Going Apoplectic Over AIG

There has been plenty of righteous indignation coming out of Washington, D.C. regarding AIG paying $165,000,000 in bonuses after receiving between $162,500,000,000 and $170,000,000,000 in federal rescue bailout money. If you have missed the political theatrics, here is a small sampling:

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
President Barack Obama


"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed."
President Barack Obama


"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed. But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)


"This is another outrageous example of executives -- including those whose decisions were responsible for the problems that caused AIG's collapse -- enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)


"It's an idea very much at the embryonic stage. You can write a tax provision targeted specifically at 98 percent of the taxable proceeds."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), referring to the idea of taxing the AIG bonuses away


"Our financial sector will never heal unless the financial companies who helped create this economic crisis begin to regain the public trust. The actions of AIG do just the opposite, and every American is justified in their outrage at this breach of public trust."
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

There you have just some of the sanctimonious politicians who are confirming that outrage over the payments of the bonuses by AIG is justified, and insisting that the government must do something to recover those bonuses. Look for any news story about AIG bonuses, and you will most likely find more of the same.

So, what could have possibly possessed the leadership at AIG to pay these bonuses, certainly knowing full-well that it would kick-off such a firestorm? Well, as CEO Edward M. Liddy noted in a letter to Secretary Geithner, AIG was contractually obligated to pay the bonuses that were agreed to in early 2008, well before any TARP restrictions on pay.

I do not participate in any AIG bonus or retention program, have never attended a single AIG sales event or conference and, before September, did not have any relationship with AIG. I was asked to serve by your predecessor in connection with the acquisition by the government of almost 80% of AIG's outstanding shares. My only goals are to have AIG repay, with interest, to the maximum extent possible, the assistance the American taxpayers have given it and to continue AIG's main insurance companies as strong, thriving businesses and contributors to the economy. My only stake is my reputation.

In the first quarter of 2008, prior management took significant retention steps at AIG Financial Products. These arrangements were designed at a time when AIG Financial Products was expected to have a significant, ongoing role at AIG, and guaranteed a minimum level of pay for both 2008 and 2009. (Due to losses at AIG Financial Products, a senior manager will receive about 43% of his 2007 expected level for 2008.) Some of these payments are coming due on March 15, and, quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied. Outside counsel has advised that these are legal, binding obligations of AIG, and there are serious legal, as well as business, consequences for not paying. Given the trillion-dollar portfolio at AIG Financial Products, retaining key traders and risk managers is critical to our goal of repayment. This is all discussed in more detail in the attached "white paper."

AIG was contractually obligated to pay, but what could be the worst possible scenario if the company had chosen not to uphold their end of the contract? The truth is, AIG (and the taxpayers) could have then been on the hook for twice as much money.

If the crumbling insurance giant didn't make good on its retention packages, employees could sue the firm for at least $330 million -- double the total size of the bonuses.

And, some say, a successful lawsuit could ultimately mean a higher tab for taxpayers, who are already footing the bill for $162.5 billion in rescue loans and investments into AIG from the federal government.

Let's recap. AIG's CEO sent a letter to Treasury Secretary "Turbo Tim" Geithner on 14 March 2009 to inform him that these bonuses would need to be paid in order to avoid serious legal and business consequences. Politicians and the media then became sanctimonious over retention packages that amount to about 0.1% of the bailout money provided to AIG so far, all the while willfully or ignorantly overlooking the fact that AIG would be legally liable for twice as much if the bonuses weren't paid.

You will notice, however, that the picture being presenting by the politicians and the media is quite different than a basic showing of the facts. The media isn't interviewing AIG's CEO for his explanation of why the bonuses were paid. Further, the media isn't interviewing any of the blathering politicians to find out if they were aware of how much it would have ended up costing if AIG had not fulfilled the retention packages. The spin is simply one of a greedy corporation that is taking advantage of large sums of bailout money, with no context, or even a full disclosure of the facts.

Strangely enough, this same level of outrage and righteous indignation was not evident when $410,000,000,000 in taxpayer money was being allocated, with somewhere between $3,000,000,000 and $7,700,000,000 being funneled into pet projects. What was being said about taxpayer money going to projects like swine odor and manure management research, a carbon neutral green campus in Nevada, the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy, theater renovations in California, and the Polynesian Voyaging Society?

"In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research," Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a Senate speech last week. His defense of swine odor research and a $5.7 million earmark for school construction in Iowa covers four pages in the Congressional Record. [...]

"I have an obligation to the people of Nevada to make sure there is not some bureaucrat down in one of these big offices in Washington, D.C., who determines every penny spent in Nevada," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. [...]

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., defended $3.8 million to help redevelop Tiger Stadium into an anchor for a redevelopment project of retail outlets, restaurants and other commercial projects in Detroit's struggling Corktown neighborhood. [...]

Appropriations Committee member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave an impassioned defense of the practice.

"Yes, I fight for funds for my state. That's what I came here to do," Feinstein said. "Candidly, why be an appropriator if you can't help your state?" [...]

After Coburn scoffed at an earmark by Inouye to give $238,000 to the Polynesian Voyaging Society, which runs voyages using ancient navigation methods in double-hulled sailing canoes, Inouye made an impassioned defense. He said the program instills native Hawaiian youth pride in their heritage and helps troubled, mentally ill youth.

"The voyage is much more than one of miles," Inouye said. "It is a voyage of young people discovering that they are able to accomplish much more than they ever thought possible."

Beyond the earmarks (which were between 0.7% and 1.9% of the total bill, depending on which numbers were used), the $410 billion omnibus spending bill included an 8% discretionary spending hike, instead of keeping spending at current levels. Also, an amendment to end automatic pay raises for Congress was defeated.

So, Congress and President Obama are indignant over AIG fulfilling contracts which they are legally obligated to pay, but the same politicians defend billions in pork spending, an 8% increase in discretionary spending, and the maintaining of automatic pay raises for Congress.

Maybe Congress, the president, and the administration should all take some of Senator Grassley's advice and "come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, 'I'm sorry,' and then ... resign." I won't suggest that our politicians commit ritual suicide, unlike what Senator Grassley suggested some executives do because they actually upheld the legal obligations of their business.

What a bunch of two-faced asses.

USMC 9971 OUT

Latest Muslim Beheading: Buffalo, New York

In late 2004, VOA News did a piece about American Muslims who were trying to counter the negative perceptions that many Americans have of Islam. One of those highlighted was Muzzammil Hassan.

NARATOR: Muzzammil Hassan came to America from Pakistan 25 years ago. He became a successful banker in Buffalo, New York, near the famed Niagara Falls.

While he and his wife were happy to be in the United States, they were upset by the negative perceptions of Muslims, and particularly how this perception might affect their children.

That is how they came up with the idea of Bridges TV. Mr. Hassan's wife challenged him to start it.

MUZZAMMIL HASSAN, FOUNDER, BRIDGES TV: "I had no background in television. I didn't know anything about TV. Her comment was, 'you have an M.B.A. (masters degree in business) why don't you write a business plan?'"

NARATOR: And so he did. He quit his job at the bank and for the next two to three years worked almost non-stop in developing an English language television network that offers news and entertainment for Muslims.

Mr. Hassan hopes Bridges TV lives up to its name by uniting American Muslims and by helping non-Muslims overcome the negative images they may have of both Muslims and Islam.

MUZZAMMIL HASSAN, FOUNDER, BRIDGES TV: "There should be a Muslim media so that Muslim children growing up in America grow up with the self confidence and high self esteem about their identity both as Americans and as Muslims."

Just over four years later, Hassan came up with a new way to instill self confidence and high self esteem in Muslim children in America; he beheaded his wife at the Bridges TV studios.

Friends expressed shock on Friday that the founder of a Muslim TV channel — which he launched in order to counter violent images of Muslims — has been arrested in his wife’s brutal slaying.

Detectives have charged Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder after his wife was found beheaded Thursday at the offices of the cable channel, Bridges TV, in the Village of Orchard Park.

The victim was identified as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.

Well, I definitely have no idea how we could possibly see Muslims, even the normal seeming moderate Muslims that we interact with daily, as capable of such monstrous actions as terrorists. I mean, you'd never see some upstanding member of the Muslim community here in America resorting to any sort of honor killing; certainly never going so far as a beheading.

Oops! You aren't seeing any major coverage of this in the MSM, though. Funny how that part works. Here is an honor killing in which a prominent Muslim beheads his wife, and the article has been relegated to a section of the news websites that is available only to those who type the appropriate words into a search engine. Bias by omission on the part of the MSM.

Islam is not peaceful, and I don't believe that it is anywhere near compatible with Western culture. Unfortunately for us, many in the West have decided to commit cultural suicide.

UPDATE 16 FEB 2009 Of course, the day after I post something that says must really dig find this, I am checking the headlines during lunch and find that FOX News does have a piece up about this prominently on their main page now. ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC still do not have it anywhere on their main pages, however. Screen capture from FOX News below.

USMC 9971 OUT

Losing 500 Million Jobs Monthly

That's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says in the clip above. Specifically, she says that, "Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs."

The population of the United States (as of 04 February 2009 at 18:30 on the U.S. Census Bureau website) is 305,749,982.

I'm relatively confident that Speaker Pelosi meant 500 thousand, not 500 million, and this isn't the only time that she has made this mistake, either. On 18 January 2009, Pelosi spoke of 500 million people losing their jobs monthly on FOX News Sunday, prompting Chris Wallace to confirm that she meant 500 thousand.

Looking back at my last post regarding media bias, I believe that there would be heavier coverage of this if it was said by a polarizing Republican Speaker of the House. Even though video is readily available from C-Span and FOX, the MSM has failed to present Speaker Pelosi's "500 million job loss" gaffes. Bias by exclusion.

You can watch it here, though. It's funny until you remember that this is the person who is only a couple of heartbeats away from the presidency.

USMC 9971 OUT

An Experiment In Journalism

Read the following portions of an AP article about the federal response to a natural disaster.

More than 300,000 residents remained without power Monday and some areas had yet to see aid workers nearly a week after the storm, a fact not lost on some local authorities.

"We haven't seen FEMA. They haven't been here," said Jaime Green, a spokeswoman for the emergency operations center in Lyon County.

Federal authorities insisted they responded as soon as the state asked for help and promised to keep providing whatever aid was necessary.

The governor raised the state's death toll to 24 on Monday, meaning the storm has been blamed in at least 55 deaths nationwide. It also knocked out power to more than a million customers.

The governor asked the president for a disaster declaration to free up federal assistance Thursday, two days after the storm hit, and the president issued it hours later. Trucks loaded with supplies began arriving at a staging area on Friday morning, said Mary Hudak, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

By Monday, FEMA officials were checking in on supply distribution points in some rural areas. FEMA official Don Daniel stopped by to ask emergency management officials in Grayson County, who had criticized FEMA's absence late last week, what they needed.

More generators, they told him, to keep essential services such as hospitals and water supplies running.

Brocton Oglesby, director of emergency management in Hopkins County, said he has seen virtually no contribution from FEMA in the county, where more than half of the 27,000 homes remained without electricity.

"They need to be here -- at least a presence, a liaison to work with us, to start feeding information and gearing up for the next stage," Oglesby said. "That's where they're going to be needed the most."

Oglesby's seen FEMA show up after other disasters to assess the damages and write checks. The governor asked for FEMA to have a role on the front end this time, though, and Oglesby said that hasn't happened.

Oglesby said he would like FEMA to bring in outside electricians to help go door to door to make sure the electricity is operational in each house once it comes back on.

"Right now, mom and pop are going to have to fend for themselves and find an electrician," Oglesby said. "This is where we're needing FEMA's presence."

My guess is that the above excerpts would make many people think of the coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The MSM provided nearly every piece of the negative information about the federal government response to that disaster, and FEMA and the administration were widely criticized.

This is not from reporting on Hurricane Katrina in 2005, however; this is from an AP article about the Kentucky ice storms of 2009. The title of the article is, "300,000 Still Without Power, But Some Praise Obama’s FEMA for Ice Storm Response." The remainder of the article is interspersed with statements such as, "In the first real test of the Obama administration's ability to respond to a disaster, Kentucky officials are giving the federal government good marks for its response to a deadly ice storm," and "[Governor] Beshear has consistently praised Obama, a fellow Democrat, for the attention he's devoted to what Beshear calls the biggest natural disaster to hit his state," and "Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, based in Lexington, Ky., said that from what she's heard, FEMA's response has been very good so far."

It is interesting that the content of the reporting seems to have changed now that we have a different president. The AP could have easily focused on everything that I presented above (over a quarter-million people without power, complaints about the federal response from at least three counties, and nothing but negative news), but they chose to also include some of the praise that the current administration is receiving for its response. In other words, they balanced the negative statements in the piece with some positive statements to give a more well-rounded presentation of the situation.

This AP piece just jumped out at me when I read it, so I decided to use it as an example of the media bias that I believe is prevalent in much of our news today.

The coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was not so much inaccurate as it was incomplete. Failures on the state and local level were glossed over, while federal errors were highlighted. Successes by local individuals and those with scarce resources were presented as some of the few steps forward in responding to the disaster, while successes by the many federal agencies (such as the Coast Guard) who responded immediately were widely ignored. Criticisms of the administration made the headlines, yet no one countered accusations of incompetence with a full presentation of the facts. When FEMA Director Brown was accused of not being qualified and lacking experience to the lead the post he was appointed to, no news agencies stepped forward to remind the public that it was Brown who was in charge of FEMA a year earlier when the agency very successfully managed four major hurricanes that hit Florida.

News organizations are often quick to defend themselves against charges of bias by noting that what they present is an accounting of the facts of the issues being discussed, disregarding that only presenting half of the facts in a slick package that provides a skewed (and often wholly incorrect) perception of the entire truth of the matter is nothing more than a repackaging of classic yellow journalism. Biased presentation does not necessarily mean that the content of the presentation is untruthful; one can use a sampling of facts to frame a completely disingenuous presentation of an issue. Further, news organizations can display a bias by choosing to discuss some issues, while completely ignoring other relevant issues.

To make matters worse, the 24-hour news channels tend to blur the line between a presentation of the facts, and the opinions of those who are discussing the issues. The facts of the news of the day are presented (usually at the top and the bottom of the hour), but they are heavily surrounded by the opinions and spin of pundits who are invited by the news channels' hosts and commentators. Further, commentators are occasionally put into a position of hosting news events (e.g. speeches, conventions, debates), and if they can't or don't take off their commentator hats, then they are very likely going to color the presentation of the event with their own opinion and bias. When such coverage is presented to a national audience that may not know the commentator and his/her political leanings (e.g. Olbermann on NBC or Barnes on FOX), many Americans can be exposed to half-truths and innuendo that is packaged as straight-forward-just-the-facts reporting.

It will be interesting to see how this administration is covered by the MSM going forward, and the Kentucky ice storms could be a good initial indicator. I've already seen some commentators on CNN questioning Obama's "ethics waiver" for Deputy Defense Secretary Nominee William Lynn. Rah-rah coverage gets boring, not only in newsrooms, but also in living rooms, so this administration will be criticized; the question will be whether or not the criticism is on the same level as the criticism of the previous administration.

USMC 9971 OUT

Trooper Stops Possible Jihadi In OK

This story isn't getting national attention, although it should be. Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Sheldon Robinson subdued a man who had walked into a Burger King restaurant and stated that "he was going to kill everybody." Trooper Robinson was off-duty at the time, and had just dropped his wife and children off at the Burger King before going for an oil change. His wife called him moments later to let him know of the situation in the restaurant.

Robinson, wearing his trooper badge around his neck and carrying his weapon, parked his truck and peered in the window of the Burger King.

Inside was a man dressed in black. A Glock .40-caliber handgun and a full box of ammunition sat on the tabletop next to him. [...]

When the man briefly removed his hand from his gun, Robinson, who had approached from the man's blind side, grabbed his arm.

Now alone in the restaurant, the two men wrestled on the floor before Robinson got one of his handcuffs around the man's arm.

"The second one didn't lock in place, so we went down again," Robinson said. "He was a pretty stout guy."

Robinson had the man fully cuffed by the time Tulsa police officers arrived.

Everyone can consider themselves lucky that Trooper Robinson was in the vicinity, that his wife had the presence of mind to call him while moving her children to temporary position of safety, and that the situation was resolved without injury or loss of life.

The possible jihadi part of the title of this post comes from the fourth-to-the-last paragraph in the article (emphasis mine).

"It was one of those deals of being in the right place at the right time," Robinson said. "I believe he would have loaded up that gun and gone to town because he was praying for Allah to help him carry out his mission."

An off-duty Trooper stopping a gun-toting lunatic in a fast food restaurant would normally be the type of story that the MSM loves. Law enforcement (not John Q. Public) saves the day, and there is also the "are there too many guns out there?" angle.

But this story is different because it was a black-clad gunman, with plenty of ammunition, who was "praying to Allah to help him carry out his mission." A possible jihadi in the heartland, stopped by chance because an off-duty officer happened to be in the right place at the right time, is not the type of news that the MSM typically wants to present to the American public. That is why this story will most likely remain spiked.

America is lucky to have people like Trooper Robinson protecting their communities. Even though the MSM will probably not recognize his actions, he has my thanks and admiration.

USMC 9971 OUT

Unbridled Misogyny Amongst Obama Supporters

Hey, if what some random individual shouts out at a McCain/Palin rally is portrayed in the MSM as representative of all McCain/Palin supporters, then the same goes for Obama/Biden supporters, right?


This picture was taken this past weekend in Pennsylvania (not by me, see here). See the class? See the acceptance? See the tolerance? Yes, those shirts do say, "Sarah Palin Is A C***" (the last word is what you think it is; it does rhyme with runt).

If some McCain supporters showed up at Obama or Biden's hotel wearing shirts that said, "Barack Obama Is A N*****" (yes, the N-word that I was thinking of is newbie; what were you thinking?), how do you think that it would be portrayed in the MSM?

No double-standard here. Just even-handed coverage. You all saw the Obama-supporters-are-gripped-by-insane-rage stories on all of the MSM morning shows today, didn't you?

Certainly it was on The View, right? Those ladies would surely expose such explicit misogyny, wouldn't they?

Well, at least you find a little something over at AoSHQ.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Angry Liberals

In keeping with the theme of my last two posts, I thought I'd point everyone to Michelle Malkin, who has a great post with examples of liberals who have been "gripped by insane rage."

I'm sure that the MSM will be all over this shortly. Any time now. It's just around the corner. They will present this all fairly. Definitely.

USMC 9971 OUT

All That Fits Their Agenda They Print

The New York Times refused to publish McCain's response to Obama's "My Plan for Iraq" op-ed. Because the New York Times won't print it, I'll be one of many who presents it in blog form. I'm still not a fan of McCain, but If the New York Times is going to publish Obama's op-ed, then they should at least publish the rebuttal op-ed of the Republican candidate that they endorsed in January.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that's not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City - actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that's because he doesn't want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we've had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war - only of ending it. But if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

You stay classy, Shipley.

USMC 9971 OUT

Car Thief Kills Woman, Somali Community Blames Police

What a screwed-up world. Two days ago, Minneapolis police attempted to pull over a driver in a stolen vehicle, and they gave chase when the car thief took off at high-speed. The chase was called off after twelve blocks due to concerns for public safety, but unfortunately the car thief kept speeding along and crashed into a car with a woman and two children in it half-a-mile after the police stopped their chase. From the Star Tribune:

As Hanna Abukar was laid to rest Monday, members of the Somali community were questioning the police chase that preceded her death a day earlier in south Minneapolis.

"There's anger and a total lack of understanding what happened and why did it happen," Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, said following Abukar's funeral. "It's a very difficult situation right now."

Minneapolis police are still investigating the pursuit in which a 15-year-old boy who had been fleeing officers at high speeds in a stolen vehicle crashed into a car driven by Abukar at Lake Street and Stevens Avenue S. around 8 a.m. Sunday morning.

A police supervisor had called off the 12-block chase for public safety reasons about a half-mile before the crash that killed Abukar, 26, and injured her son and another boy as they were heading to Sunday school at a mosque. The boys remain hospitalized in critical and stable conditions, respectively. [...]

Jamal said he's received countless calls from local Somalis and others wondering if such a pursuit was necessary.

"That's what the community is asking," Jamal said. "We will deal with that soon."

The police just can't win. If the police hadn't pursued the teen who stole the car, and he caused a crash that resulted death and/or bodily harm, then people would likely be screaming about how the police should have done something to stop him. When the police do pursue the thief, and then stop the pursuit on the grounds of public safety (at 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning), the necessity of even beginning the pursuit is questioned.

The fact of the matter is that the police are not responsible for this; the car thief is. The teen didn't leave the private property of other people alone; he chose to steal the vehicle. The thief didn't stop when lawfully ordered to do so by police; instead he chose to speed up and flee. The thief didn't stop being reckless after the police stopped the chase; he chose to continue driving recklessly. The murderer didn't check on the victims in the car he smashed into due to his reckless behavior; he chose to run away from the scene.

One woman is dead and two children are in the hospital because to the very bad choices of one selfish fifteen-year-old, not because of a twelve block pursuit by local police who were doing their job on a Sunday morning. Period. End of story.

Of course, Omar Jamal can't make political hay from those cold hard facts, so he will do what he does best: stir up anger against, and suspicion of, the authorities in the hearts and minds of the Somali community. And, unfortunately, the Somali community and the media seem to be far to willing to go along with him.

USMC 9971 OUT

Al-Aqsa TV Airs Sick And Twisted Puppet Show

Al-Aqsa Television aired a puppet show as children's programming in which a child goes to Washington D.C., kills President Bush with the "sword of Islam, the Prophet's Al-Battar sword," and turns the White House into "a great mosque for the nation of Islam." Oh, and the same kid brought "thousands of thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan" with him to whom the American people have apparently surrendered.

Try to imagine, if you will, what would happen if anyone in the West put together a similar puppet show, where Western children went to Saudi Arabia, killed off the ruler for September 11th, and turned his palace into a church for Christendom. Don't you think that such an airing would be hitting the nightly news?

Considering that, and also considering all of the furor over "Fitna," why hasn't this five minute production been a topic of discussion on all of the cable and network news programs as well?

Child Stabs President Bush to Death and Turns the White House into a Mosque in a Hamas TV Puppet Show

Following is an excerpt from a puppet show, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on March 30, 2008.

Bush: Who are you? What brings you to my home? How did they let you in, boy? My guards! My soldiers! Get this boy out of here.

Child: Nobody will take me out of here.

Bush: Who are you to come here and threaten me?! You are on my own turf, you little child, you! Get out. My dear, bring your father, your grandfather, or your mother, so I can talk to them. Get somebody older and smarter than you. What, you came here on your own?

Child: You killed daddy in the Iraq war. It's true, you killed him in the Iraq war. As for my mom – you and the criminal Zionists killed her in Lebanon. You and the criminal Zionists also killed my younger and older brothers in the Gaza holocaust. I'm an orphan, you criminal!

Bush: What are you talking about? Where did you come from? Don't I have enough troubles already? Where did you come from?

Child: I have come to take revenge with this sword – revenge for my mother and my sisters. You are a criminal, Bush! You are despicable. You made me an orphan! You took everything from me, Bush! I must take revenge on you, with this sword of Islam, the Prophet's Al-Battar sword.

Bush: No... No, my dear. I give you my word that this is it. I repent, just don't kill me. Where are my guards? Where are my people? Help! Help! He wants to kill me. Help!

Child: There are no guards, and your people have surrendered, Bush. I have not come alone, Bush. I have brought thousands of thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. You have denied all these children their fathers and mothers. That's why I have come to take revenge on you and on all the criminal traitors who collaborated with you.

Bush: Okay, fine, that's enough. I will give you whatever you want from me.

Child: What can you give me? All I want is one thing. Bring back my father and mother. I don't want anything from you. I don't want anything from you, just bring back my father and mother. I place my trust in Allah. I need to kill you.

Bush: No, my dear. Enough. I will give you anything you want. I also... Enough with that. Come with all your friends to the White House. I will give you food and toys. We will sit in the White House and talk. You will get whatever you need.

Child: You are impure, Bush, so you are not allowed inside the White House.

Bush: What are you saying?! Why am I not allowed into the White House?

Child: Because it has been turned into a great mosque for the nation of Islam. I will kill you just like Mu'az killed Abu Lahab. I will kill you, Bush, because that is your fate.

[Child stabs Bush repeatedly]

Child: Ahhh, I killed him.

Where is the outrage of the MSM? Where is the outrage of the Muslim community? Is this their outrage right over here? Oh, wait, no; that's just their double-standard again.

USMC 9971 OUT

Muslims Riot In Denmark, MSM Yawns

Værebro School in Bagsværd was set on fire Thursday evening. (Photograph: Kristian Linnemann)

You may not have heard about this, but Muslim "youths" have been rioting in Denmark for five days now. USA Today had a short AP piece on this yesterday.

Some observers said immigrant youths were protesting against perceived police harassment and suggested the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in Danish newspapers Wednesday, may have aggravated the situation.

"They feel provocations and discrimination by the police that stop then [sic] now and then to check them," Copenhagen social worker Khalid Al-Subeihi said. "It doesn't make it easier when the cartoons come back again."

The youths set dozens of fires in several districts of Copenhagen, torching cars and trash bins and in some cases hurling rocks at police.

The picture above, however, is not one of the cars or trash bins noted in the AP story. Instead, that is a picture of the Værebro School in flames. The "immigrant youths" are burning schools over alleged perceived police harassment, and because cartoons of their so-called prophet were recently reprinted as a show of support to the artists who have been continuously targeted for death by devoted followers of Islam. Here's the story about the school being torched from the Danish Ekstra Bladet (my amateur translation follows the original Danish).

Værebro Skole i Bagsværd sat i brand. Politiet indfører skærpet tilsyn med skolebygninger i Københavnsområdet

Dele af Værebro Skole ved Værebroparken i Bagsværd var torsdag aften klokken 23 omspændt af flammer, efter at ukendte gerningsmænd havde antændt brand flere steder på skolebygningen.

---

Værebro School in Bagsværd set on fire. The police step-up monitoring of school buildings in the Copenhagen area.

Parts of Værebro School near Værebro Park in Bagsværd were engulfed by flames at 11:00 p.m. Thursday evening, after unknown perpetrators had lit fires in multiple areas of the school building.

Religion of peace or violent death cult? You be the judge.

USMC 9971 OUT

General Petraeus: 2007 Man Of The Year

The editors at Time did not bestow this honor on General Petraeus, but other editors did. I have four such selections below, but the list is not intended to be inclusive of all publications which chose General Peatraeus as their man of the year.

National Review Online (14 December 2007)

Time magazine hasn't announced its pick for "man of the year" yet, but we certainly know ours: Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq and architect of the surge strategy that is turning the tide in the war. Petraeus formulated a brilliant counterinsurgency plan. He executed it with care and diligence. And when much of the country didn't want to notice the security gains that the surge had wrought, he took the national media spotlight to defend his strategy and his honor. In all this, he was nothing less than masterly.

When Petraues testified on Capitol Hill in early September, much of the media and the Left simply refused to believe that violence in Iraq was down. The Government Accountability Office's comptroller general had appeared before Congress to ask why the Pentagon was reporting much lower numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths than the GAO had (answer: the GAO assessment was based on incomplete figures). And the day Petraeus's testimony began, MoveOn.org ran its infamous "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad. It said that "every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed"; that Petraeus "is constantly at war with the facts"; and that the general "is cooking the books for the White House." Throughout his testimony, Petraeus continued to suffer slanders from members of Congress who cared about politics more than truth. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped just short of calling him a liar, saying that to believe his report required "a willing suspension of disbelief."

Investor's Business Daily (19 December 2007)

Year In Review: Time selects Vladimir Putin as its "Person of the Year" because of the stability he has brought to Russia. Our choice is Gen. David Petraeus — the man who helped bring democracy to the Middle East.

The newsweekly's 2007 honor went to the Russian leader because of Putin's "extraordinary feat of leadership in taking a country that was in chaos and bringing it stability," according to Managing Editor Richard Stengel.

If returning a nation said to be on the road to democracy to its militaristic and autocratic past is a criterion, Putin is certainly a valid candidate. He has presided over Russia's rise from a shattered remnant of the Soviet Union to a player on the world stage flush with oil revenue and a military returned from the dead.

Our preference is not for tyrants, but for those who defeat them. We prefer those who advance the causes of peace and democracy and who make the world freer and safer.

In other words, we prefer Petraeus, especially by Stengel's criteria. Petraeus has indeed turned in an "extraordinary feat of leadership" by taking Iraq, another country in chaos, and bringing it more than stability. He has brought it true democracy from the grass roots up, and he's done it by transforming a country full of Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis into a nation of Iraqis.

The Weekly Standard (31 December 2007)

Time ludicrously chose to make Russia's ex-KGB agent-turned president Vladimir Putin its cover boy. They just couldn't make Petraeus man--oops--person of the year. Our liberal elites are so invested in a narrative of defeat and disaster in Iraq that to acknowledge the prospect of victory would be too head-wrenching and heart-rending. It would mean giving credit to George W. Bush, for one. And it would mean acknowledging American success in a war Time, and the Democratic party, and the liberal elites, had proclaimed lost.

The editors couldn't acknowledge their mugging by reality. That's fine. Nonetheless, reality exists. And the reality is that in Iraq, after mistakes and failures, thanks to the leadership of Bush, Petraeus, and General Ray Odierno--the day-to-day commander whose contributions shouldn't be overlooked--we are winning.

The Telegraph (U.K.) (31 December 2007)

The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq. He is The Sunday Telegraph's Person of the Year

For a man whose critics say he is far too fond of the television cameras, General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, has been rather out of the limelight this Christmas.

The sprightly, media-friendly 55-year-old is not perturbed, however, that his face is no longer number one item on the US networks. As he said last week, where Iraq is concerned, "No news is good news."

Today, we put him in the spotlight again by naming Gen Petraeus as The Sunday Telegraph's Person of the Year, a new annual accolade to recognise outstanding individual achievement.

My favorite is the IBD selection, in which they state that, "Our preference is not for tyrants, but for those who defeat them. We prefer those who advance the causes of peace and democracy and who make the world freer and safer."

Thank you, General Petraeus, for all you and your Troops are doing for America and the world.

USMC 9971 OUT

Thank you, America!

Those were the words of Majhid Hamid Majeed, an Iraqi father of five who was being held for ransom by terrorists in Baghdad, after he was informed by an interpreter that the men who had just burst into the room in which he was being held were U.S. Forces there to rescue him. U.S. Forces were tipped-off by concerned local citizens (CLCs).

This is the type of news that isn't being broadcast, but it desperately needs to be. I know that some will say that the hostage rescue noted above is an isolated occurrence, but I would strongly disagree. The Congressional leadership and the MSM just don't seem to be interested in any of the good news found in the MNF-Iraq news releases (and, yes, the bad news is also in those MNF-Iraq news releases).

In a radio address in January of 2007, Senator Harry Reid said the following (emphasis mine):

Yesterday, in a letter to the President, the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and I expressed our hope the President will reject one idea he is reportedly considering - the so-called "surge option," where thousands of additional combat troops would be deployed to Baghdad.

Based on the advice of current and former military leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious mistake. These military professionals tell us there is no purely military solution in Iraq, there is only a political solution in Iraq. They say adding more U.S. combat troops in the middle of this civil war undermines our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future, and asks our already overstretched military to carry a burden the Iraqis should be shouldering themselves.

But, when one looks at the news not being presented to the American people, one sees a post-surge increase in security and Iraqis stepping-up to take responsibility for their future.

Coalition and Iraqi forces in northwestern Baghdad have stopped the cycle of violence there, and Iraqi citizens are resuming their lives in safe and secure neighborhoods, a Coalition commander in the area said today. [...]

The effort got a huge shot in the arm in January when troops from the surge of additional forces began flowing into Iraq. The brigade fields five maneuver task forces, three of which came from surge forces. These units "gave us increased combat power and capabilities to do missions," Burton said. [...]

And the strategy is working. There has been an 85 percent reduction in violence in the region since May, Burton said. "Of our 95 mahalas, or neighborhoods, 58 of them are now considered under control," he said. "Thirty-three remain in a clearing status, with violence continuing to go down, and four remain in a 'disrupt' status."

Murders are down from a peak of more than 160 reported murders per week a year ago to less than five per week today. Improvised-explosive-device and small-arms attacks are down from a peak of 50 per week in June to less than five per week since the end of August, Burton said. Car-bomb attacks are down nearly 85 percent due to efforts aimed at the Karkh networks. These had a "tremendous impact on insurgents' ability to instruct and employ those types of weapons effectively," the colonel said.

Businesses are opening, people are moving back into the area, and local citizens are working to point out extremists and criminals, Burton said. [...]

Burton said he believes the Iraqi security forces will be able to capitalize on the gains made in the past few months. "The Iraqi security forces in all of our areas are working in partnership fully with us," he said. "In some areas, I've been able to reduce the number of Coalition forces and their responsibilities there so I can go out and move my forces into other areas to create increased effects, and we're developing plans to do that right now.

"The Iraqi security forces … are planning, and they are employing forces across their zone in partnership with us," he continued. "And there are some areas of our area of responsibility where I put limited Coalition forces in on a daily basis because the Iraqis have gained control of this."

Coalition, Iraqi forces work to halt cycle of violence in Baghdad - 14 October 2007

This isn't an instance of just finding one such story, though. There are many other examples of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future. You can check-out any of these from the past few weeks for yourself.

• Concerned Local Citizens turn in cache (Hawr Rajab) - 01 November 2007

• Concerned Local Citizens lead Coalition Forces to cache location (Al Buaytha) - 30 October 2007

• Iraqi citizens take stand against insurgents; aid National Police to discover cache (New Baghdad) - 30 October 2007

• Local citizens help Iraqi Security Forces seize terrorist weapons cache in Hillah - 29 October 2007

• Suicide bomber detonates upon discovery by CLCs (Muqdadiya) - 27 October 2007

• Concerned Local Citizens help round up suspected extremists (Hawr Rajab and Arab Jabour) - 27 October 2007

• Iraqis help their own with humanitarian aid - 16 October 2007

The same goes for hostage rescues. Terrorists continue to try to raise money by kidnapping Iraqis for ransom, but Iraqi and Coalition Forces are continually finding the terrorist kidnappers and freeing the Iraqi hostages.

• Iraqi Security Forces rescue sheik hostages - 30 October 2007

• Coalition Forces free hostage from al Qaeda (al Hammadi) - 30 October 2007

• Five hostages released, illegal prisons discovered in Baqouba - 19 October 2007

• 4th Iraqi Army Division accomplishes independent assault - 05 October 2007

There are plenty of successes, and there is plenty of good news coming from Iraq. The same goes for Afghanistan. It isn't just a fluke that good things are happening, but those good things do seem to go against the desired narrative of the MSM and the leadership in D.C.

None of our Troops should watch the news and wonder if the American people support them and the job they are doing. None of our Troops should catch a report about Iraq or Afghanistan and wonder if they are in the only AO with successes. But when I hear from people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are happy to hear that there are many of us back home who support them and their mission, it speaks to how little coverage any of the good news is receiving.

The Troops and the American people deserve better. Hey, politicians and journalists, it's time to start telling the full story.

USMC 9971 OUT

Casualty Rates DROP In Iraq

Odd, isn't it, that this is not getting any big-time MSM fanfare? An actual Fox News article (not one of the AP reprints on the Fox News website) describes a drop in violence in some of the most dangerous places in Iraq. Most notable was that there was not one Iraqi or U.S. military casualty in Al Anbar over the course of last week. I say again, there was not one Iraqi or U.S. military casualty in all of Al Anbar over the entirety of last week. Other stats from Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Major General Richard Sherlock:

• Violence in and around Baghdad is down 59 percent.
• Car bombs are down 65 percent.
• Casualties from car bombs and roadside bombs are down by 80 percent.
• Casualties from enemy attacks down 77 percent.
• Operations against Iraqi security forces are down 62 percent.
• Assassination attempts for sectarian reasons are down 72 percent.

No military casualties in Al Anbar for a week, violence down in the Baghdad area, car bombings are down, car bomb and roadside bomb casualties are down, casualties from enemy attacks are down, and sectarian assassination attempts are down; yet the MSM is suspiciously quiet.

Now, I know that there are those who will say that the California fires are taking the majority of the MSM time and headlines, but I don't buy that excuse. If the terrorists get off a big hit in Iraq while the California fires are still burning, do you think that the MSM will be too busy with California, or do you think the MSM will plaster that carnage without pointing out the significant decrease in violence that has continued in Iraq prior to the attack?

I think that it would be the latter, and that such coverage is indicative of the way the MSM cherry-picks what image of Iraq to show the American people.

USMC 9971 OUT

Wire-Tapping The Terrorists

Back in December of 2005, the New York Times blabbed about a classified program that was being used to listen in on the conversations of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers without a warrant. At the time, many people complained that a warrant was not too much to ask, and they all seemed really sure that it wouldn't take that much time to actually get one of those FISA warrants. The big question posed by the opponents to the no longer classified NSA program was, "What harm could come from waiting for a warrant?"

An answer to that question may have been published in the New York Post on Monday. When three U.S. Soldiers were abducted by terrorists in Iraq in May of this year, the search for them came to a screeching halt for nearly ten hours while lawyers had to determine the legality of tapping the cell phones of terrorists in Iraq.

Why would any domestic surveillance laws possibly pertain to cell phones being used by terrorists in Iraq? Because the tap would need to take place on hubs in the U.S. where their calls were routed through, that's why.

Communications surveillance of terrorists was not being used in a search for abducted American Soldiers because lawyers need to be concerned with whether or not Democratic leaders, or any of the other "the terrorists should have all of our civil-rights" type imbeciles, would attempt to make some major case out of our tapping the cell phones of terrorists in Iraq who may have been communicating about the abduction of three U.S. Soldiers that had just taken place.

That is the harm that comes from waiting for a warrant to tap terrorists.

And, as for the Justice Department, do you think that maybe they could step-up the investigation into who leaked the information about the NSA program to Risen and Lichtblau? I understand that it isn't as glamorous as the Plame case, but for the sake of the two Soldiers who were abducted in May and never found, and for the one Soldier who was found dead, it might be nice to have the leakers of such classified surveillance programs brought to justice.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Double Standards For Islam

Lars Vilks, a Swedish artist who drew a sketch of Mohammed as a dog, has been in trouble with Islam since a Swedish newspaper published the cartoon in August of this year. Al-Qaeda has put a $100,000.00 price on Vilks' head, $150,000.00 if Vilks is killed by slitting his throat. And, not surprisingly, there are Muslims in Sweden who would love to collect the prize.

One Swedish Muslim woman who lives just an hour-and-a-half drive from Vilks said she hopes to make good on the al Qaeda threat and slaughter Vilks like a lamb.

"I can do this in the name of Allah, and I will not fail. I could slaughter him in the name of Allah," says the woman who identified herself only as Amatullah.

She adds, "If I get the opportunity."

Dressed in a black burqa from head to toe and uttering death threat after death threat, the woman -- a wife and mother -- says she is defending her religion and her prophet if she manages to kill Vilks.

Amatullah has already been fined for issuing death threats. Still, she claims she will never stop taunting him.

She's been fined for issuing death threats, though there will be nothing more done to her unless she attempts to make good on the threats. The police in Sweden have suggested that Vilks abandon his home for the sake of his own safety.

It would be interesting to see the reaction if some Swedes decided to play the same game with Islam. Imagine if Amatullah was told that she and her family are targets for death due to her decision to accost a Swedish citizen. What would the reaction be if pork products ended up on Amatullah's front steps, or in her children's desks at their school, or on the steps of any mosques that failed to condemn the death threats on Vilks?

But that won't happen in the West; not yet, at least. CNN even reflects this in their article.

Still one could argue Vilks should have known better because of what happened in Denmark in 2005, when a cartoonist's depictions of the prophet sparked violent protests in the Muslim world and prompted death threats against that cartoonist's life.

See, Vilks should have known better. When it comes to Islam, the West still blames the victims, not the backwards, seventh century cult that is threatening to kill more people over a drawing.

Do you think that CNN would take the same attitude if some members of the military decided to threaten to assault Code Pink for the insults that the so-called peace group has hurled at the military in the past? I don't think that you would be seeing an article in which any MSM entity would suggest that Code Pink should have known better. Instead, the MSM would vilify the military en masse as violent, mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers.

Double standards remain for Islam in the West. How many more of us will they need to kill before the West starts suggesting that, instead of Westerners needing to know better, Islam needs to behave better?

USMC 9971 OUT

Secret Jihadi Code, Or Just Silly?

This is my third post on Ahmed Mohamed and Yousef Megahead, the two Egyptian citizens who were arrested in South Carolina on 04 August 2007 after authorities found explosives in the trunk of the vehicle that they were driving. My previous two posts are here and here.

The vehicle that Ahmed and Yousef were in when they were stopped is registered to Yousef's brother, Yahia Megahed. Yahia caused a bit of a stir himself about a week ago when he was recorded acting strangely while on a vist to the jail to see his brother.

An odd video raises new questions about the USF students who caused a national security scare. Ahmed Mohamed and Yousef Megahed are already charged with driving explosives across state lines. Now prosecutors say Megahed's brother tried to send a sinister code through a jail-house camera.

To make matters worse for Yousef, at about the same time as his brother was "acting silly" on camera, prosecutors released information that Yousef had been researching high-powered rifles.

A federal judge in Tampa on Friday, heard new evidence against Megahed that, in addition to the video inlcudes research allegedly done by Megahed on high powered rifles. Prosecutors say Goose Creek police say they found the information on Megahed at the time he and fellow Univsersity of South Florida student Ahmed Mohamed were arrested in August.

Evidence also includes a stop the two made at an Ocala Wal-Mart on their way to South Carolina and a weapon prosecutors say Megahed stored at a rented storage unit.

Also back around the time of the stop, a hidden microphone in the back of the squad car that Ahmed and Yousef were originally put in picked up their conversation that night.

In the back of the patrol car on the way to jail on charges of possession of an explosive device, the two whispered in their native Arabic while a hidden recorder taped their conversation, according to court documents:

"Did you tell them there is something in them?" Mohamed asked, an apparent reference to the PVC pipes.

"Water," Megahed said.

"Water! Right? The black water is in the Pepsi."

A few seconds pass in silence. Mohamed speaks again.

"Did you tell them about the benzene (gasoline)?"

"I have nothing to do with it. I do the fireworks and so... so... so... that is it."

With that in mind, let's take a moment to recap.

• The vehicle that Ahmed Mohamed and Yousef Megahed were stopped in was registered to Yousef's brother, Yahia Megahed.

• Ahmed Mohamed and Yousef Megahed had a suspicious conversation in Arabic while in the back of the police car about how to explain what was found in the trunk of their vehicle.

• The pipes found in the in the trunk of the vehicle were not fireworks, and their contents meet the legal definition of an explosive.

• Authorities found a file titled "Bomb Shock" on Ahmed Mohamed's computer. That contained files about explosives, including detailed descriptions of TNT and of C-4.

• Ahmed Mohamed admitted to the FBI that he made a 12-minute video posted on YouTube that explained in Arabic how to turn a toy boat into a bomb. Mohamed stated that "the technology which he demonstrated in the tape was to be used against those who fought for the United States."

• FBI agents found a toy remote-control boat, still in its box, and a partially dismantled digital watch at Youssef Megahed's Tampa, FL, home. They suspect that the items are the beginnings of a homemade bomb.

• On Aug. 29, Ahmed Mohamed and Yousef Megahed were indicted by a federal grand jury in Tampa on charges of transporting explosive materials. Mohamed also was charged with teaching and demonstrating the making and use of an explosive and destructive device.

• Yousef Megahed has two Egyptian passports, one of which is under a different last name.

• Yousef Megahed's application for citizenship was turned down in 2006 because he had been out of the country for more than 1,600 days from 1999 through 2003. That means that Yousef was out of the country over 87% of the time during those five years, and many of those were trips to Egypt that lasted six months or more.

• Yahia Megahed, while at the jail to visit his brother Yousef Megahed, was recorded acting strangely. Prosecutors suspect that this may have been an attempt by Yahia to pass a coded message.

• Yousef Megahed was allegedly researching high-powered rifles. Authorities say the information about that research was found on Megahed at the time of his arrest on 04 August 2007, and that he and Ahmed Mohammed may have stopped at a Wal-Mart on the way to South Carolina to look at rifles.

Take a look at the evidence that keeps piling-up, and then ask yourself if it really seems to match the explanation that Mohamed and Megahed gave of having homemade fireworks in their trunk for a vacation that they were going to have in North Carolina. That doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Also, why is this not a bigger story in the MSM? I've been dealing with a sick child over the past week, so that is why this post was delayed, but it really seems to me like this should be covered more closely in the MSM than Anna Nicole Smith, Britany Spears, and Al Gore.

I'm not the only one watching this closely, but it really appears like it is only bloggers who are keeping on top of it. I'll keep looking into this one throughout the course of the case.

USMC 9971 OUT

Artist Portrays Bin Laden As Christian Prophet

And why wasn't that the headline? Because the media doesn't want to get fire-bombed by angry Muslims, that's why.

In case you missed it, an artist in Austrailia had some pieces in an exhibit that depicted Osama Bin Laden as Jesus Christ, and the Virgin Mary in a burqa.

Down Under has been thrown for a loop with a small art exhibition in which two Australian artists depict Christian religious icons with Islamic overtones, including one image portraying Osama bin Laden as Jesus Christ.

One of the first interesting things that I noticed was that if you looked for this online, most of the news pieces about it showed pictures of the Virgin Mary in a burqa and Bin Laden as Jesus; yet in every instance that I saw, the so-called art was described as provocative, and the offense to Christians seemed to be quickly glossed over.

In Islam, though, it is allegedly wrong to have an image of a prophet (which is how the Muslims claim, however incorrectly, to view Christ). So we have this image of a prophet (in the eyes of Islam), which also transforms into the image of a mass-murdering terrorist, and we don't have Muslims marching in the streets or rioting.

Compare that with the controversy over the decision of a Swedish newspaper to publish a drawing of Mohammed with a the body of a dog. That hasn't been so popular with the suicide-bombs-are-okay-but-no-bacon-for-us crowd.

Swedish Muslims demonstrated Friday against a newspaper that published a drawing depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body and demanded its chief editor apologize.

The pictures included along with the news pieces on this topic, however, weren't of the offending mutt-prophet. Instead, they were pictures of protesters in Pakistan, displeased with the publication of such a cartoon. The most common image was one of protesters standing before a sign on the ground which appeared to say (I can't confirm due to AP's spectacular crop job), "Down With Sweden, Death To Lari." I am guessing that Lari is in reference to the artist, Lars Vilks.

So, when art is produced that offends Christians, it is presented in the media for the world to see. When art is produced that offends Muslims, however, the media makes sure to only show the protesters, not the art. Does anyone else see the double standard?

Beyond that, the entire tone of the news pieces about each are completely different. When the Christians are offended, the story is peddled as a display of controversial art. When it's Muslims being offended, however, then it is a case of Muslims protesting the depiction of their prophet. Not quite an equal footing in the media.

Now, I know that the Muslim rioters are not the brightest bulbs in the knife drawer, but do you think that if someone would point out to them that the portrayal of Bin Laden as Jesus Christ is comparable to presenting a Muslim as a Christian prophet, that they wouldn't erupt into violent protests over such a portrayal?

So, the next time you see Ahmed smiling over that article of Bin Laden as Christ, remind him that a staunch Muslim is being portrayed as a Christian. That'll get ol' haji super-pleased.

USMC 9971 OUT

More Double Standards With Islam

Several newspapers decided not to run the Opus comic strip this past Sunday over concerns of offending Muslims. Many of those same newspapers will apparently continue to spike the strip when the plotline continues this coming Sunday.

A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

So, the same thing didn't happen when another religion was the target of Breathed's satire?

[Washington Post Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago] said she didn't flag newspapers about [the 19 Aug 2007 Opus strip that poked fun at Jerry Falwell] because she didn't think readers would misunderstand the humor.

"They're not going to take it seriously," she said.

But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended.

"I don't necessarily think it's poking fun [at Islam]," Lago said. "But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?"

Got that? Christians won't take the cartoon seriously, whereas Muslims might. Honestly, I think that the reason comes down to concerns that Muslims might erupt in violent rage over a cartoon, whereas Christians likely will not.

Take, for example, the blasphemous balls of Afghanistan this weekend. The U.S. tried to generate some goodwill by distributing soccer balls with world flags on them to the children of Afghanistan. So what was the problem?

At least one of several balls dropped by helicopter to children in eastern Khost province had a small picture of the Saudi Arabian flag. The flag features in Arabic script the Islamic declaration of faith, which contains the words Allah and the Prophet Muhammad.

Villagers were "upset and angry" when they saw the ball, said Khost Gov. Arsalah Jamal. "They wanted to demonstrate, but we explained to them it was a mistake." [...]

Last year, violent protests followed the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the Western media. In 2005, several people were killed during demonstrations against the alleged desecration of copies of the Koran by U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay.

A soccer ball has the Saudi flag on it, and the governor of Khost needs to convince the populace not to "demonstrate" over the blasphemous balls. Considering the violence involved on the part of Muslims whenever they claim to be offended, one really must wonder if the main reason for spiking the Opus cartoon was to avoid more Muslim violence.

Knowing that Muslims feel that strongly about the text on the Saudi flag, though, I probably should make sure that I screen visitors to my garage in order to deny entry to those of the Islamic faith. It's not denial of entry based upon their faith, but rather a concern for their religious sensitivities. I really don't want them to be offended if they see my new dart board, let alone what I wipe my feet on by the back door.

USMC 9971 OUT

Brits Portray Jesus As Prophet, But Not Muslims As Terrorists

This type of double standard ticks me off. The British network ITV aired a documentary this weekend on Islam's view of Jesus as a prophet instead of as the Son of God.

There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him.

With the Koran as a main source and drawing on interviews with scholars and historians, the Muslim Jesus explores how Islam honours Christ as a prophet but not as the son of God. According to the Koran the crucifixion was a divine illusion. Instead of dying on the cross, Jesus was rescued by angels and raised to heaven.

Strangely enough, Christians haven't been rioting over this. My first thought was that the Western media wouldn't have the stones to try to pull off a similar documentary about Mohammed based upon another faith's view of him. During the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, hardly any Western media sources were brave enough to publish the cartoons amid the protests, threats, and riots taking place worldwide by Muslims claiming that they were offended by the drawings.

I thought of this today when I read that the BBC was going to try a plotline about a Muslim terror attack in the U.K. in the season opener of their Casualty drama. They're not going to try that anymore, though.

The BBC has dropped plans to screen a fictional terrorist attack by Muslim extremists in the new series of the hospital drama Casualty.

Senior executives had discussed the plotline in a development meeting but were overruled by the corporation's editorial guidelines department amid fears it would cause offence.

The opening episode, to be shown next month, will now focus on the bloody aftermath of an explosion caused by animal rights extremists.

Critics, among them Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative Party chairman whose wife was paralysed by an IRA terrorist attack in Brighton 23 years ago, condemned the climbdown.

"People were perfectly free during the violence in Northern Ireland to produce dramas about terrorism for which presumably they might have been accused of stereotyping IRA terrorists or even suggesting that all Catholics were terrorists," said Lord Tebbit.

"What is the difference here? The BBC exists in a world of New Labour political correctness."

Lord Tebbit is right. But I think that it is more that just political correctness; I think that it is fear of stirring-up another Muslim terror attack. It's not like the Muslims haven't targeted Britain before.

There were the July 7th attacks by Muslim terrorists in London two years ago.

For hundreds of thousands of people commuting into London, the morning of July 7, 2005 began just like any other. But at the peak of the rush hour, bombs were detonated in three crowded subway trains and aboard a London bus. At least 52 people died, along with four bombers, and 700 were injured. A week later, millions stood in silence to honor the victims of the deadliest attack in Britain since World War II. A week after that, the transport system was hit again - with attempted explosions on three more Tube trains and another bus.

There were the airline terror plot arrests in the U.K. August of last year in which Muslim terrorists were stopped before they could carry out plans for mid-air terror attack.

Suspects arrested Thursday for planning to stage a massive mid-air terror attacked were in the final stages of planning and planned to run a dry-run of the plan within two days, U.S. intelligence officers said Thursday.

One official said the suicide attackers planned to use a peroxide-based solution that could ignite when sparked by a camera flash or another electronic device.

The test run was designed to see whether the plotters would be able to smuggle the needed materials aboard the planes, these officials said. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.

The development came as British authorities said they were "urgently" seeking the arrests of up to 10 more suspects in the terrorist plot uncovered early Thursday morning to blow up U.S.-bound flights with liquid explosives carried onto planes via carry-on luggage, FOX News learned.

Police arrested 24 main suspects were arrested earlier Thursday, according to Scotland Yard, in what U.S. officials suspect was an Al Qaeda-planned attack.

And who could forget the Muslim terrorists who, less than sixty days ago, attempted to carry out car bomb attacks in Scotland and England?

A suspect who was critically burned in a botched car bomb attempt at Glasgow Airport has died after more than a month in the hospital, ending police hopes he might be questioned or charged.

Kefeel Ahmed, 27, died Thursday at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, police said. He was in the Jeep Cherokee that plowed into the terminal at Scotland's busiest airport on June 30, a day after two Mercedes cars packed with gas canisters were discovered in central London.

Muslims should be offended that other Muslims are committing terror attacks in the name of Islam, not that pop-culture is attempting to portray them in our entertainment mediums due to these acts of terrorism becoming such a normal aspect of daily life. How seriously can they be taken if they, yet again, resort to violence when some followers of their faith are depicted as being violent?

Show the program and, when the Muslims complain that they are not all terrorists, make sure to point out to them that many of the terrorists are coming from their own midst. Instead of whining about the programming, they should be finding and removing the terrorists amongst them who, allegedly, have hijacked their religion.

I'm fed up with the religion of terror. When you turn over the terrorists walking amongst you, Haji, then we'll talk. Until then, you can stuff your offended feelings B.S. in your Koran and smoke it.

USMC 9971 OUT