I heard on the news today that the idiot who shot people on the military base me be going for an insanity plee. Hello. He PLANNED this, gave away stuff etc. I am so sick of the PC junk in this country.

Holder: Court Will Convict KSM

In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to defend his indefensible decision to provide Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four other 9/11 terrorists with all of the rights afforded to American citizens by putting them on trial in our federal court system -- mere blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City.

Holder was grilled repeatedly about his stated rationale, at times grappling to justify his own tortured logic. We’ve put together some of the most telling moments from the hearing in transcripts, all of which are edited for length.

Early on, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked a simple question that Holder obviously wasn’t prepared to answer.

SEN. HERB KOHL: In the worst case scenario and the trial does not result in conviction, what would be your next steps?

A.G. ERIC HOLDER: Failure is not an option.

That’s Plan B? Plan A will not fail?

Questioning by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) drew cheers and applause from 9/11 family members and New York Fire Department survivors who travelled to Washington for the hearing to object to Holder’s plans.

KYL: You have repeatedly said that your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Article III courts is because that is where you have the best chance to prosecute… How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before military commission and be executed?

HOLDER: The determination I make of where I think we can best try these cases does not depend on the whims or desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … I have decided Article III courts are the best place to do that. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not making this decision. The attorney general of the United States is making this decision.

I don’t think that was an answer.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pressed Holder further on the issue of the case against Mohammad being dismissed due to violations of speedy trial or Miranda rights that are afforded to defendants in our federal court system, which could be a sticky issue in federal court.

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: I don’t see how you can say that failure is not an option when you’ve got juries in this country.

HOLDER: If -- if there were the possibility that a trial were not successful, that would not mean that the person would be released into our country.

Terrific. We can just drop Khalid Sheik Mohammed back in Pakistan and let him pick up where he left off plotting and facilitating the efforts of Islamist nut jobs flying airplanes into our buildings.

The grand slam home run of the day came from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) when he grilled Holder on the damage being done to America’s war-fighting ability by Holder’s actions.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Here’s my concern. Can you give me a case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

HOLDER: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know the. . . the determination I’ve made. . .

GRAHAM: We’re making history here Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you: the answer’s no. The Ghelani case, he was indicted for pre-nine…for the Cole bombing before 9/11 and I didn’t object going into federal court. But I’ll tell you right now, we’re making history and we’re making bad history. And let me tell you why. If Bin Laden were caught tomorrow would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice? … When does custodial interrogation begin in his case? If we capture Bin Laden tomorrow would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

HOLDER: Again, I’m not… it all depends.

GRAHAM: Well it does not depend. If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war. That if we caught Bin Laden tomorrow, there are mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, or military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States and you’re confusing the people fighting this war. What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him you must read him his rights and give him a lawyer? And if you did tell him that would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?

HOLDER: We have captured thousands of people on the battlefield, only a few of which have actually been given their Miranda warnings.

GRAHAM: … if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court. And what comes with being in federal court is that the rules in this country, unlike military law, you can have military operations, you can interrogate somebody for military intelligence purposes and the law enforcement rights do not attach. But under domestic criminal law, the moment the person is in the hands of the United States Government, they’re entitled to be told they have a right to a lawyer and can remain silent. And if we go down that road we’re going to make this country less safe, that is my problem with what you have done.

During a break in the hearing, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a former prosecutor and top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, spoke with HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin about Holder’s “failure is not an option” remark.

“That was a very bad mistake, I think,” Sessions said. “First it’s contrary to the Department of Justice policy, the very department he heads. When I made reference to the strong case about Khalid Sheik Mohammed in my opening statement I said alleged. That’s the policy. I think this will be just one more thing defense lawyers will raise in a civilian trial and it could be a very difficult matter.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and member of the Judiciary Committee, spoke with Babbin about Holder’s admission that the Obama administration is still Mirandizing terrorists on the battlefield.

“It was news to me,” Cornyn said. “As I recall, KSM was picked up by Pakistani Intelligence and perhaps some of our people and he asked for a lawyer. Now he’s being given the rights an American citizen would have and there is some risk that a judge would throw out the whole case.”

We’ll have more on the Holder testimony and reactions from New York firefighters and the 9/11 families in coming days. To support the firefighters and 9/11 families petition against the trials that has garnered over 100,000 signatures since the announcement less than a week ago, go to thebravest.com.

Stay tuned.

~ Connie Hair

Terrorists on Trial in NYC Is an Unacceptable Risk

So Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his buddies are coming to New York for a civilian trial. Big mistake, on a number of levels.

First, this all could have been over a long time ago. KSM and his cohorts were well into the military commission process when the incoming Obama administration put those proceedings on hold. They had pled guilty and, in fact, requested execution. KSM himself requested "blessed martyrdom" at the hands of his enemies.

That was one detainee request that ought to have been given. Happily.

Instead the Obama crew, insisted that the military could not give a fair trial and that they must be hauled before civilian courts at huge expense and additional extraordinary delays. In this, the Obama administration was led by Attorney General Eric Holder who, in his pre-appointment job as senior partner for Covington & Burling law firm, was instrumental in much pro-bono legal defense work on behalf of these same Guantanamo detainees,

The Obama team consistently blames the Bush administration for "failure" to bring more than a handful of terrorists to trial during the seven-year period that Guantanamo was functioning. What they don't say is that it was because of endless delaying legal actions on the part of attorneys representing detainees -- including lawyers from Covington -- who were the prime cause of the blockages.

This is the same Holder who continues to draw a $2 million dollar annual salary from Covington in 2009 as part of his severance package. Does conflict of interest seem to be an accurate term here?

Make no mistake, these trials are going to take years and years to finish and will end up costing financially-strapped citizens of New York tens of millions of dollars in unfunded security mandates imposed by the Federal government. Federal agencies such as FBI and ATF will handle security inside the wire. But they will insist on security standards outside that will be laid heavily on state and city authorities. With no compensation.

Need proof? Just look back at the Alexandria, Va. trial of a single terrorist, Zacharias Moussaoui, and assess the extraordinary expenditures in police overtime, traffic disruption, and impact of businesses to that locale and you'll get an idea. Add a big multiplier for New York with higher visibility terrorists in the docket and the number will be shocking.

Lower Manhattan will become an armed camp.

Meanwhile, media is already moaning about the "impossibility of finding an impartial jury" in New York in order to preserve these murderers' rights. Stay tuned: it will only get worse.

When asked about the proposed relocation for trial, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) revealed that he had been asked by the White House to withhold comment until he could meet face-to-face with President Obama after the latter returns from Asia. Graham acceded to the request -- in effect a presidential gag order -- while Democratic proponents of the move are filling the airways with positive remarks.

For all intents and purposes, the administration is stifling public opposition to this move in order to front-load public opinion on its side. This is disgraceful

When trials took place in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, reams of classified information were forced to be released in order for the government to make its case. One of those tidbits was a list of unindicted co-conspirators. Prominent among that list was Osama bin Laden, who was then alerted that he was on the target list and immediately disappeared into Afghanistan to resume plotting. We know all too well the results of that civilian court -- induced security leak.

The unintended consequences of leakage in the KSM trial potentially could be even more disastrous.

Furthermore, the "rock star" appeal of these terrorists -- the kingpins of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist world -- will be irresistible to cells and lone wolf terrorists eager to make their bones on the international stage. New York and environs will become even more of a terrorist magnet that it already is, with the potential for a Beslan, Russia-like incident overshadowing all proceedings.

Smart terrorists -- and it is critically important that we realize the degree of sophistication and cunning many of these men possess --are not going to attack the trial or prison in order to break the defendants out. They prefer soft targets such as schools, hospitals, and churches that they will take down and hold hostage for release of their compatriots.

If they die in a fusillade of SWAT team bullets in the attempt while taking hundreds of innocents along with them to Paradise, so much the greater for their martyrdom aspirations. When this happens, the blood will be on the hands of politicians who insisted that they be brought onto U.S. soil for trial.

Think back to Beslan. Chechen terrorists were being held in Moscow, hundreds of miles distant, but their loyal supporters picked a soft target, a school packed with hundreds of teachers, parents, and children, as a vulnerable target to make their odious statement. It was a middle school, preferred by terrorists because the boys are too small to fight but the girls are old enough to rape.

Male teachers and boys were used as laborers to improve defenses by moving furniture against doors and windows while the terrorists pretended to negotiate. Then they were coldly executed. Meanwhile, women and girls were systematically raped by the terrorists who planted explosives throughout the building, intending to cause the greatest bloodshed possible if and when an attack by authorities materialized.

Their goals were achieved -- not release of their fellow Chechens -- but a mindless slaughter of hundreds of innocents while becoming martyrs to their evil ideology.

Think it can't happen here, that this is just fear-mongering? Think again. In the past several weeks, cells around the U.S., including New York, and lone wolf terrorists have been apprehended at an alarming rate. The Fort Hood attack alone ought to be a sufficient wake-up call to convince us that the previously unthinkable is now stark reality.

Even if skeptical about these dire possibilities the essential question remains: Are you willing to risk the safety of hundreds of innocents by being sanguine about terrorist intentions and capabilities within this country so that Obama can fulfill a campaign promise?

In his press conference announcing this move Holder was quoted as saying "To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps."

Political lumps are trivial compared to the potential blood-bath this move could generate. It has happened before, and can happen again. If you live in a town where school children are held hostage, raped and murdered, perhaps in Westchester Country, New Jersey, or Long Island, or another more remote location, ask yourself, are you as personally willing to accept the risk?
~ Gordon Cucullu

At the End of the Day, Diversity Has Jumped the Shark

It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength."

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!"

By contrast, the canard "diversity is a strength" has now replaced "at the end of the day," "skin in the game," "blood and treasure," "jumped the shark," "boots on the ground," "horrific" (whatever happened to the perfectly good word "horrible"?), "not so much," "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," and "that went well," as America's most irritating cliche.

We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.

Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, "Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony" from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: "Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine."

Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, "Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine," while everyone nods in agreement.

Except mere nonsense makes more sense than "diversity is a strength."

If Gen. Casey's wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn't kill it, nothing will.

Among the worst aspects of America's "diversity" is that liberals' reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood -- as described in electrifying detail in my book, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America.

In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying -- including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness.

But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in "diversity" of legal forums.

After conferring with everyone at Zabar's, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it's good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York!

Mohammed's military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.

In a liberal's reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions.

Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one's defense.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens -- and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.
~ Ann Coulter

ABORTION: A Planned Parenthood director in Texas has a change of heart after watching a baby ‘crumple’ on an ultrasound

In late September, the abortionist at Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas, needed assistance, so he asked the center’s director Abby Johnson to hold the ultrasound probe during a dilation and evacuation abortion. Johnson watched as the 13-week-old unborn child attempted to avoid the probe. “I saw a full profile of the baby from head to foot,” she told me.

Once the abortion procedure began, Johnson saw the child “crumple” under the pressure of the vacuum and then in an instant the child was gone. The reality of seeing the baby moving struck her as she stood in shock and dropped the ultrasound probe, she recalled: “My heart was racing. I kept thinking about my daughter.”

In her second year as director of the Bryan center and her eighth with Planned Parenthood, Johnson wanted to quit at that moment, but she and her husband needed two incomes, so she kept working. She knew that visiting abortionists only work at the center every other Saturday, so she knew she had two weeks to find another job before any more procedures would take place.

But several days later, on Oct. 5, as Johnson sat crying behind a closed door in her Planned Parenthood office, she watched women coming in and out of the center and knew they were receiving the abortion-inducing medication offered on weekdays. She was afraid that none of her pro-abortion friends or co-workers would understand her distress. Looking for answers, Johnson glanced out her office window and saw two women from the 40 Days for Life campaign praying on the sidewalk just outside the center. She got up and walked down the street to the house where the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life had set up its new headquarters a few weeks earlier. She resigned her position with Planned Parenthood the next day.
“Planned Parenthood pretty much lives in fear of Coalition for Life,” Johnson said. Planned Parenthood asked for a restraining order in the 85th District Court that would prevent Johnson or Coalition for Life from releasing confidential information about its clients; Planned Parenthood workers claimed she copied down information shortly before resigning. “We don’t know what that [information] is because I don’t have any confidential documents,” Johnson said, adding that she never considered violating her ex-clients’ privacy. A judge threw out the request following a hearing on Tuesday.

Following Johnson’s resignation, the pro-abortion community rushed to discredit her. Salon.com’s Tracy Clark-Flory suggested that the Bryan center’s 2008 “Employee of the Year” had her abrupt change of heart because she recently had a poor performance review and finally had caved under pro-life harassment and from “death threats” she had in the past complained to the local media about. Others were skeptical of her claim that seeing an abortion prompted her change of heart. They wondered how a Planned Parenthood director could not know what an abortion did.

“Of course I knew what an abortion was,” Johnson said, adding that seeing it happen live struck her in a new way. She said she realized that the baby “wasn’t something that doesn’t have life.”
Johnson is still looking for a job. She has been accused of trying to become the next right-wing media darling but points out that Planned Parenthood took the story public first—she was hoping to just move on with her life.

For now, Johnson plans to spend a lot of time in prayer. “I feel so pure in heart, I don’t have this guilt,” she said in an interview with the local ABC affiliate. “I don’t have this burden on me anymore, and that’s how I know that this conversion was a spiritual conversion.”

~ Julie Smyth

Devil's Dictionary of Healthcare Reform

With apologies to Ambrose Bierce, the real meaning of healthcare buzzwords.

2010 -- The year in which Democratic health care “Reform” plans will raise your taxes, impose penalties on your company, and cause your health insurance premiums to increase dramatically, a remarkable achievement given that it is three full years before the plans suggest making any substantive changes to our actual health insurance system; The year in which the US will see a dramatic drop in applications to medical school.

AARP -- An interest group which earns billions of dollars by selling Medigap insurance to senior citizens, insurance which Democratic "Reform" plans would make all but required for seniors by gutting Medicare and Medicare Advantage spending; See "Endorsement"

Abortion -- A practice opposed by many, supported by many, and almost certain to be funded with government money under Democratic "Reform"; for a related term, see “Illegal aliens”

Affordable -- Something which you know will be rapidly increasing in price but which Government will let you pay for with someone else's money (until it runs out; see Thatcher, Margaret.)

American Medical Association -- An interest group which claims to represent America’s doctors even though fewer than a third are members; A group which says that doctors support current Democrat “Reform” plans even though repeated polls show otherwise. See “Endorsement” and “Pharmaceutical makers…” entries.

“Bending the Cost Curve” -- An expression used by President Obama when the words “cost curve” appear on his teleprompter rather than his original formulation of “bending the taxpayer over the table”; An expression used to make people believe any Democratic politician has an understanding of microeconomics.; The Democratic economic equivalent of clicking your heels together three times and saying “there’s no price like free, there’s no price like free.”

Blue Dogs -- Democratic members of the House who desperately wish someone would pet them following the election results in New Jersey and Virginia; Congressmen who wish Nancy Pelosi would throw them a bone.

Bronze (or Basic) Plans -- The government’s way to stigmatize American citizens who cannot afford “enhanced” or “premium”, much less “Cadillac” plans; America’s next victim group whose votes the Democratic Party will try to buy with “free upgrades”, rather like a cable TV company.

Cadillac Plans -- Health insurance plans of current or former employees of General Motors, for which unions fought so hard that taxpayers had to spend tens of billions of dollars to rescue GM from the plans’ costs; A health insurance plan which Democrats want to tax because it’s just too generous, and which will soon be defined to include “basic”, “enhanced”, and “premium” plans when Democratic Reform costs begin to bankrupt the nation. (Aforementioned union plans will be excluded).

Canada and England -- People whose citizens come to the US for critical medical care when they can afford it because the US does not have the health care system they do.

Choice -- A decision you may make, selecting from a list preselected bu a bureaucrat; depending on the issue, the number of possibilities may range from zero to three; Alternatively, something Democrats believe citizens are not smart enough to make.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) -- A group of accountants and economists who, through no fault of their own, calculates the cost of "Reform" as if the Democrats will actually cut hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare funding; related: see “Score”

Endorsement -- The praise given to Reform by any group which was either threatened by Rahm Emanuel or expects to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars its way by siding with Reform early on; the way the American Medical Association is dealing with the maxim "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu." See also, “AARP.”

Existing Coverage -- A health insurance plan which the vast majority of Americans are happy with and which will be caused to double or triple in price before being forced out of existence so that you Shall be in the Public Option; related: see “Shall”

Health Insurance Companies -- A term always to be preceded by the word “greedy”; A group of companies which, while far from flawless, provide an extremely valuable service while earning average profit margins under 3.5% and ranking approximately 85th in profitability among US industry groups, below auto parts stores, footwear manufacturers, home improvement stores, and specialty eateries.

Health Savings Account -- A historical remnant of when our government remembered that people spend their own money more wisely than they spend others'.

Illegal aliens -- People for whom care is almost certain to be funded with government money under Democratic "Reform"

Individuals and Corporations -- Those who will see large tax increases under Democratic health care "Reform"

Insurance Exchange -- See "Trigger Mechanism"

May -- A word which the next Democrat-led Congress will change to "Shall"

Minimum Actuarial Value -- The percentage of expected health insurance claims which a government-approved, employer-provided health insurance plan must cover if the employer is to avoid being put out of business by government taxes, fees, and penalties; Of the various government-approved health insurance plans which are so expensive that an employer must fire workers if he must provide the plan, the characteristic of the cheapest.

"Opt-Out" provision -- See "Trigger Mechanism"

Part-time employees -- Workers, frequently working mothers who need a flexible schedule, who will be put out of work fastest by Democratic “Reform” requirements that employers provide them health insurance benefits.

Pharmaceutical Makers -- People who have learned what it means when you make a deal with an Administration run by Chicago politicians: To quote [filtered word] Armey, if you make a deal with the devil, you are the junior partner. (Applies equally to health insurers, the AMA, and Olympia Snowe.)

Public Option -- A government-mandated health insurance plan which one can only escape from by no longer being part of the public, i.e. by being elected to Congress; A socialized medical system which must lead to high prices, high taxes, fewer doctors, less health care innovation, and suggesting Grandma have the good manners to just get on with it.

Qualified Benefits Plan -- A government-approved health insurance plan, the definition of which shall change over time such that whatever non-government plan you are most happy with will become illegal soonest.

Reform (as used by Democrats) -- Any legislation approved of by the SEIU; Any legislation which increases the power, scope, and cost of government; A change toward a health care system such as exists in Canada and England.

Score -- An estimate of the Congressional Budget Office of the likely cost of a piece of legislation, made to be as accurate as possible until the President says that he doesn’t like the answer; An estimate of the economic effect of a bill based on the assumption that people do not change their behavior when tax rates change; A ten-year cost estimate for a plan which gets most expensive starting in its eleventh year.

Senate Health Care bill -- A measure which Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) announced at a press conference and which he is asking the CBO to Score, but which he has told Republican lawmakers does not actually exist.

Shall -- A word preceding a requirement imposed by Congress on all citizens except members of Congress

Trigger mechanism -- The health insurance equivalent of a kidnapper putting a shotgun in your mouth and tying a string from the trigger to the door handle that you would need to turn to escape; Also, code for "we trust Americans aren't smart enough to know that this really means "Public Option'".

“Young Invincibles” -- Sometimes confused with “Young Invisibles”, young generally healthy people who rationally decide that expensive health insurance is a poor use of their limited financial resources because they are so unlikely to have expensive medical problems; The people whom Democrats will drain of their financial resources in order to fund “Reform” in much the same way a leech drains a passing hiker of resources. ~ Ross Kaminsky

Nowthat the Feds have taken over four mosques, I wonder if "All hell is about to break loose?" Remember the big fuss that happened over a cartoon drawing? Well, this is more serious.

Enemies Within

Last Thursday, Nov. 5, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and devout Muslim, fatally shot 13 American citizens (12 service members) and wounded an additional 29 people at the largest U.S. military base, Fort Hood, Texas.

For six months, authorities had been tracking the extremist thinking of Hasan. Internet postings like this one go back to May 20, 2009: "Scholars have paralleled (a U.S. soldier's falling on a grenade to save surrounding troops) to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."

Hasan vehemently opposed the U.S. missions in the Middle East, arguing with co-workers, senior officers and even patients. He quarreled with Col. Terry Lee, who testified that Hasan said, "Maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor." Dr. Val Finnell, a former classmate of Hasan's, said that Hasan was "very vocal" about equating the war on terror with a war on Islam. He said Hasan even gave a PowerPoint presentation once justifying Islamic suicide bombing.

A few days before the killing spree at Fort Hood, Hasan proved his premeditated intentions by giving away all his belongings (including his Qurans) to his neighbors, saying he no longer would need them and adding, "I'm ready."

Just hours before the shooting spree, he attended prayer services at a local mosque, where he normally wore street clothes but that morning wore white Muslim attire.

Firsthand witnesses at the Fort Hood murder scene say they heard Hasan yelling "Allahu akbar" (meaning "God is great") before he opened fire.

And authorities just revealed that Hasan has made contact with other al-Qaida operatives. In 2001, authorities say, Hasan attended a mosque whose leadership was associated with two of the 9/11 hijackers. He even apparently stirred up anti-American sentiment within other Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood.

Yet despite all of this U.S. adversity in his background, Hasan was promoted this past May to the rank of major.

And the questions that keep coming to my mind are: Have we become so tolerant and politically correct that we can't see or confront a rotten apple when it's right in front of our eyes? When our fear of discrimination enables our enemies, can't we see something is grimly amiss?

To those roughly 3,500 Muslims who faithfully serve in the U.S. military, God bless you. We appreciate what you do and pray for you along with all of our dedicated service members. I fully realize Muslim extremists don't represent mainstream Islam. We must not quarantine all Islamic theology and practice as un-American.

At the same time, we must not stick our heads in the religious sands and call all these fatal acts "isolated incidents." We should not ignore the systemic nature and embryonic potential of fanaticism inherent within many. And we must not allow our cultural infatuation with passivity and tolerance to restrain us from searching for and stopping such militant rudimentary resistance, especially on our military posts.

Even our president warned Americans not to "jump to conclusions" about the motives of Maj. Hasan. But to what "conclusions" is he referring? It fascinates me that our president travels the world blaming America for everything under the sun but cautions Americans not to "jump to conclusions" about a fanatical Muslim military officer who just took the lives of 13 patriots and wounded many others who have honored their oath to defend this country. Why would the commander in chief even take up his precious media time immediately after this brutal rampage to encourage tolerance and political correctness concerning this psychotic killer? As a veteran of the Air Force and honorary Marine, I am appalled.

It's time our federal government woke up and realized that jihadists are not done planning and plotting against the U.S. and that a terrorist is not only defined by being a card-carrying member of al-Qaida. It's time our federal government better assured the protection of our valiant service members, not only in the Middle East but also right here on American soil.

Extremists still are infiltrating our military ranks, and we must be more diligent about exposing and stopping them. If Washington worked with just one-tenth the passion in corralling the enemies of the U.S. as it has in ramrodding the Obama-Pelosi health care system down our throats and pocketbooks, we'd reduce military acts of terrorism down to zero, inside and outside our borders.

As another Veterans Day passes, we owe our renewed allegiance and support to our service members. And we owe, in particular, the families of those who fell at the Fort Hood massacre our continued reassurance that their loved ones did not die in vain. They were real people, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers -- American patriots who each sacrificed everything in a war we wage even domestically to save our sacred land.

Let us pause again and salute all the victims and valiant soldiers at Fort Hood, including the heroes who kept the death toll from escalating. Let us honor the wounded and, in particular, the fallen, who (like those who fell on 9/11) serve as catalysts for our patriotism and vivid reminders that there are still enemies within. ~ Chuck Norris

As Obama heads to Asia, America no longer has demands to make—only requests.

Welcome to the New World Order.

Barack Obama will be all smiles as he heads to Singapore—a mere 560-mile hop from his childhood stomping grounds in Jakarta—for his first presidential summit meeting in Asia this week. But Obama has little choice but to offer up a smile—the smile of the importunate. That will be especially true when the president stops off in China and seeks to encourage America’s new policy of “strategic reassurance," as Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg called it last month. "Strategic reassurance" is the term U.S. officials are now using to describe America's posture vis a vis China "as well as other emerging powers like India and Brazil, while protecting our own national interests," Steinberg said. It's all very mutual, a "tacit bargain," as Steinberg called it. It goes like this: America will welcome the rise of China and the rest, and in return we will ask to be reassured by these emergent powers that they won't be mean to us in the future. We've come a long way from the days when American officials demanded that China become a "responsible stakeholder" or face the opprobrium of the U.S.-dominated global system.

In keeping with this new, humbler U.S. profile, Obama is going to Asia with very little to offer and everything to ask. His every movement and talking point in China will be shadowed by the knowledge that the United States desperately needs Beijing to keep buying U.S. debt (of course the Chinese also need U.S. growth to resume quickly so they can keep exporting). He will do little to press President Hu Jintao on human rights or climate change, even with the Copenhagen summit looming. With no legislation on carbon emissions likely from Congress—Obama tends to defer to the Hill on everything from health care to financial reform to climate change—in Copenhagen the administration's goals have been reduced to "not letting it fail," as one Western official put it. In Japan and South Korea, Obama will have nothing new to offer on what those two countries consider the preeminent security threat, North Korea.

And in Singapore, the site of the APEC economic summit, Obama's bilateral meeting with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev will be dominated by U.S. pleas for help in containing Iran's nuclear program, according to U.S. and European officials. After a somewhat promising start on Oct. 1 in Geneva, the nuclear talks with Tehran are going nowhere, with the Iranians balking at a deal to ship their uranium abroad for enrichment and refusing to agree to an agenda for further talks.

Obama believes the new hard line out of Iran has to do with political paralysis in the wake of the election turmoil there. With the various power factions maneuvering for political advantage, Iran's radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is actually taking a softer position on the nuclear fuel issue right now than some reformers like Mir Hossein Mousavi, the losing presidential candidate. Ahmadinejad wants the deal with the West; Mousavi has criticized it, playing on Iranian fears that Tehran will never get the uranium back if it gets shipped abroad. "It is a battle of who can look tougher and less pro-American," said a senior diplomatic official who is deeply involved in the talks. Under the deal, Iran was to send most of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then to France to be processed into civilian fuel rods, which were to be returned to Iran for use in the Tehran Research Reactor. Obama and other officials hope to get Medvedev and other senior Russians to persuade Tehran that it is in its interest to come to an understanding, at least on the fuel-shipment deal, before a scheduled meeting of the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of the month.

Also hovering in the backdrop of Obama's Asia visit will be a sense of "I told you so" from many Asian governments. For nearly two decades Washington dismissed the alternative route to development that many of the Asian economies had discovered—the so-called Asian "model" of maintaining partially closed economies and heavily regulated financial systems. The Asians were pressed hard to open their financial markets, and when China and Japan resisted they were branded as retrograde. Similarly, when the Asian financial contagion hit in the late '90s the Asians were told their own policies were to blame. Now America is still half underwater from the untrammeled and unregulated flow of capital it once unleashed upon others. Obama will not be dispensing much economic advice on this trip.

Yes, the president's trip to Asia will be something of a homecoming for him. In the late 1960s he was a happy-go-lucky kid growing up in Jakarta, enjoying his exotic new surroundings but also savoring visits to the place he came to see as a symbol of hope and opportunity, the U.S. Embassy's American Club. It was in Jakarta that Obama came to appreciate both the powerlessness of his native companions and the status that came from having a white American mother, Ann, who worked for the U.S. Embassy. "He was at an age when you first begin to see what's going on," Ben Rhodes, one of Obama's speechwriters, told me before the election. "And what he saw was that America had something other people wanted."

Today, however, it is mainly America that wants things from other people.

Michael Hirsh

Politics: The House's shameful vote on the health care bill, made to minimize Democrats' political fallout, is bad enough. But the votes of two members in particular show why politicians these days warrant little trust.

Not only did the congressional leadership arrange for a Saturday night vote — leading the Drudge Report to dub Rep. Nancy Pelosi "Sneaker of the House" — but some freshly minted representatives from both parties appear to have broken their pacts with the voters.

Let's start with Bill Owens. He's the "moderate" Democrat who won the infamous N.Y.-23 congressional election last week after liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out and supported him rather than Conservative Party stalwart Doug Hoffman. Scozzafava's move likely cost the conservative the race.

Owens had come on strong by posturing as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat in a fairly conservative district. This could be seen in his stance on Congress' health care takeover, which he early on claimed to have major problems with.

Yet, as the Gouverneur Times noted, Owens within hours of his swearing-in broke four campaign promises by supporting the wrongly named Affordable Healthcare for America Act.

We haven't consulted the Guinness book, but we're pretty sure that's a record. Owens' arm was no doubt twisted mightily by Pelosi's House enforcers. Given this start, his tenure in Congress might turn out to be short.

Other Democrats showed a bit more common sense. As Politico.com points out, 31 of the 39 Democrats who opposed the health care bill represent red or purple districts — that is, districts (like Owens' 23rd) that voted for John McCain for president.

Some no doubt object to socialized medicine. Others just ran scared. Not surprisingly, the Republican National Committee says it will go after those Democrats in conservative districts who voted for the health care bill.

What about a Republican in a liberal district? That certainly describes Joseph Cao, who represents a strongly Democratic district in Louisiana. Of 177 Republicans in the House, he was the only one to vote for the bill. "I felt last night's decision was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Cao told CNN on Sunday.

Right decision for his district? Or right decision for Cao? Seems to us that his predominantly Democratic district will not thrive under the Democrats' health care plan, though they may have been led by relentless Democratic propaganda to believe so.

What did he get in return for voting for the worst bill ever? A "commitment" from President Obama to help with a number of Louisiana issues, ranging from health care to disaster loan forgiveness.

He sold his most important vote ever for peanuts.

The White House has referred to those who oppose the $2.4 trillion health care bill as "tea bag, anti-government people." This shows shocking contempt for lawful democratic opposition to White House and congressional plans to massively expand government's reach into American lives. In this environment, "anti-government" might not be a slur at all, but a compliment.

Given the anger welling up among the electorate and strong opposition to nationalized health care, Pelosi's short-term legislative gain may give way to long-term political pain.

Election 2009: Change I Can Believe In!

-- MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia:

"In (McDonnell's master's thesis), he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult, and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.' Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989.

"Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell."

-- MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell:

"And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here's where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement.

"Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again."

On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent -- winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats' eight-year reign in the Virginia governor's office.

Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for.

To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat.

And that's not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey -- a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago -- lost by 5 points.

At 49 percent for Republican Chris Christie versus 44 percent for Corzine, the election wasn't even close enough to be stolen by ACORN. (Although Corzine did extremely well among underaged Salvadoran prostitutes living in government housing.)

The biggest winner election night was pollster Scott Rasmussen, who -- once again -- produced the most accurate poll results. New York Times poll: Corzine 40, Christie 37; Quinnipiac poll: Corzine 43, Christie 38; Rasmussen poll: Christie 46, Corzine 43.

The biggest loser was President Obama, who campaigned tirelessly for Corzine, even giving up golf on several occasions and skipping a quarter-million-dollar "date night" with Michelle to stump for the Democrat.

Just two days before the election, Obama was at a rally in New Jersey assuring voters that Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together. ... Jon Corzine helped get this done."

Except the problem is that voting for Obama a year ago was a fashion statement, much like it was once a fad to buy Beanie Babies, pet rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids. But instead of ending up with a ridiculous dust-collector at the bottom of your closet, the Obama fad leaves you with higher taxes, a reduced retirement fund, no job and a one-year wait for an MRI.

That is why Corzine's defeat sounded the death knell for national health care.

The good news: Next time Corzine is in a major car accident after speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike, he'll be able to see a doctor right away.

The media will try to rescue health care by talking about nothing but the 23rd district of New York, where the Democrat won Tuesday night. Congratulations, Democrats -- you won a congressional seat in New York! Next up: A Catholic elected pope!

Far from an upset, the Democrats' winning the 23rd district was a long-term plan of the Obama White House. That's why Obama made John McHugh, the moderate Republican congressman representing the 23rd district, his Secretary of the Army earlier this year. The Democrats thought McHugh's seat would be easy pickings.

Only in the last week has everyone acted as if a Democratic victory in the 23rd district would be a shocking surprise -- an upset victory caused by puritanical Republicans staging inquisitions against "mainstream" Republican candidates like Dede Scozzafava, the designated "Republican" candidate in the special election.

This is preposterous -- there was absolutely nothing Republican about Scozzafava. As a supporter of partial-birth abortion, card-check union schemes and massive government spending programs, she was less Republican than John McCain.

Even Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos called Scozzafava the most liberal candidate in the race -- which may explain why she was the choice of George Soros' Working Families Party and why she promptly endorsed the Democrat after withdrawing from the race last weekend.

Conservative opposition to Scozzafava hardly suggests that they plan to impose litmus tests on every Republican candidate in the 2010 elections.

Speaking of litmus tests, on MSNBC recently, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said of the possibility that a blue dog Democrat would oppose national health care: "I dare Blanche Lincoln -- I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She'll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin."

While I'm sure an out-of-touch liberal blogger from Hollywood knows more about Arkansas than an elected senator from that state, Hamsher's threat sounds more like an intra-party civil war than conservatives opposing a George Soros-supported Republican candidate in a New York congressional race.

Not only do conservatives not pick insane fights -- such as staging a 2006 primary fight against a recent vice presidential candidate because he supported the war in Iraq -- but conservatives are more popular than Republicans.

By contrast, liberals are less popular than Democrats. When conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years. ~ Ann Coulter