From DeMediacratic Nation:

From the NY Times:

“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday he will turn over secret documents detailing the government's domestic spying program, ending a two-week standoff with the Senate Judiciary Committee over surveillance targeting terror suspects.”

“The records will be given to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who two weeks ago lambasted Gonzales for refusing to turn over documents that even the FISA Court's presiding judge had no objection to releasing.”

“The documents also will be available to lawmakers and staffers on the House and Senate intelligence committees. These people already were cleared to receive details about the controversial spy program.”

How long will it take for details of this to leak? Weeks, days, minutes, seconds……?

For those of us that have no idea what this is all about, the NY Times provides the much necessary details:

“The program, which a federal judge last August declared unconstitutional, monitors phone calls and e-mails between the United States and other countries when such a link is suspected.”

Oops, sorry, my bad….it would appear the “Paper of Record” is becoming a forgetful “gray old lady,” and is missing some records/detail….

Judge in question: Anna Diggs Taylor, 6^th Circuit

CNN story regarding Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruling (sorry about the weak source): “NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional” – August 17, 2006

Powerline reaction to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruling – August 18, 2006

Almost forgot, the NY Times has a hyperlink to the Rightwing Nazi Arlen Specter, but not the “ever even keeled, middle of the road, likely multi-tasks as well as Nan, gee this country needs more like him,” so here t’is Patrick Leahy.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

“Those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.” – George Santayana (roughly quoted)

“Words to live by, as long as the lessons learned are the correct ones.” – Blandly Urbane

Senator Warner regrets his support for the Vietnam war:

"I regret that I was not more outspoken. The Army generals would come in, 'Just send in another five or ten thousand.' You know, month after month. Another ten or fifteen thousand. They thought they could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn't work."

Are we just going to be “surging?” The term surging does not definitively mean just increasing the troop numbers, but as it is being used it does. Senator Warner and others like to simplify arguments.

Just throwing soldiers at the problems will not resolve them, but with a change of tactics it could; tactics that hopefully contain a little less political correctness and more war fighting seriousness. It certainly appears that a more serious tone is being taken considering the latest revelation that Iranian agents are being detained, while turning the fight to them as well.

As the surge has begun, language like this is fairly pointless:

"The Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives."

Does the Senate have a plan or two they might offer; something other than a spineless and time wasting resolution? Perhaps Senator Warner and those opposed to the Iraq enterprise and “surge” could answer a few questions regarding their plan(s). Playing the role of opposition, should require more than just the negative aspect of non-support or pointing out error; that’s the easy part. The hard part is making the decisions; their decisions consist of only words and talk, something the UN and others in the international community are already good at. They should be required to put a little more on the line in the way of ideas and alternatives.

Of Warner’s participation in a “no confidence” resolution, James Moran, (D VA):

"His support for a redeployment resolution -- and his opposition to the surge policy -- is very important."

Redeployment is a plan, regardless of how weak. A “phased redeployment,” connotes action; hence the oppositions love of it. It is however, a plan/resolution full of holes as it does not address any reality, only “the good old days all over again.” “Phased redeployment,” says ‘we mean business,’ but they don’t.

Taken in “phases,” the “redeployment,” calls for taking soldiers out of Iraq and deploying them elsewhere in the M.E. as more of a reactionary force. A question should be, where in the M.E.? We also might want to check with bin Laden and others as to where exactly in the M.E. is acceptable. If memory serves, which I believe they’re hoping and counting on it not; this one of the leading reasons for 9/11 and previous attacks against our interests according to bin Laden

Redeploy the soldiers to “Betwixt,” which is a sliver of land between nations in the M.E., may very well be the only place available, however, Betwixt is as imaginary a place as “phased redeployment,” is a real plan.

During an Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Senator Joseph Lieberman, (I- CT), and General Petraeus, went back and forth like this:

Lieberman - "A resolution -- a Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq -- would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that, well, some clear expression that the American people are divided?"

Petraeus - "That's correct, sir."

With a hint of opinion, the article notes that Warner was “clearly upset,” by this exchange. Calling the exchange, “personal,” Warner stated to Patraeus and colleagues:

"We're not a division here of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. I hope that this colloquy has not trapped you into some responses that you might later regret. (italics mine)"

I’m curious as to whether anyone else holds this battle as personal and whether or not their “personal,” is considered trumped by Warner’s “personal.” After all, Warner appears to be one of those that believes he derived the appropriate and correct lessons of history from Vietnam.

I also sincerely hope history’s lessons were learned by General Patreaus with regard to the blatant threat of being brought down as veiled by the senator. And that the good general does not take the comment too “personally.”

According to the article, a few days after the exchange at the hearing Senator Warner asked:

"Those who say we're not doing the right thing tell me, what is the obligation of the Senate? Do nothing?"

Those who say we are doing the right thing tell me, what is the obligation of the Senate?

No sir, we should expect more than that, more than just the weak words of a resolution. A resolution not unlike the many highly regarded, yet worthless resolutions against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But an action like that would require making tough decisions, rather than “do(ing) nothing.”

Perhaps a tour into alternative lessons of history that might be derived from our Southeast Asian experience.

“What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are 'the lessons of history'? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.” – Gerda Lerner

Robert Kagan has an extremely well written column regarding a "resolution" and Iraq in general. "Politicians in both parties act as if they can make the war go away soon. It won't." - read "Grand Delusion" if you haven't already.

Benning's Writing Pad: Numbers and Humanity

Great post from Benning earlier in the week. It's publication date is irrelevant; it's content is not...

From DeMediacratic Nation:

According to IRNA:

"Tehran's substitute Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani by referring to the enemies' conspiracies said national unity must be maintained and those who cause discord should not be let make trouble."

I think he means us, but he also means within Iran....Freedom is great, isn't it?

Last week, Substitute Friday prayers leader of Tehran Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani:

“warned against the US and UK attempts to divide Shiites and Sunnis and said the world, including the Middle East and Muslim world, have become growingly aware.”

Which I found:

Odd that anything Tehran accuses the West of is something they, themselves are heavily involved in. Kashani calls for non-interference between Shiites and Sunnis, yet Michael Ledeen says:

“We have arrested officers from the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Baghdad and Irbil, apparently with considerable documentation of the mullahs’ support for both Sunni and Shiite terrorists.”

This week, substitute Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said:

"We are relatively in a hard situation. Our enemies, after repeated failures, have returned with new tactics."

The statement, if taken to it's logical conclusion sounds an awful lot like a case of nothing the Mullahs should be concerned about - that is if they're not in Iraq.

Visit Regime Change Iran for daily news on Momo Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

Iran and al qaeda are not the only ones in Iraq; Michelle Malkin has the goods on an even more looming threat in Iraq, "Nancy Pelosi in Baghdad."

From DeMediacratic Nation:

Today’s NRO has a column by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. regarding Jim Webb’s rebuttal to the SOTU 07 address and his claim of a majority of the military no longer supporting it:

“What the numbers do suggest — and what we who have worn the uniform of the United States have always known — is that soldiers and sailors gripe. They get frustrated like everyone else. They blow off steam. And they have been doing so since armies first marched and navies sailed. They complain about the food (even when it is superb). They dismiss the equipment as being worthless (even when it is the best in the world). And they sometimes grumble that their leaders are stupid (though those leaders might be tactical masters on the battlefield). The unhappiest and most rebellious of those who gripe are also the most vocal in their griping.”

The above quote isn’t the entire argument, but before getting into the numbers as Smith, a former Marine infantry leader does; the quote alone holds a lot of sway for me as a former grunt/leg/groundpounder….. Bitching is almost a requirement, and comes very naturally to an 11B – the infantry isn’t the coziest of careers.

Smith’s premise is that a poll of the 6,000 Military Times subs is not an accurate means of assessing the military person’s opinion or attitude. As Smith says:

“Hardly accurate numbers to suggest — as Webb has — that the troops no longer support the way the war is being prosecuted: A subliminal suggestion to the general public that American soldiers no longer believe in the overall effort in Iraq (which is absolutely false).”

Try military retention instead. The numbers from the Army alone:

“FY06 was not unlike previous years.

In FY05, the Army needed to retain 64,162. They met and exceeded that goal at 108 percent by retaining 69,512 eligible soldiers.

In FY04, the goal was 56,100. The goal was exceeded at 107 percent with 60,010.

In FY03, the goal was 51,000. The goal was exceeded at 106.2 percent with 54,151.

In FY02, the goal was 56,800. The goal was exceeded at 102.5 percent with 58,237.

And in FY01, the goal was 64,000. The goal was exceeded at 101.5 percent with 64,982.”

In closing:

“The Military Times poll also suggests that most soldiers believe we should have between 146,000 and 200,000-plus troops in Iraq. That’s exactly what Bush proposes and Webb opposes. The senator forgot to mention that.”

Yet another example of an opinion (Webb’s), that doesn’t find it necessary to be truthful.

Complete column is here….

From DeMediacratic Nation:


Today's Washington Post:

"with McCain appearing increasingly isolated on the issue as public opinion has turned overwhelmingly against the war, Hagel is acting like a politician who believes his stock is climbing. In other words, he is considering a White House run."

Here is some advice...save your money

From DeMediacratic Nation:

A recent move by the Bush administration authorizes and urges the use of lethal force against Iranian intelligence officers and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard within Iraq; as these groups have been working with Shiite militias there.

Washington Post:

“In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias.”

Before this however:

"For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time…..U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go."

Kicking it up a notch:

“The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

Here’s the “but wait…:”

At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

Appropriate actions, but the familiar refrain of calling the president a liar may pop up.

As with any plan of action or action, this new authority has it’s supporters and detractors:

“The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.”

Is this the same “intelligence community,” that just a few years ago was looked upon as wanting? Is this the same “intelligence community,” that after being chastised by representatives on both sides of the aisle became the “all knowing darlings” to those in opposition to the Iraq Theater of Operations whenever it disagreed with the administration?

I understand concerns; I also understand concerns have kept us from taking this fight to the enemy as is necessary to some semblance of victory.

“Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

Holding Iran accountable unfortunately does have its risks, one risk of course being escalation. I also don’t know whether the administration’s “theory” is accurate, I have my doubts; but only time will tell.

To fight a war of this nature, or of any nature for that matter one needs to recognize the enemy and those that would do the endeavor harm. It doesn’t lean toward victory if we choose to ignore various aspects of the field for fear of escalation.

We can back down and pull out of Iraq for fear of just such an escalation; but retreating would create an escalation as well, to the greater war.

From http://DeMediacraticNation.blogspot.com:

From within the U.S. governments opposition to the Iraq front in the greater war on terror, we receive comments like this from Chuck Hagel (at CNN):

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder." - Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE

Not terribly inspiring unless your inspiration is derived from our defeat.

Yet this mornings New York Sun has an opinion piece that turns the oppositions arguments and statements on it's head. Granted, this is an opinion piece, that said however, Hagel and others comments are opinion as well.

Why do we not read/see more news of this kind? Would it balance the arguments too much?

From the New York Sun (a no less appropriate argument toward victory):

"The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol, Saddam Hussein. Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces."

"In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment."

"Last October, my sources began telling me about rumblings among the insurgent strategists suggesting that their murderous endeavor was about to run out of steam. This sense of fatigue began registering among mid-level insurgent commanders in late December, and it has devolved to the rank and file since then. The insurgents have begun to feel that the tide has turned against them."

Read the rest here

When the going gets tough, just back down!

To Quote a statement from CNN:

"the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops"

I'm somewhat surprised CNN said the war "has lasted nearly four years," V.S. "nearing the fifth year...." Be sure to keep an eye/ear out as we close in on the end of the fourth year....it will change to "in the fifth year...." This is how it was referred to last year; the msm did not have time to keep it correctly at three years...most references were this was the fourth year.

(The legislation is) "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq." - Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware

Hey "Slow Joe" - what the president is doing is not an attempt to embarrass the Senate; he is just trying to save you all from continuing your significant mistake with regard to your policy in Iraq. Not sure what your policy is other than to get out, but...

"I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed," - Sen. Richard Lugar R-Indiana

Not competent? Oh, sorry, Sen. Lugar is not confident, which I guess means.....something of significance?

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder." - Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE

I agree, we had better make damned sure we know what we're doing when we up and pull out...sorry 'phased redeployment.' Now there is a positive/supportive victory motivated statement.

"I wonder whether the clock has already run out," - Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

I wonder about you too. Shouldn't you know? What, you're just guessing? You mean you don't know anything for sure? Shouldn't you then speak more forcefully as though you do, like the Democrats?

"I think all of us are talking about a phased redeployment which would leave American troops in the region to send a strong message, not only to the Iraqi government that we want to help them, but also to neighbors, like Iran, that we're not abandoning the field." - Sen. Barack Obama D-IL

"Troops" in the region...where? Iran won't see us as "abandoning the field?" "Strong message?" Um, yeah, this would be an extremely forceful message to Iran.....? Wouldn't remaining in the region (between borders in a place called Betwixt), be seen as an "occupation?" Can't we just continue talking? Maybe it will all just work itself out? Might we consider "Betwixt" a U.S. territory/possession and if so would it be exempt from increases in the minimum wage?

I read nothing but defeat; not in Iraq, but in our leaderships(?) comments. They know nothing and likely never will, at least not until they think for themselves rather than just working toward remaining employed.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

This Weeks Hero Was Suggested By Kathi

Lt. Col. Michael E. McLaughlin
44 years old from Mercer, Pennsylvania
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division, Pennsylvania Army National Guard
January 4, 2006


Sitting in the car with Lt. Col. Michael E. McLaughlin's 18-year-old daughter, her father's friend of 21 years had just broken the news of his death.

During years of friendship and service in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, Lt. Col. McLauglin and retired Capt. Brad Mifsud had a bond so close that they promised each other if something were ever to happen to either one of them, they would be there for the other's family.

Lt. Col. McLaughlin died when a suicide bomber rushed through a crowd of Iraqi police recruits in Ramadi and detonated a bomb that also killed a Marine and nearly 80 Iraqis. The day before the attack, Lt. Col. McLaughlin said he was fully confident that Ramadi had finally turned a corner in the insurgency. As hundreds of local men streamed into the Ramadi Glass Factory on Wednesday to join the city’s long-defunct police force, a wide grin spread over a pinch of tobacco stuffed into the 44-year-old’s lower lip.

"This may not look like much, but it's history," McLaughlin told a reporter. "We're making history right here."

With a significant wound to the back of his head, Lt. Col. McLaughlin turned to his injured personal security detail officers and inquired about their well-being. Waving off medical attention, he asked them to check on the soldiers under his command.

"In an act of extreme selflessness, he stated that he was OK, but to concentrate on saving the lives of his men," said Col. Grey Berrier, a close friend of Lt. Col. McLaughlin.

Lt. Col. McLaughlin died shortly after giving that instruction, according to the Guard.

A long-time artillery officer in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, McLaughlin was assigned to Task Force 2-222 Field Artillery and was the primary liaison between the 2-28 Brigade Combat Team and local tribal and government leaders in Ramadi. His efforts were instrumental in getting local sheikhs to support the recruitment drive and encourage more than 1,000 area men to volunteer for the force, commanders said.

"Mike is a true hero in every sense of the word, and he died while doing his job the only way he knew how - out front and with great enthusiasm and courage," said Col. John L. Gronski, commander of the 2-28 BCT. "This loss only strengthens our resolve to carry on and complete the mission in order to honor his memory."

A gregarious wisecracker, McLaughlin said his hope was to one day return to a peaceful Iraq, where he planned to walk the streets of Ramadi in a traditional Arab "man dress," or dishdasha, and sip coffee and chai with those sheikhs he had met during the war. McLaughlin said that one particular tribal leader he had developed a close relationship with dubbed him "The Sheikh of Sheikhs" - a nickname that was soon picked up by fellow officers in the brigade.
These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
It Is Foolish And Wrong To Mourn The Men Who Died. Rather We Should Thank God That Such Men Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. If you would like to participate in honoring the brave men and women who serve this great country, you can find out how by clicking here.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the main stream media is not liberally biased, but is middle of the road as they claim.

Then how is exempting American Samoa from the minimum wage increase middle of the road? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said two weeks ago when the exemption was noted:

"I have asked the education and labor committee as they go forward with the legislation to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with U.S. law on the minimum wage,"

Yesterday according to the Washington Times (good luck finding it elsewhere):

“The Democrat-controlled Senate took up a bill yesterday that would raise the minimum wage across the United States and its territories but exempt American Samoa, where tuna canneries pay workers $3.26 an hour.”

It’s odd that something this fishy (pun intended) has not raised the interest of the msm as it would were it the other side of the aisle slipping in this loophole.

Raising the minimum wage wouldn’t have the negative effect on employment, pricing or anything along those lines as Democrats claim. Oddly enough, this would happen in American Samoa if the wage were raised from the $3.26/hr now paid there, at least according to Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a nonvoting Democrat representing American Samoa:

A "decrease in production or departure of one or both of the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate the local economy, resulting in massive layoffs and insurmountable financial difficulties."

"The truth is the global tuna industry is so competitive that it is no longer possible for the federal government to demand mainland minimum-wage rates for American Samoa without causing the collapse of our economy and making us welfare wards of the federal government.”

Hmmmm, but nothing like layoffs would happen in the continental United States.

They’re just not interested because it’s so middle of the road, leaning neither Right or Left.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

According to the New York Times Editorial board:

“President Bush’s refusal to come up with a serious policy on Iraq means that the Democrats will have to goad him toward one. Congress needs to do more than just oppose the latest ill-conceived military escalation.”

So, the “paper of record,” puts it all on Bush, which to a certain degree is accurate in that this has been his project. Where the paper is woefully pathetic is it’s insistence that “congress needs to do more than just oppose….” Yeah, the Democratic Congress needs to not just oppose Bush, but offer “ideas?” The paper should know better than that, but that would require it’s peeking it’s head outside the self imposed bubble of ignorance of the msm. All the Democrats have done since the beginning of Bush is oppose…as they have no ideas, or at least ideas they wish to share due to their lack of popularity. Until poll result come out telling Dems what to do, we can expect more of the same.

This is not to deny imperfection on the part of the president in his efforts in Iraq, but to place blame more liberally. Those in opposition to the Iraq theater in the war on terror have done nothing but offer soundbytes consisting of inaccuracies and lies, even when the truth would have done. They have felt the need to oppose; one for the sake of opposition and two, propagandize against their own country and it’s interests.

Rare is the journalist that asks: “well what do you guys suggest?” and “what might the results/ramifications of a Democratic Party plan be?” Instead, we get predictions regarding what the president is doing in Iraq. To hear them tell it, there are no negative ramifications to “cutting and running,” only a return to the “9/10/01” world.

Regarding the resolution in the works according to the Times:

“Passing this resolution by the widest possible bipartisan margin would be a good first step. It would make clear to the American people (who called for a change last November), to President Bush (who didn’t listen) and to Mr. Maliki (who didn’t seem to notice) that the days of uncritical American support for Shiite misrule are over.”

The Times knows exactly what “we” the voters had on our minds when we voted last November, the Bush doesn’t listen (otherwise, gosh things would be just swell) and the American public’s “uncritical” support for the previous Baath/Sunni misrule prior to our invasion. As in the U.S. minority rules the majority.

The msm and the Democrats, whether they like it or not have much to do with the state of Iraq as it stands. To yell, Vietnam, Quagmire, Pol Pot, Nazi tactics, Ahu ghraib under new management, etc. and to tout/offer nothing of a positive forwarding nature has done much to damage reality and truth.

Were the truth good enough, the Democrats would have used it. Magnifying the view of al jazeera’s and speaking to it as truth only muddied what exactly is going on in our world today.

From DeMediacratic Nation:

Finally someone is doing something to protect American citizens; my hero Democratic Representative Kyrsten Sinema.

The legislation is being introduced to protect the many Americans, especially in the SW portion of the country that enjoy all the weenie roasts and marshmallow toasting going on in the area between the borders of the U.S.A. and Mexico.

Because of the rare instances of “illegal activity” along our southern border it is also necessary to protect those families that enjoy midnight hikes in the desert, Boyscouts that train and practice “escape and evade” maneuvers and the thousands of desert cookouts without fire that take place on a 24 hour basis in no mans land.

I applaud Ms. Sinema’s efforts at protecting those that would be lumped in with any “alleged illegal activity” in the borderlands of our nation.

From the Arizona Daily Star:

“PHOENIX — A proposed new law would make felons out of members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps — and probably some neighborhood watch groups.

HB 2286 would make it a crime for any individual or group not affiliated with law enforcement to patrol "to detect alleged illegal activity" if armed. Violators would be subject to up to 18 months in state prison.

The proposal by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, does not name names. But she said it is specifically aimed at the Minuteman organization "and other vigilante groups" that patrol the border looking for those entering the country illegally.”

According to the legislation HB2286, it will protect us from Domestic Terrorism.

HB2286:

Sec. 2. Title 13, chapter 23, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-2320, to read:

START_STATUTE13-2320. Domestic terrorism; classification

A. An individual or group of individuals commits domestic terrorism if the individual or group of individuals are not affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity and associate with another individual or group of individuals as an organization, group, corporation or company for the purpose of patrolling to detect alleged illegal activity or to individually patrol for the purpose of detecting alleged illegal activity and if the individual or group of individuals is armed with a firearm or other weapon.

B. Any city, town or county that suffers injury arising out of a violation of this section may maintain an action in superior court for the recovery of damages or for an injunction, or both. the court may award the successful party reasonable attorney fees.

C. If the court sentences the defendant to a term of probation, the court shall order that as an initial condition of probation the defendant be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not less than six months. This jail term of incarceration shall not be deferred, deleted or otherwise suspended and shall commence on the date of sentencing. THis subsection does not apply to persons who are sentenced to serve a period of incarceration in the state department of corrections.

D. A violation of this section is a class 5 felony.

Can I get a clue over here please…..

Recent posts from Coalition Against Illegal Immigration members:

“Globalization….Turning America into MexiSamoa” from Stik

“New RNC Chair Pro-Amnesty Advocate for Illegal Immigrants” from Liberally Conservative

“Martinez, I Watched the Rule of Law Erode and Disappear,” from CommonSenseAmerica

“Illegal Immigration and Civil Rights,” from Morning Coffee

“40 Illegals Arrested at Military Bases, No Charges for Employers,” from Morning Coffee

“How About Some Action?” from Right Truth

“Illegal Aliens Continue to be Caught Working at Military Bases,” from Bear Creek Ledger

"No Previous/Future Knowledge of English Necessary," from DeMediacratic Nation

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

From DeMediacratic Nation

Having trouble getting the job done? Finding that instructing workers is like talking to a wall? Tired of that clueless, questioning look in their eyes? Tired of hearing, “Qué?”

Well, look no further and ask yourself this question: “How does an English speaking employer quickly communicate with his Spanish speaking employee?”

Answer: “Spanish on the Job!”

“A very popular pocket sized word guide that offers employers the immediate ability to speak basic employment terms in Spanish - especially in the trades of construction, landscaping and housekeeping.”

“So simple to use - each entry appears in English and Spanish and is phonetically spelled out to assure correct pronunciation. No previous knowledge of Spanish is necessary!”

It’s not going to happen in the other direction as assimilation or even basic English is no longer necessary within the confines of the United States.

To quote a reader of Jay Nordlinger at National Review, who answered the issue simply and logically:

“An acquaintance once to me that, years ago, when he was preparing for a job that involved supervising an office cleaning crew, the guy he was replacing suggested that he come in a half-hour early each day of the following week so he could learn enough Spanish to deal with the crew. The new guy replied: ‘”I’ve got a better idea: Why don’t you have them come in a half hour early each day to learn enough English to deal with me?’”

Recent posts from Coalition Against Illegal Immigration members:

“Globalization….Turning America into MexiSamoa” from Stik

“New RNC Chair Pro-Amnesty Advocate for Illegal Immigrants” from Liberally Conservative

“Martinez, I Watched the Rule of Law Erode and Disappear,” from CommonSenseAmerica

“Illegal Immigration and Civil Rights,” from Morning Coffee

“40 Illegals Arrested at Military Bases, No Charges for Employers,” from Morning Coffee

“How About Some Action?” from Right Truth

“Illegal Aliens Continue to be Caught Working at Military Bases,” from Bear Creek Ledger

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**

From DeMediacratic Nation:

Substitute Friday prayers leader of Tehran Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani,

“warned against the US and UK attempts to divide Shiites and Sunnis and said the world, including the Middle East and Muslim world, have become growingly aware.”

Saying:

"Unity between Shiites and Sunnis should be real, from bottom of their hearts and for the sake of God; and it should not be geo-politically and economically motivated"

I couldn’t agree more. Amazing that the U.S. says one thing (we want unity, peace), yet practice just the opposite; using the “a page from the Bush Political Playbook.” I guess the evil Bush-devil is only interested in crushing Islam and controlling Middle Eastern oil.

Odd that anything Tehran accuses the West of is something they, themselves are heavily involved in. Kashani calls for non-interference between Shiites and Sunnis, yet Michael Ledeen says:

“We have arrested officers from the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Baghdad and Irbil, apparently with considerable documentation of the mullahs’ support for both Sunni and Shiite terrorists.”

So much for unity….

See Rightwing Guy’s post, “Al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army Are Going Down!” to read how one of Tehran’s beneficiaries may be affected by the surge.

Also visit Regime Change Iran for daily news (posting a little slowly recently), on Momo Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.