Memorial Day and Living for America

On Memorial Day, many Americans like to pause to remember those who have died defending our nation. It is certainly thanks to them that we enjoy the freedom and opportunity that we have. We remember those who have died in military service, but we need to also remember those who served and have not given their lives. Many of them have suffered, be it a crippling wound, or emotional damage due to traumatic experiences; though ready to die for America, they live for America.

For me, I also like to remember the sacrifices of non-military personnel. We have government agents, law enforcement personnel from around the country, and our nation's firefighters, to name a few. It is also thanks to their efforts that we have both a reasonable degree of freedom and a reasonable degree of security.

But, while we occasionally (certainly not often enough) devote our attention to those who have died for our country, how much appreciation do we have for those who live for our country?

What about people who warn us of government corruption and waste, and then suffer retribution? Often times, they make great sacrifices - their careers, their financial stability, sometimes their marriages - and are left in a situation of living a relatively miserable life. More often than not, this sacrifice is made in vain, as too often their warnings go unheeded.

Sibel Edmonds comes to mind as someone who suffered persecution because of trying to warn us of government corruption that has essentially neutered the FBI and seriously jeopardized national security due to illicit foreign influence of our elected and appointed government officials in Washington. Sibel's case is special for a few of reasons: one is the magnitude of the corruption she became aware of; another is the fact that she is not an American by birth, and yet has shown far greater devotion to this country than many people who are "Americans" by birth; a third reason is that, while Sibel has suffered persecution, in many ways she is far better off than others who tried to call attention to government corruption.

At this point, Sergeant Terrance Yeakey of the Oklahoma City Police Department comes to mind. He paid the ultimate price, not at the hands of foreign enemies on a battlefield, nor on the streets protecting us against common criminals, but brutally tortured and executed at the hands of criminal assassins working for corrupt elements in our government.

They are two whose names I know, whose cases I am reasonably familiar with.

But, let's see if we can name a few more heroes who have chosen to live for America.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld comes to mind here. She has devoted much of her time and intellect to studying how terrorism is financed. She has written extensively on the subject, and has been the target of lawsuits filed overseas, in foreign courts under foreign laws, attempting to silence her. Her work is very well documented, yet this matters not in some foreign countries, where her book was not even published; her book was available there via Internet sales, but that gave the enemies of freedom and of civilization the opportunity they needed to bring their tremendous financial resources to bear to try to intimidate and bankrupt Rachel through libel lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions where Rachel stood no chance. They then tried to apply their judgements against Rachel here in the US. Rachel has received some publicity and some support among legislators in this country, but she sacrifices every day on the front line defending our First Amendment rights. How many of us know her name, know of her sacrifices, or appreciate her? How many of us have contributed somehow to her fight?

Pamela Geller is another person who comes to mind. She is on the front line defending our country against a radical, imperialist ideology that seeks to enslave us and take us back to the Dark Ages, to a time when women are little better than property, and when discrimination based on ethnicity and religious belief is both rampant and severe. Pamela Geller devotes herself to warning the world about the threat posed by an increasingly radicalized and militant Islam.

These people are not perfect; they are humans, who make mistakes, who feel stress, who feel fear; yet, they make a sacrifice to do what is right despite the risks they run, including the risk of being cast out by the very society they are fighting to protect.

These people are heroes, every bit as much as those buried in our national cemeteries.

There are many, many whose names I have not mentioned.

Find someone whose sacrifice you appreciate, and thank that person. Don't procrastinate - you never know when someone will do a Terry Yeakey on your hero, and your chance to thank that person while he or she is still alive will be gone.

Vid: Mark Steyn's "End of the World"

Peter Robinson discusses The End of the World as We Know It with author Mark Steyn. It's got a great vid!

Some interesting quotes:

Peter: Segment one, the numbers. Let us just lay out the demographic argument. I will quote from America Alone. "This book is about the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resists its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and to call into question the future of much of the rest of the world including United States and Canada and beyond." The key factors are 1) demographic decline, 2) the unsustainability of advanced Western social democratic states, and 3) civilizational exhaustion. So we will take each of those in turn. Demographic decline. The argument.

Mark Steyn: Well Europe has simply given up for the most part having children. Uh, if you take the Mediterranean countries, for example, we tend to think of them in our stereotypical way as a "Big Fatten" cultures. Big Italian Mama’s, Big Greek Mama's, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Big Fat Greek loving family. In fact, they have collapsed birth rates. Germany, uh Japan, and Italy were already in net population decline. They have upside down family trees. There are four grandparents with two children and one grandchild. That does not have to go on for a long time until you are in serious trouble and you reach a point beyond, which you cannot recover. And that is where a lot of European countries are at now. And some of them have just gone out of business. If you look at Eastern Europe some of the countries that were, until 20 years ago part of the Soviet block, they gave up having children and there in population and there is no success of population. What happened in Western Europe is slightly different. Uhm, in effect, Western Europe imported a large Muslim population to be the children that could not be bothered having themselves.

Peter: And the Muslim birthrate is?

Mark Steyn: Well the Muslim birthrate is said to be because, you know, in a politically correct culture, they do not keep a lot of official figures on this, but compared to the ethnic European birthrate where they have 1.3 children per couple the Muslim, the estimated Muslim population is 3.5. Now the official British statistic from the official British government statistic office says the Muslim population of the United Kingdom is growing ten times faster than the general population. That does not have go on long uh, for the numbers to even add. If you say you have... I mean, people think it takes a long time, but if you say have a 90 percent population that is…let us not make it any kind of racial thing let us call them the munchkins. So 90 percent munchkins and they have 1.3 children and you have 10 percent ethnic minorities you can call them the _____ (00:03:41) call them whatever you want, but they have 3.5 children. That 90 percent and that 10 percent will have roughly the same number of grandchildren. So in other words in two generations is all you need and you have caught up.

Abortion isn't just killing innocent children; it isn't just proportionately wiping out Americans of African descent; abortion is a factor in killing Western society.

Farther down:

Peter: Joe Biden would know what that is. That is a big deal. Segment three: Civilizational exhaustion, again America Alone "A suicide bomber may be a weak weapon, but not against a weak culture." Explain that.

Mark Steyn: Yeah, the, essentially Islam has bet that we have expensive toys. We have got the best kind of aircraft carriers. We have got the best kind of tanks, we have got the smart bombs. Uh, but that is a short term advantage. If you want to pick a fight on a battlefield, if you want to pick a fight that is slightly more ambiguous that does not actually, never actually calls to force you up against onto the battlefield for a big tank battle. Then what matters is will. What matters is will. And they have bet that the west does not have the will to defend itself. And they see that everyday of the week. For example, in the way Comedy Central just a couple of days ago caved in and censored the show South Park. I do not really know much about South Park. I do not watch particularly, I do not have TV reception worth speaking of. But, I but, one thing that I do know is that ten years ago South Park was able to do a Muhammad joke and it went on the year and it was broadcast and nobody threatened to kill anybody over it. What has happened since then uh, is that we have taught these people a lesson that if you threaten to kill and you threaten to murder and you threaten to intimidate you do not actually have kill or murder anyone. The culture will just cave anyway.

In a quick fight, bet on tanks, planes, and so on. In a long-term fight, bet on industrial and economic power, population growth, and especially cultural and political will to fight.

Farther down:

Peter: Second cause of civilizational exhaustion. You argue and I quote again from America Alone "The population of wealthy democratic society expect to have total choice over their satellite TV packages yet think it perfectly normal to allow the state to make all the choices in respect of their health care. The torpor of the west derives in part of the annexation by government of most of the core functions of adulthood." Explain that one.

Mark Steyn: Well I do not think it is very difficult. If you take a picture of the average 13-year-old in California today and then you take a picture of a 13-year-old from my part of New Hampshire in 1878 just put those photographs side-by-side, which one would you be willing to leave your house to if you were to go away for a weekend. I do not think it is, I do not think it is a very difficult question to answer there. Now that is fine when you are 13. But what happens when you extend adolescence. The President of the United States has just told us that if you are 26 years old, you can stay on your parent’s health insurance, health insurance plan. So he has basically said at 26 you are still a child.

The truth is brutal.

Watch the vid, and read the book!

A Con Job

There has for some years in this country been a movement to have a Constitutional Convention.

This is a dumb idea.

The problem we have in Washington is not that we need to rewrite our Constitution; the problems are because our laws, most emphatically including our Constitution, are not being obeyed.

The federal government is radical and out-of-control. It has dramatically exceeded its authority in most cases, and is criminally negligent of many of its Constitutional duties.

Our system of "checks and balances" is broken because of excessive illicit money in politics; this includes flat-out bribery and kickbacks, as well as lobbying and other means of illicitly influencing Congress. Many Senators and Representatives vote the way a lobbying group advocates, then, upon leaving their stint of "public" service, they score cushy jobs working for these same lobbying groups; or, they support regulation favorable to an industry, then get rewarded later on by that industry. It's an obvious game they play. Nevermind drug money, the operations of foreign intelligence services, and so on....

The problem is not our Constitution; it is these people in Washington. If they would obey the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, America would be far better off. Instead, though they have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, they sell it - and us - out to the highest bidder, regardless of who that bidder is: foreign or domestic, legitimate or criminal.

Constitutional Convention - ConCon - is a con job if I've ever seen one. You the American people just voted for change you could believe in, and look what you got! Now, do you want the same people who sold you change in the Presidential election to sell you a change in your Constitution? Think about this one....

Besides, let's say we do change it, and somehow we change it for the better. The problem is still there: if we can't make them abide by the current Constitution, what makes you think you will make them abide by the new one?

As George Washington said:

"Should the States reject this excellent Constitution, the probability is, an opportunity will never again offer to cancel another in peace: the next will be drawn in blood."

A Constitutional Convention is a con job; rather than obeying the laws, they are manipulating you to rewrite the laws so what they do is less illegal.

A Constitutional Convention - ConCon - change you can believe in!

The OKBOMB and the TiNRATs, Part 4

(Prior to reading this, you may wish to review Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.)

I find several things interesting about the Oklahoma City Bombing of April, 1995.

Bill Clinton's first response was that he hoped there would be no Middle East connection. It was better for his domestic politics if he could blame the bombing on right-wing terrorists, and try to spin that in the direction of his critics (as if Rush Limbaugh were a terrorist). Then, despite the fact that the bombing was remarkably similar to the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, and indeed, even similar to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut ten years before that, the government investigation found no Middle East connection.

However, Jayna Davis, a local Oklahoma City investigative reporter, found extensive connections to the Middle East, and documented those connections exceedingly well in a book that she published - after, of course, she had presented her information to law enforcement and been turned away (several times) (link link link link link).

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher also had his office do an investigation, and his people came up with many of the same connections that Jayna Davis had come up with.

Terry Nichols had had an opportunity to meet with an Islamic terrorist bombmaker in the Philippines; there were ties to Al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

But the federal prosecution did not pursue this.

Why?

The following comes from PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF PETITIONER-DEFENDANT, TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT, MARCH 25, 1997, Part IX:

The inability of the defense to depose witnesses allowed the FBI to go back to key defense witnesses and intimidate them by asking for polygraph tests and telling them "you did not see what you claimed to have seen." The defense was also prejudiced because there was a massive overwhelming sense of collective judgment that the Defendant was guilty, and that was it. The trial would be simply to rubber stamp of the validity of the arrest and public relations campaign in the press that our client is guilty. Government agencies, and others, simply refused to consider the possibility of innocence, or that others might be involved, even a foreign connection. One wonders how many American have to die in the World Trade Center, over Lockerbie, in a military barracks in Saudi Arabia, or off Long Island to realize that there is nothing remote, fanciful or inconsistent about the same foreign hands (or others) being involved in the bombing of the Murrah Building.

Wow! The FBI involved, not in bringing all the bad guys to justice, but in obstruction of justice?

The government does not produce truly exculpatory evidence because it does not believe it exists. Or, if it exists, it is not credible (or so they claim). Either the Defendant has established that the material he seeks from the national intelligence agencies is exculpatory or he has not. If he has, then he needs a court order to pry it out, or at least, if that does not work, there will not be any dispute later as to what should have been done. The district court relied on good faith professed on the part of the prosecution, but the defense does not see any compelling need to rely upon the good faith of the Deputy General Counsel of the DOD, William Sheehan and his counterparts throughout the federal bureaucracy, because he does not have any. See D.E. 1923 (Exhibit "CC").

In fact, Mr. Sheehan's knowledge of his legal obligations under the Constitution is so wrong it is breathtaking in its audacity: The Department of Defense is not a party to this suit and is not bound by the Court's order. The last time the defense looked at the Indictment it was captioned "United States of America" versus Tim McVeigh, not 'The Department of Justice" versus Tim McVeigh. This district court's order of April 29, 1996 (D.E. 1310) directed a response from the government as a whole. To paraphrase a currently politically correct statement used in another context: the government agencies just don't get it.

Maybe somebody just didn't want to get it.

And, we have been letting the government get away with breaking the law for decades.

The US federal government is radical and out-of-control.

But, why? Why would the FBI obstruct justice instead of bring the bad guys in?

From Oklahoma City Bombing Witness Fears for Life; Sues Government, dated May 19, 1997:

KNEW OF PLOT

In his lawsuit, filed last January, [Cary James] Gagan asserts that he told the FBI in September 1994 that he had information on a plot to blow up a federal building, but that the FBI ignored his information.

The Denver Rocky Mountain News reported on August 11, 1995 that Jones said his team was contacted by a former FBI informant and told of the facts that Gagan provided to the bureau, specifically that a mid-West federal building was going to be bombed in April 1995 that the conspirators were Arabs, Latin Americans and Americans and that he was recruited to carry a detonator in a truck by these people.

Gagan claims that the FBI is covering up the bombing because highly-placed government officials and others are linked to the drug operation for which he worked.

Well, Gagan's lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal (link link link link). And, is that surprising? Sometimes an informant is a criminal who is selling out his criminal buddies - not the most reliable of sources. Is it possible Mr. Gagan is unreliable, and that his lawsuit was indeed frivolous?

But, is it really so far out of the realm of possibility that Mr. Gagan might be right? Highly-placed government officials were corrupt, linked to the drug operation for which Gagan worked - and, a thorough investigation of the bombing would lead to the drugs and to highly-placed officials who are on the payroll of organized crime.

So, the President, for domestic political purposes, wanted to limit the investigation to keep the Middle East out of it - stung by defeats of Democrats in the 1994 elections and looking forward to his 1996 re-election campaign, he knew that foreign affairs were not his strong point, but if he could channel the investigation against America's right wing, that might give him the leverage he needed. The bureaucracy went along with it, because too many of them were on the payroll of the organized crime entities that would have been exposed.

From Illicit Political Finance and State Capture (pg 6-7), by David Kupferschmidt of International IDEA, dated August 21, 2009 (emphasis in original):

State capture aims at systematically distorting or displacing the state through a clandestine parallel entity or entities,¹⁰ and may be classified as the most pernicious manifestation of political corruption. Although a better definition of the term is needed, its essence is 'shaping the formation of the basic rules of the game (i.e. laws, rules, decrees and regulations) through illicit and non-transparent private payments to public officials'.¹¹ It refers to a strategy by powerful actors to weaken, co-opt, disable or privatize governmental agencies, territory, and the state itself. Some commentators maintain that it is in the interest of clandestine groups and organized crime for the state to be functional,12 if only for the sake of greater profit. Such a relationship may be parasitical, particularly in more developed economies. In less-developed countries with weaker, vulnerable governments, the relationship with the host body may resemble malignant cancer. State capture is to be distinguished from petty corruption; it is manifested as meta-corruption, or grand corruption, in which illicit political finance is used to systematically control public institutions.

Grand corruption - dirty money which "is used to systematically control public institutions" - such as the Department of State, the Department of Justice....

Is this not what the Sibel Edmonds case is about?

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso, August 15, 2005:

SE: The fact that there are no investigations -- I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a "war on drugs," but said in the beginning, "right, we're only going to go after the young black guys on the street level." Hey, we already have tens of thousands of them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels...

It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis -- but never touch the guys on the top.

CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys, and where?

SE: Oh yeah, they know.

CD: So why don't they get them?

SE: It's like I told you before -- this would upset "certain foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling -- and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.

The money trail starts from drug- and weapons-smugglers; it leads in one direction to corrupt government officials, and in the other direction it leads to terrorists. Does that sound like what Mr. Gagan was alleging?

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SH: Well, if it's an overt act to benefit an American enemy then yes, that's treason.

SE: Correct, and I as I said, those lines are so blurry because there are certain countries that we call allies but I wouldn't call them allies, these people are, these countries are, quasi-allies.

SH: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?

SE: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the mid-1990s.

SH: So more career officials rather than political appointees.

SE: Or maybe a mixture of both.

The mid-1990's - that's about the time all this obstruction of justice with the Oklahoma City Bombing was going on.

From An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Three by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004:

CD: If your full testimony is heard by the public, who or what agencies are going to be in the biggest trouble?

SE: Well, as for agencies I guess the DOJ, FBI, State Department. But in a way these agencies get some kind of immunity when you charge them like this ... I hate to see how a lot of agents get stigmatized in this. Most of the field agents I met in the FBI were good, honest and hardworking individuals. They were trying to do their best, but up against this ingrown bureaucracy – this is where you have the problem, as well as with certain elected officials.

CD: What are they so afraid of?

SE: They're afraid of information, of the truth coming out, and accountability -- the whole accountability issue that will arise. But it's not as complicated as it might seem. If they were to allow the whole picture to emerge, it would just boil down to a whole lot of money and illegal activities.

CD: Hmm, well I know you can't name names, but can you tell me if any specific officials will suffer if your testimony comes out?

SE: Yes. Certain elected officials will stand trial and go to prison.

There's a good reason for Bill Clinton (and others in Washington) to not want a Middle East connection to this bombing.

And, there's a good reason to torture and murder Sergeant Terrance Yeakey of the Oklahoma City Police Department.

More to follow....

Facebook Group: Justice for Terrance Yeakey

I started a new group on Facebook called Justice for Terrance Yeakey. Here is the (slightly edited) post explaining the purpose of the group.

Police Officer Terrance Yeakey was one of the first responders on the scene of the Oklahoma City Bombing on April 19, 1995. He worked heroically in the aftermath of the bombing; eventually, he received awards and honors for this. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant, and was preparing for a final interview to join the FBI, when he was found dead; his death was ruled a suicide.

His method of suicide was rather bizarre. Apparently, he:

- beat himself up severely
- slashed his own wrists and arms
- stabbed himself in the neck on both sides
- tied himself up with rope leaving rope burns
- may have dragged himself behind his car
- handcuffed himself and dragged himself from his car to a place over a mile away
- shot himself in the head with a pistol from an angle of 45 degrees above horizontal without leaving any powder burns
- uncuffed himself and disposed of the pistol, and
- left his own body in the middle of nowhere.

Some of our suicidal hero's last thoughts include these, written in a letter to a victim of the bombing who had been questioning the official story surrounding the events:

"The man that you and I were talking about in the pictures I have made the mistake of asking too many questions as to his role in the bombing and was told to back off..."

It is my hope that this group will attract people who think for themselves, and who question what they are told. I most emphatically hope that they will question what they are told by me, as well as by others.

At my profile and on my blog, I have the following statement:

"Only in the crucible of free debate can fallacies be burned away and the truth become known; anyone who seeks to limit the debate seeks to impose upon us a lie."

For this reason, the group membership is open to anyone. That includes people with strange, even silly ideas; that includes people whose purpose is to deceive others, bury the truth, discredit this group, and perpetuate what is obviously a lie.

I am not afraid of this; I invite it.

Anyone can step outside and see the Sun goes around the Earth. It took people with intelligence and insight, and above all with courage, to question our understanding of the world around us and come to a different conclusion: the Earth revolves around the Sun, and rotates about its own axis. This radical, revolutionary idea was threatening to society, so its adherents needed the courage to challenge everything they believed and everything they were told by those in power - despite persecution by society and government. This idea was one of many crazy ideas that have floated around over the centuries, but it was true, and ultimately, the truth prevailed.

Similarly, the official story of what happened in Oklahoma City is not totally true, which means that at least part of it is a lie - a lie that we are expected to believe, literally under threat of death.

The message behind the execution-style torture-murder of OCPD Sergeant Terrance Yeakey is obvious: "If we can do this to him and get away with it, we can do this to anyone and get away with it." When you consider what Sergeant Yeakey's murder might have helped cover up, the message becomes far more ominous.

My message to those responsible is the following:

This crime against Sergeant Terrance Yeakey goes far beyond the murder of one man. It goes far beyond the murder of a cop. This is an attack on the very best of America's Thin Blue Line; this is an attack on what is right with our system. This is an attack on everything that makes America worth living for, and this is an attack on everything that makes America worth dying for. As the Lord lives, this crime will not go unpunished; you will be brought to justice, and your criminal organization will be brought to its knees.

One of my Facebook friends is already a member. That makes two of us. If you have a Facebook account, please join. It's been just over fourteen years since Sgt. Yeakey was tortured and murdered. Justice has been denied by government lies long enough. We need to let the guys who did this know we're on our way.

So Far From God: Jamaican Interlude

We begin with Part 1 of a multi-part article entitled Jamaica attacks: a legacy of ties between politicians and gangs, dated May 25, 2010 (please see original for links that I have not reproduced):

When the US presses for the extradition of an alleged drug lord from Jamaica, it might seem a straightforward request.

But as the Jamaica attacks of the past three days have demonstrated, dealing with organized crime in Jamaica is full of perils, from gangs that have the muscle to stand up to the state, to gang-leaders who have helped put members of the political elite in office. And this sort of stand off has happened before.

Three days of violence since Prime Minister Bruce Golding said his government would abandon its nine-month fight to prevent the extradition of alleged Shower Posse boss Christopher "Dudus" Coke to the US have claimed at least 31 lives in Kingston. The US alleges (pdf download of US indictment) that Mr. Coke presided over a drug empire that imported tens of millions of dollars of cocaine and marijuana into the US between 1994 and 2007, and reexported both money and US guns to Jamaica.

Most of the fighting has been in and around the Shower Posse stronghold of Tivoli Gardens, one of Kingston's so-called garrison communities, but has also involved an attack on a downtown Kingston police station by what Jamaican authorities said were Coke loyalists from the Shower Posse (so-named when it was founded roughly 30 years ago because it "rained bullets" on its enemies). Coke is believed to be holed up in Tivoli.

The problem is serious for a variety of reasons.

First, there is the connection that organized crime in Jamaica has to Jamaica's politicians. From Jamaica's Prime Minister Expresses 'Profound Regret' for Extradition Fight, Manatt Hiring, dated May 19, 2010 (again, see original for links):

In a televised speech to his country Monday, Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding said he would finally turn an alleged international drug lord over to U.S. authorities and offered his "deepest apologies" for dragging out the extradition dispute and hiring Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby in connection with it.

But even as he announced that he was ready to end the nine-month-long standoff over whether Christoper "Dudus" Coke would indeed be extradited to the U.S., Golding continued to insist that it was his ruling Jamaica Labour Party -- not the Jamaican government itself -- that hired Manatt and paid the firm roughly $50,000 to intervene in the matter with U.S. officials.

Nonetheless, Golding, who said his offer to resign his post over the Coke-Manatt matter had been rejected by JLP leaders, said the entire episode had been a mistake and that it was time to move on.

"In hindsight," the prime minister said, "the party should never have become involved in the way that it did and I should never have allowed it, but I must accept responsibility for it and express my remorse to the nation."

Local media reported late Tuesday that Jamaican officials had in fact signed the extradition order for Coke and obtained an arrest warrant. Other outlets reported that residents of the West Kingston neighborhood the alleged strongman is said to rule had barricaded local streets and were bracing for violence as a result.

Golding's Monday announcement came less than a week after he admitted sanctioning the hiring of Manatt for lobbying help in connection with Coke, indicted last August by federal prosecutors in Manhattan on drug and gun trafficking charges and labeled by the U.S. Department of Justice as one of "the world's most dangerous narcotics kingpins."

Why would people barricade streets and fight for a drug trafficker?

We get an understanding of the rationale behind his support from Jamaica Police Gain Hold on Drug Lord's Stronghold, dated May 26, 2010:

Indiscriminate Shootings

Government officials told reporters all the dead civilians in West Kingston were men. But distressed people inside the slums who called local radio stations asserted there had been indiscriminate shootings during the all-out assault that police and soldiers launched Monday.

Security forces on Tuesday only permitted two government investigators and Red Cross staff to enter the Tivoli Gardens area, where supporters of Coke began massing last week after Golding dropped his nine-month refusal to extradite him to the U.S. Coke has ties to Golding's Labour party, and Tivoli Gardens delivers significant votes for it.

Coke was still at large despite the assault on his stronghold, National Security Minister Dwight Nelson said.

The gunmen fighting for Coke say he provides services and protection to the poor West Kingston community - all funded by a criminal empire that seemed untouchable until the U.S. demanded his extradition.

The government is corrupt, with ties to the drug traffickers, so by supporting the government, are the people really fighting crime? To be sure, the people complain that government forces are trigger-happy - something the local crime syndicate probably is not in a neighborhood where their boss lives. Finally, the local crime boss is, as pointed out in the last paragraph, providing government-type services in these neighborhoods - something the politicians don't do.

Consequently, the locals probably feel the crime boss is by far the lesser of two evils.

And, don't think this is an isolated set of circumstances.

The phenomenon of organized crime taking over entire neighborhoods is nothing new. Indeed, organized crime has taken over entire nations - and not just tiny dot-on-a-map island nations. Do an internet search on the expression "state capture" and see what you come up with. Here's a paper that you could start with.

This is the problem facing us in the Balkans with Kosovo, this is the problem developing in Mexico, and this is the problem we have been battling in South America; this is the problem we face in Afghanistan, and this problem is taking deep roots in America's own deep politics.

The Patriotic Song, Part 2

We began with Part 1, where we considered the most recent crisis in Korea over the sinking of the South Korean corvette by a North Korean torpedo - an obvious act of war. Specifically, I was wondering what would happen, even as I was strongly suggesting nothing would.

I would now like to call your attention to Seoul plotted a course through crisis by Andrei Lankov at Asia Times Online, dated May 25, 2010. In it, the author makes the point that South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak was handed a lose-lose situation. Essentially, military retaliation would serve no international purpose, as, even if successful and without losses to South Korea, Pyongyang would still be able to deny losses to its own people, and paint Seoul (and the US) as the aggressors. On the other hand, there would be domestic pressure on President Lee for some kind of reaction; anything Lee did would weaken his hand domestically in the run-up to elections in June. [These elections are for mayors, governors and such - kind of a combination between off-year and odd-year elections in the US.] Lankov makes the case that President Lee is in fact maneuvering quite adeptly in this political situation; though he might not emerge as the winner, Lee could at least emerge as the survivor. Please read Seoul plotted a course through crisis for yourself, as my synopsis does not do it justice.

Meanwhile, though, how goes the crisis beyond Seoul? From DPRK decides to sever all inter-Korean relations, dated May 25, 2010:

PYONGYANG, May 25 (Xinhua) -- A spokesman of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea announced on Tuesday the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will sever all the relations with South Korea, the official KCNA news agency reported.

The DPRK decided to take "resolute measures" to totally freeze the inter-Korean relations, abrogate the agreement on non-aggression between the two sides and completely halt the inter-Korean cooperation, the spokesman said in a statement.

Among the eight measures to be taken at the first phase, all the relations with South Korea will be cut off, and the work of the Panmunjom Red Cross liaison representatives will be completely suspended, said the statement.

The South Korean personnel in the Kaesong Industrial Zone will be expelled, it added.

"The passage of South Korean ships and airliners through the territorial waters and air of north side will be totally banned," said the statement.

Big deal! North Korea sank a South Korean warship, and now they're getting away with it. This is just tit-for-tat stuff here, in reaction to the South's slightly toughened position. From ROK president gives nod to calling DPRK "main enemy", dated May 25, 2010:

SEOUL, May 25 (Xinhua) -- South Korean President Lee Myung-bak on Tuesday gave his backing to readopting the official description of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) as the "main enemy," following Seoul's public accusation of its northern rival of deliberately sinking its warship in March, local media reported.

"Our military failed to clarify the notion of the main enemy for the past decade," Lee said at a meeting with senior opinion leaders including former prime ministers and parliament speakers, according to Lee's office.

"We've been only focused on potential threats outside the Korean peninsula," he added.

The remarks come as the government is reportedly moving to revive the controversial concept of the "main enemy" in its biennial defense white paper, the first time in six years, as it concluded last week that Pyongyang was behind the sinking of the warship that killed 46 sailors.

Seoul has announced a series of punitive measures against the DPRK a day ago, which include anti-submarine drills with the United States, ban on access of DPRK vessels to South Korean waters and halt of almost all bilateral trade relations and exchanges.

But, what are they going to do about it?

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut (which I already am, by the way), let's consider what the North has been saying about this. From DPRK dismisses S. Korean warship investigation as unilateral, dated May 25, 2010:

PYONGYANG, May 25 (Xinhua) -- A military commentator of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Tuesday said the investigation of the sinking of South Korean warship Cheonan was unilateral and not objective, the official KCNA news agency reported.

The investigation was "not conducted on a scientific basis," but unilaterally done to serve the purpose of South Korea, KCNA quoted the anonymous commentator as saying in an article to "disclose the truth behind the story about the north's torpedo attack on Cheonan."

"It was not objective but was based on bias and arbitrariness," he said, accusing the result of the probe as "a lie."

The commentator said the result of the investigation was "sheer fabrication," and that evidence, including "a small amount of powder ingredients," "alloy fragments" and a 1.5m-long rear part of a torpedo with letters "No. 1" written in the "writing style of the north" aroused strong doubts.

I don't for a moment suspect that North Korea is innocent. I would like to point out, though, that at first, I believed our own government's story about the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attack on the WTC - so, I can be fooled.

Having said that, what if this really is a scheme by someone in Seoul to rally everyone around the ROK flag? The Nazis faked an attack by Poland to have a pretext for invading Poland. In America, we have questions about the sinking of the USS Maine, about whether all that was possible was done to prevent the attacks on Pearl Harbor or 9/11...

(Attention President Lee: Please do not be offended. I in no way meant to compare you to Hitler, or even to America's own crooked politicians. I was merely pointing out some historical events that are known or suspected to not have happened they way we have been told by the officials of some governments.)

If this were some South Korean scheme for political purposes, with a goal of consolidating domestic political power, then the limp reaction we see from South Korea would make sense.

Of course, it makes far more sense to take it at face value: North Korea slapped the South in the face (for whatever reason), and knows they'll get away with it; the South's President Lee is maneuvering adeptly in treacherous political waters.

Hmmm...

You know, some of what I read about the markings on that North Korean torpedo does sound a little suspicious...

Of course, who in the world would stick up for Pyongyang?

You don't have to stick up for our Dear Leader, but at least stick around for Part 3!

Their Court, Not Ours

There is a most excellent article by Aaron David Miller over at Foreign Policy, entitled The False Religion of Mideast Peace - And Why I'm No Longer a Believer. It is a several-page article; please read the entire article, carefully.

As the title alludes to, the author describes the Mideast peace process as being like a religion; a key quote can be found on the first page:

Like all religions, the peace process has developed a dogmatic creed, with immutable first principles. Over the last two decades, I wrote them hundreds of times to my bosses in the upper echelons of the State Department and the White House; they were a catechism we all could recite by heart. First, pursuit of a comprehensive peace was a core, if not the core, U.S. interest in the region, and achieving it offered the only sure way to protect U.S. interests; second, peace could be achieved, but only through a serious negotiating process based on trading land for peace; and third, only America could help the Arabs and Israelis bring that peace to fruition.

I can't help but wonder...

What are America's vital national security interests in having a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Quite frankly, I can't think of any. Here are two I've ruled out:

1) Islamic terrorism targets us and the Israelis because we are all infidels; our support for Israel just gives them an excuse to do what their prophet commanded centuries ago. Now that Islam is getting entrenched and radicalized in Europe and even America, no amount of sucking up to some sheikhs in the Middle East is going to call off the dogs already at our throats.

2) If the region suddenly shut off its flow of oil going out, the world would shut off its flow of dollars, euros, yuan, and so on going in; Islamic terrorism would be left unfunded by Saudi petrodollars, and Saudi Arabia has no other source of income - there would be a quality-of-life issue for all the princes. We will get our oil from somewhere, and they will export their oil to someone. They can't sustain an embargo against the rest of the world over problems with or our support for Israel.

If peace is to be had, the warring parties are the ones who have to want it. Right now, there are too many Arab rulers happy to have the Israeli issue take attention off their own corruption and decadence, and too many crazy jihadis who want to drive the Jews into the sea. And, there is certainly a disproportionately powerful group of Israelis who believe God gave them certain lands, and that they therefore have a divine right to drive the Arabs out into the desert.

If they're not ready to make real peace, then maybe they need to make real war for a while until they're more motivated. America can maybe help with that peace process, but the ball is in their court, not ours.

Pamela Geller's Speech at Tennessee Tea Party

Please go to Atlas Shrugs and leave a comment at Pamela's post, from which I shamelessly liberated this vid.

While there, please hit Pamela's tip jar, so she can continue fighting the good fight.

Freedom vs. Submission, and a Tea Party

Here are some interesting thoughts from MEMRI Video Clip #2480 - Yemeni-American Jihadi Cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki in First Interview with Al-Qaeda Media Calls on Muslim US Servicemen to Kill Fellow Soldiers (transcript) dated May 23, 2010:

Interviewer: You are accused of involvement in 14 cases [of terror], in the US, Canada, and Britain. Is there any truth in these allegations, which have been spread by the media, and what are the reasons for this onslaught?

Anwar Al-Awlaki: This onslaught is because I am a Muslim who calls to Islam. They are accusing me of incitement. Nidal Hasan, Umar Farouk, and the other cases that you mentioned – the common denominator between them is incitement. Incitement to what? Incitement to Jihad, and to the Islam revealed by Allah in the Koran and in the Sunna of His Prophet. That is the accusation. The Americans do not want an Islam that defends the causes of the Islamic nation, or an Islam that calls for Jihad, for the implementation of the shari'a, and for the Doctrine of Allegiance and Disavowal. These are gates of Islam that they do not want opened, and they do not want people to be called to them. They want an Islam that is American, liberal, democratic, peaceful, and civilized, as has been mentioned and promoted in some of their reports, for instance, in a report by the Rand Corporation. Today, [Islam] has jurisprudence of honor, which demands justice, as well as jurisprudence of ignominy and a culture of servility. A high-ranking CIA official says: If we are faced by a Mullah Omar, we will confront him with a Mullah Bradley... It's an American name.

[...]

This war over the hearts and minds of the Islamic world has reached its peak. Today, the US is trying to promote a false Islam, just as their forefathers falsified Christianity and Judaism. Now they want to falsify Islam – but the religion of Allah is safeguarded. Today, we have a jurisprudence of honor, which is promoted by some Islamic preachers and activists, like yourselves, in Al-Qaeda. Your discourse is an example of the jurisprudence of honor. Take, for instance, what Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri said to Obama. He said to him: "Mr. Obama, may Allah bring about the downfall of the US at the hands of the mujahideen. That way, we – along with the entire world – will find relief from your evil." This is an example of the discourse of honor.

Skipping down:

Interviewer: Do you support such operations, even though they target what the media calls "innocent civilians"?

Anwar Al-Awlaki: Yes. With regard to the issue of "civilians," this term has become prevalent these days, but I prefer to use the terms employed by our jurisprudents. They classify people as either combatants or non-combatants. A combatant is someone who bears arms – even if this is a woman. Non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war. The American people in its entirety takes part in the war, because they elected this administration, and they finance this war. In the recent elections, and in the previous ones, the American people had other options, and could have elected people who did not want war. Nevertheless, these candidates got nothing but a handful of votes. We should examine this issue from the perspective of Islamic law, and this settles the issue – is it permitted or forbidden? If the heroic mujahid brother Umar Farouk could have targeted hundreds of soldiers, that would have been wonderful. But we are talking about the realities of war.

[...]

For 50 years, an entire people – the Muslims in Palestine – has been strangled, with American aid, support, and weapons. Twenty years of siege and then occupation of Iraq, and now, the occupation of Afghanistan. After all this, no one should even ask us about targeting a bunch of Americans who would have been killed in an airplane. Our unsettled account with America includes, at the very least, one million women and children. I'm not even talking about the men. Our unsettled account with America, in women and children alone, has exceeded one million. Those who would have been killed in the plane are a drop in the ocean.

Anwar Al-Awlaki is very straight-forward about what he wants: dead Americans. He sees America as fundamentally opposed to Islam - and it is. Islamic law goes counter to the tenets upon which America was founded; Islamic law is unconstitutional. The only way for this guy's Islam to win is for the America we know to be destroyed. Even this socialized big-government Obamacare has to go for this guy's Islam to win.

Another comment Anwar Al-Awlaki made was about American freedom:

[US Muslim] organizations used to support the Jihad in Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, and in Palestine. I was there, in America, at that time. We used to call from the pulpits to everything in Islam: Jihad for the sake of Allah, the establishment of the Caliphate. Allegiance and Disavowal. We could speak freely. The freedom in America allowed us to say these things, and we had much more freedom than in many of the countries of the Islamic world.

Now, contrast what the Caliphate enjoys when preaching the destruction of America to what the Caliphate wants when someone dares to speak out against the subjugation planned for them by Islamic holy warriors. From GOP Rep. Defends Anti-Islam Tea Party Speaker, dated May 21, 2010:

Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa) has rejected calls by a Muslim rights organization to drop out of a Tennessee Tea Party convention this weekend because of the participation of an activist-blogger who's railed against Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) pressed Tea Party organizers to disinvite Pamela Geller, head of the group Stop the Islamization of America, and asked King to cancel his participation in the event if she remained on the program.

The Tea Partyists stuck to their guns, and Pamela Geller spoke. You can find part of the story of how that went in a post at Pamela's blog, Atlas Shrugs.

You will also find a link to Atlas Shrugs in my sidebar. When it comes to blogs, I link to different blogs for different reasons, not necessarily as an endorsement of what they say, or because I even like them. Though there is nothing in the sidebar to indicate this, Atlas Shrugs is a blog I proudly link to. Pamela Geller is smart and well-informed, and if we ignore what she has to say about Islam, we do so at our own risk.

As Pamela herself puts it:

I am not anti-Islam, I am pro-freedom. I am against Islamic supremacism and sharia law.

I now reiterate what I wrote in my previous post:

Only in the crucible of free debate can fallacies be burned away and the truth become known; anyone who seeks to limit the debate seeks to impose upon us a lie.

The choice, as I see it, is between freedom to speak the truth, and submission to a lie. Islam means "submission", so guess which side the Mohammedans must be on.

A Winner?

Details.

Only in the crucible of free debate can fallacies be burned away and the truth become known; anyone who seeks to limit the debate seeks to impose upon us a lie.

So Far From God: Intermezzo

First, a vid. Here is the link where I found it, Drug-Crazed Mexican Pirates Terrorize Texas Boaters, which itself links back to the source, Pirates terrorize boaters on Texas lake, dated May 20, 2010:



For further background, we review Pirates plying the waves of Falcon Lake, dated May 18, 2010:

McALLEN — Heavily armed Mexican freshwater pirates have been shaking down U.S. boaters on Falcon Lake, a reservoir and bass fishing haven that straddles the Rio Grande.

At least three such incidents have been reported since April 30, the latest on Sunday, according to a Texas Department of Public Safety warning issued Tuesday that linked the muggings to northern Mexico's increasing lawlessness.

According to descriptions of the incidents, the robbers — in at least one case posing as Mexican federal law enforcement officers — searched fishermen's boats for guns and drugs, then demanded cash at gunpoint.

One of the incidents reportedly occurred on the U.S. side of the lake.

"The robbers are believed to be members of a drug trafficking organization or members of an enforcer group linked to a drug trafficking organization who are ... using AK-47s or AR-15 rifles to threaten their victims," the DPS statement said. "They appear to be using local Mexican fishermen to operate the boats to get close to American fishermen."

In other developments, over half the police force of one Mexican town have quite due to the threat of drug violence. From Mexican town's police force quits after ambush, dated May 19, 2010:

MEXICO CITY -- Most of a small Mexican town's police force has quit after armed men ambushed and wounded two of their officers.

The resignation of six of the 11 municipal officers in La Union Monday evening comes after several other Mexican towns have seen mass police resignations because of cartel violence or threats.

State police in Guerrero, which La Union is located, said Tuesday that it has deployed 20 of its officers to patrol La Union until further notice.

The resignations came two days after their colleagues were ambushed and left La Union's police force with five members: the chief, the deputy chief, an officer in charge of weapons logistics and the two wounded officers who are hospitalized.

Meanwhile, people in some Mexican towns have begun taking the law into their own hands.

In Mexico State, on the outskirts of Mexico City, authorities said Tuesday that residents of a town beat a man death on suspicion of robbing a young couple of 200 pesos (about $16) and a cell phone Monday.

The suspect and an accomplice allegedly held up the couple with a knife and what later was found to be a toy gun.

About 300 people pursued the two men, caught one and beat him so badly with sticks and fists that he died in an ambulance, officials said.

Finally, Mexico's President Calderón is sadly blaming the US for the flow of weapons to the cartels. From Calderón urges U.S. to ban assault rifles, dated May 21, 2010:

WASHINGTON — Mexican President Felipe Calderón urged U.S. lawmakers Thursday to restore a controversial assault weapons ban, saying easy U.S. availability of the high-powered firearms contributes to the escalating violence in his country.

Calderón said an increase in drug cartel killings began after Congress lifted the ban in 2004. Today, he said, gangsters point the guns at not only rivals but Mexican authorities and civilians.

"There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation, and that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border," Calderón told a joint session of Congress.

We, of course, know that the weapons are in fact military grade arms that have been sold by many countries, including the US, to foreign militaries, and from there have been resold to Mexico's cartels - but let's not permit truth to interfere with sound politics!

In a 40-minute speech, he also took pointed exception to Arizona's crackdown on immigrants and urged the United States to work with Mexico to fix a broken immigration system.

The comments brought a swift rebuke from House and Senate Republicans, who accused the Mexican president of meddling in U.S. affairs.

"It is inappropriate for President Calderón to lecture Americans on our state and federal laws," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "Moreover, the Second Amendment is not a subject open for diplomatic negotiation, with Mexico or any other nation."

The assault weapons ban was first approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. But some of its supporters paid a political price, and Republicans gained control of the House that year with the help of the gun lobby.

Calderón acknowledged the political sensitivity of the issue, and said he respects the U.S. Constitution and its guarantee that citizens can defend themselves and their nation.

"But believe me, many of these guns are not going to honest American hands," Calderón said. "Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals."

Yeah, but not via lawful sales to law-abiding US citizens, who are buying weapons individually. The cartels are buying them in quantity, and get wholesale prices on the world market; they're not smuggling them down from the US in ones and twos, they're bringing them in from Asia and Africa by the boatload.

Mexico has seized 75,000 firearms over the past three years, he said, and 80 percent of them were traced to the United States. Some 7,000 gun shops and dealers dot the border from Brownsville to San Diego, Calif., Calderón said.

Research that "80%" statistic and see what you come up with.

Just another tequila sunrise? ;)

On The Eighth Day, Part 1

In the beginning was a world
Man said: Let there be more light

From Playing God? Scientists Create Artificial Life, May 21, 2010:

WASHINGTON -- It's the kind of experiment once only imagined in the movies. For the first time, a team of scientists have produced a living cell powered by manmade DNA.

"One that we made by starting with the genetic code in the computer, four bottles of chemicals and building every one of the million-plus base pairs in the right order, and then finally having this large molecule, inserting it in a recipient cell," geneticist J. Craig Venter explained.

The bacterium is then transformed into a completely new species and reproduced billions of times.

Against Nature?

Venter says the project is the first step towards the ultimate goal of designing organisms that work differently from the way nature intended.

The cells could be used to turn algae into fuel, manufacture vaccines, and to even clean up oil spills.

However, in the hands of bioterrorists, the discovery could have devastating effects, perhaps allowing them to create a deadly new virus.

The Ethics Issue

There is also the question of ethics. Hollywood films have long portrayed such scientific endeavors as lunacy or as men attempting to 'play God.'

"We don't know what will happen with these novel organisms, or even novel species in the future, once they're released into nature," said Jennifer Miller, founder of Bioethics International. "So, we don't know the effects on overall ecology or even the health of man as we continue to move forward in these scientific developments."

Just how sophisticated is this synthetic cell? Its DNA sequence is more than one million base-pairs long. By comparison, the "human" genome is far larger - more than three billion base-pairs long.

Scientists still have a lot of research to do before the discovery creates anything useful. But it has already changed the world of science forever.

Oil-eating bacteria could clean up our oil spills - though, what further impact would they have on the environment?

Or, bacteria could eat algae and "urinate" fuel for us - though, if loosed in the sea, could they not render our oceans unable to support life?

Wisely done, this is risky business.

I think it is safe to say - and has been safe to say for some time now - that our knowledge has far outgrown our wisdom.

This is yet another series I begin - and who knows where it will lead?

;)

And he said: Behold what I have done
I've made a better world for everyone
Nobody laughs, nobody cries
World without end, forever and ever
Amen, amen, amen

The Patriotic Song, Part 1

We begin with excerpts from a May 21 (in Asia) article from Businessweek entitled Clinton Heads to China as North Korea Crisis Overshadows Agenda, by Nicole Gaouette:

May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrives in Asia today for talks with China and U.S. allies now focused on how to manage a crisis over suspected North Korean involvement in the sinking of a South Korean warship.

Kurt Campbell, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said the "central issue" for Clinton will be getting assessments of how to respond to North Korea after an international probe blamed the communist regime for firing a torpedo that killed 46 South Korean sailors on March 26.

The U.S. is "facing a very serious set of circumstances in the coming days," Campbell said in Washington on May 19.

South Korea demanded a "stern" global response to the findings of the international panel. North Korea threatened "all-out war" if the United Nations toughens sanctions that have already crippled a country suffering from crop failure and mass hunger.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want to impose sanctions and starve the poor North Korean people.

Of course, the trouble is, Americans (and, of course, many others on the world scene) are decent people; we don't consider the North Korean people our enemy, even if their government leaves a great deal to be desired.

Well, think about it - so does our own; but, even the Obamanistas aren't that bad (thank God for our Constitution).

But, the North Korean people don't suffer because of any sanctions; they suffer because of an idiotic and brutal regime that runs the country. Even if food were sent to North Korea, the food would be diverted to the soldiers of the Korean People's Army; it wouldn't get to the suffering people.

So, better to starve the militarized state of resources than to feed its war machine.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said South Korea must take the initiative in any response. "This was an attack on a South Korean ship and the South Koreans need to be in the lead," he said yesterday.

For years, behind the scenes the concern for peace on the peninsula was not that the North Koreans might come south; the concern was that the South Koreans might go north, and that the American forces there as a tripwire were more to keep South Koreans on the South of the DMZ than the North Koreans on the North of it.

Maybe the South Koreans should go north.

And, maybe we should not try to stop them.

Skipping down, the article mentions other issues on the agenda, then says:

U.S. officials said all those issues will take second place to talks about the South Korean finding that its 1,200-ton naval ship "Cheonan" was torpedoed by China's ally, North Korea. China called for "calm and restraint" yesterday, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said China was conducting its own assessment of the incident.

The government that killed 3,000 of its own peacefully demonstrating citizens in Tiananmen Square in 1989 is calling for calm and restraint. That's quality.

North Korea's own news website - which is quite lame, even by MSM standards - has nothing on this topic. You would think they would be howling about US provocations and threatening armageddon if attacked. I think their news service's silence says something about Pyongyang's guilt in this incident.

In Japan Today, there is an article entitled N Korea crisis looms as Clinton heads to Japan, date May 21. It begins:

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's three-nation Asia tour is likely to be dominated by a new crisis with North Korea — this time accused of sinking a South Korean naval ship with a deadly torpedo attack.

South Korea's release Wednesday of a report blaming North Korea for the March 26 sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan changed the outlook for Clinton's trip, her fifth to Asia as America's top diplomat.

Just hours before Clinton departed, the White House called the ship sinking an "act of aggression" that is "one more instance of North Korea's unacceptable behavior and defiance of international law." In a statement, officials called it "a challenge to international peace and security and ... a violation of the Armistice Agreement" that ended the Korean War.

As you are likely aware, the Korean War did not end with a peace treaty. It basically ended with a cease-fire. The United States, part of the UN coalition that responded to the North Korean attack on the South, is technically still at war with North Korea, though it is a war with a UN flag over it.

And, that is interesting.

An internationally-sanctioned war ended in a cease-fire, which has now been violated by the country that began the war and was militarily punished by an international force for its aggression.

So, why doesn't the international community go in and kick North Korea's butt for this "violation of the Armistice Agreement"? No one needs any further resolution - just the resolve to deal with the fourth- (or maybe fifth-?) largest army in the world.

Come to think of it, North Korea is the most heavily-militarized society in the world. Entire airbases - including runways - are dug under mountains; aircraft can launch directly out of holes in the mountains. Extensive formations of elite forces are ready to infiltrate south of the DMZ into the enemy's rear area, via aircraft, submersible, boat, tunnel, and other means, and cause the enemy to fight not just advancing hordes of North Korean troops supported by armor and artillery, but commandoes and saboteurs behind the lines as well.

Maybe that is why no one will go into Pyongyang and deal with East Asia's little bully - the Democratic People's Republic of Korea projects too tough an image.

So, as a May 21 article in Asia Times Online concludes:

This is a standoff in which it's wise to expect the unexpected. The sense, though, is the North has made a fundamental point. There's not much South Korea will do beside engage in threats and words while China makes up for the losses in trade, aid and diplomatic sympathy.

Bush-43 made noise about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), labeling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "Axis of Evil". Though Iraq had no WMD, it got invaded, and its regime changed. But North Korea thumbed its nose at America's Decider-in-Chief, and declared that it had indeed tested a nuclear weapon - twice.

Nothing happened.

Now North Korea has committed an overt act of war, a violation of a cease-fire, targeting a country it is still technically at war with - a country that has standing international sanction to clean North Korea's clock.

And nothing will happen.

Unless and until...

Stay tuned for Part 2.

The OKBOMB and the TiNRATs, Part 3

(Prior to reading this, you may wish to review the contents of Part 1 and Part 2.)

Sometimes old news is the best news to watch:



Jayna Davis is an exceptionally competent investigative reporter. She put her findings in a book, entitled The Third Terrorist. The case it presents is airtight. Years prior to writing her book, when the OKBOMB cases were still being investigated and tried, she took her information to the FBI, and a description of her reception by the FBI is at the end of the vid embedded above. Jayna Davis finishes the segment with these words:

"They outrightly refused to take the information and that information implicated a Middle Eastern terrorist cell funded by Osama bin Laden as assisting Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in executing the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Their reasons? Their motivations? That's a question for the Department of Justice and the former Attorney General [Janet Reno]."

Well, they're not going to tell us, so let's speculate.

As Jayna Davis explained in Take AIM: Jayna Davis on OKC Third Terrorist, April 22, 2010:

DAVIS: Well at the time I was an investigative reporter for Oklahoma City's NBC affiliate, KFOR TV, and just by virtue of proximity I was one of the first news correspondents to report the death and destruction of April 19th, 1995. In fact CNN took our live broadcasts within fifteen, twenty minutes of the bombing, and I was one of the reporters on the scene. So I've been following this from its inception, from the moment of detonation, and I spent the next nine years documenting, very copiously, a Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing. And I laid out that research in my book, The Third Terrorist, and it outlines details of sworn affidavits from very credible witnesses who link the convicted bombers, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols, to an Iraqi hit squad of former soldiers who served in Saddam Hussein's army, the Republican Guard, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. They immigrated to the United States after Operation Desert Storm as false defectors. In the fall of 1994, about six months before the Murrah Building attack, these Iraqi servicemen suddenly showed up in an Oklahoma City property management company and began working for a Palestinian real estate mogul, who, according to my research, and the federal court record, this man was suspected of ties to the terrorist organization known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Now these 22 witnesses, that I gathered and collated all their copiously presented evidence and testimony, they positively identified eight specific Iraqi soldiers aiding and abetting Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the months, the weeks, the days, and the final hours leading up to that deadly moment of 9:02 AM on April 19th, 1995.

So, there was a definite connection to Iraq, with Saddam Hussein striking back as he could for his mother-of-all-defeats in the Gulf War.

Skipping down:

I met with the FBI in May of 1995. Shared all my evidence. Within four days of that meeting and turning over surveillance video tape of these Iraqi soldiers at this local property management company, where they worked, after I turned that over, within four days the FBI held a national press conference and said John Doe Two may be a case of mistaken identity. But they were speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They parsed their words very carefully. Janet Reno stated, 'We have not officially ruled out the suspect.' So while the press assumed the search was over, the national manhunt, they left the door open that if anything were to come up, they could always step aside and explain why they pulled the search for John Doe Two; they pulled the plug on the tipline. I believe that's because when I handed my surveillance tape of those Iraqi soldiers, they knew who John Doe Two was, and President Clinton was not about to arrest a foreign suspect in which the United States of America would cry out for a military response to take out Saddam Hussein.

The picture painted is one of a Bill Clinton in 1995 wanting to direct anger against American "right-wingers" for political purposes. Again skipping down some:

DAVIS: [President Clinton] actually had a political boost and a bonus as a result of no foreign connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. He was able to capitalize on the rhetoric of the day. And actually he propagated that rhetoric. He actually lit the fuse, okay, and he fueled the flames of demagoguery.

After the stunning defeats the Democrats were dealt in the 1994 mid-term elections, His Slickness understood very well his own job would be on the line in 1996, but if he could castrate the Republicans and put them on the defensive by painting them not as mean-spirited, but as terrorists, he might save his Presidency and gain another term.

But, then, why, when Bush-43 wants to invade Iraq a few years later, does "W" not dig this up and point this out as a legimate reason to connect both Iraq and Al Qaeda, and go after Hussein's regime? Why does "W" send his minions out with the Curveball crap about weapons of mass destruction?

Perhaps a clue can be found in Davis' answer to another question in another interview. From The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing, April 27, 2010:

I asked Davis what it will take for the version of history that she has largely written to become the accepted narrative of what really happened. She said the people have to continue to press the authorities and the major media, even at this late date, for the truthful answers.

"Here's where I think it, it lies: It's going to have to be the peasants with the pitchforks," she said, referring to popular disgust with the official version of the story. "These people are going to have to rise up, just like the Tea Party movement is angry about Washington policies that affect their pocketbooks and the future of their children and the national deficit. They're going to have to rise up and demand that this record is corrected."

Otherwise, she said, the liberal left will continue to use their version of Oklahoma City to smear anybody critical of their control of the federal government.

She explained, "They're going to continue to label anybody who carries a placard or raises a voice of dissent in a peaceful protest as a 'Tim McVeigh wannabe.' And until The Third Terrorist, and this evidence embodied in my book, is actually proven, prosecuted, and validated in a courtroom setting, the label of 'Tim McVeigh wannabe' is going to continue to be attached to God-fearing Americans who dare to step forward and question and hold to account their elected officials."

So, McVeigh really was a terrorist, connected to the Middle East. But, they will deny this and use his example to accuse you of being a terrorist until you step forward and prove that they are criminals.

With all that in mind, do you really think they want to be able to illegally wiretap you (and waterboard you if necessary) to protect you from the very terrorists they have just shown they themselves protect whenever it's convenient to do so?

Also, check out McVeigh Mania from Atlas Shrugs.

More to follow.

Field of the Blackbirds, Part 1

A recent article at CFR's Foreign Affairs entitled Unfreezing Kosovo (by Nikolas K. Gvosdev, April 26, 2010) is very informative, especially if read with understanding. We begin:

When Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence in February 2008, proponents of the move assumed that Serbia's acquiescence to Kosovo's final status was not absolutely necessary. The United States and many countries in Europe hoped Kosovo would gain quick recognition. These supportive governments thought that Kosovo would then have access to capital and investment, and that the northern, ethnically Serbian parts of the province would want to take part in the post-independence economic boom. Sadly, things have not gone according to plan.

Although the United States and many European countries did recognize the new state, some EU members -- such as Spain -- did not, due to fears of setting a harmful precedent that could weaken the doctrine of territorial integrity. Most other world powers have also declined to recognize an independent Kosovo, including Brazil, China, and India. Although some U.S. policymakers predicted that the Islamic world would embrace a new Muslim state -- and express gratitude to the United States for bringing about its birth -- almost no members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have extended recognition. Even states that enjoy the patronage of the United States, such as Georgia and Iraq, have declined to support Washington by recognizing Kosovo (both countries face separatist problems of their own).

This was obvious years ago when this situation was first beginning to boil. But, those who supported independence - either hypocritically (without regard to similar problems elsewhere in the world) or opportunistically (for campaign contributions from ethnic Albanian lobbies, which include many decent people but which also include front-men for ethnic Albanian organized crime) - cared not about broader ramifications.

Let's review what Kosovo is.

Historically, Kosovo is a part of Serbia. Shortly after the Serbian Empire fragmented in 1371, forces of the Ottoman Empire moved into the province and defeated the forces of Serbia and Serbia's allies, Albanians and Bosnians. This "Battle of Kosovo" occurred in 1389. A few decades later, Kosovo fell under full control of the Ottoman Empire until right before the First World War.

Ethnically, by the 19th century, Kosovo was majority Albanian.

Fast forward to 2008: The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo declare independence from Serbia.

The quote above touches on only some issues. For example, China occupies Tibet; according to international law, this occupation is perhaps roughly on a par with Serbian possession of Kosovo, though that might be generous to China's position. China also has unrest in the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region - important as a trade crossroads and for natural resources. Here ethnic Han Chinese are being brought in as fast as possible to strengthen Beijing's control of an area that could easily teeter away from China and into the realm of Central Asia. Georgia is also mentioned; it has autonomous regions seeking legally-recognized independence, including South Ossetia, flashpoint of a brief war in 2008.

But, it seems there is an elephant in the room that is not being discussed.

Imagine San Antonio, Texas, location of America's famous Alamo. In 1836, President General Antonio López de Santa Anna took approximately 1500 troops into what was then part of Mexico and defeated a force of Texians about 200 strong. The battle was a defeat for the Texians, but now lives on in Texan and American history.

Now, imagine that, due to tremendous immigration - not all of which is legal - and a proportionally higher birthrate, people of Latino descent come to outnumber people of non-Latino descent so much in the San Antonio region, that they unilaterally declare independence.

In the Kosovo fighting, it wasn't just the Serbs who were implicated in atrocities. The Kosovo Liberation Army committed atrocities against Serbs and against fellow ethnic Albanians; the KLA was essentially a criminal organization, involved in trafficking arms, narcotics, people. America's recognition of Kosovo's independence in the wake of this history is a recognition of "Get there first with the most" and "Might makes right" politics.

Will that precedent some day come back to bite us along our southern border?

We now continue with Unfreezing Kosovo:

Being considered nonexistent has led Kosovo to struggle economically -- a situation made even worse by the lack of a formal agreement with Serbia on property claims. As U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon said recently, Kosovo is hampered by "high unemployment, low investment rates, and a relatively small economic base." The government in Pristina requires Western aid to meet its expenses. Meanwhile, Kosovo remains a regional hub for narcotics, weapons, and human trafficking, with corruption a major deterrent to foreign investment.

"Kosovo remains a regional hub for narcotics, weapons, and human trafficking, with corruption a major deterrent to foreign investment."

Imagine that!

More to follow.

The Land of the Pure, Part 2

Well, this is funny.

Actually, it's not.

Look, you decide.

First, let's take a look at a May 12 article from the World Socialist Website - a place guaranteed to find some reasonable (and some unreasonable) flaws in how America does business (though they don't seem to have the guts to after the real problems, like drug money in the campaign coffers of big politicians and American government officials on the payroll of foreign organized crime).

The Obama administration has seized on the failed car bombing in New York's Times Square on May 1 to insist that the Pakistani military step up its war on Islamic militants and extend its operations into North Waziristan. The US demand is being backed by thinly disguised warnings of economic reprisals and military intervention.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an explicit public threat during a CBS interview last Sunday. After accusing some Pakistani officials of knowing the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, she insisted on more Pakistani cooperation and warned: "We"ve made it very clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."

Speaking to ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Attorney General Eric Holder accused the Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban, of being behind the Times Square incident. He claimed that the Taliban directed the suspected bomber, Faisal Shahzad, a naturalised American citizen of Pakistani descent. Under interrogation, Shahzad has allegedly admitted training in Taliban camps in North Waziristan, although the amateurish character of the bombing attempt indicates otherwise. A Tehrik-e-Taliban spokesman has denied any involvement.

Publicly, the Obama administration has been cautious, not wanting to further destabilise the already fragile Pakistani government. Under US pressure, the Pakistani military has already launched major offensives over the past year into the Swat Valley, Bajaur and South Waziristan, in which thousands of civilians were killed and hundreds of thousands driven from their homes. In the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the border with Afghanistan, US drone attacks have killed hundreds of civilians and reinforced anger toward what many Pakistanis regard as a US puppet government in Islamabad.

Behind closed doors, however, the "very severe consequences" have been spelled out in no uncertain terms. An article in the New York Times last Friday described "the new pressure from Washington" over the Times Square incident as "a sharp turnabout from the [previous] relatively polite encouragement". "And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand American military influence—and even a boots-on-the-ground presence—on Pakistani soil," the article added.

Is the Obama Administration really threatening Pakistan? Pakistan has a large, professional military - it wouldn't go like Iraq did. Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but they wouldn't have to use them. In any case, use of nukes might be counterproductive: could Pakistan deliver a nuke on a target defended by the US military? The attempt would certainly not go unnoticed, though it would be applauded in many parts of the world.

Or, is the WSWS just trying to stir up trouble for Washington? The world's socialists don't seem to like anything America does or stands for.

Either way, Pakistan should learn a lesson from its ally Saudi Arabia: establish your country on oil-rich land, and you can literally get away with murder. After all, Sheikh bin Laden and how many of the 19 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? The Sandbox has sent how many jihadis to battle infidel forces in Iraq? The KSA funds how many radical mosques worldwide? But, they are our "staunch allies" in the War on Terror.

Well, an article from today's CBN News tells us of events in Chile, of all places:

SANTIAGO, Chile - Traces of explosives were found on a Pakistani man who was summoned to the U.S. Embassy because his U.S. visa had been revoked, authorities said Tuesday, and a Chilean judge ordered him held in a high-security prison under anti-terrorism laws.

Mohammed Saif-ur-Rehman Khan, 28, was detained Monday after the embassy's detectors were set off by traces of bomb-making material, said Mario Schilling, a Chilean prosecutor's spokesman. Schilling did not elaborate on what kind of explosives were involved or provide more details about the case.

U.S. Ambassador Paul Simon said there was not any indication that the embassy was a target of a attack.

A judge agreed on Tuesday to keep Khan behind bars for five more days under Chile's anti-terrorism law to give more time for the investigation. Khan has not been charged with any crime.

Before being taken to jail, Khan was driven by police to a hospital for a medical checkup and was able to briefly speak to reporters from a window of the police vehicle.

The guy denies being a terrorist, and an investigation seems to be underway. Regardless of this situation, we know two things: terrorists are getting involved down south, including in Venezuela, and Pakistan is a hotbed for terrorist training.

A nice summary of the current situation - and a nice lead-in for the rest of this series - can be found in an article at a major Pakistani news service (dated May 12):

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama said Wednesday he was "encouraged" by Pakistan's anti-extremist efforts, but warned the operation to flush out militants would take time.

"I think what you have seen over the last several months is a growing recognition that they have a cancer in their midst," Obama said. "I am actually encouraged from what I have seen from the Pakistani government over the last several months.

"But just as it's going to take some time for Afghanistan's economy, for example, to fully recover from 30 years of war, it's going to take some time from Pakistan, even if there is a will, to find a way in order to effectively deal with these extremists in areas that are fairly loosely governed from Islamabad.

"You know, part of what I've been encouraged by is Pakistan's willingness to start asserting more control over some of these areas. But it's not going to happen overnight," Obama said. — AFP

It's not going to happen overnight, because this system of extremists, trained for terrorism and guerrilla warfare, was not established overnight. It was built over the course of many years, to serve as a counterweight to India's numerical superiority, and to provide a means of waging a proxy war against India. The system of madrassahs and militant/terrorist training camps was invented to provide relatively small Pakistan (by population, it's the second largest Muslim nation and the sixth largest overall in the world, but smaller than rival neighbor India) strategic depth against the Indian infidels.

More on that to follow.