Hat tip to Allahpundit that who says:

A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

Please! This is one of the main reasons that you need to vote against Obama when it is time. I don’t want him to have the chance to appoint another justice as liberal as this one! Perhaps she should recuse herself from any rulings based on Constitutional grounds since she isn’t so fond of our Constitution. Or maybe she should move to South Africa!

Others: Jeff Goldstein

Skip ahead on the video to 9:28.

Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim “spiritual advisor” and chaplain from Boston-based Northeastern University, was a key speaker at a fundraiser for al Qaeda’s Ma Barker, the criminal female terrorist named Aafia Siddiqui, also known as “Lady al Qaeda.” This man, Faaruuq, is living off American taxpayers yet advocates for his followers to use “the gun and the sword” to advance Islam in America.

The fundraiser for Siddiqui was held at the Islamic Center of Worcester, Mass. on Dec. 8 with the stated goal of raising $30,000 to assist this female terrorist convicted in 2008 of attempting to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.

As Steve Emerson of Family Security Matters reports, Abdullah gave Siddiqui high praise.

“What a brave woman she continues to be, and how much her bravery and her faith and her belief warrants our support at this time,” said Faaruuq, an imam at Roxbury’s Mosque for the Praising of Allah. “It is said that we’re trying to raise $30,000 tonight. I would say it’s better that we’ve raised your awareness and raised your ire, as your anger against a government who would level the charges that they have against this woman and they say she is guilty. I would say she’s only guilty of defending herself.”

In addition to lauding Siddiqui’s “bravery,” Faaruuq also condemned American soldiers, the very people who defend America, as “kafirs,” meaning infidels.

“And if my mother was in the same place,” he said, “she would have took (sic) her West Indian machete and cut her way through those kafirs.”

According to the Northeastern University website, “Imam Abdullah serves as Northeastern University’s Muslim chaplain, as well as spiritual advisor to the Islamic Society student group.” Sadly he is advising students at a public university in the ways of violent jihad. And our taxes go to fund his actions.

Imam Abdullah has for some time been a controversial figure. As part of a violence-advocating, jihad-pushing, terror-funding mosque that was helped to come to fruition by public officials and politicians in Massachusetts, Abdullah has been advocating violence against Americans for years.

No wonder radical Islamists think America is the “weak horse” in the world. We are with our own taxes funding our own home-grown terror supporters like Abdullah.

President Obama and his various quislings and underlings still cannot bring themselves to say that the USA is under attack by radical Islamists. This is the self-destructive garbage that comes from the Obama administration every day. This is the kind of stuff that makes of us the “weak horse” that Islamists use to justify their attacks on the US.

We have two examples of this today, one from a representative of the Department of Homeland Security and one from Gaffemaster Joe Biden.

First up, our erstwhile VP. Ol’ Slow Joe Biden told Newsweek’s Leslie Gelb that the Taliban isn’t our enemy, either. You know, despite that we invaded Afghanistan to oust them from power, and all.

Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.

Next we have assistant defense secretary for homeland defense Paul Stockton refusing to agree with Rep. Dan Lungren’s (R.-Calif.) characterization of al Qaeda as “radical Islamists.”

YouTube Caption:

Wednesday Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) opened a hearing to examine the emerging threat to the military from homegrown terrorists within the U.S. and named the armed services as the “most sought-after” target for radical Islamist extremist groups.

Rep. Dan Lungren (R.-Calif.) asked Paul Stockton, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, whether “we are at war with violent Islamist extremism.

The idiocy from the Obama administration is startling. They won’t even deign to identify the enemy and the enemy IS radical, terrorists driven by a fanatical devotion to Islam. But we can’t even get Obama and his comrades to identify our enemy, an enemy that has no problem announcing their own animus toward the USA.

(LA Times) The final compromise mandates that terrorism suspects thought to have ties to Al Qaeda and planning attacks against the United States be taken into military custody, even those captured in the U.S. In response to some complaints, though, the bill carves out an exemption for U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The bill also allows the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects accused of having ties to Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. That provision specifies that such power cannot be applied to U.S. citizens captured in the U.S.

As I wrote, I never posted anything about this because I was behind the curve on the story. Also, because I spoke with an aide to a politician who said that the language would never survive to make it to the president’s desk. There was too much opposition in the House and Senate.

(The Hill) One of the more controversial provisions of the bill is language that reaffirms the authority of the administration to detain people found to be associated with al Qaeda, and requires military detention for anyone who plots an attack against the United States. In both cases, the bill does not create any new authority to detain U.S. citizens, ensuring their rights to a fair trial, and the military detention language does exempts U.S. citizens.

The redone provisions apparently are more than just giving the POTUS the power to waive indefinite detention for American citizens and legal residents caught on US soil. It gives them the normal legal protections already accorded.

Just to be clear, the final version of HR 1540, National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Subtitle D, Section 1032(b)

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Sections 1031 and 1032 are the ones cited, and the above language comes from the final legislation. They won’t be able to haul off US citizens even if captured outside of the US, nor to lawful residents captured within the US.

While there is still some concern by some Congress critters (who still voted for the bill), the language regarding US citizens is pretty cut and dry, with no exceptions.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Like nearly every conservative in America today I am unimpressed by the current crop of GOP nominees for president and feel they all have major flaws — especially the two frontrunners Newt and Romney, both of whom have major deficits as far as staunch conservatives are concerned. But at this point I’ve come to realize that I don’t think I care which one of them is nominated. In fact, I think the White House is not where we should be focusing our intensity in 2012.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn’t vote for whichever GOP nominee wins the game show plaudits. We should absolutely pick one of them and then we all, conservatives and Republicans alike, should vote for him (or her).

So, what am I saying? I am saying that the White House is less important than people are saying it is. Instead, we need a two-point focus for 2012 that doesn’t include the White House. We don’t need 999 points. Just two. 1). Gaining control of Congress and 2). turning Obama out. The identity and purity of our presidential nominee is the last thing we should be worried about at this point. It is a bit late for that anyway.

Let me assure you that I don’t have a favorite in this GOP race. And I have three real dislikes: Romney, Huntsman, and Ron Paul. This article is no stealth shilling for any particular candidate. I really do have big problems with all of them. But, again, I don’t think it matters which of them we pick if we focus on the two points I note above.

First of all, any of the GOP candidates (yes even the cranky uncle of the GOP, Ron Paul) would be better than Obama. But that goes without saying because I am a conservative that votes Republican. No surprise there, really.

But there are reasons besides blind partisanship that any of the GOP nominees is better than Obama. In fact, it can really be boiled down to but one issue that makes getting rid of Obama imperative: the courts. He has been thoroughly destructive to this country with his judicial picks.

Aside from the courts, of course, Obama has been a very destructive president in many ways — another reason to be rid of him. He’s presided over the continued destruction of our business sector and our economy, we all understand. But there’s more.

Obama has already turned his power to regulate into a tool of Big Labor and United Nations-styled socialism. He’s unleashed his extremist appointees and given them the freedom to push every anti-business, anti-worker, anti-American idea they can possibly get through.

There’s more.

Obama has also created all sorts of extra-constitutional czars and “advisory” committees, the President has issued a slew of dangerous executive orders, and he’s made all sorts of horrible moves in foreign policy. But all this can be quickly negated by a new president — quickly in terms relative to how Washington works, anyway. An active new president could make headway to reverse these Obamanations almost immediately. None of these changes, as bad as they are, have the misfortune of being irrevocably permanent.

But there is great danger that another four years of Obama will create, one that cannot be easily reversed. Obama has been steadily placing radical judges on benches throughout this land. His nominees tend to be abortion activists (not just abortion supporters, but out-and-out activists), Big Labor dupes, anti-Second Amendment activists, and the like. Many are so radical that even Democrats haven’t been able to convince themselves to vote them in.

Let’s just take his latest nominee for the DC Court of Appeals for example. Caitlin Halligan, a close associate of the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in New York, is an extremist anti-Second Amendment activist. If she gets on the bench she will take every opportunity she can to damage the Constitution.

A past example is his attempt to put a radical racemongering ACLU member on the bench in California. Obama’s attempt to place Edward Chen on the bench succeeded, unfortunately.

Let us not forget that the Supreme Court of the United States is already in a delicate balance tipped only barely in favor of conservatives. It is easy to see that with the ages of the current oldest members of the court, the next presidential term will see perhaps as many as three chances to replace retiring justices.

As conservatives we must put our desire for a pure conservative president in second place to the pursuit for the next nominees for the US Supreme Court. The fact is, if Obama gets a chance to put more judges on the bench, especially on the SCOTUS, he will be able to damage this country for decades to come.

I can hear just what you are saying at this point. But Warner, you are saying, if we don’t get a pure conservative president we will still get bad judicial picks, won’t we? If we get an abortion lover like Romney (Or is he? Do you believe his miraculous conversion? I don’t) we’ll still get squishes as judges, won’t we?

I’m hearin’ ya, friends, I’m hearin’ ya.

That is why we desperately need to focus on point two: taking the entire Congress under GOP control. And not just GOP control but conservative GOP control. We have the House now, certainly, but we need to make that control stronger. But more importantly we need to take control of the Senate. Both houses of Congress need to be under GOP control and we need to put conservatives in there to do the controlling.

This is the thing, folks. We need to have the most conservative Congress that we can get. A conservative Congress, you see, will drag the squishy Romney, the unpredictable Newt, the isolationist Paul, or any of the others along behind them whether those folks want to go or not. You see, if we have a more conservative Senate, a president will understand that soft, moderate or leans-left judicial nominees will not be acceptable. A conservative Congress — if we as voters force them to toe the line and get active — will force a president to be more conservative despite his inclinations.

As far as judicial nominees go, even if we do get soft nominees that lean conservative only 70% of the time we will have justices that at least act like Americans! If Obama gets another four years he’ll continue to put people on the bench that despise this country. And these people serve for life, don’t forget, so they will be there to continue destroying this country for decades.

This is something we must work hard to prevent. It is imperative that we deny Obama and his extremist, under-the-table agenda from continuing.

It isn’t a happy predicament to be forced to settle for a less conservative president, to be sure. But that is where we are whether we like it or not. Better than we start to realize where the important matters are located and it ain’t in the presidential election as far as GOP nominees is concerned.

(CNN) Authorities have arrested a man they claim was plotting to detonate pipe bombs in and around New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sunday night.

The intended targets of Jose Pimentel, 27, were U.S. military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. postal facilities and police in New York and Bayonne, New Jersey, according to Bloomberg and New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

The suspect was described by Bloomberg as an “al Qaeda sympathizer,” though he is not believed to have ever worked with or received training from anyone in that terrorist organization.

That’s weird, since the Paper Of Record doesn’t bother mentioning the Islamist connection. I wonder why?

The police commissioner identified the suspect as a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric who rose to become a top figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Pimental allegedly tried to contact al-Awlaki directly, but never got a response. (snip)

“He was a reader of al Qaeda’s slick online magazine Inspire — and inspire him it did,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said. “His stated desire to attack our servicemen and women … could have come from an al Qaeda playbook.”

He’s described as a “lone wolf”, and he probably was. But, he was certainly inspired by the more hardcore elements of the Religion of Peace. One of these days, the so-called moderate Muslims are going to have to choose whether they take their religion back, or continue on the road they are currently traveling.

Before Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic, early warnings were pinging about like signals off a cell tower. Predictions: 1.) The economy would nosedive and 2.) America would have a renewed military presence in Africa before the end of Obama’s first term. What was not foreseen was the Obama administration’s fixation on “snitching.” They are for it. Obama brazenly initiated his report-on-your-neighbor, big brother initiative via a White House run “snitch website” called “flag.”

Detecting the distinctively foul objective of creating an Obama enemies list, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) took to the Senate floor to accuse Obama of attempting to shut down political opposition. Cornyn also sent Obama a letter demanding to know the intent of the White House’s snitch site where Obamatrons could routinely rat-out their neighbors who disagreed with Obama’s policies. Main targets were those in opposition to Obamacare, the socialist medical overhaul that will wreck the American economy for decades if implemented. In the face of fascist-laden, unspoken threats of reprisal, red-blooded patriots from across the nation emailed the snitch site and turned themselves in as overt acts of defiance.

Yet, Obama tried it again. With sliding ratings and talk from neighborhoods to water coolers about his failed policies and socialist agendas eroding his base, “snitching” was resurrected. Snitches are now directed to “Attack Watch.” The Obama campaign essentially put Americans on notice: Written criticism or verbally attacking Obama under your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech is an affront to the regime and could get you reported. Again, patriots across the land mocked the site by reporting “themselves” in further defiance of the site’s intended intimidation and implied retribution.

Attempts to snuff out political dissent have a long history. Obama’s propensity for it puts him in an unsavory club of notorious politicians turned tyrants who cast fear into their opposition and ran their nation by edict or currently, in Obama’s case, by executive order. Politician-turned-tyrant occurs when the people allow the usurpation of power to go unchecked. Obama’s radical abuse of the U.S. Constitution and overriding of the legislative authority of Congress would have our founding fathers boldly decrying a tyranny in the making. Snitching coupled with President Obama wanting his own militia, as well-funded and as powerful as the U.S. military, must give all Americans pause. Weakening America’s military is a standing Socialist goal. The coup d’état is that the Obama militia and U.S. military would report to the same Commander-in-Chief. Prediction #3: Action to establish a presidential/civilian militia will be fast-tracked — should Obama and a majority of his Progressive Democrat Party be reelected in 2012.

In tandem with #3, is Prediction #4 for 2012. Informed minds know that John Kennedy entered the Vietnam War with advisors, a pattern Obama now repeats in Africa. The U.S. military can be weakened or bled-out of funding and personnel in areas of the world such as Africa, where no security threat to the U.S. currently exists. If reelected, Obama’s expansion into Africa is imminent. Having American troops in the region makes Africa a magnet for America’s enemies.

Political leaders turned tyrants, that are armed with civilian militias and legions of snitches used to subdue dissent from the people, fill the history books with names like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others who began as benign Socialist or Marxist politicians. It is history that exposes or demands comparisons with Obama’s policies. Those tyrants started with civilian militias loyal to them and not the citizenry. Snitching or informing was first encouraged and then government mandated. For some, snitching on their neighbor meant survival for themselves and their families — for a while. In the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, pages 54-56, there is a telling account by Russian Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the brutal results of “snitching” that denied the Soviet citizenry’s’ right to criticize its government.

Prediction #5: The mainstream media will continue to ignore such threats until they realize that their rights to freedom of the press have also been overrun by government edict. Historically, it is the fate of all journalists in Socialist countries worldwide. Snitching is an equal opportunity offender. Though the Black community faces ostracizing by other Blacks if they speak negatively about the destructive policies of the first Black President, many have rejected what they call un-American activities and an assault on freedom and have also turned themselves in to “Attack Watch” in defiance and defense of their Constitutional freedoms.

A government that asks its citizens to snitch on one another cannot itself be trusted. Snitching is about controlling the opposition and eventually the entire populace. The end result is that a penalty is levied whether through suppression of speech or oppression of a people. It is divisive and ultimately dangerous, especially in the hands of leaders with delusions of grandeur or narcissistic personality disorders. Snitching is the worm that decays and weakens a society in preparation for the rot of Socialism and tyranny. Why is it again, that Obama wants Americans to snitch?

In his recent assessment of his year since he was unceremoniously — and illicitly in many folks’ estimation — fired by NPR, Juan Williams indulged one of those fallacious left-wing assumptions that just screams left-wing spin. It is the sort of straw man argument that casts aspersions on others, this time against Christians, while pretending to be the logical, adult in the room, not to mention while pretending not to be casting aspersions. It really is a logical sleight of hand that all liberals use.

First let me say that I am 100% on Williams’ side in that his firing by NPR was a real breach of journalistic ethics: theirs. The comments he made a year ago that got him fired did not in any way harm his veracity as a journalist, nor were they racist or even incorrect. Heck, they weren’t even injudicious except when taking the brain dead PCism that infests the left into consideration.

But that was the discussion of a year ago and really is not something worth rehashing here because Williams did say something outrageous in his review of that year-old issue that deserves to be highlighted. In essence, Williams made an illogical argument about how we should think of radical Islam and he did so by assuming that domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City Bombing could be considered as representative of Christianity as the Saudi 19 were of radical Islam.

Here is what Williams said (my bold for emphasis):

… we have to keep in mind that America is a country founded on the ideal of religious liberty. We can’t stereotype any group on the basis of the behavior of extremists among them. We don’t indict all Christians because of Timothy McVeigh.