Archive for November, 2006

ABCNews is reporting that “U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories.” My first question is “Where was this type of reporting before the election?”

According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006. This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.

I guess that that puts to rest what little credibility Old Mahmoud’s letter had left about they “greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that Ahmadinejad couldn’t care less about justice or equity or about defending the innocent.

In fact, this proof tells us the exact opposite. It tells us that he’s perfectly willing to fund the violence that’s killing thousands of Iraqis just to prevent them from establishing a legitimate government that would be a counter to his government.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran. Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

This information should end all consideration of the Baker Commission Report. Initiating a new round of diplomacy with Iran is counterproductive because they aren’t willing to give up their hopes of an Iraqi government that is Iran’s puppet regime. It further walks back the longstanding US policy of not negotiating with terrorists. AFter all, Hezbollah is nothing more than Iran’s forward-deployed version of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.

Another negative impact that having talks with Iran is that it makes us look weak, especially in light of this information. In case nobody’s noticed, the sectarian violence has escalated when they’ve perceived us at our weakest point.

This leads me to another point: that blue ribbon commissions are a waste of taxpayer money. The 9/11 Commission certainly didn’t distinguish itself when it didn’t question Jamie Gorelick for building the wall that kept Able Danger’s leaders from sharing their information with law enforcement. For that matter, they embarassed themselves by not taking the Able Danger people seriously. Instead, they promoted the building of a new bureaucracy that’s set us back years while ignoring the real solution to connecting the dots.

The Baker Commission looks like it’s heading for the same insignificance by proposing the same ‘conventional wisdom’ BS that’s helped us from getting real things done. From what’s been leaked thus far, we know that their report says that part of Iraq’s solution comes in restarting the PLO-Israeli ‘peace’ talks. Riiigggghhhttt. That’ll convince those Iranian terrorists to drop their weapons and return home to being auto mechanics, accountants and farmers. Frankly, the Baker Commission is likely to be another stain on Jim Baker’s resume.

That isn’t to say that Democrats won’t jump on the Commission’s report as ‘proof’ that we need to bring our troops home. Thta’s when things will get interesting because President Bush will be on the side of the angels when he picks this fight with the Democrats. People don’t like the war but when people read that Iran is funding the terrorists operating inside Iraq so that they can have a puppet regime, they’ll know that we can’t give Iraq away to a nutcase like Ahmadinejad.

Technorati: Hezbollah, al-Sadr, IEDs, Ahmadinejad, Democrats, Baker Commission

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s another misleading headline but what’s new, right? Here’s the real story:

The City Council here voted late Tuesday to ban certain giant retail stores, dealing a blow to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s potential to expand in the nation’s eighth-largest city. The measure, approved on a 5-3 vote, prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.
Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto the ban if the Council reaffirms it on a second vote, which will likely happen in January, said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. The Council can override his veto with five votes. “What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy,” Sainz said.

In other words, the San Diego City Council is voting against middle class and working poor voters but the mayor will defend these people from the politicians.

That’s the real story to this article.

Technorati: Walmart, Democrats

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This morning’s Washington Post reports that Democrats have set a record in breaking a major campaign promise even before they assume control. That’s never happened before, to the best of my recollection.

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

Actually, they’ve broken two campaign promises with one inaction. Democratic candidates promised more vigorous oversight and they promised to implement the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations. I’m guessing that the Democrats are only interested in oversight if it’s able to criticize Halliburton or the Patriot Act and the like. It’s obvious that they aren’t the least bit interested in oversight into truly important matters.

Bill Clinton campaigned on giving a middle class tax cut. He gave up on that fairly quickly, saying “I’ve never worked harder in all my life” on anything but it just isn’t possible with the huge deficits. At least he waited until he was in office a couple weeks before breaking a major campaign promise. Congressional Democrats couldn’t even live up to that modest benchmark.

Why am I not surprised?

“I don’t think that suggestion is going anywhere,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha, (D-PA). “That is not going to be their party position.”

Color me shocked and surprised that John Murtha isn’t interested in reform. Color me shocked and surprised that Democrats aren’t interested in reform either. Frankly, I don’t know why the American people believed that Democrats are reform-minded. Nothing in their past suggests that they’re interested in reform.

Technorati: 9/11 Commission, Reform, Oversight, Patriot Act

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the abridged version of Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe’s and Holly Bailey’s article. Here’s some of the details from their article:

You could be forgiven for thinking there was something big in the works. President Bush is holding a three-way summit in the Middle East. Washington’s political insiders are swapping leaks about forthcoming studies on Iraq. Even the network news anchors are flying halfway across the world. So the White House is ready to change course in Iraq, right?
Not quite. The president and his senior staff arrived in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday with a deep sense of discontent about the direction of Iraq. But that doesn’t translate into a major course correction, no matter what the pundits, or the Democrats, or James Baker’s study group, suggest. Somewhere between Stay the Course and Reverse Course lies Bush’s new approach. Call it Adjust the Course.

To their credit, I think Wolffe and Bailey get that right. People who expected President Bush to get railroaded by Jim Baker’s report were discounting President Bush’s determination to actually defeat the terrorists in Iraq. While it’s true that there will be some major adjustments made, those adjustments don’t include a John Murtha-styled cut and run policy or a Barack Obama-styled cut and walk policy. Rather, it’s about President Bush telling Nouri al-Maliki that he needs to crush the violence instead of cozying up to Muqtada al-Sadr.

So Bush’s goal in Amman is not to deliver an ultimatum to Maliki or to get tough with him. Instead of isolating Maliki, Bush’s message will be that he and the Iraqi prime minister are in this hole together.

The ultimatums won’t come from the Bush administration. Many of them will come from tough-talking Democrats who voted against the war. Other ultimatums will come from Democrats who think that their regaining the majority was a mandate for their pacifist policies.

In his big set-piece speech of the trip, at the Latvia University in Riga on Tuesday, the president described his goals in Amman. “We’ll continue to be flexible, and we’ll make the changes necessary to succeed,” he said. “But there’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.” In other words, anyone, such as the newly empowered Democrats, expecting troop withdrawals will have to wait either until Iraq is able to govern itself, or until Bush leaves office.

Right after the election, I said that the President needed to pick a fight with Democrats. My choice was to pick a fight with them on terrorism but the President didn’t take my advice, choosing instead to pick a fight with Democrats on Iraq. That’s fine with me because Democrats don’t have a coherent strategy for Iraq, the GWOT or foreign policy of any sort. Frankly, President Bush doesn’t even need a clearcut victory over Democrats on this. Picking a fight with Democrats will help get the GOP base back with him.

Bush’s aides note tartly that if that’s all Baker is suggesting, he won’t be able to live up to the expectations surrounding his report. Dealing with Baker’s report may be relatively easy if Syria and Iran are the big new ideas, these aides say.

The Agenda Media were hyperventillating when the first Baker Report leaks happened, figuring that President Bush wouldn’t say no to Bush family friend Baker. I didn’t completely buy into that notion, though I was a bit worried for awhile. It’s good to see the President getting back to his feisty self.

Technorati: Baker Commission, Cut and Run, Murtha, Barack Obama, President Bush

Cross-posted at California Conservative

It’s stunning to listen to Ahmadinejad’s longwinded rant. He can’t expect Americans to believe him because it’s the type of rant that only the most delusional people could believe. Here’s one of the biggest whoppers:

While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.

If you’re going to parse Old Mahmoud’s words, it’s important to remember that he thinks of Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs; therefore, they aren’t humans. Therefore, in his mind, he isn’t contradicting himself when (a) he says that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth and that (b) he talks about the “exalted worth of all human beings.” It’s important to know that he’s hoping that we won’t put those things together. He’s hoping that a few politicians ignore his hatred and instead pressure President Bush into having a conference that wouldn’t accomplish anything.

Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.

I’m not holding my breath waiting for the Western press to ask how Ahmadinejad works toward “securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent.” I’d further like the Western press to ask Ahmadinejad thinks are “oppressors and bullies” besides Israel, the British and America. Would he include Syria and the Sudanese government in that list of bullies and oppressors? If not, why not?

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples’ rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.

Old Mahmoud just might be delusional enough to think he’s fooling people by talking about “the trampling of peoples’ rights” when his country doesn’t recognize women as human beings. I think that we’d agree that’s intimidating and humiliating to them.

We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.

That paragraph starts what I call the talking out of both sides of his mouth section because he started the letter by talking about “the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings” but then quickly turning to decry the hatemongering Zionists who are “firing machine guns at students in the streets” while “subjecting [Palestinian] families to endless grief.” He further says that Israel, which was created by the UN, isn’t the “rightful owners” of the land they live in. Rather, he contests that Palestinians are the “rightful owners.” Forgive me if I don’t excuse the hypocrisy of his doubletalk. Actually, that’s typical of terrorists, who talk peace to the world but who foment violence against anyone who doesn’t think like them.

Let’s take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty.

Yes, let’s examine what’s happening in Iraq, Mahmoud. Yes, terrorism has grown in Iraq. He shouldn’t be bashful, though, because it’s increasing thanks to his funding it. Let’s examine the “infrastructure” that hasn’t been restored. Is Mahmoud talking about the great oil production infrastructure that Saddam built? Or is Old Mahmoud talking about the paved streets and concrete sidewalks paid for by Saddam’s last public works bill?

Or is it a different type of infrastructure altogether that we haven’t noticed? It seems to me that one type of infrastructure that Saddam has built that we aren’t rebuilding is the infrastructure Saddam put in place for his ‘Oil-For-Food’ Scandal. For that matter, let’s ask Old Mahmoud how a foreign nation can “alleviate poverty” in a nation left in utter shambles because a tyrant raided Iraq’s oil revenues for his own gain.

The bottom line on his letter to the United States is that it’s really about reinforcing in his countrymen’s minds that Israel and America are the Satans and that he’s their only protector against the Zionists and intruders. This letter won’t get a minute’s worth of serious consideration by serious American politicians.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that Democrats won’t adopt his letter as part of their daily talking points.

Technorati: Ahmadinejad, Israel, United States, Terrorism, Saddam

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Dennis Prager has weighed in with his opinion on Keith Ellison placing his hand on the Qu’ran instead of the Bible when he gets sworn in. At first, I didn’t think I’d be that interested in this column, even though I enjoy Mr. Prager’s work. I’m thankful now that I took the time.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism, my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

The truth is that America has never been nor should it ever be multicultural. The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create American society, where we pulled towards the same goals. The plague we call multiculturalism strives to divide people by letting each pursue a culture that is distinctly not American.

What America is is mult-ethnic. Being multi-ethnic isn’t the same as being multicultural because being multi-ethnic means that we’re pulling for the same goals. Assimilation is happening on a daily basis in a multi-ethnic country. France is typical of a multicultural Euronation. We all remember the riots in France last year. The reports coming from France said that French society didn’t attempt to get Muslims moving into France to assimilate. That may be true but it’s equally true that those Muslims migrating to France weren’t interested in assimilation either.

Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.

The points Mr. Prager makes are all valid. That won’t matter to the extremist, though, as CAIR and other PC liberals will be bashing Prager for his intolerance on the issue. Who cares? If those criticisms were directed at me, I’d wear their criticisms like a badge of honor.

Technorati: Dennis Prager, Keith Ellison, Koran, CAIR, Political Correctness

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This year’s prime example of bureaucratic wrong-headed thinking, aka the Baker Commission report, will be made public this December. This year, like in all other years, Democrats will fawn all over the report while pushing for acceptance of all its recommendations. The White House should reject these recommendations because they’re defeatism disguised as ‘realism’. David Sanger’s article lists a number of interesting insights into the report.

A draft report on strategies for Iraq, which will be debated here by a bipartisan commission beginning Monday, urges an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria but sets no timetables for a military withdrawal, according to officials who have seen all or parts of the document.

As I’ve written before, direct talks with Syria and Iran shouldn’t be held because (a) they aren’t interested in stabilizing the region and (b) because they won’t keep their word. Diplomacy is only useful when dealing with honest people. Otherwise, it’s an exercise that’s designed to impress the ‘world community’, which is meaningless. It seems to me that holding direct talks with Iran and/or Syria only legitimates them. Instead of playing nice in public, we should be putting them on notice that their financing the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq won’t be tolerated.

In interviews, several officials said announcing a major withdrawal was the only way to persuade the government of Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to focus on creating an effective Iraqi military force. Several commission members, including some Democrats, are discussing proposals that call for a declaration that within a specified period of time, perhaps as short as a year, a significant number of American troops should be withdrawn, regardless of whether the Iraqi government’s forces are declared ready to defend the country.

Announcing a Coalition pullout will just undermine security in Iraq. It also undercuts the efforts of brave Iraqi patriots who’ve stuck their necks out against the terrorists and the insurgents in their quest for freedom. Tips to security forces will dry up. Violence will increase. Insurgents’ and terrorists’ actions will become more bold. In fact, the insurgents and terrorists have already become more bold.

Aside from the policy aspects of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report, which are awful enough, it should be seen as utterly immoral to abandon a nation after telling them that you’d help them become a democracy. But ‘realists’ like Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, Jim Baker and John Kerry don’t care about behaving in a morally disgusting manner. Their only consideration is how to declare defeat against the terrorists without accepting the blame for declaring unilateral defeat in the one war we can’t afford to lose.

While we’re at it, let’s just be blunt about this. Let’s not let Hagel, Biden, Baker, Kerry and others appropriate the realist label when that isn’t who they are. Who they are is a collection of failures and/or idiots. To the best of my knowledge, only Baker’s been on the right side of any foreign policy. Even then, he counseled against taking out Saddam, which only left us having to defeat him later on. The rest of them are foreign policy idiots.

The commission’s co-chairmen have urged members and staff not to discuss their deliberations. As a result, those who were willing to talk about the commission’s work and the draft reports did so on the condition of anonymity.

TRANSLATION: Though the commission’s co-chairmen have urged members and staff not to discuss their deliberations, some members and staff have acted dishonorably by ignoring their directives.

Technorati: Baker Commission, Lee Hamilton, Leakers, National Security, Iran, Iraq, Syria

Cross-posted at California Conservative

A wave of ‘realism’ is sweeping through the United States, proof that bin Laden was right. The current wave of ‘realists’ includes James Baker and Chuck Hagel. Here’s what Sen. Hagel wrote in this morning’s Washington Post op-ed:

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation, regardless of our noble purpose.

Ironically, the title for Hagel’s op-ed is “Leaving Iraq, Honorably”. Frankly, I’m mystified how abandoning an entire nation before they’re able to defend themselves is anything approaching honorable. I’d further take issue with calling it leaving, not that a Hagel-driven foreign policy wouldn’t have that as a key component but because that isn’t telling people the truth: Hagel’s hogdepodge of random and stray thoughts is really defeatism wrapped into a tidy little euphemism created during Vietnam.

I can’t even call Hagel’s thing a plan because that would imply rational thought on his behalf, something that isn’t evident. Believe it or not, Hagel’s delusional thinking gets worse:

It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America’s options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.
What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest, without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.

The first point that Sen. Hagel makes is that “It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq”, which is probably true. Sen. Hagel also says that “The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before”, that “regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest”. Sen. Hagel’s verdict on this new Middle East: “This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years.” Sen. Hagel should be run out of office for thinking that. PERIOD. He’s saying that an Iraq subjected to doing whatever Iran and Syria want is a positive thing. Forgive me if I don’t agree with him.

Actually, let me take it a step further. If this is the highest level of common sense that Sen. Hagel has, then he isn’t qualified to be a mayor. Sen. Hagel’s had a defeatist attitude towards Iraq from the time the war started. He doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to honor our commitment to the Iraqi patriots who’ve fought hard to make their country great. Sen. Hagel is the polar opposite of the great Iraqi patriots. While the Iraqi patriots yearn for a bold new Iraq, Sen. Hagel’s ‘vision’ of Iraq and the Middle East is nothing more than a timid acquiescence to terrorist-supporting nations like Iran and Syria.

Furthermore, Sen. Hagel is either too ignorant or too indifferent to who inhabits that region. Earlier, he said that Syria getting involved is a positive thing. Syria exports assassins to neighboring countries in the hopes of establishing puppet regimes that would act as training grounds for terrorist groups like Hizbollah. These puppet regimes would then act as buffers between them and Israel. If we leave Iraq now, it won’t take long before it becomes al Qaida’s new training ground. Forgive me if I don’t see the wisdom of allowing that ‘reality’ to occur without a fight.

I think it’s only appropriate to name Hagel ‘Osama’s Senator’. Osama predicted after Mogadishu’s disgrace that America didn’t have the dedication to finish missions. Sen. Hagel is intent on proving Osama right. If that isn’t sickening enough, we’re forced to hear Sen. Hagel dress his defeatist policies up as honorable. That’s sickening.

By not finishing the mission, Sen. Hagel is condemning younger generations to dramatically increased terrorist attacks, too. If anyone thinks that Iraq won’t turn into a terrorist training ground if we don’t defeat them there, they’re ignorant.

Shame on Sen. Hagel for not learning from history. Shame on Sen. Hagel for underestimating our troops’ ability to win. Shame on Sen. Hagel for being the type of politician that Osama can’t win without.

Technorati: Chuck Hagel, Liberal, Cut and Run, Osama, Somalia, al Qaeda

Cross-posted at California Conservative

One can only hope that an anti-Chavez wave is building in Venezuela. That said, I’m not holding my breath that that’s what’s happening but I am encouraged that that’s the subject of this article.

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans packed a major highway Saturday in a rally for opposition presidential candidate Manuel Rosales, one of the largest demonstrations against President Hugo Chavez in years. Shouts of “Dare to change!” rose up from the dense crowd filling the highway for several miles and spilling into nearby overpasses and streets in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas. The rally came eight days before the country’s presidential election on Dec. 3.
Rosales, speaking from a stage, promised democracy for a country he said was sinking into Cuba-style authoritarianism under Chavez. “I don’t want to be a president who controls all the branches of government,” Rosales shouted to thundering applause. “Let there be true democracy in Venezuela!” He denounced the government for prohibiting television crews from using helicopters to film the march, saying, “They don’t want the people to see this multitude. They are scared,” he shouted, pumping his fists. “We are going to win on Dec. 3.”

According to this website, Venezuela’s population is approximately 25 million people. If the report is accurate that “hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans packed a major highway Saturday in a rally for opposition presidential candidate Manuel Rosales”, then that could mean that there’s enough disenchantment with Chavez to defeat him.

That said, I’m doubtful that Chavez will lose, partially because he’s a thug who won’t think twice about resorting to thuggish tactics tow in, partially because he’s like longtime American politicians like Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd and John Murtha in that he’s adept at buying votes with pork.

Despite the revived opposition movement, Chavez remains hugely popular among the poor, especially those who see benefits from oil-funded social programs ranging from free health care to heavily subsidized government grocery stores.

Getting rid of Chavez won’t be easy but it would be a great day for the United States and for South America.

Technorati: Hugo Chavez, International Terrorism, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad

It appears that the eight imams who were removed from the US Airways Flight might have done so as part of a scheme to reduce airline security. Here’s what Investors Business Daily said in an editorial:

Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for “prejudice and ignorance.” CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of “flying while Muslim.” Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

It’s stunning to think that John Conyers, CAIR-Michigan’s 2005 Man of the Year, drafted this resolution by “borrowing from CAIR rhetoric.” Then again, Conyers has carried CAIR’s water for ages. It’s also curious that the imams chose to pray in such an ‘in-your-face’ way, considering this fact, disclosed in an email to Gateway Pundit:

Greetings Jim,

As a person raised a Muslim and practicing Islam. I was taught that if a Muslim’s time of prayer comes and needs to pray. But is in a confined space or in a situation which would attract negative attention. That a Muslim could pray sitting in chair etc…and use nodding or bowing to symbolize the Rukaahs and Sejdas needed for prayers. The prophet Mohamed has advised Muslims to not attract negative attention and not to act in a way perceived negatively by our surroundings. In airports in many Muslim countries there are special rooms for praying so as not to be praying in a waiting area.
These Imams must have known what their praying in a waiting area in an airport (if it is in fact what they did) filled with people would do. Muslims should not be inviting or seeking trouble.
I am saddened to see how far some Muslims have strayed from Islam.

Based on that email, it’s difficult to imagine that this wasn’t staged to trigger an investigation. Here’s a couple other reasons why I think that’s likely:

Keith Ellison is demanding to talk with US Airways officials;
Speaker-in-waiting Pelosi met with CAIR in July, 2004 to strategize on how to block the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Here’s what we know about Rep. Conyers contribution to the meeting:

Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).

Here’s another significant piece of information from that meeting:

“Since September 11th, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin, without any credible information linking individuals to criminal conduct,” Pelosi continued. “Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal.”
“When the Patriot Act was enacted, it was intended to be accompanied by strong Congressional oversight to prevent abuses of our civil liberties. That oversight has not occurred, particularly with the mass detention campaign ordered by Attorney General Ashcroft, which to date has led to more than 5,000 foreign nationals being detained since September 11th. Moreover, individuals’ assets have been frozen on the basis of secret evidence that they have no opportunity to confront or rebut, and such processes are a fundamental denial of due process. We must correct the Patriot Act to prevent abuses of our civil liberties.”

The first question I’d want to ask Ms. Pelosi is why she thinks it’s “fundamentally un-American” to profile people of the same racial and religious backround as the 9/11 hijackers. Another question I’d want answered is why she thinks profiling should be illegal, especially when it’s done to prevent terrorist attacks. Another question I’d ask is why she’s so worried about terrorists’ due process rights when she didn’t seem to have a problem with John Murtha ignoring the Haditha Marines’ due process rights when he played judge, jury and executioner. Here’s what Mr. Murtha said back in late May:

“Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Based on those exchanges, it isn’t unreasonable to think that Nancy Pelosi cares more about terrorists’ due process rights than she cares about the due process rights granted to our military. After all, the only organizations that had their assets frozen were charities that funneled money to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, of which the Holy Land Foundation was the most prominent organization whose assets were frozen.

It’s also noteworthy that Ms. Pelosi and Rep. Conyers couldn’t provide specific instances of Muslims’ civil rights being abused when the House debated renewing the Patriot Act. It was so noteworthy that it raised red flags with veteran Capitol Hill reporters like Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke. The lack of proof of any civil rights abuses won’t deter Pelosi and Conyers from carrying CAIR’s water once again. In fact, it’s a safe bet that the Flying Imam Fiasco will be offered as proof positive that Muslims are being unfairly targeted and that they need civil rights relief.

Technorati: CAIR, Pelosi, NSA, Conyers, Patriot Act, Murtha, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Keith Ellison

Cross-posted at California Conservative