“In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel.”
HOW OBAMA CREATED THE BIDEN INCIDENT
By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
March 19, 2010
Why did President Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in Israel's Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract preemptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its gross domestic product is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel -- at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.
Friday, March 19, 2010
A WALMART HIGH
HOW TO GET A RUSH IN THE PINEY WOODS WITHOUT USING METH
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 19, 2010
You know what's boring? Babysitting two kids while schlepping around your own two kids, that's what's boring.
A gal with joie de vivre needs a little excitement at such times. What to do? Duh -- You leave the kids in the pick-up truck (engine running, of course), head into the Walmart and do a little shoplifting.
The thrill of stuffing panties "and other miscellaneous items" in your pants...Well, as Rick James would put it, it's a helluva drug.
At least that's the explanation allegedly offered by Karen Annette Diehl, 28, from Lumberton in East Texas. The Silsbee Bee is on the case (hat tip to the Bayou), and says Lumberton police picked her up after she was caught on the extensive security-camera system every Walmart has. (Adds to the shoplifting excitement, we guess.)
Sayeth the Bee: "When Diehl was arrested by the Lumberton Police Department, she told an officer the reason that she had shoplifted was because a friend had told her 'it was a rush.'"
She's in the meth-ridden Piney Woods and the best advice she has on how to get a rush is to shoplift at Walmart? We're not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
Police said Diehl spent a half-hour in the store, while the four kids -- ages two, three, four and six -- waiting in the idling pick-up truck outside. The local CPS is investigating, the Bee said.
Lumberton police chief Danny Sullins offered some astute analysis:
"People should not have to be reminded not to leave their babies in the car," said Sullins. "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense. Folks should use that common sense and not leave babies in the car, especially when you're going into a store and stealing and committing crimes with their children with them. You like to think that people have better sense than that."
Sullins also said that Wal Mart is the last place that he would think people would steal from. "They have a well trained loss prevention team and a great security camera network there," he said. "That works very well for police departments. Not only do we have a loss prevention person who spots them and witnesses the crime, but they also capture the crime on videotape and they do prosecute. That's the last place I'd steal from."
We've seen too many Tea Parties to agree wholeheartedly with the "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense" pronouncement, but we heartily endorse his advice to aspiring criminals as to what places to avoid.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 19, 2010
You know what's boring? Babysitting two kids while schlepping around your own two kids, that's what's boring.
A gal with joie de vivre needs a little excitement at such times. What to do? Duh -- You leave the kids in the pick-up truck (engine running, of course), head into the Walmart and do a little shoplifting.
The thrill of stuffing panties "and other miscellaneous items" in your pants...Well, as Rick James would put it, it's a helluva drug.
At least that's the explanation allegedly offered by Karen Annette Diehl, 28, from Lumberton in East Texas. The Silsbee Bee is on the case (hat tip to the Bayou), and says Lumberton police picked her up after she was caught on the extensive security-camera system every Walmart has. (Adds to the shoplifting excitement, we guess.)
Sayeth the Bee: "When Diehl was arrested by the Lumberton Police Department, she told an officer the reason that she had shoplifted was because a friend had told her 'it was a rush.'"
She's in the meth-ridden Piney Woods and the best advice she has on how to get a rush is to shoplift at Walmart? We're not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
Police said Diehl spent a half-hour in the store, while the four kids -- ages two, three, four and six -- waiting in the idling pick-up truck outside. The local CPS is investigating, the Bee said.
Lumberton police chief Danny Sullins offered some astute analysis:
"People should not have to be reminded not to leave their babies in the car," said Sullins. "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense. Folks should use that common sense and not leave babies in the car, especially when you're going into a store and stealing and committing crimes with their children with them. You like to think that people have better sense than that."
Sullins also said that Wal Mart is the last place that he would think people would steal from. "They have a well trained loss prevention team and a great security camera network there," he said. "That works very well for police departments. Not only do we have a loss prevention person who spots them and witnesses the crime, but they also capture the crime on videotape and they do prosecute. That's the last place I'd steal from."
We've seen too many Tea Parties to agree wholeheartedly with the "This is Texas. God has given us all common sense" pronouncement, but we heartily endorse his advice to aspiring criminals as to what places to avoid.
WITH FRIENDS LIKE JOE BIDEN, ISRAEL DOESN'T NEED ANY ENEMIES (2)
In “With Friends Like Joe Biden, Israel Doesn’t Need Any Enemies” (3-17-10) it was alleged that both Vice President Joe Biden and General David Petraeus had stated that Israel’s actions in its conflict with the Palestinians were endangering the lives of American soldiers. According to Yediot Acharonot, in response to the announcement that Israel was going to build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, Biden “reportedly” said that to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And Mark Perry, a correspondent for Foreign Policy, wrote that Gen. Petraeus blamed Israel for casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan in a report to the Pentagon.
Well, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, it turns out that Biden never said any such thing to Netanyahu. That was a deliberate lie planted by Yediot Acharonot, a far-left publication that has vociferously opposed every action ever taken against the Palestinians by a moderate or conservative Israeli government. Yediot Acharonot is the voice of Israel’s left which acts as a “Fifth Column” for the Palestinians.
And what about Gen. Petraeus’ report? Mark Perry, a former advisor to Yasser Arafat, has been a long-time mouthpiece for the Palestinians. In “The Petraeus Briefing; Biden's Embarrassment is not the Whole Story,” an article in Foreign Policy, Perry repeated the Yediot Acharonot lie and then embellished it by adding that Gen. Petraeus had reported to the Pentagon that Israel was to blame for American casualties. The general never said anything like that. What he reported was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a threat to Middle East stability and that our support for Israel damaged America’s interests in the Arab world, facts long ago established.
Perry deliberately planted his lies on behalf of the Palestinians. America’s media immediately seized on Perry’s story without ever checking on whether it was true or not. The TV network talking heads asked every government official they could find to comment on the charges that Israel was endangering the lives of American soldiers. The media has to be well aware that if these charges ever gained traction with the American people, the tide of public opinion would turn against the Israelis.
Surprise, surprise - the American media has not reported that Biden and Gen. Petraeus never said Israel was endangering the lives of our soldiers.
No one in the Obama administration other than Rahm Emanuel has refuted those lies. The pro-Palestinian element in the Obama administration, and that includes President Obama himself, must have done cartwheels when these lies were being passed around by the media. Biden, being a loyal Obama soldier, has not refuted the lies. Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod, a Jew himself, would not refute them, saying only that “I’m not going to get into that.” Hillary ‘The Hun’ Clinton treated Israel like a vassal state by demanding that any plans to build 1,600 new housing units be rescinded and that Israel must make other concessions to the Palestinians.
Make no mistake about it, the Obama administration speaks with a forked tongue when, over and over again, it expresses its undying support for Israel’s security. In fact, it is doing everything it can to undermine Israel’s security by pressuring the Jewish state to make concessions to the Palestinians who continue to vow that there will be only one state, a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea.”
And until the vice president comes out and publicly states that Israel’s actions do not endanger the lives of American soldiers, I am not going to change the title, “With Friends Like Joe Biden, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.”
Well, according to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, it turns out that Biden never said any such thing to Netanyahu. That was a deliberate lie planted by Yediot Acharonot, a far-left publication that has vociferously opposed every action ever taken against the Palestinians by a moderate or conservative Israeli government. Yediot Acharonot is the voice of Israel’s left which acts as a “Fifth Column” for the Palestinians.
And what about Gen. Petraeus’ report? Mark Perry, a former advisor to Yasser Arafat, has been a long-time mouthpiece for the Palestinians. In “The Petraeus Briefing; Biden's Embarrassment is not the Whole Story,” an article in Foreign Policy, Perry repeated the Yediot Acharonot lie and then embellished it by adding that Gen. Petraeus had reported to the Pentagon that Israel was to blame for American casualties. The general never said anything like that. What he reported was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a threat to Middle East stability and that our support for Israel damaged America’s interests in the Arab world, facts long ago established.
Perry deliberately planted his lies on behalf of the Palestinians. America’s media immediately seized on Perry’s story without ever checking on whether it was true or not. The TV network talking heads asked every government official they could find to comment on the charges that Israel was endangering the lives of American soldiers. The media has to be well aware that if these charges ever gained traction with the American people, the tide of public opinion would turn against the Israelis.
Surprise, surprise - the American media has not reported that Biden and Gen. Petraeus never said Israel was endangering the lives of our soldiers.
No one in the Obama administration other than Rahm Emanuel has refuted those lies. The pro-Palestinian element in the Obama administration, and that includes President Obama himself, must have done cartwheels when these lies were being passed around by the media. Biden, being a loyal Obama soldier, has not refuted the lies. Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod, a Jew himself, would not refute them, saying only that “I’m not going to get into that.” Hillary ‘The Hun’ Clinton treated Israel like a vassal state by demanding that any plans to build 1,600 new housing units be rescinded and that Israel must make other concessions to the Palestinians.
Make no mistake about it, the Obama administration speaks with a forked tongue when, over and over again, it expresses its undying support for Israel’s security. In fact, it is doing everything it can to undermine Israel’s security by pressuring the Jewish state to make concessions to the Palestinians who continue to vow that there will be only one state, a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea.”
And until the vice president comes out and publicly states that Israel’s actions do not endanger the lives of American soldiers, I am not going to change the title, “With Friends Like Joe Biden, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.”
Thursday, March 18, 2010
HILLARY THE HUN
MOVING PAST HILLARY
by Emmett Tyrrell
Townhall.com
March 18, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Historians someday will piece together precisely what happened in Jerusalem last week when Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel to encourage renewed negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. Of a sudden, an announcement that Israel was proceeding with the construction of a small number of residential units -- 1,600 in a section of Jerusalem with more than 400,000 inhabitants, roughly 181,500 being Jewish and 229,000 being Muslim -- was interpreted as a slap in the face to the United States. Historians will have to decide whether this was an Israeli insult to Washington. Or was it a low-level bureaucratic announcement, long in the works, that assumed undue significance owing to Biden's visit? Or were partisan forces within Israel or perhaps within the Obama administration manipulating the story? Other possibilities can be conjured with.
What strikes me immediately, however, is the dangerous furor that followed. It could have been avoided. As he was leaving Israel late Friday, March 12, the American vice president already had made his displeasure clear. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had apologized after insisting that the announcement had been made at a low level in his government and was not meant as a provocation. The good-natured American Biden appeared propitiated.
Then ka-pow! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu and raised hell for 43 minutes. Those of us who have followed her singular career know that Clinton's language can be dangerously unrestrained when she loses her temper, as has most recently been reported in "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime." I hope she did not use the kind of language she used on campaign staffers in her presidential campaign, much less the billingsgate she uses on her goatish husband. Whatever she said, tensions between the United States and Israel, according to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, reached an intensity not experienced in more than three decades. Within days of her phone call, young Palestinians were emboldened to violence throughout Jerusalem -- again, tension not experienced in years and, in this case, quite bloody tension.
It is increasingly apparent that our secretary of state is better equipped to be secretary of war in some faraway land in some faraway time when war was not the dangerous threat to world peace that it is today. Frankly, President Barack Obama had better choices to serve as his secretary of state, for instance, the more experienced Biden. Truth be known, Secretary Clinton has heated up hostilities elsewhere during her short tenure.
When she was recently in Argentina -- either from ignorance or after being manipulated by the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner -- Clinton used the Argentines' name, "Malvinas," for the contested islands our British allies call "the Falklands," leaving the impression at a news conference that the United States is neutral in this dispute, a dispute that has cost nearly a thousand lives. The British press was furious. Honduran friends of the United States were equally furious when Hillary took the side of Hugo Chavez's stooge, deposed President Manuel Zelaya, in the controversy he created by illegally attempting to remain in office.
by Emmett Tyrrell
Townhall.com
March 18, 2010
WASHINGTON -- Historians someday will piece together precisely what happened in Jerusalem last week when Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel to encourage renewed negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. Of a sudden, an announcement that Israel was proceeding with the construction of a small number of residential units -- 1,600 in a section of Jerusalem with more than 400,000 inhabitants, roughly 181,500 being Jewish and 229,000 being Muslim -- was interpreted as a slap in the face to the United States. Historians will have to decide whether this was an Israeli insult to Washington. Or was it a low-level bureaucratic announcement, long in the works, that assumed undue significance owing to Biden's visit? Or were partisan forces within Israel or perhaps within the Obama administration manipulating the story? Other possibilities can be conjured with.
What strikes me immediately, however, is the dangerous furor that followed. It could have been avoided. As he was leaving Israel late Friday, March 12, the American vice president already had made his displeasure clear. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had apologized after insisting that the announcement had been made at a low level in his government and was not meant as a provocation. The good-natured American Biden appeared propitiated.
Then ka-pow! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned Netanyahu and raised hell for 43 minutes. Those of us who have followed her singular career know that Clinton's language can be dangerously unrestrained when she loses her temper, as has most recently been reported in "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime." I hope she did not use the kind of language she used on campaign staffers in her presidential campaign, much less the billingsgate she uses on her goatish husband. Whatever she said, tensions between the United States and Israel, according to Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, reached an intensity not experienced in more than three decades. Within days of her phone call, young Palestinians were emboldened to violence throughout Jerusalem -- again, tension not experienced in years and, in this case, quite bloody tension.
It is increasingly apparent that our secretary of state is better equipped to be secretary of war in some faraway land in some faraway time when war was not the dangerous threat to world peace that it is today. Frankly, President Barack Obama had better choices to serve as his secretary of state, for instance, the more experienced Biden. Truth be known, Secretary Clinton has heated up hostilities elsewhere during her short tenure.
When she was recently in Argentina -- either from ignorance or after being manipulated by the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner -- Clinton used the Argentines' name, "Malvinas," for the contested islands our British allies call "the Falklands," leaving the impression at a news conference that the United States is neutral in this dispute, a dispute that has cost nearly a thousand lives. The British press was furious. Honduran friends of the United States were equally furious when Hillary took the side of Hugo Chavez's stooge, deposed President Manuel Zelaya, in the controversy he created by illegally attempting to remain in office.
WHAT PART OF ANNIHILATION DOES THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT UNDERSWTAND?
ISRAEL’S NEW ENEMY: AMERICA?
by Cal Thomas
Townhall.com
March 18, 2010
"Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." -- Dictionary.com
Despite Vice President Joe Biden's recent pledge of unswerving fidelity to Israel during his recent visit there, the rhetoric and pressure directed by the Obama administration against the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East more accurately resembles the behavior of an enemy. Increasingly under this administration -- but also present in Republican administrations -- America's policy toward Israel is full of "harmful designs" and "antagonistic activities." The intentions may not be deliberate, but the outcome would lead to the same injurious end.
The latest pretext for putting more pressure on Israel to do more in the "pursuit of peace" comes from a decision by Israel's Interior Ministry to construct 1,600 new housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which is located in "disputed territory." To the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim neighbors, most especially Iran and Syria, all of Israel is "disputed territory." It is difficult to understand why the U.S. State Department thinks not building a few houses is going to dissuade Israel's enemies from wanting less than they want now.
The failure of this formula has been evident for decades, but U.S. policy continues to employ it, always with the same results. Whether Israel's concessions have been unilateral -- most recently with its abandonment of the Gaza Strip, which predictably led to terrorist attacks from that territory -- or negotiated deals which the Palestinians have never lived up to, Israel always ends up getting its pocket picked. Then, the United States, the U.N., Europe and Russia demand that it put more valuables in its pocket so the thieves can continue their thievery.
A Washington Post headline illustrates the deteriorating relationship between the two nations, "U.S. Pushes Netanyahu to Accept 3 Demands." There is no similar demand that the Palestinians and especially Hamas, which has said it will agree to nothing less than the eradication of Israel, should accept anything, not even the minimal acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Meanwhile, Hamas has called on Palestinians to launch a third "intifada."
After apologizing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the "offense" of the housing announcement during Biden's visit, Netanyahu reminded the Israeli parliament that Israel has been building in east Jerusalem for four decades. He said, "The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."
That doesn't matter when the wrong formula is employed. In this twisted thinking, whatever Israel does is unjustified so long as the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side is unhappy. What part of annihilation does the State Department not understand? What State is blind to is that the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict," as it is erroneously labeled, is part of a worldwide religious war against all things Jewish, Christian, secular, modern and Western.
Making demands of only one side before serious negotiations begin, especially on matters of Jerusalem, so-called "refugees" and borders, effectively pressures Israel into making concessions on all three, which would severely damage its prospects for continued existence.
How about first making these demands of the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side: (1) A pledge of no more war with Israel, or terrorism; 2) a declaration by a powerful Islamic cleric that their God no longer requires them to kill people who don't believe as they do; and 3) no more teaching in Palestinian textbooks and in their media that Jews created AIDS and descend from monkeys and pigs?
After those three demands are met, the State Department can start making demands of Israel. Not before. Anything less puts America on the wrong side, along with Israel's (and America's) enemies. Or hasn't State noticed that we share the same enemies?
by Cal Thomas
Townhall.com
March 18, 2010
"Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." -- Dictionary.com
Despite Vice President Joe Biden's recent pledge of unswerving fidelity to Israel during his recent visit there, the rhetoric and pressure directed by the Obama administration against the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East more accurately resembles the behavior of an enemy. Increasingly under this administration -- but also present in Republican administrations -- America's policy toward Israel is full of "harmful designs" and "antagonistic activities." The intentions may not be deliberate, but the outcome would lead to the same injurious end.
The latest pretext for putting more pressure on Israel to do more in the "pursuit of peace" comes from a decision by Israel's Interior Ministry to construct 1,600 new housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which is located in "disputed territory." To the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim neighbors, most especially Iran and Syria, all of Israel is "disputed territory." It is difficult to understand why the U.S. State Department thinks not building a few houses is going to dissuade Israel's enemies from wanting less than they want now.
The failure of this formula has been evident for decades, but U.S. policy continues to employ it, always with the same results. Whether Israel's concessions have been unilateral -- most recently with its abandonment of the Gaza Strip, which predictably led to terrorist attacks from that territory -- or negotiated deals which the Palestinians have never lived up to, Israel always ends up getting its pocket picked. Then, the United States, the U.N., Europe and Russia demand that it put more valuables in its pocket so the thieves can continue their thievery.
A Washington Post headline illustrates the deteriorating relationship between the two nations, "U.S. Pushes Netanyahu to Accept 3 Demands." There is no similar demand that the Palestinians and especially Hamas, which has said it will agree to nothing less than the eradication of Israel, should accept anything, not even the minimal acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Meanwhile, Hamas has called on Palestinians to launch a third "intifada."
After apologizing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the "offense" of the housing announcement during Biden's visit, Netanyahu reminded the Israeli parliament that Israel has been building in east Jerusalem for four decades. He said, "The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."
That doesn't matter when the wrong formula is employed. In this twisted thinking, whatever Israel does is unjustified so long as the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side is unhappy. What part of annihilation does the State Department not understand? What State is blind to is that the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict," as it is erroneously labeled, is part of a worldwide religious war against all things Jewish, Christian, secular, modern and Western.
Making demands of only one side before serious negotiations begin, especially on matters of Jerusalem, so-called "refugees" and borders, effectively pressures Israel into making concessions on all three, which would severely damage its prospects for continued existence.
How about first making these demands of the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side: (1) A pledge of no more war with Israel, or terrorism; 2) a declaration by a powerful Islamic cleric that their God no longer requires them to kill people who don't believe as they do; and 3) no more teaching in Palestinian textbooks and in their media that Jews created AIDS and descend from monkeys and pigs?
After those three demands are met, the State Department can start making demands of Israel. Not before. Anything less puts America on the wrong side, along with Israel's (and America's) enemies. Or hasn't State noticed that we share the same enemies?
SOUSED-UP SCOT TRIES TO CLOBBER FEMALE COP WITH HIS SHORT-ARM
MAN USED PENIS TO ASSAULT FEMALE POLICE OFFICER
A man who assaulted a female police officer with his penis has been fined.
BBC News
March 16, 2010
Marium Varinauskas, 28, tried to strike the officer on the head with his penis when she was called out to his flat, but she got out of the way.
Lithuanian Varinauskas admitted a charge of assault at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and was fined £600.
The court heard he had been drinking heavily and could not remember committing the offence at his home in Aberdeen.
Police were called to his home by his girlfriend, who had complained about him being drunk last November.
They arrived to find the self-employed engineer sitting on the sofa wearing a pair of underpants.
Fiscal depute Elaine Lynch said: "The accused got to his feet and was standing over the police officer exposing his penis and thrusting it in her face, forcing her to take evasive action to avoid getting struck."
Defence solicitor John Hardie said: "He was sitting on the couch drunk with his pants on.
"He can't remember anything but accepts that if that's what the police say then that's what happened.
"He has never been so drunk before that day and accepts he has to take full responsibility. He apologises profusely and is extremely embarrassed."
His not guilty plea to committing a breach of the peace by uttering offensive and sexual remarks was accepted by the Crown.
Sheriff Annella Cowan was told that the Lithuanian had now quit binge drinking because of the incident.
A man who assaulted a female police officer with his penis has been fined.
BBC News
March 16, 2010
Marium Varinauskas, 28, tried to strike the officer on the head with his penis when she was called out to his flat, but she got out of the way.
Lithuanian Varinauskas admitted a charge of assault at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and was fined £600.
The court heard he had been drinking heavily and could not remember committing the offence at his home in Aberdeen.
Police were called to his home by his girlfriend, who had complained about him being drunk last November.
They arrived to find the self-employed engineer sitting on the sofa wearing a pair of underpants.
Fiscal depute Elaine Lynch said: "The accused got to his feet and was standing over the police officer exposing his penis and thrusting it in her face, forcing her to take evasive action to avoid getting struck."
Defence solicitor John Hardie said: "He was sitting on the couch drunk with his pants on.
"He can't remember anything but accepts that if that's what the police say then that's what happened.
"He has never been so drunk before that day and accepts he has to take full responsibility. He apologises profusely and is extremely embarrassed."
His not guilty plea to committing a breach of the peace by uttering offensive and sexual remarks was accepted by the Crown.
Sheriff Annella Cowan was told that the Lithuanian had now quit binge drinking because of the incident.
ARE WE GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT BOMBING IRAN?
FINAL DESTINATION IRAN?
By Rob Edwards
The Sunday Herald
March 14, 2010
Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.
Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.
Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.
The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.
Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.
Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.
A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.
Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.
“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.
The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.
“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”
According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.
For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”
The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.
About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.
The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
By Rob Edwards
The Sunday Herald
March 14, 2010
Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.
Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.
Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.
The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.
Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.
Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.
A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.
Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.
“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.
The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.
“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”
According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.
For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”
The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.
About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.
The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
AMERICANS ARE TO BLAME FOR THOSE KILLINGS IN MEXICO
The killing in Ciudad Juarez of two U.S. consular officials and the husband of one has highlighted the ongoing wars between Mexican drug cartels and between the cartels and Mexican security forces that have taken nearly 18,000 Mexican lives as that country enters the fourth year of its war on drugs. The killings appear to be most extensive in Juarez, across the border from El Paso, in Matamoros, across the border from Brownsville, Texas, in Reynosa, across the border from McAllen, Texas and even in the resort city of Acapulco.
The trade in illegal drugs is a multi billion dollar business. It has corrupted Mexican government officials and security forces. Several years ago, a DEA agent and an FBI agent working undercover together in Mexico barely escaped with their lives when they found their car surrounded by a dozen assault weapon-toting drug cartel gunmen, half of them dressed in police uniforms.
Many Americans, including some notable conservatives, blame the killings on our “War on Drugs” and advocate that we ‘decriminalize’ (a euphemism for ‘legalize’) marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other mind-altering substances. The decriminalizers are fond of comparing our laws against drugs to the prohibition of alcohol and the killings that prohibition spurred between American bootlegging gangs.
Comparing our laws against drugs with prohibition is like comparing apples and oranges. To begin with, prohibition was strictly a moral issue, never a health issue. While alcohol is a debilitating substance, it does not compare to the mental health hazards experienced by heavy drug users, including those who are addicted to marijuana. There are good grounds for NOT decriminalizing drugs in America.
Mexican officials blame the cartel wars and corruption on the insatiable hunger of Americans for mind-altering drugs. And you know what, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Americans spend billions of dollars every year buying illegal drugs, money that ends up in Mexico and fuels those wars between the drug cartels.
Yes, we Americans are to blame for those killings in Mexico! Those billions of dollars we spend on smoking, snorting and injecting illegal drugs could be put to much better use funding our schools, correctional institutions and infrastructure. Just don’t give me that crap about how much in taxes we would collect by legalizing drugs. That amount would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend to screw up our brains with mind-altering substances.
The trade in illegal drugs is a multi billion dollar business. It has corrupted Mexican government officials and security forces. Several years ago, a DEA agent and an FBI agent working undercover together in Mexico barely escaped with their lives when they found their car surrounded by a dozen assault weapon-toting drug cartel gunmen, half of them dressed in police uniforms.
Many Americans, including some notable conservatives, blame the killings on our “War on Drugs” and advocate that we ‘decriminalize’ (a euphemism for ‘legalize’) marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other mind-altering substances. The decriminalizers are fond of comparing our laws against drugs to the prohibition of alcohol and the killings that prohibition spurred between American bootlegging gangs.
Comparing our laws against drugs with prohibition is like comparing apples and oranges. To begin with, prohibition was strictly a moral issue, never a health issue. While alcohol is a debilitating substance, it does not compare to the mental health hazards experienced by heavy drug users, including those who are addicted to marijuana. There are good grounds for NOT decriminalizing drugs in America.
Mexican officials blame the cartel wars and corruption on the insatiable hunger of Americans for mind-altering drugs. And you know what, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Americans spend billions of dollars every year buying illegal drugs, money that ends up in Mexico and fuels those wars between the drug cartels.
Yes, we Americans are to blame for those killings in Mexico! Those billions of dollars we spend on smoking, snorting and injecting illegal drugs could be put to much better use funding our schools, correctional institutions and infrastructure. Just don’t give me that crap about how much in taxes we would collect by legalizing drugs. That amount would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend to screw up our brains with mind-altering substances.
WITH FRIENDS LIKE JOE BIDEN, ISRAEL DOESN'T NEED ANY ENEMIES
I don not blame Vice President Joe Biden for being angry that Israel announced it would build 1,600 additional housing units in East Jerusalem just after he had arrived in the Jewish state. The timing of the announcement was awful in that it was an embarrassment to the VP and appeared to be an affront to the United States. But did it merit the severe condemnations and demands that were heaped on Israel by the Obama administration?
Biden was quoted by Yediot Aharonot last week as telling Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in an angry exchange over the Ramat Shlomo incident, that “This is starting to get dangerous for us.” He went on to tell Netanyahu that “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”
Biden’t caustic remarks about endangering our troops may have been based on the fact that, according to Foreign Policy magazine, Gen. David Petraeus, sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year “with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”
Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and Israeli settlements do NOT endanger our troops! It’s America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that endanger our troops. Those wars were waged in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S. And while the terrorists may have been inspired by America’s support for Israel, the attacks were an outgrowth of fundamentalist Islam’s longstanding war against the West.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and that includes East Jerusalem. Its capital must remain undivided. Jerusalem's status is nonnegotiable. That gives Israel every right to construct new housing in that city. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking for the Obama administration, is treating Israel like a vassal state, not as a sovereign nation, when she demands that any plans to build 1,600 new housing units be rescinded and that Israel must make other concessions to the Palestinians.
Biden has always claimed and seemed to have been a good friend of Israel. But because Biden’s remarks about endangering our troops were made in the heat of anger, they were made without any aforethought. The media pounced on this story immediately after it learned of what Biden had told Netanyahu. TV talking heads asked every government official they could find if Israel’s settlement policy was endangering the lives of our soldiers.
If Biden’s angry remarks gain any traction with the American public, as they very well might, they will undermine the public’s longtime support for the State of Israel. If that happens, Israel will have received a serious blow in its fight against enemies that have vowed to destroy it and continue to vow that there will be only one (Palestinian) state “from the river to the sea.”
The Obama administration must be doing handsprings over Biden’s intemperate remarks. If those remarks gain any traction with the public, Obama can stop all pretenses about America’s bond with Israel being “unshakable.”
Biden was quoted by Yediot Aharonot last week as telling Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in an angry exchange over the Ramat Shlomo incident, that “This is starting to get dangerous for us.” He went on to tell Netanyahu that “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”
Biden’t caustic remarks about endangering our troops may have been based on the fact that, according to Foreign Policy magazine, Gen. David Petraeus, sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year “with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”
Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and Israeli settlements do NOT endanger our troops! It’s America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that endanger our troops. Those wars were waged in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S. And while the terrorists may have been inspired by America’s support for Israel, the attacks were an outgrowth of fundamentalist Islam’s longstanding war against the West.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and that includes East Jerusalem. Its capital must remain undivided. Jerusalem's status is nonnegotiable. That gives Israel every right to construct new housing in that city. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking for the Obama administration, is treating Israel like a vassal state, not as a sovereign nation, when she demands that any plans to build 1,600 new housing units be rescinded and that Israel must make other concessions to the Palestinians.
Biden has always claimed and seemed to have been a good friend of Israel. But because Biden’s remarks about endangering our troops were made in the heat of anger, they were made without any aforethought. The media pounced on this story immediately after it learned of what Biden had told Netanyahu. TV talking heads asked every government official they could find if Israel’s settlement policy was endangering the lives of our soldiers.
If Biden’s angry remarks gain any traction with the American public, as they very well might, they will undermine the public’s longtime support for the State of Israel. If that happens, Israel will have received a serious blow in its fight against enemies that have vowed to destroy it and continue to vow that there will be only one (Palestinian) state “from the river to the sea.”
The Obama administration must be doing handsprings over Biden’s intemperate remarks. If those remarks gain any traction with the public, Obama can stop all pretenses about America’s bond with Israel being “unshakable.”
A WORD OF CAUTION TO YOU POTHEADS
FLAG DOWN THE POLICE CHIEF, SHOW HIM YOUR WEED, GO TO JAIL
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
March 16, 2010
A word of caution: if you're walking the streets at 4 a.m. with an ounce of weed in your bra, randomly flagging down cars so you can find someone who wants to party, try to make sure you don't run out and wave your arms in front of a car driven by the chief of police.
This is a lesson that 25-year-old Casey Danielle Cook should have kept in mind early Sunday morning when she unwittingly came on to Orange Police Chief Sam Kittrell. Seems Cook was strolling along right when Kittrell, driving his personal SUV, "was going to his office downtown for some extra work before heading to church for early services," according to the Beaumont Enterprise.
Kittrell told the paper the conversation went something like this: he asked her where she was going, and she said "Wherever you want to go." So, naturally, the chief asked "What do you want to do when we get there?" To which the ever-friendly Cook responded, "Whatever you want to do."
At that point, according to the police report, another officer arrived on the scene. That officer reported that Cook "stated that she did not need our help and that she had flagged down the Chief thinking that he was a friend of hers. I asked Cook if she had any type [of] illegal substance in her purse. She stated that she had weed on her person, inside her bra. She then reached inside her bra area and retrieved a clear plastic baggy that contained a green leafy substance and seeds. I believed this to be marijuana."
The report didn't add "Obviously Cook does not have the slightest idea of American jurisprudence regarding probable cause." But it should have.
Turns out Cook also had a warrant out for burglary, so instead of going somewhere cool to party -- like an alley or a crackhouse -- she was escorted to jail. We just hope the chief was able to make it to church on time.
By Craig Malisow
Houston Press
March 16, 2010
A word of caution: if you're walking the streets at 4 a.m. with an ounce of weed in your bra, randomly flagging down cars so you can find someone who wants to party, try to make sure you don't run out and wave your arms in front of a car driven by the chief of police.
This is a lesson that 25-year-old Casey Danielle Cook should have kept in mind early Sunday morning when she unwittingly came on to Orange Police Chief Sam Kittrell. Seems Cook was strolling along right when Kittrell, driving his personal SUV, "was going to his office downtown for some extra work before heading to church for early services," according to the Beaumont Enterprise.
Kittrell told the paper the conversation went something like this: he asked her where she was going, and she said "Wherever you want to go." So, naturally, the chief asked "What do you want to do when we get there?" To which the ever-friendly Cook responded, "Whatever you want to do."
At that point, according to the police report, another officer arrived on the scene. That officer reported that Cook "stated that she did not need our help and that she had flagged down the Chief thinking that he was a friend of hers. I asked Cook if she had any type [of] illegal substance in her purse. She stated that she had weed on her person, inside her bra. She then reached inside her bra area and retrieved a clear plastic baggy that contained a green leafy substance and seeds. I believed this to be marijuana."
The report didn't add "Obviously Cook does not have the slightest idea of American jurisprudence regarding probable cause." But it should have.
Turns out Cook also had a warrant out for burglary, so instead of going somewhere cool to party -- like an alley or a crackhouse -- she was escorted to jail. We just hope the chief was able to make it to church on time.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
MY KIND OF DOG
DETERMINED DOG CHEWS TENN. OFFICER’S TIRES, BUMPER
The officers tried to use a TASER on the animal
Associated Press
March 16, 2010
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — What happened to a Chattanooga police officer's car was certainly under the radar. A city police spokeswoman said Sunday that Officer Clayton Holmes had been checking traffic speeds with radar and stopped to fill out a report when he felt his car shaking.
He found a bulldog chewing on the tires. After the dog attacked two passing cars and a second police car, officers used pepper spray and a Taser on it, but the animal wasn't deterred.
By the time McCamey Animal Center staffers captured that dog and two others, it had chewed two tires and the entire front bumper off Holmes' patrol car.
Officer Rebecca Royval said the dogs got out of a fence at a nearby welding shop. The owner was cited and the dogs were removed.
The officers tried to use a TASER on the animal
Associated Press
March 16, 2010
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — What happened to a Chattanooga police officer's car was certainly under the radar. A city police spokeswoman said Sunday that Officer Clayton Holmes had been checking traffic speeds with radar and stopped to fill out a report when he felt his car shaking.
He found a bulldog chewing on the tires. After the dog attacked two passing cars and a second police car, officers used pepper spray and a Taser on it, but the animal wasn't deterred.
By the time McCamey Animal Center staffers captured that dog and two others, it had chewed two tires and the entire front bumper off Holmes' patrol car.
Officer Rebecca Royval said the dogs got out of a fence at a nearby welding shop. The owner was cited and the dogs were removed.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL VS. THOMAS FRIEDMAN
Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist, is one of those liberal Jews who is never at a loss for words in bashing Israel for measures the Jewish state takes to provide for its long-term survival. On occasion, he has also pronounced his disgust with the Palestinian Authority and Arab terrorism. The all-knowing Friedman has now excoriated Israel for its announcement that it would construct 1,600 new Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem.
Fortunately for Israel, the Wall Street Journal has an answer for Friedman and his ilk by criticizing Obama's anti-Israel policy.
WALL STREET JOURNAL: WHY IS OBAMA AGAINST ISRAEL?
Day after political journalist Thomas Friedman slams Israel for authorizing east Jerusalem building, economic newspaper sides with Israel, criticizes Obama's foreign policy: 'When it comes to Israel, no trouble raising pitch'
Ynetnews.com
March 15, 2009
US newspapers also go head-to-head regarding the crisis between the US and Israel over the cabinet's approval of 1,600 housing units in east Jerusalem during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit. Leading political journalists in the US fall on opposite sides of the fence in their opinions of the affair.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed Monday scathingly criticizing well-known New York Times' journalist Thomas Friedman's assault on Israel published Sunday.
Friedman wrote that upon receiving notice of the east Jerusalem construction, Biden "should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: 'Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And right now, you’re driving drunk. You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious.'"
"Israel needs a wake-up call. Continuing to build settlements in the West Bank, and even housing in disputed east Jerusalem, is sheer madness… Israel’s planned housing expansion now raises questions about whether Israel will ever be willing to concede a Palestinian capital in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — a big problem," wrote Friedman.
OUR FRIENDS ARE BEING DISRESPECTED
In response, the Wall Street Journal op-ed wrote that the Obama administration "has endorsed 'healthy relations' between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the US of 'colonialism,' and publicly apologized to Muammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for 'a jihad' against Switzerland."
However, when it comes to Israel, "the administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation," wrote the article entitled "Obama's Turn Against Israel."
Not even "repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama—from calling the announcement 'an insult to the United States,'" stated the opinion piece.
"Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it's difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern ally… If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the US might react to a military strike on Iran.'
The financial newspaper took an opposite stance on West Bank settlements than that adopted by the Obama administration: "As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians."
"This episode does fit Mr. Obama's foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it's Israel's turn," quipped the Wall Street Journal.
Fortunately for Israel, the Wall Street Journal has an answer for Friedman and his ilk by criticizing Obama's anti-Israel policy.
WALL STREET JOURNAL: WHY IS OBAMA AGAINST ISRAEL?
Day after political journalist Thomas Friedman slams Israel for authorizing east Jerusalem building, economic newspaper sides with Israel, criticizes Obama's foreign policy: 'When it comes to Israel, no trouble raising pitch'
Ynetnews.com
March 15, 2009
US newspapers also go head-to-head regarding the crisis between the US and Israel over the cabinet's approval of 1,600 housing units in east Jerusalem during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit. Leading political journalists in the US fall on opposite sides of the fence in their opinions of the affair.
The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed Monday scathingly criticizing well-known New York Times' journalist Thomas Friedman's assault on Israel published Sunday.
Friedman wrote that upon receiving notice of the east Jerusalem construction, Biden "should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: 'Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And right now, you’re driving drunk. You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious.'"
"Israel needs a wake-up call. Continuing to build settlements in the West Bank, and even housing in disputed east Jerusalem, is sheer madness… Israel’s planned housing expansion now raises questions about whether Israel will ever be willing to concede a Palestinian capital in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — a big problem," wrote Friedman.
OUR FRIENDS ARE BEING DISRESPECTED
In response, the Wall Street Journal op-ed wrote that the Obama administration "has endorsed 'healthy relations' between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the US of 'colonialism,' and publicly apologized to Muammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for 'a jihad' against Switzerland."
However, when it comes to Israel, "the administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation," wrote the article entitled "Obama's Turn Against Israel."
Not even "repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama—from calling the announcement 'an insult to the United States,'" stated the opinion piece.
"Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it's difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern ally… If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the US might react to a military strike on Iran.'
The financial newspaper took an opposite stance on West Bank settlements than that adopted by the Obama administration: "As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians."
"This episode does fit Mr. Obama's foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it's Israel's turn," quipped the Wall Street Journal.
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION KEEPS PILING ON ISRAEL
The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a PALESTINIAN-LED radical-left organization committed to resisting the Israeli ‘occupation’ by calling on civilians from throughout the world to come to Gaza and the West Bank for ‘non-violent’ confrontations with the Israeli army. Rachel Corrie, an American citizen with a long history of anti-Israeli activities, heeded the call and lost her life in the process.
DID WASHINGTON ENCOURAGE BEREAVED FAMILY TO SUE ISRAEL?
Israel Today
March 14, 2010
According to the sister of a left-wing American peace activist killed while protesting the demolition of a terrorist's house in Gaza in 2003, the US government actually encouraged her family to sue the State of Israel.
And sue Israel, they are. The family of International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie is currently in Israel to take part in the opening of a civil suit against the state. The family charges that Rachel was deliberately killed by an IDF bulldozer driver tasked with bringing down the house of a known terrorist in Gaza.
Other ISM activists claim Rachel was standing atop a mound of dirt and clearly visible to the driver. But an internal IDF investigation determined that it was not clear whether or not the driver could see the girl, as his field of vision was very limited. The army also noted that the area was a combat zone at the time, and that the ISM activists knowingly and deliberately put themselves in harm's way.
The Corrie family has contented itself to slinging charges at Israel from abroad for seven years. But Rachel's sister, Sarah Corrie Simpson, told Ha'aretz that when a US government official urged the family to actually sue the State of Israel, they decided to do just that.
DID WASHINGTON ENCOURAGE BEREAVED FAMILY TO SUE ISRAEL?
Israel Today
March 14, 2010
According to the sister of a left-wing American peace activist killed while protesting the demolition of a terrorist's house in Gaza in 2003, the US government actually encouraged her family to sue the State of Israel.
And sue Israel, they are. The family of International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie is currently in Israel to take part in the opening of a civil suit against the state. The family charges that Rachel was deliberately killed by an IDF bulldozer driver tasked with bringing down the house of a known terrorist in Gaza.
Other ISM activists claim Rachel was standing atop a mound of dirt and clearly visible to the driver. But an internal IDF investigation determined that it was not clear whether or not the driver could see the girl, as his field of vision was very limited. The army also noted that the area was a combat zone at the time, and that the ISM activists knowingly and deliberately put themselves in harm's way.
The Corrie family has contented itself to slinging charges at Israel from abroad for seven years. But Rachel's sister, Sarah Corrie Simpson, told Ha'aretz that when a US government official urged the family to actually sue the State of Israel, they decided to do just that.
Monday, March 15, 2010
JERUSALEM IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL AND MUST REMAIN UNDIVIDED
ISRAEL IS A SOVEREIGN NATION, NOT A VASSAL STATE
While the timing of the housing construction announcement during Vice President Biden’s visit was bad, it does not alter the fact that Israel has every right to construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and, as such, must remain undivided.
Biden, Obama adviser David Axelrod and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have strongly condemned Israel’s intention to continue building Jewish housing in Jerusalem and Clinton added that the timing of the announcement was an insult to Biden and a slap in the face of the United States. What they don’t understand is that the status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable.
NETANYAHU: ISRAEL WILL KEEP BUILDING IN JERUSALEM
By Barak Ravid and Mazal Mualem
Haaretz.com
March 15, 2010
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said that Israel would continue to build in Jerusalem in the same way that it has over the last 42 years.
"The building in Jerusalem - and in all other places - will continue in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years," said Netanyahu at a Likud party meeting.
Israel drew angry reactions from the U.S. and the Palestinians by announcing last week the construction of 1,600 new housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week.
Netanyahu did not specifically address the diplomatic crisis with the U.S.over Israel's announcement about the East Jerusalem construction.
However, when asked by MK Tzipi Hotovely what would happen in September, when the 10-month settlement freeze ends, Netanyahu responded that construction would continue unabated.
Under U.S. pressure, Netanyahu imposed a limited moratorium on new housing starts in West Bank settlements in November but excluded Jerusalem from the 10-month partial freeze.
Also on Monday, in a speech to the Knesset to welcome Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Netanyahu said the construction of homes for Israelis in the city's eastern sector in no way hurts Palestinians.
In his speech, Netanyahu gave no indication he would cancel the project or limit construction in East Jerusalem.
"For the past 40 years, no Israeli government ever limited construction in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem," he said in a speech to the Knesset, citing areas in the West Bank that Israel captured during the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed to the city.
Netanyahu called on the Palestinians, who have said they would not restart peace negotiations unless the project was scrapped, not to place new preconditions on the revival of the talks.
He added that there was nearly total consensus among Israeli political parties that what he called Jewish neighborhoods in and around Jerusalem would remain "part of the state of Israel" in any future peace agreement.
Palestinians say Israeli settlement in the West Bank will deny them a viable state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They claim East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state.
----------
Speaking of insults and slaps in the face, that is exactly what Clinton is doing to Israel by her demands. Doesn’t the Obama administration realize that Israel is a sovereign nation, not a vassal state?
U.S. DEMANDS ISRAEL CANCEL RAMAT SHLOMO [JERUSALEM] CONSTRUCTION PLANS
by Gil Ronen and Yoni Kempinski
IsraelNationalNews.com
March 14, 2010
The United States administration has presented Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with a set of demands, including cancellation of the construction of 1,600 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, Channel 2 reported Sunday night.
According to the report, which is quoted by Maariv/NRG, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Netanyahu to cancel the housing project that passed a bureaucratic hurdle just as Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel, causing an emotional response from the United States.
She also demanded that Israel carry out a “meaningful gesture” toward the Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, before the Special US Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, visits the region on Friday. Reporters said the gesture Clinton was referring to was probably a release of terrorist prisoners.
A third demand made by Clinton was that Israel declare that the negotiations with the PA will include all of the “core issues” that are in dispute between Israel and the PA.
While the timing of the housing construction announcement during Vice President Biden’s visit was bad, it does not alter the fact that Israel has every right to construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and, as such, must remain undivided.
Biden, Obama adviser David Axelrod and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have strongly condemned Israel’s intention to continue building Jewish housing in Jerusalem and Clinton added that the timing of the announcement was an insult to Biden and a slap in the face of the United States. What they don’t understand is that the status of Jerusalem is non-negotiable.
NETANYAHU: ISRAEL WILL KEEP BUILDING IN JERUSALEM
By Barak Ravid and Mazal Mualem
Haaretz.com
March 15, 2010
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said that Israel would continue to build in Jerusalem in the same way that it has over the last 42 years.
"The building in Jerusalem - and in all other places - will continue in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years," said Netanyahu at a Likud party meeting.
Israel drew angry reactions from the U.S. and the Palestinians by announcing last week the construction of 1,600 new housing units in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week.
Netanyahu did not specifically address the diplomatic crisis with the U.S.over Israel's announcement about the East Jerusalem construction.
However, when asked by MK Tzipi Hotovely what would happen in September, when the 10-month settlement freeze ends, Netanyahu responded that construction would continue unabated.
Under U.S. pressure, Netanyahu imposed a limited moratorium on new housing starts in West Bank settlements in November but excluded Jerusalem from the 10-month partial freeze.
Also on Monday, in a speech to the Knesset to welcome Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Netanyahu said the construction of homes for Israelis in the city's eastern sector in no way hurts Palestinians.
In his speech, Netanyahu gave no indication he would cancel the project or limit construction in East Jerusalem.
"For the past 40 years, no Israeli government ever limited construction in the neighborhoods of Jerusalem," he said in a speech to the Knesset, citing areas in the West Bank that Israel captured during the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed to the city.
Netanyahu called on the Palestinians, who have said they would not restart peace negotiations unless the project was scrapped, not to place new preconditions on the revival of the talks.
He added that there was nearly total consensus among Israeli political parties that what he called Jewish neighborhoods in and around Jerusalem would remain "part of the state of Israel" in any future peace agreement.
Palestinians say Israeli settlement in the West Bank will deny them a viable state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They claim East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future state.
----------
Speaking of insults and slaps in the face, that is exactly what Clinton is doing to Israel by her demands. Doesn’t the Obama administration realize that Israel is a sovereign nation, not a vassal state?
U.S. DEMANDS ISRAEL CANCEL RAMAT SHLOMO [JERUSALEM] CONSTRUCTION PLANS
by Gil Ronen and Yoni Kempinski
IsraelNationalNews.com
March 14, 2010
The United States administration has presented Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with a set of demands, including cancellation of the construction of 1,600 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, Channel 2 reported Sunday night.
According to the report, which is quoted by Maariv/NRG, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Netanyahu to cancel the housing project that passed a bureaucratic hurdle just as Vice President Joe Biden visited Israel, causing an emotional response from the United States.
She also demanded that Israel carry out a “meaningful gesture” toward the Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, before the Special US Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, visits the region on Friday. Reporters said the gesture Clinton was referring to was probably a release of terrorist prisoners.
A third demand made by Clinton was that Israel declare that the negotiations with the PA will include all of the “core issues” that are in dispute between Israel and the PA.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LAWYER AND A LIAR IS THE SPELLING
Yeah, right. If you believe this lawyer didn’t know about the funny money, then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.
CRIMINAL LAWYERS?
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrections blog
March 14, 2010
It appears that there has been a small rash of lawyers participating in the criminal justice system to an unusual degree within the City and County of San Francisco.
The most recent case is caught up in the current imbroglio over the S. F. police lab and drug testing. A lot of drug cases have been kicked because a techie was allegedly stealing drugs from the lab.
In the most recent case defendant Thomas Lenon managed to avoid prosecution for three different cases involving allegations of possession of meth. A gang task force officer was waiting for him outside the courthouse to arrest him in a counterfeiting case. The officer hooked Lenon up and was walking him away when his attorney, Ken Quigley, reached into Lenon's pocket and took his wallet.
The officer, Dan Silver, asked for the wallet back. Quigley refused. Silver threaten to arrest the lawyer. He still refused. Silver did in fact arrest the lawyer. Guess what? The wallet had two counterfeit $50s in it, $5 bills that had been altered to look like $50s.
Quigley was cited for misdemeanor obstruction of justice and concealing evidence. He asserts that Lenon asked him to take the wallet, and denies he knew the funny money was in it.
CRIMINAL LAWYERS?
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrections blog
March 14, 2010
It appears that there has been a small rash of lawyers participating in the criminal justice system to an unusual degree within the City and County of San Francisco.
The most recent case is caught up in the current imbroglio over the S. F. police lab and drug testing. A lot of drug cases have been kicked because a techie was allegedly stealing drugs from the lab.
In the most recent case defendant Thomas Lenon managed to avoid prosecution for three different cases involving allegations of possession of meth. A gang task force officer was waiting for him outside the courthouse to arrest him in a counterfeiting case. The officer hooked Lenon up and was walking him away when his attorney, Ken Quigley, reached into Lenon's pocket and took his wallet.
The officer, Dan Silver, asked for the wallet back. Quigley refused. Silver threaten to arrest the lawyer. He still refused. Silver did in fact arrest the lawyer. Guess what? The wallet had two counterfeit $50s in it, $5 bills that had been altered to look like $50s.
Quigley was cited for misdemeanor obstruction of justice and concealing evidence. He asserts that Lenon asked him to take the wallet, and denies he knew the funny money was in it.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
CONFUCIUS SAY .........
Confucius say, "If you are in a book store and cannot find the book for which you search, you are obviously in the ..........
Saturday, March 13, 2010
SCRATCH, WHACK, TAKE THAT YOU CHEATING .......... (3)
New documents released by the Florida Highway Patrol reveal that the paramedics who took Tiger Woods to the hospital refused to allow his wife Elin to accompany him in the ambulance because they suspected he was the victim of domestic violence.
The only visible injury Woods had was a busted lip and blood on his teeth. When FHP Corporal Thomas R. Dewitt inspected the inside of Tiger’s SUV, he reported that “I could find no blood in the driver compartment area.”
As to the claim by Tiger’s wife that she broke the car’s window with a golf club so she could extricate him from the SUV, the FHP documents noted that the passenger side door could be readily opened.
The FHP report also revealed that state troopers requested to see the videos taken by two surveillance cameras installed on the Tiger Woods property but were denied access to them, his attorney explaining that the cameras were not working. A multi-million dollar mansion and the cameras were not working? If you believe that, I still have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Last month, when Woods apologized to everyone but Osama bin Laden for cheating on his wife, he vehemently denied that Elin had ever hit him and he was highly incensed because some sports writers had implied that she had done so.
Unfortunately for Tiger, the FHP documents strongly imply that Elin whacked the shit out of him. The paramedics thought so. There was no blood inside the driver’s compartment of the wrecked SUV. The state police were denied access to the surveillance camera videos. Now why would they be denied the chance to view those videos? I suspect they would show an angry golf club swinging Elin charging after that cheating husband of hers.
The only visible injury Woods had was a busted lip and blood on his teeth. When FHP Corporal Thomas R. Dewitt inspected the inside of Tiger’s SUV, he reported that “I could find no blood in the driver compartment area.”
As to the claim by Tiger’s wife that she broke the car’s window with a golf club so she could extricate him from the SUV, the FHP documents noted that the passenger side door could be readily opened.
The FHP report also revealed that state troopers requested to see the videos taken by two surveillance cameras installed on the Tiger Woods property but were denied access to them, his attorney explaining that the cameras were not working. A multi-million dollar mansion and the cameras were not working? If you believe that, I still have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.
Last month, when Woods apologized to everyone but Osama bin Laden for cheating on his wife, he vehemently denied that Elin had ever hit him and he was highly incensed because some sports writers had implied that she had done so.
Unfortunately for Tiger, the FHP documents strongly imply that Elin whacked the shit out of him. The paramedics thought so. There was no blood inside the driver’s compartment of the wrecked SUV. The state police were denied access to the surveillance camera videos. Now why would they be denied the chance to view those videos? I suspect they would show an angry golf club swinging Elin charging after that cheating husband of hers.
ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN HELD TO A DOUBLE STANDARD
Israel has always been held to a double standard when it comes to defending itself against its enemies. You can expect that from the Palestinians and their Muslim allies who have declared over and over again, since its inception, their vow to destroy the Jewish State. The Europeans have been quick to condemn almost any action the Israelis have taken in response to attacks against its people, actions they themselves would almost certainly take if their people were attacked by their enemies. The academic left in the United States and in Europe has always taken up the Palestinian cause and has called for boycotts of and divestments in Israel for that state’s actions in trying to survive as a viable state.
It is refreshing to see a rare defense of Israel’s attempts at survival in a British publication. Here is that defense by Andrew Roberts in the Financial Times:
ISRAEL IS NO MORE ROGUE THAN AMERICA
By Andrew Roberts
Financial Times
March 2, 2010
Is state-sanctioned assassination justifiable, or does it somehow de-legitimise the state that undertakes it? Two articles in this newspaper last week, by Henry Siegman and David Gardner, have been violently critical of Israel in the wake of the assassination of the Hamas arms smuggler Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on 19 January.
Mr. Siegman wrote of how “Israel’s colonial ambitions” and “checkpoints, barbed wire and separation walls” were “turning Israel from a democracy into an apartheid state”, thereby creating a “looming global threat to the country’s legitimacy”. Two days later Mr. Gardner wrote of how Israel’s “militarist extroversion” over the Dubai murder demonstrated an “Israeli preference for instantly satisfying executive solutions to complex political and geopolitical problems” which would “widen the international battle-space for tit-for-tat attacks” and “encourage the perception that [Israel] is a rogue state”.
Both commentators are completely wrong. All that the Dubai operation will do is remind the world that the security services of states at war – and Israel’s struggle with Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah certainly constitutes that – occasionally employ targeted assassination as one of the weapons in their armory, and that this in no way weakens their legitimacy. As for the “separation walls” and checkpoints that one sees in Israel, the 99 per cent drop in the number of suicide bombings since their erection justifies the policy. There is simply no parallel between apartheid South Africa – where the white minority wielded power over the black majority – and the occupied territories, taken by Israel only after it was invaded by its neighbors. To make such a link is not only inaccurate, but offensive. If Arab Israelis were deprived of civil and franchise rights, that would justify such hyperbole, but of course they have the same rights as every Jewish Israeli.
Far from having any colonial ambitions, Israel wants nothing more than to live peaceably within defensible borders. But equally it demands nothing less.
Furthermore, rather than some kind of knee-jerk “preference for instantly satisfying executive solutions”, the decision to kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh – assuming it was sanctioned, planned and carried out by Mossad alone, which is anything but clear at this stage – would have been minutely examined from every political and operational angle. Yet sometimes complex political and geopolitical problems do require the cutting of the Gordian knot, and this was one such.
When Britain was at war, Winston Churchill sanctioned the assassination by its Special Operations Executive of the SS General Reinhard Heydrich, the capture (and killing if necessary) of General Heinrich Kreipe on Crete; ditto Erwin Rommel. Just as with some Mossad operations, such as the disaster in Amman in 1997 when agents were captured after failing to kill Khaled Meshal of Hamas, not all Churchill’s hits were successful. But the British state was not de-legitimized in any way as a result.
The intelligence agents of states – sometimes operating with direct authority, sometimes not – have carried out many assassinations and assassination attempts in peacetime without the legitimacy of those states being called into question, or their being described as “rogue”. In 1985 the French Deuxième Bureau sank Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior trawler, killing photographer Fernando Pereira, without anyone denouncing France as a rogue state. Similarly, in 2006, polonium 210 was used to murder Alexander Litvinenko without Putin’s Russia being described as “illegitimate”. That kind of language is only reserved for Israel, even though neither Pereira nor Litvinenko posed the danger to French and Russian citizens that was posed to Israelis by the activities of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
The reason that such double standards still apply – more than six decades after the foundation of the state of Israel – is not because of the nature of that doughty, brave, embattled, tiny, surrounded, yet proudly defiant country, but because of the nature of its foes. Even though one has to be in one’s seventies to remember a time when Israel didn’t exist, nevertheless there are still those who call the country’s legitimacy into question, employing anything that happens to be in the news at the time – such as this latest assassination – to try to argue that Israel is not a real country, and therefore doesn’t really deserve to exist. Real rogue states such as North Korea might be loathed and criticized, but even they do not have their very legitimacy as a state called into question because of their actions.
Those who wish to understand Israel’s actions and put them in their proper historical context should read Michael Burleigh’s cultural history of terrorism, Blood and Rage. Burleigh quotes a senior Mossad agent saying after the Munich Olympics massacre of 11 Israeli athletes: “If there was intelligence information, the target was reachable and if there was an opportunity, we took it. As far as we were concerned we were creating a deterrence, forcing them to crawl into a defensive shell and not plan offensive attacks against us.”
Is that attitude so very different from the pre-emptive targeted assassination of Taliban leaders that NATO carries out by flying drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan today? Yet are Messrs. Siegman and Gardner going to call into question America’s legitimacy? No, that insult is reserved for only one country: Israel.
----------
The writer is a historian and author. His latest book is ‘The Storm of War’
It is refreshing to see a rare defense of Israel’s attempts at survival in a British publication. Here is that defense by Andrew Roberts in the Financial Times:
ISRAEL IS NO MORE ROGUE THAN AMERICA
By Andrew Roberts
Financial Times
March 2, 2010
Is state-sanctioned assassination justifiable, or does it somehow de-legitimise the state that undertakes it? Two articles in this newspaper last week, by Henry Siegman and David Gardner, have been violently critical of Israel in the wake of the assassination of the Hamas arms smuggler Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on 19 January.
Mr. Siegman wrote of how “Israel’s colonial ambitions” and “checkpoints, barbed wire and separation walls” were “turning Israel from a democracy into an apartheid state”, thereby creating a “looming global threat to the country’s legitimacy”. Two days later Mr. Gardner wrote of how Israel’s “militarist extroversion” over the Dubai murder demonstrated an “Israeli preference for instantly satisfying executive solutions to complex political and geopolitical problems” which would “widen the international battle-space for tit-for-tat attacks” and “encourage the perception that [Israel] is a rogue state”.
Both commentators are completely wrong. All that the Dubai operation will do is remind the world that the security services of states at war – and Israel’s struggle with Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah certainly constitutes that – occasionally employ targeted assassination as one of the weapons in their armory, and that this in no way weakens their legitimacy. As for the “separation walls” and checkpoints that one sees in Israel, the 99 per cent drop in the number of suicide bombings since their erection justifies the policy. There is simply no parallel between apartheid South Africa – where the white minority wielded power over the black majority – and the occupied territories, taken by Israel only after it was invaded by its neighbors. To make such a link is not only inaccurate, but offensive. If Arab Israelis were deprived of civil and franchise rights, that would justify such hyperbole, but of course they have the same rights as every Jewish Israeli.
Far from having any colonial ambitions, Israel wants nothing more than to live peaceably within defensible borders. But equally it demands nothing less.
Furthermore, rather than some kind of knee-jerk “preference for instantly satisfying executive solutions”, the decision to kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh – assuming it was sanctioned, planned and carried out by Mossad alone, which is anything but clear at this stage – would have been minutely examined from every political and operational angle. Yet sometimes complex political and geopolitical problems do require the cutting of the Gordian knot, and this was one such.
When Britain was at war, Winston Churchill sanctioned the assassination by its Special Operations Executive of the SS General Reinhard Heydrich, the capture (and killing if necessary) of General Heinrich Kreipe on Crete; ditto Erwin Rommel. Just as with some Mossad operations, such as the disaster in Amman in 1997 when agents were captured after failing to kill Khaled Meshal of Hamas, not all Churchill’s hits were successful. But the British state was not de-legitimized in any way as a result.
The intelligence agents of states – sometimes operating with direct authority, sometimes not – have carried out many assassinations and assassination attempts in peacetime without the legitimacy of those states being called into question, or their being described as “rogue”. In 1985 the French Deuxième Bureau sank Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior trawler, killing photographer Fernando Pereira, without anyone denouncing France as a rogue state. Similarly, in 2006, polonium 210 was used to murder Alexander Litvinenko without Putin’s Russia being described as “illegitimate”. That kind of language is only reserved for Israel, even though neither Pereira nor Litvinenko posed the danger to French and Russian citizens that was posed to Israelis by the activities of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
The reason that such double standards still apply – more than six decades after the foundation of the state of Israel – is not because of the nature of that doughty, brave, embattled, tiny, surrounded, yet proudly defiant country, but because of the nature of its foes. Even though one has to be in one’s seventies to remember a time when Israel didn’t exist, nevertheless there are still those who call the country’s legitimacy into question, employing anything that happens to be in the news at the time – such as this latest assassination – to try to argue that Israel is not a real country, and therefore doesn’t really deserve to exist. Real rogue states such as North Korea might be loathed and criticized, but even they do not have their very legitimacy as a state called into question because of their actions.
Those who wish to understand Israel’s actions and put them in their proper historical context should read Michael Burleigh’s cultural history of terrorism, Blood and Rage. Burleigh quotes a senior Mossad agent saying after the Munich Olympics massacre of 11 Israeli athletes: “If there was intelligence information, the target was reachable and if there was an opportunity, we took it. As far as we were concerned we were creating a deterrence, forcing them to crawl into a defensive shell and not plan offensive attacks against us.”
Is that attitude so very different from the pre-emptive targeted assassination of Taliban leaders that NATO carries out by flying drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan today? Yet are Messrs. Siegman and Gardner going to call into question America’s legitimacy? No, that insult is reserved for only one country: Israel.
----------
The writer is a historian and author. His latest book is ‘The Storm of War’
Friday, March 12, 2010
35 YEARS FOR SOME POOR KID WHO WAS PROBABLY SUFFERING FROM 'POST CIRCUMCISION STRESS DISORDER'?
I’m sure the advocates of leniency for child criminals are going to weep and wail over the length of the sentence meted out in this case. Personally, I think the little prick was lucky he didn’t get life.
DEPUTY WOUNDED BY [15-YEAR-OLD] SHOOTER LAUDS 35-YEAR TERM
By Mike Glenn
Houston Chronicle
March 11, 2010
A part-time Harris County deputy constable said he was satisfied with the 35-year prison sentence imposed on the teenage car burglar who shot him.
“I'm glad he did get prison time and not let go,“ said the deputy, Tomas Infante.
Christopher Brunell was 15 when he shot Infante in December 2008 after the recent police academy graduate saw him and two others breaking into a neighbor's car. Brunell pulled out a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol and opened fire, striking Infante in the abdomen and right forearm.
“He started walking towards me and started blasting away,” Infante said.
Sheriff's detectives eventually found eight shell casings at the scene.
Taking cover behind the car, Infante watched as Brunell and the other two fled from the northwest Harris County neighborhood. As Infante lay bleeding on the ground, a thought popped into his mind.
“Man, I just graduated from the academy,” he recalled on Wednesday.
He couldn't walk for about three months after the shooting and required months of intensive physical therapy.
As Infante mended, the search for Brunell continued. An anonymous Crime Stoppers tip led to his arrest in mid-January 2009, Harris County prosecutors said.
“He gave a statement admitting that he fired the weapon,”' said Laura Killinger with the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
Brunell was certified to stand trial as an adult. He pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and, on Wednesday, was given the 35-year sentence by Harris County District Judge Marc Carter.
“He didn't have any remorse. He didn't care if I died or not,” said the 36-year-old Infante, who attended the sentencing.
The shooting would delay Infante's plans to take his licensing exam to become a law enforcement officer.
Most prospective Texas police officers test immediately after completing academy training . He would take it seven months later.
“I passed it on the first go-round,” he said. “I was actually proud of myself.”
Infante was hired as a deputy last November by a Harris County Constable's Office.
DEPUTY WOUNDED BY [15-YEAR-OLD] SHOOTER LAUDS 35-YEAR TERM
By Mike Glenn
Houston Chronicle
March 11, 2010
A part-time Harris County deputy constable said he was satisfied with the 35-year prison sentence imposed on the teenage car burglar who shot him.
“I'm glad he did get prison time and not let go,“ said the deputy, Tomas Infante.
Christopher Brunell was 15 when he shot Infante in December 2008 after the recent police academy graduate saw him and two others breaking into a neighbor's car. Brunell pulled out a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol and opened fire, striking Infante in the abdomen and right forearm.
“He started walking towards me and started blasting away,” Infante said.
Sheriff's detectives eventually found eight shell casings at the scene.
Taking cover behind the car, Infante watched as Brunell and the other two fled from the northwest Harris County neighborhood. As Infante lay bleeding on the ground, a thought popped into his mind.
“Man, I just graduated from the academy,” he recalled on Wednesday.
He couldn't walk for about three months after the shooting and required months of intensive physical therapy.
As Infante mended, the search for Brunell continued. An anonymous Crime Stoppers tip led to his arrest in mid-January 2009, Harris County prosecutors said.
“He gave a statement admitting that he fired the weapon,”' said Laura Killinger with the Harris County District Attorney's Office.
Brunell was certified to stand trial as an adult. He pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and, on Wednesday, was given the 35-year sentence by Harris County District Judge Marc Carter.
“He didn't have any remorse. He didn't care if I died or not,” said the 36-year-old Infante, who attended the sentencing.
The shooting would delay Infante's plans to take his licensing exam to become a law enforcement officer.
Most prospective Texas police officers test immediately after completing academy training . He would take it seven months later.
“I passed it on the first go-round,” he said. “I was actually proud of myself.”
Infante was hired as a deputy last November by a Harris County Constable's Office.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
ABU AL-ZARQAWI REWARDED WITH 72 VIRGINIANS
Abu al-Zarqawi, a Jihadist suicide bomber, blew himself up and was met at the Pearly Gates by George Washington. The 'Father of Our Country' slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed!"
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat al-Zarqawi with a long cane and snarled "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist.
As al-Zarqawi lay bleeding and in pain, his Imam appeared. Al- Zarqawi wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Imam replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"
Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed!"
James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"
Thomas Jefferson was next, beat al-Zarqawi with a long cane and snarled "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."
The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the Muslim terrorist.
As al-Zarqawi lay bleeding and in pain, his Imam appeared. Al- Zarqawi wept and said, "This is not what you promised me."
The Imam replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
LI-LO IS NO MILK-AHOLIC
It wasn’t all that long ago that Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan were reported to be a quartet of Hollywood celebrities partying nightly into the wee hours of the morning, boozing it up, smoking pot and snorting coke.
Lohan has managed to find an attorney who must have graduated last in his class at Bottomfeeder University School of Law. They have filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against E-Trade, claiming that its comedic talking baby milk-aholic commercial mocked her by using her name without permission.
Used her name without permission? A Google search reveals that there are nearly 100,000 Lindseys in this country. And LiLo is no milk-aholic by any stretch of the imagination. Alcoholic, maybe. Doper, probably.
This lawsuit doesn't have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere. It’s almost as laughable as that talking baby commercial Lohan seems so upset about. E-Trade should file a counter-suit against Lohan and her dippy lawyer for harassment!
TATTLE: BABY IN E-TRADE AD DRAWS LAWSUIT FROM LI-LO
By Howard Gensler
Philadelphia Daily News
March 10, 2010
THE STRANGE, TWISTED saga of Lindsay Lohan and her dysfunctional family would be terribly sad if LiLo didn't often do things that were incredibly funny.
Yesterday, for instance, it was reported by the New York Post that Lindsay has sued E-Trade [for $100 million], claiming that the milk-aholic baby in the company's latest talking-baby commercial was modeled after her.
How does she figure? Is she a talking baby?
Her attorney contends that "Lindsay" is an equally recognizable moniker for Lohan, on a par with Oprah or Madonna. Or Mandela, Ali or Pele.
Except Lindsay is an incredibly popular name. Just look at Facebook.
What about Fleetwood Mac's Lindsey Buckingham? Or Olympic gold medalist Lindsey Vonn? She's got strong bones and probably is a milk-aholic.
If that E-Trade baby were litigious, she would sue Lindsay Lohan for defamation of character.
Lohan has managed to find an attorney who must have graduated last in his class at Bottomfeeder University School of Law. They have filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against E-Trade, claiming that its comedic talking baby milk-aholic commercial mocked her by using her name without permission.
Used her name without permission? A Google search reveals that there are nearly 100,000 Lindseys in this country. And LiLo is no milk-aholic by any stretch of the imagination. Alcoholic, maybe. Doper, probably.
This lawsuit doesn't have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anywhere. It’s almost as laughable as that talking baby commercial Lohan seems so upset about. E-Trade should file a counter-suit against Lohan and her dippy lawyer for harassment!
TATTLE: BABY IN E-TRADE AD DRAWS LAWSUIT FROM LI-LO
By Howard Gensler
Philadelphia Daily News
March 10, 2010
THE STRANGE, TWISTED saga of Lindsay Lohan and her dysfunctional family would be terribly sad if LiLo didn't often do things that were incredibly funny.
Yesterday, for instance, it was reported by the New York Post that Lindsay has sued E-Trade [for $100 million], claiming that the milk-aholic baby in the company's latest talking-baby commercial was modeled after her.
How does she figure? Is she a talking baby?
Her attorney contends that "Lindsay" is an equally recognizable moniker for Lohan, on a par with Oprah or Madonna. Or Mandela, Ali or Pele.
Except Lindsay is an incredibly popular name. Just look at Facebook.
What about Fleetwood Mac's Lindsey Buckingham? Or Olympic gold medalist Lindsey Vonn? She's got strong bones and probably is a milk-aholic.
If that E-Trade baby were litigious, she would sue Lindsay Lohan for defamation of character.
GETTING DISTURBED BY A CELL PHONE USER CAN BE HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH
CREEPY MOVIES CAN BE DANGEROUS
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrections blog
March 10, 2010
A man was sitting in a theatre in Lancaster watching SHUTTER ISLAND on February 27 when he made the mistake of asking some chatterbox woman in the audience to quit yakking on her cell phone during the flick. She left the seating area, but returned a few minutes later with two men. One of them stabbed the complainer in the neck with a meat thermometer. Two other people who came to his aid were also injured.
The primary victim is in the hospital with serious injuries. I wonder if he got a refund on his ticket.
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrections blog
March 10, 2010
A man was sitting in a theatre in Lancaster watching SHUTTER ISLAND on February 27 when he made the mistake of asking some chatterbox woman in the audience to quit yakking on her cell phone during the flick. She left the seating area, but returned a few minutes later with two men. One of them stabbed the complainer in the neck with a meat thermometer. Two other people who came to his aid were also injured.
The primary victim is in the hospital with serious injuries. I wonder if he got a refund on his ticket.
HE GOT HIS NEIGHBOR'S GOAT
MAN ACCUSED OF SODOMIZING NEIGHBOR’S GOAT
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press
March 9, 2010
Frankly, we are a little astonished that the crime 18-year-old Osama Latif Malik is accused of committing allegedly took place right here in Harris County, albeit in Spring.
It's just not that often that we here in the nation's fourth-largest city read of people getting accused of having sex with their neighbor's goat, even at rodeo time.
It seems downright biblical, doesn't it? Or maybe a transgression from the Classical Mediterranean world: several ancient Greeks of note, including both Herodotus and Pindar, claimed that the Egyptians of pharoah days engaged in ritual congress with goats.
Perhaps Malik is of Egyptian heritage and merely honoring his very distant, pre-Islamic ancestors...At any rate, he is lucky he doesn't live in biblical times, for according to court documents, his transgression would be punishable by death for two reasons.
[Here is a] snippet of the charges against Malik:
OSAMA LATIF MALIK, heretofore on or about March 3, 2010, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly engage in an act invloving contact between the defendant's GENITALS and the ANUS of A GOAT to-wit: DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE in a non-public place...and the defendant was reckless about whether another person was present who would be offended and alarmed by the acts of the defendant, to-wit: ENGAGING IN DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A GOAT.
All punctuation original to the court documents....We imagine the court clerk laughing out loud with every capitalized passage...
Okay then. If we were to heed Leviticus, Malik could be put to death for either sodomy or bestiality, but since this is modern-day Texas, all he faces is a misdemeanor public lewdness rap.
Well, public lewdness and trespassing, for as we mentioned, he stands accused of rogering not his own goat but one belonging to his neighbor. (Come to think of it, doesn't that violate one of the Ten Commandments? Isn't there one about coveting the ass of your neighbor's goat?)
Public lewdness is a class A misdemeanor punishable by a max of one year in jail and a fine of $4000.
Lame.
We prefer the punishment concocted four years by a council of elders in Sudan. The situation was pretty much identical to this one. The BBC picks up the tale:
Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.
"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."
Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.
Indeed. Why should the state get a fine instead of the goat's owner? And who could begrudge these two what seems to have been a lifetime of happiness?
"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.
By John Nova Lomax
Houston Press
March 9, 2010
Frankly, we are a little astonished that the crime 18-year-old Osama Latif Malik is accused of committing allegedly took place right here in Harris County, albeit in Spring.
It's just not that often that we here in the nation's fourth-largest city read of people getting accused of having sex with their neighbor's goat, even at rodeo time.
It seems downright biblical, doesn't it? Or maybe a transgression from the Classical Mediterranean world: several ancient Greeks of note, including both Herodotus and Pindar, claimed that the Egyptians of pharoah days engaged in ritual congress with goats.
Perhaps Malik is of Egyptian heritage and merely honoring his very distant, pre-Islamic ancestors...At any rate, he is lucky he doesn't live in biblical times, for according to court documents, his transgression would be punishable by death for two reasons.
[Here is a] snippet of the charges against Malik:
OSAMA LATIF MALIK, heretofore on or about March 3, 2010, did then and there unlawfully and knowingly engage in an act invloving contact between the defendant's GENITALS and the ANUS of A GOAT to-wit: DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE in a non-public place...and the defendant was reckless about whether another person was present who would be offended and alarmed by the acts of the defendant, to-wit: ENGAGING IN DEVIATE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A GOAT.
All punctuation original to the court documents....We imagine the court clerk laughing out loud with every capitalized passage...
Okay then. If we were to heed Leviticus, Malik could be put to death for either sodomy or bestiality, but since this is modern-day Texas, all he faces is a misdemeanor public lewdness rap.
Well, public lewdness and trespassing, for as we mentioned, he stands accused of rogering not his own goat but one belonging to his neighbor. (Come to think of it, doesn't that violate one of the Ten Commandments? Isn't there one about coveting the ass of your neighbor's goat?)
Public lewdness is a class A misdemeanor punishable by a max of one year in jail and a fine of $4000.
Lame.
We prefer the punishment concocted four years by a council of elders in Sudan. The situation was pretty much identical to this one. The BBC picks up the tale:
Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.
"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."
Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.
Indeed. Why should the state get a fine instead of the goat's owner? And who could begrudge these two what seems to have been a lifetime of happiness?
"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.
TOILET OF MASS DESTRUCTION
TODAY IN DISGUSTING LAWSUITS, STARRING OVERFLOWING TOILETS, TOENAILS AND AN AMPUTATED LEG
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 8, 2010
Here's a lesson for all you DIY guys, or maybe all the spouses whose significant other wants them to get off their ass and become a DIY person: Fix a toilet and you can lose your leg. In a most disgusting manner.
That, at least, is the claim made by Houstonian Oscar Batres, who is suing his apartment complex because, he says, they would not fix his clogged toilet.
So he took matters into his own hands, and there, according to his suit via Courthouse News Service, is where things begin to go awry.
"As plaintiff was in the process of unclogging the toilet, the water in the toilet commenced to overflow," Batres says in his complaint in Harris County Court.
He shut off the water supply but the toilet continued to overflow, filled his bathroom and soaked the carpet in the master bedroom, Batres says.
"Finally after about 10 minutes, the toilet stopped overflowing," Batres says.
In case you don't get the picture, the suit notes that "The liquid coming out of the toilet was brown and clearly contained feces."
Which was bad enough, but then came nail-clipping time.
Three days after his toilet overflowed, Batres cut himself while trimming his toenails in the bathroom.
He used over-the-counter ointment on it but his toe and part of his foot turned red, he developed a fever and flulike symptoms, and went to emergency room, he says. Tests showed that he had gangrene and on Dec. 15, 2009 his right leg was amputated below the knee. It was a little over 2 weeks since his toilet overflowed.
"The specimen taken at the hospital revealed the plaintiff's infection and eventual leg amputation was caused due to an infection caused by bacteria commonly found in feces," Batres says.
The suit -- which asks for unspecified damages -- says that the apartment complex cleaned the rug two weeks after the amputation.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 8, 2010
Here's a lesson for all you DIY guys, or maybe all the spouses whose significant other wants them to get off their ass and become a DIY person: Fix a toilet and you can lose your leg. In a most disgusting manner.
That, at least, is the claim made by Houstonian Oscar Batres, who is suing his apartment complex because, he says, they would not fix his clogged toilet.
So he took matters into his own hands, and there, according to his suit via Courthouse News Service, is where things begin to go awry.
"As plaintiff was in the process of unclogging the toilet, the water in the toilet commenced to overflow," Batres says in his complaint in Harris County Court.
He shut off the water supply but the toilet continued to overflow, filled his bathroom and soaked the carpet in the master bedroom, Batres says.
"Finally after about 10 minutes, the toilet stopped overflowing," Batres says.
In case you don't get the picture, the suit notes that "The liquid coming out of the toilet was brown and clearly contained feces."
Which was bad enough, but then came nail-clipping time.
Three days after his toilet overflowed, Batres cut himself while trimming his toenails in the bathroom.
He used over-the-counter ointment on it but his toe and part of his foot turned red, he developed a fever and flulike symptoms, and went to emergency room, he says. Tests showed that he had gangrene and on Dec. 15, 2009 his right leg was amputated below the knee. It was a little over 2 weeks since his toilet overflowed.
"The specimen taken at the hospital revealed the plaintiff's infection and eventual leg amputation was caused due to an infection caused by bacteria commonly found in feces," Batres says.
The suit -- which asks for unspecified damages -- says that the apartment complex cleaned the rug two weeks after the amputation.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
DON'T BE SUCKERED LIKE ME
I was one of the suckers who signed up with this outfit before I got wise. It cost me $240 for one year to cover both my wife and me. Two months before the year was up I notified them that I did not want to renew our membership. They acknowledged my request BUT RENEWED US ANYWAY. It was only after I notified them I would report them to the authorities if they billed my credit card again that they wen ahead and dropped us.
By LifeLock they must mean that they want to lock up your monthly fees for life.
THE COMPANY CLAIMING TO PREVENT ID THEFT SETTLES CLAIMS
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
May 9, 2010
You've probably seen the LifeLock commercials on TV or heard them on the radio -- company CEO Todd Davis throws his Social Security number out there for everyone to write down. Do with it what you will, miscreants, because Davis has LifeLock protection!! You can't touch him!!
And, for $10 or $15 a month, you could get protected like that too.
Well, maybe. Today Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, along with the Federal Trade Commissions and 34 other states, announced a settlement with LifeLock that kinda walks the company back from some of its claims. Not to mention the $11 million in restitution (And another $1 million to reimburse for the investigation's costs).
The joint investigation by the states and the FTC revealed that LifeLock unlawfully exaggerated its range of services and ability to prevent ID theft. LifeLock claimed its services were guaranteed to protect customers' personal information and prevent criminals from using that sensitive information to open accounts. Thus, customers were given the impression that identity thieves would be absolutely prevented from stealing LifeLock customers' identifying information.
State and federal authorities were also concerned about LifeLock marketing materials that improperly claimed that customers faced a heightened risk of ID theft - despite the fact that LifeLock had no basis for its claims.
The agreement says LifeLock will no longer claim it:
• Protects against all forms of ID theft;
• Eliminates the risk of ID theft;
• Constantly monitors activity on each of its customers' consumer reports;
• Always prompts a call from a potential creditor before a new credit account is opened in the customer's name.
LifeLock said it was "pleased" with the agreement, and that it settled to "quickly put this behind us."
By LifeLock they must mean that they want to lock up your monthly fees for life.
THE COMPANY CLAIMING TO PREVENT ID THEFT SETTLES CLAIMS
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
May 9, 2010
You've probably seen the LifeLock commercials on TV or heard them on the radio -- company CEO Todd Davis throws his Social Security number out there for everyone to write down. Do with it what you will, miscreants, because Davis has LifeLock protection!! You can't touch him!!
And, for $10 or $15 a month, you could get protected like that too.
Well, maybe. Today Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, along with the Federal Trade Commissions and 34 other states, announced a settlement with LifeLock that kinda walks the company back from some of its claims. Not to mention the $11 million in restitution (And another $1 million to reimburse for the investigation's costs).
The joint investigation by the states and the FTC revealed that LifeLock unlawfully exaggerated its range of services and ability to prevent ID theft. LifeLock claimed its services were guaranteed to protect customers' personal information and prevent criminals from using that sensitive information to open accounts. Thus, customers were given the impression that identity thieves would be absolutely prevented from stealing LifeLock customers' identifying information.
State and federal authorities were also concerned about LifeLock marketing materials that improperly claimed that customers faced a heightened risk of ID theft - despite the fact that LifeLock had no basis for its claims.
The agreement says LifeLock will no longer claim it:
• Protects against all forms of ID theft;
• Eliminates the risk of ID theft;
• Constantly monitors activity on each of its customers' consumer reports;
• Always prompts a call from a potential creditor before a new credit account is opened in the customer's name.
LifeLock said it was "pleased" with the agreement, and that it settled to "quickly put this behind us."
DON'T MESS WITH MOTHER OVECHKIN
Alexander Ovechkin, captain of the Washington Capitals, is the most exciting player in the National Hockey League. In 2008, he signed a thirteen-year contract extension worth $124 million. The MVP for the previous two seasons sported a scruffy beard and a head full of unruly hair – that is until his mother arrived from Russia the other day for a visit with her son.
Mama Ovechkin, who won two gold medals playing for the Soviet women's basketball team in the 1976 and 1980 Olympics, promptly took Alex aside and gave him a haircut. She also made him shave off his beard. No son of hers is going to look like a bum. Alex is one of the toughest players in the NHL and now we know where he gets his toughness from.
Mama Ovechkin, who won two gold medals playing for the Soviet women's basketball team in the 1976 and 1980 Olympics, promptly took Alex aside and gave him a haircut. She also made him shave off his beard. No son of hers is going to look like a bum. Alex is one of the toughest players in the NHL and now we know where he gets his toughness from.
THIS DEMOCRAT IS NO FAN OF OBAMA
Rep. Eric Massa, D-NY, resigned from Congress following an accusation that he sexually harassed one of his male staffers. The accusation led to an ethics investigation which he believes was being conducted only because he made it known that he would vote “no” on the Obama health care bill.
I suspect that Massa is probably guilty of sexual harassment. But I also suspect that there is some truth in his rants against Rham Emanuel and against his fellow Democrats. Here is some of what Massa had to say:
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill. And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots."
As for Rham Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, Massa said "He is the son of the devil’s spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”
“When I voted against the cap-and-trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel. And he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983. And I gave it right back to him. In terms and words that I know are physically impossible. I told him to do things that I know the human anatomy cannot do.”
“…..they don't have any shower curtains down in the gym. And I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jay bird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger at my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget.”
Massa is not just any Democrat. He happens to be one of the most liberal members of his party. His opposition to the health care bill stems from the fact that it does not contain a public option.
I suspect that Massa is probably guilty of sexual harassment. But I also suspect that there is some truth in his rants against Rham Emanuel and against his fellow Democrats. Here is some of what Massa had to say:
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill. And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots."
As for Rham Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, Massa said "He is the son of the devil’s spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”
“When I voted against the cap-and-trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel. And he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983. And I gave it right back to him. In terms and words that I know are physically impossible. I told him to do things that I know the human anatomy cannot do.”
“…..they don't have any shower curtains down in the gym. And I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jay bird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger at my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget.”
Massa is not just any Democrat. He happens to be one of the most liberal members of his party. His opposition to the health care bill stems from the fact that it does not contain a public option.
Monday, March 08, 2010
HIS WIFE AND KID MUST BE HOWLING LIKE A COYOTE
I wonder how much these hunters had been drinking? At least they hung around after calling 911.
GA. OFFICER, MISTAKEN FOR COYOTE, SHOT AND KILLED
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
March 8, 2010
JASPER COUNTY, Ga. — A U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officer was shot and killed in middle Georgia by a hunter who apparently mistook the ranger for a coyote.
Officer Christoper Arby Upton, 37, was on routine patrol in the Ocmulgee Bluff Equestrian Recreation Area in Jasper County on Friday when he was shot by Norman Clinton Hale, 40, of McDonough.
The incident happened about 11 p.m. in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest near Monticello, according to a statement from the USDA Forest Service.
Hale and another man were hunting coyote in the area. Hale and his hunting partner called 911 and reported the incident, but Upton died at the scene.
The Forest Service and the state Department of Natural Resources are investigating the incident. No charges have been filed.
Upton, a 4-year veteran of the Forest Service, previously worked as a game warden for the Department of Defense, U.S. Marine Corps, in Beaufort, S.C., and as a conservation officer, game warden and pilot for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
He is survived by his wife and a 4-year-old daughter.
GA. OFFICER, MISTAKEN FOR COYOTE, SHOT AND KILLED
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
March 8, 2010
JASPER COUNTY, Ga. — A U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officer was shot and killed in middle Georgia by a hunter who apparently mistook the ranger for a coyote.
Officer Christoper Arby Upton, 37, was on routine patrol in the Ocmulgee Bluff Equestrian Recreation Area in Jasper County on Friday when he was shot by Norman Clinton Hale, 40, of McDonough.
The incident happened about 11 p.m. in the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest near Monticello, according to a statement from the USDA Forest Service.
Hale and another man were hunting coyote in the area. Hale and his hunting partner called 911 and reported the incident, but Upton died at the scene.
The Forest Service and the state Department of Natural Resources are investigating the incident. No charges have been filed.
Upton, a 4-year veteran of the Forest Service, previously worked as a game warden for the Department of Defense, U.S. Marine Corps, in Beaufort, S.C., and as a conservation officer, game warden and pilot for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.
He is survived by his wife and a 4-year-old daughter.
RONNIE ON THE FIFTY?
I, for one, think that Ronald Reagan was one of our better presidents. After previous administrations all but disarmed America, Reagan restored our military might and forced the Soviet Union to end the Cold War. His "Reaganomics" consisted of reducing business regulations, controlling inflation, reducing the growth of government spending and cutting taxes, measures that led to a period of economic growth. Also to his credit, Ronnie restored the pride and patriotism that had been all but destroyed by the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Republicans worship Reagan while Democrats despise him. His detractors say that Reaganomics laid the foundation for the country’s huge debt and our current economic woes.
Member of Congress Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. has introduced legislation to replace Ulysses S. Grant with the likeness of Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill. The same proposal in 2005 didn’t make it out of a House committee even though the Republicans were in a majority. A previous effort to replace Franklin Roosevelt with Reagan on the dime was quickly quashed by the Democrats. And a proposal to replace Andrew Jackson with Reagan on the $20 dollar bill was met with a firestorm of objections from Tennessee lawmakers.
While I liked Ronnie as president, I say leave well enough alone. Ulysses S. Grant may not have been one of our better presidents, but he was a great general who was instrumental in bringing about the defeat of the Confederacy. He not only saved the Union, but he also made it possible for Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to be carried out, thus ending slavery in the United States of America.
The truth is that Ronnie was a great feel-good president but not up there in greatness with the likes of Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Before I’d put Reagan’s likeness on any of our coins or currency, I’d go for good old Harry S.Truman.
Republicans worship Reagan while Democrats despise him. His detractors say that Reaganomics laid the foundation for the country’s huge debt and our current economic woes.
Member of Congress Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. has introduced legislation to replace Ulysses S. Grant with the likeness of Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill. The same proposal in 2005 didn’t make it out of a House committee even though the Republicans were in a majority. A previous effort to replace Franklin Roosevelt with Reagan on the dime was quickly quashed by the Democrats. And a proposal to replace Andrew Jackson with Reagan on the $20 dollar bill was met with a firestorm of objections from Tennessee lawmakers.
While I liked Ronnie as president, I say leave well enough alone. Ulysses S. Grant may not have been one of our better presidents, but he was a great general who was instrumental in bringing about the defeat of the Confederacy. He not only saved the Union, but he also made it possible for Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to be carried out, thus ending slavery in the United States of America.
The truth is that Ronnie was a great feel-good president but not up there in greatness with the likes of Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Before I’d put Reagan’s likeness on any of our coins or currency, I’d go for good old Harry S.Truman.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE OF ALL
Craig Malisow’s piece in the Houston Press. “How Not To Get 35 Years For Pot Possession,” was written in response to the 35-year prison sentence a pot dealer received in Tyler, Texas. Malisow and the two-dozen readers who commented on his article seem to think that this sentence for a non-violent crime was way too severe.
Malisow listed the following four rules of thumb on how to avoid getting busted for possession of pot:
1.) Don't smoke weed within 1,000 feet of a day care: According to the Tyler Morning Telegraph, "Tyler police officers were alerted to Wooten's location because of the smell of the marijuana."
Wooten was puffing near the Ebenezer Day Care Center, in what is known as a "drug-free zone." People in Smith County don't like that. So if you're driving along and you get a sudden urge to light up, take note of your surroundings: if you see lots of parents walking children into a building and then leaving without those children, you might be parked near a school or a day care. Do not, under any circumstances, pack your bowl there. Just go to the nearest liquor store, and you can bet you'll be outside a drug-free zone. Enjoy!
2.) Don't let people see you pull a bunch of baggies out of your pocket: Per the same article, Smith County Assistant District Attorney Richard Vance told the jury "Wooten pulled bag after bag from his pockets like one of those clowns you see..." (see Rule No. 3 for the rest of Vance's quote)
3.) Don't leave gear in plain sight in your care: "...and in the driver's seat of his car was a big bag and digital scales."
4.) Don't demand that a private lab test your weed: Although Wooten was perfectly within his rights when he asked a local lab to analyze his weed, we're guessing he probably annoyed the judge and the prosecutor, and in turn the jury, by this petulant ploy. It's pretty hard to mistake weed for anything other than weed. Did Wooten think the lab might screw up and report that the sticky green matter in the baggies was in fact spaghetti? Seriously, how fucking high was this guy?
Now here is my take on this matter. This drug dealer got exactly what he deserved, all this non-violence nonsense notwithstanding. And Malisow forgot the MOST IMPORTANT RULE of all for not getting caught holding that funny tobacco:
DON’T FUCK AROUND WITH POT!
Malisow listed the following four rules of thumb on how to avoid getting busted for possession of pot:
1.) Don't smoke weed within 1,000 feet of a day care: According to the Tyler Morning Telegraph, "Tyler police officers were alerted to Wooten's location because of the smell of the marijuana."
Wooten was puffing near the Ebenezer Day Care Center, in what is known as a "drug-free zone." People in Smith County don't like that. So if you're driving along and you get a sudden urge to light up, take note of your surroundings: if you see lots of parents walking children into a building and then leaving without those children, you might be parked near a school or a day care. Do not, under any circumstances, pack your bowl there. Just go to the nearest liquor store, and you can bet you'll be outside a drug-free zone. Enjoy!
2.) Don't let people see you pull a bunch of baggies out of your pocket: Per the same article, Smith County Assistant District Attorney Richard Vance told the jury "Wooten pulled bag after bag from his pockets like one of those clowns you see..." (see Rule No. 3 for the rest of Vance's quote)
3.) Don't leave gear in plain sight in your care: "...and in the driver's seat of his car was a big bag and digital scales."
4.) Don't demand that a private lab test your weed: Although Wooten was perfectly within his rights when he asked a local lab to analyze his weed, we're guessing he probably annoyed the judge and the prosecutor, and in turn the jury, by this petulant ploy. It's pretty hard to mistake weed for anything other than weed. Did Wooten think the lab might screw up and report that the sticky green matter in the baggies was in fact spaghetti? Seriously, how fucking high was this guy?
Now here is my take on this matter. This drug dealer got exactly what he deserved, all this non-violence nonsense notwithstanding. And Malisow forgot the MOST IMPORTANT RULE of all for not getting caught holding that funny tobacco:
DON’T FUCK AROUND WITH POT!
Saturday, March 06, 2010
WINE, WOMEN AND GUNS
I have always taught my criminal justice students that off-duty police officers will most likely get in trouble for wine, women and guns, not necessarily in that order. I’ve also taught them that the cover-up of wrongdoing, if detected, will usually result in greater punishment than that for the wrongful act itself. And too often cops will cover up for a brother officer who really doesn’t deserve their help. Here is a good example of those lessons:
I SUSPECT MORE THAN ONE WILL BE IN TROUBLE OVER THIS
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrctions blog
March 5, 2010
I grant you I don't know what the policies of the Orange County S. O. are in this matter, but I have a hunch there will be some fallout on this one that will land on more than one person.
Allan James Waters, 36, is an Orange County Sheriff's Deputy. He was involved in two automobile crashes on Monday and it looks like he was drunk. It also looks like O. C. Deputies allowed him to drive himself away from the first one.
Deputies were called to a crash outside the City Hall of Dana Point on Monday afternoon. The crash involved Deputy Waters and another vehicle. They took the report and allowed Waters to drive himself away in his somewhat smushed Mercedes. About 30 minutes later Waters was involved in another wreck with a Toyota in Laguna Nigel. The Toyota went out of control as a result of the wreck and nailed a tree. A 78 year old female passenger in the Toyota was injured, though not seriously.
The California Highway Patrol responded to that one and arrested and booked Waters for drunk driving.
An internal investigation is under way to determine why Waters was allowed to drive himself away from the scene of the first accident. Waters was placed on administrative leave two months ago for an unspecified reason. He is again (or possibly still) on administrative leave as a result of the accidents and arrest. Waters is a 13 year veteran of the O. C. Sheriff's Office.
I SUSPECT MORE THAN ONE WILL BE IN TROUBLE OVER THIS
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrctions blog
March 5, 2010
I grant you I don't know what the policies of the Orange County S. O. are in this matter, but I have a hunch there will be some fallout on this one that will land on more than one person.
Allan James Waters, 36, is an Orange County Sheriff's Deputy. He was involved in two automobile crashes on Monday and it looks like he was drunk. It also looks like O. C. Deputies allowed him to drive himself away from the first one.
Deputies were called to a crash outside the City Hall of Dana Point on Monday afternoon. The crash involved Deputy Waters and another vehicle. They took the report and allowed Waters to drive himself away in his somewhat smushed Mercedes. About 30 minutes later Waters was involved in another wreck with a Toyota in Laguna Nigel. The Toyota went out of control as a result of the wreck and nailed a tree. A 78 year old female passenger in the Toyota was injured, though not seriously.
The California Highway Patrol responded to that one and arrested and booked Waters for drunk driving.
An internal investigation is under way to determine why Waters was allowed to drive himself away from the scene of the first accident. Waters was placed on administrative leave two months ago for an unspecified reason. He is again (or possibly still) on administrative leave as a result of the accidents and arrest. Waters is a 13 year veteran of the O. C. Sheriff's Office.
Friday, March 05, 2010
REFORMING OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM (3)
These educated idiots must have taken too many teacher education courses in place of some reality-based courses. But then again, a double-murder trial jury also saw O.J. Simpson as a hero.
3 TEACHERS SUSPENDED IN BLACK HISTORY FLAP
UPI.com
March 3, 2010
LOS ANGELES, March 3 (UPI) -- Three Los Angeles elementary school teachers have been suspended over a Black History Month event that celebrated O.J. Simpson, education officials said.
The teachers, who are white, allegedly encouraged students to carray a picture of Simpson -- a convicted felon -- during a parade at the school Friday, at which former NBA star Dennis Rodman and cross-dressing entertainer RuPaul were also celebrated, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
Los Angeles Unified School District spokeswoman Gayle Pollard-Terry said Superintendent Ramon Cortines had the Wadsworth Avenue Elementary School teachers removed from their classrooms after he learned about the incident Tuesday.
"The superintendent believes there are better choices," Pollard-Terry said.
The first three days of the suspension will be without pay, the Times reported.
Other students in the parade celebrated President Barack Obama and civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Leon Jenkins, president of the Los Angeles branch of the NAACP, said he "just can't fathom what these teachers were thinking of except to make a mockery of African-American history."
Pollard-Terry said Simpson, Rodman and RuPaul were on a list of figures approved by the school for study during Black History Month but she said the suspended teachers may have recommended the names be placed on the list.
3 TEACHERS SUSPENDED IN BLACK HISTORY FLAP
UPI.com
March 3, 2010
LOS ANGELES, March 3 (UPI) -- Three Los Angeles elementary school teachers have been suspended over a Black History Month event that celebrated O.J. Simpson, education officials said.
The teachers, who are white, allegedly encouraged students to carray a picture of Simpson -- a convicted felon -- during a parade at the school Friday, at which former NBA star Dennis Rodman and cross-dressing entertainer RuPaul were also celebrated, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.
Los Angeles Unified School District spokeswoman Gayle Pollard-Terry said Superintendent Ramon Cortines had the Wadsworth Avenue Elementary School teachers removed from their classrooms after he learned about the incident Tuesday.
"The superintendent believes there are better choices," Pollard-Terry said.
The first three days of the suspension will be without pay, the Times reported.
Other students in the parade celebrated President Barack Obama and civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Leon Jenkins, president of the Los Angeles branch of the NAACP, said he "just can't fathom what these teachers were thinking of except to make a mockery of African-American history."
Pollard-Terry said Simpson, Rodman and RuPaul were on a list of figures approved by the school for study during Black History Month but she said the suspended teachers may have recommended the names be placed on the list.
IF JUDGES ARE GOING TO BE ELECTED, HERE IS A GOOD REASON TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS
It’s not rape if she’s “on top”? The death penalty is unconstitutional? Never mind that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have affirmed the death penalty as constitutional.
This “recovering drug addict” has got to be snorting those lines again.
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE DECLARES DEATH PENALTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL; WE’RE GUESSING THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL
By Chris Vogel
Houston Press
March 4, 2010
State District Court Judge Kevin Fine may be the only judge in Harris County with tattoos running up and down his forearms, and he is certainly the only one to declare the Texas death penalty statute unconstitutional.
Fine was hearing motions Thursday from accused killer John Green's attorneys, and unpredictably granted a motion asking the court to declare the death penalty unconstitutional. Green is suspected of shooting a woman in 2008 and could be executed if found guilty.
"In every capital murder case," Green's attorney, Casey Kiernan, tells Hair Balls, "lawyers always ask the court to rule that the death penalty is unconstitutional. And this time the judge did it. I don't know that this has ever happened before in Harris County. It may be the bravest decision I've ever seen a judge make in more than 30 years as a defense lawyer."
This is not the first time Fine, a recovering drug addict who was elected to the bench as a Democrat in 2008, has made waves.
Last year, he was accused of telling an alleged rape victim in his court that he didn't believe she was raped because she was "on top" during the act.
EDITOR’S NOTES
Green stands accused of killing a mother in front of her children and badly wounding her sister during an armed robbery on June 16, 2008.
District Attorney Pat Lykos responded to the judge’s ruling by issuing the following statement:
“Words are inadequate to describe the Office's disappointment and dismay with this ruling; sadly it will delay justice for the victims and their families. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and other appellate courts have consistently rejected the same issues raised in the Green case.
The decision of whether to seek the death penalty is a solemn and profound responsibility. After a deliberative and thoughtful process this Office reached the conclusion to prosecute Mr. Green for the horrific capital murder he committed and to ask the jury to assess the death penalty. We respectfully, but vigorously disagree with the trial judge's ruling, as it has no basis in law or in fact. We will pursue all remedies.“
And here is the Texas attorney general’s response:
"In an act of unabashed judicial activism, a state district judge ignored longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and improperly granted John Edward Green's request that the court declare the death penalty unconstitutional.
The Attorney General's Office has already offered to provide help and legal resources to the Harris County District Attorney's Office--which is handling the Green prosecution--and will take appropriate measures to defend Texas' capital punishment law. We regret that the court's legally baseless order unnecessarily delays justice and closure for the victim's family--including her two children, who witnessed their mother's brutal murder."
This “recovering drug addict” has got to be snorting those lines again.
HARRIS COUNTY JUDGE DECLARES DEATH PENALTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL; WE’RE GUESSING THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL
By Chris Vogel
Houston Press
March 4, 2010
State District Court Judge Kevin Fine may be the only judge in Harris County with tattoos running up and down his forearms, and he is certainly the only one to declare the Texas death penalty statute unconstitutional.
Fine was hearing motions Thursday from accused killer John Green's attorneys, and unpredictably granted a motion asking the court to declare the death penalty unconstitutional. Green is suspected of shooting a woman in 2008 and could be executed if found guilty.
"In every capital murder case," Green's attorney, Casey Kiernan, tells Hair Balls, "lawyers always ask the court to rule that the death penalty is unconstitutional. And this time the judge did it. I don't know that this has ever happened before in Harris County. It may be the bravest decision I've ever seen a judge make in more than 30 years as a defense lawyer."
This is not the first time Fine, a recovering drug addict who was elected to the bench as a Democrat in 2008, has made waves.
Last year, he was accused of telling an alleged rape victim in his court that he didn't believe she was raped because she was "on top" during the act.
EDITOR’S NOTES
Green stands accused of killing a mother in front of her children and badly wounding her sister during an armed robbery on June 16, 2008.
District Attorney Pat Lykos responded to the judge’s ruling by issuing the following statement:
“Words are inadequate to describe the Office's disappointment and dismay with this ruling; sadly it will delay justice for the victims and their families. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and other appellate courts have consistently rejected the same issues raised in the Green case.
The decision of whether to seek the death penalty is a solemn and profound responsibility. After a deliberative and thoughtful process this Office reached the conclusion to prosecute Mr. Green for the horrific capital murder he committed and to ask the jury to assess the death penalty. We respectfully, but vigorously disagree with the trial judge's ruling, as it has no basis in law or in fact. We will pursue all remedies.“
And here is the Texas attorney general’s response:
"In an act of unabashed judicial activism, a state district judge ignored longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and improperly granted John Edward Green's request that the court declare the death penalty unconstitutional.
The Attorney General's Office has already offered to provide help and legal resources to the Harris County District Attorney's Office--which is handling the Green prosecution--and will take appropriate measures to defend Texas' capital punishment law. We regret that the court's legally baseless order unnecessarily delays justice and closure for the victim's family--including her two children, who witnessed their mother's brutal murder."
Thursday, March 04, 2010
DON'T FIRE THEM
Unless you’ve been dwelling under a rock, you know that a JFK aircraft controller and his supervisor have been suspended because the controller allowed his eight-year-old son and daughter to give take-off instructions to several airliners. On consecutive days, first the boy and then the girl communicated with the airline pilots, giving them clear runway instructions. At least one of the pilots complimented the boy over the radio
Since these incidents became public, the Secretary of Transportation and other officials have been calling for the controller’s head. Granted, it was boneheaded of him to have let his kids communicate with the airliners. But does he deserve to be fired? One expert interviewed on NBC Today does not think so because at no time were the airliners and their passengers placed in any danger.
A former student of mine who is a sergeant with the Houston police SWAT team has a close friend who is an airline pilot. He has flown all over the world and, after listening to the recordings, said that those kids were a lot easier to understand than the broken English used by Russian, Japanese, Brazilian and other foreign controllers. Besides that, he said, the pilots are always in charge, not the controllers.
The airline pilot thinks that a written reprimand would suffice in this case. My feeling is that, at most, a thirty-day suspension would more than adequately discipline a 12-year veteran controller and his supervisor. But with the public outcry generated by the media and the public condemnations from a bunch of official windbags, they’ll both probably get fired.
Since these incidents became public, the Secretary of Transportation and other officials have been calling for the controller’s head. Granted, it was boneheaded of him to have let his kids communicate with the airliners. But does he deserve to be fired? One expert interviewed on NBC Today does not think so because at no time were the airliners and their passengers placed in any danger.
A former student of mine who is a sergeant with the Houston police SWAT team has a close friend who is an airline pilot. He has flown all over the world and, after listening to the recordings, said that those kids were a lot easier to understand than the broken English used by Russian, Japanese, Brazilian and other foreign controllers. Besides that, he said, the pilots are always in charge, not the controllers.
The airline pilot thinks that a written reprimand would suffice in this case. My feeling is that, at most, a thirty-day suspension would more than adequately discipline a 12-year veteran controller and his supervisor. But with the public outcry generated by the media and the public condemnations from a bunch of official windbags, they’ll both probably get fired.
DON'T LOP OFF THAT FORESKIN
Legislation is now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children.
A bill would make it illegal for parents to circumcise boys, unless there's a medical reason. It would ban the procedure on any male under the age of 18 even for religious reasons. Under the legislation, people who disregard the ban would face a fine and possible 14-year prison sentence. The proposal classifies male circumcision as genital mutilation.
Have the authors of this legislation taken leave of their senses? Is circumcision so cruelly painful to a newborn infant that the state needs to step in and stop this procedure?
Ever since the time of Abraham, circumcision has been required of all male infants born to parents of the Jewish faith. Doctors generally recommend the removal of a male infant’s foreskin for hygiene purposes. Circumcised men are less likely to get sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
The idiots who are proposing this legislation are probably lawyers, as most lawmakers are. Maybe these legislators are former prosecutors who are just trying to head off the prospect of defense attorneys in murder trials arguing that jurors should consider as mitigating circumstances that the killer was suffering from POST CIRCUMCISION STRESS DISORDER.
I’ll be surprised if this bill succeeds in being approved by the legislature. But if it does pass, I’ll be even more surprised if the governor does not veto it. By enacting a law that bans circumcision, Massachusetts would be making Jews criminals for adhering to their faith.
A bill would make it illegal for parents to circumcise boys, unless there's a medical reason. It would ban the procedure on any male under the age of 18 even for religious reasons. Under the legislation, people who disregard the ban would face a fine and possible 14-year prison sentence. The proposal classifies male circumcision as genital mutilation.
Have the authors of this legislation taken leave of their senses? Is circumcision so cruelly painful to a newborn infant that the state needs to step in and stop this procedure?
Ever since the time of Abraham, circumcision has been required of all male infants born to parents of the Jewish faith. Doctors generally recommend the removal of a male infant’s foreskin for hygiene purposes. Circumcised men are less likely to get sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections and penile cancer.
The idiots who are proposing this legislation are probably lawyers, as most lawmakers are. Maybe these legislators are former prosecutors who are just trying to head off the prospect of defense attorneys in murder trials arguing that jurors should consider as mitigating circumstances that the killer was suffering from POST CIRCUMCISION STRESS DISORDER.
I’ll be surprised if this bill succeeds in being approved by the legislature. But if it does pass, I’ll be even more surprised if the governor does not veto it. By enacting a law that bans circumcision, Massachusetts would be making Jews criminals for adhering to their faith.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
WHERE ARE THEY?
The aftermath of the Haiti earthquake has rekindled an old controversy over interracial adoptions. The National Association of Black Social Workers deems the adoption of black children by whites as "cultural genocide."
For those black social workers and any others who object to whites adopting little black children, I have just one question. Where are all those black adoptive couples lining up to give little children of their own race a loving home?
For those black social workers and any others who object to whites adopting little black children, I have just one question. Where are all those black adoptive couples lining up to give little children of their own race a loving home?
WHEN IS ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?
For the past ten years, supermodel Naomi Campbell has physically battered five or six of her personal employees, spending only one day in jail for her crimes. The latest attack just occurred when she struck her chauffeur repeatedly in the back of his head, allegedly because he was covering up for her boyfriend cheating on her. The authorities do not plan to file any charges against Campbell because the chauffeur did not want to file a complaint.
When is enough is enough? The authorities can still prosecute a perpetrator of an assault even when the victim of does not want to file a complaint. If Campbell were a plain-Jane instead of a celebrity, she would likely still be doing jail time for the last assault she committed before she whacked her driver in the head.
When is enough is enough? The authorities can still prosecute a perpetrator of an assault even when the victim of does not want to file a complaint. If Campbell were a plain-Jane instead of a celebrity, she would likely still be doing jail time for the last assault she committed before she whacked her driver in the head.
PRISON INMATE TAKES A WALMART BREAK
JUST MAKING A QUICK TRIP TO WALMART FOR SOME CIGS, WARDEN
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 2, 2010
It's bad enough when inmates are escaping from jails. Is it worse when they're returning to jails?
The Austin American-Statesman broke the story of a trustee at a minimum-level TDCJ facility in Sugar Land who broke out -- if that isn't too strenuous a word for the effort involved -- up to 70 times to stroll down and pick up cigarettes and smokeless tobacco at a nearby Walmart.
Skyler Steddum, 19, who's serving time -- such as it is -- for burglary and related charges, was spotted last week doing some shopping.
He was tracked down using the store's security cameras, which are apparently better than the TDCJ's. Reports are that Steddum had dyed his prison suit brown through the use of coffee.
"He went out on Tuesday. We didn't find out about it until Friday night, when somebody inside the prison snitched him off," John Moriarty, inspector general for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told the Statesman.
Houston [State] Senator John Whitmire, chair of the committee that supervises the prison system -- and a guy who kept getting calls last year from a Death Row inmate with a smuggled cel -- is not too happy:
...It might be funny if it weren't so absurd. People shopping at a Walmart shouldn't have to worry that the person standing next to them in line is supposed to be in a prison.
...And the fact that Walmart has better security cameras than our prisons, well, this whole situation begs a whole lot of questions.
Steddum has pretty much blown his chances for parole any time soon. But he may have a lucrative Walmart endorsement gig when he gets out: "Walmart -- Prices so low you'll be breaking out!" "No jail could hold me when I heard about that 2-for-1 paper-towel deal!!"
Lame, we know. But then again, it is Walmart.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
March 2, 2010
It's bad enough when inmates are escaping from jails. Is it worse when they're returning to jails?
The Austin American-Statesman broke the story of a trustee at a minimum-level TDCJ facility in Sugar Land who broke out -- if that isn't too strenuous a word for the effort involved -- up to 70 times to stroll down and pick up cigarettes and smokeless tobacco at a nearby Walmart.
Skyler Steddum, 19, who's serving time -- such as it is -- for burglary and related charges, was spotted last week doing some shopping.
He was tracked down using the store's security cameras, which are apparently better than the TDCJ's. Reports are that Steddum had dyed his prison suit brown through the use of coffee.
"He went out on Tuesday. We didn't find out about it until Friday night, when somebody inside the prison snitched him off," John Moriarty, inspector general for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told the Statesman.
Houston [State] Senator John Whitmire, chair of the committee that supervises the prison system -- and a guy who kept getting calls last year from a Death Row inmate with a smuggled cel -- is not too happy:
...It might be funny if it weren't so absurd. People shopping at a Walmart shouldn't have to worry that the person standing next to them in line is supposed to be in a prison.
...And the fact that Walmart has better security cameras than our prisons, well, this whole situation begs a whole lot of questions.
Steddum has pretty much blown his chances for parole any time soon. But he may have a lucrative Walmart endorsement gig when he gets out: "Walmart -- Prices so low you'll be breaking out!" "No jail could hold me when I heard about that 2-for-1 paper-towel deal!!"
Lame, we know. But then again, it is Walmart.
'INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE MOON ..........'
Former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt is a frequent guest on NBC-TV news programs. This morning he appeared on the Today Show to comment on the case of 17-year-old Chelsea King whose body was just discovered after she had been missing for a week. 30-year-old John Albert Gardner, a registered sex offender with a history of sexually assaulting young girls, is believed to have raped and murdered the San Diego teenager. He is in custody. His DNA was detected on Chelsea’s panties.
When asked how closely sex offenders were being monitored, Van Zandt replied that because there were 83,000 registered sex offenders in California, authorities find it hard to keep up with them. He also pointed out that parole officers with 70-man case loads could not give sex offenders the attention needed to protect women and children from sexual predators.
Van Zandt noted that because California finds itself in an enormous financial crisis, it is releasing thousands of prisoners, thereby putting more people at risk. He said that “instead of going to the moon” we should be spending our tax dollars taking care of our needs at home.
It so happens that I live only a mile or so from NASA. The manned space program is a sensitive subject in my community. There have been dire predictions that the cancellation of NASA’s program to return astronauts to the moon will cost this immediate area several thousand jobs.
I am all for spending billions of dollars on unmanned space exploration, but I have long questioned spending billions on manned space flights. A friend who retired from NASA claims that for every dollar spent on the manned space program we get back 15 dollars in return. When I pressed him to give me specific examples of what we got in return, he could only say that we got the jobs of the people working for NASA and its subcontractors.
California is not the only state facing an enormous financial crisis. Like California, other states are resorting to the early release of prisoners in order to reduce their budgets. These early releases will jeopardize the public’s safety. That’s why I agree with Clint Van Zandt’s position that instead of going to the moon, we should use the billions of dollars appropriated for the manned space program to alleviate the financial difficulties our states now find themselves in.
When asked how closely sex offenders were being monitored, Van Zandt replied that because there were 83,000 registered sex offenders in California, authorities find it hard to keep up with them. He also pointed out that parole officers with 70-man case loads could not give sex offenders the attention needed to protect women and children from sexual predators.
Van Zandt noted that because California finds itself in an enormous financial crisis, it is releasing thousands of prisoners, thereby putting more people at risk. He said that “instead of going to the moon” we should be spending our tax dollars taking care of our needs at home.
It so happens that I live only a mile or so from NASA. The manned space program is a sensitive subject in my community. There have been dire predictions that the cancellation of NASA’s program to return astronauts to the moon will cost this immediate area several thousand jobs.
I am all for spending billions of dollars on unmanned space exploration, but I have long questioned spending billions on manned space flights. A friend who retired from NASA claims that for every dollar spent on the manned space program we get back 15 dollars in return. When I pressed him to give me specific examples of what we got in return, he could only say that we got the jobs of the people working for NASA and its subcontractors.
California is not the only state facing an enormous financial crisis. Like California, other states are resorting to the early release of prisoners in order to reduce their budgets. These early releases will jeopardize the public’s safety. That’s why I agree with Clint Van Zandt’s position that instead of going to the moon, we should use the billions of dollars appropriated for the manned space program to alleviate the financial difficulties our states now find themselves in.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
IN ACADEMIA INTIMIDATION HAS TRUMPED FREE SPEECH AND COWARDICE HAS SUBORDINATED ANY DISPLAY OF COURAGE
FREE SPEECH AS A CASUALTY OF INTIMIDATION
by Herb London
Townhall.com
March 2, 2010
Jake Witzenfeld, president of Cambridge University’s Israel Society cancelled a talk by Benny Morris, a distinguished Israeli historian, for fear the Israel Society would be portrayed as a mouthpiece for Islamophobia.
The trial of Geert Wilders, in Holland, has received almost no attention from the media panjandrums in the West for fear the issue might lead to Muslim incitement, particularly in cities like Rotterdam where the Islamic population is near a majority.
Yale University Press refused to publish cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in a book about the cartoons and the aftermath of the original publication, for fear of a possible violent response from Islamic adherents.
Yes, these craven responses all appear with the word “fear” since that word has trampled the meaning of freedom in nations that have fought for its defense over centuries. In one moment, intimidation has trumped free speech and cowardice has subordinated any display of courage.
I find it astonishing that a heralded center of learning, a major university press and a nation that once fought against totalitarian impulses could so easily justify their actions. Whatever happened to a belief in freedom of speech and a faith in the power of debate to reveal the truth that counters censorship?
It is instructive that the fear someone might claim you are racist or Islamophic – even if you know you aren’t and if you know the speaker isn’t – may justify a refusal to hear someone’s point of view. Following this precedent, any serious discussion of Middle East politics, or Muslim inspired terrorism of religion itself should be banned since there are invariably those who will portray opinions they don’t like as hateful and, yes, racist.
What these three illustrations demonstrate is that slander can be converted into an effective weapon to stifle expression. When Muslims are concerned about opinions that don’t fit with their worldview, they can raise the specter of retaliation and attack a speaker with epithets, such as Islamophia, and mirabile dictu speech is silenced.
It is hard to know exactly when this form of preemptive capitulation began. However, when the United Kingdom refused to admit Geert Wilders for a public presentation fearing his speech might be a source of incitement, this nation that carried the banner of free speech from the Magna Carta to the defense of liberty in World War II seems to have lost its way. Apparently the most basic right, the one generations had taken for granted, is now in jeopardy in the very venues liberty once found a congenial home.
From Voltaire to Jefferson, warnings about the way free speech can be imperiled filled the pages of various broadsides. It is remarkable that the canon on free speech can be so easily overturned by the masters of political correctness. Alas, if free speech can be denied to Geert Wilders or leading intellectuals, it can be denied to anyone. Would I be permitted to speak at Cambridge University if I did not comply with the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy? Could I publish a book that points to the imperial goals in Islam? Would it be possible to invite an Israeli scholar who defends his nation’s policies to a forum at a Middle East Studies program anywhere in the West?
After all, a few sentences twisted into an incendiary comment by a concerned listener can result in violent repercussions. Or, claims about the speaker – true or not – may result in the withdrawal of an invitation. Universities are so skittish at the moment that even the appearance of potential controversy is conspicuously avoided.
Tolstoy once noted that “The opinion of a revered writer or thinker can have a deep influence on society; it can also be a big obstacle to understanding the truth.” Indeed that is the case with many venerated thinkers. But it is also true that the biggest obstacle in pursuit of the truth, is the systematic interference of free speech, an interference that becomes particularly lamentable when it is done voluntarily, when the invocation of fear is sufficient to drown out expression.
by Herb London
Townhall.com
March 2, 2010
Jake Witzenfeld, president of Cambridge University’s Israel Society cancelled a talk by Benny Morris, a distinguished Israeli historian, for fear the Israel Society would be portrayed as a mouthpiece for Islamophobia.
The trial of Geert Wilders, in Holland, has received almost no attention from the media panjandrums in the West for fear the issue might lead to Muslim incitement, particularly in cities like Rotterdam where the Islamic population is near a majority.
Yale University Press refused to publish cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in a book about the cartoons and the aftermath of the original publication, for fear of a possible violent response from Islamic adherents.
Yes, these craven responses all appear with the word “fear” since that word has trampled the meaning of freedom in nations that have fought for its defense over centuries. In one moment, intimidation has trumped free speech and cowardice has subordinated any display of courage.
I find it astonishing that a heralded center of learning, a major university press and a nation that once fought against totalitarian impulses could so easily justify their actions. Whatever happened to a belief in freedom of speech and a faith in the power of debate to reveal the truth that counters censorship?
It is instructive that the fear someone might claim you are racist or Islamophic – even if you know you aren’t and if you know the speaker isn’t – may justify a refusal to hear someone’s point of view. Following this precedent, any serious discussion of Middle East politics, or Muslim inspired terrorism of religion itself should be banned since there are invariably those who will portray opinions they don’t like as hateful and, yes, racist.
What these three illustrations demonstrate is that slander can be converted into an effective weapon to stifle expression. When Muslims are concerned about opinions that don’t fit with their worldview, they can raise the specter of retaliation and attack a speaker with epithets, such as Islamophia, and mirabile dictu speech is silenced.
It is hard to know exactly when this form of preemptive capitulation began. However, when the United Kingdom refused to admit Geert Wilders for a public presentation fearing his speech might be a source of incitement, this nation that carried the banner of free speech from the Magna Carta to the defense of liberty in World War II seems to have lost its way. Apparently the most basic right, the one generations had taken for granted, is now in jeopardy in the very venues liberty once found a congenial home.
From Voltaire to Jefferson, warnings about the way free speech can be imperiled filled the pages of various broadsides. It is remarkable that the canon on free speech can be so easily overturned by the masters of political correctness. Alas, if free speech can be denied to Geert Wilders or leading intellectuals, it can be denied to anyone. Would I be permitted to speak at Cambridge University if I did not comply with the prevailing intellectual orthodoxy? Could I publish a book that points to the imperial goals in Islam? Would it be possible to invite an Israeli scholar who defends his nation’s policies to a forum at a Middle East Studies program anywhere in the West?
After all, a few sentences twisted into an incendiary comment by a concerned listener can result in violent repercussions. Or, claims about the speaker – true or not – may result in the withdrawal of an invitation. Universities are so skittish at the moment that even the appearance of potential controversy is conspicuously avoided.
Tolstoy once noted that “The opinion of a revered writer or thinker can have a deep influence on society; it can also be a big obstacle to understanding the truth.” Indeed that is the case with many venerated thinkers. But it is also true that the biggest obstacle in pursuit of the truth, is the systematic interference of free speech, an interference that becomes particularly lamentable when it is done voluntarily, when the invocation of fear is sufficient to drown out expression.
Monday, March 01, 2010
THEY'RE ALL ALIKE
A plane leaves Heathrow Airport under the control of a Jewish captain. His copilot is Chinese. It's the first time they've flown together and an awkward silence between the two, seems to indicate a mutual dislike.
Once they reach cruising altitude, the Jewish captain activates the auto-pilot, leans back in his seat, and mutters, 'I don't like Chinese..'
'No rike Chinese?' asks the copilot, ... ..why not?'
'You people bombed Pearl Harbor , that's why!'
'No, no, the co-pilot protests, 'Chinese not bomb Peahl Hahbah ! That Japanese, not Chinese.'
'Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese.. .doesn't matter, you're all alike!'
There's a few minutes of silence..
'I no rike Jews either!' the copilot suddenly announces.
'Oh yeah, why not?' asks the captain.
'Jews sink Titanic says the co-pilot.'
'What? That's insane! Jews didn't sink the Titanic!' exclaims the captain, 'It was an iceberg!'
'Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg, Rosenberg , ...no mattah...all same ! ! ! !
Once they reach cruising altitude, the Jewish captain activates the auto-pilot, leans back in his seat, and mutters, 'I don't like Chinese..'
'No rike Chinese?' asks the copilot, ... ..why not?'
'You people bombed Pearl Harbor , that's why!'
'No, no, the co-pilot protests, 'Chinese not bomb Peahl Hahbah ! That Japanese, not Chinese.'
'Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese.. .doesn't matter, you're all alike!'
There's a few minutes of silence..
'I no rike Jews either!' the copilot suddenly announces.
'Oh yeah, why not?' asks the captain.
'Jews sink Titanic says the co-pilot.'
'What? That's insane! Jews didn't sink the Titanic!' exclaims the captain, 'It was an iceberg!'
'Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg, Rosenberg , ...no mattah...all same ! ! ! !
REFORMING OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM (2)
I just listened to a community college teacher on a radio call-in program. She teaches Remedial Math to high school graduates. She stated that none of her students could do simple math – add, subtract, multiply and divide – without using a calculator. Furthermore, they could not even tell time on an analog clock.
According to this teacher, at best, these high school graduates were functioning at the “middle school” level. She also said that her colleagues in remedial English report that their students cannot read or write beyond a middle school level either.
If these community college students cannot read, write, add, subtract, multiply, divide and tell time on an analog clock, how in the hell did they ever graduate from high school?
According to this teacher, at best, these high school graduates were functioning at the “middle school” level. She also said that her colleagues in remedial English report that their students cannot read or write beyond a middle school level either.
If these community college students cannot read, write, add, subtract, multiply, divide and tell time on an analog clock, how in the hell did they ever graduate from high school?
LETS ALL SUPPORT THIS KIND OF GUN CONTROL
PRETEEN SHOTGUNNEER VS. ILLEGAL ALIEN HOME INVADERS
Butte, Montana
November 5, 2007
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants......and she wins because she is still alive.
Now that is the kind of 'Gun Control' we need lots more of!
Butte, Montana
November 5, 2007
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants......and she wins because she is still alive.
Now that is the kind of 'Gun Control' we need lots more of!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)