Ruslan Tsarni, as you probably know, is the uncle of the Boston marathon bombers (and no, I'm not saying "alleged bombers." Dzhokhar can sue me. Bring it.) and I was struck by the huge difference between his attitude about America and the views that his nephews apparently held.
"Uncle Ruslan's" heartfelt press conference last week captured America's attention, partly because of the sharp contrast between the brutality of the bombings and Tsarni's humble attitude and unequivocal condemnation of his nephews' actions:
I only lived in Massachusetts for less than a year and experienced Patriot's Day 2012 as an outsider and a newcomer, having moved up there less than a month before. As a native Floridian, I was mainly glad to see the weather getting warmer and thinking the parties and festivities were fun, but not really getting it. I mean, I hadn't even been to Fenway at that point (later remedied), which I'm pretty sure is a mandatory requirement before making any comments about Boston culture.
Anyway, someone emailed this blog post to me, written by a Boston resident I've never met, but who sums up perfectly how all my Massachusetts friends describe Patriot's Day. It's definitely worth reading in its entirety, but I'll share a few excerpts here:
Senator Marco Rubio has a new op-ed posted on CNN.com this morning regarding the many unanswered questions about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012:
During tonight's presidential debate, Mitt Romney directly challenged Barack Obama on the issue of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. With some assistance from teammate moderator Candy Crowley, Obama once again avoided telling the American people the straight truth about the events that led to the deaths of four Americans and heightened concerns about the safety of our diplomats around the globe.
Regarding the rest of Obama's desperate spin, the Romney campaign has helpfully put together a list of quotes and dates from the Obama administration's statements on Libya.
Now, this list might look strange to mainstream media types. You know, because it contains actual facts. Read on below...
Sean Bielat, candidate for Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District, wrote an post earlier this week for RedState regarding his thoughts on the situation in Libya. If you missed it, it's worth a read:
Sadly, yesterday was not only a day for Americans to remember those we lost in the terrorist attacks eleven years ago, but also a day of violence in the Middle East, violence directed towards Americans.
Our embassy in Egypt was overrun by protesters, who tore down our flag and ripped and burned it, then replaced it with their own banner. Even worse, in Libya similar protests resulted in our ambassador being killed.
Embassies are legally treated as the sovereign soil of the countries that operate them, so I can't see how yesterday's violence in Egypt and Libya was anything other than an act of war against the United States.
Mitt Romney gave a powerful, moving speech in Jerusalem earlier today, stating unequivocally his support for our ally, as well as his condemnation for terrorists who threaten Israel's security and Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
The 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks is a week from today.
Bess Auer, who is the editor of the excellent Central Florida Top 5 blog, has compiled a list of events in the Central Florida area. Check it out here:
In the post, I discussed several history-based reasons why I so strongly disagreed with Obama, but I did not have a lot of detail about the specific geography of Israel. I've never been there and it's not my area of expertise, so I was very pleased to find this excellent video by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which includes some amazing computer animations of Israel's borders, mountains and bodies of water, transportation corridors, etc.:
President Obama made a very controversial statement in a speech last Thursday: that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
President Obama is engaging in a dangerous little dance as he attempts to shape world policy while simultaneously pretending the history of that same world didn't happen.
In my opinion, openly suggesting that Israel go back to the 1967 borders is, at best, dangerously naïve, does nothing to advance the goal of obtaining realistic peace for the region, and only emboldens Israel's enemies who would seek to push the borders further and further back until Israel disappeared from the map altogether.
Let's remember why Israel's borders changed in 1967: the Six-Day War.
Israel, at that time not even two decades into its modern existence, was facing increasing aggression from its Arab neighbors. In just six days in early June 1967, the tiny nation successfully defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (along with numerous other allies who were fighting with them). Israel's victory was decisive, shocking the Middle East, and as a result, Israel gained control over an increased territory. Israel officially expanded its borders eastward, and retained control over a larger area that would provide a valuable buffer zone to its residents.
Israel, pre-1967, was less than nine miles wide. To retreat back to the pre-1967 borders would create additional and unnecessary military vulnerabilities, including leaving the entire land area of Israel vulnerable to the Hamas rockets, which have a range of about 10 miles.
Hamas is, plain and simple, a terrorist organization. They do not bother to play semantic games like the Irish Republican Army did with the Sinn Féin political party. Hamas issues their death threats against the people of Israel in their own name, they launch rockets at schoolyards in their own name, they send suicide bombers to shopping centers in their own name.
There is no room for confusion. This is a black-and-white issue. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has declared war on Israel and is actively engaged in violence and bloodshed as I type this post here today.
In the context of this history, Obama's Thursday speech seemed to oversimplify the situation and he was accused of being out of touch with reality. One notable critic was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had a visit with the President the next day. Netanyahu strongly rebuked Obama, saying that the 1967 lines were "indefensible" and did not take into consideration the situation on the ground.
Here's the video of Netanyahu's meeting with Obama. There's a line he says near the end that is especially chilling:
We don't have a lot of margin for error. And...Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.
Netanyahu is correct. What Obama is asking is for him to risk the survival of his entire nation, and he's right to take what some are calling a "defiant" tone here.
It is almost unprecedented to expect the victor of a war to return territories won in the conflict, especially when such lands are obtained from an aggressor and viewed as strategically essential territories for future defense.
In the entire history of human civilization on this planet, I'm aware of one country, just one, that was victorious in war and then voluntarily gave up conquered territory: The United States.
After World War II, America not only agreed to allow Germany and Japan to retain their independence, but also supported a significant portion of their rebuilding through the Marshall Plan and related programs.
Note, however, that we didn't call up Hitler in 1943 and try to "negotiate" peace. We fought on land, sea, and air until the German military could take no more. We did not stop fighting until Hitler had committed suicide and the Germans had officially and formally surrendered.
We carpet-bombed German cities - including civilian areas. In this modern age where we send attorneys to the front lines and futilely attempt to fight politically correct wars, it can be difficult to appreciate what this really means. Photographs can only capture a small piece:
Berlin, May 1945 - View of Unter den Linden and the Brandenburg Gate
Film gives a fuller perspective. There's a great movie with Jean Arthur, Marlene Dietrich, and John Lund called A Foreign Affair that takes place in Berlin right after World War II. The opening scenes include several aerial shots taken from airplanes flying over the city, showing a Berlin that had nearly been leveled by Allied bombs.
Here's a clip from the beginning of the movie. Note especially the sections at 1:40 and 3:35.
Likewise, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we didn't sit down at a table with Emperor Hirohito and try to draw up a contract for peace. We didn't whine and wish upon a star for them to not bomb us any more. We flew across the Pacific Ocean and bombed them. A lot.
My point is that, regarding this unprecedented and historically unique voluntary grant of territory by a victor after a war, the United States ceded control only after a complete and total defeat and surrender of Germany and Japan's fighting forces, and not a minute before.
Today, Israel is being asked to negotiate with a Palestinian government that has openly and proudly allied itself with Hamas, which, I repeat again for emphasis, is a terrorist organization.
Israel is being asked to retreat to indefensible borders without any real reassurances that the attacks will cease. Worse, Israel is being asked to make this retreat while the violence is still happening.
Israel is being asked to surrender territory that it rightfully won in war, in the hope that it will appease the bloodthirsty killers who deny Israel even has a right to exist.
Appeasement didn't work when Neville Chamberlin tried it with Adolf Hitler. It won't work with Hamas either. The only way to "appease" Hamas would be for the people of Israel to stand at the border and slit their own throats. That's a brutally graphic metaphor, I know, but we're talking about a group that believes bombing school buses full of children is a valid negotiating tactic.
I am thankful that the people of Israel have a leader like Netanyahu who is grounded in reality and fully dedicated to the preservation of their nation. It breaks my heart to say that I fear our President does not share his views.
Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.
- Golda Meir
If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell made an attempt to interview former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by tossing wildly inaccurate and illogical liberal talking points at her. Rice repeatedly smacks him down so many times, I'm surprised he wasn't bleeding from the ears by the end of the interview.
The carnage starts almost immediately, when Rice openly mocks O'Donnell for not understanding that September 11th was, well, kind of a big deal:
O'Donnell: [Bush is] clearly saying that September 11th is the reason he looked at Iraq differently and saw a threat there.
Rice: Yeah. Are you surprised by that?
O'Donnell: Yes.
Rice: After September 11th...
O'Donnell: Yes, because Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Rice [grinning and shaking her head]: After September 11th, of course you look at threats differently...
O'Donnell keeps interrupting her to repeat the tired bit about "Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th!" and Rice stops him...
Lawrence, we can end this interview right now if you don’t want me to finish my point.
...and calmly gets back to the point that it's not that Iraq caused September 11th, but that Iraq was presenting its own threat, and golly gee, what we learned on September 11th is that we should take threats seriously.
I am so proud of the excellent work by our intelligence agents and military in bringing this evil man to justice. His death does not erase the loss and pain of those lost on September 11th, 2001, but it does show that America fulfilled its commitment to the victims to see that justice be done.
I find it very telling that bin Laden preached to his followers about the decadence and sins of the West, while living a luxurious - especially by Pakistani standards - lifestyle, in a private mansion. The same man who bragged about killing innocent Americans died a coward's death, reportedly attempting to use a woman as a human shield. Bin Laden was a hypocritical coward, but now he's a dead hypocritical coward.
Another interesting aspect of this story is how it played out online.
The White House had announced that the President would have a press conference at 10:30 pm last night regarding a "national security issue," but did not release the topic. Speculation and rumors began flying immediately. What seems to be the first real "leak" of the story was posted on Twitter by Keith Urbahn, who had served as Donald Rumsfeld's chief of staff.
Some of the internet's merry pranksters had a little fun with Google reviews, adding a location for "Osama bin Laden's Compound" to the map for Abbottabad, Pakistan...and giving the place a four-star review. [Hat tip: Matt Bramanti]
Here's some more of my favorite tweets from the night:
Osama Bin Laden was a coward. He hid from us for 10 years, the last 10 seconds of which behind some poor woman.Mon May 02 05:57:59 via web'Jim' 'Treacher'
jtLOL
We're unlikely to ever know the name of the individual who pulled the trigger. Unnamed, you are still our hero.Mon May 02 03:41:21 via TweetDeckBen Domenech
bdomenech
Update: here's a transcript of both President Obama remarks, and the statement released by President George W. Bush last night.
In fact, I thought the chart was so good that I was inspired to put it into graphic format. So below, please find Jeff Emanuel’s chart, with some graphics added to it.
Part of the graphic (the part that addressed UN resolutions, etc.) wouldn't link well for some reason, but you can click here to see the original post and the full graphic. Post a nice comment for Caleb Howe while you're there.
Let's play a game...let's pretend we can wave a wand, and POOF! make you Attorney General for the United States of America. We'll give you Eric Holder's job. You start today. Good luck!
So, if you were Attorney General, what would your priorities be? What do you think are the biggest legal issues facing our country right now? What would you do today?
Maybe you would want to investigate how that Wikileaks jerkface Julian Assange was able to obtain such a mind-boggling amount of U.S. classified documents, again?
Would you start with our illegal immigration problem? Or maybe work on some ideas to reform our legal immigration procedures?
What should be done with the detainees at Guantanamo? (Hmmm, what happened to that January deadline? President Obama seems to have forgotten about his self-imposed deadline...or did reality give him a nasty slap across the face?)
And of course, we need to continue to be vigilant in our efforts to protect our country from future acts of terrorism. How should we investigate terror plots? What legal protections do American citizens who are suspected terrorists deserve? What if the suspected terrorists aren't Americans?
Medicare/Medicaid fraud is an ongoing epidemic that costs us untold billions of dollars every year. That might be worth investigating.
That's a pretty good list. I bet you can think of some others. Why don't you write them down?
OK, what's on your list? Is a soccer game anywhere on it? Yes, I said soccer game. Soccer is a big national priority, isn't it? Oh. Soccer wouldn't be on your list of priorities if you were Attorney General?
Well, guess you can't have the job after all. Because apparently in the Obama administration, soccer is a really big deal:
Yes, Eric Holder, our Attorney General, is in Switzerland today, to lobby to bring the World Cup to America in 2022.
The week that our national security and worldwide diplomatic efforts are endangered by Wikileaks' latest release of documents, just a few weeks after terrorists attempted to send explosives hidden in printer cartridges in cargo planes, in the middle of important debates (and accompanying litigation) regarding the health care bill, immigration, don't-ask-don't-tell, and terrorism trials, Eric Holder is taking a little vacation to Switzerland to chat about a soccer game that is taking place twelve years from now.
Are you @#$% kidding me?!
Now, I've been to Switzerland. It's lovely. I mean, it's lovely in a so-pretty-it-almost-makes-your-eyeballs-hurt kind of way. The people are extremely nice...and the chocolate, oh yes, don't forget the chocolate! I highly recommend you visit if you get a chance.
It's ridiculously lovely, but does not belong on the Attorney General's to-do list (Image from FreeFoto.com)
With everything that is going on right now, in the United States and around the world, I cannot for the life of me figure out how a soccer game to be played more than a decade from now has a darn thing to do with what our Attorney General should be doing with his time.
For that matter, why is this a priority for the White House at all? Is a soccer game twelve years from now going to create jobs? Give me a break.
Maybe this relates to how Obama is supposed to magically make the world "like" us again. Most of the planet thinks we're silly for not calling it "football" like they do. Is Eric Holder telling everyone in Switzerland that Obama will make us start saying football if they give us the World Cup? Hmmm, the Great and All-Knowing Obama will have to decide what we're supposed to call football, but I'm sure he'll figure something out.
Bottom line: this is just plain ridiculous, a colossal waste of taxpayer money and resources, sends the message that the White House is not serious about oh, pretty much every issue facing us right now, and is, in my opinion, just one more bit of proof that the Obama Administration is in way over their heads.
Here's an interesting op-ed at the Washington Post by Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, about the legal issues behind a recent lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center challenging the constitutionality of the controversial body scanners being used by the TSA at our airports:
Courts evaluating airport-screening technology tend to give great deference to the government's national security interest in preventing terrorist attacks. But in this case, there's a strong argument that the TSA's measures violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Although the Supreme Court hasn't evaluated airport screening technology, lower courts have emphasized, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "
In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."
As currently used in U.S. airports, the new full-body scanners fail all of Alito's tests...
...Broadly, U.S. courts have held that "routine" searches of all travelers can be conducted at airports as long as they don't threaten serious invasions of privacy. By contrast, "non-routine" searches, such as strip-searches or body-cavity searches, require some individualized suspicion - that is, some cause to suspect a particular traveler of wrongdoing. Neither virtual strip-searches nor intrusive pat-downs should be considered "routine," and therefore courts should rule that neither can be used for primary screening.
I strongly encourage you to read the rest of the article. It makes it clear that the TSA is not only not using the best available technology, but is engaging in violations of our privacy far beyond what is necessary, and without any additional security benefits. For example, scanner machines are available which do not create a complete detailed image of the person's naked body, but instead, "[i]f the software detects contraband or suspicious material under a passenger's clothing, it projects an outline of that area of the body onto a gender-neutral, blob-like human image," and that image can then be analyzed to determine if secondary screening of that passenger is necessary. The fact that the TSA machines are capable of recording, storing, and transmitting images is also problematic.
I am supposed to fly next month and I am sincerely hoping that before I head to the airport, the TSA engages in some serious evaluations of its policies, either voluntarily or because one of these lawsuits forces them to do so. I shouldn't have to chose between being groped by a stranger or giving the government a naked photo of my body in order to board a plane, especially when neither of these things actually helps keep us any safer.
Look what the body scanners miss...this is a video of Adam Savage, from Discovery Channel's Mythbusters show, sharing an experience he had with the TSA recently (warning, NSFW language):
Did you see that? He had two 12" razor blades with him. Twelve inch razor blades! Remember, the 9/11 hijackers committed their horrific acts with box cutters, which have a similar blade, but smaller!
The scanner machines missed these razor blades. Completely missed them. "WTF" is right!
Sohaib Athar
Noah Pollak
Brandon Morse
ExurbanKevin
Rick Wilson
AndrewBreitbart
'Jim' 'Treacher'
Sarah Rumpf
Ben Domenech
