ANOTHER ASSININE LA TIMES PREMISE

Bush a War Criminal?

That’s the question that Rosa Brooks asks in this morning’s LA Times. Here’s the basis for her ‘case’:

The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants, including prisoners, in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states.

That’s true as far as it goes; unfortunately, it doesn’t go far enough. While it’s true that part of the Geneva Convention meant to protect citizens as much as is possible in war, it didn’t stop there. Ms. Brooks either intentionally or incompetently stopped there. That blockquote above is part of Article 3 of the Convention. Let’s see what Article 4 has to say:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

This section essentially says that people only qualify for Geneva Convention protections if they’re wearing a uniform that has “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” They don’t have to be part of a nation’s military but they have to be visibly identifiable as being combatants in a conflict.

Clearly, Hamdan wasn’t wearing a “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” In fact, I’d bet the ranch that nobody being held at Gitmo was wearing anything that’d fit these requirements. Furthermore, Fred Barnes said that he’d talked with someone from the Reagan administration yesterday afternoon about terrorists being covered. This Reagan administration official said that the subject came up in the eighties and that it was summarily rejected.

The implication of this is monumental: the four liberal idiots, joined by Justice Kennedy, ratified unilaterally a new ‘treaty’ that gives terrorists rights that the Geneva Convention says that they aren’t entitled to having. In that light, it’s impossible to figure out how the Bush administration could be war criminals when SCOTUS wrote new law yesterday.

In closing, it’s clear that Ms. Brooks either needs (a) to be more thorough in researching the Geneva Convention so she knows what she’s talking about or (b) to stop selectively choosing which Geneva Convention rules she’ll apply to terrorists. In short, she’d be wise to tell the whole truth, not just the convenient truth.

SCHUMER POUNDS GOP OVER IMMIGRATION

Joining the leader of his party, Howard Dean, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is accusing the Republicans of using immigration as a central campaign issue. He says it's like Willie Horton in 1988 and gay marriage in 2004.

The tactic is clear. Democrats are on the losing side of the immigration issue. What to do? It simple! If you're on the losing side of an issue you simply demonize the winning side .... for being on the winning side!

What some (not all) Republicans are opposing is illegal immigration. Does not Chuck Schumer oppose illegal immigration? Evidently not. He's also in for a surprise if the thinks Democrats are going to ride this particular idea to victory this fall. Poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans have grown tired of the illegal alien invasion and want something done.

Running against illegal immigration is a solid issue...and Republicans are already winning with it. I can't see Democrats being swept into power on the backs of illegal aliens ... unless, of course, those illegal aliens vote! But at least Schumer is being honest. He wants more illegal aliens...and thus potential Democratic voters...to come to the United States. If he's lucky, maybe he can even buy them off with one of his taxpayer-funded government programs.

SO MUCH FOR TRIALS

In reviewing the opinions of the Supreme Court in their Hamdan decision today, it seems pretty clear what action the Bush administration will take in the future with the detainees of the war on terror. More to the point, we know what action they will not take, at least if we rely on Justice Stevens' opinion. On page 80, in section VII of his opinion, Stevens writes:

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would causegreat harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdanand subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in thisjurisdiction.

Shorter Stevens: Don't attempt to hold trials at all for GWOT detainees, and you will have no problems with us. That affirms the treatment of these detainees as POWs in some sense, but in that effort, it makes clear that these detainees have no rights to any court. Stevens only says that if the government wants to try them, then the government must use civil courts, a strange ruling nonetheless when one reviews the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention.

I'm satisfied with that agreement. Lock all of them up until Islamofascists surrender or die. When the Islamist terror networks give up their war on the United States, then we will release them. Until then, they can remain in Guantanamo Bay or wherever we set up detention facilities for them.

GOP PUTTING HEAT ON NY TIMES

The Hill magazine’s Patrick O’Connor and Jonathan Allen are reporting that the House GOP is putting the heat on the NY Times for their reporting of the SWIFT counterterrorist program. Here’s how they’re doing it:

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records. The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

This is an easy decision on the GOP’s part. Not only do they condemn the NY Times’ revealing an effective counterterrorism program but they put the Democrats in the position of either voting against the NY Times’ reporting or of saying that the leaking, and reporting, of this and similar types of programs is ok with them. That’s hardly the position they want to be in.

Expect Democrats to whine about the GOP ‘playing politics with national security and First Amendment issues.’ That’s a surefire sign that they’re caught betwixt and between on a thorny issue for them. Don’t be fooled by their caterwauling. It’s just their attempt to distract from expressing their opinion on the issue of leaking vital national security programs.

EXPOSING BILL KELLER'S ARGUMENTS

That’s essentially what this letter from Treasury Secretary John Snow does.

* * *

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times’ decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times, from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing “half-hearted” about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know” our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the “public interest” in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of, even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you’ve seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available, lawfully and responsibly, to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

DID THE NEW YORK TIMES CROSS THE LINE BETWEEN A FREE PRESS AND TREASON?

Liberal columnist Mort Kondracke* echoed the sentiments of many Americans: The New York Times leaked information about a top secret banking operation, which was aimed at stopping terrorist financing and money transfers, because of their hatred for President George W. Bush.

President Bush implored the Times not to run their story, but the editors decided to disregard the presidential request. (One cannot help but wonder: If President Bill Clinton were our Commander-in-Chief today, would the editors at the New York Times comply with his request to kill the story? Most probably.)

Americans following the aftermath of the Times leak knew that part of the news story.

However, what most didn’t know was that the co-chairmen of the 9-11 Commission — Tom Keane and Lee Thompson — also contacted the New York Times and told them disclosure of the Treasury Department’s counterterrorism operation would hurt national security. The editors at the Times couldn’t care less and disregarded their plea, as well.

“In the past, I believe the New York Times got too close to the line separating honest journalism and betrayal. Now I think they crossed that line,” said a former intelligence officer who now works as an undercover detective for a large city police department.

“I also don’t believe someone from the [Treasury Department] leaked the information to the Times. I believe one of the lawmakers — either in the House or Senate — who opposes the war on terrorism leaked the information,” he added.

As yet, there are no comments emanating from Washingtion, DC regarding a full investigation of the leak. One source says he hopes the Justice Department assigns a special prosecutor to look into the case.

“We wasted millions of dollars on the so-called CIA leak case; how about investigating a serious leak that actually does impact [upon] US national security?” he added.

So far, the most vocal member of the Bush Administration regarding the New York Times and Los Angeles Times stories is Vice President Dick Cheney. “These [were] good, solid, sound programs. They [were] conducted in accordance with the laws of the land,” Cheney said.

“They are carried out in a manner that is fully consistent with the constitutional authority of the president,” Mr. Cheney said. He also said that he found it “offensive” that newspapers would publicize the secret program.

“What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some in the media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,” Cheney said with obvious anger in his voice.

The New York Times stood by its coverage saying editors had judged after careful deliberations that releasing the information served the public’s interest. They didn’t explain in what way the disclosure of top secret information served the public interest, unless they include terrorists, our homegrown insurgents in congress, left-wing Stalinist groups, and your garden variety Bush-haters.

It’s been said before: Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups don’t need to spend money on intelligence gathering and analysis. Members of the US news media are de-facto intelligence agents for them.

RELATED:
Enemies Are Reading…
Austin Bay: “An Inadequate Apologie From The Axis of Abuse”

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

DEAN TOUTS DEMOCRAT'S PLAN

DNC Chairman Howard Dean touted the Democrats’ agenda in their weekly radio address. Here’s some of his key points:

“Democrats are determined to set a different course for our Nation, to tell the truth to the American people, to save the lives of our American soldiers and keep America safe.”

If Democrats are so determined to tell the truth, then why isn’t anyone chastising John Murtha for the whoppers he’s told recently? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi telling him to stop using the line that an IED killed Iraqi civilians? No one said the IED killed innocent Iraqi civilians. As the Marines reported, the IED killed Marine Sgt. Miguel Terrazas. Why doesn’t Ms. Pelosi tell Mr. Murtha that there really was a gunfight that night in Haditha?

Mr. Murtha has put American soldiers at greater risk because he’s told those whoppers again & again. Soldiers on the ground in Iraq tell their stateside relatives that they’re at greater risk. Mr. Dean would be well advised to keep his mouth shut if his mission is to convince people of the latest Democratic nonsense.

“A majority of Democrats have called upon the President to change course in Iraq.”

TRANSLATION: A majority of Democrats have called on the President to change course before we win in Iraq so that Democrats don’t look like total idiots.

“Democrats have also offered a plan that asks the president to responsibly redeploy our troops.”

Mr. Dean, it’s impossible to “responsibly redeploy our troops” because the end result of Democratic-style redeployment is what most people know as cut-and-run. It’s a plan for defeat, not victory. Democrats got their way with Vietnam, the only war we ever lost. Republicans refuse to let you do to the patriotic Iraqi people what the counterculture crowd did to the courageous Vietnamese people. Period!

“The phased re-deployment strategy proposed by Democrats this week calls on the President to do the following:
– First, work with the Government of Iraq to begin a phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by the end of this year;”

Doesn’t this fool pay attention? He should read Mowaffak al-Rubaie’s Washington Post op-ed to familiarize himself with the plan that President Bush has agreed to with the sovereign Iraqi government. Here’s the most important statement Mr. Rubaie makes, in the first paragraph no less:

“There is, however, an unofficial “road map” to foreign troop reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of U.S. troops. This road map is based not just on a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.”

It’d be nice if Mr. Dean paid attention to that roadmap instead of blustering on about the Democrats’ plan.

– Second, submit a plan to Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

Mr. Dean, see above statement by Mr. Rubaie.

– Third, we have also told the President that we demand accountability for the resources being spent in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war will be at least one trillion dollars, enough to finance a health care program for every single American, including our veterans coming home from the war.

Who are you to demand accountability for the resources being spent there? You don’t have a vote in appropriating money to the war effort. Democratic senators and representatives do. It’s their responsibility to make sure the money’s being spent on the highest priorities in Iraq before they appropriate the money. If they aren’t doing that before the vote is taken, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

– Fourth, expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training, providing logistical support, protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities.

Seriously, have you paid even a minute amount of attention to Iraq? I’d seriously doubt it based on this statement because we’ve been in a mostly logistical and support role for at least six months now. If you’re finally figuring this out now, snap with it. You’re ages behind, which isn’t surprising.

– Finally, our plan recognizes that during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution in Iraq.

Again, where have you been? Mr. Dean, is it that you only pay attention to the things revolving around your head in your make-believe universe? Get a clue.

Most of the ‘Democratic plan’ has been in place for half a year or better, with the lone exception being setting timelines. And that ain’t gonna happen until there’s icicles hanging from the ceiling in Hades.

We see an America where we are all on the same team again, working together to deal with problems American Families face, Defense, Security, Health Care, Jobs.

The only division in America is the Democratic-caused division. The Bush administration is dealing with defending this nation and providing for true national security. The Bush economic plan dug us out of a recession and 9/11. Since then, it’s creating jobs at a rate comparable to the Clinton record.

Simply put, it’s time for Mr. Dean’s Democrats to take the blinders off and to stop Bush-hating.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GLASS OF...........

By Michelle Malkin

The New York Times and their traitorous, leaking sources have done it again. (Hat tip: LGF) This time they're broadcasting classified information on troop levels. Hey, Bill Keller--al Qaeda thanks you:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007...

...General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.

"Closely held secret." Not. Anymore.

(Ed Morrissey thinks it's a controlled leak. But the law, as I've noted before, does not distinguish between "good" and "bad" leaks, "controlled" or "uncontrolled" ones. As Ed rightly notes, whatever the case, "the New York Times has once again specialized in publishing classified material on a story with only marginal news value.")

Special coverage at The Truth Laid Bear. And now...

Time for Round III from the Anti-Blabbermouth Army of Photoshoppers:

Slublog:

Impacted Wisdom Truth:

Richard Pucillo:

Are We Lumberjacks?:

George Ratton:

Russell Paine:

Larry Sweeney:

Kathy Yoder:

Doug Morris:

Blogs of War:

Anonymous:

John Schrenko:

Verum Serum:

Darleen's Place:

Solomonia:

Jane:

Rick A.:

Six Meat Buffet:

Dan Riehl:

Carl McCaskey:

***
Previous:

More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

NY TIMES BLABBERMOUTHS STRIKE AGAIN

By Michelle Malkin

***update: The Los Angeles Times piles on and flaps its mouth, too...The story is the blabbermouth media's refusal to act responsibly and learn when to shut up...***

Dammit. These people don't know when to stop. The anonymous leak-addicted NYTimes tag team of Eric Lichtblau and James Risen is at it again. Their front-page, splashy piece posted on the web tonight and top-linked on Drudge:

Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror

"Secret?" Not anymore.

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

"Hidden?" Not anymore.

The blabbermouths who have just blown the cover on this program don't seem to care that they've sabotaged a successful counterterrorism tool:

[The program] has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them, the officials said. In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation.

Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.

In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.

In terrorism prosecutions, intelligence officials have been careful to "sanitize," or hide the origins of evidence collected through the program to keep it secret, officials said.

Now all their careful efforts have been destroyed by Bush-deranged reporters who fashion themselves the true protectors of America. Here's editor Bill Keller explaning why he ignored the Bush administration's argument for keeping the legal program secret:

Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

"Public interest," my you-know-what.

As Stephen Spruiell at The Media Blog points out (hat tip: Allah):

According to the NYT's own reporting, the program is legal. The program is helping us catch terrorists. The administration has briefed the appropriate members of Congress. The program has built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. And yet, with nothing more than a vague appeal to the "public interest" (which apparently is not outweighed in this case by the public's interest in apprehending terrorists), the NYT disregards all that and publishes intimate, classified details about the program. Keller and his team really do believe they are above the law. When it comes to national security, it isn't the government that should decide when secrecy is essential to a program's effectiveness. It is the New York Times.

National security be damned. There are Pulitzers to be won.

And more fat book advances to be chased, no doubt.

***

The NYTimes has in-house produced video showcasing Licthblau as he "reveals a secret Bush administration program to access to financial records."

Aren't we so proud of ourselves?

***

ABP:

Can anyone tell me why this program is a matter of public interest? The monitoring is done overseas, and does not involve monitoring purely domestic transactions (although I wouldn’t see the problem if it did). An outside auditor was hired to safeguard against abuses, and under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the President had the “investigate, regulate or prohibit” foreign transactions in responding to “an unusual and extraordinary threat.”

But now, thanks to fine folks at The New York Times, yet another effective tool in the war on terror has been exposed to the enemy, despite the fact that no one can point to any legal problem with the program and that it has been effective in capturing those who would kill us...Much like the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program, I predict the Dems and the MSM will overplay their hand. Americans with common sense and who actually want to win the war on terror won’t be able to see what the big deal is about this program, and in fact would probably be upset if we weren’t doing it.

Bryan Preston:

Call me crazy, but since the program is legal and since the administration argues it has helped stop terror attacks, isn’t the weight of the public’s interest in this story on the side of keeping the program under wraps so that it can continue to stop terrorists?

When the terrorists finally do succeed, will the Times rush out with an apology for having outed two major anti-terror programs that just might have helped stop it–if they had remained secret? Of course not. We all know what the Times will do–blame Bush.

Patterico:

I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous...The article is likely to do far more than “jeopardize [the program’s] effectiveness.” It’s clear to me that the publication of the article will shut it down entirely. The article says that, in 2003, officials of the banking cooperative “were discussing pulling out because of their concerns about legal and financial risks if the program were revealed, one government official said.” But our top officials did a “full-court press” and promised to institute even tighter controls, which had apparently been quite successful.

Now that the program has been splashed all over the pages of the New York Times, I think that Swift’s era of cooperation with the U.S. Government is over.

What exactly is in the public interest about revealing classified information that has been successful in tracking and apprehending murderous terrorists?

Jeff Goldstein:

[W]hat is most ironic about these leak stories is that dubious decision-making by today’s “adversarial” media will doubtless create a climate in which it is far more likely that future administrations will take extraordinary measures to keep information secret. All because some in the press have forgotten that with access and freedom comes great responsibility. That the NYT is willing to trade that responsibility for a “scoop” it pretends is in the “public interest” is, frankly, embarrassing—and one of the reasons Americans are increasingly unhappy with the mainstream press.

And in the long-run, we could find ourselves less informed because of it. Which is a net negative for a truly free society.

***

Contact info:

Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.

Snail mail:

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

The Los Angeles Times thumbs its nose and national security:

Administration officials were concerned that news reports of the program would diminish its effectiveness and could harm overall national security.

"It's a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief. "The key issue here is whether the government has shown that there are adequate safeguards in these programs to give American citizens confidence that information that should remain private is being protected."

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes Thursday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.

"They were quite vigorous, they were quite energetic. They made a very strong case," he said.

And they blew the Bush administration off anyway.

Write the Los Angeles Times here.

***

Round-ups: Instapundit * Pajamas Media

***
Previous:

Red Alert: Chicken Littles on the loose
How the NYTimes is ringing in 2006
Take a leak
Finally: Justice Dept. opens NSA leak probe
How to stop dangerous press leaks
Pulitzer Day

Jihad In Miami

By Michelle Malkin

You've seen tonight's headlines: FBI detains 7 in domestic terror probe

Seven people are in custody after a sweep by law enforcement authorities in connection with an alleged plot against targets that may have included the Sears Tower, officials told CNN on Thursday.

Officials said no weapons or bomb-making materials had been found in the searches in the Miami area by FBI and state and local law enforcement officials. The city is under no imminent threat, according to the FBI.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that the arrests disrupted what may have been the early stages of a domestic terrorist plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, the FBI building in Miami, and possibly other targets

Allah has all the late-breaking developments, video, and early blog reax. More coverage: ABC * Miami Herald.

Some of the suspects are black Muslim radicals.

Law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the suspects are members of a radical African-American Muslim group and that at least one had taken "an al Qaeda oath." They had carried out surveillance on the Sears Tower and FBI building in Miami, the sources said.

Sources told CNN that the arrests culminated a monthslong undercover operation. The suspects believed they were dealing with an al Qaeda operative, but the person was actually a government informant, the sources said...The FBI said one search warrant was executed in a warehouse near a housing project in Liberty City, a predominantly black and low-income area of Miami.

There have been several black Muslim jihadi plots and prosecutions before and after 9/11.

In April 2003, James Ujaama pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to provide goods and services to the Taliban.

The Portland 7 consisted of several black Muslim converts:

Most recently, black Muslim inmates at New Folsom State Prison in California who swore allegiance to Jam'iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (Arabic for "Assembly of Authentic Islam" and known as JIS) were implicated in a jihadi plot to plan attacks on synagogues and a military recruiting center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Gates of Vienna and the Politics of CP have reported extensively on the homegrown black Muslim terrorist group, al Fuqra.

Black militant Muslim American Clement Rodney Hampton-El was convicted of 3 counts including seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy, and attempted bombing in the 1993 World Traade Center bomb plot.

And don't forget freelancers like the Beltway snipers. And the old school black Muslim thugs (and Jesse Jackson pals) of the Chicago-based El Rukn. Ken Timmerman has the goods.

Like I say: It's the jihad, stupid.

***

Bob Owens catches the Democratic Underground already playing the race card.

Reader Martin sends a reminder about this March 2006 story about Sears Tower casing that was pooh-poohed.

HUNDREDS OF WMD FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE 2004

Republicans Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee held a news conference today reporting that about 500 weapons munitions have been found in Iraq since May 2004.

A declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit reports:

Subject: Iraqi Chemical Munitions

Purpose: This summary provides an unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since May 2004.

Key Points:

–Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents.

–Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist. **(in addition to the 500 already found)

– Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market . Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

–The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.

–The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

–It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

As of right now, many major networks are not covering the story. Check out CNN.com. Liberal guests on Fox News fully discounted the news as meaningless.

“This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq,” said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Rick Santorum said: “Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.”

Remember what the Dems said about WMD and Saddam as late recently as 2003.

When my husband was in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003, soldiers found munitions buried in the backyards of a couple high ranking Baathist officials. I recall seeing the reports on CNN and other places, but not much came of the reports. Back in June 2005 I wrote that the United Nations reported 109 sites in Iraq had missing WMD:

UNITED NATIONS — U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

Liberals will argue that these are pre-Gulf War WMD, but are they not the very ones Saddam told the U.N. he destroyed yet we all knew he had, based on various intelligence? Liberals will also say they WMD are useless and ineffectual, but how then does the classified report say that they could be sold on the black market or that they could be “used” outside of Iraq? And why would Iraqi groups and insurgents try to obtain the WMD that were unusable?

Could it be that Pres. George W. Bush is owed a huge apology? Al Sharpton said on Fox’s Bill O’Reilly tonight that if WMD were ever found in Iraq that he would apologize to the President on the O’Reilly Factor. I’ve got the DVD-R on record…

HOUSE GOP ON THE ROAD TO KILLING THE SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL

The prayers of many Americans that the Senate Immigration Reform Bill will be killed by Republicans in House of Representatives may be answered in the next few days — perhaps hours.

Amid growing opposition to the Senate immigration plan by GOP conservatives and moderates, CNN reported Tuesday night that a move by the House of Representatives could prevent immigration legislation from passing Congress this year. The House Republican leadership says they will begin a fresh series of hearings on immigration next month.

The hearings will be held in Washington and across the country “so we understand what the American people are saying,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois.

The push for the hearings is led by Hastert, an aide to the GOP leadership told CNN. The hearings on Capitol Hill will occur in July, the aide said, but most of those outside of Washington will be held in August.

Another House Republican aide told CNN that the hearings were meant to “increase the negatives [of the Senate bill] while accentuating the positives of the House bill.”

In May the Senate passed immigration legislation that appeared weak on border security, but would create a program permitting illegal immigrants who had resided in the United States for five years or more to “earn” their citizenship after paying a fine and back taxes, learning English and holding a job for six years.

But conservatives began digging deeper into the bill and discovered a grab-bag full of goodies for people viewed by many as lawbreakers. The Senate bill also would allow illegal immigrants who have resided in the United States from two to five years to apply for a guest worker program.

A House Republican staffer, however, told CNN that said the hearings would effectively be “a final nail in the coffin” of the Senate’s legalization program.

“If it weren’t already in the the ground, it’s going there,” the House aide said.

President Bush supports the Senate’s “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. Many conservative Republicans, especially those in the House, said the Senate’s approach amounted to “amnesty” and vociferously oppose any legalization program before border security has been strengthened.

Democrats are attempting to make this a Bush defeat, but most Americans understand that the Democrat Party by and large favors amnesty and, as one GOP staffer said, “pays lip service to those wishing tough border security.”

Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert says that the “top thing needed is to secure the borders and we need to have the law enforcement to go along with that.

Immigration is the most important issue for the Republicans and conservatives, a House Republican aide said, and will drive conservatives to the polls — unlike the recent Senate debate on gay marriage or the upcoming vote on an amendment to ban flag burning.

As evidence, House Republicans point to the victory by Rep. Brian Bilbray in a special election in California earlier this month. Bilbray ran against the approach favored by President Bush and the Senate and argued that the borders must be secured first. His opponent lost the election partly because she was recorded telling illegal aliens they didn’t need “papers” to vote.

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

HOWARD DEANS LATEST STUPID STATEMENTS

I’m refering to that great political tactician Howard Dean’s latest appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room. Let’s cut to the ‘general’s’ oddball comments.

BLITZER: Where do you stand when it comes to a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq? How quickly would you like to see them out? And be specific.
DEAN: Well, I think the Democrats have been pretty clear about what they want. They want a transition, and now there’s going to be a vote on asking the president for a timetable. We need to be out of Iraq. We know we can’t leave immediately, but we need to be out, and we need to hear from the president something other than, “I started this, but we’re going to leave this to the next president.”

They’ve gotta test him for what he’s smoking because it’s gotta be great stuff. I wouldn’t want to play poker against this guy because I was watching this yesterday. He said that “Democrats have been pretty clear about what they want” with as straight a face as I’ve seen on the WPT circuit. It’s almost like he believed it.

Remember, folks, this is the Democratic Party talking war strategy here. They haven’t been united about fighting a war since FDR’s days. This is the Democratic Party that saw 6 Fever Swampers voting for the the withdrawal of military troops from Iraq by year’s end. It’s also the same Democratic Party whose House members voted overwhelmingly against:

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an “arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment” of troops is not in the national interest.

This is what passes for unity in the Democratic Party folks. It isn’t a pretty sight but it gets worse:

BLITZER: Do you think they should be out by the end of the year, like Congressman John Murtha, Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold? They say get them all out by the end of this year.
DEAN: Well, I haven’t heard anybody say that, Wolf. What I have heard is that people want a plan to transition out of Iraq. And what’s going to be voted on tomorrow in the Senate is a plan to re-deploy some of the troops in Iraq, some to Afghanistan, others to the region, bring some of the National Guard home, keep some in Iraq in order to train folks. But I haven’t heard anybody say they want everybody out by the end of the year.

That’s a bald-faced lie & ‘Gen. Dean’ knows it. For him to pretend to not have heard Jean Francois’ latest defeatist resolution is insulting. PERIOD.

Now in full retreat, Dean says this:

BLITZER: Well, Congressman Murtha has been pretty specific, Senator Kerry, they say that that should be the target, by the end of the year, to get them out. Re-deploy them. Those are the words, that’s the phrase that Congressman Murtha uses.
DEAN: Well, what I have heard from these folks, and I haven’t heard it described the way you just described it, what I’ve heard is that they want the National Guard and Reserve to be home, some 20,000 troops to be moved to other countries in the surrounding region so they can come back into Iraq as needed, and then leaving a force still that’s much smaller in Iraq training the police.

Look, the bottom line here is not what the specifics of the plan are.

The bottom line is the president doesn’t have a plan and the Democrats believe that we should be heading in another direction, which is what the American people believe.

Check out that line “Look, the bottom line here is not what the specifics of the plan are.” You damned right it’s about the specifics of the plan. What good is a plan if it doesn’t have specifics to it? Do you expect people to listen to that stuff like it’s got a shred of credibility? He thinks he’s got credibility but he doesn’t.

And it’ll show this November.

BLITZER: Frank Rich, the columnist for “The New York Times,” a strong critic of the Bush administration, wrote a very stinging column yesterday in “The New York Times,” in which he was very critical of the Democrats, because he fears that they are once again being outmaneuvered politically by Republicans, as they were, he says, on the eve of the 2004 elections.
And then he goes on to say this: “Those who are most enraged about the administration’s reckless misadventure, misadventures are incredulous that it repeatedly gets away with the same stunts. But, as long as the Democrats keep repeating their own mistakes, they will lose to the party whose mistakes are, if nothing else, packaged as one heck of a show. It’s better to have the courage of bad convictions than no courage or convictions at all.” Did you read that Frank Rich column yesterday?
DEAN: I don’t read columnists. They are willing to, they also sit in air-conditioned offices. The fact of the matter is that we are pushing a, for a plan to get out of Iraq. The president has no plan. He says he’s going to leave that to the next election. The president can’t balance the budget. We will. The president has cost millions of Americans their health care. We are going to move towards a health care system that works for everybody. The president has sent millions of jobs to other countries. We are going to create a new energy independence industry, and do more than talk about it. The Democrats are on the move with a positive agenda. And I think we are going to win.

Check out the laundry list of nonsense that Dean rattled off in that last paragraph.

• The president can’t balance the budget. We will.
• The president has sent millions of jobs to other countries. We are going to create a new energy independence industry, and do more than talk about it.
• The Democrats are on the move with a positive agenda.

Yeah right!!! The budget deficit forecast is shrinking almost quarterly, down from $521 billion for 04 to where it’s expected to come in under $300 billion this October.

As for a new “energy independence industry”, all that is is talk. They’ve been obstructionists on every major piece of energy legislation that’s come down the pike.

Finally, if a one page flyer that doesn’t mention how they’d fight the GWOT is his idea of a positive agenda, then we’ll see the American people rejecting that ‘positive agenda’ this November.

There’s more stupidity advocated in that transcript but I can only take so much. Read the entire transcript at your own risk.

HADITHA: NO "KNOWING COVER-UP"

By Michelle Malkin

So the leakers are now telling the Los Angeles Times:

The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

Flashback...

A powerful member of Congress alleged yesterday that there has been a conscious effort by Marine commanders to cover up the facts of a November incident in which rampaging Marines allegedly killed 24 Iraqi civilians.

"There has to have been a coverup of this thing," Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, charged in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "No question about it."

Murtha photoshop convention over at Hot Air, including a submission from reader insomni:

IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN IN PENNSYLVANIA

May this be a model for more reforms to come.

AP reports: “With tensions rising and the police department and municipal budget stretched thin, Hazleton is about to embark on one of the toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants anywhere in the United States.”

Last week the mayor of this former coal town introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the official language of the city.

“Illegal immigrants are destroying the city,” said Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican. “I don’t want them here, period.”

Barletta said he had no choice but to act after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged last month with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man. Other recent incidents involving illegal immigrants have rattled this city 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, including the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for firing a gun at a playground.

“This is crazy,” the mayor said. “People are afraid to walk the streets. There’s going to be law and order back in Hazleton, and I’m going to use every tool I possibly can.”

It’s not Los Angeles, but it’s a start.

When Barletta took office in 2000, Hispanics represented about 5 percent of the city’s population of 23,000. The population has since shot up to 31,000, with Hispanics now representing 30 percent, lured to Hazleton by cheap housing, a lower cost of living and jobs in nearby plants, factories and farms.

City officials do not know how many of the new arrivals are in the United States illegally, but say they are fueling the drug trade, joining gangs and committing other crimes.

Municipal officials around the nation, frustrated at what they perceive as the federal government’s inability to stem illegal immigration, have increasingly taken matters into their own hands.

Calling the GOP. Wake up! It’s your calling.

In San Bernardino, Calif., voters will decide whether to adopt a measure nearly identical to the one in Hazleton. An Idaho county filed a racketeering lawsuit against agricultural companies accused of hiring illegal immigrants. In New Hampshire, a pair of police chiefs began arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing.

“They’re being forced to pick up the financial tab for all of this nonsense, and they are doing whatever they can to find ways to combat it at the local level,” said Susan Tully, national field director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates limits on immigration. “This is a fine example of what I’m talking about.”

The melting pot is no longer melting. It’s boiling over.

Flavia Jimenez, an immigrant policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza, predicted the Hazleton crackdown would prompt a civil rights lawsuit.

“Landlords are going to shut their doors to anyone who may look or sound Latino,” she said. “On the other hand, landlords may attempt to actually determine whether a person is undocumented or not, and make multiple mistakes because of the complexity of immigration law.”

Well, y’know, maybe Flavia Jimenez has a point. “The complexity of immigration law” is onerous. High time to simplify: Namely, if you’re here illegally, that means you broke the law and you’re a criminal — and you’re not entitled to government services gratis at taxpayers’ expense. Period.

“It’s about time,” said Francis X. Tucci, 57, who was born and raised in Hazleton and owns a hair salon in the heart of the Hispanic business district. “We were a nice community. You find bad everywhere, I understand that, but we’re talking about here and now.”

Some Hispanics approve of the measure, saying they are fed up with crime and graffiti. “If I was mayor, I wouldn’t let anyone in who had a criminal record,” said Rafael Rovira, 69, a naturalized American citizen from the Dominican Republic.

It’s about time, indeed. And more than just a few Hispanics will agree: Serious immigration reform is required.

Jose Lechuga, 42, came to the United States illegally in 1982, received amnesty in 1986 and now operates a grocery store and restaurant in Hazleton. He said the mayor is “confusing illegal people with criminals.”

Jose meet Flavia. The fact is: As long as commiting a crime is illegal, then those who break U.S. immigration laws should be considered criminals. The only thing confusing is why Republicans aren’t doing something about it.

Let’s face it: When France is making news for taking a stronger stand on this issue than America, that only confirms how weak we are on immigration. Toughen up, GOP. We’re fighting to preserve our nation. Vote No on Senate Bill 2611

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: WHAT DID FRANCE DISCOVER THAT THE GOP CAN'T GRASP?

There’s a great number of happy people in France today as a result of the news that the upper house of the French parliament has passed a tough new immigration bill. The bill was passed by an overwhelming number of votes weeks after it was adopted by members of the lower chamber of parliament.

The French immigration reform bill makes it more difficult for unskilled immigrants to settle in France, which in the past has created discord among French citizens who work menial jobs. The new bill, expected to be signed into law very soon, adds a number of tough measures to France’s immigration policy.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who drafted the bill, says it will bring France into line with other countries. Critics on the far-left, using the same verbal attacks as US leftists against anti-illegal immigration proponents, say the law is racist and accuse Sarkozy of pandering to the far-right, although the majority of French citizens are far from being right-wing and, according to polls, they overwhelmingly support the tough immigration legislation.

Minister Sarkozy has been making some noise about being a potential contender in presidential elections next year, and political observers believe he latched onto the issue of immigration as part of his platform. He recently told the BBC that France must be in control of immigration, rather than a passive recipient. (Hear that, George W.?)

One significant provision is a requirement for immigrants to sign a contract agreeing to learn French and to respect the principles of the French Republic. In addition it makes it more difficult for them to bring their families over to join them. It also offers no provision for so-called anchor babies who are afforded citizenship as a result of being born in the country.

According to the French government, the following new rules will be part of the immigration law:

– Only the qualified immigrants will be granted “skills and talents” residency permits.

– Foreigners are only allowed into France to work, and not live off benefits such as welfare and free healthcare.

– Foreign spouses of immigrants allowed to remain in France must wait longer before being granted residence cards.

– Migrants must agree to learn French.

– Migrants must sign a ‘contract’ stipulating they must respect the French way of life.

The new law also scraps the old one regarding workers receiving automatic citizenship after living and working 10 years in the country.

French law enforcement officials, who wholeheartedly support the new law, have argued that the weeks of riots by youths in the immigrant suburbs across France last November showed the system of immigration and integration was failing. These Islamic immigrants kept their own culture while denigrating the French culture and their refusal to assimilate into the French mainstream posed problems for that nation.

Now, how come the French figured this out before the Republican Party’s leadership?

Sarkozy countered criticism of the new law by pointing out that like a number of other Western countries, France has the right to choose the immigrants it needs.

Most immigrants living in France come from its former Northern African colonies, which are predominately Muslim. Their new law has been criticized by many in that region, including President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal. You might say he’s France’s President Vicente Fox of Mexico.

Perhaps the United States will have to suffer through a catastrophic incident such as a large-scale riot by illegal aliens before our leaders decide to really get tough on illegal aliens. As it is, many illegal aliens in the US are killing, raping and robbing American citizens each year.

France, a socialist country, decided — to its credit — not to allow it to get that far.

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

WHAT DO THEY STAND FOR?

This past week has been quite informative if you were wondering where the Democrats stood on Iraq. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, Nancy rushed to the microphones to say that this good news was reason to start pulling troops out “as soon as practicable.” John Murtha said that (a) we’re losing, (b) we can’t win this militarily, (c) Iraqis are fighting Iraqis in sectarian violence, and U.S. troops have become the target and that (d) we can’t get them to change direction. He then cites

“In Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia, President Clinton changed direction, and yet here with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and looked at as occupiers.”

As I’ve noted before, bin Laden saw Clinton’s cutting and running in Somalia, done at Murtha’s behest, as proof that America was a paper tiger that didn’t have the will to win a war. Yet John Murtha points to that change of strategy as proof of his wisdom. If ever there was something to hang your head in shame about, telling a president that the world’s superpower couldn’t win a military battle with a third world warlord should be it. Yet he wears it as a badge of honor.

We also had the spectacle of Hillary getting booed for saying…well, it’s difficult to tell what she was advocating. We know that she’s opposed to an open-ended commitment to Iraq, which would lead a logician to think that she’s for setting a deadline. Except that she said that she’s opposed to setting a deadline, which would lead a logician to think that she’s for an open-ended commitment to winning in Iraq. Except that she omitted any mention about winning.

The bottom line is that Hillary, Pelosi and Murtha either don’t care if we win (Hillary and Pelosi) or don’t think we can win (Murtha) and that the moonbats at the Take Back America conference don’t want to stay long enough to win.

This shouldn’t be lost on the American people. While it’s true they don’t like being at war, it’s also true that Americans expect winning when we put troops in harm’s way. And with good reason. We’ve only lost one war and that’s only because the political leaders that John Murtha likely looked up to didn’t have the steadfastness of conviction to win the war, not because we couldn’t win it.

When you enter the voting booth, ask yourself if you want to vote for someone who wants to deprive the terrorists of a safe haven in Iraq or if you want to vote for someone that wants to cede Iraq to Iran and their state-sponsored terrorists. That should clear off the fog of war.

A THOUGHT FOR FATHER'S DAY

After all the hoopla surrounding Mother’s Day, one of my favorite black intellectuals Chris Rock

puts the appreciation of fathers in the proper perspective…

Everybody takes Daddy for granted. Everything’s Mama. Dear Mama. Always loved my Mama. What’s the Daddy song? “Papa was a Rollin’ Stone.” Nobody appreciates Daddy.

Now, Mama’s got the roughest job. l ain’t gonna front. But at least people appreciate Mama. Every time Mama do something right, Mama gets a compliment… ’cause women need to hear compliments all the time.

Women need food, water, and compliments. That’s right. And an occasional pair of shoes. That’s right. Women got to hear it all the time, or they lose their minds.

And get Daddy to make sure you thank your Mama for everything. Tell your Mama how good the food is. Tell her how nice the house looks. Tell your Mama how nice her hair looks.

“Did you tell your Mama? You better go in there and tell your Mama!” That’s right. Tell your Mama! Tell your Mama! Tell your Mama!

Nobody ever tells Daddy sh*t.

I’m talking about the real daddies that handle their f**king business. Nobody ever says, “Hey, Daddy, thanks for knocking out this rent! Hey, Daddy, l sure love this hot water! Hey, Daddy, this is easy to read with all this light!”

Nobody gives a f**k about Daddy. I’m talking about a daddy that handles his business. Think about everything that the real daddy does: pay the bills, buy the food, put a f**king roof over your head. Everything you could ever ask for. Make your world a better, safer place.

And what does Daddy get for all his work?

The big piece of chicken. That’s all Daddy gets.”

Happy Father’s Day!

–

Bob Parks is a former Republican congressional candidate (California 24th District), Navy veteran, single father, member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, and is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.

SCHWARZENEGGER'S BRILLIANT POLITICAL MOVE: APPONITS SISTER OF L.A. MAYOR TO BENCH

On April 20th, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Mary Lou Villar to the Los Angeles Superior Court (see press release). Villar is a Democrat. More importantly, she is the sister of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The hope here is that the Mayor would not be as exited to support the Democrat nominee, if the Guv did something nice for his sister. Today, the Los Angeles Times, Michael Finnegan, did a story (see below) that shows that Antonio and Phil are not getting along. Maybe my good friend Michael does not know it, but the Arnold appointment of Antonio’s sister was not mentioned in his article. Could this be a reason Antonio is cool to Angelides?

This is a brilliant move on the part of the Governor. He appoints a woman, a Hispanic, a Democrat, and the sister of a major Democrat leader! A four-fer!!!

What do you think? Is this good for the bench, good for California, or just good politics that for two months few had noticed?

I remember Governor Wilson appointing some legislative Democrats to the bench. The goal then was to vacate a swing seat, so the GOP could pick up the seat. Almost all the Democrats Wilson appointed were moderate to conservative. Mary Lou Villar though, has the same politics as her brother.

Another factor, that was mentioned in the article, is that Antonio wants to run for Governor in 2010–so he would rather it be an “open seat” than run against a Democrat incumbent. (BTW, SF Mayor Gavin Newsom is also gearing up for that race-he is a strong supporter of Angelides—which means Newsom will get the “Progressive Democrat” support, not Antonio. In fact, if Antonio continues his soft support for Phil, the traditional Democrats will also get angry with him, making it even harder to run for Guv in 2010)

Looks like the Guv is good at dividing the Democrat Party. I will predict the turnout in November may be no more than 40%. Neither side will be energized for the election.

UPDATE:
Tension Builds Between L.A. Mayor, Angelides
The Los Angeles Times, by Michael Finnegan 6/17/2006

Tension between Antonio Villaraigosa and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides surfaced Friday as the Los Angeles mayor declined to say whether he backed his own party’s candidate to unseat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The rift between two of California’s top Democrats became clear just after they appeared with Magic Johnson to celebrate the opening of a Starbucks on Crenshaw Boulevard.

—

Steve Frank is the publisher of California Political News and Views and a Senior Contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is also a consultant currently working on gambling issues and advising other consultants on policy and coalition building.

AS A CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER I SAY "HELL NO"

CA Democrats Want More Money To Offer Free Healthcare For Illegal Immigrants

Because everyone’s a voter. And some count twice.

Reuters reports: “California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Thursday he expects lawmakers to pass a budget by month’s end instead of meeting a June 15 deadline because of disagreements over whether the state should fund health care for illegal immigrant children.”

Disagreements? Who woud support illegals?

With over $7 billion more in state revenues than had been expected, many lawmakers initially had expected to break the two-decade-long streak of missed deadlines because this year they did not have to haggle over spending cuts.

But last-minute differences emerged after a committee of lawmakers from both chambers of the Democrat-led legislature last weekend passed a spending plan to rival the Republican governor’s $131.1 billion budget proposal for the 2006-07 fiscal year starting next month.

Republicans, whose votes are needed for a two-thirds majority to pass a budget, balked at Democrat-backed provisions in the legislature’s plan to boost spending on health-care for children, including children who are not legal immigrants.

Ladies and gentlemen, witness politics in action.

You see, some politicians talk about creating efficiencies and reducing the burden on taxpayers, but any time there’s a surplus (e.g. $7 billion “more in state revenues than had been expected”), you can count on Democrats wanting to spend it.

“It’s a very bad idea,” said Republican Assemblyman Rick Keene. “We would be giving legitimacy to folks who are here breaking the law.”

State Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman added: “We don’t believe we should be setting up incentive programs to have more illegals come to California.”

Exactly. Makes total sense.

So, why are Democrats pushing for it?

Democrats have political reasons for taking the opposing position as California is increasingly Hispanic because of legal and undocumented immigration, especially from Mexico.

“A lot of Latinos are in Democratic districts,” said Pitney, adding that many could become Democratic voters if the U.S. Congress approves an amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

Well, there’s the answer.

Democratic Assemblyman John Laird said the legal status of children should not be of concern in emergencies: “We shouldn’t have doctors whose first question of a three-year-old brought into a hospital for meningitis is, ‘Is he here illegally?”‘

Didn’t we hear enough violins yesterday?

That’s like saying, some stores shouldn’t have to ask whether or not a customer paid for an item before leaving the building. The comparative logic is: By not questioning or caring about the status of citizenship (illegal=criminal), the state is widening the opportunity for rampant abuse. Free health care, come one, come all! It promotes it and most definitely creates incentive. Obvious to anyone. Just like shopping at a store that doesn’t charge for goods or service. It’s going to be very popular, until it goes out of business. Sounds like California.

And why should we care? If Mexico doesn’t provide free health care to their own people, why should we? Especially when they enter our nation illegally.

At a press conference, Schwarzenegger outlined his position on the dispute, which is midway between what Democrat and Republican lawmakers want. He would fund programs already providing health care to children, including undocumented children, but not expand the programs because of the costs.

“We should not politicize the children and drag them into this … But I would not go in the direction of expanding the Healthy Family program because we cannot afford it,” he said.

This is fact. And their should be no further “disagreements.”

Democrats and Republicans also are odds over whether to use about $1 billion to pay down debt or to build a reserve.

Unfortunately, some are not working with facts. And because these Democrats are in power, there’s only one thing they’re that familiar with building in California – and that’s more debt.

ONLY FOR PROFIT: "SELLING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS THE AMERICAN DREAM"

So reads the headline of the S.F. Chronicle’s exclusive report today on how illegal aliens are working the system to not only secure good jobs, but also taking advantage of lax policies, lack of law enforcement, and complicit banking institutions.

Cue the violins and commence the media whitewashing:

Ramiro and Marisol looked on proudly as their 3-year-old son, Alexis, took out his toolbox and pretended to fix a closet in their new San Jose home. He was imitating the flurry of work his parents had put into the one-bedroom condominium over the past two weekends, installing new linoleum and carpets from Home Depot, painting and repairing.

With a shy giggle, Marisol, 27, pointed out where she plans to put the sofa and the TV in the tiny living room while Ramiro, 32, talked about being able to grill carne asada on the tree-shaded balcony.

They joked about how rarely they see each other. Ramiro works six days a week in a sheet-metal factory and attends night school to get his high school diploma. Marisol goes to business classes in the mornings and works afternoons as an office assistant while Alexis attends preschool.

It was a typical new-homeowner scene with one exception: Ramiro and Marisol, who asked that their last name not be used, are undocumented immigrants from Mexico. They’ve been in the country for four years. Marisol entered on a tourist visa. Ramiro hid in a car.

In other words, and according to U.S. law, they are criminals.

And their son, well, he’s an “anchor baby.”

Soon, if not already, little Alejandro will claim another seat in our public schools, taking advantage of a “free” education at taxpayers’ expense. (Oh, pardonme, they pay taxes, too. Of course.)

Their immigration status did not prevent them from buying a home. It is legal for undocumented people to purchase property in the United States.

That won’t fly in Mexico. In fact, only natural-born citizens can hold permanent title to any land. That way they don’t sell their country away to foreigners. Interesting concept.

The problem has been borrowing the money to pay for it. Ramiro and Marisol have stable jobs, but many undocumented people have spotty or nonexistent credit histories. Often, they’ve worked off the books.

No kidding. But still we’re supposed to believe they pay taxes? Right. Just like the employers are paying avoiding payroll taxes. That’s why it’s “off the books.”

Another issue used to be an absolute deal breaker when undocumented people applied for home loans: Until recently, people had to have a Social Security number to qualify for a mortgage.

Now, a handful of banks, including some major institutions, have begun offering home-mortgage loans to people who don’t have Social Security accounts. Instead, borrowers can use individual taxpayer identification numbers, or ITINs, which are used to file income tax returns. These lending programs also allow borrowers to use unconventional ways to demonstrate their creditworthiness.

The Internal Revenue Service issues taxpayer IDs to both resident and nonresident aliens so they can pay taxes. A significant number of the 8.6 million holders of individual taxpayer IDs are illegal immigrants, according to the Government Accounting Office.

So, that implies that of the estimated 12+ million illegal aliens hiding “in the shadows” of America, there’s millions that don’t pay taxes. Confirmed.

“For those families who have the American dream, but don’t have access to documentation, the (the taxpayer ID mortgage) is a way for them to be able to buy a home, lay down roots and build wealth for their family for the future,” said Janis Bowdler, housing policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil-rights organization in Washington, D.C.

SPIN ALERT: “Dont have access to documentation?” Pobresito, try this. Leave the country and come in the front door legally, and we’ll give you all the documentation you need. Then, and only then, have you qualified to pursue the American dream.

Opponents of illegal immigration deplore mortgages for undocumented people. Some say the banks making taxpayer ID loans are guilty of aiding and abetting criminals.

Yes, that’s because, um, they are! And this article confirms it. It’s obvious to any reasonable person concerned about enforcing our immigration laws. Evidently, banks seeking profitablity in “untapped markets,” regardless of our laws, don’t see it the same way. Profit motive prevails.

U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, a Republican from Roseville (Placer County), has introduced a bill that would ban issuing residential mortgages to illegal immigrants.

“The government should not be in the business of creating incentives to encourage illegal behavior. Nor should companies be permitted to reward those individuals in clear violation of our laws,” Doolittle said in a statement when he introduced the bill in October.

The bill, which also would require expedited deportation of people caught entering the United States illegally, is pending in the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims.

We trust our legislators, those elected to preside over the public interest, will vote accordingly. (Note to file)

“People traditionally talk about the undocumented Latino population as furtive people in the shadows who are very marginalized,” said the study’s author, Rob Paral, a research fellow with the American Immigration Law Foundation in Washington, D.C. “What’s really changed is that a lot of people who are undocumented have fairly decent incomes. They have spending patterns and social behaviors which include an interest in buying a home and an ability to do it.”

Someone talks about illegal aliens as “people in the shadows?” Really? Who? But they’re not? And they’re making good income? (Doing the work that legal Americans won’t?)

Great news. Thanks for the clarification.

Using Census data on income and age, he estimated that 216,000 currently undocumented households could buy homes — admittedly ones at modest prices. About a quarter of those potential home buyers are in California. “This is a large, untapped population from a financial point of view,” Paral said. “If it were not restrained, it could be pouring a lot more money into society.”

Interesting logic. Think we heard someone say the same thing about marijuana crops and legalizing drugs.

Banks have gotten that message loud and clear. U.S. banks now routinely accept both taxpayer ID numbers and a Mexican ID called matricula consular to open new accounts. Many reach out to the Latino community with Spanish marketing materials and bilingual bank tellers.

The latest twist is the taxpayer ID mortgage. Pioneered by small community banks, mainly in the Midwest, the loans slowly have begun to spread. As of September 2004, one credit union and 18 banks were offering such mortgages, according to a report by independent researcher Mari Gallagher. In California, Wells Fargo and Citibank both offer taxpayer ID mortgage loans, albeit in small programs.
. . .

Marisol and Ramiro got their mortgage through the Citibank/ACORN Housing program, which offers interest rates a full percentage point below the published rate and $3,000 toward closing costs or down payment. In addition, their Realtor, Rebecca Gallardo-Serrano of Protelo Group Realty in San Jose, gave them a rebate of $2,500 to help pay their closing costs. At less than $260,000, their small condo was the lowest-cost listing in Santa Clara County.

Sounds like a great service. Guess that’s what corporations mean about multiculturalism and understanding the needs of their “community.” Some might simply call it racism: doing business by catering to specific ethnicities.

“In the Latino community, we don’t like to have debt,” said Frances Martinez Myers, chairwoman of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals. “We transact in cash, so there’s no credit history.”

Finally, a true word is spoken.

Marisol and Ramirez, for example, “used very nonconventional credit,” Gallardo-Serrano said. ACORN Housing verified that the couple had paid their bills on time for the past two years to PG&E, San Jose Water, their landlord and a health club. In addition, they showed two years of tax returns and employment history.

Looks like they’re well out of the shadows and even spending time working out at the gym. Good for them. Arnold approves of that. Now if only we could get all the homeless in America the level of customer service, we might end poverty afterall.

Lez Trujillo, field director with ACORN Housing Corp. in Chicago, said the program with Citibank, which is available in about seven states, has made 804 mortgages worth $153 million since early 2005. Of those, 387 were in California, primarily Northern California. An additional 1,300 borrowers are now in the pipeline, either in contract or shopping for a house.

Affirmative-action in action.

Wells Fargo has offered taxpayer ID mortgages since December in a pilot program in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The bank declined to discuss the program, instead sending a short statement saying it will continue to evaluate it.

The biggest barrier to such loans is that they cannot easily be sold on the secondary mortgage market. Most banks sell the mortgages they originate to bring in more money to make more loans. Instead, banks must keep taxpayer-ID mortgages in their portfolios, tying up capital.

Sounds like a credit risk. If nothing else, tying up a bank’s capital can’t be a good practice. But do shareholders really care? Has anyone asked them?

[Independent researcher Mari] Gallagher, who specializes in research on undocumented Mexicans and the mortgage market, said that despite the shifting political winds, she thinks taxpayer ID mortgages will grow because the market pressure of so many immigrants who want to buy homes will be so strong.

“This is the match that could light the next fire in the mortgage industry,” she said.

That kind of talk ignites wrath among anti-immigration partisans.

“It’s simply wrong for foreign lawbreakers to be enabled to plant roots in this country by way of obtaining a mortgage,” Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, a group that wants to curtail immigration growth, wrote in support of the Doolittle bill that would bar mortgages for undocumented aliens.

It’s hard to believe we are having these kind of conversations without widespread ridicule. Guess that’s what happens when money is involved.

We’re talking about criminal activity. Illegal aliens, entering the country by breaking our immigration laws and ignoring our national sovereignty. If we start referring to criminals as customers, why stop at the border? There’s many more illegal markets to pursue. Does anyone see the folly?

Ramiro and Marisol don’t see themselves as lawbreakers. They hope to become citizens. And they hope that their condo will appreciate in value so they can trade up.

“After I finish school, I want to have another baby, a girl,” Marisol said. “Then in three years or maybe two, we can buy a house.”

Until our national leaders — finally — listen to the majority will and get really serious about immigration reform and law enforcement, there will be millions more who want to be livin’ la vida loca like Ramiro and Marisol.

In the meantime, some banks and other greedy corporations will continue selling-out the American dream to anyone who can pay their fees.