December 21-26, 2006
Dec 21 12:03 Thursday's Must Reading Dec 21 12:18 Blog Discovery Dec 21 12:40 Wilson Begs Not to Testify in Libby Trial Dec 21 13:07 Calling Out a Coward Dec 21 16:31 Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC Dec 22 21:20 Immigration Insanity Dec 25 19:41 Iranians Caught With Hands in Iraq's Business Dec 26 13:21 Fisking Keith Ellison
Thursday's Must Reading
The deep political divisions within Iran have been reported more frequently ever since Ahmadinejad's electoral defeat. This morning, Michael Ledeen writes about Ahmadinejad's evaporating political support. Here's a glimpse of Ledeen's blog post:
I've been wondering what accounts for the sudden change in tone regarding Iran from London and Washington. Both Bush and Blair had been playing the mullahs' game, taking military options off the board, talking with feigned optimism about the diplomatic strategy, patiently working for UN sanctions, and so forth. Then, all of a sudden, we started hearing very tough talk about Iran (and Syria) from the two leaders, and over here from Secretary Rice and National Security Adviser Hadley. Blair even delivered a very strong speech in Dubai, which is virtually an Iranian protectorate. How come? Had something happened?That's just part of the political trouble that Ahmadinejad finds himself in. In addition to foreign leaders taking a new approach with him, student protest groups are giving him trouble inside Iran. Here's what Mr. Ledeen says about that:Copley News Service reported a few weeks ago that we and the Jordanians had uncovered an Iranian-backed plot to assassinate Bush when he was in Amman. Copley told me the evidence is very good, even though the plot never came to anything, and nobody tried to kill the president. If the story is true, it would be a virtual replay of Saddam's efforts to kill W's father on a trip to the region while Clinton was president.
Meanwhile, those who insist there is no hope for a timely democratic revolution in Iran might be asked what they make of the outspoken students at a university in Tehran, seen all over the world calling for an end to the "fascist" regime in their country.This leads to the second must reading for today from Captain Ed:
Ahmadinejad has become the center of widespread scorn and dissatisfaction among Iranian students, a volatile and powerful force for radical change in the nation. Combined with a humiliating setback in local elections, Ahmadinejad may find himself on the same career path as the Shah:How I'd love to see that regime fall from within. That would be a great New Year's present.As protests broke out last week at a prestigious university here, cutting short a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Babak Zamanian could only watch from afar. He was on crutches, having been clubbed by supporters of the president and had his foot run over by a motorcycle during a less publicized student demonstration a few days earlier.Earlier reports had the Iranian leader shocked by his treatment at Amir Kabir, but that analysis has been somewhat eclipsed. The protest at the university only got organized after the students saw busloads of Ahmadinejad supporters coming into the school, apparently to provide a cheering section for the president that would otherwise have been lacking. Quite obviously, Ahmadinejad and his lieutenants understand how unpopular he has become, and tried to pack the auditorium to prevent it from becoming common knowledge.
But the significance of the confrontation was easy to grasp, even from a distance, said Mr. Zamanian, a leader of a student political group.
The Iranian student movement, which planned the 1979 seizure of the United States Embassy from the same university, Amir Kabir, is reawakening from the slumber of recent years and may even be spearheading a widespread resistance against Mr. Ahmadinejad. This time the catalysts were academic and personal freedom. ...
The protest, punctuated by shouts of "Death to the dictator," was the first widely publicized outcry against Mr. Ahmadinejad, one that was reflected Friday in local elections, where voters turned out in droves to vote for his opponents.
Posted Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:07 PM
No comments.
Blog Discovery
I was just over to Captains Quarters & I spotted a great new blog called Marie's Two Cents. I'm confident that you'll want to make Marie's blog part of your daily reading. I know that I will.
Posted Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:18 PM
No comments.
Wilson Begs Not to Testify in Libby Trial
That isn't the exact headline of this Washington Post article but that's essentially what he's doing. Here's what the Washington Post is reporting:
Former ambassador Joseph Wilson asked a federal judge Wednesday not to force him to testify in the CIA leak case and accused former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of trying to harass him on the witness stand.I suspect that Wilson wants to do everything he can to avoid testifying under oath. I further suspect that he knows that he'd prefer telling his tall tales in the court of public opinion rather than in court where he's subject to perjury charges.
Libby, who faces perjury and obstruction charges, subpoenaed Wilson as a defense witness this month. Libby's attorney, William Jeffress, said in court Tuesday that was a precautionary move and he did not expect to put Wilson on the stand.
I find Wilson's use of the word harass an interesting one. Here's the Dictionary.com definition of harass:
To irritate or torment persistently.What I find significant about that is that it might be the first truthful public statement that I've heard Wilson make. I think he's exactly right; Libby intends to torment the daylights out of Wilson for all the lies Wilson's told about him. Frankly, I think that Mr. Wilson deserves the tormenting. I can't wait to see what he's forced to admit under oath. I hope it's a painful experience that Wilson never forgets. Frankly, I hope they play hardball with him.
Posted Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:41 PM
No comments.
Calling Out a Coward
That's essentially what Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is doing in this Boston Globe op-ed about Jimmy Carter's unwillingness to debate Dershowitz about Carter's most recent book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." Here's the opening paragraph of Professor Dershowitz's op-ed:
YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he's a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I'm talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid."Carter has been exposed repeatedly by both liberal Jews and by conservative Christians but few have flayed him as thoroughly as has Professor Dershowitz. Carter's fear of debating Dershowitz is understandable considering the indefensible statements that he made in his book, not to mention having to defend those statements against a debater of Professor Dershowitz's caliber.
Dershowitz continues, saying:
The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received.
He wrote that his "most troubling experience" had been "the rejection of [his] offers to speak" at "university campuses with high Jewish enrollment." The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: "There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine."While it's true that Carter wants nothing to do with debating anyone about this book, the bigger truth is that he doesn't want his lies to be exposed to the public because it will be a public humiliation that will forever sink what little is left of his presidential legacy. Carter tried making provocative statements with hopes of them just being accepted as fact. When that didn't happen, he started backpedaling and obfuscating about what he wanted the book to be.
As Carter knows, I've been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times, certainly more times than Carter has been there, and I've written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won't debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It's not that I know too little; it's that I know too much.
Posted Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment 1 by lance at 21-Dec-06 03:31 PM
Dershowitz is a lawyer. Carter was President of the United States and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Dershowitz has worked tirelessly for murderers like OJ Simpson and the pornography industry. Dershowitz is Jewish and Carter is a Christian.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Dec-06 11:39 PM
Dershowitz is a lawyer. Carter was President of the United States and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Dershowitz has worked tirelessly for murderers like OJ Simpson and the pornography industry. Dershowitz is Jewish and Carter is a Christian.
And Carter is still a coward who won't debate because he's dead wrong and he knows it.
Comment 3 by Edward at 18-Feb-07 10:55 PM
Dershowitz is full of crap. That is why Jimmy Carter will not debate him. Dershowitz can waste hours with endless layers of BS in the defense of Israel. By the end an uninformed audience member would merely be confused. Dershowitz would make it appear the Palistinians are evil ungrateful violent Arab scum that exist merely to kill JEWS. Lets just accept the fact zionism is based on religious fanatism and racism. Dershowitz is a racist pig that feels that Jews are gods chosen people and deserve the right to take land from native peoples and kill them at will. Unfortunetly he just cant seem to get world opinion to go along with it.
Comment 4 by Edward at 18-Feb-07 11:00 PM
If anything the citizens of Israel that support the racist and abusive policies toward those in the palistinian areas are COWARDS. It is Cowardly to shoot missles at people instead of arresting them and providing a fair trial. Muder by hell fire missle of an apache helicopter is COWARDLY. Terrorizing civilians with sonic booms is COWARDLY. Blanketing the Lebonese countryside with cluster bombs was COWARDLY. If there were courage from these racist then there one only need ONE COUNTRY, not a country with a giant walled ghetto for non Jews.
Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC
In what is sure to have an impact on BCRA's constitutionality, a 3-judge panel ruled part of BCRA unconstitutional. Here's what the AP article said:
A federal court on Thursday loosened restrictions on corporations, unions and other special interest groups that run political advertising in peak election season. The 2-1 ruling said groups may mention candidates by name in commercials as long as they are trying to influence public policy, rather than sway an election.The sooner this unconstitutional abomination is ruled unconstitutional, the better. I'd further ask how the FEC has jurisdiction on issue advocacy ads. After all, addressing issues is part of everyday politicking. It's sometimes known as lobbying, which is still legal the last time I checked.
The ruling came in a challenge to the so-called McCain-Feingold law designed to reduce the influence of big money in political campaigns. The law banned groups from using unrestricted money to run advertisements that name candidates two months before a general election or one month before a primary. Some lawmakers have predicted such a ruling would create a loophole in the 2002 law. The case automatically heads to the Supreme Court for review.
The Federal Elections Commission had argued that it needed a consistent "bright line" rule to prevent organizations from influencing elections using phony issue advertisements, but the three-judge panel disagreed. "The virtues of a bright-line rule surely cannot alone justify regulating constitutional speech," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote. Leon was joined in the opinion by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge David B. Sentelle. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts dissented.
I'd further assert that forcing candidates to address important issues during a political campaign is what elections should be about. It's distressing that politicians think that they shouldn't be asked to deal with difficult issues during the campaign season. I'd bet that the average citizen thinks that forcing politicians into taking stands on difficult issues would be a refreshing change. This ruling allows that to happen.
Finally, I'd suggest that huge chunks of the BCRA will be ruled unconstitutional by the Roberts Court. I'm basing that opinion on what they did in the case of Vermont's campaign finance laws. I'm looking forward to the day when the First Amendment is taken literally again. That day can't come soon enough.
Posted Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:29 PM
No comments.
Immigration Insanity
This headline should shock everyone:
Hispanic Groups Call for Moratorium on Work RaidsHere's what the article says:
U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s. They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "racial profiling," or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.These activist groups just jumped the shark by equating enforcing the law with Hitler's Germany. Do these activists realize that they've just marginalized themselves? Something that I'm wondering is whether this fits into the legislation that Pelosi and Conyers plan on introducing on CAIR's behalf.
"We are demanding an end to these immigration raids, where they are targeting brown faces. That is major, major racial profiling, and that cannot be tolerated," said Rosa Rosales, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, at a news conference. "This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up," Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. "Now they're coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?"Saying that ICE uses racial profiling in making the raids is stating the obvious. Should ICE profile white-skinned Europeans in looking for illegal aliens? Or should they target African-Americans? Or should they just use random searches like they use in airports so that Hispanics aren't targeted? What tools should ICE use in going after illegal aliens? Or are these groups asking that the borders not be enforced at all?
I'll be interested in seeing how the 110th Congress will handle this issue. It'll tell us alot about how serious they are on law enforcement and national security issues. If the Democrats in Congress include Hispanics in their legislation against profiling of all sorts. If they are, then it's important that Republicans step forward to say that that isn't acceptable. It's important that Republicans filibuster such legislation.
Posted Friday, December 22, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment 1 by Steve Walker at 23-Dec-06 10:11 PM
The comment by Carla Vela on equating the Nazi's and immigration was over the top. In the article she was listed as a Party Activist when in reality she is the Bexar County Democratic Party Chair. I posted the article on www.walkerreport.blogspot.com which promotes San Antonio Democrats. Embarrassing to say the least.
Iranians Caught With Hands in Iraq's Business
Let's hope that this NY Times article gets people's attentions as to what the stakes are in Iraq.
The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.Earlier, I talked about Iran built and supplied IED's to al-Sadr's Mahdi militia. Now the NY Times is reporting that Iran is supplying them with military advisers. To make matters worse, Gateway Pundit is reporting this:
The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.
Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, "We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees."
Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat who is considering a run for the White House, argued in a column in an Iowa newspaper Sunday for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.Sen. Dodd and Sen. Kerry met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad on December 20. Earlier, Sen. Kerry met with U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq. In other words, these wimpy senators were talking about getting out of Iraq while the news was circulating that Iran was interfering in another nation's affairs. The last I looked, that doesn't fit the definition of a civil war. Instead, that's an act of war. Syria is merely Iran's puppet.
The bottom line is that Sens. Dodd and Kerry are telling Syria that they don't need to stop letting terrorists into Iraq and that Iran can keep working to undercut the legitimately elected Iraqi government. In short, they're pulling an April Glaspie.
In short, it's time we told these dimwitted and wimpy Democrats to shut up until they pay attention to reality and pay attention to doing what's best for U.S. national security.
Posted Monday, December 25, 2006 7:42 PM
No comments.
Fisking Keith Ellison
Speaking to a cheering audience Sunday night, Keith Ellison "told a cheering crowd of Muslims they should remain steadfast in their faith and push for justice", according to this Detroit Free Press article. What's noteworthy about this is that Ellison made these comments at annual convention of the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America, two groups linked with the extremist/terrorist group Muslim Brotherhood. Here's what Discover the Network has to say about ICNA:
Yehudit Barsky, a terrorism expert at the American Jewish Committee, has said that ICNA "is composed of members of Jamaat e-Islami, a Pakistani Islamic radical organization similar to the Muslim Brotherhood that helped to establish the Taliban." (Pakistani newspapers have reported that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a leading architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was offered refuge in the home of Jamaat e-Islami's leader, Ahmed Quddoos.)Similarly, MAS has an equally troubling background:
In May 2005, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reported in The Weekly Standard that MAS is a U.S. front group for the Muslim Brotherhood and, as such, wishes to see the United States governed by sharia, or Islamic law. "The message that all countries should be ruled by Islamic law," writes Gartenstein-Ross, "is echoed throughout MAS's membership curriculum. For example, MAS requires all its adjunct members to read Fathi Yakun's book To Be a Muslim. In that volume, Yakun spells out his expansive agenda: 'Until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.'"It isn't surprising that Keith Ellison didn't wait until his swearing in to become a featured speaker at radical Islamic groups' conventions. He has a history of being an outspoken advocate of radicals, saying this about Kathleen Soliah:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.Based solely on this, it isn't difficult to conclude that Keith Ellison never met a left wing radical he couldn't support. It's relatively easy to make the case that Ellison isn't as interested in justice as he is in supporting radicals who break the law. Here's another bit of proof:
Ellison praised Soliah for "fighting for freedom." At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was "Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people." Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She's now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellison's call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. "We need to come together and free,all the Saras," he proclaimed.
But Ellison's call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. "We need to come together and free,all the Saras," he proclaimed.Considering this information, it's worth asking what Keith Ellison's qualifications are to talk about justice. Considering this information, one wonders what issues Ellison will advocate in Congress. The voters in Minnesota's Fifth District should have serious worries about Ellison, though I doubt they do. MN-5 is one of the most liberal districts in the United States, possibly among the 'top 5' districts in terms of liberal extremism.
Like who? Like Assata Shakur, Ellison told his audience. Shakur is a former member of the Black Liberation Army, a "revolutionary activist organization," who killed a New Jersey state trooper "execution-style at point-blank range," according to the FBI's Wanted Fugitives website.
Shakur escaped from prison in 1979, and eventually fled to Cuba. She "should be considered armed and extremely dangerous," says the FBI, which is offering a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to her apprehension.
Ellison, however, lauded Shakur. "I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they're going to get Assata Shakur, they're going to get a whole lot of other people," he told the crowd. "I hope the Cuba[n] people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it."
This is proof that Keith Ellison isn't satisfied with just being "CAIR's congressman."
Posted Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:23 PM
No comments.
