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

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


It's a sorry statement when this video has no impact on the American people anymore. The audacity of Harry Reid calling people arrogant, the gall of Chris Dodd to have a righteously indignant tantrum, Chuck Schumer warning of a Constitutional Crisis, or Obama declaring that Congress is acting in a way incongruent with what "the Founders intended", et. al add up to a level of hypocrisy that cannot be trumped.

I also find it quite telling that in 2005, the Democrats were successful in labeling the process of Reconciliation a "nuclear option". Even today, the Republican leadership refuses to return the favor. Instead, it's back to being referred to as "Reconciliation".

Shameless doesn't even begin to describe this. This is nothing more than mental pre-adolescents playing dress-up.

h/t to Breitbart


I first saw this yesterday and decided to post after further thought. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense has changed its logo. On its face, logo changes are not all that uncommon I guess but the new logo raises quite a few interesting questions relative to both the Obama 2008 campaign logo as well as the Islamic Crescent.

Here is the original logo:

Here is the new logo:

I noticed this story first on Hot Air Pundit which posted via Weazlezippers. Now the Washington Times has picked it up.

While the Times doesn't compare the new logo to the Islamic Crescent, it does call out the D.O.D. on the logo's likeness to the 2008 Obama campaign logo:

Now, how about that Islamic Crescent? There are many variations but to dismiss similarities out of hand would seem a bit premature. Note that the Islamic symbol, like the Missile Defense logo, has a star at two o'clock. The only difference between the two is that the crescent moon is inverted. I have a difficult time believing there isn't something to this.

For some reason, this all reminded me of the controversy surrounding the United 93 Memorial, which is set to open on 9/11/11. Many wrote about it, including Michelle Malkin back in 2005.


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is building quite the reputation lately. Whenever he is being questioned by Senators or Congressmen, he comes across as virtually clueless in his defense of untenable positions. That might explain what seems to be a recurring theme with Holder - clamming up. Coming to mind is the inexplicable decision by the DOJ to drop charges against the Black Panthers in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.

However, equally maddening is Holder's blatant arrogance and refusal to name the attorneys in his department who have defended Gitmo detainees in the past. This started in November when Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R) demanded that Holder release the names of ALL DOJ attorneys that have worked for detained terrorists in the past. Whether Holder got tired of being on the wrong end of logical arguments or simply had no answer, no answer was given. Grassley and his Republican counterparts grew increasingly agitated.

The Washington Examiner reports:
Finally, last week, Grassley and his colleagues got a response -- they wouldn't really call it an answer -- from the attorney general. Holder told Grassley that at least nine department officials formerly represented detainees. (It is "at least" because Holder conceded that he did not make a complete survey of DOJ's political appointees.) Holder confirmed that Katyal and Daskal worked on detainee issues -- something Grassley already knew -- but did not reveal the names of the other department officials involved. He did say that they are allowed to work on detainee issues.
That would equate to SEVEN department officials - still unnamed - who once worked for detained Islamic terrorists and are now working inside the United States Department of Justice and whose boss, Holder, refuses to name.

How about one of the two who are known, Jennifer Daskal (pictured)? She represented detainees while employed by Human Rights Watch. Check out what glowing things she had to say about the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
"What should have been a major victory in holding the 9/11 defendants accountable for terrible crimes has been tainted by torture and an unfair military commissions process," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "These five men are known to have been mistreated and tortured during their years in CIA custody, including the acknowledged waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."
Or how about this beauty?
"In light of the men's severe mistreatment and torture, the judge should require a full and thorough factual inquiry to determine whether or not these pleas are voluntary," Daskal said.
How do citizens of this country become so emotionally invested in defending the plight of our enemies?

When I read things like this, the best explanation I can come up with for why someone like Daskal would choose the path she does is Stockholm Syndrome. It is a condition that can be described and identified but it is extremely difficult to explain. Here is an excerpt from a site that concisely explains it but then uses it as a justification for feminist activism (another condition entirely, not worth exploring here)
The term, Stockholm Syndrome, was coined in the early 70's to describe the puzzling reactions of four bank employees to their captor. On August 23, 1973, three women and one man were taken hostage in one of the largest banks in Stockholm. They were held for six days by two ex-convicts who threatened their lives but also showed them kindness. To the world's surprise, all of the hostages strongly resisted the government's efforts to rescue them and were quite eager to defend their captors. Indeed, several months after the hostages were saved by the police, they still had warm feelings for the men who threatened their lives. Two of the women eventually got engaged to the captors.
Here is a link to one of the more thorough explanations of SS if you have time.

But I digress.

What about the other known employee at the DOJ in question? That would be Neal Katyal, who represented Osama bin Laden's driver. Considering Katyal's history along with Daskal's predilections, shouldn't we be concerned that Holder refuses to name the other seven employees in his department who likely have similar backgrounds?

Grassley is not happy about it but being in the minority, there's not much he can do. I only hope that if the Republicans gain majorities in both houses of congress this year, they remember these things and go on offense instead of seeking some twisted brand of reconciliation. If they seek the latter, it very well could be a sign of Stockholm Syndrome.

h/t to Gateway Pundit for link to the Daskal dreck at Human Rights Watch.
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