Johnny Cash
Ghost Riders in the Sky
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Is this because of their help when we invaded Iraq?
Everyone remember the 4th ID sitting on ships off the coast waiting? The votes by their parliament?
Gertz:
Gertz:
U.S. weighs strategic assistance, including missile defense, to Turkey
ANKARA -- The United States has been examining the prospect of extending military assistance to Turkey.Officials said the administration of President Barack Obama was considering military aid as part of defense cooperation between Ankara and Washington. They said U.S. military aid could help Turkey launch strategic programs, including missile defense. (From who? Iran or Israel, or Greece, another NATO member?)
"I think that Turkey is in a unique position," U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. "It is a member of the NATO alliance and is the southeastern anchor of the alliance. It is geographically located in the Middle East but also in Central Asia."
Turkey, opposed by the Greek lobby in Congress, has not received significant aid from the United States since Ankara rejected the deployment of American troops in 2003. Washington ended military grant aid to Ankara in 1993 and allowed Turkey to purchase weapons through direct loans.
In fiscal 2009, Turkey received $1 million in U.S. Foreign Military Financing, with no funds proposed for either 2010 or 2011. The administration has allocated $4 million for military education for Ankara in fiscal 2011, a $1 million decrease from the previous year.
During a surprise visit to Ankara on Feb. 6, Gates said Washington wanted to increase military cooperation with Turkey. He said this could include the stationing of missile defense assets as part of a U.S. plan to protect Europe from long-range ballistic missiles fired from Iran and North Korea.
"It [Turkey] has special access in a sense of a place at the table, if you will, from Europe to Central Asia to the Middle East," Gates said.
Turkey has requested the PAC-3 missile defense system in a deal estimated at more than $7 billion. Officials said some of the assets could be procured as part of the U.S. missile defense umbrella for Europe.
"I think that Turkey's taking that on and playing a constructive role in all of those areas is a very positive thing," Gates said.
Gates said the United States also wanted to help Turkey in the war against the Kurdish Workers Party in northern Iraq. Iraq, Turkey and the United States have established a joint intelligence center to monitor the PKK in Iraq's Kandil mountains.
"I offered during my visit here to see if there are more capabilities that we can share with Turkey in terms of taking on this threat," Gates told a news conference. "I think what we are seeing is a further intensification of the cooperation in an effort to deal with this threat."
The defense secretary said he did not press Turkish officials to contribute additional troops for Afghanistan. Gates expressed satisfaction with Turkey's 1,700-member contingent, which comprised two provincial reconstruction teams and several mentoring teams in the NATO stabilization mission.
"However, more trainers are needed, and needed immediately," Gates said. "I pressed the alliance to meet the long-standing demands of thousands more instructors and mentors for the Afghan army and police."
January 30, 1787
Paris, January 30th, 1787
Dear Sir,
My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.
Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.
To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.
I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.
Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.
Yours affectionately,
Th. Jefferson
My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.
Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.
To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.
I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.
Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.
Yours affectionately,
Th. Jefferson
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison regarding Shay's Rebellion --
This Week On The Gathering Storm
Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, hosted by WC and Always On Watch. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.
Callers welcome!
Our scheduled guest this week is IQ al Rassooli.
Listen to the February 26, 2010 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.
UPCOMING SHOWS:
March 5: John Kenneth Press (Culturist John) and Robert Spencer
March 12: Mark Alexander
March 19: Midnight Rider and Az Zaqqum
Front Page Mag:
The New Cold War
Posted By William R. Hawkins
The People’s Republic of China has denounced the meeting of Tibet’s Dalai Lama with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb.18. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said [1] the meetings:
For Beijing the issue is not just about the oppression in Tibet, but the Dalai Lama’s larger message that it is the responsibility of the outside world to bring Communist China into the mainstream of global democracy,
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai called in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman for what were called “solemn representations.” This was the second time in recent weeks that the ambassador has been summoned. The previous time was after the Obama administration announced on January 29 that it would fulfill the commitment made by the Bush administration to sell $6.4 billion worth of defensive arms to Taiwan. Beijing has massed offensive weapons opposite the democratic island. The PRC considers Taiwan to be a renegade province despite its de facto independence for over sixty years.
The U.S. did not summon the Chinese ambassador in Washington for a formal protest after Beijing blocked an American initiative to strengthen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program. As Global Times, an official publication of the ruling Communist Party, stated in a Feb 10 editoria [2]l, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy.”
U.S.-PRC relations have soured steadily since the confrontation between the two powers at the UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in December. At that meeting, President Obama came face to face with Chinese intransigence and saw his year long attempt to cooperate with China come to nothing.
While the White House and State Department were rethinking engagement with China, the Defense Department was finishing its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint for how the U.S. military will meet threats to national security. The February 8 issue of the weekly Defense News had a disturbing sidebar by John T. Bennett to its lead story [3] about the QDR. Bennett reported,
Trade policy is not, however, in the DoD’s province. It is more likely that the QDR reflects Secretary Robert Gate’s often articulated view that future wars will be like the current small, irregular combat in Afghanistan rather than large-scale conventional warfare against a rival nation-state.
In his joint announcement [4] of the QDR and the 2011 budget on Feb. 2, Gates summarized his vision as, “Rebalanc[ing] our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies.” The “hedge” is not of sufficient concern to justify continuing programs like the F-22 air superiority fighter, or a capability to mount large-scale Marine amphibious assaults, or an expanded national missile defense system. Shipbuilding plans will also see the Navy continue to shrink, with an emphasis on smaller warships.
The QDR states, “successfully balancing requires that the Department make hard choices on the level of resources required as well as accepting and managing risk in a way that favors success in today’s wars.” Obviously, winning in Iraq and Afghanistan are the current top priorities, but Gates has also emphasized his desire to “institutionalize” DoD planning, meaning his vision of avoiding confrontations with a rising “peer competitor” like China or even a major regional power like Iran.
The QDR [5] did not completely ignore China, though the country was mentioned only a handful of times in 105 pages. Its most complete statement is on page 60.
A bit tougher review of China’s military buildup is on p. 31, before the ludicrous statement about welcoming the “constructive role” of a “strong, prosperous and successful China.”
The notion that American military leaders and defense analysts don’t know what Beijing is trying to do and need to find out more before determining if there is a danger is disingenuous. Every advanced weapon is being designed to attack and defeat U.S. forces. In Chinese documents, the new anti-ship ballistic missile being developed is shown in artwork as attacking U.S. aircraft carriers.
None of the issues currently roiling U.S.-PRC relations are new. What has changed over the last decade is the wealth and industrial power Chinese leaders now have at their command. Economic growth is being turned into diplomatic influence and military strength. President Hu Jintao built his career as a hard-liner and has centered his leadership position on a close alliance with the People’s Liberation Army. Looking at the turmoil in America, Chinese leaders believe that the balance of power is shifting and they can now stand up to America on issues across the board. Such a change, whether real or imagined, makes for a much more dangerous world whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not.
The New Cold War
Posted By William R. Hawkins
The People’s Republic of China has denounced the meeting of Tibet’s Dalai Lama with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb.18. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said [1] the meetings:
“have severely violated the basic norms governing international relations….The
Chinese Government and people stand steadfast in their resolve to safeguard
national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any attempt from any person to
interfere in China’s internal affairs under the Dalai issue is doomed to
failure.”
For Beijing the issue is not just about the oppression in Tibet, but the Dalai Lama’s larger message that it is the responsibility of the outside world to bring Communist China into the mainstream of global democracy,
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai called in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman for what were called “solemn representations.” This was the second time in recent weeks that the ambassador has been summoned. The previous time was after the Obama administration announced on January 29 that it would fulfill the commitment made by the Bush administration to sell $6.4 billion worth of defensive arms to Taiwan. Beijing has massed offensive weapons opposite the democratic island. The PRC considers Taiwan to be a renegade province despite its de facto independence for over sixty years.
The U.S. did not summon the Chinese ambassador in Washington for a formal protest after Beijing blocked an American initiative to strengthen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program. As Global Times, an official publication of the ruling Communist Party, stated in a Feb 10 editoria [2]l, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy.”
U.S.-PRC relations have soured steadily since the confrontation between the two powers at the UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in December. At that meeting, President Obama came face to face with Chinese intransigence and saw his year long attempt to cooperate with China come to nothing.
While the White House and State Department were rethinking engagement with China, the Defense Department was finishing its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint for how the U.S. military will meet threats to national security. The February 8 issue of the weekly Defense News had a disturbing sidebar by John T. Bennett to its lead story [3] about the QDR. Bennett reported,
As the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review moved from a December draft to the
February final version, Pentagon officials deleted several passages and softened
others about China’s military buildup.
Gone is one passage, present in the Dec. 3 draft, declaring that “prudence
requires” the United States prepare for “disruptive competition and conflict”
with China.
Altered are passages about Russian arms sales to Beijing and China’s 2007
destruction of a low-orbit satellite.
Why the changes? One Pentagon official said department and Obama
administration officials worried that harsh words might upset Chinese officials
at a time when the United States and China are so economically
intertwined.
Trade policy is not, however, in the DoD’s province. It is more likely that the QDR reflects Secretary Robert Gate’s often articulated view that future wars will be like the current small, irregular combat in Afghanistan rather than large-scale conventional warfare against a rival nation-state.
In his joint announcement [4] of the QDR and the 2011 budget on Feb. 2, Gates summarized his vision as, “Rebalanc[ing] our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies.” The “hedge” is not of sufficient concern to justify continuing programs like the F-22 air superiority fighter, or a capability to mount large-scale Marine amphibious assaults, or an expanded national missile defense system. Shipbuilding plans will also see the Navy continue to shrink, with an emphasis on smaller warships.
The QDR states, “successfully balancing requires that the Department make hard choices on the level of resources required as well as accepting and managing risk in a way that favors success in today’s wars.” Obviously, winning in Iraq and Afghanistan are the current top priorities, but Gates has also emphasized his desire to “institutionalize” DoD planning, meaning his vision of avoiding confrontations with a rising “peer competitor” like China or even a major regional power like Iran.
The QDR [5] did not completely ignore China, though the country was mentioned only a handful of times in 105 pages. Its most complete statement is on page 60.
China’s military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in
support of its growing regional and global interests, which could enable it to
play a more substantial and constructive role in international affairs. The
United States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a
greater global role. The United States welcomes the positive benefits that can
accrue from greater cooperation. However, lack of transparency and the nature of
China’s military development and decision-making processes raise legitimate
questions about its future conduct and intentions within Asia and beyond. Our
relationship with China must therefore be multidimensional and undergirded by a
process of enhancing confidence and reducing mistrust in a manner that
reinforces mutual interests.
A bit tougher review of China’s military buildup is on p. 31, before the ludicrous statement about welcoming the “constructive role” of a “strong, prosperous and successful China.”
As part of its long-term, comprehensive military modernization, China is
developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and
cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons,
increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and
computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft, and
counter-space systems. China has shared only limited information about the pace,
scope, and ultimate aims of its military modernization programs, raising a
number of legitimate questions regarding its long term intentions.
The notion that American military leaders and defense analysts don’t know what Beijing is trying to do and need to find out more before determining if there is a danger is disingenuous. Every advanced weapon is being designed to attack and defeat U.S. forces. In Chinese documents, the new anti-ship ballistic missile being developed is shown in artwork as attacking U.S. aircraft carriers.
None of the issues currently roiling U.S.-PRC relations are new. What has changed over the last decade is the wealth and industrial power Chinese leaders now have at their command. Economic growth is being turned into diplomatic influence and military strength. President Hu Jintao built his career as a hard-liner and has centered his leadership position on a close alliance with the People’s Liberation Army. Looking at the turmoil in America, Chinese leaders believe that the balance of power is shifting and they can now stand up to America on issues across the board. Such a change, whether real or imagined, makes for a much more dangerous world whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not.
Robert Spencer writing at Human Events:
Muslims Exempt from Death Penalty in U.S.?
by Robert Spencer Posted 02/25/2010 ET
Last October there was another in the growing number of Islamic honor killings in the United States when a Muslim in Peoria, Arizona, Faleh Almaleki, got into his Jeep Cherokee and ran down his twenty-year-old daughter Noor, as well as her boyfriend’s mother, Amal Khalaf.
Noor died not long thereafter, and Faleh Almaleki was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. But prosecutors announced this week that he will not face the death penalty – it wouldn’t be multicultural.
Faleh Almaleki’s lawyer, public defender Billy Little, requested that the death penalty not be sought in this case because County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a Christian and Almaleki is a Muslim: “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”
And indeed, the County Attorney’s office ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty, although it denied that Little’s request had anything to do with the decision: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison,” said County Attorney Office spokesman Mike Scerbo. “As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.”
This denial, however, did not ring true in light of the calculated nature of Almaleki’s actions: “By his own admission,” said county prosecutor Stephanie Low, “this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor killing.”
If a cold-blooded, premeditated murder doesn’t warrant the death penalty, what murder does? If the death penalty is to be applied or contemplated at all, one would be hard-pressed to find a case more appropriate than one in which a father murders his daughter freely, not in the heat of passion, and with full intentionality, because she does not share his values.
Honor killing is the murder of a wife, daughter or sister by a husband, father or brother in order to cleanse the family’s honor after a sexual indiscretion. Noor Almaleki had enraged her father by becoming “too Westernized” and living with her boyfriend. Honor killing is broadly tolerated in many Islamic countries, and is encouraged by the fact that traditional Islamic law mandates no penalty for a parent who kills a child. Syria and Jordan, among other countries, punish honor murderers more lightly than other murderers, and in Jordan Islamic clerics led the fight against an attempt several years ago to stiffen penalties for honor killing.
This is a human rights issue that ought to merit the attention of anyone who cares for the lives lost to this barbaric practice. Yet American law enforcement officials are doing nothing to call Muslim communities in this country to teach against and work against this practice. And relativist multiculturalists like Billy Little seem to think that taking a strong stand against honor killing would be an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim.
There are larger implications of this decision as well. In my 2008 book Stealth Jihad, I laid out evidence that Islamic groups in the U.S. were working in the courts, businesses, and educational institutions to secure special privileges for Muslims, in accord with Sharia provisions that give them a place above non-Muslims in Islamic societies. And while they have succeeded in local efforts here and there to get special break times in workplaces for prayers, even the most dedicated Muslim Brotherhood entities in America have not yet begun pressuring for the kind of concession that Billy Little handed them.
But they will surely take the hint. For the first time, the idea that all are not equal before the law, but that some are more equal than others, has been given credence by an American court. Despite the County Attorney’s Office denials, a precedent has been set that Islamic pressure groups are certain to exploit to the hilt.
Muslims Exempt from Death Penalty in U.S.?
by Robert Spencer Posted 02/25/2010 ET
Last October there was another in the growing number of Islamic honor killings in the United States when a Muslim in Peoria, Arizona, Faleh Almaleki, got into his Jeep Cherokee and ran down his twenty-year-old daughter Noor, as well as her boyfriend’s mother, Amal Khalaf.
Noor died not long thereafter, and Faleh Almaleki was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated assault and two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. But prosecutors announced this week that he will not face the death penalty – it wouldn’t be multicultural.
Faleh Almaleki’s lawyer, public defender Billy Little, requested that the death penalty not be sought in this case because County Attorney Andrew Thomas is a Christian and Almaleki is a Muslim: “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs.”
And indeed, the County Attorney’s office ultimately decided not to seek the death penalty, although it denied that Little’s request had anything to do with the decision: “The defendant is charged with first degree murder and, if convicted, will spend the rest of his life in prison,” said County Attorney Office spokesman Mike Scerbo. “As is in all first degree murder cases, the decision on whether to seek the death penalty is made on a case by case basis. Cultural considerations played no part in the decision not to seek the death penalty.”
This denial, however, did not ring true in light of the calculated nature of Almaleki’s actions: “By his own admission,” said county prosecutor Stephanie Low, “this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor killing.”
If a cold-blooded, premeditated murder doesn’t warrant the death penalty, what murder does? If the death penalty is to be applied or contemplated at all, one would be hard-pressed to find a case more appropriate than one in which a father murders his daughter freely, not in the heat of passion, and with full intentionality, because she does not share his values.
Honor killing is the murder of a wife, daughter or sister by a husband, father or brother in order to cleanse the family’s honor after a sexual indiscretion. Noor Almaleki had enraged her father by becoming “too Westernized” and living with her boyfriend. Honor killing is broadly tolerated in many Islamic countries, and is encouraged by the fact that traditional Islamic law mandates no penalty for a parent who kills a child. Syria and Jordan, among other countries, punish honor murderers more lightly than other murderers, and in Jordan Islamic clerics led the fight against an attempt several years ago to stiffen penalties for honor killing.
This is a human rights issue that ought to merit the attention of anyone who cares for the lives lost to this barbaric practice. Yet American law enforcement officials are doing nothing to call Muslim communities in this country to teach against and work against this practice. And relativist multiculturalists like Billy Little seem to think that taking a strong stand against honor killing would be an illegitimate imposition of Christian values upon a Muslim.
There are larger implications of this decision as well. In my 2008 book Stealth Jihad, I laid out evidence that Islamic groups in the U.S. were working in the courts, businesses, and educational institutions to secure special privileges for Muslims, in accord with Sharia provisions that give them a place above non-Muslims in Islamic societies. And while they have succeeded in local efforts here and there to get special break times in workplaces for prayers, even the most dedicated Muslim Brotherhood entities in America have not yet begun pressuring for the kind of concession that Billy Little handed them.
But they will surely take the hint. For the first time, the idea that all are not equal before the law, but that some are more equal than others, has been given credence by an American court. Despite the County Attorney’s Office denials, a precedent has been set that Islamic pressure groups are certain to exploit to the hilt.
Myrick has U.S. Muslims wary
This woman is terrific. Fearless undaunted and outspoken in her fervor for the security of this nation and the threat Islam and Jihadis pose to it. If she says there's a threat out there, and you don't already understand that, you had better start.
Muslims are wary? Good. They'd better be. Better still I'd like them all to be terrified everyday, to the poiint where they start turning on their own if they suspect they're up to no good.
from The News Observer h/t Her Royal Whyness
Muslims are wary? Good. They'd better be. Better still I'd like them all to be terrified everyday, to the poiint where they start turning on their own if they suspect they're up to no good.
from The News Observer h/t Her Royal Whyness
WASHINGTON A year ago, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick was appointed to the House Intelligence Committee, a prestigious post she had long sought.
There, top-secret briefings unveiled truths about homegrown terrorism she had only suspected. And won't reveal.
"I can't tell you. I'm not being coy," Myrick said in an interview. "There's a threat out there to our security. ... It's worse than I thought."
Myrick, a Charlotte Republican and former mayor of the city, contends that extremists are working their way into U.S. Muslim communities, infiltrating government institutions and influencing American citizens to attack their own country. Her activism earns plaudits from some conservatives - but criticism from Muslim constituents who fear that her tone endangers a community 3 million strong and deeply imbedded in the nation's fabric. Tonight, months after pledging to do so, Myrick will meet with Charlotte's Muslim community.
Since 9/11, Myrick has worried that the dangers of terrorism on U.S. soil were underestimated and has proposed a multi-pronged approach to fighting Islamic radicalization called "Wake Up America."
It suggested cutting off exchange programs and munitions sales with Saudi Arabia, passing legislation that would make calls for death to American citizens a form of treason, and investigating the selection of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and FBI. In recent months, Myrick has taken on the Muslim law known as Shariah, suggested universities are being influenced by the austere brand of Islam common to Saudi Arabia known as Wahhabism and warned that Muslims have infiltrated political and military circles.
She also has accused the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, of planting spies by trying to get Muslim interns hired in congressional offices.
Accusation of 'McCarthyism'
The allegations damaged already sore relations with the Muslim community, said Larry Shaw of Fayetteville, national chairman for CAIR and a North Carolina state senator.
"It's looking like she's taking on a tinge of McCarthyism," Shaw said. "She's becoming a hatemonger."
U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, Congress' only Muslim member, said he hopes tonight's meeting opens a dialogue.
"Some of the things that Rep. Myrick has said are deeply offensive and upsetting," said Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota.
In 2003, she angered Muslims with a comment during a Heritage Foundation forum about danger within the country.
"You know, and this can be misconstrued, but honest to goodness Ed and I for years, for 20 years, have been saying, 'You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country,'" she said, mentioning her husband. "Every little town you go into, you know?"
Last fall, she wrote the foreword to "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Seeking to Islamize America." The book accuses CAIR of supporting international jihad.
Most Muslims consider CAIR, which has been around since 1994, a respected civil rights group. The day of the book's release, Myrick and three colleagues accused CAIR of infiltrating congressional offices by attempting to place Muslim interns.
U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo of California, the top Democrat on Myrick's Intelligence subcommittee, said broad attacks on Muslims hurt American intelligence efforts.
Myrick cites Fort Hood
Myrick has said her fears about infiltration were realized in November, when Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 13 people at the Fort Hood in Texas. The FBI had been monitoring contact between Hasan and a radical Yemeni-American cleric.
After the shooting, Myrick told Front Page, a conservative Web site:
"We are fighting against radical Islamists who are using political Islam to advance their agenda to create a Caliphate, an Islamic state, and jihadists who use violent means to do the same."
Steven Emerson, author of "Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.," praised Myrick.
"Anyone who says that it's fear-mongering or that it's not serious is living on a different planet," Emerson said.
Some experts, though, disagree.
A study released last month by Duke University and UNC-Chapel Hill researchers found 139 Muslim Americans involved in alleged or confirmed terrorism since 9/11. That compares with a national Muslim American population of more than 3million, said David Schanzer, lead author of the study and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
"You have to look at the credibility of the individuals making those allegations, their motivations," Schanzer said, though he would not criticize Myrick individually.
U.S. Rep. David Price, a Chapel Hill Democrat and chairman of the spending subcommittee that funds the Department of Homeland Security, said that any member of Congress with details about a legitimate threat should take it to the FBI.
"I'm convinced we can do that without profiling, without stigmatizing whole groups," Price said.
Ebrahim Moosa, a Duke University professor of Islamic studies, said many of Myrick's concerns follow similar ignorance about Islam in America and the realistic threats of domestic terrorism.
"These manifestations are linked to more complex sets of issues, which is one thing politicians don't want to hear about," Moosa said. "She needs to make judgments on the facts and not on fictions. Without any evidence, this is just creating anxiety."
First of many meetings?
Myrick said she wants constituents to understand that her fears aren't about religion. "We live in the United States of America, where we have freedom of religion for everybody," she said.
She paused when asked whether she would have changed anything about her tone in the past year.
"I don't know," she said. "There's always times when you can choose your words better."
"We've got to talk about this," she said. "We can't just have two sides to an issue and not want to talk about it. It's too important to our country."
So if you're a Democrat. Or a Republican. Or a Paulinista. Or a Libertarian. Or a member of the MSM. Or Scott Brown. Or just about anyone else. If you don't subscribe to their idea of what America is and should be then not only will you not have their support, but you will have their active engagement against you.
About goddam time.
PDF version here
About goddam time.
PDF version here
Declaration of Tea Party Independence
I. As the course of human events winds its way through History, it has found some paths lead to Tyranny and some to Liberty. In seeking a path to Liberty, a great and powerful movement is now rising from every corner of our land. Created by the Will of the American People, it rejects unconstitutional domination by the Government that is supposed to be its servant. This movement has arisen, in large part, because our elected officials have failed us.
For much of its history the United States has been a land of prosperity and liberty, sound policies such as fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and a belief in the free market have safeguarded this condition. In recent years however, Congress, the President, the Federal Reserve Board and the Courts have replaced those practices with profligate government spending and expansion of the government power beyond what is constitutionally permissible.
This course, if not reversed, can only lead to economic collapse and tyranny.
Therefore, Individuals acting through the Tea Party Movement, seek to restore the policies, which are proven to safeguard liberty and prosperity for all. We will organize, demonstrate and vote until this restoration has been achieved. We will stay focused on this goal and remain INDEPENDENT from any persons or political parties who seek to distract us from this end.
Many seek to define this Movement, to use it, to lead it, to co-opt it, to channel it, to control it, to defeat it.
WE WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN.
The Tea Party Movement is in agreement with our Founders that the government that governs least governs best. We believe that Capitalism – NOT GOVERNMENT - is essential to the creation of wealth and a vastly reduced government provides the foundation for a thriving Capitalist system.
The Tea Party Movement of America embraces and serves people of all races, creeds, religions, and political affiliations, and we declare ourselves to be independent of all those forces that seek to manipulate our actions or control our destiny.
II. We Declare ourselves INDEPENDENT of the Democrat Party and its power drunk junta in Washington DC, which is currently seeking to impose a Socialist agenda on our Republic.
We reject arrogant Left-wing politicians who furtively hide from public scrutiny, as they cut corrupt deals loaded with earmarks and pork in order to produce 2000 page pieces of legislation so purposely incomprehensible, they do not even bother to read them before foisting them upon us.
We reject the endless creation of myriad federal government agencies that drown free enterprise and local control in the swarms of education, energy, ecology, and commerce bureaucrats who style themselves “czars” sent to harass us. We reject the creation of federal government regulations and agencies which demand the States pay for unfunded Federal mandates.
We reject a Democrat Party which refuses to give credence to our demands for just redress of grievances and which insults and seeks to demonize our legal right to peacefully protest the unjust laws it inflicts upon us.
We reject a profligate Government that is spending TRILLIONS of dollars on worthless socialist schemes designed to bankrupt us and put the American people in a position of dependence on the State, as peasants begging for their very sustenance from self-styled “educated classes” and so-called “experts”.
We reject a foreign policy which bows and scrapes and apologizes before the world for America.
We reject an Attorney General of the United States who offers succor and rights to vicious terrorist murderers and seeks to protect them with a mock civilian trial when such enemy combatants, captured on the field of battle, should be tried in secure military courts.
We reject the claims of an un-elected Federal Judiciary to violate the separation of powers by demanding its decisions be enforced by the other coequal branches of government, regardless of how unconstitutional the other branches of government may think those decisions are.
We reject all acts that ignore or diminish the 2nd and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution and we seek to have all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution to be reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
III. We Declare ourselves INDEPENDENT of the Republican Party, which has in the past manipulated its Conservative Base to win election after election and which then betrays everything that Base fought for and believed.
We reject the idea that the electoral goals of the Republican Party are identical to the goals of the Tea Party Movement or that this Movement is an adjunct to the Republican Party.
We reject the Republican Party professionals who now seek to use the Tea Party Movement for their corrupt and narrow political purposes.
We acknowledge that standing on our principles does not mean throwing out our common sense; we will NOT abandon our principles in the name of a nonexistent bipartisanship or a misguided devotion to an illusion of “pragmatism”, which disguises a desire to betray us in its name.
We reject the scare tactics of the Republican Party, which seeks to herd us into voting for candidates who supposedly represent the “lesser of two evils” in the name of fealty to the principle of small government and then having to suffer such candidates as they betray that principle. We are not well served by parasites whose livelihoods depend on the very State whose power to reward or sanction we elected them to limit and proscribe.
We insist that the Tea Party Movement does NOT consider the election of Republicans in and of itself to be necessarily beneficial to our goals.
We demand the Republican Party understand that we reject its attempts to co-opt us.
WE WILL WORK AGAINST THEM when they oppose our views by trying to force Republicans In Name Only (RINO) on us. When Republicans are in accord with their Conservative Base as well as the Independent voters who align with it, IT WINS; when they are NOT in accord with the Conservative Base and the Independent voters who align with it, IT LOSES.
We reject RINO money; we reject RINO “advice”; we reject RINO “professional experience”; we reject RINO “progressivism”; we reject RINO support of Big Government; we reject RINO back room deal making; we reject RINO pork spending; we reject false RINO professions of conservative views and we reject the RINO’s statist subversion of the principles of small government for which the Republican Party is supposed to stand. Republican Party attempts to ignore the will of the Base, as it did in 1976, 1992, 1996, 2006 and 2008, resulted in disaster; when it embraces the will of the Base, as it did in 1980, 1984 and 1994, it wins historic victories.
We demand the Republican Party recognize that while the Tea Party Movement cannot guarantee their aid will help them win elections, it is very likely WE CAN MAKE THEM LOSE if they are disdainful of our goals.
IV. We Declare ourselves INDEPENDENT of the Media, which has proved itself to be anything BUT a fair and balanced enterprise and which focuses more on entertainment, fear mongering and shock value than investigation and unbiased fact.
We reject the fiction that an unbiased media still exists; there is friendly media and there is unfriendly ENE-media. The Tea Party Movement refuses to give false credence to the self-aggrandizing, self-deluding lie that ANY PART of the Fourth Estate is free of the self-serving agendas of those who own them.
V. We Declare ourselves INDEPENDENT of self-styled “leaders” who claim to speak for the Tea Party Movement. This movement is not a brand name to be used to sell product; nor is it a logo to be used to justify profiting off its name.
We reject those who seek to personally capitalize on our popularity and momentum by trying to associate with our cause.
We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement is “led” by anyone other than the millions of average citizens who make it up. The Tea Party Movement understands that as a Free People, we need to SAVE OURSELVES, BY OURSELVES, FOR OURSELVES.
The Tea Party Movement is not “led.” The Tea Party Movement LEADS.
VI. We are united in our common belief in Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. This threefold purpose is the source of our unity in the Tea Party Movement.
We reject the idea that the Tea Party Movement must all be unanimous in our specific policy views in order to win. We recognize that the current situation requires we come together in confederation to achieve the MANY MUTUAL GOALS we all seek to accomplish.
We recognize that the current situation requires that we concentrate on the many things we have in common rather than those few things about which we may disagree.
We are the Tea Party Movement of America and we believe in American Exceptionalism.
We believe that American Exceptionalism is found in its devotion to the cause of Liberty.
We believe that Liberty is based in rational self-interest, in freedom of thought, in free markets, free association, free speech, a free press and the ability granted us under the Constitution TO DIRECT OUR OWN AFFAIRS FREE OF THE DICTATES OF AN EVER EXPANDING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH IS AS VORACIOUS IN ITS DESIRE FOR POWER AS IT IS INCOMPETENT AND DANGEROUS IN ITS EXERCISE.
We believe that either fate or history has chosen this Country to be a beacon of freedom and prosperity to the whole world because of America’s belief in and vigorous defense of political and economic Liberty. The United States has been the instrument of Liberty against the many tyrannies that have threatened the people of this world.
The Tea Party Movement rejects the idea that America has to apologize to a far guiltier world that has been largely unappreciative of the sacrifices made on their behalf by the brave and noble members of our Armed Forces, whose sacrifice and patriotic service in our defense makes all else possible.
The Tea Party Movement rejects the imposition of “transformational change” performed on our Nation by smug elites who call themselves the “educated class”.
The Tea Party Movement understands that our Nation is NOT the same thing as our overnment and that America is much more than simply a militarily and economically powerful State.
The Tea Party Movement sees America as something exceptional, as something unique, as something that came into existence to fulfill the hope of all previous generations that longed for freedom.
It came into existence because it is more than simply a country with land and population and riches and armaments. America came into existence because LIBERTY is an eternal concept in the mind of both God AND Man.
The United States of America came into existence because Mankind needs freedom the same way it needs food and air and property and security and love.
And what is freedom other than the RIGHT to be free of the tyranny of Government and the elitist, self-styled aristocrats who seek to run it at our expense and to our detriment?
The Tea Party Movement will fight this danger to our Liberty as long as its members have breath in their bodies.
When America didn’t exist men and women were compelled to invent it, BECAUSE MANKIND CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT FREEDOM AND STILL BE FULLY HUMAN.
To this goal we mutually pledge to each other, as our Founding Fathers did over two centuries ago, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
February 24, 2010
Presbyterian Church USA Set To Declare Israel Has No Historical Basis As A Jewish State
Amazing:
The Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUSA) is about to release a report which denounces Israel as a “racist” nation which has absolutely no historical, covenantal, or theological right to the Holy Land. The report calls for the United States to withhold financial and military aid to Israel and for boycotts and sanctions against Israel.
That’s not all.
The report also endorses a Palestinian “right of return” and “apologizes to Palestinians for even conceding that Israel has a right to exist.” According to the press release, it also states that Israel’s history begins only with the Holocaust and that Israel is “a nation mistakenly created by Western powers at the expense of the Palestinian people to solve the ‘Jewish problem’.”
In addition, PCUSA has also resolved to divest in companies that supply military equipment to the American Army, e.g. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc.
In 2004, this Church became the first mainline Protestant denomination in America to “approve a policy of divestment from Israel.” This was rescinded, but in 2008 the Church “created a committee dominated by seven activists holding strong anti-Israel beliefs. The lone member sympathetic to Israel, quit in protest when he saw their radical agenda.”
The Simon Wiesenthal Center notes that 46 members of the US Congress and Senate are Presbyterians and fears potentially “significant repercussions in the political domain” as well as a negative “impact on interfaith relations.” They urge us all to protest directly to the top leadership of the PCUSA “to stop this dangerous campaign which denies the legitimacy and security of Israel,” and to “reach out to your Presbyterian friends.”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Russia warns West against "crippling" Iran sanctions ? As 'deep throat' once told Woodward & Bernstein...FOLLOW THE MONEY
MOSCOW (Reuters) - A senior Russian diplomat warned the West on Wednesday against trying to paralyze Iran by targeting the Islamic Republic's energy and banking sectors with crippling sanctions.
Russia has in recent weeks signaled growing frustration with Iran over its nuclear program, though Moscow has given few indications about what sanctions it might be prepared to sign up to in the United Nations Security Council.
The United States has said it hopes to see sanctions against Iran in a matter of weeks and Israel has pressed Russia to back crippling sanctions, though the Kremlin has steered clear of openly supporting calls for further U.N. sanctions.
Oleg Rozhkov, the deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's security affairs and disarmament department, said Moscow would only consider sanctions aimed at strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
"Call them what you want -- crippling or paralyzing -- we are not got going to work on sanctions or measures which could lead to the political or economic or financial isolation of this country," Rozhkov told reporters in Moscow.
This will only end one way.
Whether Iran does it, Israel does it, or eventually we do it.
Only one end.
Maybe Moscow needs the $$ that badly, or they really believe a few nukes near Haifa and Tel Aviv won't affect the world so much and benefit them. Especially since Hormuz will be a battle zone of immense proportions making Russian gas and oil stable, secure, and unbelievably expensive.
But a regional nuclear war, which IS what is going to be the result will leave fatal fallout all over southern and far eastern Russia, sooner or later.
What is also significant is the rapidity with the Russian showed their 'respect' for this administration, which less than a week ago expressed the NEED for such sanctions, and this morning moved to impose vastly more strict banking sanctions (stupid anyway).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tkaCfeUZ_irgdbf_YuOUdeaG-mBimYX2Y8awM7Co9eJWIoTWeCVoAmtbWU64GjorTO4-Hhp6uJ0-a9LEX1RH5O9Piepr20K5ZVMNFG9cBUUzbveGZk0RZohen2HZXufufhlqLnxb8UHpsMO5yoaPHt=s0-d)
Some of us leave not a ripple, but not Robert Howard
From: Mellinger, Jeffrey J CSM MIL USA
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Today, at Arlington National Cemetery, we lay to rest COL(R) Robert L. Howard. The link for the interview is at the end of this email.
Read a bit about Howard at one of these links: The Robert L. Howard Tribute Website, The Congressional Medal of Honor Society Website, The Washington Post- Medal of Honor recipient Col. Robert L. Howard dies at 70.
COL(R) Howard was arguably America's most highly decorated Warrior ever, earning more awards for valor (10) than Audie Murphy, but he was surely America's most highly living warrior until his death. The US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) Biographical Sketch.
Color image from the Robert L. Howard Tribute website.
Wounded 14 times in 54 months of combat duty in Vietnam, Robert Howard was awarded 8 Purple Hearts and was believed to be the most decorated living American.
Colonel Howard served five tours in Vietnam and is the only soldier in our nation's history to be nominated for the Medal of Honor three times for three separate actions within a thirteen-month period. He received a direct appointment from Master Sergeant to 1st Lieutenant in 1969, and was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Richard M. Nixon at the White House in 1971. Colonel Howard is one of America's most decorated soldiers. His other awards for valor include the Distinguished Service Cross - our nation's second highest award, the Silver Star - the third highest award, and eight Purple Hearts. He was the last Vietnam Special Forces Medal of Honor recipient still on active duty when he retired on Sept. 29, 1992.
Interview at the Pritzer Military Library Website.
Please find some time to read, listen and reflect on one of America's real heroes - Robert L. Howard. He was once my commander, and always my friend. I last saw Bob in Iraq.
Jeff
CITATION
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vYO8uB67sKmBEOHB5Zx4taEkhfq10lvL7W-GjflDGgPtVVHKWpv4tds2-XEZpDWTTHwG4MD4QrM0Yue2P2F66mHzI8YyJgCKNsH0sD1PMzCAbL-qxwDL5V5vFZw4sftqLXYB4-oLgFqN31SkR1HDtp=s0-d)
Missile Defense Logo Brouhaha reaches Drudge
Can someone tell me WHY we need a new logo?
Or who was hired to design it?
Or how much it cost?
Or what benefit this new logo brings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)