San Bernadino

Nobody wants anyone to be hurt. 
But this was not your typical "lone wolf" shooting in spite of how Hillary and Obama want to frame it. This was a soft target. It's in a state where few have concealed carry licenses. It's also a state where the majority of people are hesitant to point out anyone who stands out as not belonging because of the imposition of PC attitudes on top of gut instincts. It was a hired hall with a group celebrating holidays and the achievements of some of their members. The president's comments are absolutely off base. The shooters hit a soft target with virtually no security in face. This has nothing to do with gun laws. I doubt someone planning such an attack worries very much about the lawfulness of their weapons. 

What should be alarming is that it took San Bernardino Schools over 90 minutes to call for a lockdown. That is way too much time. This comes from the liberal mentality of "don't judge" and the idea that some mantle of protection hovers over the families who vote largely Democrat. I shudder to think what could have happened had they reached a school. And what of the shopping malls? At least they evacuated, finally. But who's to say the shooters didn't shed their Kevlar and vanish into the crowd-a crowd that is unwilling to recognize a person who might stand out because they do not belong.

The gunmen were masked and armed. Some news agencies tried to say they were white. That's now been refuted. A person of interest is a worker at the facility named Farooq Syeed. Call me suspicious but that's probably not an Irish Catholic guy. I have to wonder given the media's willingness to push the White House agenda if they will admit it if the shooters turn out to be from the Middle East. After being so willing to push the #BLM agenda while ignoring situations like the Bunny Friend Playground shooting of 17 in New Orleans by a black male, I'm not so sure the media is our best source for information.

Also, and I hope to God this isn't true, this almost sounds like a practice run for something larger. I know if I was a parent of a child in San Bernardino Schools I would be burning up the lines to chew out whoever it was that didn't think those children's safety was worth upsetting the gods of political correctness to call a lockdown. That superintendent should be fired.

And finally, it sickens me how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could not wait to spin this to a gun rights issues without even knowing a single fact. This is from the same sources that called Ft. Hood "workplace violence" and Benghazi "a failed mission". I'd loved to say more, but I don't want to talk to officials. I just wish both of them would shut the hell up.

Welcome to Ebola Central

I live in the Dallas area. My son and daughter in law live mere blocks from the first Ebola patient, less than a quarter of a mile from the other. They are all of the same age, hang out at the same restaurants, bars and theaters. There's hookah bars, open air fruit stands, dog parks, and more all within the same area both nurses lived. And my son and his wife are there.

The head of the CDC says they can't catch Ebola from casual contact. But then they make all workers wear hazmat suits. We have a county judge, who is incidentally up for reelection, literally tramping through the contaminated apartment without any protective gear. He says he does it because "that's the way I would want my family treated. " Bullshit. He did it because there's a camera there. And since then, this local weasel who got his positions through Democrat party manipulations in the county, Clay Jenkins has sought publicity at every turn. In the meantime, after his little show for the press, he goes home to his family including a nine year old daughter that attends public schools in Highland Park. Imagine the fear of other parents not knowing if their child will be the one who picks up the virus thanks to this man's selfish behavior.

But it's more than that. I am genuinely sorry Mr. Duncan died. Nobody should have to suffer that fate. But since he KNEW he had been exposed and LIED to come here, I think we can pretty much write off any of his fiancee's claims to anger at his treatment. There is now a story floating that Duncan didn't tell the nurse the first time that he had been in WEST Africa, just that he came from Africa. Dallas is in the middle of the nation. It's simply not unreasonable to think that such a disease would show up in New York or Miami or Atlanta before Dallas. There are also reports that in the early stages the mild fever before the full onset can be controlled with Tylenol. So even the CDC's touchless temporal scans would not suffice to find the sick person. It's like a particularly gruesome version of Where's Waldo.

I went to the State Fair-a large gathering. I've been feeling queasy all day. Perhaps it's simply psychosomatic. Perhaps it was the heat. I refuse to  limit my life because of something brought here through carelessness and selfishness. But having said that, I find myself using hand sanitizer frequently. I send kids to the nurse for the least thing. I call my kids daily to the point that I can hear their eyes rolling. I know the weakest-the elderly and the very young-are often the targets of this disease. I worry about my Mom who at 85 is already battling enough chronic disease. I worry about my grandson who has just started preschool and could be exposed through sheer ignorance to this disease. I ache with worry.

And in the meantime, the market has had its fourth down day, rumors are that Soros is selling short, we have a government more interested in circling the wagons than solving the problem. Between the CDC, IRS, NSA, EPA I'm truly not sure what will be left after Obama leaves office. Let us pray.

On Guns, Society and Insanity

Guns have been around a long time. What has not been around long is a societal acceptance of bizarre, even psychotic, behavior as normal. We medicate seriously deranged individuals and release them back into society with little or no oversight. It is almost impossible to involuntarily commit even the most deranged person. And while guns have been the most recent weapon of choice, we have had mothers drown their entire young family, religious despots administer poison laced Koolaid to men, women and children and bombs set off by self appointed political groups in the name of peace. In one of the most horrific killings in Dallas history, a young African American man, high on drugs, killed a father of two young children. The young man had a history of mental illness and drug abuse,yet was foisted out on society because of the difficulty of getting him committed. The twist is that the shooter was the son of the current Dallas police chief. Do you not think this man every single night wishes he had had some means to save his son-who died due to being shot by the police-and the young father shielding his children? Our laws work against even the most loving and vigilant of families.

People who want to kill will find a means to do so. What we as a society must demand is that we stop the politically correct idea of "we can't judge" and start putting people who are dangerous into facilities where they cannot harm others or themselves. Even in classrooms now, courtesy of ADA special education laws of least restrictive environment, seriously mentally ill students, some of whom tower over their teachers, can rail and threaten on a daily basis with impunity. Our children deserve better. Teachers deserve better. Our society deserves better. The idea that we must tolerate insanity in public has to end. This attitude has contributed to the rise in homelessness, domestic violence and child abuse along with a list of other crimes. Like it or not, some people cannot live in the real world.

A Dark Day

Today is a dark day. It is a day when evil walked on two legs into a kindergarten classroom. It is a day when a madman mowed down a classroom of kindergartners. I can’t help but think that five year olds were clinging to their teacher, the shooter’s mother, as she died. I can’t help but think they were crying and scared wanting their mommies. What kind of animal does this?

But then again, while you will hear a loud drumbeat from the White House and the anti-gun lobby, what kind of delusional person shoots a movie full of viewers enjoying a new film or a playground of school kids? Let’s look at this further-what kind of person drowns her six young children or cuts the arms off her baby to make her an angel? These people share the same problem-they are what used to be called insane. Now that has been sanitized into an “illness” for which they cannot be held responsible. The woman who drowned her six young kids pled not guilty by reason of insanity when in reality it should be GUILTY by reason of insanity. Likewise the woman who killed her baby was committed for a short time and was in the past few months discovered to be working in a Walmart. The attitude of the medical community and the liberals is that you make these people show up to get meds and then send them on their way. No monitoring, no oversight, no protection for those they come in contact with. And if they stop taking their meds, what then?

But how does it get to this point. Let me give you an illustration. A colleague of mine has been victimized to the point of having nightmares by a six foot four male student who throws furniture and has as recently as last summer was in a mental health hospital. For six months she endured verbal threats and had to intervene as this student threatened others. One day he told her “I could hit you in the head with this hammer and you can’t stop me.” Indeed, until violence occurs there’s nothing a general ed classroom teacher can do. And there’s nothing we can do to protect other students either. Luckily this student was finally removed to a unit designed for emotionally disturbed students. He lasted two weeks in a facility designed for his needs and was kicked out. Now he’s in another school district where I have no doubt he’s cycling through the same delusional and menacing behavior. Everyone’s scared of the ADA and nobody wants to make the call that this individual is dangerous. I have little doubt that down the road, he’s another tragedy waiting to happen.

The problem is not with guns. Richard Speck murdered several nurses with a knife. Jim Jones murdered men, women and children with poison. The Weather Underground murdered people with bombs. Guns have been with us a long time. But what has not been with us is the prevailing societal drumbeat that we must not judge those who act out in dangerous and delusional ways. The ADA and various liberal feelgood policies have created a situation of political correctness where seeking to commit an insane individual to a facility where they cannot harm others is “unkind” or “meanspirited.” Indeed, many of the recent events of mass violence reveal a known history of outrageously insane behavior that was deliberately overlooked for the sake of avoiding being “judgmental.”

What will happen now is yet another outcry for gun control when what needs to happen is that we must, for the sake of our nation, take back the right to keep the criminally insane from victimizing the innocent. A friend of mine who just left a position as an aide at a facility designed for the retarded told me that the majority of the people there are mentally ill, not retarded. They are allowed to act out in ridiculous and provocative ways. She left because a man tried to gouge out her eye. Nothing was done. Nothing will ever be done as long as the current ADA laws are in effect. We have actually turned over the sylum to the inmates. The uptick in homelessness, the rise in domestic crime and the increase in drug abuse are all biproducts of a society that refuses to accept that some people are simply too sick and insane to be left on their own. I am not talking about the depressed, or the bipolar or even the nasty-but of those who are so obviously insane that they pose a threat to others. I shudder and can barely hold back tears when I think of that roomful of kindergartners murdered for the sake of sparing someone’s feelings. We must take back the safety of our society. We have to realize that by allowing such people to act out with impunity, we are not helping them, we are allowing them to overtake us.

Have a Very PC Winter Holiday

Once again, those steeped in political correctness attempt to make amends for actions that offend almost nobody. In Philly, the world"Christmas" is to be obliterated from the arch of a traditional holiday fair. It's ludicrous, especially in context that this was supposed to be a replica of a German village. Why is it that so many people who claim to embrace Freedom of Religion, seems to be so hellbent on denying that freedom to others.

It's like television. There are shows I hate-mostly reality shows and celebrity gossip shows-and shows I love. I don't want the other shows taken off the air, I just don't watch them. I don't want anyone else deprived of their worship and in schools and government we are urged to respect the rights of those who are out during feasts such as Ramadan, Eid, Yom Kippur, Chinese New Year and heaven knows what else. But where are the champions for those who want to express their Christian views?

I their wacky goony PCness, government entities large and small seem to be more reminiscent of hooting owls that turn their heads hooting angrily should anyone dare to disturb the status quo. They issue mandates banning this nativity scene, that Christmas sign and issue orders to respond "happy holiday" in an attempt to offend no one. Seriously, what kind of person is offended by good wishes even if it is in the context of someone's faith? I grew up in an area where there were three large synagogues. On Friday I would offer our neighbors a cheerful "Good Sabbath" just as they would wish my family a "Happy Easter" during the Paschal Feast. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion. Frankly the forces of the Left who continue to play religion's gadflies end up alienating far more people than they attract. I won't wish them Merry Christmas if they can't handle it. But I wonder what kind of person would rather hear nothing than accept a wish of good will.

In that regard, I offer a recap of this column by
Kathleen Vallee Stein / December 16, 2009 Monrovia, Calif.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/1216/Is-it-OK-to-wish-Jews-a-Merry-Christmas

Like most Jews, I don’t take offense when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas. I take it in the spirit in which the salutation is intended: a generic greeting that doesn’t hold deep religious meaning. I put it up there with “Have a nice day.”

It’s a dark time of year and for me the lights, decorations, illuminated trees, and greetings of Christmas cheer are an attempt to lighten things up, that’s all. On a deeper level, the wish of a Merry Christmas means: Let’s get through the dark winter months until the sun comes back again.

In recent years, people tend to get nervous about offending the religious sensitivity of others. Especially at Christmas. Debates circulate about putting Christmas trees or manger scenes on public land. Some attempt to mitigate the issue by saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas.”

But I have never met a Jewish person who felt seriously insulted by a holiday greeting; we understand the tsunami of Christmas and go with the flow.

Sure, there are religious decorations among the Santa-and-his-reindeer displays and inflated plastic snowmen. The crèche scenes remind Christians of the real purpose of the holiday. For the rest of us, the lights and decorations are pretty to look at.

My husband and I drive around and look at Christmas lights every year. It doesn’t move us to convert to Christianity or question our Jewish faith. It’s pretty clear to us that Christmas decorations are put out on lawns, strung along gutters, and sometimes placed on rooftops, to decorate the house, not to proselytize or move someone to religious rapture.

The most important Jewish holidays do not have any fictional characters to go along with them like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. They are deeply moving and meaningful to Jews, but there isn’t any bling.

On Yom Kippur, the most solemn day of the year, we fast, not feast. We sit in the synagogue the entire day and break the fast after sundown. It is spiritually rigorous and a time for self-reflection.

Since we don’t have any fun stuff to augment our holy day, we vicariously enjoy Christmas cheer, but it does not undermine our beliefs. After all, Judaism is the foundation of Christianity and both faiths share many values.

In recent years retailers have been catching on and now sell us deprived Jews some goodies for Hanukkah. Although the holiday is not the most important one on the Jewish calendar, some fun traditions have grown up around it and the accouterments are a retailer’s dream.

I have Hanukkah-themed guest towels in my bathroom that are embroidered with dreidels and menorahs. I even succumbed to the charm of a string of Hanukkah lights to hang in the window.

I live far-flung from the areas of California where a Jewish family seems to live on every block, but even the grocery stores out here have small displays with Hanukkah merchandise in an attempt to be respectful or to capitalize on our holiday. It’s quite funny actually: It seems as if no one in the store knows exactly when Hanukkah is, so they put things out during Christmas and hope for the best.

Irving Berlin (a Jew) wrote a beloved Christmas song, “White Christmas.” Mel Tormé (a Jew) wrote the charming lyrics “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire/ Jack Frost nipping at your nose,” from “The Christmas Song.”

And then there are the Christmas albums featuring Barry Manilow and Barbra Streisand, just to mention a couple more great Jewish names. When it comes to popular music, Jews have contributed plenty to the joy of the Christmas season.

I say to Christians and others who celebrate Christmas, don’t worry about your Jewish friends and acquaintances, we are just fine. The overwhelming majority of us will respond with a cheery “Merry Christmas” back at you.

To quote the end of Mr. Tormé’s “The Christmas Song:” “And so I’m offering a simple phrase/ To kids from one to 92/ Although it’s been said many times/ Many ways, Merry Christmas to you.”

Oh, and “Happy Hanukkah,” too.

Kathleen Vallee Stein is a freelance writer.

The Need for ID: The Ultimate Irony

It's the second day of school
There is a kindergartner still at school 20 minutes after the noon dismissal.
Other students are coming in.
So when a man says he's here to pick up the kid, do you simply turn the child over to him?
There's more to the story. This particular school is in a mainly Hispanic area of Dallas. Many of the people in the area participated in a variety of marches and protests regarding things like requiring identification to vote, to live in an apartment in Farmers Branch TX and even traveled to Arizona to protest their law. What was that law again? Oh yes, the law was that people had to give law enforcement officers valid identification during the investigation of a crime or a traffic stop. People, including the president, are so up in arms over this law that the Attorney General is suing Arizona, despite the fact that many other states have similar laws on the books.

But back to Maple Lawn Elementary. You have a largely Hispanic parent population AND staff. The prevailing attitude is that asking for identification is "bad." So you don't require it. Instead you have this kind of laissez faire system where parents or other adults wander in, pick up random kids and then go. There's no list of acceptable rides home-banning non-custodial parents or vindictive exes from taking the children. There's no check of identification to ascertain that this person is who he or she claims. In short, it's a seriously delinquent system that was imposed because of a politically correct attitude that puts children in danger. Luckily this time, it was (supposedly) a case of mistaken identity. But the bottom line is this-in this modern society having valid identification is NOT optional. You must use it for writing checks, banking, loans, school access and to pick up your child at most daycare centers.

This is the same mentality that made Army officers hesitate to turn in one of their own that seemed a bit off and was embracing a jihadist attitude. That ended in treachery at Fort Hood when people DIED because someone was so very very afraid of causing offense. Of course there is also the side story that offense can often lead to expensive lawsuits. At some point we have to reel in the lawyers and stop tiptoeing around issues based on something as vaporous as hurting someone's feelings. PC attitudes are going to get people killed. This time we got lucky.

Where Do Seals Go To Get Their Reputations Back?

“…Three Navy SEALs who faced courts-martial for allegedly abusing a terrorist and covering up the incident should be asking these questions. Last week, a military jury delivered the same verdict for Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe that two previous juries had given Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas and Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe — not guilty.
The charges against the three elite SEALs stemmed from the apprehension of Ahmed Hashim Abed in a daring nighttime raid in Iraq last September. Abed is believed to have led the ambush of a convoy in Fallujah in 2004, during which insurgents pulled four American military contractors — one a former SEAL — from their vehicles, brutally beat them to death, mutilated their bodies and hung the corpses from a bridge over the Euphrates River.
McCabe was charged for — if you have a delicate constitution, stop reading here — striking Abed once in the midsection while he was in the SEALs' custody. Huertas and Keefe were charged with dereliction of duty for failing to prevent the alleged abuse and impeding the investigation into it.
In the civilian world, these charges don't sound like much. In the world of the SEALs, they lead to dead-end careers.
That was implicit in the offer from military brass scared stiff by the Obama administration's political correctness: acknowledge guilt and accept ruinous administrative punishment, or take your chances with a court-martial and end up in the brig. The SEALs, men of honor, chose to defend their names and try to continue serving the nation in the Special Operations Forces…’

Such is the situation in our point of history that the words of criminals hold more validity than those of the highly trained professionals who are paid to control them. Police, Security, Military personnel are all held in every facet of pop culture to be corrupt and inherently evil. This is political correctness at its worst. And it is being allowed to infect every facet of our lives.
Consider the Ft. Hood Massacre (no doubt that term will be downgraded to the more politically palatable “Shooting” before he goes to trial) Several people noticed Hassan’s erratically skewed Islamist outbursts. But nobody in the military command dared to breathe a word of their suspicions. Such is the nature of political correctness that we have driven a wedge between those that administer military programs and those who must act on those commands. There was a point in time where the front line personnel had reason to expect support from their commanders. But instead of military personnel in the Pentagon, we have creatures in uniform who seem far more concerned with their own careers than the safety and support of the front line personnel.
Make no mistake, this situation was not another Abu Ghraib, although no doubt that situation in a small way made this one possible. Then men accused in this case were not poor infantry personnel trained mainly to shoot and be shot at. Navy Seals are among the military’s elite services. They are highly trained in all matters military as well as the political expectations governing their actions. They act on black ops with full knowledge of the military and political implications of their actions. For the military to take the word of an avowed and captured terrorist over the reports of such highly trained personnel is the worst type of pandering to the powers of political correctness.
So where do these Navy Seals go to get their reputations back? Although exonerated, this court martial’s history will be a blot on their jackets. Such situations are career-enders. In addition, because of the highly skilled nature of their training, these men in normal circumstances would form the power elite at the upper echelons of command down the road. But that path is doubtful now due to a military upper command that is far more concerned with their polling than the actions and support of their personnel. I would hope that these men, having seen the worst of what a PC attitude can do will come into the public domain as candidates and advocates. They can testify on how far afield our country has flown from the solid application of Constitutional goals over interpretation.
If you look around you, this pandering to political correctness is responsible for many of the issues we face. We are not allowed to condemn those who come here illegally. We are not permitted to question the wisdom of gaming the system to get the most from the Welfare State without being branded as wrong. This court martial was just one case where we see an effort to vilify those who defend us by the very same people who would gladly sell the American people out for a few diplomatic dinners. We cannot allow this to continue. When you vote this year, remember how a regime of political correctness nearly sent good men to prison on a trumped up charge. And then remember who runs the show.

A Letter to Holder

I found this very interesting. I think many others will as well. It addresses from a knowledgable perspective, the problems with making sweeping kneejerk decisions without considering the ultimate out come. It's interesting when lawyers call out one of their own and give them the b*tchslap they deserve.

"Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President's Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants--or what the Department now calls "individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations." I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear--most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany--that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president's first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers--like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy--may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America's "commitment to the rule of law." Indeed, you elaborated, "Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration's] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.... President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]" (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism--a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that's what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities--like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs' impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration's propensity to deride its predecessor's purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno--as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the "blind sheikh" would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I've always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I've made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who've thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy

cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section"

Feminism At College is On It's Way Out

For quite a few years universities across the globe have promoted a type of political correctness that included the creation of various departments and majors in things such as Women's Studies (sometimes called Womyn's Studies-to have no association whatsoever with the male of the species) as well as a rainbow of minority inspired programs in culture, anthropology and literature. Being a far more socialist society, the UK was a bastion of all things politically correct. So imagine my surprise and delight in reading the following article! Too many dollars have been wasted subsidizing programs that very few students want just to be able to wave the banner of diversity. Now that money is tighter, and now that this generation's students are far more savvy with their educational demands that their parents were, the time has come for universities to get rid of programs that don't sustain enrollment.
Excerpt:
"Feminist scholarship has become predictable, tiresome and dreary, and most young women avoid it like the plague," said Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for public policy research in Washington and author of Who Stole Feminism? "British and American societies are no longer patriarchal and oppressive 'male hegemonies'. But most women's studies departments are predicated on the assumption that women in the West are under siege. What nonsense...."
Story here.

Polar Bears Extinct? Not Hardly.

The Greenies would have us believe that countless white fuzzy polar bears are drowning in the melting soup that the Arctic oceans have dissolved into. But as usual, there's just a little problem with the science fact over the science fiction which is being promoted by Al Gore, Greenpeace and countless other members of the Church of Global Warming. Thanks to this study, being brought to light by OrangePunch, we now know that like swirly bulbs being environmentally sound and hybrid cars getting 50 mpg, this is just more anarchist malarky designed to stampede the unknowing into supporting causes that have NO MERIT.

"Polar bear extinction? Not exactly.

February 21st, 2008 by mlandsbaum

From Mark Landsbaum

So, is global warming killing off polar bears? Don’t bet on it.

Despite the government poised to declare the polar bear the first species officially threatened by global warming, it turns out just the opposite is true.

U.S. polar bear populations aren’t declining. H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, says comprehensive research shows that since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, the overall number of polar bears didn’t just increase, but increased dramatically.

Today there are about 25,000 of the furry white critters, more than any time in the 20th century.

Meanwhile, the World Wildlife Fund found that of the 20 polar bear populations worldwide, only two are decreasing. And guess what. Those are in areas where air temperatures have fallen, not risen.

So, we’re losing bears where it’s getting cooler. Hm. Not much to blame global warming for there.

There were two polar bear populations that have grown. But guess what. They live in areas were air temperatures have risen.

Hm. We’re getting more bears where it’s getting warmer.

In fact, evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Susan Crockford, of Canada’s University of Victoria, says polar bears historically thrive when temperatures have been warmer than the temperatures we have today.

Yes, we know, it doesn’t fit the global warming story line. But that’s why we call it a “story line” and not a fact.

Sign This Petition

There are still men in this world who feel it is their heaven sanctioned right to oppress women and girls, even to the point of killing a man who dares to point this out. If you think this is a problem isolated in regions of the Middle East, think again. Throughout the world, wherever this backward philosophy of life moves, women are oppressed and sometimes beaten and killed. In a relatively average Dallas suburb on New Years Day, two seemingly normal teenage girls were killed by their father. Their crime? Dating American boys, wanting to be normal, wearing western clothing. In Canada as well, a father killed his daughter for refusing to wear hijab. As Islam and the related cultures expand into western regions, we must be ready to recognize this evil behavior for the abuse it is. It is not "honor" nor is it something to be pushed away as a cultural activity to be permitted, it is the systematic destruction of females with the tacit approval of the leaders of the various mosques. This is not to say that all Muslims indulge in this behavior, but western police organization don't realize that the women who are abused are so brainwashed and so cornered, that they accept this abuse as normal. We cannot and should not permit the growth of this evil. And we should not let a good man die because he dared to say it was wrong.

Read this first:

" The following editorial appeared in Saturday’s Washington Post:

There was a time when many people in Oakland, Calif., admired Your Black Muslim Bakery, a neighborhood enterprise founded in 1968 by a charismatic African American known as Yusuf Bey. Community members, politicians and the local media hailed the bakery as an example of black self-help in an otherwise dispiriting environment of urban poverty.

For years, they tended to ignore or play down reports about the more violent side of Bey’s operation, or about such disturbing events as a political rally at which Bey remarked that Jews “are not worthy of being hated.”

Among the many who were a bit soft on the bakery was a reporter for the Oakland Tribune, Chauncey Bailey, who doubled as news director for a television channel that Bey paid to broadcast his sermons.

But in 2002, the East Bay Express, a local alternative newspaper that had praised the bakery, ran a penetrating series of articles on the activities of Bey’s minions, including the alleged torture of a Nigerian immigrant. That series earned reporter Chris Thompson threats from Bey’s group.

Bey’s arrest in 2003 on 27 counts of raping four girls further damaged both Bey’s image and that of his organization, though most of the charges were dropped and he died before his trial.

Bailey began to take a second journalistic look at Your Black Muslim Bakery. Having become editor of the Oakland Post, a small weekly newspaper focused on the African American community, Bailey probed the bakery’s murky finances — until the morning of Aug. 2, when a masked man approached and fired a shotgun at his head.

According to police, a 19-year-old employee of the bakery has confessed to the murder, saying he carried it out because of Bailey’s reporting. The suspect denies he confessed and claims he is innocent.

Job-related murders of journalists are extremely rare in the United States: The last one took place in 1993, and there have been only 13 since 1976 (including Bailey’s), according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Yet this murder is a reminder of the need for reporting by professional journalists, even in an era when amateur video of war zones can be had at the click of a mouse. Aggressive journalism is still a vital part of every community’s defenses against corruption and crime. It can save lives.

Chauncey Bailey died doing his duty as a reporter. That duty is not only indispensable in a democratic society; it’s also risky. Now that the police have raided the bakery, confiscating weapons and arresting six people in addition to Bailey’s alleged assassin, there is some hope for a safer Oakland. That would be the most fitting memorial for Chauncey Bailey."

Now-We live in a nation where we are blessed with freedom to say and write what we want. Not all nations have that privilege. In fact many nations subject those who dare to question authority, demonstrate a lack of religious conformity such as carrying a Bible, or refusing to bow to social limitations such a wearing a hajib or purdah to jail, to beatings, to whippings or worse. As a free nation, writers are able to express their opinions in what used to be news. But I question the wisdom of adhering to politically correct imagery on certain ethnic groups while overlooking more sinister and serious issues. In this case, the writer did a fluff piece on the main character showing his positive side. But when the same writer found out about major criminal activity associate with this same person, the writer was killed. That's not supposed to happen in the United States. But it does happen in many of the nations whose egregious behavior is being whitewashed by a media that seeks to control the vote through only the most politically correct presentation of groups that seek to do us harm. You can see it with certain radical elements within domestic Islamic beliefs, you can see it with the refusal to site the resident status of known offenders, you can see it in the way they show people involved in a crime based more upon their perceived minority or ethnic status rather than on the heinousness of the offense. This cannot stand. We can't allow people to corrupt us from within. Somewhere there must be judges and juries who are not blinded by the polling of an issue. I think the location of this event also is telling since that area of California is one of the most willing to accept people precisely because they oppose the concepts that make the United States what is it today. Please consider this issue and discuss it with your kids. They need to know what they are up against.

Holidazed

There are only so many days in a year. And it seems that lately every single one of them is a holiday, holy day, celebration day of some sort for some religious, ethnic or cultural group in my school. I don't mean to complain, but there has to be a limit. Right now a friend of mine who teaches elementary is looking at a Winter Holiday spectacle that has to offer paeans to the Three Major Religions AND seven or eight cultural variations. Nobody likes anyone else's music. Everyone hates the commercial stuff and what ends up happening is that some parent will get their knickers in a twist and file a formal complaint about how their child was "damaged" by not having every little essence of the holiday meal, show or celebration to their liking. Talk about people who know how to suck the joy out of everything...

I can understand that some religious issues are touchy. I get it that some Muslim kids wouldn't like singing "Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel" and some Jewish kids might balk at singing "Away in the Manger". But like it or not, we live in a society of pluralities. And contrary to what many think, that doesn't mean you get to cover your ears and mutter nahnahnah until the bad song or sight passes. It means you make the choice to GET ALONG. Let me repeat that for all the upstanding Baptists, observant Jews and active Muslims-it means that you deal with it by letting others do what they want and they in turn, will let YOU do what YOU want. That's what this whole Freedom Of Religion thing is all about. It's not me telling you what to do, it's not the ACLU telling me what NOT to do, it's not mayors shutting down nativity scenes or atheists picketing midnight Mass. It is about being grown-up enough to realize that everyone, even those who are in your own family, have slightly different perspectives on life and religion. Rather than focus on building walls, isn't it about time that we start concentrating on the values we share? I am personally tired to death of one religion poking at another one for some slight that happened so long ago that nobody remembers when or what or why it happened.

In the meantime, take a moment, and no matter what you believe or if you don't believe in a Higher Power at all, and consider how you can let go of your anger and prejudices and make your part of the world a better place.

BTW, contrary to popular views, I am a conservative.