Chag Sameach to our Iranian friends
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
AMERICAN JOURNALISTS GAGGED BY LIBEL TOURISTS
The Last Crusade:
LANDMARK CASE BEGINS IN CANADA
FOREIGN LAWS CREATE CLIMATE OF FEAR IN U.S. PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING BIZ
LANDMARK CASE BEGINS IN CANADA
FOREIGN LAWS CREATE CLIMATE OF FEAR IN U.S. PUBLISHING AND BROADCASTING BIZ
By Tracy Hood,
No Compromise Media
thelastcrusade.org
American investigative journalist, and author, Dr. Paul L. Williams, will begin his crusade, October 8, in a Toronto courtroom to answer charges of defamation regarding his explosive investigations into missing radio active material at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
Williams become entangled in a legal jam with the Canadian university while discussing his book The Dunces of Doomsday on the nationally syndicated “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio program with George Noory.
According to Williams, “What is unique about my case is that my alleged violation of Canadian law took place in the U.S.A. I wrote my book in America, where it was published, and I spoke to American reporters who called me at my home in Pennsylvania. By all standards, what I said and wrote about McMaster University remains well within the libel and defamation laws of our land. Still and all, I am being sued by a foreign entity and have lost not only my freedom but my life savings.”
The case is significant since it represents the first time in American History an American journalist has been forced to submit to a foreign jurisdiction. Williams speculates that the reason Canada is able to sue him over the border is because of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
NAFTA was signed into law in 1994 eliminating most trade barriers. However, an unintended consequence of NAFTA was the ability for foreign individuals and entities to sue American journalists and authors on libel and defamation suits much harder to adjudicate in America.
Under Canadian law, once an accusation of libel is made, the respondent must prove they are innocent rather than the plaintiff proving guilt.
“I was asked to sign an apology for remarks I made that came straight from the Congressional Record and testimony by a 9/11 Council, Janice Kephart” Williams stated, “These remarks were verified by several federal investigations and researchers; a host of highly reputable journalists, including Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of The Washington Times.”
Foreign citizens or entities suing American journalists in foreign courts for libel and defamation is a growing trend, and as a result Congress is stepping into this issue to fortify free speech protection.
US Citizen, Rachel Ehrenfeld, author, and lecturer was also sued for libel in a British court over her controversial book, Funding Evil. She counter sued stating that under American defamation laws her book was not libelous, but her case was dismissed in a New York court. As a result of her case, the New York legislature passed a law called Rachel’s Law, protecting New York citizens against libel judgements not recognized under American libel jurisprudence.
Senator Arlen Spector (D-PA), alarmed at the increase of libel suits against the American press, has sponsored The Free Speech Protection Act. Spector stated on the Senate floor: “[T]he Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 address[es] a serious challenge to one of the most basic protections in our Constitution. American journalists and academics must have the freedom to investigate, write, speak, and publish about matters of public importance, limited only by the legal standards laid out in our First Amendment jurisprudence.”
Ehrenfeld says, “We need a federal law which allows respondents to counter sue for damages. This law will protect free speech, and be used as a deterrent against foreign lawsuits.”
The House has a similar bill, HR 1304, which would create a “cause of action to determine whether defamation exists under United States law in cases in which defamation actions have been brought in foreign courts against United States persons.”
If you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Dr. Paul Williams, please call Tracy at 425.245.3293 or email Tracy at nocompromisemedia@gmail.com
Labels: MR
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
Washington Examiner h/t Dr Bulldog:
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 6, 2009
As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.
Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.
While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.
The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.
"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."
Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.
The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.
The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.
"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.
But Baird warned of public backlash.
"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 6, 2009
As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.
Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.
While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.
"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.
The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.
"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."
A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.What you don't know can hurt you:
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.
» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages.
Available online 13 hours before debate.
» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.
» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001.
Unavailable to the public before debate.
Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.
The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.
The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.
"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.
But Baird warned of public backlash.
"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."
Labels: MR
Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along, No Questions, No Interviews, Please
CNS News h/t Dr Bulldog:
FCC Won't Allow 'Diversity' Chief Mark Lloyd to Be Interviewed about Public Policy Views
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) –The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) won't allow its Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd to be interviewed by the news media about his views and past statements on federal communications policy.
Lloyd, who cites the radical author Saul Alinsky as an inspiration, has argued that public broadcasting outlets in the United States should be funded on a level equal to the funding of private broadcasting companies--with the money coming from licensing fees levied on private broadcasters by the government.
The FCC says it does not allow any commission staffers to be interviewed.
CNSNews.com attempted to interview Lloyd Friday at a public forum held by the FCC. CNSNews.com wanted to ask the FCC diversity chief about policy recommendations he made in his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce and in papers written for the liberal Center for American Progress about changing media ownership rules in the United States, the role of public broadcasting, and the influence of 1960’s radical Saul Alinksy on his views.
FCC Communications Director David Fiske said that like any other federal agency, the FCC does not allow its staff members to be interviewed about themselves or their views, past or present, because it might compromise their ability to make recommendation to policymakers.
“It’s not that staff don’t do interviews, [but] they aren’t personages who do interviews about themselves and their input,” Fiske told CNSNews.com. “The Commission as a whole gets input from dozens of sources. Each commissioner hires their own staff; Chairman [Julius] Genachowski has actually made some comments about [Lloyd].”
Commissioners, Fiske said, were the policymakers at FCC and therefore the proper people to interview about what sources and ideas are influencing the Commission’s decisions.
“They’re the ones responsible for putting together all the pieces of policy and all the inputs, and all of the experiences, and all the hearings and the record, and they’re the persons who are responsible for making decisions and they’re the ones who talk about them,” said Fiske.
Genachowski had explained, in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the role Lloyd would play at the FCC. Genachowski said that Lloyd’s chief duty was to make sure that a diversity of voices had input on FCC policy.
“With respect to Mr. Lloyd,” Genachowski wrote on Aug. 24, “his responsibilities in the Office of General Counsel track Congress’ directive … that the Agency ‘promote the policies and purposes of the Act favoring a diversity of voices’ and enhance opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace, including in the FCC’s auction and licensing processes.”
Lloyd wrote in Prologue that the “communications marketplace” should change dramatically, with private broadcasters competing against a nationwide, well-financed public broadcasting corporation funded by the sale of the broadcast licenses Genachowski mentioned in his letter.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote. “Federal and regional [public] broadcast operations and local [public] stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded.”
“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters,” wrote Lloyd. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from [private] broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies.”
Lloyd also wrote that the protests of private broadcasters, who might view such policies as a limitation on their First Amendment rights, were simply exaggerations, saying that the First Amendment had been “warped” to serve international corporations.
“[A]ll too often Americans use the First Amendment to end discussions of communications policy,” wrote Lloyd. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of communications policies.”
“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd.
As CNSNews.com has previously reported, Lloyd believes that to combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, a “confrontational movement” must be launched to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055
“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”
To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ...."
"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance."
FCC Won't Allow 'Diversity' Chief Mark Lloyd to Be Interviewed about Public Policy Views
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
By Matt Cover
(CNSNews.com) –The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) won't allow its Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd to be interviewed by the news media about his views and past statements on federal communications policy.
Lloyd, who cites the radical author Saul Alinsky as an inspiration, has argued that public broadcasting outlets in the United States should be funded on a level equal to the funding of private broadcasting companies--with the money coming from licensing fees levied on private broadcasters by the government.
The FCC says it does not allow any commission staffers to be interviewed.
CNSNews.com attempted to interview Lloyd Friday at a public forum held by the FCC. CNSNews.com wanted to ask the FCC diversity chief about policy recommendations he made in his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce and in papers written for the liberal Center for American Progress about changing media ownership rules in the United States, the role of public broadcasting, and the influence of 1960’s radical Saul Alinksy on his views.
FCC Communications Director David Fiske said that like any other federal agency, the FCC does not allow its staff members to be interviewed about themselves or their views, past or present, because it might compromise their ability to make recommendation to policymakers.
“It’s not that staff don’t do interviews, [but] they aren’t personages who do interviews about themselves and their input,” Fiske told CNSNews.com. “The Commission as a whole gets input from dozens of sources. Each commissioner hires their own staff; Chairman [Julius] Genachowski has actually made some comments about [Lloyd].”
Commissioners, Fiske said, were the policymakers at FCC and therefore the proper people to interview about what sources and ideas are influencing the Commission’s decisions.
“They’re the ones responsible for putting together all the pieces of policy and all the inputs, and all of the experiences, and all the hearings and the record, and they’re the persons who are responsible for making decisions and they’re the ones who talk about them,” said Fiske.
Genachowski had explained, in a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the role Lloyd would play at the FCC. Genachowski said that Lloyd’s chief duty was to make sure that a diversity of voices had input on FCC policy.
“With respect to Mr. Lloyd,” Genachowski wrote on Aug. 24, “his responsibilities in the Office of General Counsel track Congress’ directive … that the Agency ‘promote the policies and purposes of the Act favoring a diversity of voices’ and enhance opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace, including in the FCC’s auction and licensing processes.”
Lloyd wrote in Prologue that the “communications marketplace” should change dramatically, with private broadcasters competing against a nationwide, well-financed public broadcasting corporation funded by the sale of the broadcast licenses Genachowski mentioned in his letter.
“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded at a substantial level,” Lloyd wrote. “Federal and regional [public] broadcast operations and local [public] stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded.”
“This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters,” wrote Lloyd. “The FCC should be fully funded with regulatory fees from [private] broadcast, cable, satellite, and telecommunications companies.”
Lloyd also wrote that the protests of private broadcasters, who might view such policies as a limitation on their First Amendment rights, were simply exaggerations, saying that the First Amendment had been “warped” to serve international corporations.
“[A]ll too often Americans use the First Amendment to end discussions of communications policy,” wrote Lloyd. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of communications policies.”
“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd.
As CNSNews.com has previously reported, Lloyd believes that to combat the control of international business and restore government to what he sees as its rightful place in managing public communications, a “confrontational movement” must be launched to protest the present order and organize a political movement that could force government to rein the businesses in. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055
“If our republican form of government is perishing because communications – the infrastructure of that republic – is under the yoke of international business how, at last, do we save it?” he asks. “We must build a confrontational movement to reclaim our democracy, a movement committed to active and sustained protest against the present order.”
To do this, Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.
"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We understood that we were in a struggle for power against an oppenent, the commercial broadcasters ...."
"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we drew inspiration and guidance."
Labels: MR
Molon Labe You Sonsabitches!
Rasmussen Reports:
50% Oppose Stricter Gun Control Laws
Monday, October 05, 2009
Just 39% of Americans now say the United States needs stricter gun control, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the constitutionality of state and local anti-gun laws.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% are opposed to stricter gun control laws, and 11% are not sure.
In March, 43% favored stricter gun control laws. In previous surveys, voters have been narrowly divided on the question.
Men by 23 points oppose stricter gun control laws. Women are evenly divided. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats favor tighter control of guns, but 69% of Republicans and 62% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.
The Supreme Court starts a new term today, and one of the most important cases on its docket looks at whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution takes legal precedence over state and local anti-gun laws. Only 20% of adults believe city governments have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) disagree and say city governments do not have that right. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 72% of unaffiliateds say cities do not have the right to ban handgun ownership.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans continue to believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun. Thirteen percent (13%) do not think gun ownership is a constitutional right. Fifteen percent (15%) aren’t sure.
These findings are roughly comparable to a survey in March.
Yet, despite these findings, a plurality of Americans (46%) says it is too easy to buy a gun in America. Only 13% say it’s too hard to purchase a firearm. One-out of-three adults (33%) say the level of difficulty is about right.
The Supreme Court in June 2008 upheld individual gun ownership when it declared Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns within city limits as unconstitutional. But because Washington is a federal enclave, the court has now taken on a challenge to Chicago’s gun law to determine the constitutionality of anti-gun measures in all states and localities.
Sixty-three percent of voters agreed with the Washington, D.C. decision. The ruling also raised the public’s opinion of the Supreme Court.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say they have followed news reports about the Supreme Court’s decision to review the constitutionality of state and local gun control laws. Twenty-six percent (26%) say they have been following very closely. Eleven percent (11%) are not following the story at all.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
Gun control advocates have argued that the Second Amendment refers to the arming of a militia for the common defense and is not a guarantee of an individual’s right to own a gun. The National Rifle Association and numerous political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, among others, disagree.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say gun sales are up in the United States because of a fear of increased government restriction on gun ownership.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely that President Obama will seek tougher gun control laws, including 43% who say it is very likely.
The gun case will be one of the first major ones new Justice Sonia Sotomayor will tackle as a member of the Supreme Court. The majority of voters (51%) say Sotomayor is a liberal while 29% view her as a moderate.
Thirty-one percent (31%) of voters see the current Supreme Court as too liberal, while 20% say it is too conservative. The plurality (42%) says the political balance is about right. But the court this summer enjoyed its highest performance ratings in over two years.
50% Oppose Stricter Gun Control Laws
Monday, October 05, 2009
Just 39% of Americans now say the United States needs stricter gun control, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the constitutionality of state and local anti-gun laws.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% are opposed to stricter gun control laws, and 11% are not sure.
In March, 43% favored stricter gun control laws. In previous surveys, voters have been narrowly divided on the question.
Men by 23 points oppose stricter gun control laws. Women are evenly divided. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Democrats favor tighter control of guns, but 69% of Republicans and 62% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.
The Supreme Court starts a new term today, and one of the most important cases on its docket looks at whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution takes legal precedence over state and local anti-gun laws. Only 20% of adults believe city governments have the right to prevent citizens from owning handguns.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) disagree and say city governments do not have that right. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 72% of unaffiliateds say cities do not have the right to ban handgun ownership.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans continue to believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun. Thirteen percent (13%) do not think gun ownership is a constitutional right. Fifteen percent (15%) aren’t sure.
These findings are roughly comparable to a survey in March.
Yet, despite these findings, a plurality of Americans (46%) says it is too easy to buy a gun in America. Only 13% say it’s too hard to purchase a firearm. One-out of-three adults (33%) say the level of difficulty is about right.
The Supreme Court in June 2008 upheld individual gun ownership when it declared Washington, D.C.’s law banning handguns within city limits as unconstitutional. But because Washington is a federal enclave, the court has now taken on a challenge to Chicago’s gun law to determine the constitutionality of anti-gun measures in all states and localities.
Sixty-three percent of voters agreed with the Washington, D.C. decision. The ruling also raised the public’s opinion of the Supreme Court.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say they have followed news reports about the Supreme Court’s decision to review the constitutionality of state and local gun control laws. Twenty-six percent (26%) say they have been following very closely. Eleven percent (11%) are not following the story at all.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
Gun control advocates have argued that the Second Amendment refers to the arming of a militia for the common defense and is not a guarantee of an individual’s right to own a gun. The National Rifle Association and numerous political leaders, both Democrat and Republican, among others, disagree.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say gun sales are up in the United States because of a fear of increased government restriction on gun ownership.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely that President Obama will seek tougher gun control laws, including 43% who say it is very likely.
The gun case will be one of the first major ones new Justice Sonia Sotomayor will tackle as a member of the Supreme Court. The majority of voters (51%) say Sotomayor is a liberal while 29% view her as a moderate.
Thirty-one percent (31%) of voters see the current Supreme Court as too liberal, while 20% say it is too conservative. The plurality (42%) says the political balance is about right. But the court this summer enjoyed its highest performance ratings in over two years.
Labels: MR
Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock
Front Page Mag :
Iran’s Great Deception
– by Jacob Laksin
Posted By Jacob Laksin On October 6, 2009 @ 12:13 am
United Nations inspectors aren’t scheduled to visit [1] Iran’s recently revealed uranium enrichment plant in Qom until October 25, but longtime observers already are worried about what they’ll find on arrival: nothing. With nearly a month to go before the inspection date, Iran will have more than enough time to remove all compromising evidence from the nuclear facility – and with it the possibility that it will be held to account for its rogue drive for a nuclear arsenal.
That helps explain why weapons’ and proliferation experts have seen Iran’s “concession” – self-servingly made only after the existence of the illegal enrichment plant had been uncovered – as something less than the significant breakthrough that it has been hailed by the Obama administration. David Albright, a former international weapons inspector, recently told the Los Angeles Times [2] that Iran could well use the coming weeks to conceal its activities in Qom. After all, as Albright pointed out, “if you have a month, you have the time.”
It would not be the first time that the Iranian regime has tried to cover its nuclear tracks in the wake of a prominent disclosure. In August 2003, Iranian opposition groups produced satellite imagery showing the existence of an undeclared nuclear facility in Lavizan Shian, a neighborhood on the outskirts of Tehran. The disclosure prompted an investigation by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But Iran found a useful way to make sure no concrete evidence of nuclear enrichment was ever established: It made the site disappear.
After denying inspectors access to the facility, Iran scrambled to mask the work it had supported. By March of 2004, the Lavizan Shian plant had been razed, the on-site buildings demolished, and the rubble hauled away; even the topsoil was removed and the ground scraped clean. When IAEA inspectors finally arrived, in June of 2004, they saw only the meticulously vacant lot that the regime wanted them to see. (To view the damning “before and after” pictures of the Lavizan Shian site, click here [3].)
The Lavizan Shian deception is just one example of Iran’s nuclear insurance policy in action. A more recent case is the so-called Zirzamin 27 [4] project, whose details remain a mystery, and for much the same reason. According to some accounts, this was the new location of the abandoned Lavizan Shian site. Still other reports suggest that it is a fully functional enrichment facility located underground (Zirzamin is the Farsi word for “basement”). Iran, for its part, has rejected all IAEA prodding for an explanation of the project and its scope.
Nor is it likely that the Qom facility will yield much in the way of valuable intelligence on the state of Iran’s enrichment program. Considering the country’s past history of concealment, it’s difficult to imagine that Iran would allow IAEA inspectors access to an operational pillar of its nuclear program. Indeed, it seems likely that the only reason that Iran even agreed to those inspections is because it has so little to lose: Satellite photos [5] make the existence of the Qom facility impossible to deny, while the month-long grace period should offer Iran the convenience of sanitizing the site for the IAEA’s benefit.
None of that should obscure the fact that the Qom site is illegal – under international law, Iran must report the construction of any new nuclear facility. Meanwhile, the site’s underground construction, only hinted at by a series of tunnel entrances, leaves the clear impression that Iran wished the work underway at Qom to remain a secret. Furthering such suspicions is the fact that there have been visible attempts to cover up the most recent excavations at the Qom site, as documented in satellite photos [6] obtained by the Institute for Science and International Security.
As if Iran’s history of cover-ups were not alarming enough, the Qom disclosure comes at a time when the IAEA, in a still unpublished report [7], has internally concluded that Iran now has “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” using enriched uranium. Of course, since the IAEA’s knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program is woefully incomplete, and since Iran’s obstructionism has prevented a more precise assessment, it’s hard to know the actual state of its progress.
What does seem apparent is that the usual approaches of thwarting Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons have not borne fruit. The UN Security Council has demanded since 2006 that Iran cease all enrichment activity, with little noticeable effect on the regime’s behavior. The fact that UN officials will be sent later this month to inspect an enrichment facility that was not permitted to exist in the first place speaks to the utter farce that the UN-led process has become. Every day that the international community is engaged in the latest round of nuclear hide-and-seek brings Iran closer to its ultimate ambition.
Against this background, President Obama’s assurance that the latest round of inspections constitutes a “constructive beginning” in negotiations with Iran must be seen as an act of historical revision. After years of defying international law in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran is right back were it started. And its nuclear program moves further ahead.
Iran’s Great Deception
– by Jacob Laksin
Posted By Jacob Laksin On October 6, 2009 @ 12:13 am
United Nations inspectors aren’t scheduled to visit [1] Iran’s recently revealed uranium enrichment plant in Qom until October 25, but longtime observers already are worried about what they’ll find on arrival: nothing. With nearly a month to go before the inspection date, Iran will have more than enough time to remove all compromising evidence from the nuclear facility – and with it the possibility that it will be held to account for its rogue drive for a nuclear arsenal.
That helps explain why weapons’ and proliferation experts have seen Iran’s “concession” – self-servingly made only after the existence of the illegal enrichment plant had been uncovered – as something less than the significant breakthrough that it has been hailed by the Obama administration. David Albright, a former international weapons inspector, recently told the Los Angeles Times [2] that Iran could well use the coming weeks to conceal its activities in Qom. After all, as Albright pointed out, “if you have a month, you have the time.”
It would not be the first time that the Iranian regime has tried to cover its nuclear tracks in the wake of a prominent disclosure. In August 2003, Iranian opposition groups produced satellite imagery showing the existence of an undeclared nuclear facility in Lavizan Shian, a neighborhood on the outskirts of Tehran. The disclosure prompted an investigation by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But Iran found a useful way to make sure no concrete evidence of nuclear enrichment was ever established: It made the site disappear.
After denying inspectors access to the facility, Iran scrambled to mask the work it had supported. By March of 2004, the Lavizan Shian plant had been razed, the on-site buildings demolished, and the rubble hauled away; even the topsoil was removed and the ground scraped clean. When IAEA inspectors finally arrived, in June of 2004, they saw only the meticulously vacant lot that the regime wanted them to see. (To view the damning “before and after” pictures of the Lavizan Shian site, click here [3].)
The Lavizan Shian deception is just one example of Iran’s nuclear insurance policy in action. A more recent case is the so-called Zirzamin 27 [4] project, whose details remain a mystery, and for much the same reason. According to some accounts, this was the new location of the abandoned Lavizan Shian site. Still other reports suggest that it is a fully functional enrichment facility located underground (Zirzamin is the Farsi word for “basement”). Iran, for its part, has rejected all IAEA prodding for an explanation of the project and its scope.
Nor is it likely that the Qom facility will yield much in the way of valuable intelligence on the state of Iran’s enrichment program. Considering the country’s past history of concealment, it’s difficult to imagine that Iran would allow IAEA inspectors access to an operational pillar of its nuclear program. Indeed, it seems likely that the only reason that Iran even agreed to those inspections is because it has so little to lose: Satellite photos [5] make the existence of the Qom facility impossible to deny, while the month-long grace period should offer Iran the convenience of sanitizing the site for the IAEA’s benefit.
None of that should obscure the fact that the Qom site is illegal – under international law, Iran must report the construction of any new nuclear facility. Meanwhile, the site’s underground construction, only hinted at by a series of tunnel entrances, leaves the clear impression that Iran wished the work underway at Qom to remain a secret. Furthering such suspicions is the fact that there have been visible attempts to cover up the most recent excavations at the Qom site, as documented in satellite photos [6] obtained by the Institute for Science and International Security.
As if Iran’s history of cover-ups were not alarming enough, the Qom disclosure comes at a time when the IAEA, in a still unpublished report [7], has internally concluded that Iran now has “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” using enriched uranium. Of course, since the IAEA’s knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program is woefully incomplete, and since Iran’s obstructionism has prevented a more precise assessment, it’s hard to know the actual state of its progress.
What does seem apparent is that the usual approaches of thwarting Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons have not borne fruit. The UN Security Council has demanded since 2006 that Iran cease all enrichment activity, with little noticeable effect on the regime’s behavior. The fact that UN officials will be sent later this month to inspect an enrichment facility that was not permitted to exist in the first place speaks to the utter farce that the UN-led process has become. Every day that the international community is engaged in the latest round of nuclear hide-and-seek brings Iran closer to its ultimate ambition.
Against this background, President Obama’s assurance that the latest round of inspections constitutes a “constructive beginning” in negotiations with Iran must be seen as an act of historical revision. After years of defying international law in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran is right back were it started. And its nuclear program moves further ahead.
Labels: MR
Spreading Fear & Panic, American Style
Lady, you come near me or mine with one of those fucking needles and I will defend myself.
600 Americans have died of swine flu so far. That's .0002 %. Some pandemic you got there.
Wash your hands, people. Often. Best defense there is.
And don't kiss anyone wearing a boa. . . (nevermind)
Newsmax:
Sebelius: Americans Must Get Swine Flu Shot
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 7:40 AM
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is urging people to get their swine flu vaccine, calling it "safe and secure."
Sebelius made the rounds of morning network news shows Wednesday to renew a federal appeal for widespread vaccination, saying a quick response is vital because H1N1 already is spreading in some areas.
Asked on NBC's "Today" program about those who are reluctant to get the vaccine, Sebelius said "the adverse effects are minimal." She said production is ahead of schedule and a full supply should be available by the end of the month. Sebelius said, "We will push the vaccine out as quickly as we get it." HHS has identified 90,000 sites across the country to receive the vaccine.
600 Americans have died of swine flu so far. That's .0002 %. Some pandemic you got there.
Wash your hands, people. Often. Best defense there is.
And don't kiss anyone wearing a boa. . . (nevermind)
Newsmax:
Sebelius: Americans Must Get Swine Flu Shot
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 7:40 AM
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is urging people to get their swine flu vaccine, calling it "safe and secure."
Sebelius made the rounds of morning network news shows Wednesday to renew a federal appeal for widespread vaccination, saying a quick response is vital because H1N1 already is spreading in some areas.
Asked on NBC's "Today" program about those who are reluctant to get the vaccine, Sebelius said "the adverse effects are minimal." She said production is ahead of schedule and a full supply should be available by the end of the month. Sebelius said, "We will push the vaccine out as quickly as we get it." HHS has identified 90,000 sites across the country to receive the vaccine.
Labels: MR
This Week on the Gathering Storm Radio Show
Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.
Callers welcome!
Our guests this week will be the I.Q. Rassoli who will discuss Obama and Islam and Ilana Freedman from the Gerard group to discuss the results of their latest conference.
----------
Listen to the August 14, 2009 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.
UPCOMING SHOWS:
October 16: Ask the Imam and Fausta
October 23: IQ al Rassooli and Elisabeth of Austria
October 30: Ask the Imam
I am saying it, OK?
BUMPED TO THE TOP FOR NOW - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWER POSTS
This shit is still true whether your perceived reptilian nemesis is an asshole or not.
His being a dick does not untrue it.
This has been a public service announcement of the Zionist Hobby Center.
Thank you. In case of emergency.... break glass.
This shit is still true whether your perceived reptilian nemesis is an asshole or not. His being a dick does not untrue it.
This has been a public service announcement of the Zionist Hobby Center.
Thank you. In case of emergency.... break glass.
Infidel Babe of the Week
(unless, of course, we get pics of BabbaZee or Always on Watch)
C'mon Carlos, Avenging Apostate, back me up here.
C'mon Carlos, Avenging Apostate, back me up here.
She's hot.
She's smart.
She's hot.
She's All American. The very definition of Infidel.
She's hot.
She's a mom.
She's a grandmom.
Did I mention she's hot?
She's ready to release a book that, by Amazon's own admission, is unprecedented in pre-release sales.
And, best of all, a year after the elections she STILL has The Left and Charles Johnson (but I repeat myself) going batshit trying to discredit her.
Don't you think it's about time she was Babe of the Week?
(besides, she looks better on a bike than you-know-who)
Labels: MR
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Obama versus The First Amendment
In his classic work, The Causes of the English Revolution, Lawrence Stone makes this observation:
In America today we are witnessing a process of internal corruption largely caused by academia's hostility to the nation's founding principles. The rot has never been deeper. President Ozero is the product of both Columbia (Million Mogadishu) University and Harvard Law. It is true that the elite, private school educated Ozero was already a member of the hard left with a huge racial chip on his shoulder when he arrived at college. However, all his university experience did was reinforce his sense of entitlement, his narcissism and his hatred of everything America stands for. Ozero was able fit right in with the lazy, drunk, pot smoking, irresponsible "rebels" of Occidental and Columbia. He had little problem spending four years reading post-colonial crap such as Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. Ozero also spend his undergrad days writing such rubbish as "Breaking the War Mentality" (PDF file). In 1983, at the height of the Cold War, Ozero was calling for America's unilateral disarmament. Now that Ozero is president, he is working with the nation's enemies at the U.N. in order to fulfill that promise.
Ozero has other uses for the U.N. when it comes to undermining American values and the rights of the American people. Under his orders, the United States has joined one of the most loathsome organizations on the planet. The U.S. is now a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) dominated U.N. Human Rights Commission (HRC). This Commission is a complete farce in that it is controlled by the worse human rights abusers on earth. Besides lending legitimacy to this abomination, Ozero is now actively helping them destroy freedom of speech and religion throughout the world.
It has long been the agenda of both the HRC and OIC to implement the part of Sharia Law that forbids infidels from criticizing Islam or actions taken in its name. Family Security Matters writer Leslie Sacks observed in a column from last August commented on this little reported edict from the HRC:
As with other "Progressives," Ozero has given the Islamic world official victim status. Therefore, Moslem complaints against the West are always legitimate. For Ozero, it is the function of the losers (Islam) to make demands upon the successful (the West and America). No matter how outrageous those demands are (such as gutting the First Amendment), America must submit to her moral superiors. What makes the backwards, tyrannical world of Islam superior? The fact that it doesn't have anything of value to offer. As Ayn Rand observed, any social system based on altruism and self-sacrifice will become ruled by its lowest, worst elements. One can witness the truth of this at the U.N.
In this context, notice how the advocates of the U.N.'s censorship resolution emphasis the alleged emotional pain caused by the criticism of Islam. The president of the United States is now in agreement with the barbarians. According to Ozero, American freedom must be sacrificed in order to assuaged the feelings of those who burn churches, persecute Jews, and support the murder of apostates and the flogging misbehaving women.
George Orwell famously defined a liberal as "a power worshipper without power." Ozero now has a great deal of power. But, he still worships those who have more. Hence, his love affair with Hugo Chavez. Hence, his bowing to some Saudi prince. Hence, his hostility to the constitutional government of Honduras in favor of a Marxist wannabe dictator. Ozero completely identifies with tyrants, while having contempt for America's allies such as England and Columbia.
Ozero is also emotionally immature and a coward. He still thinks of himself as a "rebel" sticking it to the Man. Therefore, he just cannot help himself. He continually seeks ways to disgrace the nation he was elected to represent, but nevertheless despises. The latest example of Ozero's anti-American (and anti common decency) foreign policy is his refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama. Since 1991, every president has met with the leader of Tibet. Ozero so identifies with tyrants, so hates freedom, and is so much the coward, that he will disgrace the United States in this manner in order to bow before the Communist thugs of Beijing. Not that that should surprise anyone. Ozero's teachers and professors at Punahou, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard must be very proud of what they have wrought.
Crossposted at The Dougout
Even today, it is by no means certain how long a state can survive, if its educational system is largely in the hands of men who reject the values upon which it is based.Stone continues by quoting Thomas Hobbes on this subject: "The Universities have been to the nation, as the wooden horse to the Trojans." Both of these writers are, of course, referring to the Puritan influence at Oxford, Cambridge and other institutions of learning in early 17th century England. Stone argues that Puritanism was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of the English Civil War of 1642-1649.
In America today we are witnessing a process of internal corruption largely caused by academia's hostility to the nation's founding principles. The rot has never been deeper. President Ozero is the product of both Columbia (Million Mogadishu) University and Harvard Law. It is true that the elite, private school educated Ozero was already a member of the hard left with a huge racial chip on his shoulder when he arrived at college. However, all his university experience did was reinforce his sense of entitlement, his narcissism and his hatred of everything America stands for. Ozero was able fit right in with the lazy, drunk, pot smoking, irresponsible "rebels" of Occidental and Columbia. He had little problem spending four years reading post-colonial crap such as Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth. Ozero also spend his undergrad days writing such rubbish as "Breaking the War Mentality" (PDF file). In 1983, at the height of the Cold War, Ozero was calling for America's unilateral disarmament. Now that Ozero is president, he is working with the nation's enemies at the U.N. in order to fulfill that promise.
Ozero has other uses for the U.N. when it comes to undermining American values and the rights of the American people. Under his orders, the United States has joined one of the most loathsome organizations on the planet. The U.S. is now a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) dominated U.N. Human Rights Commission (HRC). This Commission is a complete farce in that it is controlled by the worse human rights abusers on earth. Besides lending legitimacy to this abomination, Ozero is now actively helping them destroy freedom of speech and religion throughout the world.
It has long been the agenda of both the HRC and OIC to implement the part of Sharia Law that forbids infidels from criticizing Islam or actions taken in its name. Family Security Matters writer Leslie Sacks observed in a column from last August commented on this little reported edict from the HRC:
The Human Rights Council at the United Nations has now banned any criticism regarding Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World. According to President Doru Romulus Costea - and following the efforts of delegates from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran - the Council will no longer tolerate criticism of either Sharia or specific fatwas in the name of human rights.America's new president is now helping to spread this fatwa to the United States. Ozero's hostility to free speech has already been demonstrated by his notorious rat on your neighbor program (flag@whitehouse.gov) via the Whitehouse website. However, Ozero's malice goes well beyond that of a gangster trying to silence opposition. The Ozero administration has co-sponsered a resolution with Egypt. Egypt's contribution to human rights has been their brutal repression of their Christian Coptic minority. If ever enacted, this resolution would mean the end of free speech and freedom of religion (including freedom from religion) in the West. It would mean the end of the West's hard won freedom to subject religious beliefs to rational scrutiny, lest someone's irrational feelings get hurt. Hyperbole on my part? Read Anne Bayefsky article "You Can't Say That" for the irrefutable evidence of the resolution's own wording:
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ."which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."Ozero's jumping into bed with the Islamic enemies of human rights, civilization, and common decency does not stem from him being a secret Moslem. The above wording is carefully crafted to appeal to self-loathing Westerners and Western Third Worldists. Ozero is a TiersMondeist. He completely identifies with the West's and America's alleged Third World victims. This is why he is forever apologizing for America on foreign soil. It explains Ozero's hostility to free trade and "globalization" as "exploitation" of the Third World Wretched. It explains Ozero's desire to make American taxpayers the indentured servants to the world's poor with his Global Poverty Act.
As with other "Progressives," Ozero has given the Islamic world official victim status. Therefore, Moslem complaints against the West are always legitimate. For Ozero, it is the function of the losers (Islam) to make demands upon the successful (the West and America). No matter how outrageous those demands are (such as gutting the First Amendment), America must submit to her moral superiors. What makes the backwards, tyrannical world of Islam superior? The fact that it doesn't have anything of value to offer. As Ayn Rand observed, any social system based on altruism and self-sacrifice will become ruled by its lowest, worst elements. One can witness the truth of this at the U.N.
If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.
In this context, notice how the advocates of the U.N.'s censorship resolution emphasis the alleged emotional pain caused by the criticism of Islam. The president of the United States is now in agreement with the barbarians. According to Ozero, American freedom must be sacrificed in order to assuaged the feelings of those who burn churches, persecute Jews, and support the murder of apostates and the flogging misbehaving women.
George Orwell famously defined a liberal as "a power worshipper without power." Ozero now has a great deal of power. But, he still worships those who have more. Hence, his love affair with Hugo Chavez. Hence, his bowing to some Saudi prince. Hence, his hostility to the constitutional government of Honduras in favor of a Marxist wannabe dictator. Ozero completely identifies with tyrants, while having contempt for America's allies such as England and Columbia.
Ozero is also emotionally immature and a coward. He still thinks of himself as a "rebel" sticking it to the Man. Therefore, he just cannot help himself. He continually seeks ways to disgrace the nation he was elected to represent, but nevertheless despises. The latest example of Ozero's anti-American (and anti common decency) foreign policy is his refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama. Since 1991, every president has met with the leader of Tibet. Ozero so identifies with tyrants, so hates freedom, and is so much the coward, that he will disgrace the United States in this manner in order to bow before the Communist thugs of Beijing. Not that that should surprise anyone. Ozero's teachers and professors at Punahou, Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard must be very proud of what they have wrought.
Crossposted at The Dougout
MORE NEWS OF CANADA’S “JIHAD U”
from The Last Crusade:
80 KILOS OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL MISSING
AL QAEDA HAS NUKES IN U.S.
LEADING PAKISTANI JOURNALIST CONFIRMS REPORTS OF McMASTER UNIVERSITY
by
Michael Travis
In taped interviews, Hamid Mir, the celebrated Pakistani journalist who interviewed Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, speaks of the presence of al Qaeda agents at McMaster University and “over 80 kilograms” of missing nuclear material.
The interviews support Congressional testimony of Janice L. Kephart (counsel to the 9/11 Commission), and the findings of numerous investigators including Dr. Paul L. Williams, an award-winning American journalist, who is being tried in Canada under Canadian law for his reports about McMaster, a university which houses one of the largest research nuclear reactors in the Western hemisphere.
Mr. Mir is widely recognized for his knowledge of the inner workings of al Qaeda and its leading operatives.
On the tapes, he speaks at length of Anas al-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, and of al-Liby’s efforts to recruit “good Muslim students” from universities throughout the U.S., Great Britain, and Canada.
The FBI has listed al-Liby as one of its “Most Wanted” terrorists and has placed a $5 million reward for any information leading to his arrest or capture.
Mr. Mir maintains that al-Liby was given the task by bin Laden to construct tactical nuclear bombs and radiological devices.
Speaking from a conference of America’s Truth Forum in Las Vegas, Mr. Mir says there is “no doubt” that al-Liby succeeded in this task and that dirty bombs and nukes are now in the hands of al Qaeda agents.
In statements that should send shock waves through the U.S. intelligence community, the Pakistani journalist adds that al-Liby was on the campus of McMaster in Hamilton, Ontario between 2000 and 2002. Mr. Mir maintains that “it was not difficult” for al-Liby to steal “eighty kilos” of nuclear material.
Mr. Mir also speaks of Adnan el Shukrijumah, another al Qaeda agent who allegedly spent time at McMaster, as “the man who will lead the next attack inside America.”
According to Mr. Mir, Shukrijumah, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, “stayed with the 9/11 hijackers” and was “a very close friend of Muhammad Atta.
(Mir’s statement regarding Atta and Shukrijumah has been supported by a ABC-News report of Sept. 10, 2009.)
Among those present at the taping of Mr. Mir’s comments were Dr. Hugh Cort, a psychiatrist from Alabama, Laurice Tatum, a licensed private investigator, Dr. Paul Williams, and this reporter.
The Libel Tourist
Labels: MR
More on Iran Trying to Get Nuclear Material from Canada
from Iran Focus h/t Michael Travis:
Iran aiming to get nuclear materials via Canada: customs
Thursday, 01 October 2009
OTTAWA (AFP) — Iran is attempting to acquire clandestine shipments via Canada for its nuclear program, a senior customs official said Thursday.
Canadian customs officers have seized everything from centrifuge parts to programmable logic controllers being shipped to Iran through third countries, George Webb, head of the Canada Border Services Agency's Counter Proliferation Section, told the National Post.
The increasing number of cases involves entrepreneurs and state-sponsored cells, Webb told the daily, in comments that were confirmed to AFP by a spokeswoman for CBSA.
Microchips identified as possible "navigational chips" from the United States, Denmark and Japan were marked as headed for the United Arab Emirates, but officials suspect the end destination was Iran, said the Canadian daily.
"With all of the UN sanctions, of course, now no one declares that the goods are going to Iran. They actually declare UAE, Dubai," he said.
The last seizure occurred just last week.
In April, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police charged a Toronto man with attempting to export pressure transducers, which can be used in nuclear power plants but are also required to produce nuclear weapons, to Iran.
Mahmoud Yadegari is to be tried in January for attempting to ship the items to Iran via Dubai.
In another case, high pressure pipes from Texas were originally suspected of containing Mexican drugs, but turned out to be for nuclear use in Iran.
However, "arrests are rare because the procurement cells are difficult to identify," the newspaper said.
Webb also revealed authorities had recently discovered a new port in the Persian Gulf named Ras al-Khaimah being used to transship goods to Iran.
The port is nominally in the UAE, but is controlled by Iran and is situated just across the Gulf from Bandar Abbas, an Iranian city with a naval base and an airport capable of landing large transport planes, he said.
Iran aiming to get nuclear materials via Canada: customs
Thursday, 01 October 2009
OTTAWA (AFP) — Iran is attempting to acquire clandestine shipments via Canada for its nuclear program, a senior customs official said Thursday.
Canadian customs officers have seized everything from centrifuge parts to programmable logic controllers being shipped to Iran through third countries, George Webb, head of the Canada Border Services Agency's Counter Proliferation Section, told the National Post.
The increasing number of cases involves entrepreneurs and state-sponsored cells, Webb told the daily, in comments that were confirmed to AFP by a spokeswoman for CBSA.
Microchips identified as possible "navigational chips" from the United States, Denmark and Japan were marked as headed for the United Arab Emirates, but officials suspect the end destination was Iran, said the Canadian daily.
"With all of the UN sanctions, of course, now no one declares that the goods are going to Iran. They actually declare UAE, Dubai," he said.
The last seizure occurred just last week.
In April, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police charged a Toronto man with attempting to export pressure transducers, which can be used in nuclear power plants but are also required to produce nuclear weapons, to Iran.
Mahmoud Yadegari is to be tried in January for attempting to ship the items to Iran via Dubai.
In another case, high pressure pipes from Texas were originally suspected of containing Mexican drugs, but turned out to be for nuclear use in Iran.
However, "arrests are rare because the procurement cells are difficult to identify," the newspaper said.
Webb also revealed authorities had recently discovered a new port in the Persian Gulf named Ras al-Khaimah being used to transship goods to Iran.
The port is nominally in the UAE, but is controlled by Iran and is situated just across the Gulf from Bandar Abbas, an Iranian city with a naval base and an airport capable of landing large transport planes, he said.
Labels: MR
What's In A Name?
I recently went through the process of legally changing my name from a very Muslim name to a, well, Western/Christian name. There are many reasons that I changed my name. One of the reasons is that I don’t, in any way, want to be associated with Islam. I don’t know how many of you here know this but my family ‘claims’ to be direct descendants of Mohammed. Now, I think that’s a load of crap seeing that Mohammed didn’t have any sons (he had 3 sons born to him but all of them died in their infancy) but Muslims hold the status of being Mohammed’s descendants in very high regard. Anyway, because of that ‘claim’ my last name was very blatantly Arabic/Persian and very blatantly and unmistakably Muslim—it’s a last name that you are generally born with and are usually proud of. Well, I changed not only my last name but my whole name and made it so Western/Christian (and a little Jewish) that it resulted in a lot of eye-brows raised at the Pakistani consulate.
It was a very long process—the end result being: My name has officially and legally changed without me getting arrested! I don’t know about you but I see that as another victory for this infidel in particular and for all infidels in general. However, this is not the point that I am writing this article for. What I want to stress on is that one’s name is very important. It is seen as your identity. Your name is what people know you by. Without your name, you’re a mere ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ and nothing else. Now that my name’s changed to a Western/Christian one, whenever people meet me, their first reaction won’t be, “oh, you’re an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity?! Attack!!!!” if they are wondering about my religious affiliation. It makes a huge difference.
Along the same lines, I recently read Geert Wilers’ speech in which he said that one of the most common boy names in Europe is “Mohammed”. It’s not surprising that so many boys are named Mohammed in Europe seeing the number of Muslim births and number of Muslims admitted into Europe is sky high. What’s surprising is that Mohammed is not even the most common boy name in the UAE or Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia. Muslims in these countries don’t usually name their children after the murdering bastard known as Mohammed, the prophet of Muslims. The most common names here are Ali or Hassan or Hussein or Ahmed. However, in Europe, by naming their children Mohammed, Muslims are reinforcing a point, “we are Muslims, we are here and there ain’t a thing you can do about it” and it also shows that they are NOT assimilating.
This brings us to a bigger point. When will America and the west realize that they are fighting “Islam” and not “rogue individuals who misunderstand Islam, the religion of peace”? Yes, we have to name the enemy and we have to name it out loud. Islam’s the enemy and Islam is what needs to be eradicated as a political and religious ideology. You can’t snipe one Muslim terrorist and think, “oh, yeah, one less to worry about!” because tomorrow another one’s going to take his place. There is an ideology out there that vows to stop at nothing short of dominating the world and forcing everyone to bow down to it—that ideology goes by the ‘name’ Islam. Unless we name our enemy and put that name on the board with a pin affixed in it to remind ourselves who our enemy is, we won’t win this war. Not only would we not win this war but we are going to lose this war and not even know who we lost it to.
I hope our leaders realize soon that we are at war and willingly fight it. I hope voters realize that this war needs to be fought and that soldiers that give up their lives are giving up those lives willingly (they signed up to be soldiers, to protect their country and its values NOT to be fed chow 3 times a day, sleep, wake up, exercise and do the whole routine every day of the year) and for a bigger purpose…
What scares me the most is that most of the people in the west are going to wake up one day and see an Islamic flag flying over their congress/parliament and then it will be too late to grow a pair!
It was a very long process—the end result being: My name has officially and legally changed without me getting arrested! I don’t know about you but I see that as another victory for this infidel in particular and for all infidels in general. However, this is not the point that I am writing this article for. What I want to stress on is that one’s name is very important. It is seen as your identity. Your name is what people know you by. Without your name, you’re a mere ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ and nothing else. Now that my name’s changed to a Western/Christian one, whenever people meet me, their first reaction won’t be, “oh, you’re an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity?! Attack!!!!” if they are wondering about my religious affiliation. It makes a huge difference.
Along the same lines, I recently read Geert Wilers’ speech in which he said that one of the most common boy names in Europe is “Mohammed”. It’s not surprising that so many boys are named Mohammed in Europe seeing the number of Muslim births and number of Muslims admitted into Europe is sky high. What’s surprising is that Mohammed is not even the most common boy name in the UAE or Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia. Muslims in these countries don’t usually name their children after the murdering bastard known as Mohammed, the prophet of Muslims. The most common names here are Ali or Hassan or Hussein or Ahmed. However, in Europe, by naming their children Mohammed, Muslims are reinforcing a point, “we are Muslims, we are here and there ain’t a thing you can do about it” and it also shows that they are NOT assimilating.
This brings us to a bigger point. When will America and the west realize that they are fighting “Islam” and not “rogue individuals who misunderstand Islam, the religion of peace”? Yes, we have to name the enemy and we have to name it out loud. Islam’s the enemy and Islam is what needs to be eradicated as a political and religious ideology. You can’t snipe one Muslim terrorist and think, “oh, yeah, one less to worry about!” because tomorrow another one’s going to take his place. There is an ideology out there that vows to stop at nothing short of dominating the world and forcing everyone to bow down to it—that ideology goes by the ‘name’ Islam. Unless we name our enemy and put that name on the board with a pin affixed in it to remind ourselves who our enemy is, we won’t win this war. Not only would we not win this war but we are going to lose this war and not even know who we lost it to.
I hope our leaders realize soon that we are at war and willingly fight it. I hope voters realize that this war needs to be fought and that soldiers that give up their lives are giving up those lives willingly (they signed up to be soldiers, to protect their country and its values NOT to be fed chow 3 times a day, sleep, wake up, exercise and do the whole routine every day of the year) and for a bigger purpose…
What scares me the most is that most of the people in the west are going to wake up one day and see an Islamic flag flying over their congress/parliament and then it will be too late to grow a pair!
Labels: Avenging Apostate, Eurabia
Mr. Bloomberg said: “We live in a world where we have to have a balance. We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want.”
Surveillance Will Expand To Midtown, Mayor Says
A network of private and public surveillance cameras, license plate readers and weapons sensors already established in Lower Manhattan as an electronic bulwark against terrorist attacks will soon expand to a large patch of Midtown Manhattan, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Sunday as they announced the allocation of $24 million in Homeland Security grants toward the effort.
Mr. Bloomberg said the expanded monitoring network would cover the areas between 30th and 60th Streets, from the Hudson to the East River.
“We cannot afford to be complacent,” he said, noting that Midtown includes landmarks like Grand Central Terminal, the Empire State Building and the United Nations.
Like the system downtown, the expanded surveillance network would feed streams of data for analysis to a coordination center at 55 Broadway. Mr. Bloomberg, who made the announcement at the center with Mr. Kelly, said work on the Midtown system would begin next year and be completed in 2011.
Behind the mayor, a 40-foot video wall displayed maps, incoming data from a police precinct and more than a dozen video streams, many of them showing tourists taking photographs on a sunny day.
The plan devised to protect downtown Manhattan, known as the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, was introduced by Mr. Kelly in 2005. That raised concern among civil liberties groups, which have called for more public discussion as the police peer, with greater intensity, at more corners of the city.
Asked Sunday about criticism of the increased surveillance, Mr. Bloomberg said: “We live in a world where we have to have a balance. We can’t just say everybody can go everyplace and do anything they want.”
He added, “Do you really want to work in a building that doesn’t have security?”
"Who knew being disgusted with Roman Polanski would turn out to be the ever-elusive common ground between rightwing dudes and liberal feminists?"
A great article on how the Roman Polanski backlash has exposed Hollywood for the moral cesspool that it is, and caused members of the Left and Right to join forces on an issue for once.
It's a bit long, but well worth the read, so I'm just going to give you the link.
Shock from the left of center ..RICHARD COHEN nails Obama
It rings for thee:
Obama Doesn't Seem Ready to Lead
Barack Obama's trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.
This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.
This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama
No shit Sherlock
Welcome back to the world as it really is
Oh Fer Chrissake, Wolf, That's Always Been The Whole POINT of SNL
"It seems no politician is safe from Saturday Night Live, while many people think SNL has mostly spared President Obama, what they're doing now is not necessarily all that kind. They essentially cast the leader of the free world as a do nothing President. . ."
You're fucking kidding me, right? Now that it's THAT ONE in office instead of Bush, NOW you're questioning what SNL is doing? Now you're fact checking Saturday Night Live?
h/t Hot Air
PASTORIUS CUTTING IN:
And, let's be clear, the media is now LITERALLY FACT-CHECKING SNL.
You're fucking kidding me, right? Now that it's THAT ONE in office instead of Bush, NOW you're questioning what SNL is doing? Now you're fact checking Saturday Night Live?
h/t Hot Air
PASTORIUS CUTTING IN:
And, let's be clear, the media is now LITERALLY FACT-CHECKING SNL.
Labels: MR
Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders
Newsmax:
Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders
Monday, October 5, 2009 7:42 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sources tell Newsmax the Obama administration is muzzling its top military leaders, and keeping them from publicly airing their views on how to fight the war in Afghanistan.
The administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caught administration officials off guard.
In fact, The Daily Telegraph reported that Obama's advisers were "shocked and angered" by McChrystal's speech.
"This is a food fight in the war room, and it's getting ugly," observed Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent and Manhattan Institute scholar Judith Miller, regarding the sharply contrasting views being aired within the administration over how to fight the war.
Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer -- Click Here Now.
In his speech, McChrystal defended his request for 40,000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy."
Without mentioning Vice President Joe Biden by name, McChrystal said the vice president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."
Shortly after those remarks, McChrystal was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with President Obama aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, where Obama was making his ill-fated attempt to support Chicago's bid to host the 2016 summer Olympic games. Obama's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, described their discussion as an exchange of "very direct views."
On Monday, in an obvious reference to McChrystal, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army that "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”
That statement appeared to echo remarks on Sunday from Jones, a retired Marine general. He told CNN, "Ideally, it's best for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
The none-too-subtle message to America's top military leaders: Don't share your candid views on the war in public. It appears McChrystal received the message loud and clear. According to The Washington Independent, McChrystal spokesperson and Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis stated: “General McChrystal concurs with the secretary and shares his perspective that the president’s military and civilian policy advisers need to provide candid but private advice.”
Sholtis also said that McChrystal has no current plans for additional public appearances, The Washington Independent reported.
McChrystal became the top U.S. general in Afghanistan after Gates fired Gen. David D. McKiernan in May. McKiernan, who was criticized in some circles as insufficiently innovative, presided over a troop-strength increase of 21,000 soldiers. He had filed a request with the Pentagon for 10,000 more at the time he was replaced.
At the time, Gates ordered McChrystal to provide "fresh thinking" and "fresh eyes" on Afghanistan. But apparently it was McChrystal's fresh tongue that got him in trouble.
The New York Times reported Monday that Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was widely credited with carrying out the successful surge in Iraq, has already toned down his remarks since Obama attained the presidency.
"General Petraeus's aides now privately call him 'David the Dull,'" the Times reports, "and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general's ambitions in particular."
The concern among some experts is that President Obama's effort to tone down his military leaders may indicate he wants to triangulate a more politically palatable approach to fighting the war that may fall short of being militarily decisive.
"The president won't get honest opinions from his military advisers," warns Dr. James Jay Carafano, a former Army lieutenant colonel who serves as a leading Heritage Foundation expert on defense and homeland security. "He has to trust people who work for him. And when you've muzzled the people who work for you, you can't turn around and trust them to give you honest, candid guidance."
Carafano sharply criticized what he sees as Obama's "committee" approach to Afghanistan.
"This is not how wars get fought," Carafano tells Newsmax. "You don't fight wars by committee. Because now he's turned this into a political debate, and you're going to end up with a sub-optimal outcome."
Carafano says Obama appears to be "replaying all the worst decision making of McNamara and Johnson in Vietnam."
"This is the classic prescription for failure," Carafano says of the administration's indecisive approach. "And the military guy is sort of caught in the middle, because when the president doesn't want to fight the war the right way, you have three options: You can salute and drive on, or you can resign, or you can stay but play politics and leak things. None of those are good outcomes; none of them are the way to win a war."
Carafano says: "I think this is a case where the generals are dead right and the politicians are dead wrong. And we're going to choose a strategy based on what's politically convenient."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., issued the following statement to Newsmax on Monday evening: “As we near the 8th anniversary of sustained combat in Afghanistan, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to victory there. At a time when record numbers of American and allied troops are losing their lives during combat in Afghanistan, we should give the utmost priority to listening to our commanders on the ground. We owe it to the troops who have already lost their lives to provide our forces with the adequate number of troops to accomplish the mission that they set out to do.
“After the release of General McChrystal’s assessment, some Obama administration officials have gone so far as to minimize the value of the Commanding General’s assessment.
"Instead, President Obama should be predominantly relying on the advice of his two senior commanders for the region, General Petraeus and General McChrystal."
Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen have voiced support for deploying additional troops, but Petraeus has stopped short of endorsing McChrystal's specific report. As Gen. Jones' comments indicate, the military is far from united over how best to prosecute the war, however.
Inhofe also stated Monday: "Politics, indecision, or ambivalence have no place in this process when we are clearly at a crucial stage of the war. Time and decisiveness are critical. As many have said, time may not be on our side in Afghanistan. With the winter approaching and the time to allocate additional forces dwindling, it is imperative that we enable our military leaders and the troops on the ground with all the resources and tools they require to make inroads against the insurgency.
"While I agree that the Afghan Security Forces (ASF) also need to be dramatically increased to adequately protect the Afghan people and fight the Taliban, those efforts should happen in conjunction with an allied troop increase, not in place of such an increase. ‘Wait and see’ is not a war strategy and certainly not an approach that our military commanders are recommending,” he stated.
While Miller believes McChrystal's statements about Biden's ideas went too far, she says she understands the frustration of some military leaders with an extended policy review that, in some ways, actually began even before Obama assumed office. She says Obama's policy reversals on a host of issues – military tribunals, CIA torture investigations, and support for a shield law to protect reporters' sources are but three examples – have left onlookers both at home and abroad wary of the direction Obama's new Afghan strategy may take.
"It's been a series of flip-flops, and they have people very nervous," she says.
Obama also finds himself under serious pressure from the left wing of his party. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed legislation that would halt sending any additional troops to Afghanistan. Lee enlisted 21 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as co-sponsors.
Obama Moves to Muzzle Top Military Commanders
Monday, October 5, 2009 7:42 PM
By: David A. Patten
Sources tell Newsmax the Obama administration is muzzling its top military leaders, and keeping them from publicly airing their views on how to fight the war in Afghanistan.
The administration's primary target: top Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whose speech in London last week apparently caught administration officials off guard.
In fact, The Daily Telegraph reported that Obama's advisers were "shocked and angered" by McChrystal's speech.
"This is a food fight in the war room, and it's getting ugly," observed Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent and Manhattan Institute scholar Judith Miller, regarding the sharply contrasting views being aired within the administration over how to fight the war.
Special: Get Sarah Palin’s New Book – Incredible FREE Offer -- Click Here Now.
In his speech, McChrystal defended his request for 40,000 more soldiers to wage a counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan, warning "a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy."
Without mentioning Vice President Joe Biden by name, McChrystal said the vice president's proposal to scale back the objectives for the war would lead to "chaos-istan."
Shortly after those remarks, McChrystal was summoned to a face-to-face meeting with President Obama aboard Air Force One in Copenhagen, where Obama was making his ill-fated attempt to support Chicago's bid to host the 2016 summer Olympic games. Obama's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, described their discussion as an exchange of "very direct views."
On Monday, in an obvious reference to McChrystal, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Association of the U.S. Army that "It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilian and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”
That statement appeared to echo remarks on Sunday from Jones, a retired Marine general. He told CNN, "Ideally, it's best for military advice to come up through the chain of command."
The none-too-subtle message to America's top military leaders: Don't share your candid views on the war in public. It appears McChrystal received the message loud and clear. According to The Washington Independent, McChrystal spokesperson and Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis stated: “General McChrystal concurs with the secretary and shares his perspective that the president’s military and civilian policy advisers need to provide candid but private advice.”
Sholtis also said that McChrystal has no current plans for additional public appearances, The Washington Independent reported.
McChrystal became the top U.S. general in Afghanistan after Gates fired Gen. David D. McKiernan in May. McKiernan, who was criticized in some circles as insufficiently innovative, presided over a troop-strength increase of 21,000 soldiers. He had filed a request with the Pentagon for 10,000 more at the time he was replaced.
At the time, Gates ordered McChrystal to provide "fresh thinking" and "fresh eyes" on Afghanistan. But apparently it was McChrystal's fresh tongue that got him in trouble.
The New York Times reported Monday that Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was widely credited with carrying out the successful surge in Iraq, has already toned down his remarks since Obama attained the presidency.
"General Petraeus's aides now privately call him 'David the Dull,'" the Times reports, "and say he has largely muzzled himself from the fierce public debate about the war to avoid antagonizing the White House, which does not want pressure from military superstars and is wary of the general's ambitions in particular."
The concern among some experts is that President Obama's effort to tone down his military leaders may indicate he wants to triangulate a more politically palatable approach to fighting the war that may fall short of being militarily decisive.
"The president won't get honest opinions from his military advisers," warns Dr. James Jay Carafano, a former Army lieutenant colonel who serves as a leading Heritage Foundation expert on defense and homeland security. "He has to trust people who work for him. And when you've muzzled the people who work for you, you can't turn around and trust them to give you honest, candid guidance."
Carafano sharply criticized what he sees as Obama's "committee" approach to Afghanistan.
"This is not how wars get fought," Carafano tells Newsmax. "You don't fight wars by committee. Because now he's turned this into a political debate, and you're going to end up with a sub-optimal outcome."
Carafano says Obama appears to be "replaying all the worst decision making of McNamara and Johnson in Vietnam."
"This is the classic prescription for failure," Carafano says of the administration's indecisive approach. "And the military guy is sort of caught in the middle, because when the president doesn't want to fight the war the right way, you have three options: You can salute and drive on, or you can resign, or you can stay but play politics and leak things. None of those are good outcomes; none of them are the way to win a war."
Carafano says: "I think this is a case where the generals are dead right and the politicians are dead wrong. And we're going to choose a strategy based on what's politically convenient."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., issued the following statement to Newsmax on Monday evening: “As we near the 8th anniversary of sustained combat in Afghanistan, it is important to reaffirm our commitment to victory there. At a time when record numbers of American and allied troops are losing their lives during combat in Afghanistan, we should give the utmost priority to listening to our commanders on the ground. We owe it to the troops who have already lost their lives to provide our forces with the adequate number of troops to accomplish the mission that they set out to do.
“After the release of General McChrystal’s assessment, some Obama administration officials have gone so far as to minimize the value of the Commanding General’s assessment.
"Instead, President Obama should be predominantly relying on the advice of his two senior commanders for the region, General Petraeus and General McChrystal."
Petraeus and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen have voiced support for deploying additional troops, but Petraeus has stopped short of endorsing McChrystal's specific report. As Gen. Jones' comments indicate, the military is far from united over how best to prosecute the war, however.
Inhofe also stated Monday: "Politics, indecision, or ambivalence have no place in this process when we are clearly at a crucial stage of the war. Time and decisiveness are critical. As many have said, time may not be on our side in Afghanistan. With the winter approaching and the time to allocate additional forces dwindling, it is imperative that we enable our military leaders and the troops on the ground with all the resources and tools they require to make inroads against the insurgency.
"While I agree that the Afghan Security Forces (ASF) also need to be dramatically increased to adequately protect the Afghan people and fight the Taliban, those efforts should happen in conjunction with an allied troop increase, not in place of such an increase. ‘Wait and see’ is not a war strategy and certainly not an approach that our military commanders are recommending,” he stated.
While Miller believes McChrystal's statements about Biden's ideas went too far, she says she understands the frustration of some military leaders with an extended policy review that, in some ways, actually began even before Obama assumed office. She says Obama's policy reversals on a host of issues – military tribunals, CIA torture investigations, and support for a shield law to protect reporters' sources are but three examples – have left onlookers both at home and abroad wary of the direction Obama's new Afghan strategy may take.
"It's been a series of flip-flops, and they have people very nervous," she says.
Obama also finds himself under serious pressure from the left wing of his party. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., has proposed legislation that would halt sending any additional troops to Afghanistan. Lee enlisted 21 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus as co-sponsors.
Labels: MR
NYC Suspect Contacted Senior Al-Qaida
Newsmax:
NYC Suspect Contacted Senior Al-Qaida
Monday, October 5, 2009 9:55 PM
WASHINGTON -- An Afghan immigrant accused of plotting a terrorist attack in New York after receiving training in Pakistan was in contact with a senior al-Qaida operative, intelligence officials familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press.
The CIA learned about Najibullah Zazi through one of its sources and alerted domestic agencies, including the FBI, intelligence officials said.
U.S. intelligence organizations first became aware of Zazi in late August, a senior administration official said. Interest in Zazi surfaced just weeks before prosecutors claim he was planning to strike on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The intelligence and administration officials declined to offer more details on the operative and spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
The fact that intelligence officials learned of Zazi through a CIA source sheds more light on the government's claim that the charges against him are part of a broader, international case and begins to explain why the investigation triggered such a large offensive from the nation's intelligence community.
It also shows the case stems from the CIA's counterterrorism efforts to track al-Qaida and not an investigation initiated in this country by someone's suspicious actions, like most other domestic terrorism cases handled by the FBI.
President Barack Obama began receiving briefings on the investigation in late August, updated at least daily and sometimes several times a day as intelligence officials were crafting their case against Zazi, senior administration officials said.
Zazi initially was characterized to Obama as a person of interest because of suspected involvement in terrorist activities, the officials said. Obama's primary interest in those briefings was to ensure an attack was prevented and all involved in the plot were identified, the officials said.
The CIA declined to comment Monday, spokesman George Little said.
Federal agents began watching Zazi in Denver in early September. He drove a rental car to New York on Sept. 9, but left the city to return to Denver on Sept. 12 after learning that investigators were looking for him, prosecutors said. FBI agents raided three apartments in Queens two days after Zazi left the New York area.
Zazi and his lawyer agreed to meet with investigators at FBI offices in Denver on Sept. 16. And after three days of meetings, Zazi was arrested and charged with lying to federal agents.
Speaking Monday in Colorado at a conference of police chiefs, Attorney General Eric Holder said the plot had the potential to kill scores of people.
Zazi, 24, is the only suspect publicly identified in the terror plot. More arrests are expected. Prosecutors have said three others in New York City worked with Zazi, although they do not currently pose a threat.
Calls to Zazi's lawyer were not returned Monday.
Zazi was initially arrested on charges that he lied to federal investigators. He remains held without bond and has pleaded not guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. The charges related to his statements to investigators later were dropped.
Zazi's father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, and a Queens, N.Y., imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, face charges of lying to investigators last month when first questioned about Zazi.
Prosecutors said Zazi received explosives training at an al-Qaida training camp. They have accused him of planning an attack in New York, perhaps on the city's subway system around the anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, using powerful homemade bombs of hydrogen peroxide and flour. Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid attempted to use the same type of explosive in 2001 and the material was used by the terrorists in the London bombings in 2005 that killed 52 people.
Zazi received was recruited and trained by al-Qaida to make the bombs from common supplies purchased at beauty supply stores, intelligence officials said, although they declined to say when that occurred. Zazi's contact with the senior al-Qaida operative occurred through an intermediary, one official said.
Zazi, who moved to the U.S. with his family as a teenager, has denied any involvement in a terror plot. He has said his travels to Pakistan, which began in 2006, were to visit family, including his wife, whom he married on that first trip.
The case against Zazi involves classified information as well as evidence the FBI collected in searches of Zazi's computer that discussed bomb making.
Prosecutors submitted court documents saying they intend to use electronic information the FBI obtained through the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
NYC Suspect Contacted Senior Al-Qaida
Monday, October 5, 2009 9:55 PM
WASHINGTON -- An Afghan immigrant accused of plotting a terrorist attack in New York after receiving training in Pakistan was in contact with a senior al-Qaida operative, intelligence officials familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press.
The CIA learned about Najibullah Zazi through one of its sources and alerted domestic agencies, including the FBI, intelligence officials said.
U.S. intelligence organizations first became aware of Zazi in late August, a senior administration official said. Interest in Zazi surfaced just weeks before prosecutors claim he was planning to strike on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The intelligence and administration officials declined to offer more details on the operative and spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
The fact that intelligence officials learned of Zazi through a CIA source sheds more light on the government's claim that the charges against him are part of a broader, international case and begins to explain why the investigation triggered such a large offensive from the nation's intelligence community.
It also shows the case stems from the CIA's counterterrorism efforts to track al-Qaida and not an investigation initiated in this country by someone's suspicious actions, like most other domestic terrorism cases handled by the FBI.
President Barack Obama began receiving briefings on the investigation in late August, updated at least daily and sometimes several times a day as intelligence officials were crafting their case against Zazi, senior administration officials said.
Zazi initially was characterized to Obama as a person of interest because of suspected involvement in terrorist activities, the officials said. Obama's primary interest in those briefings was to ensure an attack was prevented and all involved in the plot were identified, the officials said.
The CIA declined to comment Monday, spokesman George Little said.
Federal agents began watching Zazi in Denver in early September. He drove a rental car to New York on Sept. 9, but left the city to return to Denver on Sept. 12 after learning that investigators were looking for him, prosecutors said. FBI agents raided three apartments in Queens two days after Zazi left the New York area.
Zazi and his lawyer agreed to meet with investigators at FBI offices in Denver on Sept. 16. And after three days of meetings, Zazi was arrested and charged with lying to federal agents.
Speaking Monday in Colorado at a conference of police chiefs, Attorney General Eric Holder said the plot had the potential to kill scores of people.
Zazi, 24, is the only suspect publicly identified in the terror plot. More arrests are expected. Prosecutors have said three others in New York City worked with Zazi, although they do not currently pose a threat.
Calls to Zazi's lawyer were not returned Monday.
Zazi was initially arrested on charges that he lied to federal investigators. He remains held without bond and has pleaded not guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. The charges related to his statements to investigators later were dropped.
Zazi's father, Mohammed Wali Zazi, and a Queens, N.Y., imam, Ahmad Wais Afzali, face charges of lying to investigators last month when first questioned about Zazi.
Prosecutors said Zazi received explosives training at an al-Qaida training camp. They have accused him of planning an attack in New York, perhaps on the city's subway system around the anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, using powerful homemade bombs of hydrogen peroxide and flour. Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid attempted to use the same type of explosive in 2001 and the material was used by the terrorists in the London bombings in 2005 that killed 52 people.
Zazi received was recruited and trained by al-Qaida to make the bombs from common supplies purchased at beauty supply stores, intelligence officials said, although they declined to say when that occurred. Zazi's contact with the senior al-Qaida operative occurred through an intermediary, one official said.
Zazi, who moved to the U.S. with his family as a teenager, has denied any involvement in a terror plot. He has said his travels to Pakistan, which began in 2006, were to visit family, including his wife, whom he married on that first trip.
The case against Zazi involves classified information as well as evidence the FBI collected in searches of Zazi's computer that discussed bomb making.
Prosecutors submitted court documents saying they intend to use electronic information the FBI obtained through the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Labels: MR
Ain't That America
How do we all get along? This is how.
I love Angelah Johnson. Awesome comedy.
Did We Elect A Beta Male As President?
From American Thinker:
Read the whole thing.
We're all somewhat familiar with the body language dogs display when they greet each other. The dominant alpha male approaches directly, asserting his authority, while the beta male genuflects, crouches, tucks his tail, and may even end up on his back, exposing his neck in acquiescence, making sure the alpha male knows he has no intention of challenging him. With his "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" opening to the world's dictators, the President is exhibiting classic beta male behavior, in essence rolling over on his back and exposing his throat to them to make sure they know he has no intention of challenging their authority.Of course, the problem is that he's not simply exposing his throat, he's exposing America's collective throat, sending the message that he's a typical beta male intent on submitting to all the alpha male leaders around the world, and damn the consequences. His response to the discovery of Iran's newest, and heretofore "secret," nuclear facility was, as Daniel Henninger (Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2009) points out, to have our State Department offer to start a direct dialogue with the tyrannical Burmese regime.The Obama administration has also offered conciliatory gestures to the genocidal Sudanese leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir, and it has dispatched none other than John Kerry to meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. This, of course, is not to mention his somewhat more visible overtures to the world's alpha male thugs: Obama has consorted jovially with Hugo Chavez and his counterpart Daniel Ortega, he's bowed down to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, he's agreed to halt plans to install a missile defense system in eastern Europe to placate Vladimir Putin, and he's offered the aforementioned hand to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite the latter's expressed unwillingness to even agree to acknowledge the truly important issue of Iran's nuclear weapons in our talks, all quintessential beta male behaviors.
Read the whole thing.
Another Insane, Degenerate Barack Obama Nominee
From Gateway Pundit:
Stunner... Obama's Latest Nominee Is Complete Nutjob -- Praised Polygamy
Gee, what a shocker. Obama nominated another complete nutbag for a high level government position.
Barack Obama's latest nominee for The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed a petition that praised polygamy.
World Net Daily reported:President Obama's nominee to become commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed a manifesto praising polygamy and arguing traditional marriage should not be privileged above other forms of union.Feldblum is one of the many rightwing haters who signed this nutty manifesto:
Chai Feldblum, an outspoken homosexual rights activist and Georgetown University law professor, is a signatory to an online petition entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships."
The organization defines itself as "a diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists [who] came together to discuss marriage and family politics as they exist in the United States today."
The manifesto, first noticed by the Catholic News Agency, calls for a "new vision" for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of "diverse kinds of partnerships."
Among the stated "partnerships" the petition seeks to protect is "households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."
The petition laments what it claims are conservative attempts to push for "abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom."
More... Chai is also a radical pro-abortion ACLU lawyer.
The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World
All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
.
[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]
Infidel Babe Of The Week
IBA Quote of the Week.
It's not a stupid building I'm a Muslim and days ofenssive how da f cn u put s pic of pig pooping the Kaaba I curse you whoever done it --- Anonymous Muslim poster, commenting on IBA's "Mohammed Craps a Ka'aba"
Sharia is Sedition
The Infidel Bloggers Alliance Radio Show
Gathering Storm Report Radio Show
"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."
****************
"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."
~~~~~Bono~~~~~
"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."
~~~~~Bono~~~~~
****************
IMPORTANT VIDEOS
An Infidel MessageTo Moderate Muslims
OBSESSION
UNDERCOVER MOSQUE
GERT WILDER'S
FITNA
****************
Original Artwork By Bosch Fawstin
Defenders of Freedom
Contributors
The Blasphemous Book of Queen Kafirtiti
The Other News
- Hodja and Democracy Frontline - Denmark
- The Avenging Apostate - UAE
- Pedestrian Infidel - The Anti-Jihadist - Malaysia
- Tel-Chai Nation - Israel
- Yasmin - UK/Somalia
- Laura Mansfield
- Klein Verzet - Netherlands
- The Anti-Jihad Pundit - Spain
- Liberty And Culture - U.S.
- Isaac Schrodinger - Pakistan
- Die Realitaet - Switzerland
- The Astute Blogger - U.S.
- The Dougout - Hawaii
- Elder of Ziyon - U.S.
- The Gathering Storm - U.S.
- Tea and Politics - Spain
- Watcher - U.S.
- Tasty Indelicacies - USA
- VOICES OF FREEDOM - USA
- Kevin - USA
- Rolf Krake
Books By Our Writers
CULTURISM
by John Kenneth Press
Other Books
The Martyr's Prize: A Tale of American Exceptionalism and Ruthlessness in the Age of Religiously Inspired Terrorism ~ Brooks William Kelley ~
Allies
- Global Incident Map
- New English Review
- Joshua Pundit
- Isaac Schrodinger
- Northern Virginiastan
- Redneck's Revenge
- The Truth Project
- Observatorio da Jihad - Portugal
- Saber Point
- The Truth About Islam
- Insitute for the Secularization of Islamic Society
- Islamic Evil
- USS Neverdock
- Power and Control
- Het Vrije Volk
- A New Dark Age Is Dawning
- The Other News
- Islam Review
- Yid With Lid
- Westminster Journal
- Exposing The Hadith
- THE DHIVEHISTAN REPORT
- Andrew Bostom's Blog
- The Religion of Peace
- Commentary Blog
- In The Name Of Allah
- Truth - Freedom - Tradition
- Discarded Lies
- Trencherbone
- Political Islam
- Pat Dollard
- Vlad Tepes Blog
- Barrack Now
- Islam On This Day
- Ace of Spades
- Jihad Watch
- Western Hero
- Smoke-Filled Backroom
- Director Blue
- The Anti-Islamist Coalition Aggregator
- The Religion of Peace Subject Index
- Infidel Task Force
- Answering Muslims
- Logan's Warning
- Planck's Constant
- Ironic Surrealism
- Michelle Malkin
- Big Hollywood
- Big Government
- Jawa Report
- Islamization Watch
- Dearborn Underground
- The After Party
Important IBA Articles
- "20 Things You Should Know About Islam" by Religion of Pieces
- "Why The Christian Church Must Take On The Battle For Western Civilization" by Pastorius
- "Message to Peacful Muslims" by Citizen Warrior
- "The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex" by Citizen Warrior
- "What Educated Non-Muslims Don't Like About Islam in a Nutshell" by Citizen Warrior
- "What Is Ramadan?" by Always On Watch
- "The Other Other Bad Guy" by Epaminondas
- "300 Spartans Vs. 10,000 Academics" by Grant Jones
- "Why sharia Law Is An Evil Abomination" by Larry Houle
- "All The Things Islam Would Have Us Leave Behind" by Always on Watch
- Islam: The Enemy of Democracy and Freedom
- Islam: The Mother of All Darkness
- Monday, December 06, 2010 Game Over, Pew Poll Reveals Majority of Muslims Are Anything But "Moderate"
Misc Links
- 20 Things You Should Know About Islam
- The Truth About Islam
- The Koran (In English)
- The Hadith
- Apostates of Islam
- Middle East Info
Previous
- Filed under, ‘do you really think they even notice...
- Sue FoleyHooked On Love
- The Grand Jihad, a new book by Andrew McCarthy
- Vocals -- Robert Palmer
- As The Arab Spring Rolls On. . .
- Video: The Grand Jihad
- Moments later the snow rabbit appeared severely in...
- IRAN WARNS WORLD OF COMING GREAT EVENT .. MAHDI as...
- Fox News, Muslim victim's family front for honor m...
- The Forgotten Man story here
Archives
- 07/08/05 - 14/08/05
- 20/11/05 - 27/11/05
- 27/11/05 - 04/12/05
- 04/12/05 - 11/12/05
- 11/12/05 - 18/12/05
- 18/12/05 - 25/12/05
- 25/12/05 - 01/01/06
- 01/01/06 - 08/01/06
- 08/01/06 - 15/01/06
- 15/01/06 - 22/01/06
- 22/01/06 - 29/01/06
- 29/01/06 - 05/02/06
- 05/02/06 - 12/02/06
- 12/02/06 - 19/02/06
- 19/02/06 - 26/02/06
- 26/02/06 - 05/03/06
- 05/03/06 - 12/03/06
- 12/03/06 - 19/03/06
- 19/03/06 - 26/03/06
- 26/03/06 - 02/04/06
- 02/04/06 - 09/04/06
- 09/04/06 - 16/04/06
- 16/04/06 - 23/04/06
- 23/04/06 - 30/04/06
- 30/04/06 - 07/05/06
- 07/05/06 - 14/05/06
- 14/05/06 - 21/05/06
- 21/05/06 - 28/05/06
- 28/05/06 - 04/06/06
- 04/06/06 - 11/06/06
- 11/06/06 - 18/06/06
- 18/06/06 - 25/06/06
- 25/06/06 - 02/07/06
- 02/07/06 - 09/07/06
- 09/07/06 - 16/07/06
- 16/07/06 - 23/07/06
- 23/07/06 - 30/07/06
- 30/07/06 - 06/08/06
- 06/08/06 - 13/08/06
- 13/08/06 - 20/08/06
- 20/08/06 - 27/08/06
- 27/08/06 - 03/09/06
- 03/09/06 - 10/09/06
- 10/09/06 - 17/09/06
- 17/09/06 - 24/09/06
- 24/09/06 - 01/10/06
- 01/10/06 - 08/10/06
- 08/10/06 - 15/10/06
- 15/10/06 - 22/10/06
- 22/10/06 - 29/10/06
- 29/10/06 - 05/11/06
- 05/11/06 - 12/11/06
- 12/11/06 - 19/11/06
- 19/11/06 - 26/11/06
- 26/11/06 - 03/12/06
- 03/12/06 - 10/12/06
- 10/12/06 - 17/12/06
- 17/12/06 - 24/12/06
- 24/12/06 - 31/12/06
- 31/12/06 - 07/01/07
- 07/01/07 - 14/01/07
- 14/01/07 - 21/01/07
- 21/01/07 - 28/01/07
- 28/01/07 - 04/02/07
- 04/02/07 - 11/02/07
- 11/02/07 - 18/02/07
- 18/02/07 - 25/02/07
- 25/02/07 - 04/03/07
- 25/03/07 - 01/04/07
- 01/04/07 - 08/04/07
- 08/04/07 - 15/04/07
- 15/04/07 - 22/04/07
- 22/04/07 - 29/04/07
- 29/04/07 - 06/05/07
- 06/05/07 - 13/05/07
- 13/05/07 - 20/05/07
- 20/05/07 - 27/05/07
- 27/05/07 - 03/06/07
- 03/06/07 - 10/06/07
- 10/06/07 - 17/06/07
- 17/06/07 - 24/06/07
- 24/06/07 - 01/07/07
- 01/07/07 - 08/07/07
- 08/07/07 - 15/07/07
- 15/07/07 - 22/07/07
- 22/07/07 - 29/07/07
- 29/07/07 - 05/08/07
- 05/08/07 - 12/08/07
- 12/08/07 - 19/08/07
- 19/08/07 - 26/08/07
- 26/08/07 - 02/09/07
- 02/09/07 - 09/09/07
- 09/09/07 - 16/09/07
- 16/09/07 - 23/09/07
- 23/09/07 - 30/09/07
- 30/09/07 - 07/10/07
- 07/10/07 - 14/10/07
- 14/10/07 - 21/10/07
- 21/10/07 - 28/10/07
- 28/10/07 - 04/11/07
- 04/11/07 - 11/11/07
- 11/11/07 - 18/11/07
- 18/11/07 - 25/11/07
- 25/11/07 - 02/12/07
- 02/12/07 - 09/12/07
- 09/12/07 - 16/12/07
- 16/12/07 - 23/12/07
- 23/12/07 - 30/12/07
- 30/12/07 - 06/01/08
- 06/01/08 - 13/01/08
- 13/01/08 - 20/01/08
- 20/01/08 - 27/01/08
- 27/01/08 - 03/02/08
- 03/02/08 - 10/02/08
- 10/02/08 - 17/02/08
- 17/02/08 - 24/02/08
- 24/02/08 - 02/03/08
- 02/03/08 - 09/03/08
- 09/03/08 - 16/03/08
- 16/03/08 - 23/03/08
- 23/03/08 - 30/03/08
- 30/03/08 - 06/04/08
- 06/04/08 - 13/04/08
- 13/04/08 - 20/04/08
- 20/04/08 - 27/04/08
- 27/04/08 - 04/05/08
- 04/05/08 - 11/05/08
- 11/05/08 - 18/05/08
- 18/05/08 - 25/05/08
- 25/05/08 - 01/06/08
- 01/06/08 - 08/06/08
- 08/06/08 - 15/06/08
- 15/06/08 - 22/06/08
- 22/06/08 - 29/06/08
- 29/06/08 - 06/07/08
- 06/07/08 - 13/07/08
- 13/07/08 - 20/07/08
- 20/07/08 - 27/07/08
- 27/07/08 - 03/08/08
- 03/08/08 - 10/08/08
- 10/08/08 - 17/08/08
- 17/08/08 - 24/08/08
- 24/08/08 - 31/08/08
- 31/08/08 - 07/09/08
- 07/09/08 - 14/09/08
- 14/09/08 - 21/09/08
- 21/09/08 - 28/09/08
- 28/09/08 - 05/10/08
- 05/10/08 - 12/10/08
- 12/10/08 - 19/10/08
- 19/10/08 - 26/10/08
- 26/10/08 - 02/11/08
- 02/11/08 - 09/11/08
- 09/11/08 - 16/11/08
- 16/11/08 - 23/11/08
- 23/11/08 - 30/11/08
- 30/11/08 - 07/12/08
- 07/12/08 - 14/12/08
- 14/12/08 - 21/12/08
- 21/12/08 - 28/12/08
- 28/12/08 - 04/01/09
- 04/01/09 - 11/01/09
- 11/01/09 - 18/01/09
- 18/01/09 - 25/01/09
- 25/01/09 - 01/02/09
- 01/02/09 - 08/02/09
- 08/02/09 - 15/02/09
- 15/02/09 - 22/02/09
- 22/02/09 - 01/03/09
- 01/03/09 - 08/03/09
- 08/03/09 - 15/03/09
- 15/03/09 - 22/03/09
- 22/03/09 - 29/03/09
- 29/03/09 - 05/04/09
- 05/04/09 - 12/04/09
- 12/04/09 - 19/04/09
- 19/04/09 - 26/04/09
- 26/04/09 - 03/05/09
- 03/05/09 - 10/05/09
- 10/05/09 - 17/05/09
- 17/05/09 - 24/05/09
- 24/05/09 - 31/05/09
- 31/05/09 - 07/06/09
- 07/06/09 - 14/06/09
- 14/06/09 - 21/06/09
- 21/06/09 - 28/06/09
- 28/06/09 - 05/07/09
- 05/07/09 - 12/07/09
- 12/07/09 - 19/07/09
- 19/07/09 - 26/07/09
- 26/07/09 - 02/08/09
- 02/08/09 - 09/08/09
- 09/08/09 - 16/08/09
- 16/08/09 - 23/08/09
- 23/08/09 - 30/08/09
- 30/08/09 - 06/09/09
- 06/09/09 - 13/09/09
- 13/09/09 - 20/09/09
- 20/09/09 - 27/09/09
- 27/09/09 - 04/10/09
- 04/10/09 - 11/10/09
- 11/10/09 - 18/10/09
- 18/10/09 - 25/10/09
- 25/10/09 - 01/11/09
- 01/11/09 - 08/11/09
- 08/11/09 - 15/11/09
- 15/11/09 - 22/11/09
- 22/11/09 - 29/11/09
- 29/11/09 - 06/12/09
- 06/12/09 - 13/12/09
- 13/12/09 - 20/12/09
- 20/12/09 - 27/12/09
- 27/12/09 - 03/01/10
- 03/01/10 - 10/01/10
- 10/01/10 - 17/01/10
- 17/01/10 - 24/01/10
- 24/01/10 - 31/01/10
- 31/01/10 - 07/02/10
- 07/02/10 - 14/02/10
- 14/02/10 - 21/02/10
- 21/02/10 - 28/02/10
- 28/02/10 - 07/03/10
- 07/03/10 - 14/03/10
- 14/03/10 - 21/03/10
- 21/03/10 - 28/03/10
- 28/03/10 - 04/04/10
- 04/04/10 - 11/04/10
- 11/04/10 - 18/04/10
- 18/04/10 - 25/04/10
- 25/04/10 - 02/05/10
- 02/05/10 - 09/05/10
- 09/05/10 - 16/05/10
- 16/05/10 - 23/05/10
- 23/05/10 - 30/05/10
- 30/05/10 - 06/06/10
- 06/06/10 - 13/06/10
- 13/06/10 - 20/06/10
- 20/06/10 - 27/06/10
- 27/06/10 - 04/07/10
- 04/07/10 - 11/07/10
- 11/07/10 - 18/07/10
- 18/07/10 - 25/07/10
- 25/07/10 - 01/08/10
- 01/08/10 - 08/08/10
- 08/08/10 - 15/08/10
- 15/08/10 - 22/08/10
- 22/08/10 - 29/08/10
- 29/08/10 - 05/09/10
- 05/09/10 - 12/09/10
- 12/09/10 - 19/09/10
- 19/09/10 - 26/09/10
- 26/09/10 - 03/10/10
- 03/10/10 - 10/10/10
- 10/10/10 - 17/10/10
- 17/10/10 - 24/10/10
- 24/10/10 - 31/10/10
- 31/10/10 - 07/11/10
- 07/11/10 - 14/11/10
- 14/11/10 - 21/11/10
- 21/11/10 - 28/11/10
- 28/11/10 - 05/12/10
- 05/12/10 - 12/12/10
- 12/12/10 - 19/12/10
- 19/12/10 - 26/12/10
- 26/12/10 - 02/01/11
- 02/01/11 - 09/01/11
- 09/01/11 - 16/01/11
- 16/01/11 - 23/01/11
- 23/01/11 - 30/01/11
- 30/01/11 - 06/02/11
- 06/02/11 - 13/02/11
- 13/02/11 - 20/02/11
- 20/02/11 - 27/02/11
- 27/02/11 - 06/03/11
- 06/03/11 - 13/03/11
- 13/03/11 - 20/03/11
- 20/03/11 - 27/03/11
- 27/03/11 - 03/04/11
- 03/04/11 - 10/04/11
- 10/04/11 - 17/04/11
- 17/04/11 - 24/04/11
- 24/04/11 - 01/05/11
- 01/05/11 - 08/05/11
- 08/05/11 - 15/05/11
- 15/05/11 - 22/05/11
- 22/05/11 - 29/05/11
- 29/05/11 - 05/06/11
- 05/06/11 - 12/06/11
- 12/06/11 - 19/06/11
- 19/06/11 - 26/06/11
- 26/06/11 - 03/07/11
- 03/07/11 - 10/07/11
- 10/07/11 - 17/07/11
- 17/07/11 - 24/07/11
- 24/07/11 - 31/07/11
- 31/07/11 - 07/08/11
- 07/08/11 - 14/08/11
- 14/08/11 - 21/08/11
- 21/08/11 - 28/08/11
- 28/08/11 - 04/09/11
- 04/09/11 - 11/09/11
- 11/09/11 - 18/09/11
- 18/09/11 - 25/09/11
- 25/09/11 - 02/10/11
- 02/10/11 - 09/10/11
- 09/10/11 - 16/10/11
- 16/10/11 - 23/10/11
- 23/10/11 - 30/10/11
- 30/10/11 - 06/11/11
- 06/11/11 - 13/11/11
- 13/11/11 - 20/11/11
- 20/11/11 - 27/11/11
- 27/11/11 - 04/12/11
- 04/12/11 - 11/12/11
- 11/12/11 - 18/12/11
- 18/12/11 - 25/12/11
- 25/12/11 - 01/01/12
- 01/01/12 - 08/01/12
- 08/01/12 - 15/01/12
- 15/01/12 - 22/01/12
- 22/01/12 - 29/01/12
- 29/01/12 - 05/02/12
- 05/02/12 - 12/02/12
- Current Posts
NOTICE!
