I wouldn't have the GUTS. I agree with much of what she says, and do I see her points when they are taken IN CONTEXT (key with her, you cannot but think she's a loon unless you hear her out), so I have to defend her, or at the very least, her right to say exactly what she thinks.
Ward Churchill on the other hand? Sure, he has a "right" to say what he thinks too, but he also has an obligation to answer for it just as Ann has, by the same media that loves him and attacks her, as if only her targets have feelings.
Enjoy yours Zarquawi!
And now a message for the MSM:
Who the hell cares how we got the bastard, we got him! The only people who stand to gain by knowing how are PEOPLE JUST LIKE HIM!
I am so sick of how obvious it is that our own press doesn't want us to win this war! Can you imagine this headline:
"Luck, German miscalculation and better than expected weather lead to success on D-Day"
Why not cut to the chase and simply hand our play book over to the insurgents and terrorists, it would be so much more efficient (and honest).
Assholes.
Good riddance Abu, may you burn in hell forever, and ever, and ever, and ever (redundant I know, but I just wish there was a period of time longer than forever for this guy).
I'm going to try to make this a daily thing, but bear with me if I skip a day here or there...
I was just thinking that I can't manage to go a day without thinking of at least one irony relating to the left-leaning members of our society. I probably should be more specific, I should talk about "environmentalists," or "pro-choice advocates" or "the gay rights lobby," or the "pro-illegal immigration traitors activists."
I'll try to do that, but again, forgive me if I fail and lump y'all into one big soup. You shouldn't mind, I mean, if you did, that in itself would be ironic since to you all Republicans, all conservatives, all of those who disagree with you are routinely lumped together, and sometimes the terms you use are far meaner and nastier than "right-leaning" or "conservative."
Now that we've got that out of the way, let me get down to business. I was listening to Rush today, and he played a clip from former Fed. Chairman Alan Greenspan. Mr. Greenspan was commenting on the high gas prices and was asked to what he attributed them. His answer? Pretty much what I and many of my conservative pals have been saying for as long as I can remember:
- Extremely high world demand
- Speculation
- Lack of refinery capacity in this country
Interestingly, he didn't consider other factors like the war on terror or Iran's desire to extort us while they develop the capacity to anihilate our allies (and possibly many of us), he pretty much stuck to those three.
And then it hit me: Those who would love to blame Bush, or blame Hummer drivers, or blame the U.S. oil and gas industry executives for the high price of gas are gigantic hypocrites. They are missing the irony that they are approaching the problem as if we in the U.S. are not only the biggest consumers of oil on the planet (which by the way is no longer true--China is right there with us), but also the ONLY ones affecting gas prices here! They act as if--despite the fact that most of the oil we use comes from other countries, has to be pulled out of their ground, transported to a refinery, made into gasoline, then shipped or trucked to our gas stations--all of it is well within OUR POWER to control.
My my, how interesting. I guess that means they think we should use our formidable geo-political power to what, force these other countries to do what they do for less? Or should we force them to sell the bulk of their product to us, even if there are other even higher bidders? Should our government tell oil speculators to go find another way to make a living? Or should we nationalize our oil and gas industry (halting all exploration and innovation in the process)?
Exactly HOW should our government "make it all better" (waaaaaaaaaaaah! *sniff*)
I don't know about all of you, but I find it fascinating that our government is blamed for NOT "doing something" to change what is essentially the WORLD's problem (kinda like the environment, but that's another topic for another day), but when we step in to do something about what we consider to be OUR problem alone, we're terrible, nativist, nationalistic, jingoistic, empirialistic, fascistic tyrants.
What's the message here people? You deserve cheap gas in your cars, but Iraqis don't deserve to even TRY democracy of some sort or other? We should accept that we're not alone in the world, that we are merely "citizens of the world" when trees, wildlife and greenhouse gasses are concerned, but when it's gas? Well, then we ought to throw our weight around as much as need be because God forbid people pay as much for gasoline as they pay for their Starbucks double nonfat iced caramel macciado drinks!
Well and good that Canadian intelligence and law-enforcement officials have probably thwarted one of the most vicious terrorist plots since 9/11, but I can't help but notice that there are still Canadians who don't "get" what almost happened in their country.
TORONTO, Ontario (CNN)--Prosecutors allege that one of the terrorism suspects arrested in Canada last week wanted "to behead the prime minister," a defense lawyer said Tuesday.An eight-page synopsis of the allegations against the 17 men and boys was given to defense lawyers Tuesday.
"The allegations are that my client is alleged to have been part of a plot to blow up parliament buildings in Canada, storm the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corp.], take over the CBC, as well as, among other things, behead the prime minister," said Gary Batasar, lawyer for defendant Steven Vikash Chand, 25.
Batasar and other defense lawyers complained Tuesday in court that they have not been allowed to meet privately with their clients, who they say are under constant watch by armed guards. He called the tight security unnecessary and unprecedented.
"This is not Guantanamo, this is Toronto, Canada," Batasar said.
But no, in Toronto, the spear-points of an army potentially larger, more dangerous and more merciless than any we have ever known or faced are mere "criminals" with due-process rights, lawyers, and the presumption (apparently) of innocence. And what if the Canadian officials who tracked them and ultimately foiled their plot didn't follow the absolute letter of the Canadian law? What then? Will they be FREED? Let out on bail?
I just wonder what Canada would do about these guys if they believed (as they should) that they--whether they like it or not-- are engaged in a war with Islamofascism just as we are, just as the entire Judeo-Christian Western World is? D'ya think they'd still consider these vermin "accused criminals," or d'ya think they'd see them as the SOLDIERS they are?
What's it going to take? Will a group like this have to be successful for the Canadians (or the Americans for that matter) to wake up to reality? Can you imagine what that would have looked like? Can you imagine the CBC anchors being beheaded live on the air, at their anchor desk, in front of the nation? In what alternate universe would the citizenry witnessing such an atrocity consider it merely a "crime?" How loudly do the perpetrators have to scream that their allegiance to Islam and their "duty" to smite the "infidel" supercedes all else in their miserable lives before the Canadians (or we) will believe them?
All I can say is, thank God the Canadian investigators in charge of stopping these monsters had their eyes on the ball. Too bad most people--here as well as there--aren't watching the game.
Finally, something cops can do to enforce our immigration laws!
Thanks to Pete, I found my way over to Michelle Malkin's blog, and of course, once there I had to check out what she personally had to say about it so I spent some time at Hot Air, and the news made me so giddy and lightheaded, I had a momentary lapse of judgment and clicked on the ACLU link to read for myself (as if I didn't already know) why they are so keen to kill my buzz.
Here's a test to see if you've already fallen pray to the evil ACLU "Mind Melt." The Mind Melt is what happens to a person whose brain has been fed a steady diet of American Idol and People Magazine for so long, they actually think that both are "News" outlets. Such people are incapable of detecting the treachery of the ACLU even when it's printed in black and white in front of their faces. Not sure what I'm talking about? Read the following paragraph from the ACLU's reaction to the Dunkin Donuts plan to obey our immigration laws. See if you find anything odd about it...
The American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") recommends opposition to legislative proposals to establish a nationwide, electronic, employee work-eligibility verification system that requires any worker to obtain government pre-clearance to start a new job. Building such a system will cost the nation far more--in dollars, lost privacy and increased discrimination against lawful workers--than it will achieve in controlling undocumented immigrants. And this kind of system would, for the first time in American history, give the government the power to deny any willing worker, citizen or not, the ability to obtain a job.
And this kind of system would, for the first time in American history, give the government the power to deny any willing worker, citizen or not, the ability to obtain a job.
See, that's what the ACLU does! They twist the English language, insert little fragments into a paragraph, and take ordinary well-intentioned Americans and turn them into mush-brains, sympathetic to a cause that doesn't exist, defending people whose rights have not been violated because (here's a novel concept) they HAVEN'T ANY TO BEGIN WITH! At least not insofar as this particular topic is concerned!
Since when does a non-citizen have a RIGHT to obtain a job here, with or without the government's permission? Since when does the ACLU work for non-Americans anyway? What's the damage to our rights as Americans if non-citizens are denied the right to work in this country? My right to a well-manicured lawn and cheap strawberries?
All I have to say is, way to go Dunkin Donuts! Consider it a very high compliment that you've made me actually miss Massachusetts for a moment here. At least there I couldn't throw a rock in any direction without hitting one of your stores. Here? I have to drive at least 15 minutes to your nearest location. Until today, I did it reluctantly, and only because yours is the only coffee my husband will drink. But now, I'll happily make the trek over there, if for no other reason that it will make me feel like I'm doing my small part to protect this country. The fact that it might also piss off a bunch of ACLU types? Ah, now that's just the icing on the cake (er, donut)!