Monday - March 01, 2010
justified killing of British troops in Iraq, believes al Qaeda is a “myth. not a problem lets talk
Up until a couple of years ago, or was it only last year? I forgot. No matter because the then top dog at the MET, the metropolitan police, was a man who claimed to be quite “proud” of being “politically correct.” When the new consrv. mayor of London took over after ousting a self confessed communist mayor, he threw the bum out. Hmm. Wait. This is England and generally they are somewhat more polite. The new mayor didn’t throw out Sir Ian Blair but he did allow him to quit the post. That man was probably the very worst thing that has ever happened to the police of this country, and they still have not recovered.
When I took the morning papers off the chair on the front porch, about the first story that caught my eye today was this.
Sir Ian Blair signed a formal agreement with an Islamic extremist to treat him as the Metropolitan Police’s “principal” representative of the Muslim community, it can be disclosed.
By Andrew Gilligan
The activist, Azad Ali, was accepted by the Met as a trusted interlocutor. The force also agreed to give him information on forthcoming anti-terror raids. – Mr Ali has previously justified the killing of British troops in Iraq, believes al Qaeda is a “myth,” and has praised a key mentor of Osama bin Laden.
Mr Ali signed the deal, a copy of which has been seen by the Daily Telegraph, in his capacity as the then chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum – a body closely linked to the fundamentalist Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE).
The Muslim Safety Forum was set up, in its own words, to challenge the “unfair focus on the Muslim community when it came to policing activities and enforcement of anti- terror policing legislation.”
It was accepted by the police as a legitimate body. The agreement, dated December 2006 and personally signed by Mr Ali and Sir Ian, who was Commissioner of the Met at the time, states: “The Commissioner will recognise the MSF as the principal body in relation to Muslim community safety and security.”
Sir Ian or his deputy committed to meet Mr Ali and the MSF at least twice a year and to hold monthly meetings with the MSF at “New Scotland Yard or other suitable premises.”
The agreement says that the Met and MSF will “use the MSF as a consultation body to help formulate policy or practice.” and “progress an annual plan of work through agreed priority workstreams,” jointly led by Met and MSF representatives.
The Met also agreed to set up a four-strong panel with the MSF to offer the Muslim community a chance to comment on whether the information police had on a suspect was too flimsy and the consequences of a raid for community relations.
Mr Ali, one of the panel members, said at the time: “This will allow independent scrutiny of intelligence.”
Posted by peiper
on 03/01/2010 at 02:48 PM
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Homeland-Security • Immigration • Insanity • Muslims • Politically Correct B.S. • Stoopid-People • UK •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Tuesday - February 16, 2010
Wife of trans-Atlantic airlines bomb plotter ‘wanted him to become a martyr’
Hard to tell with face covering but chances are no normal Brit male would have wanted her anyway.
Chances are she probably doesn’t bathe which I understand is how these vermin like their women. They find them in crowds by the scent. lol.
They are vermin but you would never know it judging by the way the hand wringers on the left defend them. And the bru-ha-ha going on at this very moment with regard to the evil MI5 and American torturers at GITMO is so overwhelming that it obscures everything else going on with these verminous bastards. They’ve managed to turn the ones being attacked by them into the bad guys.
Says here she lost a baby. GOOD. One less future bomber/breeder.
Too bad there isn’t a way to sterilize them all. Or better yet, just rid the earth of their shadows. Think of them as rats that need exterminating instead of anything human. They aren’t human and shouldn’t be treated or dealt with as such. Their goal is easy to understand because they’ve made no secret of it.
It won’t happen of course, but the west should long ago have stopped trying to use civil rights or human rights in relation to these scum. They only use the system here to further their own ends, which also means the end of the systems in place here in the west. You would necessarily have to track down and put an end to the fifth column in the the UK and USA. That isn’t going to happen either and the enemy knows it. Which is why they may eventually win this limp wristed so called “war on terror.” This may all seem very uncivilized but then, the enemy we face is exactly that, and they will not be beaten with us fighting by
The Marquess of Queensberry rules. Look at these faces. Do they really appear human? Close maybe but no cigar.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali (left), Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain (c) photo PA
The wife of the leader of a plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners kept a diary in which she pledged support for his cause and hoped that he became a martyr, a court has heard.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent16 Feb 2010
Cossor Ali wrote about making herself slimmer for his return from Pakistan and added that she was becoming “more and more attached to the cause for which you are striving.”
She added: “I hope and pray Allah grants your wish and gives you the highest level of shahada” – a word which is said to refer to martyrdom.In another entry she said: “I hope that when you attain shahada, I will have at least one small child and will be pregnant with another or at least be pregnant with a healthy baby at the least inshallah [god willing.]”
Mrs Ali, who married her husband in July 2003, gave birth to their first child prematurely nine months later but the baby had died shortly afterwards.
By the time her husband, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, was arrested in August 2006, they had an eight month old baby boy.
Richard Whittam QC, prosecuting, told Inner London Crown Court: “It is the prosecution case that she knew her husband intended to commit an act of terrorism that involved his own death.”
She is accused of failing to disclose information that she knew or believed might have been of material assistance in preventing the commission of an act of terrorism between March 2004 and August 2006.
Ali and two other men were convicted in September last year of conspiracy to murder by detonating improvised explosive devices on board passenger aircraft.
The devices were to be disguised in soft drinks bottles and Mrs Ali admitted in a statement to police that her husband had brought bags of a soft drink powder back from Pakistan with him but she thought that he was developing a drink to sell with his friends.
The court heard that Mrs Ali, 28, was born in Britain.
Here’s a photo of the great beauty by their standards. In reality, she a verminous slag.
Posted by peiper
on 02/16/2010 at 10:29 AM
Filed Under: • DIVERSITY BS • Homeland-Security • Immigration • Muslims • Terrorists • War On Terror •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Thursday - December 03, 2009
Home-grown terrorism: our values are not optional for minority groups.
I’ve had this for a number of days and finally getting it posted. I know it’s a bit long but it really is worth your time reading it.
It would be better if we enforced Britain’s cultural values on immigrant communities, rather than allowing them to dictate government policy
By Janet Daley
Editorial
The TelegraphHow do you create a home-grown terrorist? For a while, Britain seemed to hold the copyright on the formula for this. First, you import a huge number of people from places where there are unresolved historical conflicts, with no stipulation that they learn anything about their adopted homeland (not even its language). Then you make no attempt to integrate these groups – which are large enough to constitute self-sustaining communities – into the culture and political traditions of the country that is now their home, nor do you advise the schools to inculcate any sense of pride or pleasure in the new national identity to which they are entitled. Indeed, you do precisely the opposite of this: you positively encourage not only the incomers themselves but their British-born children to maintain a separate, inward-looking ethnic community that stands apart from the mainstream life of the society and whose values may conflict with it.
So eager are you to show that you accept other cultures whose attitudes and assumptions (on, for example, the treatment of women) are opposed to the official values of your society, that you benevolently overlook what is being taught in their schools even when those schools are being supported by government funding. When your Government is caught in the act of having provided such funding, as happened last week with schools in Slough and Haringey, both of which had a history of links with the Muslim extremist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, the ensuing row is on purely technical points: which school officials held, or were connected to people who held, actual positions in the organisation on what dates? The question of whether schools with an explicitly separatist ethos should qualify as providing acceptable basic education is not even addressed.
So there it is: an instant recipe for estrangement and alienation that can turn (or be turned), in susceptible personalities under the right circumstances, into terrorist fodder. Until recently, as I say, we led the world in this particular specialism: the United States in particular was inclined to believe that the phenomenon of the native (as opposed to foreign) terrorist was a peculiarly British problem, which is why it introduced additional security measures to apply to visa‑waiver UK passport holders.
But the US, having been confident that it was a country that knew what was required for the successful absorption of immigrant groups, has now produced a home-grown terrorist of its own, and the controversy that this event has inspired is not irrelevant to our debate (to the extent that we are permitted to have one) in Britain.
When the Muslim American Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, he did not just murder his military colleagues: he killed the American illusion that “it couldn’t happen here”. And he unleashed an argument not just on practical topics such as racial profiling but on the much wider question of how much America’s foreign policy decisions – how it should conduct itself in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example – should be influenced by the feelings of minority groups within the US itself.
This dispute revolves around the personality of Major Hasan: was he just an unbalanced individual for whom Islamic fundamentalism was nothing more than a delusional pretext for a psychotic break? This account has gained favour in Left‑wing American circles for fairly obvious reasons: it allows Islamic fundamentalism to become simply an unwitting accomplice to the act, rather than its actual cause, and the act itself to be seen as a random, unreasoning crime rather than a terrorist attack. No big national problem here: just a nutter whose instability should have been spotted sooner but whose religious-cum-political “motives” can be ignored.
According to commentators on the Right, such as Charles Krauthammer, this thesis is a pernicious attempt to “medicalise” Major Hasan’s crime in the interests of avoiding any implication that there was a meaningful connection between his Islamic religious beliefs and his act. By defining the act as literally meaningless (insane), defenders of the liberal orthodoxy are not taxed by the problem of how to deal with a possibly murderous minority within their own country.
The Left-liberal camp is now in the rather uncomfortable position of holding two contradictory interpretations of Major Hasan’s actions. There is the one that Mr Krauthammer describes: this incident is a one-off act of lunacy, so the fact that Hasan was a Muslim is of no importance (even if he thinks it was – after all, he is insane).
But the other argument made by the Left puts Hasan’s religion at the centre of his action: Muslims, even ones born and bred in the US, are being driven to violence by American foreign policy. It is the perceived American assault on Islamic peoples and countries that is responsible for pushing borderline personalities – who have been made susceptible by their cultural introversion – into extreme associations. So the conclusion is roughly this: the only possible way to avoid radicalising any more vulnerable, borderline psychotics who happen to be Muslims is to change our foreign policy so as not to inflame their hyperactive sensitivities.
Quite apart from the question of whether any ethnic group should be allowed to dictate government policy under the threat of violence, isn’t there a bizarre precedent here? Suppose an element within the animal rights lobby were to engage in a programme of major urban terrorism and threaten to persist until the consumption of meat was banned. Would we seriously entertain the idea that to continue to sell meat was an inexcusable provocation to a dangerous, unstable minority? And can there be any certainty about the causes of such provocation among Muslims? The grievances of Palestinians are the most frequently cited source of global Islamic anger, but most of the Pakistani recruits to Islamic fundamentalism in Britain have closer links with the Kashmiri cause than to any problems in Gaza. Add to this that a good few of those convicted of terrorist acts have been converts (such as Richard Reid, the shoe bomber) who had no inherited ties to any Muslim country.
What a miasma of moral confusion we are succumbing to – all for the sake of avoiding a question that must be asked: how does a liberal society cope with a minority in whose name acts of violence are carried out in its midst? Surely the answer must involve a much more muscular liberalism: a robust belief in the values that permit people of different beliefs to live together peaceably and an unapologetic determination to enforce those values in every quarter of the
Posted by peiper
on 12/03/2009 at 09:36 AM
Filed Under: • Editorials • Homeland-Security • Liberals • Muslims • UK • USA •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Monday - November 16, 2009
Some news from my home state. Grumble. Yeah. California. Hey, be nice.
Right I know. Land of fruits and nuts.
And muslims too.
H/T LyndonB
I’m sorry nobody with a gun was there to shoot the bastard graveyard dead. Easy peasy. Just claim the fear of a bomb or a weapon. What jury would convict?
But no. He’ll get an interpreter at public expense of course. Then a trial although I will never understand why anyone should be entitled to one of those in circumstances like this one. He was there. There are witnesses. He did what he did. What’s left to discover? A bullet would have been cheaper.
We really do desperately NEED Vigilante Justice! It worked beautifully in 1849 in that state. It can work again. It just needs a chance.
Man arrested for ‘anti-Christian mall disturbance’ to appear in court again Thursday Deputy DA keeps bail at $27K, orders Hasim to stay away from Stoneridge Shopping Center
by Emily West
Pleasanton Weekly Staff
Deputy District Attorney Ronda Theisen requested the bail for Abdul Walid Hamid stay at $27,000 as the 22-year-old man was arraigned Tuesday morning on charges of battery, grand theft, exhibition of a deadly weapon and a possible hate crime.Police arrested 22-year-old Hamid of Hayward Wednesday evening after he reportedly robbed a man and scared others at Stoneridge Shopping Center.
Calling it a bizarre case, Theisen also asked that Hamid, who is still in custody, be ordered to stay out of the mall if he does post bail and leaves jail.
Through an interpreter, Hamid requested a public defender and was scheduled to appear in court at 9 a.m. Thursday where he is expected to enter a plea.
According to reports, Hamid was yelling “Allah is power” and “Islam is great” while holding a pen in a fist over his head and witnesses said he had been shouting anti-Christian comments.
Pleaanton Police Lt. Mike Elerick said the man was not provoked and didn’t threaten violence, but he committed robbery when he grabbed and broke a crucifix off a man’s neck.
Police said they weren’t aware of a prior criminal history for the man.
“We had multiple people calling 911,” Elerick said. “One female was crouching down and hiding from him. He definitely scared quite a few people.”
Posted by peiper
on 11/16/2009 at 09:09 AM
Filed Under: • Daily Life • Homeland-Security • Muslims • RoPMA • USA •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Sunday - June 28, 2009
My America
Leave your chewing gum, tabacky, and your razors at the door,
and we’ll tell you bible stories like you’ve never heard before
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A gun-toting Kentucky pastor says it’s OK to bring weapons to church — at least for one day.
Ken Pagano asked his flock to bring their unloaded handguns — in holsters — to New Bethel Church in Louisville for a celebration of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Consitution that guarantees the right to bear arms.
When the event got under way Saturday, about 200 people — many carrying small firearms — sat in the Pentecostal church sanctuary.
“We are wanting to send a message that there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns,” Pagano said in greeting the audience, which included people who do not belong to his church.
“If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today,” he said, drawing hearty applause and exclamations of “amen!”
Pagano says he got the idea for the event after some of his church members expressed concern about the Obama administration’s views on gun control, though the president hasn’t moved to put new restrictions on gun ownership. He says the gathering was meant to promote safe gun ownership.
The “Open Carry Celebration” included a handgun raffle, patriotic music and screening of videos on gun safety. The church hung patriotic banners on the wall that read “In God We Trust.”
Now, ain’t that America, land of the free? Go to church and win a gun. Out. Standing.
Posted by Drew458
on 06/28/2009 at 07:11 AM
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff • Homeland-Security • News-Briefs •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Friday - January 23, 2009
mrs. clinton vows new era will end obsession with threats. (bet the enemy will love to hear that)
Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda (spelling?) spokesman has called for new attacks upon the UK.
Well, I sure hope someone here is “obsessed” with threats against this country. What’s wrong with a bit of obsession? I like that and paranoia too. Cause I know they’re out there and I do believe what I hear them say. Or more precisely what I read that they say. And they say they’re out to get us. Why should I doubt them?
Take heart guys. Do not be discouraged. She could always get hit by a bus or maybe get bit by a rabid squirrel.
This is Alice in Wonderland. I feel this deep depression settling in on me. I wasn’t actually afraid of Bill. But this person does put a fright in me. And that’s just when I look at her photos.
I guess we’ll see in time, as it will surely tell. Oh Boy! Will It!
Hillary Clinton vows to end paranoia of George Bush era
Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state, has stamped her imprint on US foreign policy by saying she wouldn’t be worrying exclusively about the safety of the nation.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 8:25PM GMT 22 Jan 2009In a clear reference to George W Bush’s obsession with national security after the September 11 attacks, Mrs Clinton said: “I don’t get up every morning just thinking about the threats and dangers, as real as they are. I also get up thinking about who we are and what we can do.”
Addressing staff members of the 18,000-strong state department on her first day at work, she proclaimed a “new era for America”.
“We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralysed and undermined our ability to get things done for America,” she said.
“There are three legs to foreign policy: defence, diplomacy and development, and we are responsible for two of those,” she told cheering officials crammed into the main hall of the department’s Washington headquarters.
“Diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long term objectives of the United States. Robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America’s future,” said the 61-year-old former first lady, who supervises the US Agency for International Development.
She was later joined by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, in a show of solidarity aimed to assure the state department that it would again be the primary agency of foreign policy.
“We want to send a clear and unequivocal message: this is a team, and you are members of that team,” she said.
In a sign of his commitment to solving the gravest problems confronting the US, Mr Obama appointed two foreign policy heavyweights to key envoy roles.
George Mitchell, the former Northern Ireland negotiator, was made a special envoy to the Middle East, and Richard Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the UN, as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. They were both introduced by Mrs Clinton, as Mr Obama looked on. Mr Mitchell said that his experience in Northern Ireland had shown him that “there is no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended”.
Addressing an audience of senior staff later in the day, Mr Obama said: “I have given you an early gift - Hillary Clinton.” He added: “My presence underscores my commitment to renewing American leadership.”
Former president Bush allowed the Pentagon to lead the country into war in Iraq under Donald Rumsfeld and then take charge of a reconstruction process that went badly awry.
Colin Powell, who served as secretary of state in Mr Bush’s first term, was sidelined in policy-making by both Mr Rumsfeld and former vice president Dick Cheney.
Her sure-footed performance served as a reminder of the political and communication skills that led Mr Obama to select her as the top US diplomat, quickly burying any lingering bitterness from their battle for the Democratic nomination.
She will act as the new president’s representative as they tackle a daunting array of challenges, including unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troubled Middle East peace process, climate change and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Mrs Clinton was confirmed late on Wednesday as secretary of state in a 94-2 senate vote and was immediately sworn into office in a ceremony watched by her husband, former president Bill Clinton.
She spent her first afternoon telephoning her foreign counterparts, receiving an intelligence briefing and consulting various regional experts.
Posted by peiper
on 01/23/2009 at 11:47 AM
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Homeland-Security • War On Terror •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Wednesday - January 21, 2009
President for life, Sheik Barak Hussein Obama calls stop to military trials at Gitmo.
Radio news early today reports President (For Life ) Barak Obama has signed his first order as president in the order to stop military tribunals at Guantanamo.
A Bush spokesman interviewed said that when the decision to use Guantanamo was made, nobody at the time thought it would raise the ire or concern of people half way round the world or at home. It was seen at the time as a solution, and as a situation where we were at war and these folks did not come under civil jurisdiction. It has become he went on, an albatross around America’s neck and has given the USA an international black eye.” He also said that finding a place for the prisoners was easier said then done and he predicts a political battle over them. Where he asks, are you going to try them and house them. There will be people who will say, “Not in our back yard.” And so the battle will start.
Then there is another unexpected issue. The human rights issue raised by the left so often.
The countries these folks come from are “not known for having very good reputations where civil rights are concerned.” So will the new govt. (USA) deport any to those countries? And what about countries that will refuse to take those who might be freed?
This is gonna get a mite sticky.
Meanwhile, the coverage and opinions on the new president, peace be upon him, continues unabated. (peiper one sarcastic right wing sob today. just like yesterday and the day before)
Barack Obama inauguration: Bloggers and analysts divided over speech
Some praised it as inspirational, brilliant and poetic. Others found it unremarkable, workmanlike, even condescending.
By Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 8:21AM GMT 21 Jan 2009While none questioned the historical significance of Tuesday’s inauguration - most described the occasion as both momentous and moving - political commentators were sharply divided on President Barack Obama’s hugely anticipated inaugural address.
“A disappointing hodgepodge,” was the view of New Republic writer John B. Judis. He deemed Barack Obama’s speech “unusually abstract” and occupying a “netherworld between inspiring oratory and political argument.
“It was well-delivered, but it consisted of a hodgepodge of themes, injunctions, and applause lines that did not speak directly to the crisis that the country faces.”
Writing for the same publication, however, Walter Shapiro, political columnist and former White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, was moved to proclaim Mr Obama the “poet-in-chief” for the speech’s “striking phrases and sudden bursts of imagery”.
“President Obama reminded the nation that here was a man who wrote himself into his job,” Mr Shapiro declared, although he added “my guess is that Obama’s address was a little too cerebral, a little too reflective of recent White House history to reach the standard of greatness.”
In an 18-minute address delivered before a shivering, expectant crowd of over a million, Mr Obama pledged to rally his nation to “a new era of responsibility” and show the world the US is “ready to lead once more”.
America’s 44th - and first black - president, known for his rhetorical skill and powerful speeches, outlined the grave challenges facing the country. But he stressed they could be met, declaring that “starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin the work of remaking America”.
Debate about where the speech would rank alongside history’s most memorable inaugural addresses began immediately: Did it lack the kind of lofty rhetoric necessary to guarantee immortality? Had the enormous expectations surrounding the address simply proved too great?
John Dickerson, writing on Slate.com, declared it “a good speech but not a soaring one” that lacked “the kind of personal speechmaking Obama was so good at during the campaign.”
CNN analysts Jeffrey Toobin was also underwhelmed.
“I thought that this was a speech with a lot of ideas but no theme and most importantly, this was a speech without a single memorable phrase,” said Toobin.
“We remember inaugural addresses by ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ (Franklin D Roosevelt); ‘Ask not what your country can do for you’ (John F Kennedy). Where is anything comparable in this speech? I’m afraid this is likely to join the vast majority of inaugural addresses which are quickly forgotten.”
Arianna Huffington, writing in the Huffington Post, said the new president delivered a “solemn reality check” in which he effectively told America it was “time to grow up”.
Calling it “Obama’s sober sermon on the steps”, she said the speech was “a warning bell” but “ultimately optimistic”.
“There was something very powerful about watching this relatively young man, one of the youngest to ever hold the highest office in the land, telling the people of America to grow up.”
This part of the speech riled some, however.
“We…need no condescension from the President of the United States telling us that we ought to act our age, not our shoe size,” wrote Pejman Yousefzadeh, a conservative blogger, on politico.com.
“This inaugural address had a whole host of faults. It fell well below expectations for its inability to connect with the issues of the day, its apparent characteristic of having been written by committee, its vagueness and generalities, and the fact that it puzzled more than it enlightened.”
Historian Michael S Roth, however, could not have disagreed more, declaring the speech “brilliant, deeply felt” and containing “echoes of the great speeches of the past”.
“It was a dignified, thoughtful speech - worthy of the great orator who delivered it and appropriate to our perilous times,” he wrote on Politico.com.
Michael Gerson, in the Washington Post, meanwhile found many of Mr Obama’s words to be platitudes but the speech’s content more compelling.
He said many had “expected the speech to be rhetorically masterful but perhaps ideologically shallow. Instead, we heard a speech that was rhetorically flat and substantively interesting. On his first day in office, President Obama has managed to surprise.”
The New York Times assembled a panel of former speech writers to presidents Carter, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush. They judged the address everything from mixed to marvellous.
But in an editorial the paper declared that Mr Obama’s speech, though lacking the “soaring language” of Presidents Franklin D Roosevelt or John F Kennedy, gave the crowd “the clarity and the respect for which all Americans have hungered.”
I’m still left asking the very same question without any answer.
Why the hell does the world care one little bit about OUR internal security matters as regards Guantanamo? Why is it any of their damn business?
And why should any American give a flip about world opinion as regards Gitmo?
Or any other personal home issue.
Posted by peiper
on 01/21/2009 at 05:00 AM
Filed Under: • Government • Homeland-Security • International • Obama, The One •
• Comments (13)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Wednesday - June 25, 2008
HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD !
Lockheed During WWII
During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers needed to hide the Lockheed Burbank Aircraft Plant to protect it from Japanese air attack.
Gotta hand it to Hollywood set designers as well. Just something of interest that isn’t politics or crime.
Lockheed During W.W.II This is pretty neat--special effects during the 1940’s:
They covered it with camouflage netting to make it look like a rural subdivision from the air.
BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS.
Posted by Drew458
on 06/25/2008 at 01:54 PM
Filed Under: • Amazing Science and Discoveries • Art-Photography • Homeland-Security • War-Stories •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Thursday - February 28, 2008
Downgrade and Delay - the border fence will never be built
PHOENIX — Homeland Security officials have told federal lawmakers that the “virtual fence” along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona doesn’t meet contract requirements for detecting border intrusions and some of its technology will have to replaced by this summer.
Agency officials, testifying Wednesday before the oversight panel of the House Homeland Security Committee in Washington, D.C., said plans to expand the system to the Yuma, Ariz., and El Paso, Texas, areas will be pushed back three years to 2011 because of technological deficiencies.
The 28-mile virtual fence will use radars and surveillance cameras to try to catch people entering the country illegally.
The Sasabe network, called Project 28, was intended as a cornerstone of the government’s multibillion-dollar border strategy.
Critics say contractor Boeing Corp. never consulted border agents before engineering the system.
A Boeing executive testified that the company spent more than double the value of the $20 million contract to set things right and is now refining the network.
The Department of Homeland Security awarded Boeing a $64 million contract to improve the network in December, two months before the government accepted the Sasabe work.
Amy Kudwa, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said that the virtual fence is not in full operation and that the agency continues to test the system.
Aw crap. This is so typical. We just have to have the most high-tech, gizmo laden, expensive “solution” possible. And surprise!! It doesn’t work. The Virtual Fence is a BAD IDEA. It does not stop people coming over. It can only alert the already overworked border security people, who have to come from miles away, that tresspassers are present. And when they do get the dumb ass thing in place, watch it trip over every roadrunner, raccoon, and coyote in the neighborhood. And what happens when 5000 people rush the border at the same time??
What does work? Glad you asked:
Posted by Drew458
on 02/28/2008 at 11:41 AM
Filed Under: • Homeland-Security • Illegal-Aliens •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Thursday - September 20, 2007
2006 Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture
I’ve been listening to Federalist Society podcasts while working. (iPods are great!) Today I heard the 2006 Barbara Olson Memorial Lecture from last November. This was the sixth annual lecture. The first was given by her husband Ted Olson. This time the speaker was Vice-President Dick Cheney. After opening remarks about the Society and Mrs. Olson, he gets on with the topic–the war on terror. (I still hate that name for it.) He gives one of the best descriptions of the enemy I’ve heard.
When you’re dealing with hidden adversaries, you have to spend a lot of time speculating on what their next movements or their targets might be. But when it comes to their beliefs and to their long-term objectives, we have no need to speculate. They have laid it out in detail for the entire world to see.
The terrorists have adopted the pretense of an aggrieved party, claiming to represent the powerless against modern imperialists. The fact is they’re at war with every development of classical liberalism in the past twelve centuries. They serve an ideology that rejects tolerance and denies freedom of conscience. They would condemn women to servitude, gays to death, minority religions to persecution. An ideology so backward, so violent, so hateful, can take hold only by force or intimidation, and so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants face brutalization or murder—and no group or person is exempt.
And it is they, the terrorists, who have ambitions of empire. Their goal in the broader Middle East is to seize control of a country, so they have a base from which to launch attacks against governments that refuse to meet their demands. Their ultimate aim—again, one that they boldly proclaim—is to establish a caliphate covering a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way around to Indonesia. They have proclaimed, as well, the goal of arming themselves with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries, and to cause mass death in the United States. One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks said he hoped the event would signal the beginning of the end of America. They hate us, they hate our country, they hate the liberties for which we stand. And they hit us first. And we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
Later we find out why the Left hates the NSA ‘domestic surveillance program’…
The activities conducted under this authorization have, without any doubt, helped to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against America and saved American lives ... Yet none of these considerations was persuasive to a federal district court in the state of Michigan, which ruled three months ago that the NSA program violated the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The court found, among other factors, that warrantless surveillance of terrorist-related communications would cause irreparable injury to the American Civil Liberties Union…
Having seen the latest bin Laden tape, I can understand that. 
Well worth a read or a listen.
Posted by Christopher
on 09/20/2007 at 07:14 PM
Filed Under: • Homeland-Security •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Sunday - June 10, 2007
Once upon a time
I remember, vividly, the evening of October 4, 1957. It wasn’t a school night so I was able to stay up later than usual.
We were living near Versailles, close to Paris in an American housing area called Petite Beauregard. All the adults were standing in front of the building, looking up into the night sky. I looked up and all around. Seeing nothing unusual, I asked an old lady, the mother/mother-in-law that lived with the couple on the top floor, what they were all looking at. She just pointed her finger at the sky and said, “The Russians are up there.” Her tone of voice was one of fear and uncertainty. I didn’t know what a big deal it was. A year later, in the Russian pavilion at the Brussels Worlds Fair I saw an exact replica of what they were looking for in that dark sky, suspended by fine wires from the ceiling. When I think back on that day I am still awed by the import of that event.
Now we have someone else to keep track of. We should heed Moseley’s warning
Posted by The Navigator
on 06/10/2007 at 11:49 PM
Filed Under: • History • Homeland-Security • International • Military •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Friday - December 01, 2006
I Spy
Quick, examine the picture below. Have you ever seen this screen? You probably haven’t but your boss or network administrator probably has - or they’ve seen screens similar to this. This is a screenshot from a program called eBlaster from SpectorSoft.
What is it? It is spying software that is used to keep track of what employees are doing with their computers while they’re at work. Up until now, companies have been installing tools like this to spy on you at the office. They have been doing it voluntarily to ”keep track of how our employees use our network bandwidth and our computer equipment”, as they tell it. If you think your company isn’t spying on you, you have to be incredibly stupid ... and will probably be out of work soon.
Now this spying is no longer voluntary. The Department Of Justice and the Supreme Court have decided that your employer must be able to produce records of e-mails and internet chat sessions ... or else they’re in deep legal trouble. Privacy? You never had any at work. Now the law says you can never have any privacy at work.
Does this make you happy? It bothers me greatly because I may need to have a private e-mail conversation with a family member in an emergency or I may need to check my bank balance. I don’t want that information available for viewing by the geeks in network administration.
I am always careful what I say in e-mails from the office and I never use chat sessions from work. That’s because I work in the IT departments and I see the recording going on as well as the backups of all server files that are saved until eternity. So do yourself a favor. Keep your freakin’ e-mail mouth shut. You never know where those words will turn up again ...
Companies Must Store Employee Emails
(ABC NEWS) - Dec. 01, 2006
U.S. companies will need to know more about where they store e-mails, instant messages and other electronic documents generated by their employees in the event they are sued, thanks to changes in federal rules that took effect Friday, legal experts say.
The changes, approved by the Supreme Court’s administrative arm in April after a five-year review, require companies and other parties involved in federal litigation to produce “electronically stored information” as part of discovery, the process by which both sides share evidence before a trial.
Federal and state courts have increasingly been requiring the production of such evidence in individual cases. The new rules clarify that the data will be required in federal cases.
Under the new rules, an information technology employee who routinely copies over a backup computer tape could be committing “virtual shredding” once a lawsuit has been filed, said Alvin F. Lindsay, a partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP and expert on technology and litigation.
Companies still could routinely purge their archives if the data aren’t relevant to cases companies have pending or expect to face, though specific sectors such as financial services remain governed by other data-retention rules.
The new rules make it more important for companies to know what electronic information they have and where, especially because of a provision that requires lawyers to provide information much earlier than before on where their clients’ data are stored and how accessible they are.
Large companies are likely to face higher costs from organizing their data in order to meet those deadlines, said James Wright, director of electronic discovery at Halliburton Co. Besides e-mail, he said, companies also will need to know about things more difficult to track, like digital photos of work sites on employee cell phones and information on removable memory cards.
There are hundreds of “e-discovery vendors” and these businesses raked in approximately $1.6 billion in 2006, Wright said. That figure could double in 2007, he added.
Lawyers will have to spend time reviewing electronic documents before turning them over, Lindsay said. Although electronic searches can help narrow the amount of data, some high-paid lawyers will still have to sift through casual e-mails about subjects like “office birthday parties in the pantry” to find the relevant information, he added.
But Martha Dawson, a partner at the Seattle-based law firm of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP who specializes in electronic discovery, said companies will not have to alter how they retain their electronic documents. Rather, she said, they will have to do an “inventory of their IT system” in order to know better where the documents are.
The new rules also provide better guidance on how electronic evidence is to be handled in federal litigation, including guidelines on how companies can seek exemptions from providing data that isn’t “reasonably accessible,” she said. This could actually reduce the burden of electronic discovery, she said.
Posted by The Skipper
on 12/01/2006 at 01:58 PM
Filed Under: • Homeland-Security • Judges-Courts • Science-Technology •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Friday - August 18, 2006
Judges On A Plane
First things first ... Judge Taylor was appointed to the federal bench in 1979 by ... Mr. Peanut, Jimmah Carter. Her biography reveals a liberal education in Massachusetts and law school at Yale. According to the Chicago Tribune, “in 1964 she spent a summer in Mississippi as part of the National Lawyers Guild’s civil rights program and was in Philadelphia, Miss., when three civil rights activists turned up missing. She and others faced down an angry crowd outside a sheriff’s office.”
The Tribune goes on to say, “Taylor became active in politics, helping Coleman Young in his 1973 campaign and Jimmy Carter in his 1976 victory. After Young’s election, Taylor was named special counsel to the City of Detroit and then in 1975 accepted the full time position as assistant corporation counsel for the city. She successfully defended new city policies that established affirmative action hiring practices and outlawed discrimination in two private yacht clubs located on city-owned Belle Isle. Taylor, the first African-American woman to serve as a federal judge in Michigan, handled issues such as Eminem’s lawsuit against Apple Computer and MTV over the use of a song, banned Nativity scenes on city property in Birmingham and Dearborn, Mich., and ordered former automaker John DeLorean to pay back millions of dollars.”
Are you starting to get the picture of the judge who just threw a monkey-wrench into national security? It doesn’t matter if Al-Qaeda kills every last American - as long as President Bush is stymied in his efforts to protect the country and forced to fight a war on terror without being able to monitor the enemy’s phone calls and communications ... in effect, making it a losing effort. Democrats and Liberals like Judge Taylor have only one goal - to get rid of the current administration and nothing will turn them aside from that goal ... not even the deaths of countless more Americans.
NSA Program Called Unconstitutional
(WASHINGTON POST) - Friday, August 18, 2006
A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration’s effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (pictured at right) ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by President Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action until a Sept. 7 hearing. Legal scholars said Taylor’s decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit when the Justice Department appeals, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.
Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups in the Eastern District of Michigan, Taylor said that the NSA wiretapping program, aimed at communications by potential terrorists, violates privacy and free speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers among the three branches of government. She also found that the wiretaps violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law instituted to provide judicial oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States.
“It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. “. . . There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.”
- More judicial idiocy at the WAPO ...
Posted by The Skipper
on 08/18/2006 at 12:32 PM
Filed Under: • Homeland-Security • Judges-Courts •
• Comments (8)
•
Trackbacks (1) •
Permalink • Sunday - July 16, 2006
Newt Hawk
Well, at least someone agrees with The Skipper. Yesterday, I called it and now Newt agrees. The storm clouds are brewing and it’s time to start planning where we want to be and what we want to do when the fertilizer hits the ventilator. Several of our readers here made comments yesterday about possible consequences and scenarios as this plays out.
All I know is it’s going to get real ugly real quick. As someone here noted, even the other Arab nations are staying awfully quiet on this. They are meeting in Egypt this weekend but so far they have not strongly condemned Israel - just made a few remarks to the press, probably just to keep their base happy. It’s beginning to look like Syria and Iran may be on their own here, in spite of what Ahmawhackjob says. Even Al-Jizz is quiet.
If there is an innocent victim in all this it is Lebanon. The government there has absolutely no control whatsoever over the large Hezbullah “refugee” camps in the southern part of that country. The Lebanese military and police don’t even bother to try to police the radical terrorists on Israel’s border. Syria is interfering by supplying arms to these asshats and Iran is now funneling arms and soldiers into the conflict.
Israel issued a 72-hour ultimatum to Syria yesterday evening and I expect that to be the tripwire. Syria will not back down because Assad is just as insane as the Mad Mullahs in Iran. Prediction: Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike into Syria and then the war will escalate, Damascus will be bombed and Iran will attempt to jump in on Syria’s side. If North Korea has sneaked nuclear weapons into Iran this could get really ugly. The first mushroom cloud will not be the last. Count on it.
Suggestion For President Bush: you better deploy the Sixth Fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean and while you’re at it, you probably need to forward deploy some serious airpower in Iraq. Oh ... and you might want to ask “Pooty-Poot” if he wants in on this to help us or does he want to stay quiet on the sidelines. There is no other option.
July 16, 2006 12:54 PM
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.
“We need to have the militancy that says ‘We’re not going to lose a city,’ “ Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.
Gingrich said he is “very worried” about Republican’s facing fall elections and says the party must have the “nerve” to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush’s record. Gingrich says that as of now Republicans “are sailing into the wind” in congressional campaigns. He said that’s in part because of the Iraq war, adding, “Iraq is hard and painful and we do not explain it very well.”
But some of it is due to Republicans’ congressional agenda. He said House and Senate Republicans “forgot the core principle” of the party and embraced Congressional pork. “Some of the guys,” he said, have come down with a case of “incumbentitis.” Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.
He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week’s bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and “connect all the dots” for Americans.
He said the reluctance to put those pieces together and see one global conflict is hurting America’s interests. He said people, including some in the Bush Administration, who urge a restrained response from Israel are wrong “because they haven’t crossed the bridge of realizing this is a war.”
“This is World War III,” Gingrich said. And once that’s accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away:
“Israel wouldn’t leave southern Lebanon as long as there was a single missile there. I would go in and clean them all out and I would announce that any Iranian airplane trying to bring missiles to re-supply them would be shot down. This idea that we have this one-sided war where the other team gets to plan how to kill us and we get to talk, is nuts.”
Posted by The Skipper
on 07/16/2006 at 11:11 AM
Filed Under: • Homeland-Security • Patriotism •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks (0) •
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
Amazing aerial images taken by daring Allied pilots on secret missions during WW 2
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Hookers and Booze
peiper over at Barking Moonbat EWS found some absolutely kickass aerial photos from WWII. I grabbed this one because I’m a big fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far.…
On: 11/23/09 03:14
Clear Thinking and Straight Talk
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at baldilocks
Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so. (Thanks to BMEWS) UPDATE: The author of the above blog is…
On: 10/02/09 08:29
A Box With Four Sides
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Macker's World
See, Afghanistan was worth saving. I can't say the same about Pocky-stawn, especially since it possesses nuclear weapons and no thanks to North Korea, China, and AQ Khan. So they…
On: 05/07/09 01:37
Display it with pride
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Macker's World
Take a look at the sidebar and click on the "DHS Certificate" shown. You'll see what Crappy Nappy thinks of those who believe in Limited Government and Constitutional Rights. Therefore,…
On: 04/19/09 10:25
A Bad Time To Call
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Conservatism Today
Drew at Barking Moonbat Early Warning System was in a foul mood as he took a call from a guy with the Republican party while he was doing his taxes…
On: 04/14/09 05:46
DISCLAIMER
THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.
Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.
Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
