On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review on an amicus brief  filed by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2004 on behalf of Jose Padilla.  Jose Padilla was charged with plotting a dirty bomb attack and convicted of aiding terrorists.

The article reports on the brief filed by Attorney General Holder:

“It is a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief). This might explain why Holder sometimes has difficulty answering seemingly easy questions. That’s what happened this week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee quizzed the attorney general on the lawfulness of the U.S. military’s targeted killing of bin Laden.”

On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Using Military For (AUMF).  According to the website findlaw.com this law states:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

This law seems more clear than most of the laws Congress passes.

The article further disagrees with AG Holder’s statement that Padillo’s arrest was not on a battlefield, he is forgetting that the war on terror has an infinite battlefield:

“Holder was dangerously wrong. Put aside that no war comes with an expiration date. It was not the Bush administration that extended the battlefield “throughout the world.” The standards in question were set by al-Qaeda. That is no doubt why Congress prudently did not attempt to circumscribe the commander-in-chief’s discretion to determine what the battlefield is. We don’t want terrorists to have any sanctuaries.

“This is also precisely why President Obama has “imported wholesale” into his command the traditional concept that a battlefield can be any location where the enemy can conduct operations — which, in al-Qaeda’s case, is any place where its operatives are found. That is the risk a terrorist runs — being an unlawful combatant who flouts laws of war designed to protect civilians, the terrorist must be denied the privileges that reward lawful combatants for conducting warfare honorably.”

If we are going to fight a war on terror, we need to revisit our concept of war.  Hopefully, the Obama administration is beginning to do this.

Yesterday the UK Guardian reported that in late 2001 President Bush and General Pervez Musharraf struck a deal that if “Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion.”

The deal was struck after Bin Laden evaded United States troops that supposedly had him cornered at Tora Bora.  That deal was executed a few Sundays ago.

The article reports:

“The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the “public face” of the deal. “We knew they would deny this stuff.”

“The agreement is consistent with Pakistan’s unspoken policy towards CIA drone strikes in the tribal belt, which was revealed by the WikiLeaks US embassy cables last November. In August 2008, (Prime Minister Yousaf) Gilani reportedly told a US official: “I don’t care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.”

“As drone strikes have escalated in the tribal belt over the past year, senior civilian and military officials issued pro forma denunciations even as it became clear the Pakistani military was co-operating with the covert programme.”

Sometimes as I watch events unforld, I forget that what I am seeing may not be exactly what is happening.  This is one of those times.  The government of Pakistan is obligated to tell the people of Pakistan that other countries will not be allowed to come in and randomly conduct military operations.  However, I suspect that there are many people in Pakistan who are celebrating the fact that Osama Bin Laden no longer lives there.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported an attack on two Christian churches in Cairo, Egypt, on Friday.  Historically there has been a problem in Egypt with Muslim persecution of Christians, but it was kept somewhat under control by the Mubark government.   The ‘Muslim spring’ that is occurring in the Middle East does not seem to tolerate the rights of Christians as well as Muslims.  This might be something that the West would do well to take note of.

The article reports:

“The attack on the church was the latest sign of assertiveness by an extreme, ultraconservative movement of Muslims known as Salafis, whose increasing hostility toward Egypt’s Coptic Christians has met with little interference from the country’s military rulers. …

“The bloodshed began Saturday around sundown when word spread around the neighborhood that a Christian woman who married a Muslim had been abducted and was being kept in the Virgin Mary Church against her will.

“The report, which was never confirmed by local religious figures, sent a large mob of Muslims toward the church. Christians created a human barricade around the building and clashes erupted. Gunfire sounded across the neighborhood, and witnesses said people on rooftops nearby were firing into the crowd.”

Our government has proclaimed that Islam is a religion of peace.  That statement does not seem to fit with the intolerance growing in the Middle East as the Muslim spring takes hold and the Muslim Brotherhood increases its presence in nations where it had been previously banned.

“I’m in jail because I stepped on a rock” sounds like a really dumb statement.  Well, let’s hope it remains in the realm of fiction.

On Friday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the move to give human rights to nature.  Yes, you read that right.  Van Jones is a the forefront of this effort–you can follow the link to see the video. 

The article reports:

“Actually, what this should be called is the Ambulance Chaser Full Employment Act. It would make law schools the center of American civilization, churning out attorneys for literally every object under the sun, including the sun itself. If people think the EPA and the Endangered Species Act act as a sledgehammer to business (especially energy production), just wait until dirt, rocks, trees, and streams suddenly get specific “rights” standing in court. The entire idea targets private property as a concept. In fact, at least philosophically if not legally, the concept of human rights for nature and natural objects turns private property ownership into a form of slavery.”

When you understand that Van Jones is part of the extreme political left that opposes the freedom and prosperity that America has enjoyed, this movement actually makes sense.  The actual target of this movement is ‘private property’–one of the bedrocks of America and the American way of life.  If the concept of private property can be undone in America, America can be undone.

One of the more interesting comments posted at the article was the question, “Why are we willing to give rocks human rights, but deny those rights to the unborn?”  Interesting question.

The Daily Mail Online Edition is reporting that “Pakistan Air Forces has strictly and categorically rejected the reports that its radars were inactive during entry of American helicopters into Pakistani air space for Operation Geronimo on May 2, 2011.”

On May 3, senior security officials stated at a media briefing that the radar systems of the Pakistan Air Force had been jammed by the US forces during the night of Osama Bin Laden’s killing. 

The article reports:

“Earlier, the PAF’s Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure in front of some national media, but dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars had been jammed by Americans.

“Suleman informed the government that the entry of US helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected, as the radars deployed on the western borders were inactive on that day.

“Suleman’s statement was in direct contrast to what Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir had said during a media briefing in Islamabad on May 5.”

Why would you turn the radar off on your borders?  I suspect that this back and forth has to do with the technology of the American helicopters used and the fact that Pakistan is in possession of the tail of one of those helicopters.   The Pakistanis and the Chinese are good friends, and the Chinese are experts at reverse engineering.  This debate could get very interesting.

This is a link to a letter written by J. Michael Luttig, Executive Vice President & General Counsel for the Boeing Company to Lafe. E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  The letter deals with some of the false accusations that Attorney Solomon has made against Boeing, including statements in the media, concerning the plans of Boeing to build a new plant in South Carolina.

The thing to remember here is that even if Boeing builds its plant in South Carolina and is successful in building the 787 Dreamliner there, the additional expense and aggravation that the NLRB is causing the company will serve as a warning to other companies planning to build manufacturing facilities in right-to-work states.  This is mob-style intimidation and does not belong in American government.

Attorney Luttig points out in his letter that the 787 Dreamliner production line to be built in South Carolina is a new production line and that building it in South Carolina will not cause anyone in Puget Sound or anywhere else to lose their job.

Please read the letter for yourself.  It exposes the lies being told on behalf of unions who do not want to see manufacturing move to right-to-work states.  It is unfortunate that they have government allies to help them discourage companies from moving wherever they choose to move..

Yesterday Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a story about an encounter between Debra Burlingame and President Obama at his Ground Zero event.  The story also appeared in a Washington Post Blog.  A video of the encounter can be found at the Washington Post blog.

Debra Burlingame is the sister of the pilot whose plane was crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. 

Power Line reports on the encounter:

“She (Debra Burlingame) said she was pleased Bin Laden had been killed, but was shocked when Mr Obama turned his back when she confronted him over the prosecution of the CIA agents who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

“She told Fox News: “I was very upfront, I said Mr President, I’ve been one of your most ardent critics, but on Sunday night I was very proud of you, I was very appreciative of what you helped make happen, and I was very proud of America.

“”And then he hugged me, but then I said I have a question for you.”

“She said: “As a former attorney I know you can’t tell the Attorney General what to do, he said, ‘No, I can’t.’

“”But I said ‘we – that shouldn’t stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn’t be here today if they hadn’t done their jobs. Can’t you at least give them your opinion.’

“”And he said ‘no I won’t,’ and he turned around and walked away.””

The Washington Post reports:

“In addition to eliminating the very techniques that allowed us to track down and kill bin Laden, Obama has permitted the Justice Department to reopen investigation of previously cleared CIA operatives. Muskaey explains: ” I say ‘reopening’ advisedly because those investigations had all been formally closed by the end of 2007, with detailed memoranda prepared by career Justice Department prosecutors explaining why no charges were warranted. Attorney General Eric Holder conceded that he had ordered the investigations reopened in September 2009 without reading those memoranda. The investigations have now dragged on for years with prosecutors chasing allegations down rabbit holes, with the CIA along with the rest of the intelligence community left demoralized.”

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was made possible by good intelligence work.  It would not be wise to interfere with any of that kind of work while we are fighting the war against radical Islam.

Today the American Thinker posted an article by Lee Cary entitled, “Charlie Chan and the Mystery of the Mansion Hideout.”  The article deals with the detective work that might have uncovered the location of Osama Bin Laden.  It’s a wonderful imaginary dialogue between the legendary Chinese detective Charlie Chan and his Number One Son, Jimmy.  (Could you even run that show on television today and not be accused of racism?)

Some of the things pointed out in the dialog:

“Chan: Pakistani authorities report they visited here in 2003 to make such inquiries.  An official says the compound “was raided when under construction” back then.

“Jimmy: So who was living here then, Pop?

“Chan: Here’s an aerial photo of the compound from 2004.  Who do you think was?

“Jimmy: It was an empty field!  So how did they visit a compound on an empty field?

“Chan: It must have required great imagination, Number One Son.”

That is just a sample from a great article.  Please follow the link above to the article to read the whole thing.  It’s very informative and very funny.

Investors.com posted an article stating that the United Nations wants the United States to provide a factual accounting of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.  You would think that they would just say thank you for the elimination of a world-renown terrorist.  If they had followed the ideals behind their founding, they would have said thank you, but unfortunately, they have come a long way since 1945.

Such champions of human rights as Cuba and China want to know the details of the raid.  Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that “The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counterterrorism acts must respect international law.”  Amazing.

The article points out that the United States has no moral obligation to comply with the United Nations’ request for the details of the raid.

I have a suggestion–let’s get out of the United Nations and kick them out of New York.  The United Nations costs us a tremendous amount of money both in the money we give them directly and the problems their presence creates for the residents of Manhattan (traffic problems, double parking, unpaid traffic tickets, etc.).

It was a great country and western song, but it’s no way to run a government.  Today’s Daily Caller posted an article about the budget blueprint by Democrat Senator Kent Conrad to be released shortly.

Senator Conrad intends to release the budget only minutes before it is marked up in committee.  Senator Conrad explained to Senator Jeff Sessions that he was not going to comply with the request of all the Republican members that there be 72 hours between releasing the budget plan and the committee markup.

The article reports:

“”There seems to be a belief that we can never finish a budget and reach an agreement in an open process.  There’s gotta be some secret meeting.  Now the vice president’s meeting with them, you know, today.  Well, why not?  When did we get to the point that democracy no longer functions?  That open hearings no longer function?  People going off to meet at the Blair House or the basement of the Capitol somewhere, without the American people involved, and try to arrange our financial future?” Sessions said.”

The markup on the budget put together by Senator Conrad’s group could take place as early as Tuesday.  How’s that transparency thing working out for you?

Yesterday Guy Benson posted an aritlce at Hot Air detailing how intelligence gathering by the George W. Bush administration paved the way for the discovery of Osama Bin Laden’s compound. 

In a prior column written for Townhall.com, Mr. Benson points out:

“Osama bin Laden was found because the United States military exploited actionable intelligence extracted by subjecting terrorists to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) in secret CIA prisons, by questioning enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, and by capturing a top al Qaeda source in Iraq.

“As long as some liberals remain intent on keeping political score, it must be pointed out that all three sources of these indispensible data points were direct or indirect results of Bush policies – EITs, Gitmo, and the Iraq war – that much of the American Left, including Barack Obama, fought tooth and nail.”

The things the Democrats made political and disdained provided the information that led to the killing of Obama Bin Laden. 

Mr. Benson further points out:

“In short, Al-Kuwaiti’s existence was flagged by at least one Guantanamo Bay detainee, his role and pseudonym were confirmed by KSM and al-Libi, and his true identity was spilled by an Al Qaeda terrorist operating in Iraq.  It’s no exaggeration to assert that all three of these intelligence “strands” may never — or perhaps would never — have materialized absent the controversial Bush administration policies listed above.  These facts are not historical footnotes.  They eviscerate a number of core left-wing articles of faith, including the flawed notions that President Bush “took his eye off the [Al Qaeda/bin Laden] ball,” that Iraq was unrelated to the larger war on terror, and that EITs are not effective — not to mention the ongoing obsession with shuttering Gitmo.  As I conclude in the Townhall piece, Presidents Bush and Obama deserve significant credit for this massive accomplishment, and it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.”

Please read the entire article at Hot Air.  The details are very informative.  President Obama deserves credit for deciding to rid the world of Osama Bin Laden, but he had nothing to do with gathering the information that made that mission possible–in fact the politics of the Democrat party did everying possible to prevent America from ever obtaining that information.  As you enter the voting booth in 2012. keep that in mind.

As gasoline prices at the pump climb rapidly, politicians are looking for ways to avoid taking responsibility for ways in which their actions have caused the rapid price rise.  We need to listen carefully to what is being said in order to sort out the political garbage from the facts.

John Hinderaker posted a story at Power Line yesterday laying out the conditions that are responsible for the current obscenity at the gas pump. 

The article reports:

“Harry Reid uttered one of the more brain-dead non sequiturs of recent memory a few days ago:

We have to do something about these soaring gas prices. We need to take away the subsidies of these five major oil companies.

“In fact, of course, the oil companies are huge taxpayers, and the “subsidies” are ordinary deductions that slightly reduce the oil companies’ immense tax liabilities. They are not actual government subsidies, like the ones that go to the Democrats’ corporate cronies in the “green” energy business, which exists only by virtue of government largesse.”

As the argument of taking away routine tax deductions from the oil companies moves through Congress, keep in mind that it is a bogus argument.

Commodity prices are rising rapidly because the dollar has been devaluated in recent years.  Power Line posted the chart below:

The article comments:

“How about those cotton prices? Time to raise taxes on Jockey and Fruit of the Loom! That’ll show ’em!

“So what is really happening is not that oil, or gold, or cotton has suddenly gotten more valuable. Rather, the dollar has gotten less valuable. Why? Because of the Fed’s quantitative easing plan, which has the full support of the Obama administration. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that cheapening the dollar makes everything more expensive. Maybe someone could explain this to Harry Reid.”

Don’t confuse Harry Reid with facts.

CBN News reported today that the House of Representatives voted 251 to 175 yesterday to permanently ban federal funding of abortion.  More than 60 percent of Americans have stated that they do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. 

The article reports:

“”As a physician, a family physician who has practiced for 34 years, I can tell you that the taking of innocent life is not health care,” Rep. John Fleming, R-La., said.

“”And while abortion has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court, in no way does the ability to perform an act require taxpayer funding of the act, especially when it goes against most of their sacred beliefs,” explained Rep. Renee Elmers, R-N.C.

“Private citizen Nancy Tanner joined the pro-life lawmakers to voice how much she regrets the abortion she thought would be a quick fix.

“”No woman can go through an experience where they take the jar with your baby’s body parts and dump it in front of you to count pieces, in front of your eyes,” she said. “Makes you think that this is going to be a quick and easy fix.””

As expected, Democrats who support abortion attacked the bill.  The article reports:

“”This is about whether we should use the tax code as a moral club to impose the religious beliefs of a few members of Congress on the entire nation,” Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said.

“”The right to choose is absolutely meaningless without access to choice. And HR-3 creates obstacles to access safe, legal, and constitutionally protected health care,” argued Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.”

The pro-life Republicans reminded those Democrats that the law did not restrict abortion in any way–it just prohibited the use of taxpayer money to fund it. 

This is a discussion that will continue.  Some of the dialogue reported in the article:

“Democratic Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley even claimed, “There are no taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions. None. Zero.”

“But Republicans countered that without a ban, the government itself estimates it would pay for.

“”As many as 675,00 abortions each year,” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said.

“”And forcing taxpayers to pay for the indiscriminate killing of helpless little baby Americans is not good government,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said.”

One question that comes to mind when you read the statement of Rep. Bruce Braley is, “If there are no taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions, why do you opposed this bill?”  If what you are saying is true, the bill won’t change anything.

 I see little hope of this bill making it through the Senate and past the President, but the fact is that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion.  Is our government going to respect the wishes of the American voter or the wishes of the abortion industry?

Yesterday’s UK Telegraph posted a story detailing some of the problems in the White House version of the raid that killed Osama Bin Ladin. 

The article reports:

“Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

“A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.”

Huh? 

The article also reports:

“Mr Panetta also revealed that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill Bin Laden rather than the president.”

This is also an interesting piece of information. 

The article further reports:

“Lieutenant General Asad Durrani, former head of the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, said it was “inconceivable” that his government was unaware of the US raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.

“He claimed his country was forced to deny any knowledge of the raid to avoid a domestic backlash. The ISI’s official line has been that bin Laden’s compound had “slipped off our radar” after it raided the building in 2003 while hunting for another senior al-Qaeda operative.The agency claims it was unaware that bin Laden was hiding there.

“Lieutenant General Durrani, however, said that the denial was a “political” maneuver by the intelligence services to avoid claims that they were working too closely with the US.”

We don’t need conspiracy theories–there is so much contradictory information out there about this event. it may take years to sort it all out.  The bottom line here is simple. though–Osama Bin Laden is dead.  That is a good thing for the forces of good in the world.  The details may change or be revealed in the coming days, but this was the end of a man who reveled in killing civilians.  Most civilized people will not miss him.

Yesterday CBN News posted a story about Lars Hedegaard, who was charged with racism under Denmark’s hate speech law after telling someone at a gathering about the problem of rape committed against Muslim girls by male relatives. 

The article reports:

“Under Denmark’s hate speech law, it doesn’t matter if what you said was true. It doesn’t matter if it is factual – if it offends someone, you could be charged.

“A guilty verdict hinged on whether what Hedegaard said was intended for a wider audience. A lower court decided it was not, and acquitted him.

“Meanwhile, in a Dutch court on Monday, Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders denounced his hate speech trial as “unjust.” He branded it a “political trial” and an attempt to suppress free speech.

“Wilders is on trial for comparing Islam to fascism.”

The thing to keep in mind here is the definition of slader under Sharia Law.  The concept of slander under Sharia means saying anything that is perceived to be negative against Islam.  It doesn’t matter if what you say is true or not–if it is perceived to be a negative comment about Islam, it can be considered slander (or as in the case of Denmark, hate speech).  This is a very dangerous precedent to set up anywhere.  One of the foundations of a free society is the ability to speak the truth.  I am sure the court that decided this did not intend to move Denmark a step closer to Islamic law, but that is what they have done.  This is a dangerous road to start down. 

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article by Senator James Inhofe about America’s energy policy. 

He points out:

“In the debate over rising gas prices, Washington is creating a massive distraction: whether Congress should eliminate tax “subsidies” for oil and gas companies. Of course oil and gas companies don’t receive checks, grants, or direct payments from the federal Treasury, so the debate is a red herring. What’s really needed is price relief for consumers at the pump. The best way to do that is to produce more affordable energy here at home.”

The article points out that the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has stated that America’s supply of oil, gas, and natural gas combined is the largest on Earth. 

The article further states:

“In fact, according to CRS, which relied on estimates from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Interior Department, we have 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil — nearly six times higher than what President Obama and the Democrats like to claim. That amount of oil would replace our current oil imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.

“But this administration is saying no. By restricting supply — through its de facto moratorium on deepwater permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, and its restrictions on production on federal lands — prices have gone up. This is exactly what this administration wants. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, for instance, told the Wall Street Journal that “[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the prices of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Consider just Great Britain: consumers there pay over $7.00 a gallon for gasoline.”

The ‘subsidies’ for oil and gas companies are not relevant in the discussion of gas prices.  The answer to our anemic economy and the current cost of a gallon of gas is simple–DRILL, BABY, DRILL.  If we don’t do that soon, I am not sure our economy will recover.  Remember the good old days of George Bush when gasoline was $ 1.84 a gallon and the unemployment rate was under 6 percent.  Intelligent energy policies would bring us back there rather quickly.  Look at what is happening in the Dakotas with the Bakkan reserve–the unemployment rate in the area of the discovery is approximately 3 percent.

Yesterday Big Peace posted an article about a new book coming out this week, Richard Miniter’s MASTERMIND: The Many Faces of the 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.  The book reveals a lot about the life of KSM and his various ideas and antics, but there was something in the book that troubles me.

The article quotes the author:

“I was stunned to learn while researching Mastermind that Guantanamo detainees succeeded in convincing prison officials to no longer raise the American flag anywhere they could see it. Each morning on every U.S. military base around the world, the American flag is raised to a bugle.  But in the interests of not offending the detainees, it was stopped at Guantanamo.”

Since we are dealing with a culture that worships strength and scoffs at weakness, I think this is a really dumb idea.  I’m sorry if a detainee would be offended by the American flag, but that is not America’s problem.  I think the flag should be raised every two feet to remind the detainees where they are and who is in charge of them.  The Muslim culture respects strength–when we act like weakings, we earn their scorn.

FLY THAT FLAG!

On Monday, CBN News posted an article by Erick Stakelbeck (their terrorism expert) on domestic terrorism.  Mr. Stakelbeck begins his article by talking about the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), a large Muslim organization with chapters on hundreds of college campuses in the United States and Canada. 

The article points out:

“…American-born Muslims are behind a growing number of terror plots — a trend that Attorney General Eric Holder has said keeps him “up at night.”

“Many of these homegrown jihadists, Poole noted, once belonged to the MSA.

“”Time after time, we see these terrorists — and not just fringe members. These are MSA leaders, MSA presidents, MSA national presidents, who’ve been implicated, charged, and convicted in terrorist plots,” he said.”

I reported in rightwinggranny on March 10 on some of the American leadership in Al Qaeda:

“Anwar al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and lived there until he was seven, moving to Yemen.  He returned to America to go to college, studying at Colorado State University and San Diego State.  Mr. al-Awlaki is the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  He consulted with two of the September 11 hijackers and was in contact with the Fort Hood shooter.”

There are rumors that Anwar al-Awlaki is on the short list to replace Bin Laden.

I am glad Osama Bin Laden is dead.  He was an evil man who intentionally declared war on civilians.  However, we need to remember that his death will not impact the internal terrorist threat to the United States.  Unfortunately, his death does not end the war on terror.  That war is a conflict between Western Civilization and a tyranny masquerading as a religion that our children will probably still be fighting.  As I said, I am glad Osama Bid Laden is dead, but that will not have a significant impact on the war on terror.  The goal of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of the MSA) is a world-wide caliphate.  The death of Bin Laden does not change that.

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am not Scott Brown’s biggest fan.  However, I am glad he was elected and will probably vote for him in 2012.  He may be the best we can do in Massachusetts.  Recently he has done two things that I think are very constructive.

I live in Massachusetts, and our television stations have been running ads accusing Scott Brown of increasing air pollution and harming children.  Besides the fact that the ad itself is playing fast and loose with the facts, it’s just a really stupid ad. 

Scott Brown has made the following statement:

If you’ve been watching TV lately, you’re probably aware that I’m the target of a negative attack ad that is running on all the stations. This one seeks to distort my pro-jobs record by suggesting that I voted to hurt sick children. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a father, I would never put my two daughters or anyone else’s children in harm’s way. I find this insinuation not only inappropriate, but highly offensive. I cast every vote in the Senate thinking first of how it will affect the people back home. I believe one of our most solemn responsibilities is to protect children, and ensure that their future is bright and prosperous.

To do that, I’ve made fixing the economy my top priority, and this starts by providing a favorable climate for businesses to grow and create jobs. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to rising energy prices and legal compliance costs that eat away at their bottom line, and yet everywhere I go in Massachusetts, small business owners tell me they are being strangled by taxes and over-regulation. Burdening our businesses with even more bureaucracy will kill jobs, and that is the last thing our economy can afford right now when we are barely starting to recover.

That is why I voted to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a way to end-run the decision by Congress to reject the massive cap-and-trade bill. I feared that cap and trade would have dramatically raised energy prices and cost jobs in Massachusetts and throughout the country.

Make no mistake: I support a clean environment. Last year, I worked across the aisle with Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware and others on bipartisan legislation targeted at keeping our air clean by restricting emissions of pollutants like mercury from power plants. I also worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on the bipartisan Oil Spill Prevention and Mitigation Improvement Act to help prevent another disaster like the one in the Gulf last year. This Congress, I have introduced legislation that promotes energy conservation in our vehicles and homes that would both help the environment and start to wean us off of foreign oil.

What I do not support is giving unelected and unaccountable agencies like the EPA the power to bypass Congress and impose new and unpredictable regulatory burdens on business. I believe that legislators should craft our energy and environmental policies with a view to ensuring we do not increase joblessness when our economy is still hurting.

Regulations and government overreach were the real issues at stake with this vote — not dirty air or sick children. It’s shocking that a supposedly nonpartisan group like the League of Women Voters has engaged in this demagoguery. In the past, the League has been known as a neutral and issues-oriented group that has helped elevate our public discourse by encouraging active participation in government and educating voters.

By misrepresenting one of my many votes and running a shameful attack ad, the LWV has put its reputation at risk. It has gone into the gutter and become part of the negative politics that voters have rightly rejected.

He’s absolutely right about the impact of the EPA’s move on business, but the part of this ad that bothers me is the source.  It is put on by the League of Women Voters.  Until recently I had always assumed that the League of Women Voters was a relatively neutral organization in dealing with candidates and elections.  My illusions were shattered last year when I attended a debate that they hosted.  The are not neutral and anything they say should be examined carefully.

The other thing Scott Brown has done recently is to request to do his National Guard Duty in Afghanistan.  Hot Air reported his request on Monday.  He stated:

“”As a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, I have service obligations that I fulfill each year.

“”Following in the tradition of other lawmakers who have completed their military service requirements overseas, this year I have requested to conduct my annual training in Afghanistan.

“”Doing so will help me to better understand our ongoing mission in that country, and provide me first-hand experience for my duties on the Senate Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committees,” he said.”

Understand that as part of the JAG (judge advocate general) corps, he will probably not be in combat, but this is still a gutsy decision.  I applaud him for wanted to go and see for himself what is going on there.

Thank you, Senator Brown, for a great statement and a wise move.

Today The Hill posted an article stating that CIA Director Leon Panetta had serious doubts about the government of Pakistan leaking the information if they were informed in advance of the attack on Osama Bin Laden’s compound.  I suspect his fears were well founded. 

The UK Telegraph reported yesterday that information contained in the Wikileaks documents claimed:

“Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban.”

There was also additional information from detainees at Guantanamo about cooperation between the Taliban and the government of Pakistan.

The article in The Hill reports:

“Instead of a cave, bin Laden was found to have been hiding in a secure compound in a suburb of Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital city. The terrorist leader behind al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks had apparently spent some time at the compound, which sat in an affluent neighborhood near the homes of many retired members of Pakistan’s military.”

A million-dollar compound near the homes of many of Pakistan’s retired military.  And we are supposed to believe that no one knew who lived there?  Wow.

It is becoming rather obvious that Pakistan leaves a bit to be desired as an ally in the war on terror.  The problem is simple, though, if we write them off and they totally go over to support the Taliban openly, do they share their nukes?  Our relationship with Pakistan is an example of nuclear blackmail.  We give them tons of money, they play footsie with the Taliban, but they keep their nukes.  If we stop giving them money, there is a real possibility that they will share their nuclear technology.  Pay attention, we may soon be in a similar situation with Iran, only Iran will not even pretend to be our friend.

The capture of Osama Bin Laden will probably dominate the news cycle until something else comes along–at least two or three days.  Americans have short attention spans–politicians count on that.  Anyway, here is something I hadn’t thought about.

A website called Barnhardt.biz posted a very interesting observation yesterday.  I quote:

“Finally, I see a headline on Drudge tonight with a story indicating that a tremendous haul of intelligence was harvested from the compound Bin Laden was allegedly inside and that the location of Al-Zawahiri was contained in that data, with an intel officer quoted as saying, “That’s where we are headed next.”

“Okay. If you can’t see that that report is COMPLETE B.S., then I don’t know what to say. Do you HONESTLY believe that if intel like that was actually acquired that it would be announced to the media AND the announcement would be made to Al-Zawahiri himself that we know where he is and we are coming to get him? REALLY? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?

“Here is what WOULD HAVE BEEN SAID if a huge intel stash was recovered:

“”There were several computers, hard drives and thumb drives retrieved in the compound, but they were kept “clean” and contained nothing more than a few standard topographical maps and other mundane files. Further analysis will be done, but no significant intelligence yields are expected.”

“THAT is what would have been said, NOT, “Hey Al-Zawahiri! We know exactly where you are and we are coming to get you right now. We’ll be there in the next 24-48 hours, so please make certain that there is someone at home to answer the door.””

What in the world is going on here?  Do we think Al Qaeda is dumb?  Is the President so desperate for approval numbers that he is making it up?  Do we think this will scare Al Qaeda into doing something stupid?  Did we do something stupid?  If the intelligence community has any intelligence, they will keep quiet about what they found.  My real question is, “Is Obama running the public relations for the intelligence community?”  If he is, we are all in trouble.

These quotes are from a Power Line article posted yesterday:

“Nancy Pelosi, press conference, September 7, 2006:

“[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done … is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.

“Nancy Pelosi, earlier today:

“The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. … I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. … [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic….”

Unfortunately we have already begun the 2012 election season.  Listen carefully.

On Friday Hot Air posted an article about Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, signing a bill to  cut off government funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Indiana will become the first state to take such an action.

The government funds abortion indirectly by allocating Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood when it serves Medicaid patients.  In signing this bill, Governor Daniels runs the risk of the government cutting off Medicaid funds to the state.  Federal law does provide that a state can’t be selective in allocating Medicaid funds to medical providers who serve Medicaid patients.

The article also reports:

“His message to Planned Parenthood as the screaming begins: “Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.” Exactly. We’re constantly assured by the left that abortions are only the teeny-tiniest insignificant little part of the services that PP provides. Should be easy for them to go cold turkey, then, if they’re keen on that Medicaid money. Nevertheless, to no one’s surprise, they’re already planning a court battle.”

The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, was supposed to bar the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.  Planned Parenthood has gotten around the law simply by claiming that federal funds were used for other activities.  

Here is some information on Planned Parenthood’s Budget from a website called Life Dedcisions International:

“PPFA’s income for fiscal year 2008-2009 was more than $1.1 billion (up six percent from 2007-2008), with nearly one-third coming from taxpayers. This “not-for-profit” entity ends virtually every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in “excess revenue over expenses” (known to most people as “profit”). The “excess” for 2008-2009 alone was $64.4 million.

 

“On June 30, 2009, PPFA had net assets valued at $994.7 million, of which $396.3 million was unrestricted (essentially a savings account) and $179.9 million was temporarily restricted. Despite these huge sums, PPFA incessantly claims to need more taxpayer dollars.”

Thank you, Mitch Daniels, for your courage in taking a stand.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. 

The article reports:

“Last December, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the lizard, a three-inch-long reptile native to the American Southwest, “faces immediate and significant threats due to oil and gas activities and herbicide treatments” and initiated the process to get it listed under the Endangered Species Act.

“In 2002, the Center for Biological Diversity first petitioned to have the lizard, originally considered a subspecies of the common sagebrush lizard, listed as endangered. The Bush administration delayed consideration for six years. Last year, the Obama administration put it back on the fast track.”

The article further reports:

“…Steven Chu, Obama’s secretary of energy, [has] expressed a fondness for high European gas prices as a means of reducing consumption of fossil fuels. In a September 2008 newspaper interview, he said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Gas prices in Europe then averaged about $8 a gallon.

“As gas prices here soar toward $5 a gallon, Chu’s friends at the Interior Department may help him and President Obama get the rest of the way toward their goal. If the dunes sagebrush lizard, now considered a separate species, is granted endangered status, oil and gas production in the Permian Basin in New Mexico and Texas may have to be shut down.”

If we are to remain free and prosperous in American, we need leaders who understand the stategic and practical need to develop our own sources of carbon-based fuel.  Whether we like it or not, carbon-based fuel is the economic engine of a thriving ecoonomy.  I just hope the next administration can undo the damage done by this president’s energy policies.

I think that’s old news already.  My aim with this story is to provide links to some of the more thoughtful comments posted on the internet about the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Today’s Washington Examiner details how Osama Bin Laden was located.  The breakthrough began with information obtained at Guantanamo after 9/11. 

The Washington Examiner reported:

“No other country, not even Pakistan, was informed of any of this intelligence until after the raid to protect operational security.”

This is key to understanding what actually happened and what happens next.

Victor Davis Hanson reports at the National Review:

“Finally, this comes at a fortunate time. No one is talking of victory any more in Afghanistan; we seem confused in Libya, so the death of bin Laden reminds us that the U.S. can still take the war to the enemy in his own backyard, and act with confidence and audacity rather than “leading from behind.” Let us hope that Dr. Zawahiri is next — though the al Qaeda generation of 2001 seems almost enfeebled now, and are nearly all scattered, killed, or captured.”

The important point here is that the al Qaeda generation of 2001 is enfeebled–however, remember that there is a new generation of al Qaeda which may be much less centralized.

Yahoo News posted a Reuters story which stated:

“”The damage bin Laden had caused Islam is beyond appalling and a collective shame,” said another Saudi, Mahmoud Sabbagh, on Twitter.

“Another, anonymous, Saudi said: “He might have had a noble idea to elevate Islam but his implementation was wrong and caused more harm than good. I believe his death will calm people down and may dry up the wells of terrorism.””

It will be interesting to see how terrorists react to the loss of their spiritual leader.  I suspect that there are plans as we speak for revenge against the ‘infidels.’

The thing to remember here is that the death of Bin Laden is more symbolic than relevant.  His death provides closure for all the people who lost loved ones on 911.  I remember a friend whose daughter worked in the second tower waiting for the phone call from her daughter telling her everything was ok.  That call never came.  But the death of Bin Laden does not change the fact that terrorism is alive and well in the world and aiming to create a world-wide caliphate.  This victory is merely an important step in fighting for the survival of western civilization.  It is not the end of the war on terror, it is only a step.