Posts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Obama's Muslim adviser says Sharia "misunderstood"
(Analyst's note: Let me see ... we have an adviser to the U.S. President speaking out in support of sharia law in an international forum. The same sharia law that has no place within the borders of this country. What could possibly be wrong with that? No wonder we seem to unable to understand our enemy who has declared war on every living soul within these United States - our senior political leaders are taking "inside" advice from these same jihadist and their supporters at the highest levels. Absolutely must read this one.)
by Robert Spencer
by Robert Spencer
Yes, all that hand-chopping and stoning really isn't all that bad, if you look at it from the right perspective. Dalia Mogahed, you may recall, along with John Esposito cooked the data from a global survey of Muslim attitudes in order to increase the number of Muslim "moderates" -- classifying people as "moderate" who hate America, want to impose Sharia, and support suicide bombing. "Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood," by Andrew Gilligan and Alex Spillius in the Telegraph, October 8 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):
President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law.
Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".
Here's some gender justice straight out of the Koran. The Koran likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
The Koran also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
Worst of all, the Koran tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).
And here is some gender justice from the Hadith:
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." -- Bukhari 4.54.460
And: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle." -- Ibn Majah 1854
The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.
The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.
Should an adviser to the President of the United States really have given her sanction to such a group? Apparently she has no problem with its goal:
Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.
During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".
They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".
Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.
She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.
"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.
"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."...
Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."
Yes, and unfortunately, the chief misunderstanders of Islam are all those Muslims who somehow keep getting the crazy idea that their religion obliges them to wage war against unbelievers. But of course Mogahed didn't mean them -- rather, she meant those irritating non-Muslims who keep noticing that all these misunderstanders of Islam keep invoking Islamic texts to justify violence and supremacism.
The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.
Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's determination to reach out to the Muslim world.
She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.
During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."
Not what America might want from Muslims -- i.e., respect for Constitutional pluralism and republican government.
Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".
Here's some gender justice straight out of the Koran. The Koran likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).
The Koran also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).
It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).
Worst of all, the Koran tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).
And here is some gender justice from the Hadith:
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning." -- Bukhari 4.54.460
And: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle." -- Ibn Majah 1854
The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.
The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.
Should an adviser to the President of the United States really have given her sanction to such a group? Apparently she has no problem with its goal:
Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz.
During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".
They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".
Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.
She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media.
"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance.
"The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases."...
Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood."
Yes, and unfortunately, the chief misunderstanders of Islam are all those Muslims who somehow keep getting the crazy idea that their religion obliges them to wage war against unbelievers. But of course Mogahed didn't mean them -- rather, she meant those irritating non-Muslims who keep noticing that all these misunderstanders of Islam keep invoking Islamic texts to justify violence and supremacism.
The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir's website.
Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration's determination to reach out to the Muslim world.
She is also the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a project which aims to scientifically sample public opinion in the Muslim world.
During this week's broadcast, she described her White House role as "to convey... to the President and other public officials what it is Muslims want."
Not what America might want from Muslims -- i.e., respect for Constitutional pluralism and republican government.
War Deliberations in D.C. May Give Taliban Advantage in Afghanistan
The U.S. has the distinct fighting advantage in this war -- more firepower, superior weapons and a larger fighting force -- but critics say the ongoing deliberations in Washington are putting American troops at a distinct disadvantage -- and in harm's way. ....
The president fiddles, Afghanistan burns
(Washington Times) Eight years into the war, the U.S. effort is adrift. Those who expected decisive action on Afghanistan from President Obama will have to keep waiting ...
Man Injured Handling Explosive Device, Possibly TATP
from National Terror Alert
TATP may have been at the center of an alleged New York City bomb plot targeting subways and trains and also is That is the same type of explosive used in a London subway bombing.
via Source.From The LA Times
Federal and Riverside County authorities are investigating an explosion overnight at a Lake Elsinore home in which highly powerful explosives were used, according to a law enforcement source.
The blast occurred late Wednesday night at a home in the 30500 block of Audelo that was sometimes used for a day-care operation. A man in the home was seriously injuried, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Riverside County sheriff’s detectives, FBI investigators and bomb technicians and agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are taking part in the investigation.
The source said investigators were trying to determine if the explosive found at the home was similar to acetone peroxide, or TATP, the powerful explosive used in the 2007 London subway terrorist bombings. But there is no evidence at this time that the Lake Elsinore case in related to terrorism. (REALLY?)
[Updated at Noon: Authorities detonated some of the explosives found in the house this morning. That blast was heard around the neighborhood.
Read Full Article
U.S. Moves to Overhaul Jails That Breed Insurgents in Afghanistan
.... Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, called for the creation of the task force in late August in a strategic assessment of the war that warned that the prisons in Afghanistan, including an American-operated detention center at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, were breeding grounds for Qaeda fighters.
“There are more insurgents per square foot in correction facilities than anywhere else in Afghanistan,” General McChrystal said in the report. ....
Ex-Staffers Winning Defense Panel Pork, Study Finds
(Analyst's note: Corruption continues... troubling.)
By Carol D. Leonnig
In the coming year's military spending bill, members of a House panel continue to steer lucrative defense contracts to companies represented by their former staffers, who in turn steer generous campaign donations to those lawmakers, a new analysis has found.
The Center for Public Integrity found that 10 of the 16 members of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations obtained 30 earmarks in the bill worth $103 million for contractors currently or recently employing former staffers who have become lobbyists. The analysis by the Washington watchdog group found that earmarks still often hinge on a web of connections, despite at least three criminal investigations of the practice that became public in the past year. Those probes focus on a handful of defense contractors and a powerful lobbying firm that together won hundreds of millions of dollars in work from the House panel and are closely tied to its chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
On Tuesday, the Senate approved a $636 billion military spending bill for fiscal year 2010; the House approved its version in July. House and Senate members now will work in conference to resolve differences between their two bills.
The Center for Public Integrity's analysis found some shifts in earmarking patterns since its similar analysis of the 2008 defense bill. First, Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), whose office records were subpoenaed by federal prosecutors in May, has markedly reduced his earmark requests and sought no work for private companies. Also, defense appropriators are generally steering more earmarks to nonprofits.
Since last fall, federal investigators have been probing the PMA Group, a now-shuttered lobbying firm whose clients had unusual success in winning earmarks from Murtha's subcommittee. Founder Paul Magliocchetti is a close friend of Murtha's and worked as a defense appropriations staffer when Murtha was a rank-and-file member of the committee.
PMA and its clients had been big donors to Murtha and his fellow subcommittee members in the past decade, according to a Center for Responsive Politics report, with Murtha receiving the most. Since 1998, workers at those firms and their family members provided $2.4 million to Murtha -- who helped insert more than $100 million in defense-related earmarks into 2008 appropriations bills. Visclosky was second, collecting $1.4 million, and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) was next, with $997,000.
By Carol D. Leonnig
In the coming year's military spending bill, members of a House panel continue to steer lucrative defense contracts to companies represented by their former staffers, who in turn steer generous campaign donations to those lawmakers, a new analysis has found.
The Center for Public Integrity found that 10 of the 16 members of the House subcommittee on defense appropriations obtained 30 earmarks in the bill worth $103 million for contractors currently or recently employing former staffers who have become lobbyists. The analysis by the Washington watchdog group found that earmarks still often hinge on a web of connections, despite at least three criminal investigations of the practice that became public in the past year. Those probes focus on a handful of defense contractors and a powerful lobbying firm that together won hundreds of millions of dollars in work from the House panel and are closely tied to its chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
On Tuesday, the Senate approved a $636 billion military spending bill for fiscal year 2010; the House approved its version in July. House and Senate members now will work in conference to resolve differences between their two bills.
The Center for Public Integrity's analysis found some shifts in earmarking patterns since its similar analysis of the 2008 defense bill. First, Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), whose office records were subpoenaed by federal prosecutors in May, has markedly reduced his earmark requests and sought no work for private companies. Also, defense appropriators are generally steering more earmarks to nonprofits.
The Washington Post has documented more than $400 million in defense earmarks that Murtha has directed in the past decade to research groups in his district, including the Penn State Electro-Optics Center and the John P. Murtha Institute for Homeland Security, which steered much of the funds to private contractors.
Since last fall, federal investigators have been probing the PMA Group, a now-shuttered lobbying firm whose clients had unusual success in winning earmarks from Murtha's subcommittee. Founder Paul Magliocchetti is a close friend of Murtha's and worked as a defense appropriations staffer when Murtha was a rank-and-file member of the committee.
PMA and its clients had been big donors to Murtha and his fellow subcommittee members in the past decade, according to a Center for Responsive Politics report, with Murtha receiving the most. Since 1998, workers at those firms and their family members provided $2.4 million to Murtha -- who helped insert more than $100 million in defense-related earmarks into 2008 appropriations bills. Visclosky was second, collecting $1.4 million, and Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) was next, with $997,000.
Justice briefers balk at oath demand
A closed-door briefing for a House Intelligence subcommittee was abruptly canceled Wednesday morning after Justice Department briefers refused a demand from the panel’s chairwoman, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), that they testify under oath, officials said. ....
NYR: Who's In Big Brother's Database? Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/nyr-whos-in-big-brothers_n_309196.html
by James Bamford
On a remote edge of Utah's dry and arid high desert, where temperatures often zoom past 100 degrees, hard-hatted construction workers with top-secret clearances are preparing to build what may become America's equivalent of Jorge Luis Borges's "Library of Babel," a place where the collection of information is both infinite and at the same time monstrous, where the entire world's knowledge is stored, but not a single word is understood. At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.
Unlike Borges's "labyrinth of letters," this library expects few visitors. It's being built by the ultra-secret National Security Agency -- which is primarily responsible for "signals intelligence," the collection and analysis of various forms of communication -- to house trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital "pocket litter." Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome. ....
On a remote edge of Utah's dry and arid high desert, where temperatures often zoom past 100 degrees, hard-hatted construction workers with top-secret clearances are preparing to build what may become America's equivalent of Jorge Luis Borges's "Library of Babel," a place where the collection of information is both infinite and at the same time monstrous, where the entire world's knowledge is stored, but not a single word is understood. At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.
Unlike Borges's "labyrinth of letters," this library expects few visitors. It's being built by the ultra-secret National Security Agency -- which is primarily responsible for "signals intelligence," the collection and analysis of various forms of communication -- to house trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital "pocket litter." Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome. ....
Gen. Stanley McChrystal: A General Within Bounds in Afghanistan
.... The Obama/McChrystal plan is classic counterinsurgency and focuses on protecting the Afghan population while strengthening Afghan security forces and government. McChrystal was asked about a "counterterrorism" strategy that would purportedly contain al-Qaeda with much lower numbers of American troops, casualties and other costs. McChrystal did not try to force the president's hand on whether to increase the foreign troop presence in Afghanistan. The general critiqued an option that is at direct odds with Obama's policy and conflicts with the experiences of the U.S. military this decade. That is not fundamentally out of line for a commander. ....
If We Lose Afghanistan Yes, al-Qaeda would return. But that's just the beginning.
AT THE heart of the Obama administration's deliberations about Afghanistan is the question of whether U.S. security rests on the defeat of the Afghan Taliban movement. The discussion often gets narrowed to the point of whether al-Qaeda, which is based in Pakistan, would gain a new haven in Afghanistan if the Taliban returned to power, so we'll start there. We won't, however, linger long, because for almost all military and civilian experts on the region the question is a no-brainer. ....
North Korea can unleash 13 types of biological agent, South Korea says
by
North Korea’s armed forces are capable of carrying out 13 kinds of viral and bacterial attack, the South Korean Government said yesterday in one of the most detailed assessments of the dictatorship’s biological weapons arsenal.
In a submission to the South Korean National Assembly, the Defence Minister also said that the North had 5,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, believed to include mustard gas, phosgene and sarin. Among its biological agents are cholera, yellow fever, smallpox, typhus, typhoid fever and dysentery.
Despite the alarming assessment, Kim Tae Young also said that his country’s armed forces had the capacity pre-emptively to destroy about a hundred sites connected to the North’s nuclear programme in the event of an imminent attack. ....
North Korea’s armed forces are capable of carrying out 13 kinds of viral and bacterial attack, the South Korean Government said yesterday in one of the most detailed assessments of the dictatorship’s biological weapons arsenal.
In a submission to the South Korean National Assembly, the Defence Minister also said that the North had 5,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, believed to include mustard gas, phosgene and sarin. Among its biological agents are cholera, yellow fever, smallpox, typhus, typhoid fever and dysentery.
Despite the alarming assessment, Kim Tae Young also said that his country’s armed forces had the capacity pre-emptively to destroy about a hundred sites connected to the North’s nuclear programme in the event of an imminent attack. ....
FBI Warns of Three Hoax E-mails
from National Terror Alert
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is warning of three hoax e-mails currently circulating that claim to contain confidential law enforcement reports about terrorism and an audio message from Osama bin Laden.
The FBI website reports that the e-mails are a fraud and may contain viruses and malicious software. The FBI also said it does not send unsolicited e-mail or official reports.
One of the hoax e-mails claims to contain a confidential FBI report titled “New Patterns in Al-Qaeda Financing” and has the subject line “Intelligence Bulletin No. 267.”
Read additional details and view samples of the hoax emails at the FBI website.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is warning of three hoax e-mails currently circulating that claim to contain confidential law enforcement reports about terrorism and an audio message from Osama bin Laden.
The FBI website reports that the e-mails are a fraud and may contain viruses and malicious software. The FBI also said it does not send unsolicited e-mail or official reports.
One of the hoax e-mails claims to contain a confidential FBI report titled “New Patterns in Al-Qaeda Financing” and has the subject line “Intelligence Bulletin No. 267.”
Read additional details and view samples of the hoax emails at the FBI website.
Impeachment suggested to remove 'threats' to America 'Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup'
(Analyst's note: Absolutely must read and consider this article. I'm sure we are going to see more. Please click on the title above for the entire article.)
By Bob Unruh
A political activist who was behind the famous Willie Horton advertisement that left Gov. Michael Dukakis' candidacy for president floundering and was among the first to sound the alarm on the need for Bill Clinton's impeachment says the United States is collapsing around its citizens right now, but there is a defense.
"Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd – a cold-blooded gang that despises America's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness," says political activist Floyd Brown in a post on the new Impeach Obama Campaign website.
Brown said that view also explains why Obama "has already gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money – yours and mine. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal."
.... Brown said the only one solution to the problem he described as a "monomaniac."
"Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: 'The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"....
Click here for additional information
By Bob Unruh
 |
"Make no mistake. We're now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd – a cold-blooded gang that despises America's prosperity, our standing in the world, our trust in God and our generosity and goodness," says political activist Floyd Brown in a post on the new Impeach Obama Campaign website.
His suggested defense is nothing more or less than a strike at the emperor, plans which are detailed on the website.
"Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, he [Obama] believes that it's his mission to promote 'equality of outcome' over 'equality of opportunity' even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen," Brown said. "That worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today."
Brown said that view also explains why Obama "has already gobbled-up major banks and why the government now controls more and more of our money – yours and mine. And if you wake up one day to discover you're broke, don't be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is Bernie Madoff with the political power of the presidency at his disposal."
.... Brown said the only one solution to the problem he described as a "monomaniac."
"Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: 'The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"....
Click here for additional information
Roubini: Fed Creating Another Bubble
By: Gene J. Koprowski
The Federal Reserve is running the risk of creating another bubble, and needs an exit strategy from its credit easing policy, says former Clinton White House economist Nouriel Roubini.
“The sharp increase in the stock market and commodities, and narrowing of credit spreads since March, are partly due to a wall of global liquidity chasing assets and already causing asset inflation,” Roubini writes in The Wall Street Journal.
“Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve face a number of very difficult challenges in the years ahead.”
From 2002 to 2006, after the last recession, the Fed proceeded quite slowly because the recovery was tepid.
“This time around, the recession is more severe — unemployment is at 9.8 percent and is expected to peak above 10 percent, and we are experiencing actual deflation. Therefore, the incentive not to exit too soon will be greater,” says Roubini.
The key tasks for America’s central bankers, Roubini and his writing partner, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, include the following:
• Ignoring pressure to monetize deficits, which will increase inflation
• Developing an exit strategy from the monetary easing of the past year
• Accurately calculating asset prices and the risk of asset bubbles
“Establishing financial stability — in addition to price stability and growth — is the essential role of the central bank. Achieving this goal in a way that avoids moral-hazard distortions, and prevents another bubble in the next years will surely be one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the Fed,” writes Roubini.
Others seem to already be moving in the direction Roubini suggests. Australia's central bank is the first to raise its benchmark interest rate.
The Federal Reserve is running the risk of creating another bubble, and needs an exit strategy from its credit easing policy, says former Clinton White House economist Nouriel Roubini.
“The sharp increase in the stock market and commodities, and narrowing of credit spreads since March, are partly due to a wall of global liquidity chasing assets and already causing asset inflation,” Roubini writes in The Wall Street Journal.
“Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve face a number of very difficult challenges in the years ahead.”
From 2002 to 2006, after the last recession, the Fed proceeded quite slowly because the recovery was tepid.
“This time around, the recession is more severe — unemployment is at 9.8 percent and is expected to peak above 10 percent, and we are experiencing actual deflation. Therefore, the incentive not to exit too soon will be greater,” says Roubini.
The key tasks for America’s central bankers, Roubini and his writing partner, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, include the following:
• Ignoring pressure to monetize deficits, which will increase inflation
• Developing an exit strategy from the monetary easing of the past year
• Accurately calculating asset prices and the risk of asset bubbles
“Establishing financial stability — in addition to price stability and growth — is the essential role of the central bank. Achieving this goal in a way that avoids moral-hazard distortions, and prevents another bubble in the next years will surely be one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the Fed,” writes Roubini.
Others seem to already be moving in the direction Roubini suggests. Australia's central bank is the first to raise its benchmark interest rate.
"Axis of Idiots" as Seen by a Fellow U.S. Marine
(Analyst's note: Must read and consider these remarks. Sergeant Major, I salute you. Thank you for your thoughts so clearly expressed. And my thanks to another Marine for sharing this information. Semper Fidelis)
NOW HEAR THIS! From the Podium: J. D. Pendry, Retired Sergeant Major, USMC
This retired USMC Sgt. Major has it together.
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken, useless old fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your fat, gin-soaked ass in Washington
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.
Semper Fi
NOW HEAR THIS! From the Podium: J. D. Pendry, Retired Sergeant Major, USMC
This retired USMC Sgt. Major has it together.
Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.
Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake! You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq , like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.
John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt, and washed up old fool. You're not a Marine, sir. You wouldn't amount to a good pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.
Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.
Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated, drunken, useless old fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your fat, gin-soaked ass in Washington
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.
American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.
You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.
Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.
Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.
Semper Fi
"They think the implications of the possibility that the Koran teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate. Thus, many policymakers simply assume the Koran teaches peace without bothering to study the text."
(Analyst's note: Want to know more about those who have declared war on this nation? Then see this absolutely must read summary.)
by Robert Spencer
In FrontPage yesterday Jamie Glazov interviewed me about my new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran. Here is an excerpt:
by Robert Spencer
In FrontPage yesterday Jamie Glazov interviewed me about my new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran. Here is an excerpt:
FP: Tell us how and why political correctness has made it almost impossible to discuss what is really in the Koran and in other Islamic texts.
Spencer: Political correctness would have us believe that the Koran is a book of peace, and that anyone who says otherwise is "bigoted," "hateful," and "Islamophobic." But is it, really? What the Koran really says can easily be verified. If the Koran really curses Jews and Christians (9:30) and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation (9:29), it is not "Islamophobic" to forewarn Infidels by pointing this out. It is simply a fact. And it should go without saying that it is not a fact that should move any reader of my book to hate anyone. The fact that the Koran counsels warfare against unbelievers should move readers to act in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people, before it is too late.
FP: How does the misinterpretation of what the Koran and other Muslim texts teach endanger our security?
Spencer: Most Western analysts dogmatically deny that the Koran teaches violence and supremacism. Yet Muslims who believe this comprise a global movement, active from Indonesia to Nigeria and extending into Europe and North America, that is dedicated to waging war against "unbelievers" - that is, non-Muslims - and subjugating them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law. This movement sees in the Koran its divine mandate to wage that war.
In March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11 attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an "Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations." In it they quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. "In God's book," asserts the letter, "he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God's book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran's 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."
Osama bin Laden's communiqués have also quoted the Koran copiously. In his 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," he quotes seven Koran verses: 3:145; 47:4-6; 2:154; 9:14; 47:19; 8:72; and the notorious "Verse of the Sword," 9:5.[i] Bin Laden began his October 6, 2002, letter to the American people with two Koran quotations, both of a martial bent: "Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" (22:39) and "Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan" (4:76)."
In a sermon broadcast in 2003, bin Laden rejoiced in a Koranic exhortation to violence as being a means to establish the truth: "Praise be to Allah who revealed the verse of the Sword to his servant and messenger [the Islamic Prophet Muhammad], in order to establish truth and abolish falsehood." The "Verse of the Sword" is Koran 9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
The idea that the Koran commands them to do violence to unbelievers runs from the very top of the international jihadist movement - Osama bin Laden - down to the rank and file. Overall, it is extremely rare - if not impossible - to find a jihadist who does not cite the Koran to justify his actions. Britain-based jihadist preacher, Abu Yahya, asserts simply, "It says in the Koran that we must try as much as we can to terrorise the enemy." And Pakistani jihad leader Beitullah Mehsud claims that "Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God's orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world." He specified that his jihad - struggle in Arabic - was an offensive military operation: "We will continue our struggle until foreign troops are thrown out. Then we will attack them in the US and Britain until they either accept Islam or agree to pay jazia." The "jazia," or jizya, is a tax that the Koran (9:29) specifies must be levied on Jews, Christians, and some other non-Muslim faiths as a sign of their subjugation under the Islamic social order.
One pro-Osama website put it this way: "The truth is that a Muslim who reads the Koran with devotion is determined to reach the battlefield in order to attain the reality of Jihad. It is solely for this reason that the Kufaar [unbelievers] conspire to keep the Muslims far away from understanding the Koran, knowing that Muslims who understand the Koran will not distance themselves from Jihad."
Yet a huge number of policy decisions are predicated upon the assumption that the Koran teaches peace, and that those who brandish Korans and commit violence are misunderstanding their own religion and perverting the teachings of their own holy book. These include U.S. government postures toward Pakistan and Egypt; immigration matters; airport security procedures; military strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan; domestic anti-terror policies; and our acquiescence to Saudi Arabia's Islamic proselytizing campaign in America and many other countries.
But most government and media analysts dare not even question the assumption that the Koran is peaceful, for they believe that any insinuation to the contrary is racist, bigoted, and effectively brands all Muslims as terrorists. In other words, they think the implications of the possibility that the Koran teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate. Thus, many policymakers simply assume the Koran teaches peace without bothering to study the text. They do this to their own peril - and ours.
FP: What, in your view, is the Koran?
Spencer: It is the primary religious text of one of the world's most prominent and influential religions. For more than a billion Muslims, the Koran is the unadulterated, pure word of Allah, eternal and perfect, delivered though the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. For Infidels, it is a threat, a call for their destruction or subjugation. Consequently, every Infidel needs to know what is in it, and plan accordingly to defend himself.There is much more. Read it all.
Obama Declares War on Free Speech
(Analyst's note: Must read and consider.)
by Robert Spencer
by Robert Spencer
In Human Events today I discuss the latest bad news in the Obama Administration's ongoing quiet war against free speech:
The Obama Administration has now actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council last Friday, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."
What could be wrong with that? Plenty.
First of all, there's that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans' right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all -- far less in such vague and sweeping terms -- would be unconstitutional.
"Incitement" and "hatred" are in the eye of the beholder -- or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as "hate speech." The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.
Now no less distinguished a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave. The resolution also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping."
But we still have the First Amendment, right? Legal expert Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn't that easy to dismiss this. "If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech," he explains, "presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it." He adds that in order to be consistent, "the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed 'hate speech' that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes)."
Last year the Secretary General of the OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu issued a warning: "We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: "The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked."
For the first time, an American President has bowed to the OIC's demands and taken cognizance of that "responsibility" -- after years in which George W. Bush resisted such initiatives at the UN.
In October 2008, I wrote this in Human Events about early signs that Barack Obama had no great love for the freedom of speech: "If candidate Obama is willing to have people arrested when they say things about him that he doesn't like, will President Obama have the vision or courage or understanding to stand up against the OIC when it demands restrictions on freedom of speech at precisely the same time that he wants to build bridges to the Islamic world and demonstrate his power to restore hope and bring change to old stalemated conflicts?"
The answer is in. The answer is no.
Criminalizing everyone?! Needed: A 'clean line' to determine lawfulness!
[Analyst's note: Very troubling. This couple was importing and selling orchids! For this "offense," the disabled, frail husband was sentenced to 2 years in prison! ORCHIDS are now classified as 'criminal materials?'] "You don't need to know. You can't know." That's what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.
The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris' longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor.
The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with - get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.
That's right. Orchids.
By March 2004, federal prosecutors were well on their way to turning 66-year-old retiree George Norris into an inmate in a federal penitentiary - based on his home-based business of cultivating, importing and selling orchids.
Mrs. Norris testified before the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime this summer. The hearing's topic: the rapid and dangerous expansion of federal criminal law, an expansion that is often unprincipled and highly partisan.
Chairman Robert C. Scott, Virginia Democrat, and ranking member Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican, conducted a truly bipartisan hearing (a D.C. rarity this year).
These two leaders have begun giving voice to the increasing number of experts who worry about "overcriminalization." Astronomical numbers of federal criminal laws lack specifics, can apply to almost anyone and fail to protect innocents by requiring substantial proof that an accused person acted with actual criminal intent.
Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn't have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal - but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty's new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.
The judge who sentenced Mr. Norris had some advice for him and his wife: "Life sometimes presents us with lemons." Their job was, yes, to "turn lemons into lemonade."
The judge apparently failed to appreciate how difficult it is to run a successful lemonade stand when you're an elderly diabetic with coronary complications, arthritis and Parkinson's disease serving time in a federal penitentiary. If only Mr. Norris had been a Libyan terrorist, maybe some European official at least would have weighed in on his behalf to secure a health-based mercy release.
Krister Evertson, another victim of overcriminalization, told Congress, "What I have experienced in these past years is something that should scare you and all Americans." He's right. Evertson, a small-time entrepreneur and inventor, faced two separate federal prosecutions stemming from his work trying to develop clean-energy fuel cells.
As George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg testified at the House hearing, cases like these "illustrate about as well as you can illustrate the overreach of federal criminal law." The Cato Institute's Timothy Lynch, an expert on overcriminalization, called for "a clean line between lawful conduct and unlawful conduct." A person should not be deemed a criminal unless that person "crossed over that line knowing what he or she was doing." Seems like common sense, but apparently it isn't to some federal officials.
Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. "Those of us concerned about this subject," he testified, "share a common goal - to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies." Only when the conduct is sufficiently wrongful and severe, Mr. Thornburgh said, does it warrant the "stigma, public condemnation and potential deprivation of liberty that go along with [the criminal] sanction."
The Norrises' nightmare began with the search in October 2003. It didn't end until Mr. Norris was released from federal supervision in December 2008. His wife testified, however, that even after he came home, the man she had married was still gone. He was by then 71 years old. Unsurprisingly, serving two years as a federal convict - in addition to the years it took to defend unsuccessfully against the charges - had taken a severe toll on him mentally, emotionally and physically.
These are repressive consequences for an elderly man who made mistakes in a small business. The feds should be ashamed, and Mr. Evertson is right that everyone else should be scared. Far too many federal laws are far too broad.
Mr. Scott and Mr. Gohmert have set the stage for more hearings on why this places far too many Americans at risk of unjust punishment. Members of both parties in Congress should follow their lead.
Brian W. Walsh is senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
Intelligence Fiasco Footnote
from Nancy Kennon
When it comes to politicized intelligence in the Bush years, the critics may finally have a point. Perhaps the work of America's intelligence agencies was manipulated to suit the convenience of a small group of willful officials, intent on getting their way against the better judgment of their colleagues.
That's one way to look at last month's revelation that Iran is building a secret second site to enrich uranium, among other emerging intelligence details.
The authors of the 2007 Iran NIE have some explaining to do.
When it comes to politicized intelligence in the Bush years, the critics may finally have a point. Perhaps the work of America's intelligence agencies was manipulated to suit the convenience of a small group of willful officials, intent on getting their way against the better judgment of their colleagues.
Except the intelligence was about Iran, not Iraq, and the manipulators weren't conniving neocons but rather the Administration's internal critics on the left.
American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains
(Analyst's note: Strategy matters ...)
Holdren warned of coming ice age Science chief argued for population control to limit 'global cooling'
By Jerome R. Corsi
What is clear from the record going back over nearly four decades is that White House science czar John Holdren is a climate alarmist, even if he can't make up his mind whether the crisis is the Earth warming up or cooling down.
But long before Holdren was the global warming Cassandra he is today, he was a global cooling alarmist predicting a new ice age.
The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable climate catastrophes.
In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the foreseen coming new ice age; today Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from global warming. ....
 John Holdren |
But long before Holdren was the global warming Cassandra he is today, he was a global cooling alarmist predicting a new ice age.
The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable climate catastrophes.
In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the foreseen coming new ice age; today Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from global warming. ....
Congressman slams 'un-American' insurance mandates GOP's Shadegg: 'It's almost so shocking you can't believe it'
(Analyst's note: Extremely troubling report.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
