In Memoriam: Sandra W. Bradshaw, Killed Sept. 11, 2001

As a part of Project 2996, I  wrote about another individual I never met. I'd never heard her name, either. I only knew her as a part of a group: The people who perished on 9/11.

Sandy Bradshaw: 38, Loving wife, mother of two, stewardess on Flight 93 on 9/11/01. Eighteen years have now passed, and her two children are in their teens. Her son Nathan was a baby, and her daughter Alexandria, little more than one when their mother was taken from them.

Sandy, along with four siblings, grew up on a chicken ranch, of all places, but she dreamed of "flying the friendly skies" as a stewardess. She first became a "stew" for US Airways in 1990, but was laid off five months later. She met the man who was to become her husband, working as a pilot for US Air. By December of that same year, she was working for United Airlines.

She'd been working as a stewardess for over ten years, but with the arrival of her babies, she was cutting back her hours to spend more time with them. She was only making two, two day trips a month, the minimum amount of time she could work, when she took off on that fateful day.

Phil Bradshaw got a phone call from his wife that morning:

"Have you seen what's happening? Have you heard?" She asked in a calm voice. "We've been hijacked."

And, in the typical, gutsy manner of those aboard Flight 93, She told her husband that she and the other attendants were boiling water to throw at the hijackers.

A brave lady, a loving mom, a beloved wife, a devoted daughter, a caring sister. The last moments of her life were spent making sure that Flight 93 did not become yet another aerial bomb to be used on helpless civilians. We honor her bravery and we honor her life.

Sandy is survived by her husband, a daughter, a son, and a step-daughter, her parents, three sisters, and her brother.

She touched many lives and those who were touched by her miss her. Eighteen years later.

If I may add the same sentiments I have before, though I never met Sandy Bradshaw, I mourn for her and grieve with her family. The craven cowardice of those who would commit war by attacking defenseless civilians has not gone unavenged. Many of those who sowed the wind on 9/11 have reaped the whirlwind.

But, vengeance can never restore loss. What was taken from Sandy Bradshaw's family can never be replaced. Nor that of the 2,995 other families who lost loved ones on that day.

But, we can remember them. We can hold them in our hearts. And we can vow that so much as is in our power, it will never happen again.

Our hearts go out to the family of Sandy Bradshaw today. I hope that in some small way I have captured a bit of her essence to share. Our hearts are with you this day.
Rest in peace, Sandy.

You can read more about Sandy here:

United Stewardess Sandra W. Bradshaw

Flight crew: Sandra Bradshaw

United Heroes

Sandra Bradshaw

There's a video tribute to Sandy on You Tube here.

In Memoriam: Dwight David Darcy, Killed Sept. 11, 2001

As a part of Project 2996, I'm going to write to you about an individual I never met. I've never even heard his name. I only knew him as a part of a group: The people who perished on 9/11.

He was not a very imposing man, from his picture. I imagine you could pass him on the street and not think twice about it. Just like many of us. But, Dwight, if I may be so bold, had already lived through one World Trade Center attack before that fateful day.
He was there in 1993 when the WTC was bombed the first time. It made him a little jumpy. Sudden loud noises would startle him. For years, his wife, Veronica said, "Every time there was a bang, he would jump." But that did not deter him from returning to work.

Dwight was raising two sons, Kieran and Ryan, with his wife, living in Bronxville, N.Y., a little village about fifteen miles north of midtown Manhattan, home to about 6,500 people.

He was a Senior Attorney at the Port Authority of NY and NJ. He'd been with the Port Authority for 25 years. He was 55 at the time of the attack. A few years older than I was then. Years younger than I am now.

He served on the parish board of the St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church in Bronxville. He loved opera. He and his wife were frequent attendees at performances at the Met and the City Opera. He was a member of the New York Athletic Club.

He had a brother, Keith T. Darcy of Pound Ridge, NY, and a sister, Joan D. Sorgi of Darien, CT. who survived him, as well as an aunt, Claire Menagh of Manhattan, an uncle, George Kindermann of New London, NH, and several nieces and nephews.

A family man, with familial ties to other families. Much like you and I.

Here's what another 2,996 blogger said about Dwight:

Dwight was a Bronx native, graduated from Fordham Prep, Fordham University, and the Fordham University School of Law. He began his legal career as an Assistant D.A. in the Bronx in 1971, and joined the Port Authority in 1977. While at the Port Authority, Dwight specialized in labor relations, serving for many years as the Head of the Labor Relations Division.

Dwight was very active in charitable works in New York City. He served as president of the Catholic Big Brothers of NY, as well as, the president of the Parish Council of St. Joseph's Church in Bronxville. Dwight was also voted a life member of the Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of NY, and made an affiliate member of the Marist Brothers for his many years of service on the board of Mt. St. Michael Academy in the Bronx.

WHAT WAS DWIGHT LIKE?

"We kind of grew up together at the authority," said his friend and colleague Jeffery Green, the general counsel for the authority's legal team, made of up 75 lawyers. "He was very calm and logical and had a good sense of humor," Green said.

Outside of work, Darcy followed his favorite sports teams: The New York Yankees, the New York Giants and college basketball teams, Green said. "He was a devoted father and sports fan. He was a very big Yankee and Giants football fan. I would see him at the games."

Darcy had a way of winning people over. "Everyone who met him liked him. He took pride in his work and his family. He was a really good individual," Green said.

I received an email from someone who knew Dwight. They had this to say:

I first met Mr. Darcy in 1968. I was a Freshman at Mt. St. Michael Academy, a private Marist (Catholic) High School in the Bronx, NY. Although he had a Law degree, Dwight Darcy started his working life as an English teacher at the “Mount”. I had him for English 1 that year. I was very interested in history, and Mr. Darcy made it a point, during his lectures, to not only teach the fine points of English Grammar and Composition, but also expounded on American and World History, to which he added a large dose of Morals and Ethics. I was always fascinated by the breadth and depth of his knowledge, and made it a point to have discussions with him on these topics, even outside of class hours. He was an excellent role model, and I considered him an inspiration and mentor. He was a dynamic and dedicated teacher, and he had a profound effect on me. He is one of the few teachers I ever had, that I truly remember with fondness.

When I heard that he left teaching to practice law for the Port Authority, I knew that he was really following his true love, which he considered the true arena of human interaction. But I knew that future students would lose the opportunity to meet a truly remarkable person.

On 9-11, I was overwhelmingly heartbroken to learn that he did not survive the attack. It seemed like a horribly cruel injustice. Here was a man who was so kind, so dynamic, so profound, and so cognizant of the needs of others, who was caught up, with so many unfortunate others, in the effects of incredible madness and evil, and the result an overwhelming hatred of all mankind. I really could not believe it had actually happened. But I remember him with honor and respect, and with a deep sense of loss.

I hope this helps in illustrating the truly excellent person that he was.

Michael Cutrera

Dwight went to work September 11th, 2001, like he had on many other mornings, I would imagine, not dreaming of the horror and chaos that would await him. He worked on the 66th floor of the North tower. According to a co-worker, he'd had surgery on his foot several weeks before and was still in a cast. It would have made it difficult for him to take the stairs to flee the building.

He died at the hands of terrorists who did not care that Dwight was president of the Catholic Big Brothers of NY, where he helped disadvantaged youths. They did not care about the grieving widow and sons he would leave behind. The brother and sister, aunt and uncle left with a sense of terrible loss. The friends and acquaintances who would miss his kind words and encouragement. His death was not meaningless, because there is still meaning even when evil men commit evil deeds. His death was tragic in that it cut him off from whatever productive years he had left , the communion he spent with family and friends and the good deeds he would have done had he lived.

And though I never met Mr. Darcy, I mourn for him and grieve with his family. The craven cowardice of those who would commit war by attacking defenseless civilians has not gone unavenged. Many of those who sowed the wind on 9/11 have reaped the whirlwind.

But, vengeance can never restore loss. What was taken from Dwight Darcy's family can never be replaced. Nor that of the 2,995 other families who lost loved ones on that day.

But, we can remember them. We can hold them in our hearts. And we can vow that so much as is in our power, it will never happen again.

Our hearts go out to the family of Dwight Darcy today. I hope that in some small way I have captured a bit of his essence to share. Our hearts are with you this day.
Rest in peace, Mr. Darcy.


"Profiles in Grief" of The New York Times
Paid notice NYT
A Step in the Right Direction

On the 25 Year Anniversary of the First World Trade Center Attack

Today is the sad anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing. Twenty five years ago today, Islamic terrorists drov a truck bomb into the basement of the WTC, and detonated it, killing six and wounding many others.

Today, in the dueling memos of the House Intelligence Committee, we hear a lot about "sources and methods" that need to be kept secret. In 1993, instead of treating this as an act of war, President Bill Clinton treated it as a crime. And when the suspects were brought to trial, the defendants were entitled by law to "discovery": all of the evidence the prosecution had against them and how it was obtained. Sometimes referred to as "sources and methods".

The enemy defendants learning that the satellite phones they thought could not be tapped were intercepted routinely by the NSA, afterwards stopped using them to coordinate their attacks. Likewise there was an attorney doing pro-bono work for terrorists at Gitmo, who also wanted them tried in a court of law as criminals rather than enemy combatants. That would be Eric Holder, and the results would have been the same: legally requiring US intelligence agencies to give up sources and methods so that these non-citizens could be afforded all the rights of American citizens.

The liberals' idea of "lawfare", treating acts of war as criminal acts, did not end well. The terrorists redoubled their efforts and eight years later attacked again, this time with more devastating results. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Terrorism is a scourge and we should not extend all of the rights and niceties that accompany US citizenship to foreign, terrorist combatants, not if we are serious in trying to end them.

Unabomber Chic and the Low Rent Domestic Terrorist

Unabomber then and now

Remember the Unabomber? That weird, reclusive domestic terrorist guy holed up in his cabin with nothing but a copy of Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" and a box of crazy flakes, as he plotted which of his fellow citizens he had to kill in order to save Mother Gaia.  While he was out saving the environment through better bombing, he wore a mask. Even though he was nuttier than squirrel poop about the environment, he didn't want to get caught!

I noticed a certain fashion sense that Ted Kaczynski shared with many of the people we find in our streets today, on the avant-garde of protests, as opposed to American protesters in years past. When I started writing this, I was just going to highlight the differences between the Civil Rights marches of the sixties, with marchers in coats and ties, holding America flags (right side up), not wearing masks to hide who they were, and contrast them with the low rent domestic terrorists prowling the streets today.

When Milo Yiannopoulos was denied the opportunity to speak at UC Berkeley, it might have been dismissed as a unique occurrence,  the assaults, the vandalism, setting fires and rioting in the streets, but since then there have been at least three more instances of conservative speakers being denied the opportunity to speak, accompanied by assaults, the vandalism, setting fires and rioting in the streets. Mask clad thugs roam the streets of Charlottesville, St. Louis and Berkeley, spreading violence in their wake, even attacking disabled vets and grandmothers (who must look like Nazis in ways I cannot even comprehend!)  And don't get me started on the masked individuals in the pro-illegal alien/open borders rallies!
An exception to the rule, however, occurred in Berkeley, of all places, when Ben Shapiro spoke recently. The school spent by some accounts $600,000 for additional security: officers from all of the UC system campuses, salaries, transportation, overtime and the erection of concrete barriers...most of which, turned out, were not necessary.

That's not to say there wasn't any violence. At least one young lady, was stabbed in the neck for holding a sign supporting Shapiro. Not that it wasn't inflammatory! There was a peace sign on it, a heart and the word "shalom".

To a murderous Antifa thug this translates loosely to "Stab me, I'm a Nazi".

But there wasn't any widespread rioting, due, in my humble opinion, to two things: one, the officers were authorized to use pepper spray. This meant that there were immediate consequences to any bad actions by the crowd. But secondly, and more importantly IMHO, was that the police required that the protesters remove their masks.

They say that sunlight is the best disinfectant, well that seems to have proven true here. Stripped of their anonymity, and faced with the prospect of being identified and incarcerated for any felonious activity, most of the felonious activity ceased.  Whodathunk it?

I know that a number of municipalities have laws on the books about wearing masks at public demonstrations, although they are not always enforced. My recommendations to limit street violence are twofold:

One, if your city does not have an ordinance on the books regulating/prohibiting the wearing of masks at public demonstrations, write one. There are many cities that have them, Washington D.C. for example, you could copy theirs.
Pineville KY recently passed an ordinance:

The law, which took effect Wednesday, bars anyone over 16 from publicly wearing a hood, mask, false whiskers or other disguise that conceals the wearer’s identity. It has exemptions for Halloween, people in theatrical or circus productions and people who wear masks for work or health reasons.

Washington D.C. has had an anti-mask law on the books since the early 80's:

§ 22–3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.

Second, enforce the law. Taking the masks off these cowardly thugs is a variation of the "broken windows" theory of law enforcement. Enforce the seemingly minor laws to see a reduction in major crimes.  Force these cowardly miscreants to show their faces in public or leave.

Oh, and if you have to arrest any of these fine upstanding citizens, photograph them and fingerprint them, so that when they go to some other town to make trouble, police will have a record of their participation. I'm sure we can think of an appropriate "participation trophy" we can give them all!

Obama on Terrorism

Obama Calls for World to Unite Against War on Terror

Obama setting the example.

"Give us Your Tired, Poor Teeming Masses, No Huddle, Fourth and Long"

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

-Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus

"We can't turn them away! That's not who we are!" Maybe we are, but even if so, I suspect that's not how we always were. But, before we move to make "The New Colossus" our 28th Amendment, let's parse it a bit and apply it to our present situation. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." I think that's an important qualifier right there: "yearning to breathe free". People came to America, come to America, because it is a land of freedom and opportunity. People who love freedom and desire it for themselves and others should always be welcome here.

The irony of so many people quoting the Emma Lazarus poem, ensconced on a bronze plaque on Ellis Island, is that while most of our European immigrants came through Ellis Island, it was also a point to turn some away. If you were healthy and could support yourself, Step this way! Right over here! If you were too sick to work, you were invited to go back wherever you came from, regardless of race, creed or color. I guess that was 'who we were'?

I was reading in my dead tree paper the other day, an account of a man who was seven years old in 1939, on a ship of about 800 Jewish refugees, being turned away from Florida ports. Was FDR afraid of seven year olds, Mr. Obama? They were fleeing the advent of the Third Reich, and unbeknownst to them at the time, the gas chambers of concentration camps. FDR must not have thought "That's not who we are" at the time when he turned them away.

Do we want to emulate Mr. Roosevelt? I don't think so. It does give a little historic perspective: just because you are needy, even fleeing a war zone, does not entitle you automatic entrance into the US.  (This also includes our southern border) I don't think FDR feared the potential presence of a jihadist among the Jewish refugees. Nor do we want to emulate Bill Clinton, whose jack booted thugs grabbed little Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint to forcibly remove him back to Cuba.

Seems to me, there must be a path between the two extremes of let everybody in and let no one in. I do believe though, that as we did once on Ellis Island, we should try to vet those immigrants who are yearning to breathe free and would be a good fit in our country. Despite President Stompy Foot's assertion that "Republicans fear 3 year olds", there is a real concern that an influx of single males, of military age, could contain ISIS sleepers, or yet more malcontents like the Tsarnaev brothers of Boston Marathon bombing fame and their dear sweet mother!

Our immigration policy ought not to be a suicide pact. Obama beclowns himself when he tries to minimize the genuine concerns over letting potential terrorists into the heartland, by his use of ridicule and scorn. Care should be taken to screen those coming into the country, not just for terrorist ties, but for their ability to assimilate and to keep the American dream alive for yet another generation.

Good people can differ on exactly how they might accomplish that, though I suspect the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.


Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Golden Oldie: "We Will Follow Them to the Gates of Hell" -Joe Biden

Remember just nine short months ago, Joe Biden was talking about the terrible resolve of the United States to pursue terrorists who would harm Americans?

Anyone else see the disconnect between Joe's rhetoric and the vacuum of leadership of the current administration?

Leading From Behind, By Behinds

Before You Argue the Point, Know Your Bible First

______

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

This is not a religious post. 

But if conservatives – whom, by every measure available, already give more money to charity than our socially-conscious, deeply-caring liberal brethren (*cough*) – contributed a mere dime apiece to favorite charities for every leftist counter-argument they heard based on either pure emotion or hackneyed talking points, there would not be a single homeless, hungry, or shoeless human being in all the land. There might even be enough coin left over to wipe out a few diseases and have every alley cat in Brooklyn spayed or neutered.

Since the Paris terrorist attacks, among those who actually admit that Islamists were responsible, debate has been hot and heavy in all media corners regarding exactly what the Koran actually says and means. What does it endorse? Are these kinds of barbaric acts really acceptable to Allah? And what of all the barbarity in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles? How can we criticize the Koran when the Old Testament, in particular, is rife with such brutal and vulgar displays?

Often quoted by atheists and religious skeptics, considered to be the benchmark example of primitive justice, cruelty and incivility in the Bible is Exodus 23-25:

 “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,  Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,  Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

The famous “eye for an eye” verse…

 

After all, to a civilized, sophisticated culture, what could be more barbarous than the idea of cutting out someone’s eye as a dispersal of justice? The concept – and the belief in a God that would issue such an edict – is as primordial as giving up your seat for a woman on the subway, or wishing someone a Merry Christmas without being absolutely sure of their own religious leanings.

How many times have we heard this nugget, attributed to Gandhi: “An eye for an eye simply makes the whole world blind.”

Adorable. That's right up there with "War Is Not the Answer." Indeed, war isn't the answer ...if the question is, "What is the square root of 116?"

But that’s not what it means. That’s not what it has ever meant. But as is the wont of the emotions-first, bumper-sticker-lovin' left, the jerking knee does so in a reflex of emotion and ignorance, not honesty or historical context.  One does not have to be a believer to understand what the aforementioned Bible verse is meant to convey;  And if there were intellectual honesty on the left, regardless of one’s religious belief, one would see that the verse is not primitive, in the least. In fact, it can be looked at as a great step forward - a progressive step, if you will – in the history of jurisprudence.

Never in human history were members of the so-called lower classes – peasants, indentured servants, etc - considered to be on an equal level in any way as those in the royal or ruling classes. Contrary to the tiresome and uninspired “every god is just an angry, cruel, vicious man in the sky” arguments, the Bible actually invents a hardcore liberal value: equality. 

The verse establishes that everyone’s “eye” or “hand” is equal, regardless of economic and social status. A rich man’s eye was no more valuable on the scales of justice than a poor man’s eye.  

That concept is a big deal.

It creates equality in law – something that the left should adore as much as windmills. Thus, if an eye is taken, one could not seek two eyes as a form of just punishment.  This is true equality that transcends class – something the left is really big on.

The “eye for eye” concept simply cannot be taken literally, because it could never be executed consistently or justly (save for the idea of a life for a life, which I will touch upon in a moment). In fact, one cannot cite a single example of that kind of literal justice being metered out in the Bible anywhere. It just is not possible to reserve and carry out justice in punishment to that which could literally replicate the crime – as much as many of us would love to see it done in certain instances. 

Besides, equivalent physical damage could never be exacted in this way during that time period. There were no top flight medical facilities thousands of years ago. Antibiotics were still millennia away. Scooping out an eye could literally lead to death – and by definition, that would be contrary to the rule. One would think God is wise enough to understand this.

Additionally, if we take the verse literally, could a blind person escape justice with no working eyes to extract?

The exception here is the justice of a life for a life – that one who murders the innocent (and the word “murder” is key here) shall not be able to keep his or her own life. This law appears in each of the first five books of the Bible, known to Jews as the Torah. It is the only law to appear in each the Torah’s five books. To take an innocent life by way of murder means that the murderer no longer has the right to keep his or her own life.

And how do we know this is to be taken literally, whereas the “eye for an eye” verses are not?

The Bible actually states that one cannot ransom a human life (Psalm 49:8) – meaning that no amount of bartering, bargaining or deal making can ever be made as to make the loss of that murdered life "even." There is no provision, however, prohibiting the ransom of a body part such as an “eye” or a “hand.”

I would be willing to guarantee that most on the left have never even heard these arguments based not only on the biblical text itself, but on centuries and centuries of scholarly examination and discussion. 

To the left, the phrase “eye for an eye” sounds so awful, so unevolved, so close-minded … thus those who are repulsed by the idea of a transcendent creator making the rules have ammunition – albeit in the form of intellectually inane bullets – to shoot down religion in the name of civility and reason. 

The problem is: I’ve heard this argument come from so-called moderate Muslims as proof that all faiths have their questionable doctrines to wrestle with.

Well, to be fair.... indeed, they do (the word "Israel" literally means "struggle with God") … but “eye for eye” is not one of them. 

Try again.

_________________

"Trading Private Bergdahl"

Mad Magazine had this tremendous parody up on their Twitter account, @MADmagazine:


Coincidentally, a lot of people have been bandying about a word that sounds a lot like "trader".

Michelle Haz a Sad...

It's not like her husband could actually do anything about it!

http://cheezburger.com/8179318016

Language Tortured in Aftermath of Marathon Bombing

One of the casualties in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing and terror spree, is language, or at least common sense in regards to language. Rush Limbaugh today played a montage of news anchors and commentators referring to the Boston Marathon bombers as "kids". It was unreal. There must have been at least two dozen, if not more, newspeople and talking heads using the word "kids" to describe two cold blooded killers.

FYI, These are "kids":


Kids brainwashed and blinded by hatred, but kids, nonetheless. Nineteen and twenty-six year olds, who plot and plant bombs designed to maximize death and dismemberment, and get in shootouts with police are not "kids". Not sure what the endgame of this particular meme is here. Maybe to make Dzhokhar Tsarnaev more sympathetic to those who see him more as an enemy combatant, subject to interrogation, rather than a "first time offender" in the criminal justice system, entitled to full Miranda rights...

The second thing that bothered me was in today's news coverage, a statement by the surviving bomber about the motivation of his brother:

The surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect has told investigators that his brother orchestrated the attacks because he 'wanted to defend Islam from attack'...

"He 'wanted to defend Islam from attack'...". And the 30,000 runners, 8,500 volunteers, 1,100 media members and 500,000 spectators of the Boston Marathon were the primary enemies of Islam? What? Had they just run 26.2 miles to desecrate a mosque?? Passed out cartoons of Mohammed to wear in lieu of numbers???

This is not a reason. A rationalization, perhaps, but, this is only an excuse. Nothing more. Random murder to make a political statement is not a "defense" of anything. This seems to me to be the groundwork for a variation of SODDit. Some Other Dude Did it. My dead brother was the mastermind. He talked me into it. I was just some dumb "kid" who looked up to his big brother. Blame the dead guy, not me!

Kids a lot younger than 19 have been tried as adults. Kids who acted without as much premeditation or planning as this attack. I don't care if this guy wasn't the ringleader. He participated in a deadly bombing and shoot out which killed and maimed people, scarring them for life. He is clearly old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. His careless disregard of human life prior to the attack, through his attempt to escape, so that he could kill again, makes this guy a candidate for lethal injection. Whether or not the Obama justice department, which fumbled a case as simple as the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, can obtain justice for the victims of the Boston Marathon and its aftermath, remains to be seen.


Cross posted at LCR.

The Foreign-Policy Disaster Maker

by Andrew Roman

_______________________

So, while the American left obsessively spent most of the last thirty six hours or so trying to divert attention away from the continuing disaster that is Barack Obama in the White House, my thoughts were focused on matters that are actually relevant to the real world.

Islamic rage was all the rage late last week. It continued into the weekend and right on into this week at points all across the globe. From the assault on our embassy in Cairo to the murder of four Americans in Libya, from the fires set at our embassy in Tunisia to mobs burning our flag in London, there was no respite.  We were told that an obscure video negatively depicting the Prophet Mohammed was responsible for triggering this latest edition of Muslim fury. The shock waves of this insult even found its way onto American shores when two college campuses were shut down and evacuated last Friday due to threats from some entity identifying itself as Al Qaeda. The nuclear facility at the University of Texas was also evacuated.

On Monday, we heard of new waves of protests breaking out in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Yesterday, we heard about an Iranian submarine being deployed in the Persian Gulf.

And while we were reminded by the First Lady last week that the greatest threat to national security is, in fact, obesity, anyone who may have been holding their breath waiting for the President (or anyone in this administration) to use the words “terrorist” or “terrorism” - or heaven forbid it, an “act of war” – regarding the attacks on our consulate and embassies has long since keeled over. (Just imagine if the terrorists had stormed the consulate brandishing twinkies and Doritos). Equally, anyone who may have been hoping for a strong showing from the leader of the free world in the wake of terrorist acts against American interests on the eleventh anniversary of the worst single act of terrorism in this country’s history had better find a new place to channel that hope.

The lamestream media did not see the immediate need, nor recognize the immediate relevance, in asking this President of the United States why security was not beefed up at American embassies in hostile territories for the 9/11 anniversary, but have had no problem utilizing every nanosecond of air time over the past day and a half to turn its collective focus on Mitt Romney and comments he made about non-income-tax-paying Americans.   (Had Obama been a Republican is there any doubt he’d have been hammered with this obvious question?) They didn’t bother to inquire as to why he, as Commander-In-Chief, did not (and still does not) feel the need to attend the majority of his own intelligence briefings. They didn’t even ask how he and fellow Democrats can claim that Mitt Romney was playing politics with the events overseas when President Obama himself flew to a Las Vegas fundraiser that same day.

Fortunately for us, the White House on Friday assured the public that the anti-American violence was not directed at the United States.

Repeat: Not directed at the United States.

It must have been the storming of the American embassies, the torching of American flags and the burning of President Obama in effigy that confused me.

Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, wasted no time espousing the administration’s view that the inane little anti-Mohammed YouTube video being “credited” for triggering all of this terroristic upheaval – the one unseen and unheard of by just about every living human being on earth – was officially judged to “be reprehensible and disgusting.”

Thank heaven that was cleared up.

So, in the wake of Americans being murdered and our interests remaining under assault overseas, while our embassies were being attacked, while American flags were being burned, while protests were spreading, and while the entire region teetered on the brink of full explosion, our President wanted to let the bad guys know that we think the film that supposedly made all of them mad is disgusting?

Leadership.

Meanwhile, those of us who recoil and wince at this ongoing projection of American weakness and appeasement do not give a rat’s earlobe how offended or insulted radical murderers become. The instant the decision was made  to trade insults for innocent lives, their feelings about anything became irrelevant. The fact that Americans were murdered because of an amateurish internet movie that no one saw, followed by an official stance of “I’m sorry” by our pathetic Clinton-run State Department was – and is – enough to make me sick. Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to hear which adjectives the White House will muster to describe the breeches of American sovereignty through these terrorist acts overseas. Surely, Obamacrats are aware that embassies actually do represent sovereign states - that an attack on an embassy is, by definition, an attack on the country itself.

Oh wait, these events transpired last week. It's old hat. It's immaterial today because that lout Mitt Romney had the nerve – the unmitigated gall – to talk about the 47% of Americans who do not pay income tax….their fair share, to quote a phrase.

To his credit, Carney did concede that the ever-escalating acts of protest and violence overseas were “fairly volatile.”

Fairly volatile.

Yet the movie was reprehensible.

I cannot help but ponder: How many dead Americans move that word from the “fairly volatile” column to the “reprehensible” column.

Indeed, there are times when it is impossible to determine whether or not this administration is actually as incompetent and clueless as they portray themselves, or whether they are commandeering a calculated effort to make sure that no one alive (save for Christians and Republicans) is ever offended again – as if to be loved is (or should be) the United States’ purpose on this globe. On a daily basis, I watch how this President handles himself, this country and world at large, and almost daily I am astounded at the absolute ineptitude I see.

How, for instance, can the President of the United States look so ridiculously indecisive – I mean embarrassingly bad - when asked if Egypt is an American ally? 

How can he possibly say that Mitt Romney “shoots before he aims” when the President himself jumped the gun (if not the entire arsenal) when declaring the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department stupid in what was a nonexistent case of racism in the matter of Professor Henry Gates? Or commenting on the Trayvon Martin killing before knowing any of the facts (wasting no time interjecting his race into the matter).

This is the man who has, time and time again, spoke ill of his own country on foreign soil and has bowed to foreign heads of state. He has adopted an apology-first approach in dealing with the world-at-large – his I’m- sorry-we’re- so-big-and-powerful motif - that has done nothing but alienate long-time friends and allies while emboldening America’s enemies. It quite literally sickens me.

He continues his hell-bent pursuit of reducing America’s relevance and influence in the world, while proffering a position of moral equivalence – the How-can-I-ask-Iran-To-Not-Pursue-Nukes-When-We-Have-So-Many approach.  He is almost obsessed with being as inoffensive as he can to those who would – and do – commit evil acts on innocents (the “t” word), but has absolutely no problem unleashing his wrath on American entrepreneurs and innovators with his “you didn’t build that” message.

The man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing and for saying that he was uniquely qualified to bring stability to American-Muslim relations – the man who predicted that his living in a Muslim country as a boy would be a useful tool in promoting international Kumbaya, saying, “I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view” – must now be wondering what has gone wrong. Everything was in place for a complete transmutation of a pre-Obama world into a post-everything age of peace, stability and fuzzy bunnies. 

Surely, this unrest cannot be because of him - the leader of a fundamentally transforming United States - or his policies. It must be - has to be - that lousy filmmaker. After all, President Obama has a half-Indonesian sister.

This is the man who apologized in Cairo for his country employing interrogation techniques that saved countless innocent lives and ultimately contributed to the killing of Osama Bin Ladin. This is the man who has called his own country arrogant and dismissive. This is the man who condemned his own nation for “too often” making decisions “based on fear rather than foresight.” This is the man who publically announced military withdrawal dates from war zones, thus lightening the load for our enemies. This is the man who said nothing while Iran’s government killed innocents during uprisings there. This is the man determined to make dangerous and drastic cuts to our defense budget.

So, in a world where angry Muslims seem to be dictating the terms – a world where French fear is prompting the closure of twenty of its embassies worldwide because of a cartoon – the President of the United States continues to believe that peace through softness is the correct course. In a world where our collapsing exit strategy in Afghanistan is making things exponentially more unstable and chaotic, the President finds time for $40,000-a-plate fundraisers in New York and fun-loving sit-downs with David Letterman. In a world where video cameras just happened to be present as police found and took into custody the two-bit movie maker in the middle of the night (for other reasons, of course), President Obama parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Meanwhile, the press continues its assault on Mitt Romney, that heartless bastard.

Welcome to the future, Mr. President.

You did build this.

-

Spam Foils Russian Black Widow Terrorist New Year's Eve Bombing

"Press One for English"

A wannabee terrorist bomber became a true suicide bomber last New Year's Eve.

A "Black Widow" suicide bomber planned a terrorist attack in central Moscow on New Year's Eve but was killed when an unexpected text message set off her bomb too early, according to Russian security sources.

When I first heard this story, it was just described as a "Happy New Year" message. Now, it appears that this was a spam message from her cell phone carrier, much like the very sincere birthday wishes you get from your insurance agent.

The unnamed woman, who is thought to be part of the same group that struck Moscow's Domodedovo airport on Monday, intended to detonate a suicide belt on a busy square near Red Square on New Year's Eve in an attack that could have killed hundreds.

Security sources believe a spam message from her mobile phone operator wishing her a happy new year received just hours before the planned attack triggered her suicide belt, killing her but nobody else.

Which begs the question, when a female suicide bomber blows herself up, does she get 72 virgin (inexperienced) guys? Ladies, is that the dream for you?

H/T Wizbang

September 11th - The Reason

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

-------------------------------

Two years ago, during the presidential campaign season, as the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann demonstrated yet again why he is not only one of America’s most colossal jackasses, but an undisciplined dullard. (The extraordinarily obvious is sometimes more beneficial than the simply obvious). Olbermann's repulsive on-air reaction to a video played at the Republican National Convention paying tribute to the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was beyond the pale, even for him. When the video was finished, Olbermann hoisted his holier-than-thou head and had the unadulterated nerve to apologize to the viewers for the network's decision to broadcast the segment. To Keith, and others of his leftist strain, this was a tasteless exploitation by Republicans. To others, it was counterfeit indignation wrapped in political expediency. As one blogger to the Olbermannwatch.com website commented, “His outrage is always so phony, it's hard to believe anyone could buy into it.”

Phony or not, Olbermann's outrage at the mere mention of anything related to the September 11th attacks by anyone other than conspiracists, Bush-haters and film documentarians is not exactly uncommon. I used to believe it was confined only to the fringe left, but I was mistaken. Almost all Democrats instinctively believe that Republicans only mention the attacks as a means of procuring a political advantage. The fact that the main-stream media is, at worst, sympathetic to the American left helps explain why September 11, 2001 is the enormous elephant in this country’s living room.

It's another example of how the American left truly believes that it simply isn't possible for any of us on the right to simply disagree with liberals without having sinister motives. It isn't possible for conservatives to simply think differently from liberals without being some form of bigot or xenophobe. It isn't possible for us to oppose someone like Barack Obama without being a hater of some sort. It isn't possible to pay tribute and honor the heroes and victims of the worst terrorist attack on this country without trying to score political points.

We are not only wrong, we're bad.

You'll also recall last year the date of September 11th was being hailed as America's "first day of service" - a day to volunteer and "encourage and facilitate community service across the country." As "Greater DC Cares" said on its website, it was to be a day for cleaning parks, serving meals to the hungry, restoring our national monuments, and much more.

As I wrote four years ago, there is a peculiarly conspicuous gap in our cultural landscape when it comes to horrific events of September 11, 2001. It is almost as if the images of that fateful day have all but been purged from our societal canvas. The sights and sounds of September 11th - save for the occasional scene of the burning towers in a random news story - are almost entirely tucked away from the American public’s senses by purveyors of news and information, in a way that’s almost conspiratorial. The result is that Americans in large numbers have almost forgotten how it felt on that morning to witness the murder and destruction that unfolded before our eyes, on live television. It’s almost as if it never really happened, or that it occurred so long ago as not to be relevant anymore. In a culture where barely-watched, insipid sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980’s merit their own DVD boxed sets, the images of that morning remain practically hidden.

Consider, for example, how the American people for several years were peppered daily with images of bombed-out vehicles in Iraq, the remnants of body parts and ambushed convoys from road-side bombs, the wreckage of mangled helicopters and images of burning buildings in busy Baghdad neighborhoods. It was a veritable brochure of How-to-do-it terrorism furnished by the mainstream media to illustrate the horrors of what happens while American forces continue to “occupy” a foreign land. But go ahead and try to find anything that depicts the savage murder of civilians in this country by fanatics, and you might as well be looking for Republicans on the New York City Council.

Today, it has been nine years since the horrific attacks that claimed nearly three thousand innocents. Regrettably, the very event that forever changed the course of the world has dissolved into our daily lexicon as two innocuous numbers spoken in succession: nine, eleven. How detached we’ve become to the sheer brutality; it has become a hyphenated four-syllable point of reference without visual reinforcement. In this fantastic age of image stimuli, where everything is instantaneous and accessible, it is criminal that the defining event of this generation – and arguably in our nation’s history – has slipped from our ever-shrinking attention spans.

True, often times we cannot go a single day - sometimes hours - without hearing those two words in some context: nine, eleven. But its impact has diminished. And while it is perfectly natural for the raw emotions of that day to wane, we’re still at war. Unbelievably, only nine years after the fact, the images of 9/11 are less vivid than the faces of rejected American Idol contestants. It is an injustice of the highest order to the victims and a profound disservice to those who serve in harm’s way.

I fully appreciate that there are many who don’t wish to see the horrific footage of that Tuesday morning ever again – especially those directly affected by the attacks and aftermath. Indeed, I have a friend who spent many days at Ground Zero in the days following the attacks, digging through the rubble and remains of the pulverized World Trade Center. He’s told me that he personally could go the rest of his life without ever seeing those pictures again. However, he was quick to add that America should revisit that day, even if only once in a while, to remember why this war continues to be fought.

The people of this nation must be reminded over and over again exactly why we are fighting, with whom we are fighting and what these brutal unconscionable killers have done to us – and what they will do to us if given the opportunity. The harrowing images of the evil that is terrorism – such as those desperate souls leaping from the burning towers - should never leave us. We owe it to the victims of the September 11th attacks, to all those who have sacrificed to defeat this enemy, and to future generations to not only defeat terrorism wherever it is but to understand precisely why we’re doing it.

For many like me, the memories of that day have not dissipated, nor should they for any American.

Unfortunately, for many it has, and with it, that sense of urgency to pursue and eliminate those who did this to us before they can do it again.

Would there even be a debate about opening an Islamic cultural center and mosque at Ground Zero if it hadn't?

America today, more so than at any time in her history, is a visual society. We crave stimuli at an incessant pace. We’ve evolved into a seeing-is-believing culture where almost anything on God’s green earth is a mere click away. Images serve as our prime validators. Additionally, we are a people easily distracted and quickly-bored. Out-of-sight, out of mind. We are a culture of channel surfers pulling our dinners from microwave ovens. We keep in touch with friends and loved ones via instant-messaging and broadband internet connections. We can take pictures, download files, zap e-mails and balance our check books on a cell phone.

But we are not a heartless society. We are, without a doubt, a most forgiving people. And it is specifically that otherwise admirable quality I fear has begun to take hold across the map before its time. Now is not the moment to forgive the enemy. They still exist. Inasmuch as we have to be reminded exactly what they did to us, with troops in harm's way, and terrorists continually plotting to hit us, it is perfectly reasonable to those of us who fully appreciate the scope of the war to be utterly disgusted with images of road-side bomb craters and other negative stories about our forces while an almost purposeful effort is made to shield us from the 9/11 attacks - like we might actually rally around the war effort.

Am I talking about the need for establishing a 24-hour 9/11 satellite channel?
Of course not.

But how about an actual clip of one of the twin towers collapsing into the streets of Manhattan the next time a news story about the 9/11 attacks hits the air? Or how about that second plane slamming into the south tower when a story about the War on Terror and terrorism in the United States plays? After all, it did happen, despite the attempts of the American Leftocracy to pretend it didn't.

In anecdotal terms, the video images of the September 11th attacks are powerful weapons. I have watched the faces of those who hadn't seen the "as-it-happened" accounts of that day for years, and it is a profound experience. (You'll recall that a video documentary I produced chronicling the events of that day was roundly criticized by a New York Times columnist recently as "rhetoric"). Those of us who were paying attention eight years ago obviously haven’t forgotten the event. Indeed, we all have our own memories of that terrible morning, just as we have memories of anything that occurred in our past. But actually affording one’s self the chance to relive that particular Tuesday morning by seeing the events unfold once again conjures up a different type of "memory" – one seeded in an indescribable kind of outrage and violation, of inexplicable horror and seething anger – the kind of “memory” this nation needs to hold on to while American men and women serve in harm’s way. Indeed, after viewing the tapes of that morning with a selected gathering of people, my closest friend turned to me and said, "I forgot how horrible it was."

That's what I mean. He obviously remembers the day as we all do … but images speak volumes.

To the great credit of MSNBC, that network has rebroadcast its original coverage of the 9/11 attacks, as it happened nine years ago today.

For those of us who do not need to be alloted a specific day by the government as a time for service - those of us who view everyday as a day to do onto our neighbors as we would have them do onto us - I choose to remember September 11th as the day evil revealed itself with stunning clarity on our home turf, wiping nearly three thousand innocent lives from the face of the Earth. I choose to remember it as a day wrought with unspeakable horror and unparalled heroism. I choose not to diminish its incalculable impact on all of our lives, nor dishonor the dead and their family members, by attempting to purge it from American consciousness.

September 11th is the day I remind myself of how fortunate I am to live as a free man in the greatest country on the planet - and how quickly everything we take for granted can be taken away.

-

The President, Constitutional Illiteracy And Ground Zero

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

The President supports the Ground Zero mosque

If New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a fool – and it’s hard to argue the point – then how exactly would (or could) one characterize President Barack Obama?

Be creative.

My bag of hackneyed adjectives has been raided so much during the first nineteen months of the Messianic Age that I’m left with nothing but literary lint and a deep aching for a “What Could Have Been” McCain presidency. (That’s pretty scary in and of itself).

Michael Bloomberg - sage, arbiter of social justice, salt and cigarette warrior – has openly supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center in the name of tolerance and acceptance, much to the delight of the New York Times. The irony, of course, is that such a center is needed least of all in America, the most accommodating and tolerant nation on Earth.

Bloomberg has carelessly and inappropriately yanked on the First Amendment as some sort of justification (and validation) for the Islamic Cultural Center’s construction two blocks away from the site of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history, an attack perpetrated in the name of Islam. The fact that the entire issue has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with religious freedom somehow escapes the billionaire three-term mayor.

It’s a point worth beleaguering.

Muslims are, in fact, perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs in the United States of America. That’s precisely what the First Amendment says. They cannot be denied the right to be observant Muslims. And, as has been noted endlessly, they can do so in any of the over one hundred mosques located in the Big Apple, if they so choose.

But King Bloomberg says the proposed Ground Zero mosque and cultural center must go up because the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is on the chopping block.

It’s an argument that makes a lot of sense … if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

Religious freedom isn't the issue here. There is no threat whatsoever - not a scintilla's worth - to the Constitutional right of religious freedom in the opposition to this mosque and cultural center.

This issue is about sensitivity, compassion and common sense.

It's also about the Mayor being terrified of enflaming Muslims.

New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg

You’ll recall Bloomberg is the same mayor who asserted that the Times Square bomber was probably a disgruntled opponent of Obama Care.

The Mayor doesn't seem to get the point that it is not unreasonable for people directly affected by the 9/11 attacks to object to a house of worship being constructed mere steps from the site of an act of unprecedented evil - a terrorist attack carried out by those who murdered nearly three-thousand innocents in the name of that particular faith.

But in Bloomy’s world, if people do object, it’s simply too bad.  Their objections are not to be tolerated.

It is up to them to adjust.

But now, into the ever-growing bouillabaisse of ignorance, insensitivity and stupidity – taking his rightful place along side the term-limit smashing mayor of New York - goes the young metrosexual from Chicago – our President - so enamored with intrusive government, so in over his head, so out of touch with the people he is charged to serve, that his incompetence in all arenas outside of the campaign-trail is (or should be) unquestioned among those who have functioning synapses.

On Friday, Barack Obama came out in favor of the construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque.

Of course he did.

It’s Ramadan.

And while he would not participate in the National Day of Prayer Service at the White House in May, he did take part in an iftar dinner last week - the evening meal at which Muslims break their fast during the month of Ramadan.

Iftar is a religous observance ... and the White House was more than happy to host the event.

He, like Bloomy, went on to justify his position by (conveniently) referencing the country’s founding principals, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

How exactly does one characterize a man who could make such a foolish statement?

How exactly is America’s commitment to religious freedom being compromised?

How is religious freedom in danger when the entire discussion is about one specific location in an area of Manhattan considered sacred to many – a war zone - where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam?

No one – repeat, no one - is calling for the removal of any already existing mosques in New York. No one is asking for any Islamic cultural centers – of which there are many in New York – to be shut down.

This is about the area in and around Ground Zero; a place where two tall towers used to stand, brought down in an act of war by followers of the very faith that did so in the name of that faith.

It is not unreasonable for people to object.

You'll recall that the White House was originally silent on the matter, saying only that it was a local issue ... even though it was the United States of America, as a nation, that was attacked on September 11, 2001.

site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque

Now, with Ramadan upon us - and the Ground Zero mosque controversy ever-growing across the country - the President has done an about face and decided that the matter is, indeed, a national issue worthy of his commentary and Constitutional prowess ... even though (once again) this is not about the Bill of Rights or religious freedom.

It never has been.

The moment the government keeps anyone from being a Muslim, please call me.

The second anyone is denied the right to follow Islam, let me know. It'll make for a fascinating article.

Rather, this is a matter of spectacular insensitivity on the part of the pro-mosque contingent - including our Commander-In-Chief.

Why is it that the feelings, emotions and sentiments of those supporting this mosque and cultural center are the only ones that matter here?

If this really is an issue of tolerance, why are the wishes of the 9/11 family members (as well as a majority of Americans opposed to its construction) not tolerated?

And let's keep in mind that there is not a Muslim community in lower Manhattan, save for street vendors and cab drivers. The goal in constructing this facility is to create a Muslim community in that portion of the city so that, in part, the 9/11 narrative can be changed.

On Saturday, Bammy tried to backtrack a bit, doing his best to have things both ways, saying:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

You can't make it up.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he was not endorsing the mosque and cultural center with his original remarks? That he was speaking in generalities? He specifically referred to the mosque in lower Manhattan in his comments on Friday, didn't he?

Come now, Mr. President.

Where in the Constitution is the expressed right to construct a house of worship anywhere anyone pleases?

What right is being infringed upon if construction is denied on that specific location? Aren't there over a hundred mosques in the city already?

Liberals are incredibly tedious, aren't they?

The real question is: Had America not been attacked on September 11, 2001, is there anyone who truly believes that this mosque and Islamic cultural center would still be built right there at the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory? (It might still be open had the building not been damaged by a wheel from one of the 9/11 hijacked planes).

And while many have not touched upon it, this is also an issue of national security.

The truth is, we would afford our enemies a sense of victory precisely because the mosque would go up within spitting distance of Ground Zero. The mayor said it himself … he supports this to show how tolerant we are. He, like so many on the Left, thinks this will impress the world - particularly Muslims - with American open-mindedness and acceptance.

What the Left doesn't comprehend - what they will never comprehend as long as they remain on the Left - is that our enemies don't see an olive branch. They see weakness.

Of course, after President Obama stepped away from his original statement about the mosque on Saturday, White House spokesman Bill Burton came out and said that Obama’s pullback was premature. The President, according to Burton, is “not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.”

Why should he?

Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas

President Obama continues to be in wonderful company. Support for the mosque has just come in from Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of the terrorist organization, Hamas – as if Saturday’s ringing endorsement from The Center for American Progress, a powerful leftist group, wasn’t enough.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said, "We have to build everywhere."

None of this is to be confused with yet another report from an “unnamed White House official” that the President made his support for the mosque public “purely on his own.”

Indeed, when the controversy was still a “local issue” – a position so drenched in stupidity as to be criminal – the President, at least, was out of the crosshairs of public sentiment.

Weak, but somewhat effective.

Now, with the Commander-In-Chief apparently taking it upon himself to let the world know that he endorses the construction of the mosque, stupidity (and downright ignorance) has been elevated to a new level at the expense of the citizenry he is charged to serve.

And no, he didn’t speak with Mike Bloomberg about this before hand either. It looks like Bammy did this all on his own.

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for The One.

Morally, he has hit rock bottom.

Tolerance is not caving into phantom visions of sugar-plum unity at the expense of the very real pain and suffering of 9/11 family members. Tolerance is not about crapping on Americans (like myself) who, to this day, feel the catastrophic effects of those attacks on our nation by people who did so in the name of that religion.

(I’ll keep repeating that until my fingertips explode)

It’s remarkably difficult to listen to rhetoric from proponents of the new Islamic cultural center about reaching out and building bridges when the moderate Muslims of the world who actually do renounce extremism remain silent and refuse to stand up loudly and proudly against terrorism with the rest of us.

This is not about legalities - about having the right to construct a mosque.

This is about what's right.

Homeland Insecurity

Washington (CNN) -- Just weeks after the failed car bombing of New York's Times Square, the Department of Homeland Security says "the number and pace of attempted attacks against the United States over the past nine months have surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period."

That grim assessment is contained in an unclassified DHS intelligence memo prepared for various law enforcement groups, which says terror groups are expected to try attacks inside the United States with "increased frequency."

CNN obtained a copy of the document, dated May 21, which goes on to warn, "we have to operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning."

An increased frequency of terror attacks and attempts. Could that be aided and abetted by the porous border to our south, where not everyone is coming here for a better life? (unless you count the 72 virgins!)

Law enforcement in Houston has been asked by U.S. Homeland Security to be on the lookout for a suspected member of an al-Qaida ally, the al-Shabaab group, based in Somalia.

We have an increased frequency of terror activities, and an alert because of an al-Qaida ally is suspected of coming across our open border.

Note to the reality impaired: It's not about race, it's about securing our border.
Always has been.

Left Wing Domestic Terrorist Convicted

Mmm! Nothing like a good Car-b-que!

Every now and then, you hear about some "genius" who sets a car lot of SUV's on fire or burns down some new construction to "save the environment". Here is the story of one such moron:

A Texas man who planted a gasoline bomb at a condominium development under construction in Pasadena was sentenced today to five years in federal prison.

Stephen James Murphy, 44, pleaded guilty in January to conspiring with another person involved in the underground extremist movement ELF to maliciously damage or destroy property.

"I apologize to the court and my fiance,'' Murphy told U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real during the sentencing hearing. "I look forward to going home when this is over and leading a good, quiet life from there.''

According to prosecutors, Murphy learned from an unindicted co-conspirator how to construct an incendiary device using a 64-ounce plastic juice bottle, gasoline and a delayed ignition timer.

The two planned on committing arson on behalf of ELF by using the device to burn down the under-construction condo building in hopes of intimidating and inflicting economic harm on individuals and companies they believed were causing harm to the environment, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Because nothing says "I love the environment" like sending toxic smoke from a burning building or SUV into the atmosphere! And seeing as how the building and cars burned by punks like ELF are insured, they will merely cause more pollution as their replacements are built and overly burden the poor and middle class whose insurance rates will go up to defray the cost of mindless vandalism.

Fortunately, the slackers who fancy themselves to be eco-terrorists are often an incompetent lot!

On Sept. 19, 2006, Murphy placed the device in a partially constructed unit in the condominium project known as Vista Del Arroyo Bungalows, which was being built directly beneath the Colorado Street Bridge in Pasadena, prosecutors said.

Before leaving the scene, Murphy lit the device with the intent to burn down the entire development under construction, according to the government.

However, the delayed-ignition timer failed before it could ignite the gasoline, prosecutors said.

Arson investigators determined that if the device had functioned the way it was designed, there would have been enough gas to destroy the entire Bungalows development, as well as other nearby structures, prosecutors said.

Murphy also admitted disabling the ignition of a tractor used on the job site and crediting ELF by scrawling "Another Tractor Decommissioned by the E.L.F.'' on the vehicle, prosecutors said.

What passes for thought inside the vast, empty canyons of such a one's head to imagine that creating more pollution is the way to "save" the environment?

According to the complaint, the Pasadena Fire Department was dispatched to the construction site and found what was described as a "crude incendiary device'' partially made from cigarettes.

Ah! An evil smoker! How did the other lefties ever let this guy in the club???

FBI officials said ELF-related attacks have led to millions of dollars in property damage nationwide.

As a public service to your country and to Mother Gaia: If you ever hear of any of these boneheads planning on "saving" the environment, drop a dime on them. The air will be cleaner as a result of it!

H/T Riehl World

Update:
Welcome Evansville Courier & Press readers!

Cross posted at Say Anything