Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Communist State Building

Empire State Building Lighting Stunt Sparks Outrage

The lights are on and communist China is making itself at home. Today, the Empire State Building turned red and yellow in celebration of the Chinese Communist Party having seized power 60 years ago.

Outraged citizens see the light show as an affront to American people and democratic society, and their views are proliferating across the information superhighway. Below is a summary.

Congressman Anthony Weiner said in a statement: "The iconic lights of the Empire State Building should not be used to pay tribute to a nation with a shameful history on human rights who continues to pursue policies that are not in keeping with the values of either our nation or our city.

"Celebrating an oppressive regime is not an appropriate use of the grand colored lights."

Harvey Wharfield from Boston was not to be outdone: “Who the Hell approved such an abomination? Perhaps one of our 'bureaucrats' (nameless and blameless) that believes 'human resources' or 'human capital' supersedes 'human value!' Somehow, the fictional is under the delusion that it/they are superior to their superiors! And, therefore, can make decisions, no matter how ignorant, for 'the People!'"

Pat Cesario, writing on Politics Daily, wondered whether it was wise to “memorialize the birth of a political system and regime that has murdered and/or oppressed millions of its own citizens even to today?”

It's Getting Weirder Than Even I Like Out There. . .

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to get into this right now. I saw it earlier at Dr Bulldog, left a comment and waited for it to percolate a bit.

I'm posting it now -- including some of the comments -- so you all can make of it what you will, or enlighten any us if you have more info.

I was able to get on The American Police Force site for a bit and it's creepy.

Also, I found this for what it's worth

everything below from Dr Bulldog:

Hardin, Montana is “Test Town” For Our Dark Overlord’s New Police Force?

This is disturbing… I don’t know quite what to make of it and am still researching it—as I have been doing all morning long. It seems that the American Police Force is in Hardin, Montana, but what is going on there is a matter of speculation. It certainly has that feel of a government operation using a private entity for cover to get around that pesky “Posse Comitatus” problem. But, like I said, it is a matter of speculation. It should be pointed out that Hardin, Montana has requested Gitmo terrorists be housed in their unused prison:

H/T – Gramfan

UPDATE: The American Police Force’s website keeps going down and coming back up. Lots of traffic, probably. CLICK HERE to check them out. Don’t get discouraged if it doesn’t immediately load up, just keep trying.

The thing that peaked my interest is that they are based in Washington, D.C. and seem to be a recent creation, as there is no evidence of them on which usually updates every six months or so with the new websites.

UPDATE 2: And, check out their logo:

In history, the double headed eagle with a crown is most often associated with the Roman Empire. But, where it REALLY gets interesting is in modern day usage:

That is the Russian Imperial Eagle!!!!

Yup! The double-headed eagle with a crown is one of Russia’s most prominent and recognized symbols!

Continuing on with my analysis of the APF’s coat of arms, the “fleur de lis” (when used by the U.S. Army) represents “Martial Power and Strength.”

I’m thinking “Martial Law” here…

Yes, it sounds like a tin-foil hat thing, but having served in the USAF, I can assure you that EVERY little detail on a squadron emblem has an important and symbolic reason for being there!

Anyone out there want to take a crack at the symbolism associated with the coat-of-arms on the chest of the eagle? I’m thinking something along the lines of the “Four Corners” of the Earth, as APF claims to operate internationally.

UPDATE 3: The Coat of Arms for APF is STOLEN from Serbia!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the Serbian Coat of Arms:

EXACTLY the same!!!

Something tells me the APF is either a hoax (which I doubt), a spin-off of Blackwater (more than likely), or a newly created government black ops outfit (perhaps).

UPDATE 4: Velvet Hammer had clued me in to the addresses associated with APF. Her post is HERE and she seems to be ahead of me on this story. However, not to be completely outdone by the lovely Velvet Hammer, I discovered that plugging in the address for APF’s office in Santa Ana, CA, and doing a street view of it on Google, gives you this interesting tidbit:

Several of the listings on the sign are digitally blurred! Gee, why would that be? And, more importantly, WHO has the power to do that? Near as I can figure, only the U.S. Government and Google can do that…

Here’s how to access the google map street view:

Click the following link:,+Santa+Ana,+Orange,+California+92701&ie=UTF8&oi=georefine&ct=clnk&cd=2&geocode=FQcgAwId9q_5-A&split=0

Once there, click on the “Santa Ana“Street View” link, and when that comes up, click on the right arrow to look right. That will point you at building 1202 (Soriol Legal Center, LLC). Then, Zoom into the signs in front of the legal center and you will notice that several listings are blurred.

I hope my directions are clear enough for everyone to follow.

From an email found HERE.

” . . .We have found out that our little town of Hardin is the ‘test town’ for President Obama’s new law to privatize the police force of local communities. Last night, the city council voted to disband our sheriff’s department and to bring in a private security company to police the town. . .

. . .Yesterday, a convoy of twelve ‘blacked out’ Mercedes Benz SUV’s were brought into town. They were already painted with Hardin’s colors and ‘Hardin Police Force’ was already painted on them! Hardin’s sheriff’s department will no longer be in operation after the month of October. During October, the Sheriff’s Department is to train this new security force in all the logistics of running the town of Hardin. . .

. . .Earlier this month, in an interview in regards to this Hardin prison and the training center that they are planning to build, we were told that seventy five percent of the security officers that were to be trained would be ‘international’. . .

This private security force is already patrolling the town. They had several people stopped yesterday. Also, it appears that they are building some type of heavy duty gate at the entrances of our town.

In an interview, the American Police Force security has stated that they will stay here one month to assess the population and then they will make their permanent base here. They said they are scouting out thirty towns in the U.S. but that Hardin is the first. Also, President Obama has authorized and signed a bill for full government funding of the privatization of the police departments throughout the U.S. By the end of October, it is their plan to have all major cities locked down!


CLICK HERE to continue reading

from Comments:

Mullah Lodabullah Says: 30 September, 2009 at 11:56 am

Their attorney, Maziar Mafi, might be as interesting to connect the dots with as the APF …
… An attorney for American Police Force, Maziar Mafi, describes the Santa Ana, Calif., company as a fledgling spin-off of a major security firm founded in 1984. But Mafi declined to name the parent firm or provide details on how the company will finance its jail operations. “It will gradually be more clear as things go along,” said Mafi, a personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer in Santa Ana who was only hired by American Police Force a month ago. “The nature of this entity is private security, and for security purposes, as well as for the interest of their clientele, that’s why they prefer not to be upfront.” …

12/22/99Maziar Mafi’s files petition on behalf of Iranian soccer players
President and vice-presidentThe White HouseWashington DC 20500e mail:
… …
Re: Friendship game between Iran and U.S. soccer teams

Madam Secretary Albright:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request the issuance of a Waiver for the Iranian National Soccer team, of the finger printing process presently employed by the State and Justice Departments upon arrival in the United States. As you may be aware the Iranian National Soccer team has been invited by the U.S. Soccer Federation to play a symbolic match with the U.S. soccer team in January of 2000. These players are known internationally. They have participated in several matches worldwide. They have never committed any acts of violence or terrorism. In fact they were given recognition by the organizers of the event, for their civility and mannerism in the 1998 World Cup in France.

As the first Iranian-American Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives and as I campaign throughout the State of California, the over whelming concern that I hear from Iranian-Americans is the mannerism by which they are treated when they are returning to the United States. Americans of Iranian descent upon return to their Country are being detained, finger printed, otherwise harassed, their luggage searched and humiliated as though they were common criminals. Many have witnessed their mothers and grandmothers terrified and shaken up when detained at U.S. airports and treated as terrorists.

The Untied States, primarily based on the leadership of President Clinton has recently expressed an interest in engaging the government of Iran toward a policy of reconciliation between the two nations. This new policy has called for and has encouraged many social and sporting engagements.

Yet recently, six Iranian scholars who had been invited to a conference at Georgetown University in Washington canceled their participation, stating they were harassed and humiliated by immigration officials upon arriving at Kennedy International Airport. The organizers of the event, the director of the Center of Muslim-Christian Understanding at the university, said the Iranians described being finger printed and then ridiculed by officials who detained them at the airport for several hours.
… …
Maziar MafiDemocratic Candidate for the U.S. Congress, 47th Dist.
Mozhgan Mojabpresident World Political Action Committee

Mullah Lodabullah Says: 30 September, 2009 at 11:59 am

Worth searching on Mozhgan Mojab also

velvethammer Says: 30 September, 2009 at 12:00 pm
This is an interesting tidbit a friend tipped me off to.American Police Force’s virtual address:
Washington DC: 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 300

Is the SAME address as the:

Uyghur American Association (UAA)1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006What do you all think?

doctorbulldog Says: 30 September, 2009 at 1:11 pm

That address holds “virtual offices.” I.E. – They exist on paper only.
Check out the following article from the AP:

tgusa Says: 30 September, 2009 at 12:24 pm

Santa Ana, I wonder if he is friends with Adam Gadahn. UCI and its islamist problem is not far from there either. The muslims attach themselves to immigrant communities, that’s what is happening up there. One unfortunate thing is the demographics of the north county have changed. First with the Vietnamese boat people/refugees in the 70’s and 80’s and then in the 90’s with the riots. those gun toting Koreans you saw left LA County after that, my concern is that they have brought the same bad habits (sociopolitical) along with them.

We have a lot of Iranians here too, back during the hostage crisis there was really only one place where they might get an earful or the finger as a car drove past their gas station or 7-11, here. When ever tensions rise between us and the muslims no matter where it might be in the world the local media (LA) begin the same routine of ginning up fear regarding the big meanies all over the place here.

The citizens here know what’s going on and so do the Sheriffs.

I have noticed that the muslims like the security business. Wonder why…not! Muslim cabbies, I told you all a long time ago that they are scouts, no they are not driving humvees (yet) and they have to pretend to work, but still, a little bit at a time and finally a giant attack. I bet they are also into trucking in the Midwest and boating on the great lakes and probably the Mississippi as well.

velvethammer Says: 30 September, 2009 at 12:42 pm

American Police Force (APF) offers the world’s finest products and services to the military, police, and security professionals. We present to you our comprehensive product category list:
Weapons & Equipment Sales – INTL ONLY

Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (WMD).

My question is, can just anyone sell WMD’s internationally???

tgusa Says: 30 September, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Raccoon City.

doctorbulldog Says: 30 September, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Yes! Excellent analogy!
Uhm… I guess we should clue in the non-gamers out there:

Pastorius, busy working at that day job thing, called and alerted me to the stories in the next three posts below. All L.A. Times and seemingly actually reporting the news for a change.
Who are these guys and what have they done with the paper we've all come to know and use to wipe our backsides?

The L.A. Times Take on New SCOTUS Gun Control Case

and it's not squarely anti-gun!

L.A. Times:

Supreme Court takes gun case that will test reach of 2nd Amendment

The justices' ruling on whether state and local laws are subject to the 2nd Amendment could open the door to legal challenges nationwide. The ruling on a Chicago handgun ban is expected by summer.

By David G. Savage

7:50 AM PDT, September 30, 2009

Reporting from Washington

The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns.

At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment.

A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states across the nation.

The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment's right to free speech or the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the 2nd Amendment by saying it applied only to national laws and that its aim was to preserve "well-regulated militias."

This quite narrow view of the amendment conflicted with the views of most Americans, according to opinion polls.

Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the amendment by ruling that it protected an individual's right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.

But since the nation's capital is a federal enclave, the court did not reconsider its 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment applied only to federal laws and restrictions.

Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional challenges in several cities, including Chicago and the nearby Village of Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the high court's earlier rulings.

But the Supreme Court today said it had voted to hear the appeals from gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the 2nd Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures.

Lawyers for the gun owners argued that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" set out in the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment and thereby applies to states and localities.

Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the gun-rights case revives a once-fierce debate over how to read the Bill of Rights.

Since the 1st Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting" such matters as an "establishment of religion" or "abridging the freedom of speech," it was understood originally to limit only Congress and the national government. The same was true of the other parts of Bill of Rights.

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, and it says a state may not "abridge the privileges and immunities" of citizens nor deprive any person of "liberty . . . without due process of law."

In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court decided, in a step-by-process, that such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion and the freedom from "unreasonable searches" are part of the "liberty" protected by 14th Amendment. These rulings permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws.

The 2nd Amendment was all but ignored by the Court until recently. In their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule either that the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment.

Lawyers for Chicago had urged the court to reject the appeal. They said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities. "Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns," they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said that while nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense.

It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the Chicago ordinance is constitutional. Lawyers for the city proposed that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the dispute back to Chicago for a trial.

The court said it will set arguments in the Chicago cases for January or February. The cases is McDonald vs. Chicago.

What Americans really want

L.A. Times:

What Americans really want
As a nation, we're mad. For business and political elites, the message should be clear: Restore trust
By Frank Luntz

September 27, 2009

I listen to America -- in focus groups, telephone interviews, town halls and polls in all 50 states -- for a living. It used to be fun. Now it's become painful.

For 15 years, average Americans have exuded optimism and energy, whether they were talking about their political preferences, their employment aspirations or simply what they had for breakfast.

But that was before the economic meltdown one year ago. What a difference a year makes.

Today, Americans are boiling mad, and the elites from Washington to Wall Street to West Hollywood don't get it. It can best be summarized by 12 short words bellowed by Howard Beale, the deranged TV anchor in the movie "Network": "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."

The frightening reality is that where there was hope, now there is cynicism. Where there were dreams, now there is disillusion. Instead of courage and resolve, I hear blame and finger-pointing.

According to my research, 72% of Americans agree with Howard Beale -- they really are "mad as hell." Second, 57% now believe that their children will inherit a worse America than they did, and just 33% believe their children will have a better quality of life than they have.

This wasn't just any single poll. My research includes interviews with 6,400 people from December 2008 through April 2009 that allow me to analyze opinions by gender, age, ethnicity, partisanship and more. It is buttressed by two dozen "instant response" groups of 30 voters in almost a dozen states over the last 100 days. No matter how I slice and dice the results, we're a very unhappy people.

In my estimation, that intense despair and loss of confidence exactly reflect what we're seeing and hearing in healthcare town halls. The media focus on the shouting and the extremist slogans and miss the point: a once-optimistic people now filled with rancor and vitriol.

And why not? Americans in the unhappy majority are struggling to keep their jobs as million-dollar bonuses are being awarded at companies their tax dollars bailed out. They're watching Congress showcase the partisan spectacle we now blithely confuse with "government." They have learned (with good reason) to distrust their leaders, their institutions and even their own positive values in a culture that has turned coarse and critical.

The elites under attack complain that rowdy town halls are bad for civic discourse and democracy. But I contend that their empty dismissals of grass-roots anger are much more dangerous.

If you talk in depth to self-described angry Americans -- as I have -- you don't hear raving demands or reckless hate. What you hear is fear.

But you also hear a belief in American values that many thought were lost. An incredible 88% believe in the adage "live free or die." Conversely, just 35% agree with the statement, "I want it all, and I want it now," and a slight majority (54%) believe "if it feels good, do it." It's nice to know that freedom beats obtaining more stuff. And when asked to choose from a list of social and cultural challenges facing America, the highest priority is "restoring personal responsibility." (Even in these toughest of economic times, all most Americans are asking for is a hand up, not a handout. )

I even spot some green shoots of renewed optimism. First, the town halls themselves, despite their negative tone, are a sign of a healthy desire to engage in political and social discourse. Americans are putting some of the "self" back in self-governance. Competing ideals are actually competing.

Digging still deeper, my research suggests that we can dial back American anger if we begin to fix two complaints: the lack of accountability and the lack of respect in our dealings with each other.

The core American complaint about politics is that wrongdoing isn't punished, other than at the next election. From scandalous personal behavior to bailouts of everyone and everything except the hardworking middle class, Washington is seen as the source for America's mistakes. Enforcing rules and letting failures fail would stop the excesses today and prevent the mistakes of tomorrow.

Such accountability in business would likewise prevent executives at imploding companies from walking away with millions while their employees get skunked. I have done "employee satisfaction" research for two decades, and I have never seen a gulf this wide: Employers resent the lack of loyalty and commitment from their people; employees resent the lack of job security and the need to work longer and harder for less.

For business and political elites, the message should be clear: Restore trust. Politicians should be hosting more town hall meetings even if it means encountering surly voters. Business leaders should be seeking input from their hard-pressed customers and workers, and they should stop paying themselves huge bonuses while everyone else suffers.

If those in power shut up and listen, they'll hear what I'm hearing. It's time to heed the anger and reinforce the positive values behind it.

You Know You're a Dirt Bag When Even The L.A. Times Turns On You

Steve Lopez at L.A. Times:

Polanski's defenders lose sight of the true victim

The grand jury transcripts of the sex abuse case paint a far more damaging picture of the events that allegedly unfolded between the director and a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson's home in 1977.

By Steve Lopez

September 30, 2009

Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because . . .

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.

That's Roman Polanski's 13-year-old victim testifying before a grand jury about how the famous director forced himself on her at Jack Nicholson's Mulholland Drive home in March of 1977.

I'm reading this in the district attorney's office at the Los Angeles County Criminal Courts Building, digging through the Polanski file to refresh my memory of the infamous case, and my blood pressure is rising.

Is it because I'm the parent of a girl?

Maybe that's part of it.

But I wish the renowned legal scholars Harvey Weinstein and Debra Winger, to name just two of Polanski's defenders, were here with me now. I'd like to invite Martin Scorsese, as well, along with David Lynch, who have put their names on a petition calling for Polanski to be freed immediately.

What, because he won an Oscar? Would they speak up for a sex offender who hadn't?

To hear these people tell it, you'd think Polanski was the victim rather than the teenager.

And then there's Woody Allen, who has signed the petition too.

Woody Allen?

You'd think that after marrying his longtime girlfriend's adopted daughter, he'd have the good sense to remain silent. But at least Soon-Yi Previn was a consenting adult.

I'd like to show all these great luminaries the testimony from Polanski's underage victim, as well as Polanski's admission of guilt. Then I'd like to ask whether, if the victim were their daughter, they'd be so cavalier about a crime that was originally charged as sodomy and rape before Polanski agreed to a plea bargain. Would they still support Polanski's wish to remain on the lam living the life of a king, despite the fact that he skipped the U.S. in 1977 before he was sentenced?

The Zurich Film Festival has been "unfairly exploited" by Polanski's arrest, Winger said. Thanks, Deb. And so sorry the film festival was inconvenienced by the arrest of a man who left the United States to avoid sentencing for forcing himself on a child.

Weinstein, meanwhile, issued an open letter urging "every U.S. filmmaker to lobby against any move to bring Polanski back to the U.S.," arguing that "whatever you think of the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time."

So-called crime?

Let's get back to the grand jury testimony.

Polanski has taken the girl to Nicholson's house to photograph her, ostensibly for a French magazine. The girl's mother, it's clear to me, should have had her head examined for allowing this to happen, but that's another matter.

The girl says Polanski, who was in his 40s at the time, opened a bottle of champagne and shared it with her and with an adult woman who later left for work. That's when Polanski allegedly began taking pictures of the 13-year-old and suggested that she remove her blouse.

Quoting again from the grand jury transcript, with the girl being questioned by a prosecutor:

Q: Did you take your shirt off or did Mr. Polanski?

A: No, I did.

Q: Was that at his request or did you volunteer to do that?

A: That was at his request.

She said Polanski later went into the bathroom and took part of a Quaalude pill and offered her some, as well, and she accepted.

Q: Why did you take it?

A: I don't know. I think I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have.

So here she is, at 13, washing down a Quaalude with champagne, and then Polanski suggested they move out to the Jacuzzi.

Q: When you got in the Jacuzzi, what were you wearing?

A: I was going to wear my underwear, but he said for me to take them off.

She says Polanski went back in the house and returned in the nude and got into the Jacuzzi with her. When he told her to move closer to him, she resisted, saying, "No. No, I got to get out."

He insisted, she testified, and so she moved closer and he put his hands around her waist. She told him she had asthma and wanted to get out, and she did. She said he followed her into the bathroom, where she told him, "I have to go home now."

Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?

A: He told me to go in the other room and lie down.

She testified that she was afraid and sat on the couch in the bedroom.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him.

She testified that Polanski sat down next to her and said she'd feel better. She repeated that she had to go home.

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, "No," you know, "Keep away." But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

She testified that he put his mouth on her vagina.

"I was ready to cry," she said. "I was kind of -- I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.' But I was afraid."

She said he then pulled off her panties.

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

At this point, she testified, Polanski became concerned about the consequences and asked if she was on the pill.

No, she told him.

Polanski had a solution, according to her.

"He goes, 'Would you want me to go in through your back?' And I went, 'No.' "

According to her, that didn't stop Polanski, who began having anal sex with her.

This was when the victim was asked by the prosecutor if she resisted and she said, "Not really," because "I was afraid of him." She testified that when the ordeal had ended, Polanski told her, "Oh, don't tell your mother about this."

He added: "This is our secret."

But it wasn't a secret for long. When the victim got home and told her story, her mother called the police.

Now granted, we only have the girl's side of things. But an LAPD criminalist testified before the grand jury that tests of the girl's panties "strongly indicate semen." And a police officer who searched Polanski's hotel room found a Quaalude and photos of the girl.

Two weeks after the encounter on Mulholland Drive, Polanski was indicted for furnishing a controlled substance to a minor, committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child under 14, unlawful sexual intercourse, rape by use of drugs, perversion (oral copulation) and sodomy.

Three months later, a plea bargain was worked out. Court records indicate that the victim and her family had asked the district attorney's office to spare the victim the trauma of testifying at a criminal trial.

"A stigma would attach to her for a lifetime," the family's attorney argued.

So Polanski pleaded guilty to just one count -- unlawful sexual intercourse. The other charges were dropped.

Polanski spent 42 days in prison for pre-sentencing diagnostic tests. After his release, but before his sentencing in 1978, he skipped, boarding a plane for Europe because he feared he would be ordered to serve more time in prison. A warrant for his arrest has been in effect ever since, and Polanski was arrested this week in Switzerland.

He is fighting extradition, but I hope he loses that fight, gets hustled back to California and finally gets a sentence that fits his crime.

There's little question that this case was mishandled in many ways. According to a recent documentary, the now-deceased judge inappropriately discussed sentencing with a prosecutor who wasn't working the case. And Polanski's lawyers allege that the director fled only because he believed the judge would cave under public pressure and renege on a promise that he would serve no more time.

Regardless of whether there was such a deal, Polanski had not yet been sentenced, and under state law at the time, he could have been sent away for many years. Does anyone really believe 42 days was an appropriate penalty given the nature of the case?

Yes, Polanski has known great tragedy, having survived the Holocaust and having lost his wife, Sharon Tate and their unborn son, to the insanity of the Charles Manson cult.

But that has no bearing on the crime in question.

His victim, who settled a civil case against Polanski for an unspecified amount, said she does not want the man who forced himself on her to serve additional time.

That's big-hearted of her but also irrelevant, and so is the fact that the victim had admitted to having sex with a boyfriend before meeting Polanski.

Polanski stood in a Santa Monica courtroom on Aug. 8, 1977, admitted to having his way with a girl three decades his junior and told a judge that indeed, he knew she was only 13.

There may well have been judicial misconduct.

But no misconduct was greater than allowing Polanski to cop a plea to the least of his charges. His crime was graphic, manipulative and heinous, and he got a pass. It's unbelievable, really, that his soft-headed apologists are rooting for him to get another one.


from The Last Crusade (h/t Michael):

Forget Lions and Tigers
The Latest in Big Game

Somalia (MNN) ― Somalia’s Muslim militants are hunting down converts to Christianity. According to Voice of the Martyrs Canada, Al-Shabaab members have murdered 14 believers since July 15.

Compass Direct News reports the September 15 shooting death of 69-year-old Omar Khalafe, an underground Christian who had Bibles in his possession.

On the day of his death, Khalafe was carrying 25 Somali Bibles he hoped to deliver to an underground fellowship in Somalia. At a checkpoint controlled by al Shabaab–a rebel group linked with al Qaeda which has taken over large parts of the war-torn country–bus passengers were ordered to disembark for inspection.

Voice of the Martyrs Canada and Compass Direct reports agree on the events following the discovery of the Bibles.

The assailants used photos they found to determine if they could match the faces to any passengers. When they noticed a resemblance to Khalafe, they asked if the Bibles were his. The radicals shot and killed him when he did not respond.

Militants then displayed his body in Merca along with the Bibles as a warning to others. Later that day, a militant reported Khalafe’s death on a radio program.

Khalafe, who had been a Christian for 45 years, was active in sharing the Good News and baptizing converts from Islam.

Khalafe’s family is in mourning, but due to the risk of exposure, his wife and seven children were unable to participate in his burial because of the risk of being killed by militants, reports Compass Direct.


American Spectator:

A Clear and Present Danger
By Peter Ferrara on 9.30.09 @ 6:08AM

A cherished maxim of self-congratulatory liberals is the notion that diplomacy and negotiation are always the best course of action because "as long as the two sides are talking, they are not shooting." That was not true on the morning of December 7, 1941. On that very day, Japanese diplomats were in Washington to continue ongoing talks for peace between Japan and America, as Japanese planes were slaughtering some 2,400 American servicemen at Pearl Harbor.

President Obama now has America, and Israel, on that same course in regard to Iran. Finally, Obama is to begin his much ballyhooed talks with Iran tomorrow over its nuclear weapons program. But Iran, not just dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has already clearly stated its answer to Obama's entreaties on the issue. Iran will not even consider changing course on its nuclear weapons program. Indeed, it has insisted it will not even discuss the program in its talks with President Obama. To underscore the futility of any negotiations, Iran celebrated this week's planned talks with a series of missile launches over the weekend.

These extended talks will just give Iran even more time to develop nuclear weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. An American President should have the moxie and insight to see that. If we wake up one morning, surprised as we were on that fateful day in 1941, to find that Iran has nuked an Israeli city and murdered millions of Jews, I would expect President Obama to resign in disgrace.

What else could he do at that point? He is not going to launch a nuclear attack on Iran. And once Iran demonstrates that it has and will use nuclear weapons, is Obama going to risk a conventional attack on them? No, he is just going to give another speech. But will anyone be listening at that point, in the face of the carnage of the Israeli nuclear counterattack on Iran? This bloodiest day in world history, Holocaust 2.0, is what Obama must be acting to avoid now, through effective means, not dreamy, flower child platitudes.

America's Nuclear Disarmament

Last week, Obama enjoyed the honor of being the first American President to chair a session of the U.N. Security Council. Obama devoted the session to the topic of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. But, as Bret Stephens explained last week in the Wall Street Journal, "[L]est anyone suspect that this has something to do with North Korea and Iran, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice insists otherwise: The meeting, she says, 'will focus on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any particular countries.'"

Obama made his point clear in his speech to the General Assembly on September 24, saying, "I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons." He added that America has already begun its own nuclear disarmament:

In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
In other words, on a global platform, with the whole world watching, Obama focuses not on the threat to world peace from the rogue powers Iran and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons, but on the nuclear disarmament of America and its allies!

As Stephens further explained:

But the problem with this euphemistic approach to disarmament…is that it shifts
the onus from the countries that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons to those that can. Is Nicolas Sarkozy…about to start World War III? Probably not, though he has the means to do so. Should Mr. Obama join hands with Iran and the Arab world in pushing for Israel's nuclear disarmament, on the view that if only the Jewish state would set the right example its enemies would no longer want to wipe it off the map? If that's what the President believes, he should say so publicly, especially since he's offering the same general prescription for America's nuclear deterrent.
What Stephens is suggesting here is the awful truth. Obama believes that America does not have the moral credibility to ask Iran to give up its nuclear program unless America gives up its own. His strategy is once again the opposite of Reagan's. Instead of peace through strength, Obama believes in peace through weakness!

If only America would set the moral example through nuclear disarmament, we could count on our enemies to do the same, Obama thinks. Instead of fulfilling his oath of office to defend America, President Obama with his flower child nuclear strategy puts every American family in mortal danger.

Even if we could achieve worldwide nuclear disarmament by mutual agreement, that would not be good for America. America's nuclear deterrent has prevented world war for 65 years. Our overwhelming nuclear advantage, which President Obama and the Democrats are already trashing, is the cornerstone of our dominant military. It is the reason Americans never have to fear for the nation's defense. Giving that up would only weaken America, greatly, even if everybody else did the same.

But in a dangerous world of aspiring tyrants, plunderers, and even mass murderers, we could not count on rogues to abide by international agreements. Could we count on Putin not to maintain a force of nuclear attack weapons hidden in Siberia or Ural mountain caves, especially if he would become master of the universe through such cheating? Could we trust the Communist Chinese, with a recent history of mass murder, not to do the same? What about Muslim powers aching to reestablish their former dominance of centuries ago, especially with an ideology of mass murder rampant among their ranks? Would it be wise to trust the safety of the American people to the honesty of such rogues, or to the reliability of any verification program?

And without the American nuclear umbrella, would not the whole world be on hair trigger for nuclear development, lest anyone's enemies secretly develop such weapons first? Would America end up the only "power" without a nuclear deterrent?

Yet, Mark Helprin writes in the Journal on September 23 that Obama's talks with Iran will be about America's nuclear disarmament, not Iran's:

Last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set three conditions for [negotiations with] the U.S.: withdrawal from Iraq, a show of respect for Iran (read "apology"), and taking the nuclear question off the table. We are now faithfully complying, and last week, after Iran foreclosed discussion of its nuclear program…the U.S. agreed to enter talks the premise of which, incredibly, is to eliminate American nuclear weapons.
If only Obama last year, when he was falsely preening as the only American leader to even think of talking to Iran, had told the American people that his strategy for talks with Iran on giving up its nukes was for America to give up ours.

Putin in Charge

The hapless ineffectuality of President Obama's foreign policy is revealed by his retreat on land based missile defense in Europe. After governments in Poland and the Czech Republic faced down the political risks of agreeing to work with America to base such missile defenses in their countries, President Obama pulls the rug out from under them with the diplomatic equivalent of "never mind."

The Obama Administration lamely claimed that it would pursue instead a smarter missile defense from U.S. Navy ships that would be even better at countering the shorter range missiles that are supposedly the real Iranian threat. Helprin explains the ineffectiveness of this approach:

We will cease developing the ability to intercept, within five years, the ICBMs that in five years Iran is likely to possess, in favor of a sea-based approach suitable only to [countering] Iranian missiles that cannot from Iranian soil threaten Rome, Paris, London or Berlin….Interceptors that would effectively [protect] Western Europe are too big for the vertical launch cells of the Aegis ships, or even their hulls.
Indeed, the land-based missile defenses in Europe that President Obama has canceled would have defended not only Europe from long range Iranian nuclear missiles, it would have defended America as well. But the "smarter" sea based defenses Obama says he will now pursue will not.

President Obama retreated from missile defenses in Europe because Russia growled that such defenses could be used to stop its own nuclear attack on Europe, and somehow that was unacceptable and offensive. Obama's retreat is again just the opposite of Reagan, who stared down the same growls from the Russian bear in the early 1980s to plant in Europe Pershing II missiles that could attack Russia and its forces, not merely defend. Reagan's wise fortitude led to an agreement with Russia for both sides to remove their intermediate range missiles from Europe. President Obama doesn't understand that kind of strength.

Instead, in return for his retreat on European missile defense, Obama did not even get the Russians to agree to serious sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program. As Stephens wrote in the Journal, "Moscow is still offering no concessions on sanctioning Iran in the event negotiations fail, but might graciously agree to an arms control deal that cements its four to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons." Helprin adds:

The new American diplomacy is nothing more than a sentimental flood of unilateral concessions….Canceling the missile deployment within NATO…is to grant Russia a veto over sovereign defensive measures -- exactly the opposite of American resolve during the Euro Missile Crisis of 1983, the last and definitive battle of the Cold War.
The CIA Investigation We Need

Recall the so-called National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, which reported that Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003. That was effective in short-circuiting any military action under then President Bush to take out the Iranian nuclear program. With recent events, the question that 2007 report leaves is whether U.S. intelligence agencies have been penetrated by foreign agents.

The CIA investigation we need now is to focus on that question, not on whether the CIA was too mean to terrorists plotting mass murder of Americans. If that investigation uncovers treason, then the law must be enforced. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, call your office.

This CIA investigation would strengthen rather than weaken America's defenses, by purging foreign agents from our intelligence agencies.

Regime Change

President Bush showed how to stop a rogue nuclear program. U.S. military action forcefully removing Saddam Hussein from power so frightened Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi that he voluntarily revealed and relinquished his own nuclear program, financed by Iraqi funds. That led to the discovery and shut down of the nuclear proliferation network of Pakistani A.Q. Khan. We can only dream of President Obama ever being that effective.

Eliot Cohen, formerly of the State Department, now teaches at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He wrote quite correctly in the Wall Street Journal on Monday regarding the Iranian regime, "This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless, unprincipled regime…willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation based on understandings of mutual interest and respect…is possible." Regarding sanctions, he writes:

Though you would not know it to listen to Sunday talk shows, a large sanctions effort against Iran has been underway for some time. It has not worked to curb Tehran's nuclear appetite, and it will not. Sooner or later, the administration, whose main diplomatic initiatives thus far have been a program of apologies and a few sharp kicks to small allies' shins, will have to recognize that fact.
Finally, Cohen writes that if Iran succeeds in building nukes, "It will engender -- it has already quietly engendered -- a nuclear arms race in the region. It will embolden the Iranian regime to make much more lethal mischief than it has even now. In a region that respects strength, it will enhance…Iranian prestige. And it may yield the first nuclear attack some time down the road."

Indeed, in my opinion, the fanatical Iranian mullahs are not daring the whole world in building such weapons only to not use them. If nuclear blackmail does not force the Jews out, a nuclear attack will.

The only way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is through a policy of regime change. President Obama has openly disdained all such talk, but the policy of the United States must be focused on doing everything possible and effective to remove the brutal regime of mass murderers now governing Iran. We should immediately engage whoever will work with us to cut off all supplies that can be used militarily in that country, including gasoline. We should provide money, arms, and radio station facilities to the rebels. And, yes, we should conduct military strikes not only against the nuclear facilities, but against all military capabilities useful against the rebels. Iran will retaliate, you say? Our diplomatic message should be that such retaliation will be met with decapitation of the government, including turning the Holy City of Qom housing the Grand Ayatollah Khatami into an archeological site.

If Obama insists on holding hands and singing Kumbaya instead, then he should be held fully accountable for the results.

Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.
Local gun control laws are Unconstitutional.

So in the wake of the Heller case SCOTUS is accepting another case stating just that.


High Court to Look at Local Gun Control Laws

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:25 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said Wednesday it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year's ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

Why Trampolines are not Safe in Pennsylvania

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 Imam to declare his latest fatwa.
Listen to the August 14, 2009 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.


October 9: IQ al Rassooli and Ilana Freedman
October 16: Ask the Imam and Fausta
October 23: IQ al Rassooli and Elisabeth of Austria
October 30: Ask the Imam
in an email from one of my squirrelly friends

Emergency Room

The other day, I needed to go to the emergency room.

Not wanting to sit there for all day, I purposely put on my old Army fatigues and stuck a patch onto the front of my shirt that I had purchased off the Internet.

When I went into the E.R., I noticed that 3/4 of the people got up and left. I guess they decided that they weren't that sick after all. That cut at least 3 hours off my waiting time.

Here's the patch. Feel free to use it the next time you're in need of quicker emergency services.

It also works at the DMV and any laundromat.

Don't try it at McDonald's. The whole crew will exit and you'll never get your order!


Social Justice: Flag Burner Duct Taped to Flag Pole

Ever get enraged when you see the flag burners? Wish you could smack them around a bit?

Well, this will make you feel better.

I'd really love to know what the OTHER options were this guy was given that he agreed to this.

h/t Dr Bulldog

Damien Rice
9 Crimes

For Richard Dawkins and Michael Travis and Pastorius and BabbaZee and Revere Rides Again and, what the hell. rumcrook and Typhoid Mary

George Strait
I Hate Everything

Tuesday, September 29, 2009


Speculative information ...

Five More Nuclear Facilities Discovered in Iran

Posted by thelastcrusade - September 29th, 2009


Apocalypse Now

Good Night, Israel

Ayatollah Vows: “We Will Make Our Enemies Blind”


The British MI6 agents, who uncovered an underground uranium enrichment plant near the Iranian city of Qom, have discovered five more similar operations in the mountains northern Iran, increasing the number of Iran’s nuclear facilities to seven.

Photos and schematics of the plants have been hand-delivered to Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad. Mr. Dagan has conveyed them to the G20 leaders who were meeting in Pittsburgh.

2nd Facility

The information, according to British reporter Gordon Thomas, was obtained from “an Iranian nuclear scientist’s smuggled laptop, defectors, and satellite imagery.”

The new plants, according to British intelligence, are guarded by members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and staffed by nuclear scientists from the country’s central weapons facility at 180 Western Avenue in the Pars district of eastern Tehran.

M16 remains responsible for gathering most of the intelligence data regarding nuclear developments in Iran for the international intelligence community, including the CIA. Mark Fitzpatrick, head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, says: “Until MI6 uncovered the truth that Iran had a further clandestine way of producing highly enriched uranium, we had no idea.”

The latest news has served only to heighten the resolve of Iran to enter the elite nuclear club of nations, which now includes the United States, Russian, China, Great Britain, France, India, Israel, and Pakistan.

In Tehran, Ayatollah Khameni, Iran’s supreme leader, authorized his new chief of staff, Mohammadi Golpayegni, to announce: “Our new plant at Qom, God willing, will soon become operational and will make our enemies blind.”

Qom contains one of the holiest sites of the Shiite Muslims – - the shrine of Fatema Maesume, the revered sister of Imam Ali ibn Musa Rida, a great Islamic scholar. A pre-emptive attack on Qom would do much to strengthen a coalition of Shiite and Sunni Muslims against the West.

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the opening of the annual Labour Party conference in Brighton that Iran’s attitude “is the serial deception of many years. The international community has no choice but to draw a line in the sand.”

He added that the alternative will lead to confrontation.

England’s Foreign Secretary David Milliband said he would refuse to rule out military action against Iran.

MI6 agents also have uncovered evidence that the Qom plant could house 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium – the key element in a nuclear bomb. The five other plants would give the rogue nation a combined capacity of 15,000 centrifuges, far outstripping the 8,000 capacity of the underground plant at Natanz.

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s atomic chief, will head to Geneva this week to head off calls for new economic sanctions by world powers. He will meet with Mohamed el Baradei and other officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to argue his case, claiming that Iran has no intention of building a nuclear bomb even though seven nuclear production facilities are now in operation.



From Pastorius at the Astutest of all Bloggers:

Interminable Nuance.

This really ought to become a class of Logical Fallacy. Maybe other readers can help me out on this. Here are my thoughts.

1) Gradations exist.

2) On an scale of gradients, it is hard to distinguish where one class ends and the next begins. (For instance, where does blue actually become purple on the gradient color line?)

3) Therefore, because it is difficult to scientifically establish the precise place where distinction occurs, on the line of gradients, there are no distinctions at all in the world, and knowledge is impossible.

This is the line of argument that the Postmodern Left Deconstructionists use in most of their "moral" arguments. It is a logical fallacy of some sort.

Please help me to classify it.