“That Lady Stands for Liberty!”


To honor the spirit of Rand Paul today:

“Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won’t just see scenery; you’ll see the whole parade of what Man’s carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so’s he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That’s what you’d see. There’s no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that’s what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we’d better get those boys’ camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it’s not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don’t get lost once they come to light. They’re right here; you just have to see them again!”
—Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”

““I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
– Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky), March 6, 2013, launching filibuster on the Senate floor in order to address the issue of the Obama administration’s belief that they have the power to kill non-combatant Americans in the US with drone strikes

Our Trojan Horse President….


Obama bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

Trojan Horse (definition):
concealed stratagem: somebody or something that is meant to disrupt, undermine, subvert, or destroy an enemy or rival, especially somebody or something that operates while concealed within an organization.

They say truth is stranger than fiction.

And as Robert Knight at the Washington Times points out, writing a novel about a President whose goal is to undermine the USA could never match the real thing we have in Barack Hussein Obama.

As we begin 2012, it is imperative that we remember the damage that this President has unleashed upon our country.  He must be removed from office….and this is the year we must do it.

Knights article is a great reminder of so many of the appalling things Obama has done in three years….for which much of the media and many Americans have given him a pass…

I was thinking about writing a novel about what might happen if a man who hates America and wants to bring it down is somehow elected president. What would he do?……

…….First, the Trojan Horse president would initiate unprecedented spending, driving the debt up by more than $4 trillion just in the first three years. Much of the money would go into the pockets of political supporters and people who donate heavily to his campaigns…….

……….(He would)  Ship hundreds of taxpayer-purchased firearms to Mexican drug gangs in order to frame law-abiding gun sellers in Texas. When the Fast and Furious weapons are used to kill U.S. and Mexican lawmen, the attorney general will pretend he didn’t know about the program until very recently and is shocked, shocked! The attorney general will claim that critics of this criminally insane policy are motivated by racial animus against him and the president. After all, this worked when anyone questioned why the president’s college and medical records were sealed or why he attended a Marxist minister’s church for 20 years and hung out with known terrorists.

He would appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a “living Constitution,” which means they can ignore its plain meaning when it interferes with their ideological agenda.

He would stack the National Labor Relations Board with union hacks who would do unspeakable things such as order a major company (Boeing) not to open a new factory in a right-to-work state (South Carolina) in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. If he got away with that, he would go ahead and strengthen a crony socialist system reminiscent of Mussolini’s Italy or Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela that subsidizes “winners” such as Solyndra.

Finally, throughout his tenure, he would employ the Marxist rhetoric of class warfare, blame “the wealthy” and make more Americans dependent on government checks. He would sucker Republican leaders into secret meetings and emerge to accuse them of wanting to raise taxes on all but the rich.

Read it all  here.

Did Hollywood “genius” Morgan Freeman see the Florida straw poll?


GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, right, disputed actor Morgan Freeman's, left, claim on Friday that the Tea Party is 'a racist thing.'(pics: Jason Kempin/Getty; Joe Burbank/Pool)

Just wondering…did Morgan Freeman, the Hollywood Whiz Kid*, happen to take a look at the Florida Straw Poll on Saturday?

Herman Cain, a black man, won that straw poll largely from the support of the Tea Party.

Morgan Freeman said on CNN last week that members of the Tea Party are racists willing to do  whatever they can to “get this black man” (Obama) out of the White House.

The only racist I see is Morgan Freeman…..

Herman Cain responds:

“Most of the people that are criticizing the Tea Partiers about having a racist  element, they have never been to a Tea Party………Name calling is something that is going to continue in this because they don’t  know how to stop this movement and this movement is making a big difference in  politics.”

Amen!  Freeman is right about one thing….the Tea Party wants the President out of the White House.

Not because of his race, but rather based on:

So, Mr. Freeman, race is not the issue as proven in Florida….but for some reason it is an issue with you and many like you.

Why don’t you attend a Tea Party (as Herman Cain suggests) before spreading your nastiness?…and then….well….

Get. Over. It.

*sarcasm

Democrats and Voter Fraud


Just in the last two days, many news and blog sources are reporting voter irregularities, fraudulent voter registrations, and issues with absentee ballots.

In all cases I’ve seen, the effects of the fraud/irregularities favor the Democrats or the acts are being perpetrated by Democrats.

I said this to some family members just last night –

Voter fraud seems to be incrementally more rampant with each election.  In addition, we have the courts and Eric Holder’s DOJ advocating in the direction of voter fraud.

To me, this is almost more serious than Obama’s failed stimulus, the Democratic-led force-feeding of Socialism in America, the disastrous Obamacare and more.

Why?  We have always known that our votes are the way to change what we don’t like in our government.  The more fraud and outright government support of fraudulent activity that we endure, the less trust we have in our voting process.  If Americans lose trust in their ability to vote and have it counted fairly, we lose the last vestiges of trust left in our system.  Our votes will mean about as much as they do in a Venezuelan vote or one in any third world country where the corrupt manipulate the votes in order to keep/gain power.

I mean we already seem to be on the fine line of that corruption overtaking our voting system, even with this upcoming election.   Examples:

Michelle Malkin has exhaustively documented many cases of potential fraud (not listed on this post)  that have already occurred here and here.  I encourage you to read about it and be armed with information when you go vote.

Where is the NY Times?  Where is the outcry from the Leftists on voter fraud?  Where is the DOJ?

The NY Times is more worried about poll watchers than illegals/ineligibles/dead people getting to vote.  

The Leftists are silent.

The DOJ chooses to ignore the law and, therefore, advocate the disenfranchisement of military voters.

How can you help defeat cheating at the polls? 

Take pictures of any irregularities.  Use your camera phone.   Point it out to poll officials.  Use the new American Majority voter fraud reporting app.

As Michelle Malkin points out, be ever vigilant:

Vigilance plus citizen media plus the willingness to be sued for blowing the whistle equals the best defense for voter fraud. We must all be voter fraud watchers now.

Go Vote and make it count!  We need all votes in order to overcome the “margin of fraud” by Democrats!

The Koran, General Petraeus, Dhimmitude, and American Values


Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach Center plans to burn Korans on 9-11-10 (CBS photo)

Terry Jones, pastor of a small church in Florida, is planning a “Koran burning” this Saturday to commemorate the 9th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on America.

While it is certainly the First Amendment right of Pastor Jones to do so, I believe that it is entirely inappropriate to do so.   No doubt about that.   And  Christians/Americans in this country have repeated this sentiment in LARGE numbers.

However, the response to this pastor’s efforts really bothers me on many fronts.

  • Why has this become such a worldwide news item? 
  • Why do those in the highest levels of our government feel the need to speak out? 
  • Why are many of those same people hypocritical on this issue vs. the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM)? 
  • Why do we cater to a religion that threatens death to our troops and Americans if a Koran burns, but Americans opposed to the GZM have simply protested and been labeled “bigots’ (by our leaders and others) because of it? 
  •  Is it the place of General Petraeus to address this issue? 
  • Why all the chatter about “offending” Muslims with our First Amendment rights? 

I’ll start with Petraeus comments on Jones’ Koran burning:

It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan,” said Petraeus of the plan.

“It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community,” the general said in an emailed statement.

I agree with Petraeus.  It is likely, because of those who threaten and kill in the name of Islam, that this incident will further inspire their murderous tendencies.    Free Speech usually has that effect on them.

What I question is the appropriateness of Petraues’ speaking out on the issue.  I lean more towards the view of  Ben Stein on this:  

Of course, as one might expect, some Muslims are infuriated by this plan and I don’t blame them. It’s infuriating. But it’s still protected by the Constitution as an exercise of religious freedom.

Now comes General Petraeus, who says that people are rioting over this in Afghanistan, which is true, and that the church should not go ahead with its planned burning because it will make Muslims angry at the U.S. and they will take it out on U.S. troops.

Now, I am sure General Petraeus has a good point here. But, here is a bigger point: we are not supposed to have military men telling American civilians what they can and cannot do in their houses of worship. Yes, General Petraeus is an important figure. By the way, he’s also the soldier who said American support of Israel made Muslims angry at U.S. troops and I don’t think Generals are supposed to be making foreign policy either. But certainly, generals, even with a lot of stars on their epaulets, are not in charge of free speech and religious observance here.

What is disturbing is the length that our leaders, including Petraeus, will go to accommodate the threats of radical Islam.  Where does  this type of dhimmitude end?

The  enemy Petraeus is fighting in Afghanistan is composed of “radical” Islamists who want us dead.  They hate us for our Constitution, our freedom, our Christianity, and more. 

Michelle Malkin makes this point best:

But what’s in the Koran is far more of an inflammatory threat to American soldiers than any match with which to light it. What’s in the Koran has inspired decades of bloody warfare by Muslim operatives targeting our troops, civilians, and Western infidels around the world.

Isn’t it Petraeus’ job to fight the enemy for all they stand for?  Those who “protest” Jones’ actions with murder should be the targets of our military around the world.

Muslims praying in the streets of New York. (Source: Atlas Shrugs Blog)

Exactly, Michelle….we should be fighting what they stand for and defending what we stand for.

And for all of the talk of “radical Islam” and its conquering tendencies what do you call “moderate” Muslims taking over the streets of Paris, New York, and Dearborn, Michigan.  They should be arrested in the US for disorderly conduct.   Where is the press and the Obama administration on that?   At what point do we stop this infiltration of a religion (radicals and so-called moderates) that wishes to conquer the world?

More from Stein:

Really, it’s even worse than that. He is saying that freedom of religion in America makes his job more difficult. But free exercise of religion comes way before how difficult his job is.

Exactly…..perhaps instead of (or in addition to) Petraeus’ speaking the obvious about the enemy we fight, why not mention that our First Amendment rights are the very thing he seeks to defend?  Instead of speaking out against Jones’ right to burn the Koran, why not defend his right to do so where the Afghans (and Muslims around the world) hear it loud and clear?  

It seems to me that hearing our military leaders defending the rights and freedoms of Americans would go a long way in helping our enemy understand our values.  Instead, the message they received from Petraeus was one of asking Americans to cower under the threat of an enemy….and, as we know from history, weakness fuels the fire under our enemies around the world.

Stein again:

And, yes, we don’t want to offend Muslims, but why would we even consider sacrificing our freedom of religious expression to cater to them? And what kind of war is won by kowtowing to the people who hate us?

I could not have said it better.

 But just why has this become such a worldwide news item?  This is a small church with a pastor previously unknown to most of the world.  I read about this pastor’s plans a few weeks ago and thought not much about it.  My first reaction was that it seemed a really questionable thing to do but I didn’t consider it worthy of worldwide news.   Small, peaceful protests of one kind or another happen almost everyday in this country, but they don’t get the attention of this one.  Why?

Jones’ efforts have taken on a life of its own.  Why is that?   Why is this now a worldwide issue instead of a local one?  Why do we have a General, the Vatican, and the Obama administration, among others, speaking out on Jones’ actions?

As is usual, I think the media has run with the story, because it is “politically correct” and it fits the leftist message of anti-Americanism, anti-Christian, and pro-Islamism so rampant in our institutions today.    

As some have pointed out, the burning of religious books/documents is not a new phenomenon in the world.   And, I’m sure this won’t be the last.

It may be a stupid and tasteless thing to do, but it is Mr. Jones’ right to do so. 

Which leads me to the Ground Zero Mosque (GZM)…..wasn’t it just weeks ago we had this same debate about rights vs. proper judgement?    This issue is similar.  The imam has the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero, where 3000 Americans were murdered in the name of his religion.  But it is NOT the right thing to do.  It is classless, tasteless, and, some would say, an attempt for the imam and his followers to dance on the grave of the Americans murdered there in the name of Islam.

Mr. Jones certainly has the right to protest by burning Korans, but it is NOT the right nor smart thing to do.  It certainly does nothing to honor and remember those murdered on September 11, 2001.

But ironically, many of those in the Obama administration and Congressional leaders spoke up that the  GZM was “pro-American” and  proper.  Now the Obama administration believes that Jones’ free expression is “un-American”?   Why the discrepancy? 

The Administration and Pelosi on the GZM:

Barack Obama: …..As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.  

Nancy Pelosi: There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said.

Where is Nancy Pelosi’s demand for investigations into who ginned up the press and the world against the actions of Jones?  Where is her concern for the threats against our soldiers and Americans from those who wish us harm?

Contrast these views the administration’s current view regarding Jones:

PJ Crowley, Clinton State Dept spokesman : “We think that these are provocative acts,” ……. “We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American.

Eric Holder, Obama’s DOJ    ….idiotic and dangerous…..           

While I agree that Jones efforts are idiotic and wrong, freedom of expression is NOT un-American, just as the building of a mosque in America is not un-American.  They are just both very wrong.   Why the discrepancy in the Obama administration?  Why defend the Islamic right to express with a symbol of conquer, but not Jones’ right to express his disdain for murder in the name of Islam?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the words of General Petraeus regarding the Koran burning…..Jones’ actions are not just stupid, but they do pose a danger. 

While Americans peacefully protest the mosque at Ground Zero, the Islamic world will threaten and murder because of Jones’ actions.   American troops and Christians around the world will be targets.  The teachings of Islam   and the  irrational responses of radical Islam makes Jones’ action a dangerous act.  

An interesting side note regarding free speech and religion, the military, the press, and our leaders…. in 2009 it was reported that the military destroyed BIBLES in Afghanistan that belonged to and were private property of a soldier.  The Bibles were translated in the local Pashto and Dari languages.   While I understand rules are instrumental to military success, it is quite questionable whether the military had the right to destroy the Bibles. 

Why not just reprimand the soldier if rules of proselytizing in the area were broken?  (But there was no proof the Bibles were ever used to evangelize)

Why not simply return the Bibles to the US? 

To what extent does our military go, General Petraeus, in order to ‘convert’ the Afghans to an understanding of our freedoms?  To not “offend the sensibilities” of the enemy?

Does burning the Bible of Christianity really aid in that effort or play into their hands? 

What do we teach them when burning the Bibles of a soldier is OK, but burning the Koran, in a free country, is not?

Where was the press on the Bible burning issue?  Where were the statements of our military leaders?  The Vatican?  The Obama administration? 

Think about those things.

 And don’t forget that just this year the Pentagon/Army disinvited well-known evangelist Franklin Graham to the National Day of Prayer breakfast simply for speaking out against the brutally of Islam in many areas of the world. 

What message does that send about America to our enemies? 

Did that change any hearts to our direction or embolden those who preach, kill, and maim in the name of Islam?

The Obama administration has frittered away our tax dollars by giving millions to the GZM imam so that he can PROMOTE/evangelize Islam around the world…..but if one soldier dares to possess a Bible in the local Afghan languages, with no proof they were ever used to proselytize, those very books must be destroyed.  And a prominent Christian minister who spreads love, hope, and help throughout the world is disinvited by our government leaders because he dared to tell the truth about those who brutalize in the name of Islam.

I don’t know about you, but my tax money going to promote Islam around the world, particularly at a time when the Left is doing all it can to make America a country free FROM Christianity, offends MY sensibilities….but it seems our leaders don’t care about that.

What good is a war where we are more concerned about the thoughts of our enemy than the rights of Americans? 

As much as I dread and/or feel sadness each time I hear of an American killed in the war, couldn’t it be argued that their sacrifices are in vain when Americans are pressured to forego their rights in order to cater to the  “thoughts” of the very enemy against which they died fighting?

We live in a time of uncertainty in America.  I believe many Americans are uncertain not only about their economic future and prosperity, but also about the future of their freedoms and the destruction of our Constitution.

Our Constitution and freedoms should be defended at all cost…and the very values they promote should be spread throughout the world, not demeaned “in the name of war” by our very own leaders.

Obama administration: Americans enjoy “no reasonable expectation of privacy”


Just as we are all mostly convinced that Obama’s understanding of and respect for the Constitution is thin, he goes and erases all doubt.

Now, the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), is arguing in Third Circuit court that Americans don’t have an expectation of privacy when using their cell phones.  The DOJ argues that any records of Americans that are held by a third party are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.  From CNET:

….the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls…..

…..”The government is arguing that based on precedents from the 1970s, any record held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.”

Civil Liberties groups, including the ACLU, have spoken out in opposition to the government’s view on this case.   A win by the DOJ in this case could open Pandora’s Box with regards to Americans’ privacy in the 21st century, particularly with a society, such as ours, that is so electronically based. (my emphasis below)

“This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century,” says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. “If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment.”

Read the entire article at CNET which also talks about exactly what type of information is available from such cell phone technology and records.

And what does this possibly mean for you, Mr. Citizen who has not committed a crime of any kind?  Or perhaps for you, Miss Blogger, who daily pens her thoughts about the corruption of a rogue Presidency who has access to now track your whereabouts on the web and in the world?  A glimpse from Newsrealblog.com:

Imagine the possibilities if a targeted person possesses a cell phone. His movement can be tracked, logged and searched without the commission of a crime, and without knowledge by the courts….

….The ability to observe or trace a citizen’s activities without consent or a court-ordered warrant violates their rights and limits their freedoms

Let’s hope that the Courts understand the Constitution more than Obama and Eric Holder at the DOJ.  I mean if this case is decided favorably for the government’s case, what is next?

Will Michelle Obama’s obesity program now be able to obtain information from programming providers on how long me and my kids watch TV in a day, lest we get too fat for her taste?

Could innocent citizens be arrested because their travels, documented by cell phone records, coincidentally match those of a prospective criminal?

Do you honestly believe that a Presidential administration (Obama’s) that has already declared tea party participants, pro-lifers, conservatives, and military veterans as “extremists” won’t use their private information and whereabouts against them?

Obama proved his tolerance of abuse where citizen privacy is concerned during his campaign.  Just ask Joe the Plumber.

Of course, it is the ultimate in irony that the President who deems his college transcripts, Senate records, medical records, and passport info as off-limits is so quick to assume that American citizens don’t have a complete right to privacy from an increasingly powerful Federal government.

(H/T: Ace of Spades)

(UPDATE) Lindsay Graham stumps the “brave” Eric Holder


Eric Holder gave his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

Basically, Holder AND Obama have given one reason for trying KSM and others in New York Federal Court as “we can’t cower to the terrorists.”     But Lindsay Graham (R – South Carolina) was having none of it.  Like RINO Graham or hate him…he completed OWNED Eric Holder in this exchange.

Reaction from others —

Moe Lane at RedState.com:

Not filmed was the bit in the end where Holder was on the floor, looking for his teeth. You do not walk into a situation like that without an elementary knowledge of the relevant historical record. You do not come completely unprepared for a obviously-telegraphed question like “So. What are you going to do with a captured bin Laden?” And you do not assume that Senators like being given the mushroom treatment. Because if you do any of that, you can be assured that some Senator, somewhere, will take the opportunity to introduce you to pain.

From Allahpundit at HotAir.com:

…..here’s how “carefully” Holder consulted the law before pulling the trigger on KSM. Not only does Graham have to tell him that there’s no precedent for trying battlefield detainees in civilian court, but Holder’s emphasis on how we don’t need a confession to convict Bin Laden completely misses the larger point Graham’s trying to make. The real worry in a district-court trial isn’t what’ll happen to archterrorists like Osama or KSM, whose perpetual detention is assured; the worry is that those trials will establish precedents that’ll be exploited by lesser jihadis at their own trials later on. KSM won’t be released because the political consequences to the administration are too dire, but what about some other terrorist who’s less well known to the public and whose guilt, while certain to the CIA, is less provable under normal evidentiary rules? A confession in a case like that might be critical — but what if he wasn’t Mirandized before he confessed? What then? That’s Graham’s point, and Holder seems to want nothing to do with it…..

……The decision on what “due process” is due, in other words, is based not on the nature of the underlying act — war perpetrated by a foreign enemy — but on the outcome The One wants to achieve, with Holder actually going so far today as to say, I kid you not, “Failure is not an option.” Isn’t failure always an option in a true due-process regime?

And then the ever-profound, “Leaky” Leahy had this to say when speaking to C-SPAN yesterday.  (Did anyone hear him in the testimony yesterday?  He sounded almost drugged with his slow speech…I think he’s been sittin’ in that Senate chair WAY TOO long.):

“The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was covering is not realistic,” Leahy said during an appearance on “Washington Journal” on C-SPAN.

 “For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden — we’ve had enough on him, we don’t need to interrogate him,” Leahy added.

Leahy….I’d say it’s time for you to go…what a ridiculous statement.

UPDATE:  More thoughts from Ace of Spades blog:

Here’s the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won’t let him get away with…Holder says, ‘we don’t need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won’t question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn’t apply’.

Graham nails him with the fact Miranda isn’t just about ‘the right to remain silent’. It’s also about an affirmative right to an attorney.

The fight is about when does a “military capture” become a “civilian arrest” and when and how do all the rights that come with a civilian arrest and trial attach. Right now there are no answers because as Graham points out, the Obama administration is making it up as they go.

Guess who is going to get involved in that question at some point. The courts. Given the arc of cases since 9/11 is anyone 100% sure (hell, 50% sure) that a court won’t throw out a conviction or even a bar a trial on any number of 6th Amendment grounds?

Holder is left babbling like a fool about these basic questions.

(UPDATED) Obama pre-judges outcome of KSM trial in New York; Holder displays major chutzpah in his testimony today


Obama was asked today about the fact that most Americans believe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should not be tried in federal court, but in a military tribunal (which has historical and legal precedents).

During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama’s visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.

“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

He’s right about that, but as a Constitutional lawyer, Obama should know better than to pre-judge the outcome because of tainting the government’s case.

From Sweetness and Light blog, the point is made that the government’s case could be tainted already with such a judgement from President Obama, even though he tried to “walk it back”.

Given that Mr. Obama is a lawyer, and that he taught law, and that he claims to be a Constitutional scholar – for him to make such statements seems like he is intentionally trying to wreck the government’s case even before it begins.

Sure, Mr. Obama made a show of walking back his first remark. But any competent lawyer would argue that the damage has already been done.

Just imagine the uproar if a Republican had said anything like this about someone on trial.

Wait a minute. We don’t have to imagine.

Back in 1970 then President Nixon said a very similar thing about another mass murderer, Charles Manson. And he also issued a hasty “clarification.” But that still didn’t prevent the possibility of a mistrial.

Not only that, but Holder and Obama supposedly want everyone in the world  to see the “fairness” in the US legal system.  (Never mind that military trials are legal and used around the world)  But both of them are touting the inevitable outcome before the trial begins.  Not only that but they insinuate that if these terrorists are found “not guilty”, Holder will still detain them.  What message does that send to the rest of the world? 

Here’s Obama’s “walk back” on his prediction of guilt for KSM:

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn’t trying to dictate the result.

What I said was, people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging, I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” Obama said. “What I’m absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism.”

If you read nothing else today, read Andy McCarthy’s piece which tears apart many of the presumptions, assumptions, and words from Eric Holder today on this decision.

A sampling —  in bold are Holder’s words/assumptions:

3.  We can protect classified material because of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA).  It is not just classified information that is helpful to terrorist organizations. The list of people who might be identified as unindicted coconspirators that I had to turn over in 1995 was not classified, but it told al-Qaeda who was on the government’s investigative radar screen. Moreover, CIPA does not shield all classified information from the terrorists — just the classified information the judge decides is neither discoverable under the rules nor relevant to the trial. If it is discoverable and/or relevant, the defense gets it. And in civilian court, the terrorists can demand to represent themselves (as I explained in this column), so the government can’t shield the classified information from them as it can in the military system (where it can require them to have military lawyers with security clearances in order to get access to the discovery).

……  Classified information procedures in the Military Commissions Act, which would apply at military commissions, are “based on” the CIPA that applies in civilian trials.  They may be “based on” the CIPA rules, but they are not the same as the CIPA rules. The MCA provisions (Sec. 949(j)(c)) expressly provide for (1) deletions of classified material from discovery documents made available to the accused; (2) the withholding of methods and sources of intelligence collection from the accused; and (3) the deletion of classified information from exculpatory evidence. It is true that, whether you’re in civilian or military court, the executive branch gets the opportunity to propose a substitution (e.g., an unclassified summary of the information) rather than surrender the classified information. But in civilian court under CIPA, the presumption is that if classified information is relevant under the rules of evidence, the accused gets access to it. In military court under the MCA, the presumption is that classified information gets withheld, especially if it involves methods and sources of intelligence.

For eight years justice has been delayed — no longer, “It is past time to finally act.” Holder, of course, does not mention the role of his firm and others in delaying and derailing the military commissions during their representation of America’s enemies. 

McCarthy had another column yesterday that addressed Holder’s hypocrisy and blatant “blame Bush” method of operation (my emphasis):

The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)

By the way, Rush made  a good point today that perhaps Holder should have recused himself from this decision on KSM entirely because Holder and his firm VOLUNTEERED their legal services to 18 of America’s enemies….good point. 

More from McCarthy (my emphasis):

Almost from the moment President Bush authorized military commissions in 2001, this legion of litigators flooded the courts with habeas corpus petitions, contending that military detention and trials violated the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Conventions.

In 2004, the al-Qaeda bar induced the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush, to grant enemies a statutory habeas corpus right to challenge their military detention in civilian court. Congress tried to stop them by amending the habeas statute to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction in these lawsuits, but the al-Qaeda bar later persuaded the liberal bloc on the Court to ignore that amendment.

One side note:  Holder said today in his testimony that military justice was valid and that is why he is using it for other terrorists held (namely those who bombed the USS Cole).  So, why the change of heart?  Holder and his minions were pleading that military detention and trials were  a violation of the Constitution when Bush was in office, but now they are valid? 

Sounds a bit like the KSM trial is highly political and ideological which leads to a rather likely conclusion that KSM is being tried in New York in federal court  as pseudo-trial against the Bush administration and waterboarding.

More from McCarthy (my emphasis):

It is mind-boggling that the delay in completing commission trials would be derided by Eric Holder, a lawyer whose firm is among those responsible for the litigation-driven delay that became a lawfare triumph for al-Qaeda. Holder and his comrades did everything they could do to undermine the commission system, both in legal motions and in public appearances accusing the Bush administration of torture, war crimes, and disregard for the legal rights of terrorists.

 And exactly when would Holder have had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried? We did not gain custody of him until his capture by the Pakstanis in 2003. After that, years were taken to break him in our attempt to extract the full breadth of his knowledge of al-Qaeda’s players and plans, and to exploit that intelligence to save lives. KSM was submitted to a military commission in 2006 — shortly after Holder’s colleagues in the al-Qaeda bar got the commission system invalidated in Hamdan.

UPDATE (11/18/09):  Holder did state today that he will find ways to continue detaining KSM and the other terrorists if they are found not guilty in the NY Federal Court circus trial.   So much for showing the world how fair we are, huh?  From Sister Toldjah:

“Under the regime we are contemplating … the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Mr. Holder added, meaning anyone freed by the courts could simply be returned as an enemy combatant to indefinite military detention.

In America — you read that right — your (religious) thoughts can now be criminalized


Today, the Senate voted to expand hate crimes legislation….the House has already passed a similar bill, so this gross attack on free speech and thought will soon be moving to Obama’s desk!

Very cynically, the Senate hate crimes legislation, which couldn’t get passed on its own account, was inserted into the Defense Spending bill and passed today.

From WND:

A key Senate vote during the wee hours when most Americans were asleep has added the so-called “hate crimes” plan, which creates federal protections and privileges homosexuals and others who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, to a defense spending bill.

While there are procedural hurdles yet, opponents say they expect the proposal that essentially makes homosexuals a protected class of citizens in the United States soon will reach the desk of President Obama, who has lobbied for it.

The Senate passed the bill 63-28 with all but five Republicans voting against it.

From AP, about the bill:

People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of “hate crimes” law. The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue those acts deemed to be hate crimes.

 Senate Democrats insist the hate-crimes amendment (S. 909) they attached to the defense appropriations bill won’t criminalize preaching or speaking out against homosexuality.

But Republican Senator Jim DeMint sees it differently:

But Sen. Jim DeMint said that since opposition to homosexuality is “a biblical concept,” the measure could “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the federal law enforcement come knocking at their door.” The South Carolina Republican asked, “Can priests, pastors, rabbis be sure that their preaching will not be prosecuted?

More:

Opponents of the bill, including conservative religious groups, argued that it infringes on states’ rights and could intimidate free speech. “The bill could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians who choose to speak out against homosexuality — which could even be extended to preaching against it,” The Christian Coalition of America said in a statement.

Supporters countered that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

Of course, a few weeks ago, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, saw it quite differently when asked if preachers would be protected under this bill….his answer was NO!

From WND on July 3:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by a proposed new federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

The revelations come from Holder’s recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was taking comments on the so-called “hate crimes” proposal. It also was the subject of discussion on talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s show today.

“This is the question,” Limbaugh said. “[Sen.] Jeff Sessions [R-Ala.] presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?”

No, said Holder.

“Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don’t have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person’s desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute,” Holder stated.

So, basically, in other words, only blacks and those whose are sexually confused are covered under this law!!!!!!!!! 

More of Rush Limbaugh’s take on this:

Continued Limbaugh, “In other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. So hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. Everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one. “

Oh…and just so you know, those who risk and sacrifice their lives for our freedom are not a “protected class” according to AG Eric Holder:

Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Holder admitted that “hate” was involved in a recent case in which a Muslim man attacked and killed a U.S. soldier. Still, soldiers are not among the protected classes.

“There’s a certain element of hate in that, I suppose,” Holder admitted, leading Coburn to conclude, “What we’re willing to do is elevate those crimes (verbal or physical attacks on homosexuals) over this very intended hate crime (a murder.)”

Coburn is right on…

As far as I am concerned, the Democrats can lie and act like this law will not allow prosecutions of pastors and those of faith….and they can act as if this is some sort of “civil rights” issue, but when the most powerful attorney in the country can approve of certain groups as the “protected class”, then I believe that we are leaving up to (perhaps political) judges to determine whether our thoughts and beliefs are crimes or not.

That is not America and it wipes out our First Amendment rights….How anyone can determine that this legislation is “fair” or “justice” is beyond me.  

Folks, our America is quickly turning into something we won’t recognize….a bunch of fringe, elitist liberals have taken the reigns of our country and the concepts of unalienable rights and freedom don’t seem to be in their vocabulary…unless to be used for politically motivated purposes.

What may happen when this bill becomes law?    Mark Steyn believes we continue a march to “soft despotism”..just look up to what has happened in Canada….From Mark Steyn, who has spoken many times on the same type of legislation that has prosecuted Believers in Canada:

 Jim DeMint speakson the appallingly drafted “hate crimes” legislation whose language opens all kinds of doors, most of them unconstitutional. Senator DeMint also references various advances in “thought crime” from Europe and Canada, most of which will come as no surprise to readers of my posts in the Corner. On the one hand, it’s good to see them raised on the floor of the United States Senate. On the other, the fact that they need to be raised in the Senate at all is a bleak comment on the remorseless march of soft despotism.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers