Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, December 31, 2009


The spirit of Todd Beamer is alive and well. Jasper Schuringa is the hero who jumped across several seats to subdue the underwear bomber, actually burning himself in the process. There is another hero emerging and his name is Kurt Haskell and while Schuringa stood up to the underwear bomber directly, Haskell - an attorney - is standing up to his own government and, so far, is sticking to his story, possibly at great risk to himself.

Haskell is adamant that he witnessed a well-dressed individual attempt to get the underwear bomber on flight 253 without a passport. Now we learn there's even more to the story. MLIVE has the story and posts directly from Haskell's own web posts. Here is an excerpt from one of them:
"Today is the second worst day of my life after 12-25-09. Today is the day that I realized that my own country is lying to me and all of my fellow Americans. Let me explain.

Ever since I got off of Flight 253 I have been repeating what I saw in US Customs. Specifically, 1 hour after we left the plane, bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Up to this point, all of the passengers on Flight 253 stood in a small area in an evacuated luggage claim area of an airport terminal. During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry on bags with them. When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, 1 dog found something in a carry on bag of a 30 ish Indian man. This is not the so called "Sharp Dressed" man. I will refer to this man as "The man in orange". The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room. At this time he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away.

At this time an FBI agent came up to the rest of the passengers and said the following (approximate quote) "You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened (Referring to the man in orange) and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out." We were then marched out of the baggage claim area and into a long hallway. This entire time period and until we left customs, no person that wasn't a law enforcement personnel or a passenger on our flight was allowed anywhere on our floor of the terminal (or possibly the entire terminal) The FBI was so concerned during this time, that we were not allowed to use the bathroom unless we went alone with an FBI agent, we were not allowed to eat or drink, or text or call anyone. I have been repeating this same story over the last 5 days. The FBI has, since we landed, insisted that only one man was arrested for the airliner attack (contradicting my account). However, several of my fellow passengers have come over the past few days, backed up my claim, and put pressure on FBI/Customs to tell the truth. Early today, I heard from two different reporters that a federal agency (FBI or Customs) was now admitting that another man has been held (and will be held indefinitely) since our flight landed for "immigration reasons." Notice that this man was "being held" and not "arrested", which was a cute semantic ploy by the FBI to stretch the truth and not lie.
Be sure to READ IT ALL.


I usually can't stand crosstalk to the point that no one can be understood but this, for some reason, is very entertaining. The scene is Larry King interviewing a three-person panel consisting of Ron Paul, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ben Stein. Paul once again demonstrates why he's a foreign policy buffoon despite being a domestic policy genius. He simply doesn't know a lick about the motivations, aspirations, and goals of Islam.

He assumes far too much without knowing anything about the religion. Paul actually makes the argument that the underwear bomber attempted to blow himself up along with 280 passengers because the United States is an occupier. It really gets good after Stein claims Paul's argument is anti-semitic. Also detracting from Paul's credibility on the subject is the fact that he doesn't come anywhere close to pronouncing Abdul Mutallab's name correctly.

Sorry, Ron. I'm more than happy to give you my full attention when you're talking about the need for auditing the Fed or illegal immigration but when it comes to Islam, you're out to lunch. I'll give my attention on those matters to folks like Steve Emerson, Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Craig Winn, et. al.

In the meantime, enjoy this one....

h/t to HA


This one is truly amazing. When an entity decides to police itself by insisting that certain factual statements are offensive and warrant an apology out of some sort of political correctness, we've really reached a new low. That's what happened in Seattle with an FM station called 107.7 The End. On December 28th - the day after DHS Secretary Napolitano said, "the system worked" - someone either hacked into or logged on to the station's Twitter account and made the following extremely incendiary comment:
Not all Muslims are terrorists—but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Time to accept profiling America.
Apparently ignoring the fact that the statement is actually factual, The End decided it needed to apologize anyway.

UPDATE: The End's program director responds. Details after the jump.
Yesterday, at 3:43 PM, someone logged on to alternative radio station 107.7 The End's Twitter account and posted this:

"Not all Muslims are terrorists--but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Time to accept profiling America."
The Twitterer then stuck around for the next two hours, defending his/her thoughts to some of The End's followers, before finally signing off:
"Cee ya. Until I get my own show."
By morning the comments had been deleted. In their place was this apology:

We abhor last nights twitter hacking. The End brand in no way condones the comments and apologizes. Pswrd & security measures changed.
This is an incredible level of cowardice on the part of 107.7 The End. They should actually call their station, "The End of Common Sense".

Here is a LINK to their website. Let them know how you feel.


Webmaster Mitch sent this one in from National Review. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is a Nigerian with ties not only to radical Muslim 9/11 Imam, al-Awlaki, who provided spiritual counsel to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan but to Yemen itself. al-Awlaki should be in American custody since 2002 when he was detained and then released at JFK airport.

al-Awlaki is now in Yemen. Half of Camp Gitmo's detention center is made up of Yemenis. Re-patrioting them to Yemen would put the United States in further danger unnecessarily.

NRO Editors Report:
Less than two weeks ago, the Obama administration repatriated to Yemen six detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It was a test. About 90 of the 200 or so remaining Gitmo detainees are Yemenis. The president would like to move toward fulfilling his promise to close Gitmo, and thus to appease the antiwar Left, by transferring most of those Yemeni jihadists back home.

On Christmas Day, we got yet another indicator of how reckless this obsession with closing Gitmo is. A well-to-do Nigerian jihadist, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, tried to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying 289 passengers and crew, as it was preparing to land in Detroit after a flight from Amsterdam. The 23-year-old Mutallab attempted to ignite an incendiary chemical bomb, the components of which he assembled in flight after smuggling them onto the aircraft. He reportedly confessed to the FBI that he had been trained and tasked for the operation by al-Qaeda in Yemen.
The absurdity of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's words recently is not lost on them either:
There is abundant reason to credit the mutually reinforcing claims of collusion by Mutallab and al-Qaeda. Certainly, they are more believable at this time than the groundless assertion from the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, that Mutallab is not part of a broader terrorist conspiracy. That lone-wolf theory echoes the preposterous “no terrorism here” assurances the secretary offered after the Fort Hood massacre, notwithstanding solid links between the shooter and an al-Qaeda recruiter. It is nearly as absurd as Napolitano’s assertion that “the system worked” against the Christmas Day strike.
Gitmo has been slowly bleeding out its inmates for some time, meaning the ones that are left are among the most dangerous. Yet, Obama seems totally invested in appeasing that far leftwing radical base of his.



There are so many different dynamics at work here. First, keep in mind that the near catastrophic bombing of NW flight 253 happened on Friday, December 25th. On Sunday, December 27th, DHS Secretary said, "the System worked". It was the quote of the day and she was justifiably excoriated incessantly.

On Wednesday, the 30th, CBS' Harry Smith is interviewing South Carolina senator Jim DeMint who simply references Napolitano's comment presumably, to make a broader point. Not only does Smith object to it but says it's "ancient history" before telling DeMint to focus on the present instead of the past. Harry, if comments made three days earlier are "ancient history", I guess that makes the near bombing of Flight 253 pre-Cambrian. If so, why is it newsworthy?

Dynamic number 2: In light of the recent revelations that the hosts at MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program are taking live advice from the White House during the show in order to let the WH drive at least some aspect of the questioning and discussions, take note of Harry Smith's eyes in the video prior to and during his chastising DeMint. On two occasions, he appears to look off to his left as if he's being told by a producer to squash DeMint's comments.

Oh, and compare Smith's reaction to DeMint with his reaction to hearing Al Gore personally read his poem.

h/t to HAP


After reports of a first hand account that the underwear bomber attempted to board Northwest Flight 253 without a passport, this story about the TSA going to the home of two bloggers for posting the contents of an email they received is a bit disturbing.

WIRED reported:
Two bloggers received home visits from Transportation Security Administration agents Tuesday after they published a new TSA directive that revises screening procedures and puts new restrictions on passengers in the wake of a recent bombing attempt by the so-called underwear bomber.

Special agents from the TSA’s Office of Inspection interrogated two U.S. bloggers, one of them an established travel columnist, and served them each with a civil subpoena demanding information on the anonymous source that provided the TSA document.

The document, which the two bloggers published within minutes of each other Dec. 27, was sent by TSA to airlines and airports around the world and described temporary new requirements for screening passengers through Dec. 30, including conducting “pat-downs” of legs and torsos. The document, which was not classified, was posted by numerous bloggers. Information from it was also published on some airline websites.
The term, "Heavy Handed" absolutely appears to apply here. It seems like the more militant Muslims attack, the more our citizens' rights are infringed upon. These bloggers were at home with their young children.

It would seem that one of the bloggers makes a very valid point:
“They’re saying it’s a security document but it was sent to every airport and airline,” says Steven Frischling, one of the bloggers. “It was sent to Islamabad, to Riyadh and to Nigeria. So they’re looking for information about a security document sent to 10,000-plus people internationally. You can’t have a right to expect privacy after that.”

Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino said in a statement that security directives “are not for public disclosure.”
Typical bureaucrat. Avoid common sense at all costs; just cite policy.

Lastly, I found some definte irony in the underwear bomber, who is a Muslim, prompting talk of full body scans for law-abiding, non-Muslim citizens.

h/t to HA


Fox News is reporting on the thirteen state Attorneys General who are threatening to file a lawsuit against Obamacare and the bribes that helped to get it passed by the Senate. Ben Nelson's deal isn't the only one but it is the most blatant example and did put this monstrosity over the top.

FOX reported: COLUMBIA, S.C.
(AP) -- Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
And this....
The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.
As I've written BEFORE on the Nelson deal, there are two very specific portions of the Constitution that speak to this (maybe more).
Article I, Section 9 (Limits of Congress), Part 6:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This one should move to the top of the Supreme Court's Dockett.

13 state Attorneys General winning this lawsuit against Obama, Reid, and this health care monstrosity would be one heck of a smackdown.

h/t to GP


The Interpol story, which started when Obama signed an amendment to Executive Order 12425, has apparently heated up sufficiently enough for the New York Times and Jake Tapper to take notice. Tapper, perhaps one of the MSM's more objective reporters, seems to make an honest attempt at investigating the story, which has been getting much attention in the blogosphere.

The issue involves the amendment giving Interpol (International Police Force) immunity from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and potentially exempts Interpol from the U.S. Constitution under the Fourth Amendment. As you can imagine, both Tapper and NYT's Savage play down the concerns, which are rooted in section 2(c) of the EO, although the exemptions included other sections as well. From TAPPER:
• Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
• the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
• Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
• Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
• Section 6, dealing with property taxes.
My take is that overreaction is indeed a concern as well. However, I don't think that should end discussion on this matter. For now, let's throw out concern for Sections 2(d), 3, 4, 5, and 6. In my view, very close attention should continue to be given to 2(c). Questions should be asked and answered.

Tapper makes some very sound and reasoned arguments for allaying any fears people may have. However, at moments, he comes across as slightly condescending.
For example, with this comment: I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn’t until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.
Putting Interpol in the same category as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is cute but not very relevant.

At the end of Tapper's piece - and possibly unwittingly - he actually gives an objective reader further pause while trying to pooh pooh the story. I take you to the very last paragraph:
Obama administration officials say this new executive order doesn't allow INTERPOL to do any more than they were allowed to do once Reagan recognized them as a public international organization. Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.
With his last sentence, Tapper is conceding that the concerns of people who have a problem with this EO are indeed well founded except for the fact that "the president" can waive the immunity "if need be". He leaves off by encouraging American citizens to trust in Obama's "if need be"?! What exactly is Obama's "if need be"? Considering all of the people he's surrounded himself with, dismissing the Interpol story out of hand is a bit premature in my view. Questions should be asked and the matter should be subjected to sufficient sunlight.

If Tapper would step back and look at the last sentence of his own piece, re-thinking it, perhaps he too would feel the need to investigate further.

Onto the Charlie Savage piece a the NYT. He is certainly a bit more snarky with his analysis. Like Tapper's post, I found the ending of the Savage piece the most noteworthy:
The White House said it put out no statement with Mr. Obama’s order because it viewed the matter as uninteresting.

LaTonya Miller, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Interpol bureau, said the order would have no effect on the bureau. It routinely receives and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests, she said, and will continue to do so.

“Nothing has changed,” she said. “We’ve been really concerned about all the misinformation that has been out there on the blogs.”
Perhaps if this White House was more forthcoming and, dare I say it, transparent, the concerns of people who are at least mildly disturbed by this might be more easily assuaged.

If true, and there is nothing to be concerned about, the White House should welcome people keeping a close eye on what Interpol does. In fact, they appear to be doing just the opposite by playing it down.

One last thing. Am I the only one who is concerned every time this administration refutes critics who ask tough questions as engaging in "misinformation"? Isn't that what they did when the Van Jones story broke?

HERE is the Threats Watch story from December 23rd.


I found this exchange while looking for the latest Ben Nelson ad. It was posted shortly after the Stimulus package was signed into law back in February. Larry King has both Ben Stein and Ed Schultz on his program to talk about what needs to be done to rejuvenate the ailing economy.

Far left progressive Schultz is shamed with his own words more than once in hindsight. In part 1, go to the 1:15 and 3:15 marks. At 3:45, he says, "This plan (stimulus) is going to work. It's just a matter of time."

Time's up, Ed.

In part 2, fast forward to the 1:19 mark as Ed says Obama isn't for bailouts and doesn't want to do this. And lastly, the 2:10 mark offers a gem too. Schultz, in defending stimulus, alludes to the need for health care reform. You'd think that after he was proven wrong on the Stimulus, he might have less credibility or even re-examine his paradigms. But alas, full steam ahead with healthcare these days, right Ed?

Here is one of the posts on YouTube from lv3ddip, an obvious abject liberal. I'd love to know his/her take now.

2:29 Sir, Sir, we have lost something like 7 trillon dollars of the savings of americans since Mr. Obama won the election...
The money is not out yet, and this clown says the money is lost?
Why the conservatives use comedians as their spoke persons? like this fart an the oxycontin addict.
By Stabilizing the financial system, Is he proposing to keep bailing out Wall Street?
Sir, Sir, Shut the f*** up!!!

Good job, big Ed!
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive