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

Wednesday, July 28, 2010


The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange made an explosive charge during an interview with Fox's Andrew Napolitano, saying that he presented the documents relative to the war in Afghanistan, to the White House prior to releasing them but got no response. In predictable fashion, the White House denied it - as they do virtually everything else. When clarity was sought from Assange, he indicated that the New York Times served as an intermediary between the two.

If true, it would mean that the Obama administration was aware that these documents might get released but did nothing pre-emptively to stop it. In light of the revelations this week that the White House also looked the other way when it came to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Obama should explain himself.

Was this a crisis that was to be exploited by the White House, as a reason to justify the internet kill switch legislation Joe Lieberman is sponsoring?

If Assange is telling the truth, this is a big deal.

Via Impeach Obama Campaign:


On one level, what did you expect? She was appointed by Bill Clinton, the man who pardoned two Weather Underground members at the end of his term. On another level, the left continues to be more interested in destroying this country than in saving it. What happened in Arizona today is no exception. The judge in this case will not be the final word. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has called it a 'speed bump' and it is certainly going to be appealed.

The larger issue is the fact that as a consequence of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling, police officers will not be permitted to check the immigration status of individuals arrested for the commission of non-immigration related crimes. William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection is apoplectic over that one. He writes in a blog post titled 'Helplessness and Anarchy':
The inability of a state to implement a policy of checking the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime is remarkable.

While I cannot blame the Judge for striking some provisions of S.B. 1070 (particularly those creating independent criminal sanctions), the ruling as to checking the status of people already under arrest is mind-numbing.
Jacobson is more than qualified to chime in on the matter; he is an Associate clinical Professor of Law at Cornell.

That's what makes the end of his post so enraging:
With a federal government which refuses to take action at the border until there is a deal on "comprehensive" immigration reform, meaning rewarding lawbreakers with a path to citizenship, this decision will insure a sense of anarchy. The law breakers have been emboldened today, for sure.

As it stands this afternoon, it is perfectly rational for someone faced with the choice of obeying the immigration laws or not, to choose not to do so. The choice of lawlessness makes a lot more sense than spending years winding through the byzantine legal immigration system, because the end result will be the same but lawlessness gets you here more quickly.

When the law and the federal government reward lawlessness, something is very wrong.
The absurdity of this judge's ruling is right in line with the absurdity we've seen ad-nausea um courtesy of the Obama administration but that doesn't make it any less absurd. This ruling by Bolton actually emboldens illegal aliens to break the law more than did conditions before the law was passed. We have Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and tangentially Bill Clinton to thank.

More at the Wall Street Journal.


For those hoping that Britain's new Prime Minister, David Cameron would be an improvement over the leftwing incompetent Gordon Brown, one look at his behavior in Turkey will show he may actually be worse. Cameron is billed as a conservative but when it comes to understanding the Islamic threat to the west, he's clueless. Ironically, he's doing so by being an appeasement advocate, calling for Turkey to be allowed entry into the European Union. In so doing, he has alienated European nations who oppose that absurd notion by painting them as 'prejudiced'.

As a result, he epitomizes what Winston Churchill thought of appeasers:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Cameron is attempting to cozy up to a regime that has become all but Islamist while pointing the finger at neighboring western countries who oppose Turkey's entry into the EU.

Some westerners were hoping against hope that a "conservative" Cameron would usher in policies that reminded people of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Quite the contrary, Cameron's speech in Turkey demonstrates his name doesn't belong in the same sentence as those two former leaders - sorry for doing it.

Here's an excerpt of Cameron's speech via Barry Rubin at Pajamas Media:
Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.
That "attack" on the Gaza flotilla was anything but. Besides, that flotilla had the backing of Hamas, Hezbolla, the IHH, and the Free Gaza Movement, which is supported by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Cameron is placing himself on the side of the enemy with words like this.

As for Cameron's alienation of his neighbors - he doesn't just go to the front of the crocodile feeding line. He covers those neighbors in meat sauce before throwing them in the river by painting them as racists toward Islam:
The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.
Again, one needs only to refer to the words of Churchill to refute Cameron, a man who would surely repulse Churchill (sorry, I did it again). In the words of Sir Winston in 1899:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Interestingly, at the time Churchill wrote these words in 1899, the Ottoman Empire was the center of the Islamic world and was based in what is today known as Turkey.

Read Rubin's entire piece.

Also, more at the Telegraph
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