All American Blogger

Sen. Lindsey Grahman Destroys Eric Holder

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:27:06 +0000

Sen. Lindsey Graham is far from my favorite Republican. He’s somewhere below Kit Bond, and long time readers know how I feel about him. But sometimes he’s a top notch member of the team.

He took Attorney General Eric Holder to task for his decision to bring terrorists off the battlefield and give them Constitutional rights in a federal court.

He’s fantastic here:

NPR has the transcript:

GRAHAM: Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made –

SEN. GRAHAM: We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I think –

SEN. GRAHAM: The Ghailani case — he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn’t object to it going into federal court. But I’m telling you right now. We’re making history and we’re making bad history. And let me tell you why.

If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.

SEN. GRAHAM: Where would you try him?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, we’d go through our protocol. And we’d make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried.

SEN. GRAHAM: Would you try him — why would you take him someplace different than KSM?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, that might be the case. I don’t know. I’m not –

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, let –

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I’d have to look at all of the evidence, all of the –

SEN. GRAHAM: Well –

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: He’s been indicted. He’s been indicted already. (Off mike.)

SEN. GRAHAM: Does it matter if you — if you use the law enforcement theory or the enemy combatant theory, in terms of how the case would be handled?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I mean, bin Laden is an interesting case in that he’s already been indicted in federal court.

SEN. GRAHAM: Right.

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have cases against him. (Off mike.)

SEN. GRAHAM: Right, well, where would — where would you put him?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: It would depend on how — a variety of factors.

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this. Okay, let me ask you this. Let’s say we capture him tomorrow. When does custodial interrogation begin in his case?

If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Again I’m not — that all depends. I mean, the notion that we –

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over — to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence — for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you’re confusing the people fighting this war.

What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him, “You must read him his rights and give him a lawyer”? And if you didn’t tell him that, would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?

ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have captured thousands of people on the battlefield, only a few of which have actually been given their Miranda warnings.

With regard to bin Laden and the desire or the need for statements from him, the case against him at this point is so overwhelming that we do not need to –

SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Attorney General, my only point — the only point I’m making, that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court. And what comes with being in federal court is that
the rules in this country, unlike military law — you can have military operations, you can interrogate somebody for military intelligence purposes, and the law-enforcement rights do not attach.

But under domestic criminal law, the moment the person is in the hands of the United States government, they’re entitled to be told they have a right to a lawyer and can remain silent. And if we go down that road, we’re going to make this country less safe. That is my problem with what you have done.

You’re a fine man. I know you want to do everything to help this country be safe, but I think you’ve made a fundamental mistake here. You have taken a wartime model that will allow us flexibility when it comes to intelligence gathering, and you have compromised this country’s ability to deal with people who are at war with us, by interjecting into this system the possibility that they may be given the same constitutional rights as any American citizen.

And the main reason that KSM is going to court apparently is because the people he decided to kill were here in America and mostly civilian, and the person going into military court decided to kill some military members overseas. I think that is a perversion of the justice system.

Biblical Anti-Obama Slogan Isn’t Sinister, It’s Clever

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:05:12 +0000

There’s some rumbling now that a new anti-Obama slogan featuring a Biblical verse is hoping the president dies. The slogan is, “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.”

Psalm 109:8 reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

I read this as him only serving one term and then losing the next election. I think most people read it the same way. The Christian Science Monitor agrees:

For many, the slogan is just a humorous way express disapproval for President Obama. It’s been tweeted and retweeted by Obama critics with messages like “too funny” and “an excellent prayer for America.”

Twitter user Cheri Douglas felt compelled to share the psalm with others. Reached by phone, she said she found it on website while searching for Bible passages relating to leadership – a topic on which she writes, speaks, and consults for a living.

Ms. Douglas was unaware of the verses that followed the ones she referenced and doesn’t think that those who shared the psalm wish the President harm.

That’s where the thoughts of ill will to the president really begin. Psalm 109:9 reads, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

Now, that’s hard to read any other way than, “Let’s hope he dies.” But that’s not what is being asked. If it were, the phrase would be “Pray for Obama: Pslam 109:8-9.” By referring only to verse 8, it’s clear people using the phrase only want him out of office.

That being said, here’s a little gift from me to you. Feel free to use it where ever you want:

Al Gore Thinks The Center of the Earth Is As Hot Is The Center of the Sun

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:10:54 +0000

Al Gore was on Conan O’Brien recently and they were discussing the current state of catholic school girl uniforms. No, not really. It would have been a lot cooler if they were because as usual with Al Gore, he was promoting the propaganda of global climate catastrophe.

During the conversation, he exposed his vast intellect by explaining how the center of the Earth was really hot.

No, hotter than that. Think “center of the sun” hot:

Transcript via Powerline:

Conan: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy …

Al: Yeah, yeah.

Conan: and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

Al: Yeah.

Conan: … to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

Al: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

John Derbyshire at The Corner notes:

the temperature at the earth’s core, 4,000 miles down, is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius, though these guys claim it’s much less, while some contrarian geophysicists have posted claims up to 9,000 degrees. The temperature at the surface of the Sun is around 6,000 degrees Celsius, while at the center, where nuclear fusion is going on bigtime, things get up over 10 million degrees.

If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was “several million degrees,” we’d be a star.

Good thing we aren’t looking to this guy to help create energy and environmental policy…

Obama’s Home Teleprompter Mafunctions During Family Dinner

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:27:12 +0000

Ah, The Onion…

Obama’s Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

UK Soldier Finds Gun, Turns It In, Gets Locked Up

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:25:04 +0000

I have written here, here, here and here about the anti-gun fervor of the British government. I thought I had hit the rock bottom of the absurd barrel when I learned their biathletes have to spend 20 to 30 days a year training in Switzerland because their sport’s equipment is illegal in their home country.

No lie. They can’t even get special public funding because of the country they represent in the Olympics considers their sport illegal.

That lunacy has been trumped. Behold the new standard.

A former soldier finds a gun in his yard, turns it in to police and now faces 5 years in jail for gun possession:

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

“I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

“At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Paul Clarke said he “thought it was [his] duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.” Now, because of the way the law is written, he faces five years in prison for trying to get a gun off the streets.

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

The judge in the case agreed:

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

“The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”

So what does this teach the public? If you find a gun in the street, leave it for someone else to pick up. Perhaps a kid, or a criminal. Meanwhile, you call the police and hope they stop by and pick up the gun…and don’t lock you up.

Sarah Palin on Oprah

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:22:17 +0000

For those of you who don’t watch Oprah every day… (heh heh heh)

A Nut With A Gun? Don’t Dismiss Hasan’s Evil as Insanity

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:17:23 +0000

Jeffery Dahmer killed his first victim in 1978.

Over the next 13 years, he would kill 17 people. When police finally arrested Dahmer, they found a human head in the refrigerator. Not long after that, they found three more in the freezer, along with a human heart.

The police would learn the depths of one man’s depravity:

Anne E. Schwartz, the reporter who was first on the scene, describes what she saw in her book The Man Who Could Not Kill Enough: “…in the back of the closet was a metal stockpot that contained decomposed hands and a penis. On the shelf above the kettle were 2 skulls.

Also in the closet were containers of ethyl alcohol, chloroform, and formaldehyde, along with some glass jars holding male genitalia preserved in formaldehyde…Polaroid photos taken by Dahmer at various stages of his victims’ deaths. One showed a man’s head, with the flesh still intact, lying in a sink. Another displayed a victim cut open from the neck to the groin, like a deer gutted after the kill, the cuts so clean I could see the pelvic bone clearly.”

When Dahmer went to trial, the evidence was against him. He plead “not guilty by reason of insanity.” As Don Davis wrote in The Milwaukee Murders, defense attorney Gerald Boyle had to convince the jury that Dahmer was insane, that “only an insane person would do the things he did.”

He failed. The jury believed the prosecutor, Mike McCann, who said Dahmer knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway.

Jeffery Dahmer was not crazy. He was evil.

The left is trying their best to convince Americans that Major Nidal Hasan is a nut, a crazy loon with a gun.

When I heard this today as I drove home, I recalled the words of Dr. Stanton E. Samenow. He wrote the book on criminal thinking and if you haven’t read “Inside the Criminal Mind,” you should. It’s a very interesting read.

On the topic of insanity, Samenow writes:

When a criminal commits a shocking crime…a gut reaction on the part of the average citizen is to conclude that he must be crazy. But this reveals only the public’s perceptions, and nothing about the workings of the criminal’s mind.

I read somewhere, I can’t recall where, that people do this to make themselves feel better. Rather than believe a rational, thinking person could do the evil men do, they decide only crazy people could. But the fact is that rational, thinking people do commit evil on those around them.

Major Nidal Hasan is not a nut with a gun.

He’s a killer who knew what he was doing and knew it was wrong. Don’t rationalize his behavior by dismissing the planning he did, the choice of targets or the evidence pointing to a jihadist mindset.

He is a terrorist who killed 14 people, no crazier than the cannibal murderer of Milwaukee.

Cross posted at Right Wing News.

How Do You Create Jobs in Districts That Don’t Exist?

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:13:36 +0000

In a stunning array of government incompetence, and I’m being generous here, the Obama Administration’s website Recovery.gov is bragging about the 30 jobs the stimulus has created in Arizona’s 15th District.

There’s a problem, though. Arizona doesn’t have a 15th District:

The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.

In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending — and 15 jobs created — in yet more congressional districts that don’t exist.

In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created — in nonexistent districts.

In Connecticut’s 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.

The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.

$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.

$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico’s 99th congressional district.

That is some hard core incompetence.

Now, consider how screwed up your health care records are going to be when the government starts inputting your data.

Lesbians Make Better Parents?

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:01:51 +0000

Well, this is news to me. According to Stephen Scott, “director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners,” lesbians are better at this parenting thing than a mom and a dad:

His controversial position draws backing from research that suggests children with two female parents are more aspirational than those with opposite-sex parents. Some studies also also shows children with lesbian parents are no more or less likely to have tendencies towards homosexuality.

Research at Birkbeck College, part of London University, and Clark University in Massachusetts suggests that same-sex couples make good parents because children cannot be conceived accidentally – parents must make an active decision to adopt or find a sperm donor.

On the surface, this could be a convincing position. These are people who have to make a conscience choice to have a child. They really put a lot of thought into it.

But, this assumes that a majority of male/female couples don’t plan to get pregnant. And then when they do, they are poor parents.

It also assumes that parents who put thought into children make better parents.

Have you ever met a couple who, regardless of the amount of thought involved would just make terrible parents?

Planning for a baby doesn’t make you a good parent. Loving the baby does.

The question is, does a child fare better with heterosexual parents than it does with homosexual parents, or does it matter?

What do you think?

A Tale of Two Muslims

dogwings@inbox.com (All American Blogger) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:04:09 +0000

Abdul Walid Hamid was working at his kiosk in the mall when a customer stopped by wearing a crucifix. It wasn’t long after that people were calling 911. Hamid was screaming “Allah is power” and “Islam is great.”

In his hand was the customer’s crucifix. He reportedly ripped it from their neck.

He was arrested and later arraigned “on charges of battery, grand theft, terrorist threats and exhibition of a deadly weapon.”

Two days later, Major. Nidal Hasan was charged.

Hasan, also a Muslim, opened fire on soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood on November 5. According to police, he fired over 100 rounds, killing 14 (I include the unborn baby) and wounding 30. Before a shot was fired, Major Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar!”

Also:

He was corresponding via e-mail with “the radical American cleric, Anwar al Awlaki” who “served as an inspiration for men convicted in terror plots in Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey…”
He had business cards with “SOA” inscribed under his name. “SOA” stands for “Soldier of Allah.” They also had “SWT,” referring to an Arabic phrase for “glory to him, the exalted.”
He wanted U.S. soldiers charged with war crimes.
He defended suicide bombers.
He may have wired money to Pakistan.

On the 12th of November, Major Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder.

Notice the difference?

A guy in the mall who yanks a necklace off a person’s neck and yells, “Allah is power” is charged with “terrorist threats.” A guy who kills 13 after screaming “Allahu akbar” can’t have the term “terrorism” or “terrorist” associated with him in any way.

In fact, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the left still doesn’t want us to “jump to conclusions” concerning Major Hasan.

It isn’t jumping to conclusions when you follow the evidence. It’s called seeing the obvious terrorist sympathizer in front of you with the gun.

When I worked with juvenile youth, we were once trained that the gang bangers weren’t as dangerous as the wannabes. That’s because the wannabes were really gonnabes. They would do whatever they had to to become a gangster too.

Hasan is a terrorist. Perhaps if he had just run around stealing dog tags and yelling “Islam is great,” he would have been charged accordingly.

But then, that might have been too damaging to diversity.