Daisy Khan: Moving Islamic Center 'Not' On the Table for Now

Amazingly, today's the first time I've actually tuned into "This Week" since Christiane Amanpour took over. I've watched video clips. But today I clicked on the tube right at 8:00am. The Karzai interview wasn't so interesting. HE'S not interesting, I guess. I'm tired of him being in charge in Afghanistan and I just can't help myself (rigged elections, gaffes up the wazoo, and who knows what else?). Anyway, it was the Daisy Khan interview that really snapped me to attention. Now that's timely. But Amanpour immediate proved her critics correct, that she's a hopeless leftist ideologue unsuited to hosting the program. See starts out:

We turn now to the debate over the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero. Opponents say that it's just too close to the site of the 9/11 attacks, though it cannot be seen from there. It took an ABC News producer two minutes and 45 seconds to walk from ground zero to the site of the proposed center. But the controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States. And the backlash against Islam has been seen across the country, with mosques facing protests in California, Wisconsin and Tennessee. And some intelligence experts now say that the backlash could also bolster extremists abroad, who wish to portray the United States as anti-Islam.

See that? All the leftist memes. And at the clip she flashes the New York Times' earlier headline at the paper, "U.S. Anti-Islam Protest Seen as Lift for Extremists." That piece was fully debunked by both Tom Maguire and myself. Watch the clip:

Daisy Khan reports that the possibility of relocating Ground Zero is simply "not on the table." Khan repeatedly stressed that she and radical husband Imam Rauf have a "constitutional right" to build the mosque. Never do we hear her mention the flip side of rights, that of responsibility --- especially the responsibility to give the arguments of critics a fair shake. And this "cultural center" is supposed to be about "interfaith understanding"? Inept public relations messaging, to say the least. Indeed, most interesting is the video segment showing Imam Rauf saying that "United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened" when al Qaeda terrorists attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. Daisy Khan's response is even worse, that American policy caused the attacks as a result of our Cold War policies supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan: Imam Rauf was talking about "the CIA support specifically to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" ... "you know, in CIA terms, a blowback of that. That's what he meant."

Blowback. Oh, great. The favorite term of hardline critics of American foreign policy, those who claim U.S. neo-colonial "occupation" around the world is the "root cause" of global jihad against the U.S.

Yep, 9/11 families will just be bowled over with that model of understanding and "outreach."

And actually, Ms. Daisy kinda leaves out the Koran's injunctions to kill the infidels. Convenient, you think? And of course a Muslim-compliant Christiane Amanpour's not likely to correct the defamations, regardless of the debate on whether she's quick enough on the uptake to be even hosting this debate. Jeez, where are our modern David Brinkleys? Shoot, Jake Tapper would suit me just fine.

More on this later. Stay strong friends ...

Smokin' Hot Sunday Babe Blogging!

Actually, this isn't the planned, Rule 5 treat I mentioned yesterday, but Theo's so completely on fire of late that I couldn't resist posting.

I'm going to get American Perspective linked up and discussed a bit later, but check this out. Sheesh:

BONUS BABE BLOGGING: "I do this as an act of solidarity with my oppressed Palestinian Sisters!"

Wafa Sultan on 'Moderate' Islam

That is compelling television:

Does America Have a Moderate Muslim Problem?

You think?

At Fox News, the Journal Editorial Report:

Hanging in Lorestan-Azna, Iran — August 12, 2010

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

— Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, April 24, 2009

Right.

Fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam, just as we see daily in Sharia Iran:

'WE HAVE SOME PLANES'

Excerpt from Chapter 1, "The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States":

The Hijacking of American 11

American Airlines Flight 11 provided nonstop service from Boston to Los Angeles. On September 11, Captain John Ogonowski and First Officer Thomas McGuinness piloted the Boeing 767. It carried its full capacity of nine flight attendants. Eighty-one passengers boarded the flight with them (including the five terrorists).

The plane took off at 7:59. Just before 8:14, it had climbed to 26,000 feet, not quite its initial assigned cruising altitude of 29,000 feet. All communications and flight profile data were normal. About this time the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign would usually have been turned off and the flight attendants would have begun preparing for cabin service.

At that same time, American 11 had its last routine communication with the ground when it acknowledged navigational instructions from the FAA's air traffic control (ATC) center in Boston. Sixteen seconds after that transmis-sion, ATC instructed the aircraft's pilots to climb to 35,000 feet. That message and all subsequent attempts to contact the flight were not acknowledged. From this and other evidence, we believe the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter.

Reports from two flight attendants in the coach cabin, Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeney, tell us most of what we know about how the hijacking happened. As it began, some of the hijackers-most likely Wail al Shehri and Waleed al Shehri, who were seated in row 2 in first class-stabbed the two unarmed flight attendants who would have been preparing for cabin service.

We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit; FAA rules required that the doors remain closed and locked during flight. Ong speculated that they had "jammed their way" in. Perhaps the terrorists stabbed the flight attendants to get a cockpit key, to force one of them to open the cockpit door, or to lure the captain or first officer out of the cockpit. Or the flight attendants may just have been in their way.

At the same time or shortly thereafter, Atta-the only terrorist on board trained to fly a jet-would have moved to the cockpit from his business-class seat, possibly accompanied by Omari. As this was happening, passenger Daniel Lewin, who was seated in the row just behind Atta and Omari, was stabbed by one of the hijackers-probably Satam al Suqami, who was seated directly behind Lewin. Lewin had served four years as an officer in the Israeli military. He may have made an attempt to stop the hijackers in front of him, not realizing that another was sitting behind him.

The hijackers quickly gained control and sprayed Mace, pepper spray, or some other irritant in the first-class cabin, in order to force the passengers and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane.They claimed they had a bomb.

About five minutes after the hijacking began, Betty Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, North Carolina, via an AT&T airphone to report an emergency aboard the flight. This was the first of several occasions on 9/11 when flight attendants took action outside the scope of their training, which emphasized that in a hijacking, they were to communicate with the cockpit crew. The emergency call lasted approximately 25 minutes, as Ong calmly and professionally relayed information about events taking place aboard the airplane to authorities on the ground.

At 8:19, Ong reported: "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class-and I think there's Mace-that we can't breathe-I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.

At 8:21, one of the American employees receiving Ong's call in North Carolina, Nydia Gonzalez, alerted the American Airlines operations center in Fort Worth, Texas, reaching Craig Marquis, the manager on duty. Marquis soon realized this was an emergency and instructed the airline's dispatcher responsible for the flight to contact the cockpit. At 8:23, the dispatcher tried unsuccessfully to contact the aircraft. Six minutes later, the air traffic control specialist in American's operations center contacted the FAA's Boston Air Traffic Control Center about the flight. The center was already aware of the problem.

Boston Center knew of a problem on the flight in part because just before 8:25 the hijackers had attempted to communicate with the passengers. The microphone was keyed, and immediately one of the hijackers said, "Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Air traffic controllers heard the transmission; Ong did not. The hijackers probably did not know how to operate the cockpit radio communication system correctly, and thus inadvertently broadcast their message over the air traffic control channel instead of the cabin public-address channel. Also at 8:25, and again at 8:29, Amy Sweeney got through to the American Flight Services Office in Boston but was cut off after she reported someone was hurt aboard the flight. Three minutes later, Sweeney was reconnected to the office and began relaying updates to the manager, Michael Woodward.

At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was "flying erratically." A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. American also began getting identifications of the hijackers, as Ong and then Sweeney passed on some of the seat numbers of those who had gained unauthorized access to the cockpit.

Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed-one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor; a doctor had been requested; the flight attendants were unable to contact the cockpit; and there was a bomb in the cockpit. Sweeney told Woodward that she and Ong were trying to relay as much information as they could to people on the ground.

At 8:38, Ong told Gonzalez that the plane was flying erratically again. Around this time Sweeney told Woodward that the hijackers were Middle Easterners, naming three of their seat numbers. One spoke very little English and one spoke excellent English. The hijackers had gained entry to the cockpit, and she did not know how. The aircraft was in a rapid descent.

At 8:41, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class. Other flight attendants were busy at duties such as getting medical supplies while Ong and Sweeney were reporting the events.

At 8:41, in American's operations center, a colleague told Marquis that the air traffic controllers declared Flight 11 a hijacking and "think he's [American 11] headed toward Kennedy [airport in New York City].They're moving everybody out of the way. They seem to have him on a primary radar. They seem to think that he is descending."

At 8:44, Gonzalez reported losing phone contact with Ong. About this same time Sweeney reported to Woodward," Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent . . . we are all over the place." Woodward asked Sweeney to look out the window to see if she could determine where they were. Sweeney responded: "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she said, "Oh my God we are way too low." The phone call ended.

At 8:46:40, American 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.39 All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly ....

American Airlines Flight 11 FAA Awareness.

Although the Boston Center air traffic controller realized at an early stage that there was something wrong with American 11, he did not immediately interpret the plane's failure to respond as a sign that it had been hijacked. At 8:14, when the flight failed to heed his instruction to climb to 35,000 feet, the controller repeatedly tried to raise the flight. He reached out to the pilot on the emergency frequency. Though there was no response, he kept trying to contact the aircraft.

At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft.

The controller checked to see if American Airlines could establish communication with American 11. He became even more concerned as its route changed, moving into another sector's airspace. Controllers immediately began to move aircraft out of its path, and asked other aircraft in the vicinity to look for American 11.

At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11:

American 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.

The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words "we have some planes." The next transmission came seconds later:

American 11: Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

VIDEO: "9/11: The Falling Man."

Gaza 'Peace' Flotilla Updated Analysis

At Stormbringer:

'The Desire for Freedom Is Written In Every Human Heart'

"History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart."

-- George W. Bush, January 18, 2005

Spencer 'Insha'Allah' Ackerman Slurs Victory Mosque Opponents as 'Bigots'

What else is new?

Well, actually, whereas once Spencer "Insha'Allah" Ackerman called for President Bush to be executed at The Hague, now he's reduced to appealing to the 43rd president to argue religious pluralism should prevail in the Cordoba Mosque controversy:

The small-minded passions of Westerners who think that they’ve found a threatening global conspiracy emerging from an ancient Abrahamic faith now have damaging strategic implications. All of which is to say that old-fashioned American religious pluralism is a weapon against al-Qaeda. Or, as the 43rd president of the United States put it, America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.

Spencer Ackerman, JournoList alumnus, is one of the most despicable left-wing frauds on the web. He's also one of the most pathetic.

By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them...

VodkaPundit has no comment, but nothing's holding me back. Democratic-leftists and secular collectivists are bad people. But to be fair, those self-identified Democrats who don't know any better need to get hip quickly and abandon ship:

That's a Right Klik production, if I'm not mistaken.

The title at top draws on Matthew 7:15-29, the concluding section of which is "concerned with those things that are not of the kingdom, and Jesus is warning us of those who will present themselves as a part of the kingdom and are deceivers."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Via Washington Rebel:

Plus, "How to Win the Clash of Civilizations."

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD — Hot Neocon Intelligentsia!

My good friend GSGF continues to fire up the neocon Interwebs! And she's stylin' as well with some Sex Pistols pro-Israel mojo. As she might say, that's fully crunk!

Black Ops: Secret Military Technology in the Age of Terrorism

At Popular Science:

Every year, tens of billions of Pentagon dollars go missing. The money vanishes not because of fraud, waste or abuse, but because U.S. military planners have appropriated it to secretly develop advanced weapons and fund clandestine operations. Next year, this so-called black budget will be even larger than it was in the Cold War days of1987, when the leading black-budget watchdog, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), began gathering reliable estimates. The current total is staggering: $58 billion—enough to pay for two complete Manhattan Projects.

Where does the money go? Tracking the black budget has always been a challenge. Constantly shifting project names that seem to be randomly generated by computers—Tractor Cage, Tractor Card, Tractor Dirt, Tractor Hike and Tractor Hip are all real examples—make linking dollar amounts to technologies impossible for outsiders. But there are clues.

According to Todd Harrison, an analyst at the CSBA, the allocations for classified operations in the 2011 federal budget include $19.4 billion for research and development across all four branches of the military (funding for the CIA, including its drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is contained within the Defense Department black budget), another $16.9 billion for procurement, and $14.6 billion for “operations and maintenance.” This latter category, Harrison notes, has been expanding quickly. This may suggest that many classified technologies are now moving from the laboratory to the battlefield.

In fact, the rise in classified defense spending accompanies a fundamental change in American military strategy. After the attacks of September 11, the Pentagon began a shift away from its late Cold War–era “two-war strategy,” premised on maintaining the ability to conduct two major military operations simultaneously, and began to focus instead on irregular warfare against individuals and groups. That strategic shift most likely coincides with an investment shift, away from technology that enables large-scale, possibly nuclear, war against superpower states and toward technology that helps military planners hunt and kill individuals. Each branch of the military uses different language to describe this process. Pentagon officials have spoken openly about their desire to use advanced technology to “reduce sensor-to-shooter time” in situations involving “time-sensitive targets.” The head of U.S. Special Operations Command talks about “high-tech manhunting,” while Air Force officials describe plans to compress the “kill chain.”

Even inside the Pentagon, few people know the precise details of the black budget. But by combining what is known about Pentagon goals and what is known about the most recent advances in military technology, we can begin to sketch its general contours.

Great piece. Be sure to read the whole thing.

Johnny Rotten Neocon!

Jeez, I scooped the entire blogosphere by a month on this one (recall, "Anarchy in Tel Aviv? John Lydon Will Tour Israel!").

Well, there's a new twist that's caught attention. Check out John Lydon's statements defending his Israeli tour, "Johnny Rotten, Neocon Punk Rocker":

Johnny Rotten, who is widely considered to embody the zenith of punk music and a former singer of the British band the Sex Pistols, issued the following statement to the Independent newspaper about his planned concert in Tel Aviv:

I really resent the presumption that I'm going there to play to right-wing Nazi jews [sic]. If Elvis-f-ing-Costello wants to pull out of a gig in Israel because he's suddenly got this compassion for Palestinians, then good on him. But I have absolutely one rule, right? Until I see an Arab country, a Muslim country, with a democracy, I won't understand how anyone can have a problem with how they're treated ....

Leftists in the UK are in a state of panic, largely because Lydon rejects their crude and grossly oversimplified views on the Middle East. Lydon, who lives in Venice, California, has breathed real democratic life and fire into a dull and misguided cultural war against Israel.

More at GSGF:

Lady Gaga Battles Britney Spears for Twitter Supremacy

Reminds me of great power politics, LOL!

And boy, it's hard out there in the celebrity hood!

At People Magazine:

With some help from her "little monsters," Lady Gaga has dethroned Britney Spears on Twitter.

The Bad Romance singer surpassed the reigning Twitter queen momentarily on Friday, but that same afternoon, Spears received more followers and secured her spot at the top – temporarily. By Saturday morning, Lady Gaga had regained her position, besting Spears by approximately 6,000 followers.

Gaga's still catching up to President Obama (he's a celebrity too), but she'll pass him as well, especially after the Dems get whomped in November.

AMAZINGLY RELATED: "Do States Ally Against the Leading Global Power?"

The Ground Zero Mosque Is Not a Bridge for Peace

From No Sheeples Here!

Hot Bikini Blogging!

This is a lot nicer than those awful Islamists (be sure to enlarge that), and Theo's got more.

Plus, Blazing Cat Fur is getting, well, even more blazing, "Because it's Friday.. and it's Opera Gloves! Huh?"

It's Rule 5 weekend, and I've got a treat for tomorrow in store, but in the meantime, dont' miss Bob Belvedere, The Classical Liberal, The Daley Gator, and Washington Rebel.

BONUS BLOG: Hall of Record.

Right. Right. They're Moderate Muslims. Got It...

Folks apparently have the goods on Imam Rauf (as if we didn't already). See, "Unmosqued: Steve Emerson Unearths Tapes of 'Moderate Bridge-Building' Imam Rauf" (via Memeorandum). The dude's down with Wahhabism (Islam's al Qaeda brand), Israel extermination, and 9/11, but hey, no need to quibble over the details:

Obama and the MFM staked the entirety of their credibility and judgment on the assertion that this was a moderate man interested only in peace, and of course in no way a supporter of terrorism, and anyone who suspected otherwise was an ignorant bigot with a heart full of hatred.

So let's see. Let's see.

Let's see whose judgment was sound and whose judgment was really full of ignorance and hatred -- hatred for the concerns of their fellow Americans.

CONTENT WARNING (Bare Naked Islam):

RELATED: At Political Byline, "The Classless Left: Exhibit S for Stupid" (on John Cole, whose blog Balloon Juice is the new sponsoring home for failed intimidation blogger E.D. Kain.)

Meg Whitman — 'Grand Jury'

I love the guys at Power Line, but this passage at their entry this morning really caught my attention:

I talked yesterday with a Minnesotan who recently attended a fundraiser for Meg Whitman, Brown's opponent in the race to be California's governor. He was blown away by Whitman's command of the issues and her commitment to get California's economy and educational system back on the track through free-market policies. A strong America needs a strong California.

Well, I haven't attended a fundraiser for Meg Whitman, but she sure talks the talk:

And I love her new radio ad buy (listen here):

Announcer: Meg Whitman takes a stand on stopping wasteful spending.

Meg Whitman: Everybody talks about waste, fraud and abuse in state government, but I have a plan to actually do something about it.

The Legislative Analyst's Office found that the Department of Education had 150 staffers working on programs it no longer administers.

Caltrans spent more than $3.4 million on one rest stop on I-80.

Welfare recipients were caught using cash benefit ATM cards in gambling casinos.

There are billions of dollars of fraud in Medi-Cal, In-Home Supportive Services and welfare alone. Enough is enough.

As governor, I will empanel a statewide Grand Jury of civic-minded Californians to go after waste, fraud and abuse.

This grand jury will have the power to indict and investigate at every level of the government.

The message will be very clear: If you're caught robbing the taxpayers, you'll go to jail.

That's my stand. What's yours?

Let me know at www.MegWhitman.com.

Announcer: Paid for by Meg Whitman for Governor 2010.

But I'm still not sold. I don't want to waste my vote, and I can see myself holding my nose and pulling the lever for Whitman, but I don't know if I'll be able to forgive myself in the morning:

Cee-Lo Green Jams 'F— You' Funky Smash Hit — Smooth-Style Jive Is Metaphor On That Hopey-Changey Thing

Hey, man, the change in my pocket wasn't enough for the Obamunists!

Meanwhile, "Obama's Approval Ratings Hit New Lows." You think?

And from the comments at Business Insider:

Obama is singing this song everyday thinking about the jobless Americans.

Hat Tip: AoSHQ.

Antiwar Traitor Jodie Evans Says U.S. Sailor 'Deserved to Die in Iraq' — Plus, Code Pink Hosting $500-Per-Person Fundraiser for Jerry Brown

In other big news today, "Code Pink Tells Gold Star Mom: Your Son Deserved to Die."

In 2008 they [Code Pink] barricaded the recruiting office in Berkeley with the blessing of the Berkeley City Council. We at Move America Forward had all we could stomach when we heard them tell the Marines they were unwelcome, unwanted intruders, not in Iraq or Afghanistan but on American soil in Berkeley, California. Americans from across the nation joined us in Berkeley to counter-protest these anti-war hippies. Numerous times they told me they support the troops but not the war, yet over and over when I asked if they had sent care packages, phone cards, written letters, or helped the families left behind in anyway, they conveniently couldn’t remember anything they had done. Yet they had a successful fundraiser to send $600,000.00 to our enemies in Iraq? Yet Jodie Evans and her Code Pink degenerates taunted me and made light of my son’s sacrifice telling me, “Your son deserved to die in Iraq if he was stupid enough to go over there.” It took every ounce of reserve in my body to not level these idiots to the ground. These same people who call terrorists “freedom fighters” says that my son, who gave up his life for their freedoms, deserved death.

Recall that I met Jodie Evans last year, when she declaimed media reports that Code Pink was "rethinking" its opposition to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. In fact, Evans' group had just returned from Afghanistan where they met with members of the Taliban, so chalk that up to inept messaging on her part, and that of her traitorous cohorts.

A few others are posting on this today. See Weasel Zippers, "Code Pink Taunted Gold Star Mom: “Your Son Deserved to Die in Iraq”…"

And at Power Line, "An Appalling Story":

This episode tells us something about Jerry Brown. He is sometimes viewed as a harmless eccentric, a left-over hippie, a crazy uncle who means well. But he is much worse than that. He is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, as shown by his willingness to align himself with the vicious anti-Americanism of the Code Pink loonies.

And also previously at Sweetness & Light, "Code Pink's 'Sugar Mommy' – Jodie Evans."

'American Power' Now Available at 'NewsReal Blog'

I'm pleased to announce that I'll be cross-posting some of my work at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog. I want to give a special thanks to Managing Editor David Swindle, who asked me to come on board at NewsReal.

My work is available at a number of locations around the sphere, and I'd like to extend a thank you to the folks at Pajamas Media, Right Wing News, and Theo Spark's for the opportunity to publish at those outlets as well.

Never give up the fight friends. And get into the arena if you're still sitting on the sidelines. There's a war of ideas to be won.

It Begins: 'WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Sweden With Rape' -- UPDATED!! Sweden Withdraws Arrest Warrant!

It's rape charges now. Later he'll be up for violating the Espionage Act and for providing material support to terrorism.

At New York Times (via Astute Bloggers and Memeorandum):

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden has issued rape and molestation charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose whistle-blowing website last month published secret U.S. military files on Afghanistan.

Assange, whose whereabouts were unclear, told WikiLeaks' Twitter page the charges were "without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

Assange was in Sweden last week to discuss his work and defend his intent to publish further documents on the war in Afghanistan.

He has close contacts in the Nordic country, which has some of the world's strictest laws on the protection of sources and where WikiLeaks also keeps many of its servers.

"We can confirm that he's wanted. He was charged last night -- the allegation is suspected rape," said Karin Rosander, Director of Communications at the National Prosecutor's Office.

"One is rape and one is molestation," she said. She did not elaborate.

WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter that it had not been contacted by police.

"We were warned to expect 'dirty tricks'. Now we have the first one," WikiLeaks, whose page has more than 100,000 followers, tweeted. It also provided a link to the right-leaning tabloid Expressen, which first published the allegations.

WikiLeaks was not available when contacted by Reuters and Stockholm police declined to comment.

There's a statement at the WikiLeaks blog. The Expressen article is here. And the conspiracy theories are already percolating: "Did US Government Fabricate Charges Against Julian Assange? WikiLeaks founder ‘Wanted In Sweden For Rape’ (UPDATE 9)."

**********

UPDATE: "Sweden withdraws arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder" (via Memeorandum). Sure. And of course this is just the beginning. Assange has some enemies out there (and he's still charged on lesser counts). The dude should watch his back.

Once More From New York Times (Sigh): 'U.S. Anti-Islam Protest Seen as Lift for Extremists'

Yep, from the same paper that repeatedly aids and abets global jihad, now we're told that Ground Zero Mosque opponents are "lifting extremists." This is truly perverted:

Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.

Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.

“I know people in this debate don’t intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks,” said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here.

He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification.

“When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it,” Mr. Fishman said.

Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks militant Web sites at the security consulting firm Flashpoint Global Partners, said supporters of Al Qaeda have seized on the controversy “with glee.” On radical Web forums, he said, the dispute over the Islamic center, which would include space for worship, is lumped together with fringe developments like a Florida pastor’s call for making Sept. 11 “Burn a Koran Day.”

Yes. Of course.

And who else does NYT cite as authoritative on "lifting extremists"? Well, an extremist, who else?

Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies said the outcry over the proposed center “plays into Awlaki’s arguments and Osama bin Laden’s arguments” by suggesting that Islam has no place in the United States.

She said that extreme anti-Muslim views in the United States ironically mirror a central tenet of extreme Islamists: “That the world is divided into two camps, and they’re irreconcilable, and Muslims have to choose which side they’re on.”

Not mentioned by NYT is that Mogahed has been denounced as a pro-sharia (yet well-spoken) Islamist fanatic working the inside angle to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. I mean, seriously, if these are America's "moderate Muslims," who needs global jihad? We'll just burn the house down from within, preparing the way for the next victory mosque on hallowed ground.

Thoughts on 'A Film Unfinished'

I make it a point to see most World War II films at the theaters. And I have a special interest in the Holocaust. As longtime readers may recall, my dissertation focused on the problem of "under-balancing" against the Nazi threat in Europe during the interwar period. And while not a subject of my research, the fate of the Jews has always animated my thinking on this topic, and of course in international politics more generally. It's pretty much the case that each new film dealing with WWII and the Holocaust is deeply moving (life-affirming and life-changing), and sometimes it seems each one improves on those before it in some ways. Commercial successes "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" showcased Steven Spielberg's masterwork on the war and Shoah. "The Pianist" was powerful in different ways, based on the life of Warsaw Ghetto survivor Władysław Szpilman --- although I get a creepy feeling seeing films directed by Roman Polanski, so while great, there's just something still not quite perfect about it. "Downfall" --- the German production on the last days of Hitler's Bunker --- was also different (being a German film, for one thing) and probably is one of the greatest war movies of recent years. There might be a few others more forgettable, and hence I'm forgetting them in this list. (And I'm deliberately omitting more commercial movies like Tom Cruise's recent "Valkyrie," which I thought excellent but in a different category from those highlighted here; and the more artsy "Life is Beautiful," both wonderful and comparable to those discussed above, is sometimes too fantastic and doesn't rank as one of the greatest for me).

Considering all of that, I'm sure Director Yael Hersonski's "A Film Unfinished" is the best Holocaust movie I've ever seen.

I've read all the news stories on the film highlighed at the homepage. Not to rehash, the key to the movie is the set of four reels of German propaganda footage that have never been put together for a single production. While widely seen in the Jewish film community, only snippets have been used in documentaries over time. Ms. Hersonski, a 34 year-old Israeli filmmaker, had worried that "there would be no Holocaust survivors left to bear witness to the atrocities they once experienced," so she saw in this recently discovered material the opportunity to make an existential commentary on the Jews and memory, the science of documentary filmmaking, and the aims of Nazi propaganda.

There is some mystery as to what exactly the Nazi propagandists were planning with the footage. A great deal of staging --- especially scenes of well-to-do Jews contrasted and combined with the poor and ragged --- was used most likely to make the case for a decadent, uncaring class of Jews indifferent to the death and dying of those with less. These families didn't in fact seem "rich" to me. They appeared the way I would expect Jewish people to live in 20th-century industrialized Poland. Perhaps there were some luxuries of furniture and style and cuisine, but these appeared not so socially exorbitant in isolation from the horrors of was happening without. In fact, perhaps it will take more viewings, but for me it's the 100 percent genuine documentation of man's inhumanity to man that is central to the experience of "A Film Unfinished." One word summed up the first half of the movie: starvation. The raw, searing clips of emaciated people, walking corpses many of them, is authentic by definition in this picture, and the viewer feels as though she's let in on a secret, since much of this kind of documentary record was destroyed. There is little physical violence perpertrated against the Jews by the Nazis seen here. It's the systematic killing by starvation that shocks the soul. Inhabitants of the ghetto received a ration of 186 calories a day. It was not known at first that the ghetto's population was to be deported to Treblinka. But we see dead bodies strewn along the sidewalks, and the most emotion generated by the film comes from the interviews with five Warsaw Ghetto survivors who agreed to watch the Nazi footage. This is astonishing filmmaking. And there's more to it, but I'll hold off on commenting on the final reel, which concludes the film.

Perhaps another Holocaust movie will come along and I'll say once again, "this is the best one I've ever seen." I don't know. I simply know that for me --- and for what I've experienced in my life, from childhood to my career --- it's been this question of Jewish 20th-century existentialism that has compelled a moral understanding of life and politics. Perhaps there are even bigger problems to humanity than the Holocaust. I think Yael Hersonski wants those who see this movie to remember and then apply their experience to improving the goodness of the world. But because there are so many things that are unique to this history, and because Americans are implicated in it in so many ways, I doubt that I'll lose my fascination with the topic any time soon.

RELATED: I posted the film's trailer previously here.

Desperate Democrats Invoke George W. Bush in New Campaign Ad -- UPDATED!! Dems Yank Ad! -- WAIT!! DNC Posts New Version!

Combine Bush-hatred and exteme political desperation and it looks like the Democrats have arrived on a party platform for November.

They're right, though: The choice is clear. We can vote for a president and party who are presiding over massive and rising unemployment nationally and in the high double-digits in Democratic states. The horrible job numbers are raising fears of a "double-dip" recession. More and more people have come around to the fact that the Democrats' vaunted "stimulus" didn't do jack. But when all else fails, blame the Congress! (Yeah, that'll work). Meanwhile, it can't be a good sign that the president's making the pitch to elderly voters hoping they'll remain in the Democratic column. This ain't Franklin Roosevelt's party no more, who can blame him?!! And don't even get me going about foreign policy! Sheesh, if Obama's losing key sectors of the U.S. electorate, at least his got Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest of global jihad in his corner. And he can claim a phenomenal record on facilitating Iran's acquisition of nuclear capabilities. That's nothing to blink at!! And darn, what is wrong with all of these respondents on Gallup's Ground Zero polling? "More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama Mosque Remarks." These people are dolts — dolts I tell you! The president even said it himself: "We are no longer just a Christian nation." I can't imagine a better rallying cry! What is wrong with you people? And you miss George W. Bush? Impossible!!

*********

Update: William Jacobson has the news, "DNC Pulls Bush Ad." (Via Memeorandum.) ... UPDATE II: Check William's post. It look like the DNC took the ad down to make revisions, but the Bush evocation remains. Hot Air Pundit has the full story.

Miranda Kerr Pregnant!

Hey, that's great news, and perhaps a quick post on the Victoria's Secret hottie and newlywed to Orlando Bloom might light up my Sitemeter a bit this weekend (and Linkmaster Smith's on the case as well). Besides, it's always nice to see this beautiful lady at these video clips:

Review — 'A Film Unfinished'

From Kenneth Turan, at LAT:

Squeezing half a million Jews into the 3 square miles of the Warsaw Ghetto led to almost unimaginable poverty and desolation. The beggars in pathetic rags, the starving people dying on the streets, the sick and destitute living in squalor, these make the most powerful of impressions.

Just as disturbing are the original footage's numerous close-ups of ghetto residents, close-ups that are simply awful to look at. Living faces haunted by knowledge of a sure death, these are among the most purely despairing images ever put on screen.

As bad, if not worse, are scenes that almost beggar description. There is the horrible humiliation of forcing women to disrobe and then filming them, clearly terrified, using a mikvah, or ritual bath. And shots of the numberless corpses piled one on top of the other in the ghetto's massive cemetery leave one speechless with despondency.

The Nazis, obviously, were not interested in a film that emphasized Jewish suffering. The aim of "The Ghetto," as far as can be determined, was to contrast this pain with the alleged callous indifference of better-off Jews, to show, as the voice-over says, "the paradise the Jews lived in." Only, there were no better-off Jews, let alone a paradise, which is where the Nazi fakery and manipulation came in.

Outtakes show that key scenes were staged over and over again from multiple angles. As a voice-over reading from the journals of Adam Czerniakow, the head of the ghetto's Jewish Council, makes clear, the sequences we see of Jews putting on evening dress to go to Champagne banquets were completely fabricated. As a survivor of the ghetto laconically says on watching a dinner with flowers on the table, "We would have eaten the flowers."

See also, NYT, "An Israeli Finds New Meanings in a Nazi Film."

I posted the trailer previously. I'll have some comments on the film later today.

The Rod Blagojevich Sleaze Show

Blago's just the headliner.

From Professor Charles Lipson, at Chicago Tribune, "Jersey Shore Politics in Illinois":

Rod Blagojevich may have escaped criminal conviction on most counts, but his trial offers no comfort to the state's long-suffering voters. It was a sleazy reality show, featuring insider deals and pay-to-play politics. Blago's closest aides either testified against him (acknowledging their role in a criminal conspiracy), or, like Tony Rezko and Stuart Levine, couldn't be trusted to testify.

And so ends another exciting season of Illinois' version of "Jersey Shore," starring the former governor as "The (Bad) Situation." On reality TV, the popular themes are casual sex and catty talk. In Springfield, they are sweetheart deals and cold cash, passed under the table or funneled into political campaigns. Friends of the governor whisper that the state is eager to fund your hospital, but first, let's discuss that $50,000 contribution you'll want to make to his campaign. Or maybe you'd like to hold a big fundraiser. Separate matters, ya understand. It's been a major national story for two years, and it makes Illinois a laughingstock. The joke, unfortunately, is on us, the state's voters and taxpayers.

Chicago has attracted the same kind of attention, and for good reasons. The city provides better services than the state — the parks are beautiful and the garbage gets picked up — but the corruption is just as bad. Aldermen are regularly carted off to jail for pocketing bribes, some 29 convictions over the past four decades. Hiring practices are notorious, despite federal rulings to restrict them. Mayor Richard Daley's former patronage chief, Robert Sorich, was convicted of rigged hiring. Al Sanchez, boss of the powerful Streets and Sanitation department, has been convicted of bribery and patronage. Sanchez helped create a vital cog in the Daley political machine, the Hispanic Democratic Organization, which collapsed when several big shots were implicated in crimes ranging from perjury and fraud to the Hired Truck scandal.

If bribery and patronage hiring aren't bad enough, consider the city's notorious zoning practices. Top real-estate lawyers won't go near these cases. Just ask yourself, why would the city's most prominent law firms pass up rich hourly fees? Why would they hold their noses, back away and refer clients to politically connected lawyers? Puzzling, huh?

The real issue here is political control over land use, which translates into ready money for politicians. Remember, each alderman essentially controls zoning in his own ward. Let's say your land is worth more — perhaps much more — if the city gives you permission to build what you want. Corrupt politicians will want to share this windfall. In exchange for a zoning variation, an alderman may want you to make a campaign contribution, hire her favorite law firm, buy insurance from her husband, or use her brother as your real estate agent. Insider contracts work the same way, effectively dividing the profits between politicians and connected businessmen. Politicians grant valuable favors and receive contributions in exchange.

More at the link.

I'm just tripping on Blago's trial. Ace of Spades has this: "Breaking: Blago Holdout Retired State Employee Who Once Handed Out Campaign Literature For Relative Seeking Office; NPR and Liberal Talk Radio Listener."

This woman, this ward-heeler's moll, just sprung a guilty man free and cost the taxpayers millions.

Professor Lipson notes that U.S. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been one "squeaky clean" exception to the Illinois machine, but his days of fighting corruption in the Land of Lincoln may be over. See New York Times (FWIW), "Blagojevich Trial Ends Fitzgerald’s Successes."

Who Knows Obama's Religion?

That's the major finding at Pew's recent survey, "Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim." Forty-three percent have no clue. Understandable too, since the guy hasn't really settled on one yet. He is leaning toward Islam, though. And more and more folks are starting to think so, and that's before he came out for the Ground Zero Mosque before he was against it. No wonder folks are in the dark. Obama's the Commander-in-Chief of Indecisiveness. Oh wait! Here's some decisiveness, or, well, maybe not. Shoot, I just don't know!

The Islamic Response to Pamela Geller

And this isn't Pamela's first death threat from Ibn Ali al-Turki, a.k.a, IslamicJihadi (background here).

The context is Pamela's entry yesterday, "Washington Post Headline Incites Violence Against Ground Zero Mosque Opponents." It turns out that Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post changed the headline of the recent article on Pamela and Robert. I commmented on it previously, although I didn't see the original title: "In flap over mosque near Ground Zero, conservative writers gaining influence." That was changed to "The pens of anti-Muslim conservatives impact N.Y.C. mosque debate mightily." And that's likely to incite jihadis to violence, the kind threaten above obviously with the Ibn Ali al-Turki. Pamela post Robert's letter to Ms. Boorstein of the Post:

Ms. Boorstein

Your article was silly and stupid enough as it was originally, especially with your misuse of my words about being deliberately provocative at the end, and your lazy repetition of the falsehood that Pamela Geller promoted the idea that Barack Obama is the son of Malcolm X.

But the new headline labeling us "anti-Muslim" is not just silly and stupid; it is malicious, libelous, and dangerous to us personally.

"Anti-Muslim" is a term that Islamic supremacists and their Leftist enablers like to use of people who are fighting for human rights against Sharia -- and it's easy to see why: it frames their opponents as "bigots" and "haters," takes the focus away from their anti-woman, anti-free speech, anti-free thought, anti-equality of rights agenda, and has the added bonus of stirring up their more bloody-minded coreligionists to violence.

And above all, despite the promiscuous Goebbels-style Big-Lie application of the term to Pamela Geller and me by the likes of Honest Ibe Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR and his tool Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, it simply isn't true. I am not "anti-Muslim." I am anti-Sharia, anti-jihad, anti-oppression, anti-terror, and you should be also.

I ask you to have the decency to correct this headline.

Robert Spencer

Revving Up Weekend Rule 5 — Maggie's Farm Guidebook Edition

Check Maggie's Farm for some mindblowing Rule 5.

And as usual, prepping for the Linkmaster Smith's Sunday entry. (And check Pirate's Cove for some of recent roundups.)

Plus, check American Perspective for some hot blogging.

**********

And be sure to visit some of other friends of American Power:

* Another Black Conservative.

* Astute Bloggers (Honorary).

* Blazing Cat Fur.

* Bob Belvedere.

* Cold Fury.

* Classical Liberal.

* Daley Gator.

* Left Coast Rebel.

* Mind Numbed Robot.

* Not a Sheep.

* Paco Enterprises.

* Panhandle Perspective.

* Political Byline.

* POWIP.

* Proof Positive.

* The Other McCain.

* Reaganite Republican (Honorary).

* Right Klik (Honorary).

* Saberpoint (Honorary).

* Serr8d (Honorary).

* Snooper's Report (Honorary).

* Stormbringer.

* Theo Spark.

* TrogloPundit.

* Washington Rebel.

* WyBlog.

BONUS: Don't forget Instapundit.

And drop your link in the comments to be added to the weekly roundups!

Google and Verizon's Scary Net Neutrality Plan

At Popular Science:

Google and Verizon announced a joint vision for the future of net neutrality this afternoon [August 9] -- a plan that may wield significant influence in the ever-intensifying debate over who controls the internet and its content. The plan calls for strictly regulated openness for today's wireline broadband--the DSL or cable internet you likely have at home. But for wireless networks ... the story is different.

For those that may be unaware of the issue, an exceedingly simplified fifteen-second net neutrality primer: The debate pits network providers (like Verizon) against companies and individuals who use said networks to deliver products and services to customers (like Google). As web applications become more central in nearly every aspect of public and private life, the network providers have grown increasingly interested in recouping the massive amounts of money they spend on building and maintaining network infrastructure by charging those companies who use an inordinate amount of bandwidth (like Google) for privileged access and delivery to customers. The internet has never worked this way, so the idea is obviously upsetting to many people, who cite the web's inherent openness as a key, if not the key detail that has allowed it to fundamentally change all of our lives in such a powerful way, and will allow it to continue to do so at the same breakneck pace in the future.

Google and Verizon's plan lays out specific rules to ensure that wireline internet services can not be used for any such tiered or paid access, and that all applications and services delivered over them (as long as they're legal) can be given no preference over any other traffic. That means established bandwidth hogs like YouTube and brand new bandwidth hogs built by Russian teenagers in their bedrooms like Chat Roulette will all get equal access to your eyeballs. This will also theoretically prevent broadband providers from intentionally limiting the speed of all BitTorrent traffic, something they've shown interest in doing in the past to avoid clogging their network with copyrighted materials; the protocol can just as easily be used legally.

But what has net neutrality activists worried--in my opinion, rightly so--is that in the new plan, almost none of these protections apply to wireless networks. Nor do they apply to a more ambiguously defined category of "additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV)" using current wireline networks.

But it's the wireless exemption that strikes the most worry in the hearts of free-internet proponents. As anyone watching the future of telecommunications and the internet will tell you, wireless web access will almost certainly one day overtake traditional wired networks as most people's primary means of getting online. With the last five years' explosion of smartphone usage, we're already watching this happen. Heck, if your home is in a good coverage area, it's entirely feasible today to scrap your monthly cable or DSL broadband services for something like a wireless MiFi hotspot from Verizon or Sprint for all but the most intensive surfing.

Should Google and Verizon's suggested plan be implemented, whoever beams the signal to your MiFi hotspot can shape the traffic of the web however they choose. This means blocking high-bandwidth sites like YouTube, giving preference to one streaming service over another (like only allowing Netflix's Watch Instantly vs. any other movie-streaming service), or blocking certain protocols like BitTorrent altogether.

I don't like the sound of it, especially given the Democrat Party's love of "net neutrality." See, "Sen. Smalley and the Left Are Wrong on Net Neutrality."

The Cordoba Conquest at Ground Zero

Steven Taylor has an essay up at Outside the Beltway: "Ok, So What is the Problem with Cordoba House?" Unfortunately, Taylor hasn't actually focused on the question. Instead he offers a blanket condemnation of opponents of mosque construction projects elsewhere (this is Taylor's attempt to identify alleged anti-Muslim bigotry). The problem, not address by Taylor, is that Cordoba is code word to Muslims for conquest and domination, and it's a term that's historically flexible, and hence a bit devious and subterranean. This is (one more reason) why there's a "Problem with Cordoba House." See David Stein at Yes, But, However, "The “Ground Zero Mosque” – The “Cordoba” Question":

I believe Imam Rauf’s “hypocrisy” has a purpose, and I think many of his critics have missed it. Remember – this is a man who has been feted by three White Houses (including the Bush White House). By using Cordoba as his brand, he can appeal to U.S. political leaders and radical Islamists at the same time. The Cordoba name conjures up images of tolerance and plurality and savagery and persecution, depending upon which century you focus on. It was meant to be a Rorschach test.

To denounce Rauf as an “extremist” is to miss the point. He is an opportunist, reaping the fruits of presidential dinners, White House engagements, and U.S.-sponsored trips abroad, while retaining enough “street cred” to avail himself of the funding opportunities that come from radical Islam (hence his refusal to condemn Hamas – to do so would completely kill his cred).

Mission Accomplished

GSGF dubs it the "Surge Climax."

It's a climax, alright, although I'd use a bit of a different metaphor than does GSGF. I'm thinking of a V-E Day comparison, although the politics of the Iraq war aren't so conducive to ticker-tape celebrations. I'd suggest the magnitude is comparable, even though the historical eras differed as much as the nature of the wars. Americans have much to celebrate in bringing American troops home and in leaving behind a democracy in Iraq that will stand on its own, even though tough challenges remain. And worth your while (surprisingly), at LAT, "Iraq In the Rear-View Mirror."

Mama Lionesses

William likes Mama Warthogs. But it's hard to beat this clip of a mama lioness killing a cheetah. And note: "Lionesses do the majority of the hunting for their pride, being smaller, swifter and more agile than the males, and unencumbered by the heavy and conspicuous mane, which causes overheating during exertion."

Don't mess with the mamas!