Shameful -- utterly shameful.
President Barack Obama has ordered flags on federal buildings to fly at half-staff until the burial next week of Sen. Robert Byrd, except for Independence Day, when they should be flown at full staff to honor the veteran legislator, the White House said Wednesday.
A proclamation issued by Obama made the order “as a mark of respect for the memory and longstanding service of Sen. Robert C. Byrd,” who was the longest-serving member of Congress in history.
Byrd, who represented West Virginia, is scheduled to be buried on July 6, and Obama’s proclamation said the U.S. flag should fly at half-staff until sunset on that day. At the same time, it called for flying the flag at full staff on July 4 “in honor and tribute to this great patriot.”
Why do I consider an honor given often to senior elected officials upon their deaths being given to Robert Byrd? Because of this.
I'm sorry -- the expression of such sentiments ought to permanently disqualify anyone from being honored by Old Glory flown at half-staff. The expression of such sentiments during time of war (those words were written during WWII, a conflict in which Byrd, unlike most men his age, did not wear the uniform) are certainly seditious, arguably treasonous, and certainly offensive. I don't care what he later did or how he repented of his racism, the disrespect of country and flag are an even higher offense than the racism.
Personally, I find the absolution given Byrd by the Left and the MSM (but I repeat myself) is disgusting. Not that I believe there is no place for forgiveness for one's past transgressions, but the liberal mouthpieces in the press made Byrd appear as white as his sheets back in the bad old days. While I'm not a Glenn Beck fan, I think that he gets it exactly right here.
Forgive, but do not forget.
Because Elena Kagan was once a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall, his legacy has entered into the political fray that is the Kagan confirmation hearing. Conservatives rightly note that he was a judicial activist, while liberals note he was a civil rights hero. Both sides are right in their assertions.
Thurgood Marshall was the greatest courtroom advocate of the middle third of the twentieth century. His work as a lawyer in the service of civil rights and liberties is appropriately applauded. And insofar as he was the first African-American on the Supreme Court, he is rightly honored. But let's be honest about matters -- Marshall will never be found on any list of "great and near-great" Supreme Court justices. His votes often had less to do with the law and the Constitution than they did with his ideology, and relatively few of his opinions are the sort of masterpieces of legal analysis that will be studied for their learned and erudite exposition of Constitutional principles.
Indeed, let me make an assertion that will probably anger many of Marshall's defenders -- the greatest tragedy of Thurgood Marshall's career was that he ever accepted an appointment to the bench. He was at his best appearing before the bar, not sitting on the bench. America would have been better served had he stayed n the former role -- a position I take with great humility and respect for a man who did great things for this nation arguing cases in the courtrooms of this nation.
MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
ANGLE: Not in my book.
MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
ANGLE: You know, I’m a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.
Now i have to tell you, I don't disagree with anything Angle said there. I don't believe that abortion is the right answer in any situation. If asked, I'd advise a girl or woman against having one. And as far as the portion of the excerpt highlighted, I believe she is exactly right -- God can and does take all sorts of situations created by the evil choices of a sinful humanity and turn them to good purposes. In my own life I have been profoundly and positively impacted by two individuals who were conceived as the result of sexual assaults committed against their mothers, teachers who were (and still are) pillars of excellence in different areas of education.
So I'll have to say that I would have said something similar to what was said by Angle back in January -- but I would have said something more. it would have been along the lines of this -- "However, like most Americans I would reluctantly concede that these are two rare situations where abortion ought to remain a legal option -- in cases where the pregnancy is the result of acts of violence against girls and women that have been reported to the police in a timely fashion. Similarly, I think the law must allow a safe harbor for women and doctors in those unusual circumstances where an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. Those are, however, exceptions to the general rule, and would eliminate significantly over 90% of abortions performed in this country, which is a vision that most Americans agree upon."
Which leads to a question on my part. As I listen to the excerpt above, it seems that there should be something more to Angle's answer. Does anyone have access to the full transcript of the interview? Did Angle say something more that directly responded to the rape and incest question? Has the interview been selectively edited?
He promised it,America. Now let's hold him to it.
How to use the card:
Step 1: Present the card to merchants, employers, and tax authorities.
Step 2: If challenged, pleasantly ask: “Are you calling President Obama a liar?”
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
--Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”
--President Barack Obama, Feb. 24, 2009
“The statement didn’t come with caveats.”
--Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, April 15, 2009, when asked if the pledge applies to healthcare
That describes the plunge of the consumer confidence rating in the Obama economy.
Consumer confidence dropped in June after rising for three months, adding to the view the economic recovery is slowing, while single-family home prices unexpectedly climbed in April.
The report Tuesday from The Conference Board, an industry group, showed the drop in confidence came from worries about the labor market, which has been one of weakest areas of the U.S. economy.
The group's index of consumer attitudes fell to 52.9 in June from a downwardly revised 62.7 in May. The June figure was sharply below the median of forecasts from analysts polled by Reuters.
Assessment of the labor market also worsened, with the "jobs hard to get" index rising while the "jobs plentiful" index slipped.
Now Democrats are using those words to describe Obama's performance with regard to the Gulf Oil Leak.
Remember, folks -- some of us tried to warn you about this two years ago -- he's just not up to the job.
When George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to a seat on an appellate court, California Senator Dianne Feinstein balked, despite the ABA giving him a "Well-Qualified" rating:
Miguel Estrada has never been a judge. So we have no record of judicial decision-making to examine. This is not dispositive in itself, but it is the first area where we find no record to help us in our decision.
Mr. Estrada is not a prolific writer. So we have no real record of writing to examine. Again, this alone would not be dispositive, but it is strike 2 in terms of where we can get information about this nominee.
We have not been granted access to the memos he wrote at the Department of Justice. So we can only take the word of the man who supervised him that those memos were ideologically driven and that he could not be trusted.
Fast forward to Feinstein's reaction to Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court despite her never having been a judge, not having an extensive record of publications, and the failure of the Obama Administration (and the Clinton Presidential Library) to give full access to memos and work product from her time in government.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called Kagan’s lack of judicial experience “refreshing,” . . .
What's the difference? Well, Feinstein and Kagan share the same liberal ideology, the same privileged upbringing, and the same religious and ethnic background. On the other hand, she looked askance at a candidate of different ideology who had a different religion and different ethnicity and who had also overcome great personal challenges to become a respected member of the bar and prosecutor. Different standards, it seems, apply to Kagan than to Estrada.
Here's my take on the matter. This raises the question of who Feinstein hates -- Hispanics, Catholics, immigrants, or those not raised in privileged circumstances. After all, both Kagan and Estrada come before the committee with similar blank spots in their records, so logically she ought to treat Kagan's nomination with the same disdain she held for Estrada's, especially since Kagan has been nominated to the Supreme Court, not a Circuit Court of Appeals. Unless, of course, she is simply a partisan hypocrite who does not care about qualifications, but only ideology..
There was really no question in the mind of anyone who read the law what it actually meant -- but that didn't stop a group of school districts from arguing that a law which said that teachers may not be required to give minimum grade on class work did not prevent them from requiring that a teacher give a grade other than the student's average on a report card.
A Travis County judge ruled today that Texas public schools are required to give students truthful grades on class assignments and on their report cards under a 2009 state law that 11 school districts were challenging in court.
The school districts — most of them in Harris County - argued that the law applied only to grades on assignments, noting that the statute didn't specifically mention report cards, semester grades, or six- or nine-week averages.
But state District Judge Gisela Triana-Doyal ruled that the statute is "not ambiguous" and clearly means districts cannot require teachers to give students grades they did not earn. The bill's author, Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, has said she intended it to apply to all grades.
Richard Morris, the attorney for the school districts, said he would ask his clients whether they wanted to appeal the decision or to try to lobby for a change in the next Legislative session.
The problem was that many districts began requiring that no student receive a grade lower than a 50 (or some other arbitrary number) on any assignment or for a grading period. The idea was based upon the theory that a kid who already knew that passing a class was impossible would become a discipline and/or attendance problem. The goal, then, was to preserve a kid's chance of passing a class even if they had a catastrophic failure in one marking period.
However, this presented a problem. For example, I had more than one kid who decided to "take a six-week off" (our semester has three six-week marking periods) at the end of a semester because they knew that they could not lose credit for the class (a couple of Bs and a 50 will get you a passing grade). In other instances, which were much more common, we found ourselves forced to give students who had appeared in our class only once or twice in an entire semester a 50, despite never having received a single assignment from them. It wasn't even a case of getting a 50 just for showing up -- it was getting a 50 for having your name in the grade book!
The argument that school districts tried to make was that they were not requiring us to give a minimum grade on any assignment -- just at the marking period. Unfortunately, that made what was in the grade book irrelevant, and the judge rightly slapped the districts down. Hopefully this will mean the end of districts and administrators suggesting that teachers who want to give students the grades that they actually earn need to leave the profession because "you just want to fail kids."
The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) issued a fatwa prohibiting offering aid to foreign troops in Muslim countries whether on the personal or the business levels.
The assembly, made up of jurists and scholars in charge of issuing fatwas for Muslims in the United States and headed by Sheikh Salah al-Sawy, received several inquiries about the stance of Islam on business deals with coalition troops in Iraq or NATO forces in Afghanistan, especially companies that transfer foodstuffs and other supplies to military bases.
The question was posted on AMJA fatwa bank, reads: “Is it permissible to participate in taking food to the American and foreign soldiers working in Muslim lands?” and the answer is, “That would not be permissible, for that would be helping others in sin and transgression.”
Given what these respected experts in sharia have decreed, I find my thoughts drawn to something that has been reemphasized time and again by those who have have chronicled the many problems with Islam and its system of sharia law -- If you love America, the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim."
It is if these individuals are not released immediately -- and if full religious freedom for all Afghans is not made the law of the land and fully and vigorously enforced by that nation's government -- then the civilized world needs to turn our backs on Afghanistan so as to not lend legitimacy to sharia.
Over 20 Afghan Christians have been detained in Afghanistan after high-level leaders called for the arrest and execution of converts to Christianity in the Islamic nation, an advocacy group said Friday, June 25.
Britain-based Christian Solidarity Worldwide said the Christians were detained since last week and added that non-Christians with ties to Westerners have also been targeted for interrogation.
The names and ages of those detained were not immediately available. The reported arrests came after Abdul Sattar Khawasi, a deputy of the lower house, called for Muslim converts to Christianity to be executed.
He expressed outrage over footage from Afghan broadcaster Noorin TV showing men it said were reciting Christian prayers in Farsi and being baptized.
"Those Afghans that appeared in this video film should be executed in public, the house should order the attorney general and the NDS (intelligence agency) to arrest these Afghans and execute them," Khawasi said.
If Afghanistan is going to be a nation of fundamentalist Muslims violating the human rights of its people in the name if the barbaric code of sharia law regardless of who wins, then the place is not worth one more drop of American blood. Let the Islamist pigs kill each other instead, saving us time, money, and precious American lives..
There will be a special election to fill Kleagle Bob Byrd's Senate seat -- in November, 2012. No, that is not a typo -- the interpretation is that the appointed successor to the Guilty Conscience of the Senate will serve more than 28 months before the people of West Virginia will be permitted to have their say on his successor. Apparently the statutory command that the people have a voice regarding who represents them in the US Senate, which directs the eat be filled at the "next" election does not mean the "next" election that will be held in November, 2010, but instead means the next "next" election, which will be in November, 2012.
Seems appropriate that Byrd, a corrupt politician and former leader of the paramilitary terrorist wing of the Democrat Party will be commemorated by his fellow corrupt Democrats giving entirely new meanings to the English language and ensuring the disenfranchisement of an entire seat for over two years rather than the 4 1/2 months that the language would appear to require. Now that is a delay that Byrd, one of the masters of the filibuster, would be proud of.
Remember when Democrats told us in 2006 that passing a budget was the most important thing that Congress does, and that if a party cannot pass a budget it cannot lead? Well, it looks like we now have evidence that the Democrats are a failure at governing, given their large majorities in both houses of Congress AND their man in the White House.
H/T Hot Air
That remains to be seen, as does the question of how it will be filled.
Gov. Joe Manchin says he will not appoint himself to fill the U.S. Senate vacancy created by the death of West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd.
Manchin told The Associated Press there is no timetable for him to consider a replacement for Congress' longest-serving member.
Manchin says his decision will be an important one because of the effects climate change and mining debates in Congress and at the federal level will have on the state.
The governor says his first priority is to honor Byrd's family's wishes regarding a memorial for the 92-year-old Democrat.
To that end, I'd like to propose an appropriate memorial to the memory of the former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops whose entry into politics was at the suggestion of KKK leaders.
The article starts with this scenario.
The girl’s parents, wild with outrage and fear, showed the principal the text messages: a dozen shocking, sexually explicit threats, sent to their daughter the previous Saturday night from the cellphone of a 12-year-old boy. Both children were sixth graders at Benjamin Franklin Middle School in Ridgewood, N.J.
Punish him, insisted the parents.
“I said, ‘This occurred out of school, on a weekend,’ ” recalled the principal, Tony Orsini. “We can’t discipline him.”
Had they contacted the boy’s family, he asked.
Too awkward, they replied. The fathers coach sports together.
What about the police, Mr. Orsini asked.
A criminal investigation would be protracted, the parents had decided, its outcome uncertain. They wanted immediate action.
They pleaded: “Help us.”
I don't like anyone messing with my kids -- not even other kids. I'm rather ferocious in my defense of kids, to the point that I've been less than tactful with parents who want me to parent their kid for them or who won't step in when their child is behaving inappropriately towards another student. But I draw the line at having to monitor the disputes that happen away from school. My authority, and those of my school, clearly ought to end when the bell rings and the kids leave school grounds (or the bus, as the case may be).
But apparently there are those who think my position is wrong.
My response to those well-intentioned but misguided individuals?
Let me get this straight.
As a teacher, I'm now going to find my responsibilities and those of my school expanded beyond what we currently are expected to do (teach kids, discipline kids, feed kids 2 meals a day, provide them with free school supplies, access to social services, daycare for their children, medical treatment from 7:00 to 3:00) to monitoring their communications and activities the other 16 hours a day and on weekends? Surely you jest!
Be a parent and take care of YOUR responsibilities towards YOUR child. If another kid is picking on your child, you need to act. Call the other kids' parents or call the cops -- or I will call CPS because you are engaged in criminal neglect of your child as surely as if you refused to take your child to the doctor with a broken arm or failed to feed the kid.
Remember -- PARENTS are parents, not the government. It is time for them to be parents.
I won't be a hypocrite here and speak glowingly about the career of Robert Byrd, a former leader of the paramilitary terrorist wing of the Democrat Party whose presence befouled the halls of the US Capitol for over half a century. If the above words (written in 1944, during the height of WWII) had come from the pen or mouth of any Republican, that individual would have been rightfully driven from public life. Yet Robert Byrd, the only man to vote against every African-American to ever serve on the US Supreme Court, was allowed to continue in office unmolested by the Left Stream Media, despite his documented history of treasonous writing in the service of racial segregation during time of war.
Michelle Malkin Doug Powers provides links to information about the filling of the now vacant Senate seat. Betsy's Page links to Jim Geraghty, who suggests that West Virginia's governor might wait to declare the seat vacant so as to deny the people of West Virginia the right to select their own Senator. As is pointed out at QandO, "in a sane world, the seat would be declared vacant now, since the moment he died was the moment the seat actually became vacant. But that’s not necessarily how it works in the insane world of party politics." Politico sorts out the options well.
Cassy Fiano supplies a roundup of conservative reaction. I respectfully disagree with her call "o refrain from trashing Senator Byrd too much and stay respectful." After all, Kluxers merit no respect.
Don Surber, who is, after all, a working journalist and columnist, provides a fine roundup of Byrd's entire career, with pictures. Ed Driscoll notes that MSNBC is praising Byrd as a "champion of civil rights" -- certainly enough to make anyone with an ounce of common sense see that the Olbermann-Maddow-Schultz network need not be taken seriously as a source of information or opinion.
Moonbattery provides this overview that I think rather neatly sums things up.
Senator Robert Byrd has died at 92. White n----rs everywhere have declared a day of mourning. Byrd didn't invent pork spending, but he did play a huge role in making it the central operating principle of the U.S. Senate. From open racism in the civil rights era, to a narcissistic obsession with having things names after himself, to destructive levels of spending in the service of vote-buying, Byrd epitomized much of the worst of the Democrat party's tendencies.
We don't need to speak ill of the dead, but if we are honest, we must acknowledge there is little if anything to be proud of in Senator Byrd's long senate legacy. To his credit, however, he never killed a campaign worker while driving drunk over a bridge or joined another senator in making a waitress sandwich. His personal and family life seem to have been relatively decent for a Democrat senator.
No child should be subjected to this sort of crap. Indeed, I saw only a single example of teacher conduct that I would have done -- because reading a book while your class has a guest speaker is rude and unacceptable in any classroom. But to encourage students to target a student because of his or his family's political views, and to intentionally denigrate that student because they hold mainstream views that the teacher disagrees with is well beyond the pale.
And my fellow teachers, if you see your classroom conduct reflected in this piece -- whether you are a radical righty like me, a mushy moderate, or a loony liberal like this kid has been abused by -- then either adjust your teaching style or get out of the profession. After all, we are to teach our students to think for themselves, not indoctrinate them with an approved ideology.
If you want one sign of how dysfunctional the American political system is, all one needs to do is consider the fact that Joe Biden is Vice President of the United States. After stealing another man's speech and biography nearly a quarter century ago, the highest political role that a rational system would allow that buffoon would be "registered voter".
And what happens when this arrogant fool finds himself face to face with a real American who is critical of the policies of the administration he is a part of is positively stunning.
Just remember -- this is the man who Barack Obama believed was mot qualified to lead the nation if something happened to him. Doesn't that say it all?
Well, John's view of our political system is pretty clear, and can be summarized as follows:
The power and control over a city, county, state, or nation, much less a truly powerful, influential, and important entity like the Texas Democratic Party, cannot be left to the common people. Don't they know that they are supposed to listen to their betters and entrust the running of such things to the anointed nominees? After all, that's what makes folks like the Tea Party so dangerous to our society -- they don't know their proper place in a democratic society and think they actually have a legitimate role in making decisions. Michael Barnes and his supporters are of the same ilk, and it is a good thing that he and his supporters were slapped down
Power to the
people establishment elites!
A Taliban commander disguised as a woman was shot dead Friday night in Afghanistan when he fired at troops, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said.
Authorities identified the man as Ghulam Sakhi, the senior Taliban commander in northern Logar province.
ISAF said intelligence sources tracked Sakhi to a compound near the village of Qal-eh Saber in Pul-e 'Alam district.
After Afghan troops called for women and children to leave a building, Sakhi came out with the group, disguised in women's attire.
ISAF said he pulled out a pistol and a grenade and fired at troops. Afghan and coalition forces shot him and he dropped the grenade, which detonated and wounded a woman and two children.
I love that he was killed while dressed as a woman -- does that void the promise of 72 virgins?
Charles Blow is probably the least intellectual, least talented columnist in the NY Times -- and is always predictable. "Obama and the Democrats? Good, bordering on great. Republicans? Bad."
Now consider the long view: This is in large part a frightened, angry reflex, fed by a devastating recession. But like the recession, it’s also temporary. When conditions improve, Republicans will still have to face an underlying reality: that this is the twilight of their rigid, empty ideology, particularly as it relates to social issues. They must change or wither.
A new paper entitled “Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties,” by Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a progressive think tank, lays bare the long-term problems facing the Republican Party. In short, the country is becoming more diverse, more educated and less religious — all bad news for Republicans. And at a time when they should be moving closer to the middle, the Tea Party is dragging them farther right and over a cliff.
Regardless of the current disenchantment and the venting we’re likely to see in November, the larger trends look ominous for the right, not the left. The right knows it, too. In fact, if you listen closely, between the “hell no’s” and “you lie’s,” you can hear the pall of despair falling over them.
Let's see. Some of the most popular GOP candidates this year are women and racial minorities -- Angle, Haley, Scott, and Rubio, to name a few. So much for the notion that the changing racial and ethnic demographics are shifting against the GOP. The GOP has been turning that corner for years, even as the Left has dismissed that trend.
And as one who works with minority teens, I keep hearing rather conservative sentiments coming from them -- for example, my American-born Hispanic teens at the low-income, 90% Hispanic school where I teach express many of the same views on immigration and other issues as their wealthier, whiter peers in more affluent parts of the Houston area. In short, the younger generation is not the bastion of liberalism that Blow and others want to paint them as.
Not to mention that even as the Religious Right heads for a decline, there is a continuing upswing in economic and libertarian conservatism in our population that will undoubtedly gravitate to the Republican brand rather than the Big Government statism of the Democrats. Those who paint the GOP as exclusively the domain of religious conservatives are fooling themselves -- or simply don't recognize that the GOP is not a monolith.
So Charles, you and Ruy Teixeira can argue that the future trends against the GOP -- but given that in my lifetime I've heard that same tune sung in 1974, 1992, and 2008, I'll remain skeptical of that assertion.
The answer seems to be "YES!"
The parents of Army soldier Benjamin Osborn said Thursday that new military rules of engagement are making soldiers on the ground more vulnerable to attack, including they say, in the final battle that took their son's life.
"They were ambushed they were under attack and they couldn't fire until they were ordered to do so," Ben's father Bill Osborn said.
Wearing black armbands, a gold star pin, and grief fresh from burying their son, Bill and Beverly Osborn are speaking out about the circumstances of their son's death.
"Ben said that the tactics were wrong. There's one long road to bring supplies in. The Taliban's up there shooting down at them and they have to shoot up," Beverly Osborn said.
* * *
"The rules of engagement have put our son at risk and everyone that's over there," Bill Osborn said.
"They are laughing at us. The Taliban is laughing at us," said Beverly Osborn.
* * *
"I think he's the wrong man for the wrong job at the time, and I think he has things backwards I think that it's a kind of a touchy feely approach to war and it doesn't work," Bill Osborn said.
"We have to win the war first. The only way to do that is to have someone in charge who's a warrior, not a flower child," Beverly Osborn said.
No wonder we are in the midst of the deadliest month of the Afghan war.
"You can't say that Islam is a religion of peace," [Anjem] Choudary[head of Islam4UK] told CBN News. "Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam."
This guy is what passes for a religious leader in the United Kingdom -- how many like him are here in the USA?
When I first heard the comment in question, I found it to be rather innocuous in that it sounded to me like he was defending those of whom he was speaking. I did not, however, have the time to write, and so was going to let the matter pass.
But John Hawkins rather neatly expressed my thoughts on the matter, so I will quote him at length.
Yes, Democrat Paul Kanjorski is irritating, liberal, and out of touch, but it seems like a huge stretch to interpret these remarks, as some conservatives have, as a slam at the poor,We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people.He's not saying the poor are minorities or defective, he's saying that's what people INSINUATE the people having a hard time in this recession are like. The point he's trying to make is that these are just regular people who are having a hard time in a tough economy.
So honestly, I don't see anything wrong with his remarks at all.
I hereby join with John in his defense of a Democrat who really did not say what my fellow conservatives are claiming he said.
He said he'd spend the rest of his life looking for Nicole's killer.
Where did he look?
He said he was taking an indefinite break to mend his marriage.
"Indefinite" meant four months, until the Masters.
And so when Obama said he would not rest until the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico was plugged, why are we surprised to see him out doing this?
UPDATE: Here's a related video, reminding us that Obama hasn't ONLY been golfing.
It's an awful thing in a country when its people no longer believe the government protects them and their rights. Yet, a new poll shows that's exactly where Americans are headed right now.
In a Rasmussen poll of 1,000 adults taken last Friday and Saturday, nearly half, or 48%, said they see government today as a threat to their rights. Just 37% disagreed. The poll also found that only one in five (21%) believe current government has the consent of the governed.
Now consider the founding principles of this wonderful country in which we live -- the principles which were at the heart of our struggle to throw off a government that interfered with their rights and did not have the consent of the governed.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Do we, as Americans, truly believe that our government has become destructive of our God-given unalienable rights? Have we, objectively, reached the point where we as a people no longer consent to this current governmental structure because of a structural failure to protect our rights (which is different from a failure to consent to the policies and programs of a particular leader or party -- something that can be corrected at the ballot box during the next election)?
And most importantly, is this a sustained rejection of the current government on a sufficiently profound level as to rise to the level of rejection put forward by Jefferson?
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Absent the sort of rejection of our current form of government that I noted above, a change in form and structure is inadvisable and should be rejected by reasonable men and women. That said, if this attitude is one that is sustained, the time may be here for a new constitutional convention, the voluntary dissolution of the Union by mutual consent, or even violent revolution if the entrenched powers attempt to thwart the will of the people in this regard. May God grant that the latter never becomes necessary, and that the People may, by peaceful means, turn out the scoundrels so that they may again have faith in our form of government.
Yeah, that's the ticket to electoral success.
Texas Democrats have staked out political ground that trumpets their beliefs and will ignite supporters at the party's state convention this week – protecting the rights of eligible citizens to vote.
The only problem – especially for a political party that hasn't won a statewide office in 15 years – is that when it comes to whether voters should have to show a photo ID, 70 percent of Texans disagree with the Democrats.
Most Texans believe that if they need one to rent a video or get on a plane, it makes sense that there should be equal safeguards for the ballot.
While there is something admirable about standing firm in an unpopular position, when that puts you at odds with even the groups you are ostensibly trying to protect, you have written your own political epitaph. And when one considers that the poll that produced the results included a question biased in such a way as to induce support for the position espoused by the Democrats, I'd argue that they are going against even more than 70% of Texans.
Dems have hopes of entering the Promised Land
This leads me to propose the following theme song for the event.
Of particular interest is the fact that one Portland, Oregon media outlet apparently has sat on the story for years. Would it have done so if it involved a prominent Republican? Or would "the public's right to know" have overridden any other consideration?
And given that the alleged victim has come forward with more information/evidence recently, one has to ask if this may have had anything to do with the breakup of Gore's marriage.
After all, it is calculated from the presumed date of the birth of Christ, and we wouldn't want to risk being offensive by including that number. And definitely don't use AD on the diploma, either.
Seniors at a New Haven, Conn., high school will not be graduating “in the year of our Lord” this year – or any future years, according to the superintendent of schools.
The school district has removed the traditional phrase from high school diplomas after someone complained.
“It’s a religious thing,” Superintendent Reginald Mayo told the New Haven Register. “I’m surprised it took this long for someone to notice it. We certainly don’t want to offend anyone.”
Last year, former alderwoman Ina Silverman filed a complaint about “in the year of our Lord" when her daughter was a student at Wilbur Cross High School. According to the newspaper, Silverman took her concerns to the mayor, who then asked the superintendent to remove the words.
Mayo told the newspaper it was a small change – but it was a necessary change. The American Humanist Association heralded the decision.
Like I've said any number of times, Leftists only believe in dissent when they are out of power. Once they have a little authority, little things like the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech don't matter. Then they want to delegitimize dissenting voices, if not suppress them outright.
And I say that as someone who does not necessarily agree with Glen Beck's position on public schools, and who exercises my right to turn the station any time I see his face or hear his voice. But after putting up with eight years of the Left proclaiming that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism", I'm going to call out the Leftists who now want to silence dissent by the American majority opposed to their views and policies.
I've always liked the Channellock brand. They make great tools. And I believed that long before I married a girl from the small Pennsylvania town where the company is headquartered and so many of the products are made.
So I was pleasantly surprised by this commentary by the company's president, commenting on the political and business climates. It begins as follows.
I recently wrote about the ongoing lack of leadership in our country.
Nothing new to report, yet...
We continue to be driven by unknowing, no "skin-in-the-game," income-redistributing, progressive-spendthrift members of Congress and White House staff. They have no respect for the private sector, for manufacturing or for our country.
It gets more scathing from there -- and offers a number of important points for consideration. I encourage you to drop by and read it -- and offer your support in an email, and with a purchase if you are so inclined.
American business leaders know that the policies of the Obama Regime are failing, and that they are harming our manufacturing base. Now is the time to act if we are to prevent irreparable damage to our country.
h/t Snapped Shot
They are here illegally. They have made public statements to that effect. Now when will law enforcement do its duty and arrest these illegals and turn them over for deportation?
Three young women who came to this country as children and are now illegal immigrants are staging a hunger strike in an attempt to convince U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan to back a bill that could make them legal residents.
The women – Rosario Lopez, 25, Viridiana Martinez, 23, and Loida Silva, 22 – have set up tents across the street from the state legislative building in downtown Raleigh and subsisted on water, Pedialtye and Gatorade since June 14.
They have lost 23 pounds collectively and said they're growing weaker by the day but plan on continuing the hunger strike and camping out in the impromptu protest site they've secured near the state Legislature.
"If we don't do it, no one else is going to," Silva said in an earlier interview about the hunger strike. "Our parents broke the law, we didn't have a say in that."
Ms. Silva, you are 22-years-old. You are aware of your immigration status, and presumably have been since your 18th birthday. You have CHOSEN TO STAY in the United States illegally since that time -- so you can quit spewing la miedra del torro about not having a say regarding your situation. The same border that your family crossed to come here is equally porous headed south, so hasta la vista, baby.
Nikki Haley gets the GOP nod for Governor, and Tim Scott is the nominee for Congress in the 1st Congressional District.
Now, do you notice anything about these candidates, who were backed by the Tea Part and overwhelmingly supported by the GOP primary voters? Haley is an Indian-American, while Scott is an African-American. Each defeated multiple white candidates in the initial primary, and trounced a white opponent in the runoff. These are the faces of the future in the GOP, as minority candidates recognize that the GOP shares their values and welcomes them -- and will vote for those with solid credentials for office, not simply a gift for reading from a teleprompter.
If we had a media that was truly independent and prepared to challenge Barack Obama like they did his predecessors rather than bowing and scraping before him like he is some sort of unicorn-riding demigod, questions like these might be asked of him.
1. It appears, Mr. President, that you were informed by BP about problems on Deepwater Horizon on February 13 and the company wanted your help. What did you say?
2. Given this new revelation, Mr. President, how can you can sleep at night knowing that your inaction cost the lives of eleven men in Louisiana?
3. Did you inform the victims' families about these facts when you invited them to the White House for last month's photo op?
4. You've said, Mr. President, time and again, that the buck stops with you. Doesn’t that statement seem like something bordering on propaganda when you follow it up with what appears to be a false sense of outrage by telling Matt Lauer that you're looking for rear ends to kick?
5. Does the buck stop with you… or not?
6. Are you going to insist that Mr. Salazar step down from his post in disgrace and shame?
7. Will you hold another prime time television press conference and tell the entire truth to the American people? -- These would be the actions of a man who says that the buck "stops" with him.
8. I know when this news was breaking midday on Saturday about the latest BP developments that you and the Vice President were out on the golf course. Was it 39th or 40th time you've played a round in 18 months? (Just for a point of reference President Bush played golf 24 times in eight years.) Never mind, your priorities are for you to decide. At least until election night...
On the other hand, i will not join the author of the column in calling for Barry Hussein's resignation -- I love my country too much to ever wish for Joe Biden in the White House.
My wife just loved this when she saw it -- so I figured I'd post it.
It was painful to write that headline. After all, I believe that, as regards the facts, General Stanley McChrystal is correct, and that the Obama Regime has adopted a policy that is objectively wrong. That said, in our society it is the elected civilian leadership of our government -- in particular, the President of the United States in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces -- that makes the policies that our military carries out. It is not the role of the military to publicly criticize the decisions of the civilian leadership.
The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has been summoned to the White House to explain biting and unflattering remarks he made to a freelance writer about President Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration.
The face-to-face comes as pundits are already calling for McChrystal to resign for insubordination.
McChrystal has been instructed to fly from Kabul to Washington today to attend Obama’s regular monthly security team meeting tomorrow at the White House.
An administration official says McChrystal was asked to attend in person rather than by secure video teleconference, “where he will have to explain to the Pentagon and the commander in chief his quotes about his colleagues in the piece.”
Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken with McChrystal. Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Mullen, said “the chairman spoke to General McChrystal last night and expressed his deep disappointment with the article and with the comments expressed therein.”
I'll say it flat out -- McChrystal should not be permitted the option of resigning -- he must be summarily fired and removed from active duty. His words in this article constitute insubordination, no matter how incompetent the civilian leadership under Barack Hussein Obama is. The issue here is larger than the personalities -- it is one of the very nature of the relationship between the military and the civilian leadership in under the Constitution. As such, I hope that Obama follows the example of Harry Truman in his dealings with another insubordinate military commander who was correct in his observations but wrong in his conduct.
And in light of this admission, I would like to be among the first to demand that the Obama Regime open a full investigation into the activities of Jimmy Carter since the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, in particular his work with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Former President Jimmy Carter has voiced concern that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on “material support” to terrorist groups may criminalize his “work to promote peace and freedom.”
Carter, whose advocacy has entailed contact with groups designated by the U.S. government as “foreign terrorist organizations” (FTOs) – notably Hamas and Hezbollah – said he was disappointed by the court decision.
The high court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld a federal law that forbids providing “material support” to an FTO, ruling that it can be applied to U.S. organizations whose engagement with terrorists involves promoting non-violent solutions to conflicts.
The law, part of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, forbids the provision of any aid, defined as including “service,” “training” or “expert advice or assistance,” to a designated FTO.
Carter's activities clearly fall under the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" to designated foreign terrorist organizations. As such, it should not be too difficult to get an indictment and obtain a conviction, given the copious amount of evidence in the public domain and Mr. Carter's own statements regarding his assistance to those organizations. In addition, government records from the Secret Service and the testimony of Secret Service personnel will also make the prosecution easier than in most situations.
The defendant in the failed Times Square bombing pleaded guilty on Monday, an abrupt and expedited end to a terrorism case that extended to Pakistan and an Islamic militant group there.
The defendant, Faisal Shahzad, 30, listened as each count of the 10-count indictment was read to him, and then indicated that he understood the charges and the penalties that he faced.
“I want to plead guilty 100 times over,” said Mr. Shahzad, who faces life in prison.
Unfortunately, the soft-on-terrorism scum will be the guest of the US taxpayer for life, rather than facing the death penalty. Congress needs to remedy that situation for future cases of terrorism -- and then an administration that actually cares about American security more than about the good opinion of the Islamic world needs to vigorously defend before the Supreme Court the idea that death is the proper penalty for plotting, attempting, or carrying our a terrorist attack upon the United States is death, even if that attack itself is a failure.
It isn't that she is a liberal -- everybody knew that, given that she is her father's daughter. But when she uses her position not just to give out the Obama Regime's talking points, but is even on the team developing them, she has clearly reached the point where the conflict of interest is unresolvable short of her being cashiered by the network in the interest of retaining its independence.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.
Now I'll be the first to admit that she works for MSNBC, not a credible, respectable news source. But the reality is that for the network to be able to even continue to feign independence, it cannot continue to employ a host who is admittedly nothing but a shill for the White House. Otherwise Mika will be prostituting the network's integrity, not just her own.
Gotta love this one.
Leonard Nimoy honored with parade by citizens of Vulcan
The story is cute, too.
I received the following email today, and wish to share it with you all.
This Friday marks the 4th year anniversary of Gilad Shalit's captivity and I just participated in an effort to join thousands in sending him a message. These messages will be delivered to the International Red Cross and the JCRC-NY will demand that Hamas allow the IRC to visit and deliver the notes to Gilad in accordance with international humanitarian law. Copies of our messages will also be sent to Noam and Aviva Shalit.
Please take just a few moments to fill out the form at http://jcrcny.org/gilad/
messagetogilad.htmland forward this message to your friends!
For those of you unfamiliar with the story of Gilad Shalit, I urge you to click this link for more information. It is interesting to note that Hamas will not allow the Red Cross to visit their prisoner, while convicted terrorists receive such visits in Israeli jails, along with visits from families and others -- something Shalit has been denied for four years. And international law requires that these messages be delivered -- again, something which Hamas has refused to do in the past. But it remains important for the decent people of the world to stand up to the forces of terror by attempting to get these messages through to Staff Sergeant Shalit, if only to show which side in the conflict between Israel and the forces of Islamist terror is truly acting in accord with the precepts of international law and which side continually flouts them.
Given that at least one tour company is offering US citizenship as an amenity at one of its hotels, either legislation or a Constitutional amendment is necessary.
A New York hotel is staking its claim to have invented a new hospitality niche – birth tourism. The Marmara Manhattan offers “an exclusive package for new mothers that wish to give birth in the USA”, with the additional bonus of the newborn child gaining US citizenship.
The hotel, which is part of the Turkish hospitality chain, exploits the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which states that all children born on American soil “are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”.
When the 14th Amendment was adopted, it took a serious effort to reach the US, and there were virtually no limits on who was legally admitted to this country. Given today's immigration restrictions, the rise of illegal immigration, and the simplicity of reaching the US via plane for a brief holiday, I'd argue that the precedent in US v. Wong Kim Ark needs to be reexamined to consider whether or not the children of transient visitors to this country without any sort of resident status truly qualify for US citizenship under the 14th Amendment (which is a separate question from whether or not the anchor babies of illegal immigrants meet the requirement of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States rather than being the offspring of foreign invaders). Perhaps this abuse of the current understanding of the 14th Amendment should become the basis for modifying the American definition of who qualifies for citizenship by birth, with Congressional legislation being the necessary first step to instigate such a case.
Now if it could only hold a golf club and bow to foreign monarchs, it would be more qualified to be president than the incumbent.
H/T Doug Powers
Well, this was an exciting week over at the Watcher of Weasels, with first-place ties (broken by the Watcher) in both categories and votes for all nominees among Council members. I can't recall a week when such a thing has happened during my years on the Council.
Lot's of great stuff for you to peruse among the nominees and winners. Be sure to do the reading.
Found in this article in the Houston Chronicle.
Immigration officials are currently not pursuing deportation proceedings against San Antonio's Eric Balderas, an unauthorized immigrant from Mexico who's been thrust into the national spotlight in the wake of pending legislation that could help secure citizenship for students like him.
Did you catch that one? This kid is not an "illegal alien", not an "undocumented immigrant", but is instead an "unauthorized immigrant". Is this the new euphemism to be used by the open borders crowd in their quest to support the Reconquista advocated by MeCHA, La Raza, and other racist Hispanics? Especially since the entire "news" article is really nothing but a propaganda piece for the so-called "DREAM Act"?
I'll be honest -- I don't blame this kid for coming here illegally. As many folks will doubtless point out, he was a child when he arrived. However, he is now an adult, fully aware of his immigration status, and he has chosen to continue to stay here -- and attend college here -- in violation of American law. As such, he is responsible for his current situation. While he is no doubt a fine young man in many respects, and would no doubt be an asset to this country, let us not gloss over the fact of his voluntary choice to engage in illegal activity -- and Harvard's decision to aid and abet his lawbreaking.
I wonder what Dean Elena Kagan of Harvard has to say about such lawbreaking on the part of the school where she is an administrator, and its students. Hopefully someone will ask.
I've been bored with the appearance of my blog for some time now. The color scheme made it hard to read, and just was not attractive. And the banner, one of my first efforts at making a graphic, was really pretty amateurish. So I decided I would spend awhile trying to spruce things up, and this is the result. I even fixed the broken script for the Munuvian blogroll! There may be a few more changes to come, but even these cosmetic changes have turned Rhymes With Right into a much more attractive site.
After all, he freely admits that he presents one face to the public and another in private -- and that those who breach that wall are the ones in the wrong, not him.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown says that his recent comment comparing GOP rival Meg Whitman’s ad campaign to Nazi propaganda was off the record and should not have been reported.
Asked about the incident Thursday during an interview with KGO radio in San Francisco, Brown said, “This was just a private conversation."
“Nobody had a pencil,” Brown said. “Nobody said, ‘By the way, is this a statement that you're making to the public?’”
In other words, he really doesn't see anything wrong with the statement he apologized for -- and he thinks the reporter who disclosed the inflammatory statement was wrong for having done so. Makes you wonder what other things Jerry says in private that he doesn't want disclosed. If he uses a racial slur or makes anti-Semitic comments, does Brown believe that those should be covered up by the press unless he had indicated that he intended the remark for public consumption? Ca n the people of California trust Jerry Brown?
When it comes to the issue of depicting historical figures in film, we in the West have a lamentable habit of not always being historically accurate with non-Western figures. But the appropriate response to that is not to engage in inaccurate depictions of historical figures in order to engage in politically correct reparations.
Unfortunately, that is what some folks wish to see happen regarding the planned film about the last pharaoh of Egypt, Cleopatra.
She hasn't even been officially confirmed as having the role, but Angelina Jolie is already receiving criticism over her possible portrayal of the legendary Queen of the Nile.
Jolie, who turned 35 last week, is caught up in a racially charged debate over whether the role should have been played by a black woman.
* * *
An Essence Magazine online story asks, 'Another White Actress to Play Cleopatra?'
'Honestly, I don't care how full Angelina Jolie's lips are, how many African children she adopts, or how bronzed her skin will become for the film, I firmly believe this role should have gone to a black woman.'
* * *
'Were Vanessa Williams, Halle Berry and Thandie Newton unavailable for auditions that day?' the writer continued.
'Why does Hollywood think it’s even slightly plausible to cast white women in roles that would be more sensible to cast a black actress for? Especially when that role is an African queen.'
I'll take on that last question quite gladly -- because Cleopatra was not a black woman. If one looks at the historical record, her ancestry would have been overwhelmingly Greek, which would have made her look a heck of a lot more like Angelina Jolie than Vanessa Williams, Halle Berry or Thandie Newton.
Even this article that appeared in Ebony magazine notes that Cleopatra certainly would not have been what most people think of as "black", even though there is evidence that she likely had some Egyptian (and perhaps even Nubian) ancestry.
Here's where the scholars seem to agree: Cleopatra was the last in a line of Ptolemies--Macedonian Greeks--who ruled Egypt from the death of Alexander the Great in 305 B.C. until Antony's defeat in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. The Ptolemies, as was the custom, were an incestuous, intermarrying breed (they were concerned about preserving the royal bloodline). But they took their pleasure with the courtiers and concubines who filled their palaces. Many of the children born of these assignations were bestowed a place in the royal lineage despite their dubious--and unspoken--parentage.
Many believe that Cleopatra's father was the product of such a union--his mother may have been a concubine from Nubia or Alexandria. Lending credence to this theory is the fact that Cleopatra's bond to the people of Egypt seemed greater than those of her Ptolemic ancestors, who aligned themselves culturally and linguistically with Greece. "Far more than her predecessors, [Cleopatra] made an effort to learn Egyptian and was very savvy about presenting herself as Egyptian to the people that she ruled," says Molly Levine, a professor of Egyptology in the classics department at Howard University.
So it seems that Cleopatra may have had a true Egyptian (as opposed to Macedonian-Greek) grandmother. Does that make her "Black?" It is a question the organizers of the Field Museum's exhibit wanted to tackle head-on.
"It is a question that is nearly impossible to answer," says Ben Bronson, the museum's curator of Asian archeology and ethnology. "What we've tried to do is narrow down the range of possibilities for her ancestry. And when you do that, you see that there is a perfectly good chance that Cleopatra was an African Egyptian. Was she 100 percent African, meaning was her skin dark? Probably not. The Romans, who wrote extensively about her, probably would have noted that. But it is quite possible--given the comings and goings of people in the Ptolemic court--that she was a mixed-race Egyptian."
Indeed, despite the many negative things written about her by Romans during the quarter century she was part of the Roman sphere -- from her early trip to Rome with her father while still a young girl through her leadership of Egypt, her affair with Julius Caesar (and return to Rome with him in the period prior to his assassination) and her later ill-fated relationship with Marcus Antonius -- I have never encountered any source that makes reference to her being black.
And there is, of course, the surviving evidence from her own lifetime that show Cleopatra not to have stereotypically "African" features -- such as the famous Berlin Cleopatra, which dates from the time of her involvement with Caesar. As such, there is again reason to believe that her appearance would be closer to that of an Angelina Jolie than any of the fine black actresses put forth in the Essence as more appropriate to the role due to their race.
And let it be noted that even had Cleopatra had a great deal more significant Egyptian ancestry than is generally deduced by scholars, it is unlikely she would have been "black" in the sense that word is used today. Consider the distinctions that the Egyptians themselves made regarding race, as seen in this picture depicting a Syrian, a Nubian, a Libyan and an Egyptian in the tomb of Pharaoh Seti I.
Ancient Egyptians clearly did not see themselves as black -- their own artwork shows that, with clear distinctions between their own appearance and skin color and those of the undeniably black Africans of Nubia. As such, it is difficult to claim that the only proper choice to play Cleopatra is a black woman.
At this distance, we are unlikely to ever know for sure what Cleopatra looked like and what her exact skin color was. But it does seem like the choice of Angelina Jolie is better than that of the black actresses proposed in her place, if we are really interested in having the last pharaoh of Egypt depicted in the most historically accurate manner possible.
Don Surber offers some alternative casting suggestions for African-American actresses. Sweetness & Light offers additional commentary on Cleopatra's ancestry. The Hinterland Gazette offers a black perspective on why Essence is wrong -- especially in light of black support for this casting decision (which I, as a Thor fan, think is a good one).
You know, back from "Ally McBeal"?
Well, what do you think of this one?
H/T Mom Houston Blog
They harm their students and dishonor their profession.
Two teachers at Dennis Yarmouth Regional High School have touched off a firestorm after holding up an “End War” sign at a school assembly where six students who’ve enlisted in the military were being honored.
Many in the community say the teachers crossed a line and treated their own students with disrespect.
* * *
The honored students were stunned.
“For people to not really show support… no one has to agree with your decision, but they can help you along with your decision,” said Evan Tuohy-Bedford, who enlisted with the U.S. Marines.
“Now it’s hard to see them as a role model if they’re not supporting their students,” said Ashley Jacob, who’s also enlisted with the U.S. Marines.
Now I'll be honest -- if this pair of unprofessional moral retards want to publicly take an anti-military stance, they are free to do so ON THEIR OWN TIME. But they have no right to hijack a school event to trumpet their own views. During the work day, while they were supposed to be monitoring students and honoring graduating seniors for their awards and accomplishments (not just students enlisting in the military, but also award and scholarship recipients), they chose to abrogate their professional role and become political activists. That is simply wrong.
And make no mistake, this is not simply a question of their insulting and dishonoring students who are signing up to defend our country -- it is a question of their engaging in unprofessional behavior. I'd be just as offended if a couple of pro-life faculty members had decided to hold up protest signs about abortion if a student had received an award for winning an essay contest sponsored by Planned Parenthood, or if teachers opposed to gay rights held up signs condemning homosexuality because a student received a scholarship for LGBT students. That is not proper workplace behavior.
I'm also disturbed by the reaction of the school's principal.
Students say Marybeth Verani talks frequently about her political views, and choosing this public forum now has principal Ken Jenks taking a closer look.
“I think there’s a sincere interest in fostering that dialogue, but I think the classroom is a better environment,” said Jenks.
I'm really pretty leery of that comment. As a political partisan and outspoken advocate for various political and social policies and positions, I go to great lengths to avoid raising specific political points of view in my classroom. That isn't to say that we don't discuss such issues in my classroom (it is impossible to avoid them in a high school social studies class), but I bend over backwards to bring out multiple points of view in a fair manner, and often avoid stating my position when I believe doing so would be detrimental to the discussion or my relationship with my students. Heck, that is why my name isn't on my blog, and why I remain angry at the group of McCarthyite Democrats who disclosed my identity several years ago as part of an effort to get me fired for my political speech and activity outside my classroom and away from school. I don't believe that any teacher should make his or her class time into a forum specifically for "fostering. . . dialogue" about his or her political views.
Do I believe that firing is the appropriate penalty for what happened here? Not necessarily, though I would not find that to be outside the bounds of appropriate action by the school district. At bare minimum, a suspension without pay and a reprimand of some sort is necessary. But more importantly, Marybeth Verani and Adeline Koscher need to be held up as objects of ridicule and scorn by their fellow educators as examples of what is NOT appropriate professional conduct in the school setting and how NOT to behave during the school day.
It has become increasingly common for the people of the UK to be monitored in public places by security cameras that watch their every move in public. Indeed, one article a few years back noted the development of a "surveillance society" in the country and said that at the time there were over 4.2 million security cameras -- one for every 14 people -- in the country, many set up by government authorities to monitor goings on in public places, and that the average Briton was picked up on a CCTV camera 300 times a day.
The number of such cameras can only have grown in that time, and with them the level of surveillance. I'll concede that I find such monitoring of people in their day-to-day lives to be disturbing, but I think this development is even more troublesome in terms of where such surveillance is being thwarted.
Bags are to be put over scores of surveillance cameras in parts of Birmingham after allegations residents were not properly consulted.
Safer Birmingham Partnerships (SBP) said 200 cameras had been put up in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook, where there are large Muslim populations.
There were allegations they were for monitoring extremists, but SBP said they were intended to tackle all crime.
The cameras will not be used until consultation has been carried out.
Now a couple of observations here.
First, you can't tell me that extensive consultations have happened with all those other government cameras being placed, so why do Muslims get special consideration with these cameras? Would such deference be shown to the residents of a non-Muslim neighborhood?
Second, given the festering of Islamist hatred in the British Muslim community, why shouldn't there be such cameras for the detection of terrorism related activity when similar cameras are already used to detect and punish significantly less serious petty street crime? And what if the local community doesn't "buy in" to the program? Will the cameras be removed, despite the logical basis for their placement as a matter of counter-terrorism policy?
Lastly, does this constitute simply one more example of government authorities in the secular West ceding control of portions of its territory (especially in large urban areas) to the clutches of the Islamist leaders whose strategy includes the establishment of Muslim-majority sharia enclaves -- as documented by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, The Grand Jihad?
Sometimes the lede sounds too weird to be reality, even if it is.
And the story doesn't get any less strange from there.
Tell me you've never felt this way about an ex.
As I have said on a number of occasions, I am a member of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association. This article in the current issue of the official TCTA publication, "The Classroom Teacher", makes some important points about teaching in Texas and the fact that many of the things that people criticize in other states are not the case here. Rather than excerpt it, I have received permission to repost it here in its entirety. I'd like to extend my thanks to that permission.
Teacher unions are under fire across the country right now as part of the movement to hold teachers more accountable for student performance. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s legislative program has been described as an “all-out attack” on teacher unions. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently criticized union leaders for using students as “pawns” and has been in repeated conflict with the state’s union. Noted columnist Carl Bernstein publicly blasted the American Federation of Teachers president with this comment: “The perception is that you all, over the years, have put job security in front of the welfare of kids. There is something to that perception.”
Among the more frustrating aspects of education policy in Texas are the repeated attempts to impose reforms here that originated in other states, or at the national level, by reformers accustomed to working with teacher unions. Texas school reformers often pick up on the latest national trends (currently “firing bad teachers”) without regard to how circumstances here might be different.
Many reformers, and even much of the public, object to the rigidity of union contracts, including tenure provisions. In most states, tenure is a property interest granted to experienced teachers that guarantees employment unless the employer has good cause to terminate the employee or for other reasons contained in a collective bargaining agreement. Tenured teachers usually have the right to a hearing before an independent judge or arbitrator.
Recent articles described the results of a strong tenure system by exposing the New York City Department of Education’s reassignment centers, also known as “rubber rooms.” These centers (set for elimination in fall 2010) house hundreds of NYC teachers who have been accused of misconduct or incompetence while they await hearings, continuing to receive salaries and accrue benefits for years.
Examples like this have moved the reform spotlight to focus on weakening the teacher unions and getting rid of tenure. This mantra has even been picked up in Texas, which is somewhat mystifying. Texas doesn’t have true teacher unions, and Texas teachers don’t have tenure! While there are procedures to be followed for the nonrenewal of a teacher after an initial probationary period, Texas law specifically provides that those procedures do not constitute a property right. Term contract teachers can be let go for any reason contained in district policy and have a right to a hearing only before the school board that hired the superintendent recommending the nonrenewal. As long as there is any evidence to support the board’s finding, the decision cannot be overturned.
Texas is a right-to-work state – the union rules don’t apply here. By law, Texas school employees cannot be coerced into joining a union, and are prohibited from striking or entering into collective bargaining agreements. We have so-called unions in Texas: the Texas State Teachers Association, affiliated with the National Education Association; and Texas AFT, affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers. But with laws prohibiting their primary distinguishing features, we wonder why a Texas teacher would pay $400-$600 a year for the union label.
Despite these differences, a 2009 editorial by the Texas Public Policy Foundation used NYC’s “rubber room” example and comments about the difficulty of firing tenured teachers to lead into complaints about low turnover in Texas public schools. Citing statistics, “In Texas, many school districts dismiss less than 1% of teachers per year” – the article concludes that “Clearly it is not easy or politically palatable to fire bad teachers.” Apparently TPPF is under the impression that there are specific percentages of teachers in Texas who are “bad” and should be fired, but whose jobs are being protected by tenure laws.
We’ll say it again. Texas teachers don’t have tenure. The terms of employment are laid out in state law and school district policy, not in union-negotiated contracts.
Our job in the coming months will be to turn the conversation away from teacher unions and tenure, and toward the changes necessary to ensure that teachers have the resources and flexibility they need to do their jobs.
© Texas Classroom Teachers Association, June, 2010. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona have been closed off to U.S. citizens due to increased violence at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, forcing officers on an 80 mile stretch of Arizona land north of the Mexico border off-limits to Americans.
The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.
"The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent," said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.
In other words, the federal government under Bary Hussein has indicated it is unable or unwilling to protect our borders and ensure that Americans are able to travel in border areas free from assault by foreign nationals operating on public land. It therefore appears that Barack Hussein Obama is in violation of his obligation to protect the territorial integrity of American states from foreign invasion. Instead he has closed the invaded areas to American citizens. Why doesn't he figure out "whose ass to kick" and act like a real president for once?
After barely scraping out a win in the Arkansas Democrat Primary for Senate, Blanche Lincoln is still unlikely to remain the state's senator after the fall election, according to Public Policy Polling analysis of the data on the race.
It's nice for Blanche Lincoln that she won the runoff in Arkansas last night but I hope that no groups that care about getting Democratic Senators elected spend another dollar in the state this year. That doesn't have anything to do with her ideology- judging her worthwhileness there is not part of my job as a pollster- but there are just a boatload of races where Democrats have a better chance to win this fall and could use their resources more wisely.
There hasn't been a non-Research 2000 poll showing her down by anything less than 17 points to John Boozman in over three months. Our last survey of the race found her down by 23. Contests where we've found Democrats doing better than Lincoln since that poll include:
The wildcard, of course, remains Bill Clinton. Can his influence in the state where he was so popular for so long help her recover from this incredible popularity deficit? Seems questionable to me, unless he is going to be a full-time surrogate for Lincoln. But if he were that interested in campaigning for the spot, he could have re-established his Arkansas residency and run himself.
One of the Kalamazoo Central students -- who was seated behind keynote speaker President Barack Obama during Monday night's commencement ceremony -- fell asleep.
The student, who earned such a prime seat by singing in the choir, was captured on video due to his proximity to the president. He also was a hot topic on Twitter and the subject of several recently created Facebook pages.
Our video, at left, shows the student yawning and fighting to stay alert. At one point, he leans back, only to jump alert and join in during applause. The student then leans forward and appears to nod off.
There is a cure for this problem, people. Vote Republican in November 2010, and vote against Obama in November 2012. After all, the whole Hopey-Changey thing has become nothing but a boring charade featuring a not-terribly-gifted amateur
Remember -- this is the sort of speech condemned by Barack Obama in his State of the Union address, and which he and his Democrat minions have condemned as unAmerican and a threat to democracy. Will they now condemn the company involved in this constitutionally-protected (due to Citizens United and the First Amendment) political speech?
In a year when a wave of voter anger has already toppled incumbents in Utah and Pennsylvania, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) thinks she can use seniority to her advantage in a tough reelection fight.
Murray is gambling that a fresh endorsement from Boeing will help her make the case that she’ll do more to help her state in a fourth term than Republican challenger Dino Rossi could in a first.
The 59-year-old Democratic veteran has been the aerospace company’s go-to gal in its ongoing dispute with Airbus and the Pentagon over a still-pending contract to build 179 new aerial refueling tanker (KC-135) aircraft. And it’s showing its gratitude.
“Sen. Murray has been a true advocate and champion for the Boeing Co. and for our 75,000 Washington-based employees throughout her three terms, and therefore we support her in her reelection bid,” said company spokesman Doug Kennett, reading a statement.
I've been talking with folks from Washington State lately about just how unpopular Patty Murray really is with her constituents. Dino Rossi was immediately within the margin of error of polls matching them up when he announced for Senate. Will the Democrats tell this federally-contracting corporation to shut up and stay out of politics? Or will they trumpet this as a case of corporate good citizenship as Boeing tries to influence the outcome of an election in the very way that liberals keep saying is bad for America?
Could you imagine the outrage from the Left if George W. Bush had made such a comment in an interview. We'd be hearing about how his words demeaned the presidency and made him look like a fool. Well, Barack Obama, the worst US president since James Buchanan, decided to make in public the sort of statement that would have seemed more natural coming out of the mouth of Lyndon Johnson in private -- and which Johnson at least (generally) had the sense to avoid making when the cameras were rolling.
Now I realize that Obama wants someone to blame for his Katrina -- but there really is only one person to blame. After all, it is Barack Obama who received more money from BP than any politician in the last two decades, it was Barack Obama whose administration approved this well and its continued operation in the face of difficulties, it was Barack Obama whose chief of staff received a rent-free apartment from a BP advisor, it was Barack Obama whose budget proposed cutting oil spill cleanup response capabilities, and it was Barack Obama whose administration repeatedly blocked state efforts to respond to the crisis. Contrasting that with the timely response of the Bush Administration to Katrina in the face of the multiple failures of state and local officials to make the evacuation of New Orleans residents possible and facilitate federal intervention in the wake of the hurricane (and corrupt Congressman William Jefferson's diversion of federal resources to remove personal property and evidence of criminal activity from his home while rescue efforts were in progress) and you can see where Obama's failures are real while Bush's failures during Katrina were imaginary -- and why Obama therefore needs to find someone's "ass to kick" in an effort to distract from his failure and incompetence.
Looks like another fine week for the Watcher's Council as some excellent posts received high recommendations from my fellow members of the Watcher's Council and I.
Be sure to read them all -- they are definitely required reading for the well-informed.
The Islamist PM of Turkey is thinking of accompanying the next aid flotilla for Hamas, and bringing a Turkish naval escort with it.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is weighing the possibility of traveling to the Gaza Strip in order to "break the Israeli blockade," the Lebanese newspaper al-Mustaqbal reported on Saturday, according to Army Radio.
Erdogan reportedly raised the idea in conversations with close associates and even informed the United States of his intention to ask the Turkish Navy to accompany another aid flotilla to Gaza. The Americans asked Erdogan to delay his plans, in light of tensions on the region, the Lebanese report said.
Should such actions take place, it will be an act of war against israel when the Turkish navy engages the israelis. Israel will be forced to respond militarily, possibly even sinking the aid flotilla with Erdrogan aboard one of the ships.
If the United States had a real president, he or she would issue a stern warning to Turkey that such a course of action would not trigger NATO responsibilities to give assistance to Turkey in any resulting conflict, and that there would be no military assistance or equipment forthcoming from the alliance. Unfortunately, we have the anti-Israel, pro-Muslim Barack Hussein Obama in the White House. Will he act properly, or will he instead assist in aiding a known terrorist organization to resupply itself under the guns of NATO forces? I fear I know the answer.
Finding out what ship this is will be quite a feat -- given that the wreck dates the first half of the 17th century, and is located in what is today North Carolina.
A shipwreck exposed on the beach by winter storms could date to a time of commerce between England and Jamestown in the early 1600s.
Possibly the oldest known wreck on the North Carolina coast, the timbers and construction of the ship are very similar to the Sea Venture, the 1609 flagship of seven vessels that carr ied people and supplies to Jamestown, said Bradley A. Rodgers, a professor of archaeology and conservation in the maritime studies program at East Carolina University.
Remains of the Sea Venture rest off the Bermuda coast after it ran aground there in 1609 during a storm.
This does raise some interesting questions. Is it a ship that never made it to Jamestown? A vessel blown way off course and surprisingly in North America? Exactly what ship is this?
H/T Bookworm Room
You know, from all the same groups and individuals who condemned the new social studies standards adopted by the state of Texas for being biased and politicized.
The Los Angeles Unified School District school board wants all public school students in the city to be taught that Arizona's new immigration law is un-American.
The school board president made the announcement Tuesday night after the district's Board of Education passed a resolution to oppose the controversial law, which gives law enforcement officials in Arizona the power to question and detain people they suspect are in the U.S. illegally when they are stopped in relation to a crime or infraction.
Now set aside the FACT that the Arizona law mirrors both federal and California law. Set aside the FACT that between 2/3 and 3/4 of the American public support the law in question. That a school board is IMPOSING a single view of a controversial public policy issue as the official orthodoxy to be taught in class is obscene.
Contrast that with the much-maligned Texas standards where one complaint was that students were expected to look at both sides of controversial issues and make evaluations of the facts rather than accept the liberal orthodoxy..
Now tell me – which of the two practices constitutes educational malpractice and propagandizing in the classroom, and which promotes critical thinking? Which produces good citizens, and which produces mindless, indoctrinated drones? The answer should be obvious.
UPDATE -- 6/10/2010: It appears that the situation is even worse than it initially appeared. And yet the opponents of "politicizing the curriculum" remain strangely silent.
I think this one speaks for itself.
The Obama administration dealt another symbolic blow to Houston's space community Wednesday by delivering $15 million in assistance to help Florida aerospace workers get new jobs after the shuttle fleet retires this year.
No such money so far has been promised to the Johnson Space Center.
“No one should be surprised by this,” said Bob Mitchell, head of the Bay Area Economic Partnership. “This is a political statement by the White House and an attempt by this administration to divide the states.”
The announcement was made by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis at the Kennedy Space Center and follows President Barack Obama's April 15 visit to the launch facility to unveil $40 million in work force assistance for the region.
Seems like Barry Hussein is intent upon using the federal treasury as his own little campaign fund, spending our tax dollars to pick up votes in states where he has a chance to win electoral votes (and help political allies) while ignoring identically situated Americans in states where he and his allies have no chance of victory.
Here's hoping we start seeing local vehicles decorated like this one.
And I know where the layoffs at JSC should start.
As I noted Friday, local talk radio host Michael Berry said something quite stupid on his show earlier this week. It was wrong, and Berry has since apologized for it.
Interestingly enough, though, one of our local liberal bloggers has managed to write about this matter three times in three days -- and in a rather hypocritical fashion, insisting that Michael Berry should lose his job for encouraging terrorism against a facility that does not even exist.
Why do I say that John Cobarruvias is being hypocritical? Well, partially it has to do with the fact that John praises terrorists for their courage in his first anti-Berry post this weekend. But even more important in showing John's hypocrisy is this post of his from just a couple weeks back.
You can take a shot gun to a hearing in the Capitol. Maybe you can carry a shotgun when the lobbyists for the insurance industry testifies on how low homeowners insurance rates are. Or when the electricity resellers say how low our rates are. Or when the heads of Texas University tries to justify their bloated college rates. The list could go on and on.
Whatever hearing you want to attend, just remember, you have the right to carry a shotgun into a hearing just as long as it is "carried openly, in a non-threatening way". And since we don't have enough money to police each hearing, gun toters could have a clear and easy target.
* * *
Hum....I guess this might be a good time to buy a shotgun.
Yeah, that's right -- John much more explicitly encouraged/threatened terrorist activity than Michael Berry did on his show. Given John's propensity for hate speech and threatening and encouraging violence against political opponents, I think it is fair to say that he is probably much more of a threat to the public than is Michael Berry -- and certainly more likely to actually engage in illegal activity. Frankly, I'm surprised that John still has his job and his security clearance after that threat on the Texas Capitol Building. After all, the mosque in question does not yet exist -- while John proposed an actual plan for shooting up a legislative hearing in the location where they currently take place.
Actually, I think I understand why John has this hatred for Michael Berry. In addition to daring to hold political views that John objects to, Berry is younger, better looking, wealthier, more popular, and more politically influential than John is. Having thereby trampled on all of John's personal inadequacies (at least those we can see from his blog), he is of course an appropriate target for John's pathology.
UPDATE -- June 2: John apparently cannot keep his violent tendencies under control. After declaring that it was an act of terrorism for Michael Berry to say that he hoped someone blows up a non-existent mosque, the long-time Democrat activist and NASA employee stated that he hopes someone "shuts [Berry's] pie hole." That would be an actual call for an actual assault upon a member of the media for their exercise of their First Amendment rights -- and is typical of John's violent anti-freedom rhetoric. And the difference, of course, is that while Michael Berry made an inappropriate off-the-cuff comment on live radio, John's blog post calling for an act of political terrorism against a US citizen for exercising his civil rights was clearly premeditated. Just call it one more act of hypocrisy on his part. If i were Michael Berry, I'd be looking for a restraining order against the unhinged federal employee and Democrat activist.
As more and more evidence comes out, it only serves to reinforce the conclusion that those who attacked Israeli military personnel carrying out a boarding operation that was legal under international law WERE SEEKING THEIR 72 VIRGINS.
"The [Gaza] flotilla commander said yesterday: 'We will not allow the Zionists to get near us and we will use resistance against them.' How will they wage resistance? They will resist with their fingernails. They are people who seek Martyrdom for Allah, as much as they want to reach Gaza, but the first [Martyrdom] is more desirable."
And what we know is that these individuals used clubs, knives, and guns to attack the boarding party after repeated directives to put into a port for inspection, as international law requires them to do in the case of a blockade (and remember -- at the time both Israel and Egypt were blockading Gaza, not Israel alone). Their blood is on their own hands, and on the hands of those who sent them. This was not Israeli aggression -- these were jihadis.
While I understand the notion that it might be better for a suspect to make a specific statement that he/she is invoking the right to remain silent, I think that the facts in this case make it clear that the cops went way to far.
In this case, Michigan police had informed the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or speak to a lawyer.
But he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes.
For almost three hours, Thompkins sat mute as the cops engaged in a running monologue of questions. It was clear that he was exercising that right to remain silent – by remaining silent. That does not appear ambiguous to me at all. That leads me to question the majority’s assertion that the incriminating statement that followed was uncoerced.
In fact, I find Justice Sotomayor’s analysis to be somewhat more compelling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."
I’m curious – absent a suspect saying the “magic words”, how long can the cops keep him in interrogation as he sits silent? Eight hours? Twelve? Twenty-four? Seventy-two?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."
And the Left has remained silent on the matter.
Now we just had a revision of the social studies curriculum, there was much outrage about “the religious right” and “Christian conservatives” even being permitted to influence the process, much less actually have decisions go their way. It seems to me that there ought to be some criticism of Pelosi bringing her religious beliefs into her job from the folks who condemned the elected State Board of Education here in Texas.
I’ll keep waiting for the cries of outrage from them. . . and waiting. . . and waiting. . .
While the eyes of the world are focused upon Israel taking out a bunch of jihadi blockade runners who attacked Israeli military personnel acting in compliance with international law, nobody is looking at this bigger story.
Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, the U.N. atomic agency said Monday in a report that heightened Western concerns about the country developing the ability to produce a nuclear weapon.
Two tons of uranium would be enough for two nuclear warheads, although Iran says it does not want weapons and is only pursuing civilian nuclear energy.
Given this – and given Iran’s repeated threats to annihilate Israel in a manner which could only be accomplished through the use of nuclear weapons – it seems to me that Israel’s efforts to keep weapons from reaching the Jew-hating regime in Hamasistan is a sensible one. After all, how hard would it be for a nuclear device (or even nuclear material) to be smuggled into Gaza on one of those boats? How difficult is it to imagine the use of a nuke – or at least a dirty bomb – being used by Hamas against Israel, given the propensity of the Hamasistanis to launch missiles at Israeli civilians?
As is pointed out by Soccer Dad, the attempt to stop the blockade runners was legal under international law. According to The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
And Israel did seek to stop the vessel, believed to be carrying contraband, for inspection as is its right. The proof is here.
Israel Navy: "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostilities which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area coastal region and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports on the vessels on which you have arrived." Response: "Negative, negative."
In light of that refusal, boarding the vessel was appropriate. And when the Israelis made a peaceful boarding, the crew and passengers of the jihadi vessel attacked.
The Israeli boarders, having come under attack from jihadi blockade runners acting in violation of international law, then retaliated with appropriate force. Had there been indiscriminate use of force, there would be significantly more dead jihadis than was the case after the Israelis responded in self-defense.
This video shows the weapons recovered from the blockade runner.
It is therefore undeniable that the jihadi blockade runners were carrying contraband weapons, that they were armed, and that they attacked the boarding party. There is no dispute possible, based upon the evidence.
The Israeli government is detaining the jihadis under international law for their violations of international law in attempting to run the blockade and their attack upon the boarding party.
The UN, being a bastion of Jew-hatred, is siding with the jihadis. But then again, what else is new?
Now some of you may ask why I am referring to these blockade runners as jihadis. It is not just their actions towards the israeli military -- it is also their own words.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Hey hey hey, hey hey hey.
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews.
The Army of Muhammad will return
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood, we will fight.
We will crawl and fight.
With our blood we will fight.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
You will not cross over my blood, over my blood.
You will not live in my homeland, in my homeland.
Death to you…under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
Death to you under the ground,
and glory to us above the ground.
They declared themselves to be jihadis, and they acted the part. Let their blood be upon their hands.