**And now a word from my inner swaggerer…

Europe is a chick’s name. That’s right, you heard me. The word Europa from which Europe is derived is of feminine gender in origin. In Greek mythology Europa was a Phoenician princess abducted by Zeus. Zeus disguised himself as a bull to pull off the caper.

So, what do we have? Let’s review: Europe is a defenseless but pretty chick fooled by a bunch of bull and ravaged by a God.

Yep. Sounds about right.

Now what about America? How chikified is our name? Well, not much.

As it happens America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, a cartographer and explorer from the mid 1400s who was one of the first westerners to map the coast of the Americas. He was a man, baby.

A man’s man, an explorer, a man of means (well, early in his life, anyway), a sailor. A real tough guy. And even if that isn’t true, at least a person with a swinging anchor and some ballast which is more than we can say for the weeping, cringing Europa.

And since the naming, our two continents have certainly lived up to the theme. Europe, constantly ravaged, always weeping, forever moaning about being nice to folks, and never strong enough to stand on its own for long has been as weak and feckless as can be imagined.

On the other hand America has been the jewel of the world. America was born of the woman but strode forward in confident, self-possessed strides leaving mommy behind sniffling and waving her handkerchief to her successful son and warning him not to forget to write or at least leave a text message. America has spawned riches uncountable with its toils and with the United States at its head has become the world’s father and policeman. It’s a manly nation to say the least.

So, what’s in a name, William old sod? Nothing less than the expression of character (or weakness thereof). We Americans stand astride the world in manliness while Europe swoons by our side in supplication… and nagging, nagging, nagging like the gnarled old hag she has become. Even Zeus would be tired of her by now.

Yep. Europe is our bi_ _h.

Take that you Euroweenies!

So, go on. Call me a cowboy. But whose twirling rope are you Euroweenies gonna reach for when you’ve let the Islamofascists take over your lands? Whose six-shooters will come in handy when the Chinese are blowing you away? Which man in the white hat are ya gonna call on when you suddenly find yourself surrounded by hostiles on all sides? If’n yer lucky, pardner, we might jess lope on by and help ya out. Ya never know. Give us a whistle and see.

… OK, I feel better. And now back to the news.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Once again we see how clueless Democrats like Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and Senator Dick Durbin are on matters of national security. With Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to treat the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay as if they are common American criminals, as the president bestows all American rights upon them, and with his decision to spread these monsters out across the U.S.A, we see Quinn and Durbin idiotically asserting that terrorists equal “good paying jobs.”

These jobs might come from the sale to the federal government of the Thomson correctional facility in west central Illinois where Obama could send some 100 detainees in preparation of closing down the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba facilities. Obama is struggling to figure out what to do with these detainees after his hastily made, ill-informed decision last January to close down the terrorist detainment facility.

After the idea was announced, both Quinn and Durbin found themselves all excited to welcome these monsters into their state and both imagined that the occasion means that Illinois gets jobs. Durbin is quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that this is a dramatic opportunity.

“This is an opportunity to dramatically reduce unemployment, create thousands of good-paying jobs and breathe new economic life into this part of downstate Illinois,” Mr. Durbin said. “We should not let the unsupported and misplaced fears of a few stand in the way of this historic economic boost to our region.”

And the Journal reported that Quinn was lobbying Obama for just such an “opportunity.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said he had a brief discussion with President Barack Obama this month about using the facility. He also wrote a letter last Thursday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Mr. Holder, saying the federal government would be hard-pressed to find a more secure prison.

Quinn told reporters “This is an economic opportunity that comes once in a lifetime for the people of Illinois,” and thinks that Illinois will see 3,000 jobs if the terrorists get sent to his state.

Can we review what is going on here? Quinn and Durbin are willing to give terrorists American rights, they are willing to bring terrorists among the families of their own constituents, and they are pretending that this will bring jobs.

First of all, what are these so-called jobs? Are they real jobs that contribute to the state’s and the country’s economy? No they are not. They are faux jobs born of the federal treasury, not jobs that creates any new economic activity. All these so-called jobs will do is shuffle money from other parts of the country (in taxes) and shift them to these make-work jobs in a federalized prison project.

These are not legitimate jobs. They are federal largess.

But all that pales in comparison to the fact that these folks are falling all over themselves to give terrorist enemies all the rights of a natural born American. These politicians are prepared to bestow Constitutional rights on these murderous cretins and bring some of the most dangerous people in the world into our communities.

There is another aspect of this that is absurd enough to border on the surreal. One of the things that leftists held against the Guantanamo Bay facility is the expense of maintaining the facilities. Many Democrats and leftists said it was too expensive for the American people to continue paying for. Of course the Guantanamo Bay facility is one installation, right? Now comes Obama to spread these terrorists all across the country effectively making the costs to house them many times more expensive to house these murderers because now instead of one facility, we’ll have multiple facilities to pay for!

After all this, who can deny that Democrats are not to be trusted where it concerns national security?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Obama’s poor crisis leadership skills revealed themselves in June when Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad murdered Private William Long outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock. Two full days passed without even a word from the president. Finally, President Obama issued a terse statement of “sadness” and never mentioned the incident again. Quite a contrast to his swift, strongly worded response and his statement of “shock” and “outrage” at the “heinous” murder of abortion doctor, George Tiller, just days before in Wichita, Kansas.

In August, at the funeral for Sen. Ted Kennedy, again President Obama’s coldness and aloofness raised red flags. Others, like Peggy Noonan, have also noted Obama’s cold distance as he arrived, nodded, shook hands and spoke to the family and friends of the Kennedys. In watching the funeral, I was struck by how the president could simultaneously be so completely appropriate and so emotionally vacant. He was polite to be sure, but exhibited a total absence of warmth.

Last week, in his remarks via telecast, at the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, President Obama recognized no other presidents before himself and also failed to mention either Margaret Thatcher or Pope John Paul II . Worse still, he failed even to utter the words “communism,” or the “Soviet Union,” or “Russia.” A major moment arrives, the president speaks, and he whiffs entirely. He exhibits no knowledge of history, no sense of poignancy or America’s contribution to the world, and no passion for the freedoms that arrived with the fall of the wall. An utterly cold and vacuous moment.

Finally, the Islamic massacre at Ft. Hood occurs, and President Obama’s initial instincts are to warn us all “not to jump to conclusions.” He urges us to react in direct contrast to his own hasty reaction in Gates-gate at Cambridge, and his comments there that the police “acted stupidly.” More strikingly, Obama is unable to state the simple, obvious truth: we have had another incidence of Islamic terror on our own soil. Islamic terror does not occur in a vacuum; jumping to conclusions is very different from reading the pattern of having 63 other Muslim men charged, convicted, or sentenced on terror in our own country just in 2009. Obama again totally misses the point. His trademark coolness belies a glaring ignorance of the matter at hand and his total lack of passion for the American people.

Worse still, his remarks at the memorial service at Ft. Hood fell flat. Does anyone remember a word he said? Years later, I can still remember the warmth and grace exhibited by President Clinton in the aftermath of Oklahoma City. In contrast, Obama’s presence and comments at Ft. Hood were utterly forgettable. He failed to show up emotionally in any way. Were one to listen to the president’s comments regarding the terror deaths of 13 Americans on an American military base at the hands of an Islamic jihadist, one would notice no difference whatsoever in modulation, tone, or posture from any other speech he has ever given. They have all begun to sound the same. He is everywhere, speaking on everything, and thereby speaking on nothing. No one listens anymore. He speaks as if he is just passing through, a mere observer on the events of life. The hollowness is unsettling.

All in all, Obama’s impassioned speeches are reserved for fund-raisers and for healthcare addresses, for which he has no shortage of energy. Line up a pile of dead Americans, and he can barely muster an inflection or an exclamation point. Fill the room with wealthy donors, and the man comes alive. For a mercenary, that may be an admirable thing, but for a president, the vacancy is disturbing.

SOURCE

Posted by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Related: President Obama Urges Congress To Halt Ft. Hood Probe

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to hold off on any investigation of the Fort Hood rampage until federal law enforcement and military authorities have completed their probes into the shootings at the Texas Army post, which left 13 people dead.

On an eight-day Asia trip, Obama turned his attention home and pleaded for lawmakers to “resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater.” He said those who died on the nation’s largest Army post deserve justice, not political stagecraft.

“The stakes are far too high,” Obama said in a video and Internet address released by the White House while the president was flying from Tokyo to Singapore, where Pacific Rim countries were meeting.
…
Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., said he wanted to go ahead with an investigation from the House Armed Services Committee, where he is the top Republican. He said he wanted an investigation that wouldn’t compromise law enforcement or military investigations that were continuing on separate tracks.

In the Senate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said his Homeland Security Committee was opening an investigation.

Obama said he was not opposed to hearings — eventually. But he strongly pressed lawmakers to hold off until the probes now under way are completed.

“There is an ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy,” Obama said. “That investigation will look at the motives of the alleged gunman, including his views and contacts.”

“We must compile every piece of information that was known about the gunman, and we must learn what was done with that information. Once we have those facts, we must act upon them.”
Source

Also see POWIP

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A sampling of those from Jay’s post from last night: Smack Down of Obama Administration on KSM Trial Decision

And guess who celebrates this as some sort of victory for “justice?”

It’s no secret that the greatest threats to America on the international stage can depend on the ACLU’s extended hand of friendship. The ACLU, as the most dangerous threat to this country from within, has long been writhing around passionately with every enemy of this country like mating slugs at the end of a mucus thread. That the ACLU cheers this latest attack on American national security is no surprise. After all, they are up to their ear holes in making sure KSM and Da Boyz get sprung, although the MSM seems to be ignoring the ACLU role. Jay wrote last year at PJM about the execrable “John Adams Project” that undoubtedly played a lead role in securing three hots and a cot for KSM while he awaits his circus trial:

The ACLU has launched an initiative called the “John Adams Project.”…What is it? In a nutshell, the ACLU has assembled a “Dream Team” of attorneys with an $8.5 million budget to defend terrorists currently held at Guantanamo. Who’s the primary object of the ACLU’s affection? Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The ACLU, true to form, impugns the professionalism and competence of men and women of infinitely more honor than their accusers by referring to tribunals as “kangaroo courts.” But could the ACLU really be so scandalized that this mass murderer will stand before a military tribunal? Could the ACLU truly be standing up for his “fundamental rights?”

What is the true purpose of a multi-million-dollar campaign to get KSM off the hook?

The ACLU explains: “The ACLU chose to focus on Mohammed’s defense, Romero said, because he appears to be “the government’s top priority in the prosecution. And whether or not they are able to convict Khalid Sheik Mohammed under these rules may well determine the fate of the almost 300 other men who are detained at Guantanamo.”

So that’s it. The ACLU wants to set KSM and 300 other terrorists free or at least make it impossible for the tribunals to serve their function. Because KSM is the worst of the worst, because he is the terrorist in custody most responsible for 9/11, the ACLU is his champion.
This PR stunt can only serve to undermine American credibility by creating the illusion – sure to be propagated by the mass media – that mass killers are somehow being denied “justice.” Think our enemies don’t appreciate the ACLU’s efforts on their behalf – on both legal and the PR fronts? Clearly, this will leave America more vulnerable to attack.

So is it really any surprise that the ACLU would be reaching around to pat itself on the back yesterday?

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

This just didn’t seem to smell right, so I ran it through Babel Fish (translating from ACLUgandan to English) and here’s what came out:

BIZARRO CITY – In a major legal and propaganda victory for al Qaeda, the Obama administration will announce today that the five demented killers represented by the John Alan Muhammad Memorial Project who were responsible for the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans will await acquittal in federal court by Leftists in New York rather than standing before the incompetent troglodytes who “serve” our country in the Armed Forces…The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint conspiracy with the National Association of Criminals Disguised as Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals who’ve blessed us with the glorious 9/11 holiday. The Guantánamo military commissions are staffed by drooling fools in odd uniforms with weird oak leaves, eagles and stars on their shoulders and collars and who are despised by our international comrades.
“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for al Qaeda and is sure to threaten our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve, but we think should be applied to international terrorists, who until now have never in history been granted the constitutional rights that were once reserved for American citizens. It would have been an enormous blow to ACLU self-esteem and fundraising if we had tried these murderous thugs in a process that actually would have resulted in justice being done,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some terrorists using those idiots with really short haircuts. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves willing to advance the ACLU agenda — truth, justice and national security be damned. This has us just tickled pink.”

As diabolical as this latest move by the Obamanable Administration is, even more demented is the symbolism of trying Mohammed mere steps away from the site of the greatest act of evil — an act of war, not the street crime the Obamanable Administration is treating it like — ever committed against America on our own soil. Miles, or even blocks, away from the husbands, wives, children, mothers and fathers who were left behind to mourn because of the act of terrorism directed by the very man who has now been extended all the protections of the American constitutional system by virtue of nothing but robbing so many innocent AMERICANS of the same, forever.

Say KSM goes free…the blood of all those innocents murdered, on 9/11 and by those aspiring future Islamist killers emboldened by our manifest lack of will and strength, will be splattered and smeared all over the walls of ACLU headquarters.

Update by Lobo: Just a point I want to get covered, but not enough for a post of its own.

The military commissions are obviously constitutional because Congress instituted them and that power is vested in them.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Congress set up the Commissions for the express purpose of trying enemy combatants. I can not find any vested power in the Executive branch to order ECs tried in federal courts.

I do find it amusingly ironic that for 8 years, liberals screeched about the US going into foreign countries and forcing “democracy” on it and now their leader is ordering foreign enemies be brought into a country they hate, filled with people they want to kill, and force a democracy they despise, on them.

You might want to check out a point that Levin made. (I couldn’t get to it from Google search and could backout)

he said something to the effect that the combatants weren’t “mirandized” and that will create a technicality right from the get go. I’d be willing to bet that Obama is counting on that one!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Bush Attorney General Mukasey

Speaking at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention, Mukasey described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”
Describing a pattern of decisions made since the the Obama administration pledged in January to close Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, Mukasey said that, “What’s followed has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”…
The difficulty of trying terror suspects through civilian courts, he said, is that the discovery process, the public presentation of evidence, and other elements of a trial “could turn a criminal proceeding into a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those in custody.”
He pointed out that when capturing the enemy combatants, pieces of information “were not gathered, nor was evidence gathered, on the assumption that they would be presented in a federal court.”
There would also be tremendous security issues involved with making sure that courthouses, jails, the judge and jury, were all safe.

Tip: Hot Air

Rudy:

Fellow Democrat Webb:

I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.
The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.
I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.

Krauthammer:

“Please spare us talk of the ‘rule of law.’ If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal ‘enemy combatants’ captured since 9/11.
“Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren’t a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday’s decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence…
“Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.”

As Rudy says this is unnecessary, irresponsible, and dangerous. We are going backwards to where we were before 911. As Krauthamer says, we are putting on a show trial that could very well end with acquittal. How will America react? It is giving the terrorists, propaganda material. We are giving the enemy a pedestal. It opens too many doors. Never in our history have we given enemy combatants, American rights, and it is sickening.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.

We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indomitable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack. …

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do. They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood. That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

Somehow I doubt that when the current nightmare is over, anyone is going to look back with new found appreciation of the decency and patriotism of the crew we’ve got in the White House now.

On a tip from Antara. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.

As Jammie Wearing Fool points out, this is going to create a massive circus, one in which the defense will not be able to defend the actions of their client, but use the trial as a way of bashing Bush and the GWoT. What will happen with the secret information gained from KSM? Will we tell the world all about our means and methods, meaning Al Qaeda will know? And, can you imagine if the prosecutors lose the case?

But Obama the administration will prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — the detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen — and several other detainees before a military commission, the official said.

Hmm, that happened under a different president. Anyone remember what Party he was a part of? The memory is eluding me this morning.

The decisions to give civilian prosecutors detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks and keep the case of the Cole attack within the military system are expected to be announced at the Department of Justice later on Friday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that news conference has not yet taken place.

The Fish Wrap of Record’s only attempt to find a rational for this is some mealy mouthed idiocy about closing Gitmo. They apparently have no interest in knowing why the difference in treatment.

On the flip side, it might be very interesting to have KSM on the stand explaining how Democrat weakness during the Clinton years (remember when OBL called America a “paper tiger” not long after he, as head of al Qaeda, declared war against America?) for all to hear.

Ed Morrissey:

What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away? If that happens, look for a massive amount of anger to overwhelm the naive Commander in Chief. And if Obama isn’t prepared to let them walk after a potential acquittal, then it makes a mockery of the criminal trial, and of the justice system itself.
These terrorists belong at a military tribunal, not the justice system employed for Americans to judge other Americans for civil criminal conduct. Instead of giving these men the oblivion they deserve, we’re incentivizing further attacks on the US by giving them the biggest possible PR platform. We may as well put them on TV and call it Dancing With the Terrorists, or So You Want To Be A Jihadist Martyr.

More: Michelle Malkin writes

If this White House thought Tea Party activists were an “angry mob,” wait until they see the backlash from 9/11 family members and their supporters nationwide. We’re not going to sit down and shut up about the reckless, security-undermining Obama 9/10 agenda and conflict-of-interest-ridden AG Eric Holder.

I wonder how Obama will insult the 9/11 family members when they rightfully go ballistic? There is also a petition to President Neophyte.

Another thought occurs: trying KSM and the others in NYC will create a legal appeal nightmare for years, if not over a decade. The defense will say there is no way for them to get a fair trial, etc and so on.

As I am adding on to this, I am listening to Holder’s PC, and he says they will shoot for the death penalty.

Double More: Not trying to go all Glenn Greenwald with the updates, but, a few more thoughts occur. 1st, how did the Obama admin come to this decision? Who was involved? I suspect it was more of a political meeting which revolved around “hey, look at us, we are going to bring these guys to justice, and what better place than NYC,” with no one in the GroupThink saying “yeah, not such a great idea.”

Also, this looks more like a distraction event. Things have not been looking rosy for Barack as of late, even with the passage of the health destruction bill in the House, so, they throw this out on a Friday morning, hold some press conferences, and try and look tough and wise. Consider that there were no concrete timelines involved. KSM could be sitting around in Gitmo for years before being moved to NYC, if ever.

The families are not happy

Debra Burlingame, the sister of a pilot whose plane was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, said in a statement that “the trial will be a travesty.” She supports military trials for Mohammed and four other defendants.

“In open court, it will be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will hold forth,” she said, “mocking his victims, exulting in the suffering of their families, ridiculing the judge, his lawyers and the American justice system, and worst of all, rallying his jihad brothers to kill more Americans.”

and

“To allow a terrorist and a war criminal the opportunity of having US constitutional protections is a wrong thing to do and its never been done before,” Ed Kowalski of the 9/11 Families for a Secure America Foundation told AFP on Friday.

“We feel that that’s a terrible mistake.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

But this hasn’t left the Left at a loss to explain Nidal Malik Hasan’s horrific killing spree. It was caused by all the things liberals don’t like — guns, for example. To quote Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, whose corrupt machine politics helped produce our Community Organizer in Chief:

Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don’t blame a group.

Likewise, it was America’s unfortunate love of air travel that caused Hasan’s colleagues to fly passenger airliners into buildings full of innocent people on September 11. You don’t blame a group, unless that group is normal Americans.

If anything good can come of the Islamic atrocity at Fort Hood, it is that liberals in both the government and the media have now squandered the absolute last of their credibility. It simply isn’t possible for them to deny any longer that their depraved ideology puts them on the side of the savages who are trying to destroy us.

On a tip from Charlie G. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The jihadi movement has never made any bones about the fact that it intends to destroy western civilization from within using the West’s own principles as weapons against it. This is why, for instance, that radical Islamists have been angling to institute Sharia “law” inside England and Canada and to a lesser extent in the U.S.A. But this effort isn’t even necessary when, in the U.S. for instance, a large part of the political class cannot even agree upon what the word “sacrifice” means for its own, much less find themselves able to define the terms of enemies to their civilization. What does terrorism, Sharia, or radicalism mean when Democrats cannot even properly understand what “sacrifice” means in the context of what happened at Fort Hood, Texas?

On November 7, it was reported by the New York Daily News that President Obama shamefully exploited the murderous Hasan’s crime in Texas in an effort to flog his healthcare bill in Congress.

According to the Daily News President Obama “invoked the Fort Hood shootings in an emotional appeal to Democrats to pass health care reform.” The Daily News followed this statement up with a quote from New Jersey Democrat Rob Andrews.

“He was absolutely inspiring. In a very moving way, he reminded us what sacrifice really is,” said New Jersey Rep. Rob Andrews, estimating the persuader-in-chief turned several votes.

“Sacrifice is not casting a vote that might lose an election for you; it is the sacrifice that someone makes when they wear the uniform of this country and that unfortunately a number of people made this week,” said Andrews.

This is an astonishing disconnect with reality, an execrable failure to understand even simple definitions. These soldiers murdered by Hasan didn’t “sacrifice” their lives for their country in this incident. Those that were killed didn’t get a chance to “sacrifice” their lives as they died. They were cruelly and criminally gunned down without being given the opportunity to make a conscious choice at the moment of their demise. Yes, their lives have been sacrificed, taken away in colloquial terms, but these soldiers were not in a place where they might have expected a life or death situation. They were purportedly safely at home in the care of doctors and nurses charged with ensuring the health of our uniformed personnel.

In the same way, we cannot say that those nearly 3,000 that lost their lives on 9/11/01 sacrificed their lives for their country or civilization. A sacrifice is an offering and these people had no notion on their way to work that fateful morning that they’d soon be in a situation where they might be killed by radical Islamists. In truth a sacrifice requires a surrender of something for the sake of something else. This all implies a conscious offering not a sudden extraction of a thing (such as a life taken by criminal actions). Neither the victims of 9/11 nor the soldiers innocently going about their lives at Fort Hood were offered the chance to make that sacrificial bargain.

Both were craven criminal acts. Acts of terrorism. It was not “sacrifice.” It was murder. And it was motivated by a hateful, radical religious tenet that holds such cowardly acts as a means to an end.

Worse, what we have here is a clueless Democrat and his president using this senseless act of terror as cover to get a healthcare bill passed. Obama is using these murders as fodder to push a mere legislative effort. It is stunningly disgusting.

But, it does illuminate why Democrats in general and Obama in particular simply have no logical basis by which to understand the real sacrifice that our soldiers choose to make when they enter national service and subsequently perform their duties in all branches of the military. Democrats don’t even understand the most basic premise of what sacrifice means so it is no wonder that Rep. Andrews was so surprised that Obama might mention that sacrifice isn’t just making a “hard” vote in Congress. Andrews was stunned with a definition of sacrifice that seemed not to have occurred to him.

And therein lies a major problem between the left and the right. Simple definitions cannot even be agreed upon at this point. If even so simple a thing as the definition of the word sacrifice cannot be agreed upon, we are at loggerheads to define our civilization.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post