GOVERNMENT ADDRESSES 9/11 CONSPIRACIES

This is quite interesting. The federal government has taken the surprising step of addressing some of the more popular 9/11 conspiracies that are out there. Evidently with the Internet being what it is these days, some of these theories have caught fire, so a government agency called "The National Institute of Standards and Technology" has stepped in to debunk them. They've published a paper on alternative theories.

They address questions like why did the twin towers collapse if they were designed to withstand the impact from an airplane. And what about this controlled demolition nonsense...they debunk that too. The details get somewhat technical, but the conclusion is the same: the World Trade Center towers collapsed because Islamic terrorist hijackers flew planes into them. Plain and simple. Of course, to the terrorism deniers and Islamic appeasers, this will never prove to be true. Remember, there are people out there that believe the Earth is flat and the moon landing was staged.

But the NIST missed a few popular 9/11 conspiracies. For instance, what do you suppose they would have to say about the theory that George W. Bush installed giant magnets in the twin towers in order to attract airplanes? This was done in an attempt to make it look like a terrorist attack so the neocons could start a war. And what about the theory that all of the Jewish people that worked in the buildings were warned a day in advance? How's come they knew about it an no one else did?

And what about Howard Dean's theory, shared with Jihad Cynthia McKinney, that the administration knew about the attack before it happened, yet told nobody and let 3,000 people die instead? Sounds like the government has more work to do on their conspiracy list.

ARNOLD VETO THIS LEGISLATION

The California Assembly passed a bill on a party-line vote yesterday that would eliminate private health care and force Californians into a single-payer state-run medical system. It now falls to Arnold Schwarzenegger to determine whether he will reverse his previous stand against state-run health care or adopt the Golden State version of HillaryCare (via CQ reader Kurt K):

The Democratic-controlled Legislature is on the verge of sending Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill that would create a state-run universal health care system, testing him on an issue that voters rate as one of their top concerns in this election year.

On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill.

Schwarzenegger has said he opposes a single-payer plan like the one Kuehl's bill would create, but the governor has not offered his own alternatives for fixing the state's health care system. As many as 7 million people are uninsured in the state, and spiraling costs have put pressure on business and consumers. ...

"I don't believe that government should be getting in there and should start running a health care system that is kind of done and worked on by government," Schwarzenegger said in July at a speech at the Commonwealth Club. "I think that what we should do is be a facilitator, to make the health care costs come down. The sad story in America is that our health care costs are too high, that everyone cannot afford health care."

Previous California legislation on workers-comp protection and workplace regulation helped start an exodus of corporate headquarters for better business environments. Creating a whole new bureaucracy for health management and putting rationing decisions in the hands of bureaucrats may start a new exodus of healthy people looking for less-intrusive and less-costly tax regimes. Despite the long wait times for anything but primary care issues in single-payer nations such as Canada and the UK -- the latter of which has to destroy organs for lack of doctors to transplant them -- California wants to add to its already top-heavy bureaucracies and add more budget-busting entitlements to a budget that resembles science fiction.

Hillary Clinton tried to foist the same system onto the entire country, and the nation reacted by ending forty years of Democratic domination in the House. Perhaps the same result could come from this irresponsible social engineering project. When people start to understand that they just created a DMV for health care, California voters may just revolt against the entrenched Democratic power structure. Even the Democratic nominee for goverrnor won't endorse the Kuehl bill. Phil Angelides wanted to push more health-care mandates onto the private sector instead, a bad idea but nowhere near as disastrous as this.

In a move typical of the myopic state legislature, the bill doesn't even address the costs that the new bureaucracy will create. The Assembly noted that it will take several years to implement the mandate -- which means that they're going to pass the buck to another group of legislators. Term limits keeps Assembly members from serving more than six years, which means damned few of the culprits will be around to account for the massive bill that will come. However, they have considered revenue streams for the new regime -- an additional 8 percent on the payroll tax that businesses pay and a 3 point hike on the state income tax. That will come before the sunset of the health-care plans that businesses and their employees buy, creating an overlap of costs -- and that assumes that the revenue stream will be enough to pay for the massive spending necessary for the state-run system.

People around the country may shrug this off, figuring that it's just California. However, don't be surprised to see utopians in your neighborhood heralding the coming Brave New World in the Golden State and agitating for the same system where you live.

ISLAM'S LONG HISTORY OF FORCED CONVERSIONS

By Michelle Malkin

Read Andrew Bostom at Front Page mag today, please:

Forced conversions in Islamic history are not exceptional—they have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties—Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi’ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.

Moreover, during jihad—even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century [i.e., the jihad genocide of the Armenians during World War I, the Moplah jihad in Southern India [1921], the jihad against the Assyrians of Iraq [early 1930s], the jihads against the Chinese of Indonesia and the Christian Ibo of southern Nigeria in the 1960s, and the jihad against the Christians and Animists of the southern Sudan from 1983 to 2001], the (dubious) concept of “no compulsion” (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters “confessional”!), has always been meaningless. A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the “Dar al Islam”, where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children, were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias—practices still evident in the contemporary jihad waged by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against the southern Sudanese Christians and Animists. And Julia Duin reported in early 2002 that murderous jihad terror campaigns—including, prominently, forced conversions to Islam—continued to be waged against the Christians of Indonesia’s Moluccan Islands.

Given this enduring (and ignoble) historical legacy, it remains to be seen whether contemporary Muslim religious authorities—particularly those within Palestinian society, and affiliated with Hamas or Fatah—will condemn publicly the forced conversions of the kidnapped Fox reporters. Moreover, will they be joined by a chorus of authoritative voices representing the entire Muslim clerical hierarchy—Sunni and Shi’ite alike—from Mecca and Cairo, Qom and Najaf, to the Muslim advocacy groups in the West (such as CAIR in the United States, and the Muslim Council of Britain in England)—unanimous in their condemnation of this hideous practice, and formalized by a fatwa stating as much? Will such Muslim authorities at least recognize the acute predicament of Centanni and Wiig by issuing a fatwa stating that their “conversion”, being under duress, was not bona fide, condemning in advance any Muslim who might now attack these journalists for “apostasy” from Islam?

But remember: "There is no compulsion" in the Koran and Islam is a "Religion of Peace."

***

La Shawn Barber has a related post: What would you do?

HOW THE MEDIA INFLUENCES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Election In The Streets
How The Broadcast Networks Promote Illegal Immigration

By Tim Graham, MRC Director of Media Analysis

---

Spurred by a passionate public outcry against the tide of illegal immigration, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill to curb the flow of illegal aliens and give the federal government more responsibility for detaining and deporting them. On that night, ABC, CBS, and NBC didn’t cover the vote. But when left-wing advocacy groups for illegal aliens organized large protests against the House bill in the spring, as the Senate considered its own immigration bill, the networks suddenly, fervently discovered the issue and gave the advocacy groups not a mere soapbox in the park, but a three-network rollout of free air time. Protest coverage, often one-sided, stood in stark contrast to polling data showing that a stricter approach to illegal immigration was broadly popular in the country.

To determine the tone and balance of network coverage of illegal aliens, MRC analysts evaluated every ABC, CBS, and NBC morning, evening, and magazine show news segment on the immigration debate from the outbreak of protest coverage on March 24, 2006 through May 31, 2006. In 309 stories, analysts found the following trends emerged:

■ While they celebrated "massive" immigration protests with "huge" crowds, the broadcast networks largely avoided scientific polling data that showed the protesters were in an overwhelming minority. The USA Today-Gallup poll asked whether illegal immigration is "out of control" or "not out of control." Fully 81 percent said "out of control." Fox News asked how serious illegal immigration was as a problem: 60 percent said very serious, 30 percent said somewhat serious. That's 90 percent. These polls were never cited by ABC, CBS, or NBC. In contrast to hundreds of words emphasizing a huge "wave" of "pro-immigrant" activism, the networks aired only 16 mentions of nationwide polls on immigration that considered the opinion of non-protesters. Two of them were CBS polls emphasizing support for a "guest worker" program after a long list of conditions.

■ Advocates of opening a wider path to citizenship were almost twice as likely to speak in news stories as advocates of stricter immigration control. Advocates for amnesty and guest-worker programs drew 504 soundbites in the study period, compared to just 257 for tighter border control. (Sixty-nine soundbites were neutral). On the days of pro-illegal-alien rallies, their critics nearly disappeared from the screen. For instance, on the night of April 10, the soundbite count on the three evening newscasts and ABC’s Nightline was 43 to 2 in favor of the protesters. When the debate shifted to Capitol Hill in May, coverage grew more balanced.

■ While conservative labels were common, liberal labels were rarely or never used. In the study period, reporters referred to "conservatives" or "conservative" groups 89 times, most intensely during legislative debate in May, when President Bush was presented as having to "appease" his "conservative" base. NBC’s Matt Lauer even referred to Bush’s base as the "far right." By contrast, the "liberal" label was used only three times – all of them by ABC. CBS and NBC never used the word, even as hard-left protest organizers described the House bill on public radio as full of "horrendous and macabre clauses, fascist clauses."

■ While protests centered on underlining the vital role illegal aliens play in the American economy, the burdens of illegal immigration in added government costs or crime were barely covered. While the networks poured out their air time to the sympathetic stories of hard-working immigrant families, only six out of 309 stories mentioned studies that illegal aliens cost more to governments than they provide in tax dollars. Only six stories gave a mention to the problem of the cost or threat of criminal aliens.

■ The networks have not dropped the word "illegal" in favor of "undocumented" immigrants, although some reporters struggled to adopt clumsy liberal-preferred terminology. Groups like the National Association of Hispanic Journalists have urged their colleagues to never use the word "illegal," but the word was still more than five times more common than "undocumented." In 309 stories, there were 381 uses of the word "illegal," and 73 uses of "undocumented." But some reporters struggled to please: NBC’s Kevin Tibbles actually referred to protests by "those who critics call illegals."

The report concludes with recommendations for a more balanced picture in network news coverage of the immigration debate. Newscasters need to acknowledge that protests, even large ones, are often an incomplete measure of public opinion. Both sides of the debate deserve a chance to speak in news stories, not just voices "emerging from the shadows" that reporters sympathetically promote. On this issue, as well as many others, network newscasts ought to reflect the reality that the political debate is between conservatives and liberals, not conservatives and supposed nonpartisans painted in gauzy terms like "immigrant rights groups" – even as they decried "fascist" opponents.

WHY DEMS CAN'T BE TRUSTED

A huge hat tip goes out to Jack Kelly for his brilliant Sunday column on why Democrats can’t be trusted with national security matters. I’ve read alot of Jack’s stuff over the years and I’ve always been impressed but this might be Jack’s best work yet.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor illustrates why Democrats cannot be trusted with political power in time of war. Judge Taylor, who is the chief judge of the federal district court in Detroit, ruled Aug. 17 that it is unconstitutional for the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on telephone conversations between terror suspects abroad and people in the United States. Her ruling was praised by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats.

I wrote about Taylor’s ruling last week. I thought it was flimsy then and I’ve seen nothing to change my opinion since. In fact, I’m more convinced now than ever. the fact that Pelosi and Reid think that this was a great ruling is telling.

Let’s not forget what Russ Feingold said about the Democrats filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act:

“Today’s vote is a great moment for our Constitution and our democracy and a great moment in the fight against terrorism. If you don’t have the confidence of the American people when it comes to this fight against terrorism, if they fear that somehow we’re going too far and going after the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will weaken our ability to win in that all-important battle.”

And Democratic strategists wonder why they lose the national security debate?

President Bush has made mistakes in his conduct of the war on terror. But thanks in part to Judge Taylor’s ruling, voters this November will be asking themselves whether they would rather be governed by a political party that thinks Islamic terror is the greatest threat to Americans, or by a political party which is more concerned about Wal-Mart.
I don’t think Democrats will like their answer.

Jack, I’ll bet a tidy sum of money that they’ll not only not like their answer but that Democrats will be positively beside themselves with their answer.

PAT BUCHANAN: ILLEGAL ALIEN OVERLOAD?

On page 240 of Pat Buchanan’s stunningly logical new book, “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America” (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2006) appear the following words:

“One of the truly major issues with which America must deal [is] the vast tidal wave of human beings coming from the Third World. There is a fragmentation going on in this country. At what point does cultural, racial diversity become a kind of social anarchy? How do you get national cohesion this way?”

But those are not the words of my friend and political sparring partner Pat Buchanan. They are words he quoted from a 1987 interview in The Christian Science Monitor with Eric Sevareid, the CBS correspondent and close associate of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.

Only 19 years ago, one of the nation’s most respected public liberals could unself-consciously utter words that today could be a scandalous career ender for a public figure.

And it is around that issue — race, ethnicity, language, culture and immigration — and the problem of talking honestly about it, that Buchanan has constructed his most important book to date.

— Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan’s “State of Emergency”,
Townhall.com, August 16, 2006

Folks, it is time to start the real discussion about illegal aliens. To date, the debate has been about whether or not we should enforce our laws, should we open the borders or close them. Then we get into the economic costs of illegal aliens and the fact that this has harmed our children, parents and the morality of a nation.

Pat Buchanan is opening up the BIG question, how does the illegal alien flood across our borders affect the future of our nation and the future of freedom? No longer is this a question of 40,000 illegal aliens in California prisons or do we give them drivers licenses. We need to concentrate on the effect of this violence to our laws, in the long term. Yet, this had been discussed twenty years ago, by certified liberals, who sounded like an early day Buchanan. What has changed in the past twenty years?

Could it be that liberals and radicals today so hate America that they prefer to see it destroyed? Note that they seem to prefer Osama to the President. Radicals believe the US military is an out of control gang and that members of the US military are moments away from killing them in their beds in Bel Air or Greenwich (Lamont really doesn’t like a strong military, prefers the French version). Why is it that radicals and US Senators like Kerry, Feingold, Chaffee, Kennedy and especially the Clinton’s have more faith in the United Nations and Kofi Annan then in the US Congress and George Bush?

The issue of illegal aliens is just one part of the puzzle of a terrorist run global government. The United States is the last bulwark of freedom and compassion. If it weren’t for Bush pushing Britain’s Blair, then Saddam would still be killing Iraqis just for the fun of it. We should be looking at the promiscuity of supporters of illegal aliens in the context of world domination, not just this one issue.

The next time you find someone who is for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, you will most likely find someone who trusts Annan, believes the US is wrong in promoting freedom–just ask Boxer, Stark, Susan Davis, Loretta Sanchez, Phil Angelides. Lets us start looking at this issue in the broader scope of public policy, not as a stand alone issue. I believe that is the message of Pat Buchanan in his new book.

What do you think? Should we open our borders and stop fighting terrorism? Does Kofi Annan provide you more comfort than the US military?

—

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.

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SLIMES

The San Francisco Chronicle slimes

By Michelle Malkin ·

This is Peter Hartlaub. He is the San Francisco Chronicle's pop-culture critic and "helps cover movies, television and the media," according to his bio. In addition to his newspaper duties, Hartlaub blogs for the paper's "Culture Blog." One of his latest posts is an astonishingly ugly, ad hominem attack on Ann Coulter--emblematic of the unhinged, intolerant Left. And it's posted on a "culture" blog.

The jerk compares Coulter to a horse at a children's zoo. He mocks her weight and her face by linking to sophomoric left-wing bloggers deriding her looks--including this, this, and this. He posts photos he took of the horse alongside photos of Coulter, then sits back and waits for Chronicle blog commenters to pile on. Here are a few screenshots of the post and comments as of 12am Sat. Aug. 26. The post has been up since 2am Wed. Aug. 23:

***

File this one away the next time the journalistic elite attacks bloggers as an unruly, uncivilized mob of hate-mongers in need of adult supervision. Under the guise of "culture" commentary, San Francisco Chronicle staffer/blogger Peter Hartloub displays the true colors of the moonbat mainstream media: slime green. Naturally, the anti-Coulter-obsessed staffers at media industry publication Editor and Publisher think Hartlaub's post is funny.

Do you?

Contact:

Reader representative: If you have comments on The Chronicle's coverage, standards or accuracy, please call Dick Rogers, the readers' representative, at (415) 777-7870. Written comments can be e-mailed to readerrep@sfchronicle.com, faxed to (415) 442-1847, or addressed to Readers' Representative, c/o San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to letters@sfchronicle.com. Due to space considerations, only letters of less than 250 words will be considered for publication. Please provide your name and telephone number along with your letter. You will be called if your letter is being considered for publication.

SFGate.com executive:

Peter Negulescu - VP Digital Media pnegulescu @ sfgate.com

***

Related: Mark Finkelstein looks at a Jeff Danziger hit.

WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE SITTING THIS ONE OUT

It should be clear that the Democrat Party simply does not want to be engaged in the war against Islamic fascism. The Democrat Party is clearly becoming the Democrat-Appeasement Party. Good for the Islamic murderers. Bad for us.

Why, though, do the Democrats find it so terribly difficult -- almost impossible -- to even so much as admit that we are actually in a hot, shooting war with Islamic fascism? They simply view this as something that can be settled if we just sit down, be nice, and talk a lot.

Noodle it out. It's all about power. Political power. Regaining power and then retaining it.

Democrats know that the voting public views the Republicans as more likely to act to defend our country when we are under threat. The trick, then, is to make sure that the voters don't feel we're under a threat. Democrats know that if the voters come to understand that there is a grave threat to the security of the American people -- a threat, for instance, from Iran's nuclear program, and from Islamic radicals around the world -- then these voters are not going to be likely to vote for a party that they view as weak on defending America.

Democrats like John Kerry are trying to convince the people that Islamic terrorism is no more than a simple law enforcement problem. Find them. Arrest them. Try them. Jail them. Oh, and by the way, make sure they get their full plate of Constitutional rights in the process ... even though they most certainly aren't entitled to them.

Listen to these appeasers! "The war in Iraq is wrong." "We need to talk to Iran." "We need to make Israel stop killing all those innocent civilians."

Listen, friends. There is no "war in Iraq." There is no "War in Afghanistan." There's the Iraq front and the Afghan front in the world-wide war against Islamic fascism. Instinctively, you know this.

That's what scares the Democrat-Appeasement party so much.

BORDER ENFORCEMENT....FINALLY

Based on these articles, I’d say that it’s sounding more like the Bush Administration is finally taking border security seriously. Here’s what Reuters is saying:

Elite U.S. Border Patrol units armed with assault rifles and stun grenades may be set to play a more prominent role as authorities gain greater control over the porous border with Mexico, border police say. Little known outside law enforcement circles, the Bortac tactical teams have been deployed to remote reaches of the border to hunt drug and human traffickers using out-of-the way routes since the 1980s.
The Bortac members wear full battle-dress uniforms and carry state-of-the-art night vision and thermal optics. They are armed with weapons including M4 assault rifles and “flash-bang” stun grenades developed for the special forces.

Based on the article, these teams sound like they’re as capable in performing their duties as a Navy SEAL is in performing their job.

In a bid to gain control over the Mexico border, President George W. Bush ordered 6,000 National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol guard the international line in May. Since then, apprehensions have fallen by more than 40 percent.

Fewer apprehensions are the direct result of fewer attempts being made, not because of the ineffectiveness of President Bush’s policies.

Here’s what the AP article said:

Nearly all non-Mexican illegal immigrants caught sneaking into the United States are being held until they can be returned to their home countries, the Bush Administration said Wednesday. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said this marks the end of the so-called “catch-and-release” policy that for years helped illegal immigrants remain in the United States unhindered.

I rejoiced when President Bush announced during a speech that catch-and-release was over. People criticized the President then for not doing enough. It appears his critics were wrong. People like Michelle Malkin rightly criticized the administration for not enforcing the borders and for their catch-and-release policy. That criticism should now fall silent because the administration is doing what their critics were asking them to do.

SO NOW IRAN WANTS TO TALK

No doubt fearing economic sanctions that could put a dent in their massive oil profits, Iran sent out word to the world yesterday that it was willing to talk about its nuclear program. More talk. Just dandy.

But what are they prepared to do?

According to reports coming out today, absolutely nothing. Are they prepared to give up their nuclear program and stop enriching uranium? According to an Iranian news agency, absolutely not. So what is there to talk about?

Nothing. But Iran knows what it's doing.

You see, Iran wants to make the United States look bad. So they announce in a big, loud voice that they're willing to negotiate, but not on the key demand that they stop enriching uranium and pursuing nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration will send John Bolton to the podium to announce that there's nothing to talk about....so we'll look like the bad guys for being inflexible and unwilling to negotiate. The dumb masses will completely ignore the fact that Iran says they will not budge on the core issue ... and will focus on the fact that the U.S. is not willing to talk.

But you can expect the usual Euro-weanie suspects to line up in their usual appeasement pose. These countries know they can ignore the threat and, if the past is prologue as they say, depend on the United States to bail them out militarily when the going gets really rough. Then, of course, they'll end up resenting us even more because of their dependency.

We need to issue our own statement to Iran: get rid of your nuclear program, or we'll do it for you.

TAYLOR CONFLICTED?

The judge who ruled against the government and ruled the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Anna Diggs Taylor also serves as a trustee and officer to an organization that donated $45,000 to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU -- which happened to be one of the plaintiffs in the case (via Hot Air):

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

As Allahpundit notes, this does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor -- as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor -- to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.

However, we should not get too triumphal about this development. The defendants of the lawsuit will almost certainly raise this question on appeal, but the real questions about the legality of the program still must find an answer. Even if the appellate court dismisses the decision on this basis, it only postpones a truly substantive review of the issue -- which Taylor didn't bother providing in the first place. The sooner that the Supreme Court reviews the issue, the better off we all will be.

SOME BAD NEWS FOR THE GLOBAL WARMING FANATICS

What bad news?

The hurricane season. Things aren't quite going the way the global warming crowd predicted. There have only been three tropical storms thus far. This is about average for the short term, but if you average it out over multiple years this would be below average.

Hurricanes? Thanks for asking, but there hasn't been one as of yet. None. Nada. Zip. Nunca. Averaging between 19044 and 2005 we would have seen about 1.5 hurricanes thus far. Again ... we've seen none.

According to weatherstreet.com the National Weather Service predicted 12 to 15 named storms by December of this year. There were 27 last year. Now it looks like the 12 to 15 prediction may be a bit high.

OK ... so the global warming nuts were wrong. They predicted a horrible hurricane season. It isn't happening. So ... what's different? What happened? Here's where you global warmistas need to sit down. Surface temperatures on the world's oceans are getting ...... cooler. According to a paper to be published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, between 2003 and 2005 globally averaged temperatures in the upper levels of the ocean have cooled. They've cooled not just a little ... but dramatically. Sea surface temperatures in the western Atlantic .. where hurricanes are fueled ... are now slightly below normal.

Oh well. Whatchagonna do!

There's always the glaciers you can go to in order to prove your global warming scenario.

More news. A soon-to-be released study by a Danish university says that Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for most the past 100 years. The study of 247 of the 350 glaciers on Disko island shows that 70% of these glaciers have been retreating at a rate of about 8 meters a year since the end of the 1880s. There was apparently a real surge in glacier melting caused by a warming of the earth's atmosphere during the 1920s.

Damned SUVs. The 1920 General Motors Yukon is being cited as a significant cause.

OK you global warmistas. Back to the drawing boards. Surely you'll find something new to use in your efforts to slow down the economy of the United States.

BLABBERMOUTH DAMAGE, AGAIN

By Michelle Malkin

Patterico takes a closer look at that bone-headed ruling against the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and finds more damning evidence of how the blabbermouths have underminded national security:

According to the plaintiffs — lawyers, scholars, journalists, and others who communicate internationally with terrorists — the disclosure of the surveillance program has caused terrorists to discontinue international telephone and e-mail communications:

Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP [”Terrorist Surveillance Program”] has interfered with their ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with persons who are outside of the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations. In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations, and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients. All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.

Let me put that into plain English: terrorists and their associates will no longer communicate with these plaintiffs via e-mail and telephone — in other words, ways that the government could monitor under the surveillance program — because the terrorists are aware of the surveillance program. It’s not the Terrorist Surveillance Program itself that has caused terrorists to cease these international communications. It’s the fact that the terrorists now know about it.

Read the whole thing. It's an important refutation of the blabbermouth meme that the terrorists already knew about the program and the NYTimes' smug insistence that it did no harm in splashing the details all over its front page.

The newspaper of wreckage marches on...

***
Previous:

When blabbermouths lie: question the timing
The newspaper of wreckage
How about a nice big glass of...
The terrorist-tipping Times
More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

ANALYSIS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNORS RACE

IN 82 DAYS the people of California are going to vote for our next Governor. The winner will either be Arnold Schwarzenegger or Phil Angelides (no, the porn star Mary Carey won’t get 161,000 signatures to get on the ballot). At the end of the day, Governor Schwarzenegger will win by 7 to 10 points. Due to lack of strong energy for either candidate, lack of over riding issues–even with massive bonds on the ballot–distrust of both candidates, from the middle and the right–the turnout could be as low as 40%–in 2002 it was 49.6%. Part of the turnout problem is that if Angelides tanks, as I believe he will about three weeks out, the left will join the hard right in not going to the polls. This will make the mushy-middle a larger portion of the voters, giving Arnold an even bigger victory.

Of course the GOP position on illegal aliens and the massive bond proposals will also have an affect on the voter turnout. If the GOP looks like it is confused or supportive on the amnesty question, that will lower turnout. If the GOP appears, as a body, to be supporting $42 billion in bonds, that will make California Republicans look like the out of control D.C. GOP’ers on spending–again, lowering turnout. Still Angelides has no traction, no theme, no reason (other than to raise taxes) to be Governor and the voters will see that.

There are three reasons Arnold should win in November:

1. We don’t want to punish our children or businesses
2. We want less government, not more. Angelides guarantees significantly larger government
3. It benefits Republicans to re-elect Governor Schwarzenegger

First reason to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is so we don’t punish our children and businesses.

A few weeks ago in Warwick, Rhode Island I heard one of the great conservative strategists in this nation give a 30 minute, off the cuff speech on how to vote in November. Rod Martin of Florida is a true leader and thinker. A solid conservative, no one questions his credentials. Rod is a leading member of the NFRA and the CNP. I have known him for about ten years and know him to have only the good of America in his heart.

His speech was on a national level, why we should support all Republican candidates on the ballot. Rod went over the litany of transgressions in D.C.–over spending, the Bush promotion of amnesty for illegal aliens, the out of control earmarks, and he went on and on. Yet, through all that, Rod Martin said, “We should not punish our children”. He made the case that the Democrats would stop the effective War on Terror of President Bush, taxes would go up and the morale of the military would return to the dismal days of Clinton. This would, as he says, punish our children since it will take years to correct the bad policies. He reminded us that we still haven’t rolled back the incompetent and corrupt “War On Poverty” by LBJ. The minority community is still being punished by that Democrat administration three decades ago.

The bottom line, he said, is that you can be mad at Bush and the D.C. Republicans, but don’t punish your businesses or children with something we know will be worse.

In the same way, while only 50% of judicial appointments by the Governor are Republicans, that is still 50% more than Angelides would appoint. Phil has promised to raise taxes, Arnold has vetoed tax increases.
Phil would sign a bill granting illegal aliens drivers licenses, Arnold has said NO to Gil Cedillo on this subject. Though he lost the Special Election last year, at least he tried–more than others have done. Yes, many of his Commission appointments are Democrats, but many are also Republicans. Angelides would only appoint Democrats, that we know. Arnold did campaign for George Bush, while PA actively worked for Kerry.

The policies of Angelides would absolutely harm the economy of California, while the Governor is trying to stop those harmful policies. On cultural issues, we can at least speak to the Governor and his staff, PA would make California the hedonist capital of our nation. Only traditional families and moral values would be opposed by a Governor Angelides.

The second reason to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is because we want less government, not more. Angelides guarantees significantly larger government.

Though Arnold has proposed numerous big government programs, they are molehills compared to what PA would do, including a plan for universal health care that would bankrupt small business (watch for the recession of jobs that is about to hit San Francisco, due to Mayor Newsom’s massive tax increase–that what a mandatory program is, a tax increase–for his universal health care program), and cause many businesses to leave the State. We know that the Governor has worked hard to veto job killer bills, prevent tax increases and to create business opportunities in the State. PA is a front for the unions that have created a $100 billion unfunded pension liability and over $70 billion in unfunded healthcare liabilities in California governments. How could he say no to them? Just as Gray Davis showed his real colors in 2003, PA would do even worse.

The Governor is a supporter of charter schools, PA believes in a government monopoly in education. He feels that all students should be held hostage by government. The governor has talked about the pension crisis of massive unfunded liabilities, PA’s supporters are the cause of it. Instead of fixing the situation as Arnold wants, Phil would raise employer “contributions” (taxes). Yes, both the Governor and PA supported stem cell research–Arnold because he wants cures and PA because he wants government control of drug research. Arnold respects corporations. Phil, except for his own wetland killing development company, prefers the state to decides priorities for businesses, hiring practices, quotas, who they can sell to or buy from.

Find an issue and Angelides wants government to make the decision. Arnold, does approve, most of the time, allowing those who invest and take financial risks to make the decisions. Arnold is a moderate toward government, while Angelides is a radical believer in government as the first resort. Even an aide to Feinstein was quoted as saying all Phil wants to do is raise taxes.

The third reason to re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger is because that benefits Republicans

As a Republican, with a Republican governor we can get some things done, get some appointments and be a part of the discussion. Angelides would bring us back to the Jerry Brown days of only the most radical of thinkers will get heard. Under PA, we go back to the days of rose Bird and her “Supremes”. Do we really want to have to do another Recall of Justices? While the governor is appointing Democrats to the key commissions, we still get a few traditional GOP’ers on these commissions. Do you think Phil would be so ecumenical? We must have a governor that vetoes bad legislation–and in most cases Arnold has done that.

But, with a GOP governor we have opportunities to raise money for ballot measures, threaten to create ballot measures and to raise money for our candidates. Under Davis the business community gave almost exclusively to Davis and his hand picked candidates. At least with Arnold we have a shot at equality from business.

Primaries are for debate and division. General elections are for the Party to come together. We need a strong victory by Arnold to bring in the under ticket of McClintock, Poochigian, McPherson, Strickland, Parrish and Poizner. We need a strong showing by Arnold to help Senator Dick Mountjoy. We might even win a couple of legislative seats–won;t say which in a public forum, if Arnold wins big so, for political purposes we need the Governor to win re-election. The bigger the Arnold landslide the more statewide GOP nominees win, and we can get several more legislative seats. If Arnold wins big, the GOP wins big.

That does not mean that I, and others, won’t speak out on public policy issues when the Governor is going beyond GOP principles. But on November 7th I will be voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor.

MAJOR PREDICTION: Without hesitation or fear I will be wrong, guaranteed, in 2010 the Republican nominee against Barbara Boxer will be Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Will you vote for Arnold against Phil? Would you vote for Arnold against Boxer for Senate in 2010? How do you see this election ending the night of November 7th?

—

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.

Read more of his work here or at his blog.

THE NUMBERS ON THE HISPANIC INVASION

That's right. The invasion is still underway. Even while the world was pressuring Israel to cave in to Hezbollah. Even while were watching this strange little man confess to a murder he probably did not commit .. the invasion continues.

Here's an interesting website for you. It's called immigrationCounters.com The #1 Site for Real-Time Immigration Statistics. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information on this site .. but it sure does get your attention. Here are the stats as of about 6:00 this morning:

• Illegal Immigrants in Country 20,426,887
• Money wired to Mexico $23,575,296,302
• Cost of Social Services for Illegal Immigrants $397,469,111,828
• Illegals Enrolled in Government Schools K-12 3,749,373
• Cost of Illegal Immigrants Enrolled in K-12 $14,489,987,299
• Illegal Immigrants Incarcerated 315,460
• Cost for Incarcerations of Illegal Immigrants $1,446,245,595
• Illegal Immigrant Fugitives 623,761

Here's a statistic from elsewhere, one that I did check out. Out of all of the outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles, 95% of them are for illegal aliens.

One more thing: You do remember that immigration fuss in the Congress some weeks back, don't you? The House had one version that called for the borders to be controlled and contained no guest worker program, the Senate had a bill calling for amnesty and only a token attempt to control the borders. Nothing got done. The Senate bill was written by Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy. It contained a provision for about 370 miles of fencing along the Mexican-U.S. Border. But .. here's what you probably didn't know. That fence can only be built with after consulting Mexico as to its location. Well isn't that special! Mexico gets to decide where we put our border fences!

THE WIRETAP RULING

I really hate to disappoint my loyal listeners, but as of this time I'm really not ready to jump on U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for her ruling yesterday [pdf] .. a ruling which says that Bush's wiretap program is unconstitutional. I want to read the full ruling first .. then I'll jump if a leap is warranted.

There is one thing that bothers me from the get-go, and that is what I feel to be Judge Taylor's animosity toward the president. There is some language in the excerpts of her ruling that I've already read that seem to be just a bit harsh. That remark that "there are no hereditary kings in America" would be an example.

Here's something I want you to think about though. Let's consider a scenario. U.S. Intelligence forces are eavesdropping on the cell phone conversations of an Islamic terrorist in Pakistan. It is starting to become clear that this Islamic terrorist is in the final steps of implementing a terror attack on a U.S. target ... let's say a large shopping mall. Our intelligence agents are on pins and needles because it looks like this man is preparing to call the Islamic goons who will carry out the attack and give them the go-ahead. As our intelligence people watch their monitors it suddenly becomes clear that the terrorist is making a phone call to the United States. This could be it! He may be calling his contact to discuss the final details and timing of the attack!

Under Judge Taylor's ruling will our intelligence folks have the authority to listen to the conversation, or will they have to hang up? If they can listen, fine. If they have to get a warrant a few days later from that super-secret court, fine. If they have to hang up .. not fine.

When this story first surfaced the media seemed to make a group decision to refer to the wiretapping as "domestic." It wasn't. As I understand the situation, only international calls were monitored, and then only international calls wherein the party outside of the U.S. was suspected of a connection to Islamic radicals.

Now .. as an aside ... there was one line that Judge Taylor used in her ruling that really intrigues me. She wrote that there are ".. no powers not created by the Constitution." Izzat so? Then pray tell, Judge Taylor, just how can our Imperial Federal Government seize 14% of my paycheck and slam it into an income-redistribution program that may or may not -- there is no guarantee -- pay me some of that money back when I retire?

PROFILING PROFILES

Taking a page from Israeli security forces, the US has started using a technique for screening at airports that focuses on the people rather than the methodology to stop terrorism. Although currently only an experimental program, the technological escalation of the British sky plot will pressure the Transportation Security Administration into deploying this across all airports:

As the man approached the airport security checkpoint here on Wednesday, he kept picking up and putting down his backpack, touching his fingers to his chin, rubbing some object in his hands and finally reaching for his pack of cigarettes, even though smoking was not allowed.

Two Transportation Security Administration officers stood nearby, nearly motionless and silent, gazing straight at him. Then, with a nod, they moved in, chatting briefly with the man, and then swiftly pulled him aside for an intense search.

Another airline passenger had just made the acquaintance of the transportation agency’s “behavior detection officers.”

Taking a page from Israeli airport security, the transportation agency has been experimenting with this new squad, whose members do not look for bombs, guns or knives. Instead, the assignment is to find anyone with evil intent.

So far, these specially trained officers are working in only about a dozen airports nationwide, including Dulles International Airport here outside Washington, and they represent just a tiny percentage of the transportation agency’s 43,000 screeners.

But after the reported liquid bomb plot in Britain, agency officials say they want to have hundreds of behavior detection officers trained by the end of next year and deployed at most of the nation’s biggest airports.

Israel, which has had to contend with terrorism on airplanes for much longer than anyone else, has maintained a high record of success with this approach. Israel doesn't worry about what a passenger might carry onto a flight as much as they focus on the traveler himself. John Hinderaker at Power Line described his experiences flying El Al several years ago, while traveling with his family to Israel. After only asking a couple of questions, the screener wished him a happy vacation, assured that John meant no harm. (Apparently, the Israeli screener has never seen John in court.)

This approach allows people who present no danger to travel without being treated like a criminal from the moment they step into the airport to the time the plane lands at their destination. Israel understands that restricting items from carry-on luggage, or eliminating carry-on luggage entirely, will not stop a determined effort by terrorists to seize flights or destroy them. Therefore, the screeners focus on the passengers themselves. If they find one that makes them nervous, they start doing a more in-depth interrogation and a thorough search of the passenger and his luggage, carry-on or not.

It's this subjective analysis that has civil libertarians opposed to such procedures in the US. The Times notes that some complain that such a program could turn into racial profiling without any objective safeguards. Some passengers who refused to cooperate in interviews got threatened with arrest, prompting lawsuits. The program in Dulles has uncovered over fifty people whose reactions revealed ill intent, although none of them terror-related.

These criticisms should have died on 9/11. The important point about airport security is to secure the airport and the airplanes, not worry that social attitudes may get bruised. If done properly -- and the Israeli consultants say we have more work to get to that stage -- then this program can catch the actual terrorists and leave the rest of us to travel in peace. Selection comes from a wide net of casual interactions, from which screeners narrow down the potential problems. That seems like a reasonable program, and its success would allow travelers to carry their Juicy Juice and Gatorade on board without getting tackled on the ramp.

One would think that after the latest terrorist plot got revealed, people would understand the need for better screening techniques and the desire to replicate the success of the Israelis. Some people will only be satisfied if passengers travel equally naked and equally shackled to their seats, rather than just find the few people who actually mean us harm.

DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO

Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a charismatic and gifted public speaker who just might be the Democrats' best hope of electing another president someday, has a bit of a problem. You see, it would appear the good Senator doesn't practice what he preaches. I know .. what a surprise for a politician! This has long been a problem for those on the Left, with Al Gore being one of the biggest offenders.

At any rate, Obama was giving a speech recently at one of his town hall meetings in which he said that global warming was caused by gas guzzling vehicles. He said people should switch to hybrids, and that "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska." Yeah ... and if we all walked think of how much oil we could save! Anyway ... moving right along here .....

So after the speech, did the good Senator go outside, get into his Toyota Prius and zip off toward home? Uh..no. The media caught him getting into....you guessed it...an SUV. A GMC Envoy, to be exact. Obama even admitted that he liked SUVs. It would seem we have a bit of hypocrisy on our hands. When called out on it, Obama's staff went into spin overdrive...claiming that the Envoy was a Flexible Fuel Vehicle that can run on E85, or ethanol-based fuels. In fact, they say the Senator fills the SUV up with ethanol whenever he can!

But there's a problem with that, too. The GMC Envoy is not E85-ready. Ooops. Sounds like somebody dug the hole just a bit deeper on that one. As the saying goes, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

BRITAIN FIGURES IT OUT

Finally...after foiling a terrorist attack that would have killed hundreds of people, the folks running things on the other side of the pond have gotten wise. They get it. The government of Great Britain is working with airports to implement new security protocols. And what exactly are those new rules being put in place going to do?

Will they intensify the strip-searching of little old ladies? Nope. Are they going to foolishly confiscate every passenger's hair gel, nail clippers and anything else that might remotely be used as a weapon? That doesn't appear to be part of the new protocol. No..the plan is to look for people that behave suspiciously, have unusual travel plans or are of a certain religion or ethnicity.

In other words, they're going to start profiling!!!!

Can you imagine that!

A specific group of people is trying to kill innocent British citizens, and now the Brits are actually going to concentrate their preventative efforts on that specific group of people? In another era this would have made perfect sense to everyone ... but this is the era of political correctness!

The British version of the TSA, something called the Department for Transport, has decided that putting people in long lines at the airport for random searches is a waste of time. And they're right, it is. Would the police randomly search people on the street if they had a report that an Arab male had just robbed a bank? No, they would not. Do authorities stop white people and ask for ID when they are in pursuit of a black carjacker? They do not. This isn't racism. It isn't bigotry. It's simply common sense. You receive a threat from members of an identifiable group -- and you concentrate your response on the members of that identifiable group.

It's not racial profiling. It's not religious profiling. It's terrorist profiling. No ... not all Muslims are terrorists. But with only a very few -- and long ago --- isolated incidents, all terrorists are Muslims. Just about every terrorist that has hijacked a plane in the last 30 years has fit one, single description: Arab Muslim. That is the description of the suspect. The terrorists who blew up nightclubs in Bali, the terrorists who wanted to lop off the head of the Canadian prime minister ... Muslims. Every one. Every terrorist that planned to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic last week was an Muslim who, if not from the Middle East, was of Middle East decent. This isn't rocket surgery. So ... get ready for the howls of protest from the Islamic community in Britain. If the Brits stick to their guns on this one perhaps it will evolve into one more reason for Muslims who truly want to live their lives in peace ... to be left alone and to leave alone ... to rebel against those of their religion who have brought this upon them.

BRITISH SKY PLOT MAY HAVE 9/11 CONNECTION

German authorities are investigating a possible link between the captured terrorists of the recent airliner plot and a key figure in the Hamburg cell who worked with Mohammed Atta on the 9/11 attacks. Said Bahaji, a computer expert who helped plan 9/11, may have provided the same assistance to these suspected al-Qaeda terrorists:

German authorities are investigating contacts between a Briton being questioned over the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airlines and a key figure in the September 11, 2001, terrorist cell.

Intelligence sources said that, at Britain’s request, they were examining possible links between the suspect and Said Bahaji, the computer expert in the Hamburg cell that planned the suicide hijackings in 2001.

Bahaji shared an apartment in Hamburg with Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, and Ramzi Binalshibh, the planner of 9/11. He fled Germany for Pakistan a week before the attacks in New York and Washington and has never been caught.

Bahaji's name came up in the 9/11 Commission report, at least briefly. Bahaji was an odd duck in the Hamburg cell. For one, he was the only German citizen in the group. Bahaji spent five months in the German Army before getting a medical discharge. He had only limited knowledge of Islam despite his Moroccan heritage, but eagerly volunteered for violence.

His assistance to Atta and Ramzi Binalshibh went beyond enthusiasm, however. He gave them access to the Internet for their research, and investigators later found disks and documents showing the Internet surfing done by the terror leaders. While Atta traveled to Afghanistan for training, Bahaji maintained a false front in Germany, covering their absence in order to throw off suspicion.

He has long since fled Germany. Bahaji flew to Pakistan days ahead of the 9/11 attacks, thanks to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's warning to the Hamburg cell that the date of the attack was quickly approaching. He bought his tickets to Karachi and left on September 3rd. American authorities would love to get their hands on Bahaji, and now it looks like the British would also want a crack at him.

The financing of the scheme has also been coming under more scrutiny. According to the Times of London, the Crescent Relief charity may have laundered some of the money that fueled this terror cell. The charity's founding trustee, Abdul Rauf, is the father of Rashid Rauf, whom the Pakistanis now hold in connection to the plot. Another of Rauf's sons, Tayib, was among those arrested last week in Britain. Crescent Relief and Pakistan-based Jamaat-ud-Dawa raised large amounts of money, much of it in cash, following the earthquake in Kashmir. Now the British would like to know where it went.

This plot looked like an al-Qaeda production from the beginning. If Said Bahaji can be tied to it, that diagnosis looks pretty accurate.

MORE ON THE UK ATTACK PLOTTERS

More is becoming known about the Islamic terrorists that were planning on blowing up several jetliners headed to the United States from Great Britain last week. It turns out many of those involved were Muslim students recruited at British universities. This exposes a well-known weak link in European immigration policy.

You see, Britain, France and the like are places where radical Islamic clerics from terrorist regimes can go set up shop and not be touched. The Euro-weenies, under the guise of political correctness, won't do anything about the hate that these jihadists preach. They take impressionable young Muslims and turn them into terrorists. The same thing is going on at British universities. One of the plotters from last week attended a school where terrorist literature was found.

And it gets worse. Also among those arrested for the plot are mothers who were willing to blow up themselves and their babies in the terrorist attack. The babies would be used as cover for the attacks, since a mother with a baby doesn't look suspicious or threatening. This just goes to show you the psychos that we're dealing with here when it comes to Islamic terrorists. They will kill their own children to take out an infidel or two.

Britain was about to pay dearly for their lax immigration policy that allows so many of these hate-filled Islamic killers into their country. Perhaps now they'll pay a bit more attention to their politically correct ways, before one of these terrorist attacks actually succeeds. But then again .... probably not.

Remember .. any effort to fight Islamic fascists must take a back seat to the requirements of political correctness.

DEARBORN MEN BOUGHT CELL PHONE MICROCHIPS

By Michelle Malkin

Why? It's an "all-American" thing to do. Via the Marietta Times:

Holding up newspaper clippings depicting their clients during their high school football days, defense attorneys of two Michigan men charged with aiding in terrorism called them “All-American kids” who were arrested because of a rush to judgment based on their names and race.

Prosecutors say they are confident the men are linked to a terrorist network and filed additional felony charges Thursday relating to the buying and selling of specific microchips found in only a few types of cell phones.

The two men were arrested in Marietta Tuesday.

Authorities say the phones are being modified by terrorists to make untraceable international calls and also in the production of roadside bombs.

Charged after purchasing several of the phones in Marietta earlier this week were Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, 20, and Ali Houssaiky, 20, both of Dearborn, Mich. The two appeared Thursday in Marietta Municipal Court for a bond and arraignment hearing.

The Dearbornistan duo's lawyer bemoans the targeting of the men:

“They are All-American kids that unfortunately in this day and age — since 9/11 — have names that call them into question,” said Rolf Baumgartel, retained counsel for Houssaiky, a Wayne State University student studying to become an elementary school teacher.

It's not their names, Rolf. It's their actions.

This seems key:

Assistant Washington County Prosecutor Susan Vessels said Abulhassan and Houssaiky knew the phones were being used for illegal activity. She said the men were found in possession of a list detailing the specific types of phones to buy, based on the kind of microchips they use.

“Mr. Abulhassan made a statement to officers that he knew what they were doing was wrong and that he knew no one would ever use over 600 phones for legal purposes,” Vessels said. “(He also stated) he did not know for sure, but that he believed the phones and chips were being shipped overseas.”

Who gave them the list? Someone "all-American," too?

I love the fair and balanced headline of the Marietta Times article, by the way. It's: "Racial profiling?" Talk about burying the lede.

***
Previous:

Late-night tracfone shopping sprees
The Dearbornistan duo
Dearbornistan terror arrests:
Flight docs and 600+ tracphones

CALAME: TIMES LIED ABOUT TIMING OF NSA ARTICLE

The New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, publishes a startling admision from Bill Keller regarding the publication delay of the most explosive story in his short reign as managing editor. Earlier, when Keller told people that the NSA surveillance story got delayed from December 2004 based on requests from the White House, speculation circulated that the story had actually gotten shelved before the presidential election. Now Calame confirms that Keller lied about the publication history of the Lichtblau/Risen effort:

THE NEW YORK TIMES’S Dec. 16 article that disclosed the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping has led to an important public debate about the once-secret program. And the decision to write about the program in the face of White House pressure deserved even more praise than I gave it in a January column, which focused on the paper’s inadequate explanation of why it had “delayed publication for a year.”

The article, written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, has been honored with a Pulitzer and other journalistic prizes. But contradictory post-publication comments by Times editors and others about just how long the article was held have left me increasingly concerned about one key question: Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?

In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December.

In fact, the Keller/Calame interview seems very strange indeed. Keller refused to answer this question in January, and in fact refused to answer any of Calame's questions regarding the timing of the publication. Calame followed up this week, and despite Keller's insistence that the story was now "old news", agreed to sit down with his public editor -- and then confessed he had lied all along.

Left-wing pundits and bloggers have insisted that Keller spiked the story to keep George Bush in office. Keller, however, has a different take on his decision. He insists that the news would have likely helped Bush rather than hurt him, and the public support for this program after its delayed revelation last December supports that analysis. John Kerry and the Democrats had castigated Bush for the lack of visible effort to find and track terrorists, and the program's exposure would have forced Kerry to recant and suddenly argue that Bush had been too enthusiastic about fighting terrorism, a tough pirouette to execute in a grueling presidential campaign.

In the end, the final version of the story got prepared just days before the election, and Keller argues that a release at that point would have been "unfair" to all parties. It took several weeks for all of the political dust to settle once the article did come out. He may have a point, but then two related events took place: he delayed the release for over a year, and then Keller lied about the timing when he published it.

Calame asked Keller why he lied, although Calame didn't quite put it that way. Keller says he used "inelegant" wording in his description, but clearly Keller wanted to keep that information secret. Besides, Keller's job as editor depends on his use of words and the judgement of what and how to communicate. It's clear that Keller wanted to keep people from learning that he had the chance to publish this before the election, and he deliberately did not. Why lie? He depends on the Left for his readership, and his reluctance to publish the article when Bush was vulnerable will likely lose his readership.

Keller has destroyed what's left of his paper's credibility. He lied to everyone about the timing of this publication, baldly and publicly. It also damages the credibility of everyone associated with this story. After all, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau certainly knew that the story was ready before the November 2nd election -- and yet they chose to play along with Keller's lies that the decision to spike it was in December 2004 rather than October and November.

The Paper of Record managed to utterly destroy the trust it still had left with readers across the political spectrum with this story.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! And you may want to ask yourself this, as one CQ commenter did -- what else has the Times lied about?

OK.....CAN WE START THE PROFILING NOW?

The Brits have identified 19 of the Islamic terrorists who had been plotting to blow up as many as ten airliners over the Atlantic ocean. Let's see now: What do we have here! Why ... and I hope you're sitting down here, because this is certainly very shocking --- every one of the 19 people who have been arrested thus far were men. They were all younger men, anywhere from 17 to 35 years old. Oh ... and every one of them had a Muslim name.

Many of these terrorists were British born. British citizens. Most of these are believed to be children of Pakistani immigrants. So, there's that European problem with Muslim immigration raising its ugly head again. Reports are that two of these bums were converts to Islam.

What else stands out here? Well, there were no 78-year-old blue-haired grannies on the list. There were no families traveling with children. There were no young mothers with children in tow.

There are many absurdities in the way we are trying to keep Islamic terrorists (remember, "terrorists" is only half a word) off airplanes. I remember one particular DEA agent who was allowed to board a commercial flight in the U.S. with his gun ... but not before the security official confiscated his nail clippers.

Our enemies here are intelligent and cunning. When we refuse to profile at airport security points we look stupid and vulnerable.

911 Hijackers

WASHINGTON EDITORIALS ON BOMBING PLOT: THE SERIOUS AND THE SILLY

Two editorials in Washington newspapers show the difference between serious thinking and silly whining in the aftermath of the bombing plot discovery in Britain yesterday. While the Washington Examiner argues that some profiling should be considered along with the massive inconvenience to all travelers with the new security rules placed in effect yesterday, the Washington Post complains about first-class passengers paying for expedited service.

The Examiner wonders when American airports will get serious regarding the specific threats we face:

A key to their ability to crack the conspiracy was the ability to sneak and peek — that is, to enter suspected plotters’ homes covertly to gather information. U.S. law enforcement officials are not permitted to carry out such operations, except as provided under Section 213 of the Patriot Act. The ACLU is doing everything in its power to hamper or otherwise force the repeal of part or all of that law.

Second, scan the many news photos of the long lines of frustrated travelers Thursday, and it is impossible not to notice how few match the typical terrorist profile — natives of or descended from families that came from or still live in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or another Middle Eastern, Asian or African nation with a Muslim majority or significant Muslim minority.

We recognize that the vast majority of Muslims do not share the Jihadist obsessions with killing Americans, Brits and other Westerners. But there is one undeniable fact about the 1993 World Trace Center bombers, the Sept. 11 murderers, the Madrid bombers, the London subway bombers and the present liquid bomb plotters — all are clearly identifiable as being from Muslim nations. We’ve yet to see bombers who look even remotely like a gray-haired governess from Southampton, a harried middle-aged U.S. sales executive from Los Angeles or a haggard dad and mom with kids in tow returning home to Atlanta.

There is no room left for the blind politically correct procedures that ignore this reality — our enemy is nearly always a young to middle-aged man from a Muslim nation or culture, and it is madness not to focus mainly on those who most readily match the known profile. If preventing another Sept. 11 horror means delaying all travelers from such nations, well, then so be it.

One interesting facet of terrorism recently has been the rise of the home-grown jihadi. In Canada's Toronto cell and in yesterday's bombing plot, the majority of the suspects had domestic nationality and citizenship. Terrorist organizations have plotted to grow these cells from within for two purposes. First, they want to stymie security procedures they assumed would target Arabs and Muslims, perhaps not realizing the allergic reaction some would have to even the hint of such restrictions. Second, they want to force Western governments to slowly reject Muslims, so that more of them can be radicalized into opposition with the West and recruited into the ranks of the terrorists. We haven't seen much to suggest they have succeeded in any measure on either goal.

However, the Examiner has a point about foreign nationals and heightened security. Currently, the TSA operates under a bizarre rule that restricts them from conducting random searches of more than two passengers on any flight with Arabic surnames. The screeners appear to go out of their way to ensure that a broad spectrum of people get attention for these routine spot-checks, infamously shaking down an octagenarian Medal of Honor winner in one incident. These efforts waste time and resources. We have seen enough of these plots to understand that the consistent profile is that of young Muslim men, and if the authorities would finally acknowledge this as reality and start providing tougher screening for those who meet the profile, the rest of us would complain much less about the security restrictions on everyone else.

In contrast, the Post wastes ink and pixels complaining about the unfairness of the free market in its editorial today:

Most air travelers took the beefed-up security -- and the occasionally interminable waits that followed -- in stride. First- and business-class passengers in most airports, on the other hand, didn't have to. As usual, higher-class passengers skipped most of the security queues at hubs such as Dulles and Los Angeles international airports. That's hardly fair.

We understand why travelers in first class and business get preferential treatment in airline baggage lines; it's one of the perks they pay for. Checked baggage handling is a service that airlines elect to provide, and they can administer it however they see fit. But does the same logic extend to an official public service? When security alerts like yesterday's bring hassle and delay, it shouldn't be only the travelers with coach seats who have to sacrifice their time to ensure the safety of American aviation.

This complaint is so silly it beggars belief. First-class passengers pay a lot more money that other travelers, and they do so to get better and faster service. Anyone who wants to pay first-class fares can get the same level of service. The pricing determines the value of the service. If the only expedited service provided for high-cost fares was a chance to check bags a little more quickly than others, it's doubtful anyone would pay for them. If the Post expects "fairness" in flights, then they may as well complain about premium-rate flyers boarding first, having more legroom, or getting better food.

Customers with first-class tickets still have to pass through the same security procedures as the rest of us. No one gets a pass from the rules and regulations. They get a preferred spot in line because they paid for it. And that's all it is -- not a Get Out Of Jail Free card, not a pass on the metal detector, or anything else.

The exposure of this massive plot and its use of hard-to-detect technology and tactics provides us with critical information about the terrorist threat, and we have lessons to learn from it. Bitching about the privileges of first class doesn't advance airport security, but it does provide an outlet for a little class-warfare impulse among newspaper editorial boards.

THE THREAT LEVEL OF JIHAD

By Michelle Malkin

***scroll for updates, including new info from Annie Jacobsen (remember Flight 327?)***

So, DHS has raised the threat level. President Bush addressed the foiled UK terror plot from Wisconsin today (Allah has the video):

President Bush this morning said the terror plot uncovered in Britain is a "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

Bush thanked British officials for breaking up the plot and also praised American agencies for their cooperation in the case.

"This country is safer than it was prior to 9-11," Bush said. "We have taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we're not completely safe, because there are people who still plot. It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America."

Bush also asked travelers to be patient with the inconveniences caused by the response to the terror threat.

"The American people need to know we're living in a dangerous world, but our government will do everything it can to protect the people from that danger," Bush said while standing on the tarmac of Austin Straubel International Airport.

More:

"This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," he said, his remarks carried live on television.

Watch the video. Several readers have e-mailed that he sounded shaky and stumbly. At least he got the "I"-word in there. But I stopped using the terms "Islamic fascist" and "Islamofascism" a while ago, though, because they obscure rather than clarify. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of "Islamic fascists." Read the polls:

Diana West noted on the 7/7 London terror bombing anniversary:

Just in time for the one-year anniversary of 7/7, a poll conducted for The Times of London indicates that 13 percent of British Muslims believe that the four Islamic suicide bombers who murdered 52 people in London last July should be regarded as "martyrs."

With a Muslim population in Britain estimated at 1.6 million, this means that some 208,000 British Muslims regard these killers with what can only be described as a worshipful attitude. Which is despicable. But Mother England, it seems, is home to an awful lot of despicable people.

One of them, surely, is Anjem Choudary, who made related news this week. Choudary is a former leader of Al Mujahiroun -- a defunct, jihad-inciting group, whose venomous pronouncements on Islamic supremacy have earned him a strange prominence in the British media. He refuses to condemn the 7/7 attacks, says Muslims shouldn't help police combat jihad terror, and advocates sharia (Islamic law) for Britain. During a BBC "Newsnight" appearance this year, the host asked Choudary why he didn't simply move to a sharia state like Iran.

"Who says you own Britain, anyway?" Choudary replied. "Britain belongs to Allah. The whole world belongs to Allah. ... If I go to the jungle, I'm not going to live like the animals, I'm going to propagate a superior way of life. Islam is a superior way of life."

And listen to this guy.

Read these interesting reflections from Eteraz, a Muslim blogger on the British Muslim problem:

Something is rotten among the state of British Muslims. There is the imminent terror plot to blow up planes at a massive scale. There was 7/7. There are British Muslims going off to fight on behalf of Hizbollah. There were British Muslims going off to fight in Iraq. There were British Muslims going off to Afghanistan (although British Muslims are also part of the British army). How did it happen that a bunch of university educated First World kids started seeing themselves as some sort of revolutionists?

Many Brits, for some foolish reason, pin the blame on British foreign policy. Oh, if only our foreign policy did not mimic the American foreign policy, we would stop producing home grown terrorists, because they would have no reason to hate us. Wrong. Dead wrong.

For jihadists, every day is a Code Red day. Jihad has been knocking for centuries.

We need a National Dhimmi Advisory before it's too late.

***

Remember Annie Jacobsen and Flight 327? Jacobsen wrote extensively of her experience on the plane, where a Syrian band acted strangely during take-off and landings--taking turns in the restroom with a McDonald's bag. Jacobsen surmised that the men were on a "dry run" practicing to build bombs on board the plane, Bojinka-style. Jacobsen wrote a book on the case and updated the story earlier this month. Interesting in light of today's events:

Since my original flight from Detroit to Los Angeles on Northwest Airlines flight 327 on June 29, 2004, I have been searching high and low for answers. I was thrilled when, during a visit to my home by four DHS agents, I learned that the Inspector General's office was investigating my flight. In May of this year, the 22-month, 44-page report of the investigation was released -- sort of. The report was originally written in two parts: one that contained classified information and a second that was unclassified. But just before its release, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) classified the entire report, according to Tamara Falkner, Congressional Affairs Liaison and Media and Public Outreach of the Inspector General's office of the DHS.

Of course, I am disappointed that you, and I, and the other passengers on the flight will not be privy to the information in that report. But more importantly, I have to wonder: Why classify a report about a flight where nothing happened, as stated numerous times by the FBI and various government officials?

See also the Brutally Honest blog.

***
Previous today:

"Imminent," "massive" jihad UK plot foiled;
goal: "mass murder on an unimaginable scale"

"IMMINENT," "MASSIVE" JIHAD UK PLOT FOILED; GOAL: "MASS MURDER ON AN UNIMAGINABLE SCALE"

By Michelle Malkin

I went to bed last night after blogging about the Dearbornistan terror arrests and the still missing 8 Egyptians. Twenty minutes after I went to sleep, the news broke about a massive terrorist plot to blow up several aircraft mid-flight between the United States and Britain using explosives smuggled in hand luggage.

Are the arrests of the Dearborn men, who had airplane manifests and tracfones (which have been used by terrorists to detonate bombs) and the nationwide lookout of the missing Egyptians here a coincidence? Maybe not. AP:

Britain's Home Secretary John Reid said the alleged plot was "significant" and that terrorists aimed to "bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life."

Police arrested a number of people overnight in London after a major covert counterterrorism operation that had lasted several months, but did not immediately say how many.

The U.S. government responded by raising its threat assessment to the highest level for commercial flights from Britain to the United States early Thursday.

Hot Air covered developments through the night. Also: Ace, Jeff Goldstein, Dan Riehl, Junkyard Blog. And full coverage at The Counterterrorism Blog. One word that you'll note that is missing from first coverage--well here, see for yourselves:

Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said those arrested were mainly young, British-born Asian men.

The missing word is "Muslim." Young, Muslim men from Pakistan. Bloomberg News mentions the word in its report, not to describe the suspects, but only in a stupid bit of editorializing:

Britain has 12,500 troops deployed in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a source of anger among some of Britain's Muslim population.

For crying out loud. No wonder Melanie Phillips calls it Lemmingland. DFH has more on the p.c. whitewashing. And Scotland Yard Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson goes out of his way to assuage Muslim grievance-mongers: "This is not about communities: it is about criminals, murderers, people who want to commit mass murder."

Speaking of stupid biased coverage, al Reuters suggests that Muslim anger not only over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also over Britain's support of Israel in the latest war with Hezbollah is to blame for the plot (which has been hatching for the last 8-9 months):

Britain has been criticized by Islamist militants for its military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tony Blair has also come under fire at home and abroad for following the U.S. lead and refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.

Jihad is all Tony Blair's fault!

Stephen Taylor has video of Scotland Yard and BAA press conferences in Britain on the unraveled conspiracy and handy breakdown of basics:

*The hubs of the attacks were to be Heathrow airport, Birmingham and Manchester.

*Twenty-one British muslims of Pakistani descent were arrested overnight (majority in London, others in Thames Valley and Birmingham). Two more suspects are currently fugitives (details unconfirmed). Up to 50 more being sought.

*Terrorists intended to detonate explosives in mid-air.

Well, this certainly puts that appalling BBC satire, "The Terrorism Awards," making fun of planes crashing into buildings, in its place, doesn't it? Are they laughing at the BBC now:

Here's the BBC coverage of the 8/10 plot, if you care to read it.

More details:

Heathrow Airport closed to all incoming flights not already in the air.

German carrier Lufthansa, Spanish airlines Iberia and Olympic have canceled all flights to the UK.

Carry-on luggage on U.K. flights is limited to:

-Pocket-size wallets and pocket-size purses plus contents (no handbags);
-essential travel documents (for example, passports and travel tickets);
-prescription drugs and essential medical items except in liquid form unless verified as authentic;
-spectacles and sunglasses, without cases;
-contact lens holders, without bottles of solution;
-for those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags);
-female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes);
-tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs; and
-keys (but no electrical key fobs).

Pajamas Media coverage here. Brendan Loy also has a massive round-up and notes the blanket ban on all liquids on airlines in the United States — including beverages, hair gels and lotions. More from TSA: "All travelers on commercial U.S. carriers... NO LIQUIDS OR GELS OF ANY KIND WILL BE PERMITTED IN CARRY ON BAGGAGE. ITEMS MUST BE IN CHECKED BAGGAGE. This includes all beverages, shampoo, sun tan lotion, creams, tooth paste, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency. Exception: Baby formula and medicines must be presented for inspection at the checkpoint."

Reader John reminds me that this new plot is almost identical to al Qaeda's foiled 1995 Operation Bojinka, part of which involved a massive, multi-plane terror attack on US-bound airplanes abroad. From Wikipedia:

Starting on January 21, 1995 and ending on January 22, 1995, they would set the bombs on 11 United States-bound airliners that had stopovers all around East Asia and Southeast Asia. All of the flights had two legs. The bombs would be planted inside life jackets under seats on the first leg, when each bomber would disembark. He would then board one or two more flights and repeat. After all of the bombers planted bombs on all of the flights, each man would then catch flights to Lahore, Pakistan. The men never needed U.S. visas, as they only would have stayed on the planes on their first legs in Asia.

United States airlines had been chosen instead of Asian airlines to maximize the shock toward Americans. The flights targeted were listed under operatives with codenames: "Zyed", "Majbos", "Markoa", "Mirqas" and "Obaid". Obaid, who was really Abdul Hakim Murad, was to hit United flight 80, and then he was to go back to Singapore under another United flight which he would bomb.

Zyed, probably Ramzi Yousef, was to hit Northwest Flight 30, a United Flight going from Taipei to Honolulu, and a United Flight going from Bangkok to Taipei to San Francisco.

The bombs would have been timed before the operatives stepped off the planes. The aircraft would have blown up over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea almost simultaneously. If this plan worked, several thousand would have perished, and air travel would have been shut down worldwide for days, if not weeks. The U.S. government estimated the prospective death toll to be about 4,000 if the plot had been executed.

Andy McCarthy adds:

There is obviously a focus here on liquid explosives, out of the belief that they would defeat screening detectors. The '94 plot involved explosive components that the bomber could assemble in the plane's bathroom and that could be detonated by a timer (a simple wrist-watch, if I'm remembering correctly). Yousef put one of these together in a test-run. He boarded a plane making one stop enroute to the U.S. On the first leg, he put together the device and planted it under his seat. He then did not contine on the second leg. The bomb detonated, killing a Japanese national and nearly bringing the flight down.

There is often a long time between attacks, but the jihadists are not idling. They refine their tactics, and they often go back, again and again, to the same targets and the same plans.

Walid Phares at The Counterterrorism Blog takes a closer look and has some questions, including:

6) Many have claimed that there are no Jihadi Terrorists in London during the past months arrests in Britain and "these are only Government conspiracies to single out specific communities, etc." If today's reports are verified, the latter question should be investigated as follow: Who is attempting to transform every lead against the Terrorists into a crisis with entire communities? Who in the UK and elsewhere is obstructing the full fledge war on Terrorism by protecting future Jihadi improvisation through accusing Governments (in the large sense of the word) of "political measures" while real Terror attempts are ongoing?

7) Is there a "Jihadi factory" in the UK which is targeting domestic and Transatlantic transportation; a factory that produces suicide bombers heading towards the Middle East, London subways and passengers flights towards the US? Who is ordering these strikes and are they located inside the British isles?

8) Are they British citizens? Who indoctrinates them and how and who forms these cells? Have they penetrated the technological and security systems of the Kingdom and are they receiving advice and help from the inside.

These and endless other questions are not only warranted after this plot but need to be taken to a higher dimension: looking at the "factory." For as long as there are Jihadi minds out there, improvisation from shoes to hand bags is only a process of mutation. In my book Future Jihad I called it just that: "Mutant Jihad."

The Washington Examiner has a highly relevant and timely editorial out this morning on the disappearing Egyptians and the sorry state of our entrance/immigration system.

***

Left-wing lunacy begins. Mary Katharine Ham catches the nutroots in full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome mode.

More moonbattery from an American ex-pat in Britain. (Hat tip- reader Susan). The title of the post is "A Sad Day for Liberty." Un-freaking-believable. A jihadi plot to down some 10-20 airplaines and kill thousands of people is foiled and this woman is whining because she won't be able to take a book on a plane and because Arabs are being profiled.

Scrappleface spoofs the almost-unspoofable.

Kathryn Lopez tracks dKosnuttery and DUnuttery. Here's a flashback to the American Left's response to the 7/7 bombings. Much more of the same on the way.