Clearstream scandal shows that de Villepin and Chirac are crooks and should resign

It looks like both Dominique de Villepin and Jacques Chirac are about to get what they asked for now. The Clearstream scandal, which they were involved in, is coming to light, and it doesn't look good for either of them. Especially because either or both of these two corrupt politicians tried to frame Nicholas Sarkozy for it, and that's simply disgusting. From the UK Telegraph (via Pondblog):

President Jacques Chirac yesterday denied any link to a corruption inquiry that wrongly targeted his rival and would-be successor, France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy.

Mr Chirac has been dragged into the so-called Clearstream scandal, with his prime minister, Dominique de Villepin.

Both issued statements indignantly rejecting suggestions they did anything to smear any individual.

Mr de Villepin, who frequently clashes with Mr Sarkozy even though they hold the top two positions in government, denied asking for Mr Sarkozy to be investigated.

But his claim has been challenged by the intelligence chief he ordered to carry out an inquiry into the scandal.

Mr de Villepin was last month humiliated by protests that forced him to abandon his employment reforms.

Speculation has been mounting that his office may be raided as investigating judges try to unmask the author of poison pen communications identifying Mr Sarkozy and other prominent figures as holders of secret accounts at Clearstream, a Luxembourg-based bank.

Mr de Villepin is alleged by Le Monde newspaper to have cited Mr Chirac's authority when ordering, as foreign minister, the French intelligence service inquiry.

But yesterday, plunged into the affair for the first time, the president authorised a statement distancing himself from any such action.

"The president of the republic categorically denies having ordered the least investigation targeting political personalities whose names may have been mentioned," said the statement from the Elysée palace.

The anonymous accusation that Mr Sarkozy was involved in laundering money through an overseas account was quickly dismissed.

Mr Sarkozy is said to have told Mr Chirac that his accuser, once exposed, would "end up on a meat hook" and promised an ally this week: "When I shoot, I shoot to kill, not to wound. The end to this is close."

The office of the defence minister, Michèle Alliot Marie, has been searched, along with those of senior business and intelligence figures.

All deny wrongdoing.

Mr de Villepin said people were entitled to resent "the rumours and imputations directed at the state, its institutions and the intelligence services". He added that he hoped "light would be shed on this whole affair of libellous denunciations. It is a question of doing what is right for certain people who have been unjustly named and feel a legitimate grievance".

But Mr Sarkozy is widely reported to be convinced the prime minister sought to damage him and failed to tell him the intelligence report he commissioned confirmed the charges were false.

Mr Sarkozy was among several people named as Clearstream account holders in documents sent anonymously to a judge in 2004.

Allegations were also made that three businessmen, including the deputy chief of Airbus, Philippe Delmas, had been paid kickbacks from the sale of French frigates to Taiwan in 1991. Inquiries showed the documents to be fakes.

De Villepin and Chirac should both be ashamed of themselves for this. And somehow, it's not all that surprising that two politicians who insulted their nation by letting all those Muslim thugs get away with the damage they did, even during the student demonstrations a couple weeks ago, could be involved in a scandal like this, and even attempt to frame a better politician because they can't stand that he's trying to protect the public from the damage they let spread. For that, de Villepin and Chirac should both resign.

Others on the subject include For a Few Euros More, Paris Link Blog, Pigilito, Fausta's Blog, Dave's World.

Land of Israel Legal Forum expands its activity focus

From Israel National News:

The Land of Israel Legal Forum has launched new initiatives to prevent the stealing of Jewish-owned land as well as media incitement against the Jews of Judea and Samaria.

Chairman Nachi Eyal said at a news conference Thursday that the Forum has invested much effort in defending the right of the Jews expelled from Gaza and northern Samaria, as well as in trying to spread awareness of their plight. He added, however, that the Forum understands that there is a need to widen the scope of its operation on behalf of the struggle for the Land of Israel.

Eyal explained that two additional areas would now be dealt with by the Forum as well: 1) Preventing the stealing of Jewish land through illegal Arab building and the route of the Partition Wall, and 2) Prevention of incitement against the public that resides in Judea and Samaria.

"The Forum has taken upon itself to assist the groups monitoring such illegal building and will offer legal assistance," Eyal said. "We want to also assist other bodies on the right, such as Israel Media Watch, to petition against broadcasters and those who use and exploit the microphone for their own aims. Libel and incitement suits will be filed when called for."

That is good news.

Cyberjihadists on the rampage again, this time in the House of Saud

With the latest news on how hackerjihadists from Saudi Arabia caused blogs on Hosting Matters to crash, I think it should be quite obvious that this is not a country to be doing business with. It's an attack on free speech, internet trade, a gross display of contempt for the west and democracy, and the worst thing about it is that the House of Saud is unlikely to arrest and try any of these hackers for their crimes.

And it's one more reason why the time has come to demand from Congress to approve oil-drilling in Alaska, which is long overdue. We shouldn't have to rely on Saudi Arabian oil anymore. Come to think of it, we shouldn't even have to rely on OIL itself. Could solar energy replace it?

Labor Party members may rebel against Amir Peretz for not getting good coalition deals

The current coalition agreement Ehud Olmert made with Labor does not provide deputy ministers, if anything (and because of this, United Torah Judaism may not want to join), and because of this, Amir Peretz now has problems arising:

(IsraelNN.com) Labor Knesset member Matan Vilnai Saturday labeled party chairman Amir Peretz a "megalomaniac," and several party MKs may be planning to bolt the party, according to media reports.

An open rebellion may depend on Sunday's party central committee meeting on whether to let Peretz choose the ministers or to let the committee choose them. Among those who favor giving the power to the committee is Ophir Paz, who said Saturday night he accepted Peretz's offer to be Minister of Culture and Sport with responsibility for Jerusalem affairs.

I don't know how that'll turn out so far, but I do know that Peretz is certainly facing some trouble.

Dubya approves of Dubai's buying Doncasters

Uh oh. Here's something that anyone who didn't like the Dubai ports deal might want to take notice of. From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush approved Dubai's $1.24 billion takeover of Doncasters, a British engineering company with U.S. plants that supply the Pentagon, the White House said on Friday.

The decision, announced by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, followed a congressional uproar over security fears that scuttled another Dubai state-owned company's plan to acquire operations at major U.S. ports.

The interagency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States sent its confidential recommendation on the Dubai takeover of Doncasters to Bush on April 13.

"The president this morning accepted the committee's recommendation," McClellan said. "The committee recommended approval of the transaction after closely scrutinizing it and concluding that it would not compromise our national security."

Just how do you know that this won't compromise things, McClellan? This calls for some serious attention, and maybe even a boycott of Doncasters products, if you ask me! Because it could be dangerous for America's defenses, and considering that this is an enemy country that's buying the company, that's one more reason why this deal shouldn't be seen as legitimate. All concerned should contact their representatives ASAP.

Others on the subject include Redneck's Revenge, Just Bring It, Right Winged, Big Lizards, Main Street USA, Tammy Bruce, Independent Conservative, Chickenhawk Express, Veterans for Common Sense, Busting Balderdash, Sillie Lizzie's Rock, Kinshasa on the Potomac.

US senate approves funding to stop illegal immigration

Not all the senators are in favor of what those close to Dubya are, and it looks like some have now approved of measures to curb the illegal flow. From the Washington Times:

The Senate yesterday approved immediately spending nearly $2 billion to stop illegal immigration, the largest such infusion of emergency cash for the effort in recent years.

Nearly every member of the Senate voted in favor of the new spending, but Democrats and Republicans split over whether to find cuts elsewhere in the massive spending bill to offset the border security expenditures. Republicans ultimately prevailed and roughly 3 percent will be cut from defense spending contained in the same bill.

"Porous borders are a threat to our national security, and the Senate has acted today to provide vital funding that will increase our border defenses," Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, said after the vote.

I must say, it's quite facinating that the same man who seems to approve of giving amnesty to illegal aliens, which could be against the law, is at the same time approving of funding to stop the same people he's willing to give amnesty to from crossing into the US from Mexico's borders. You could say his positions may be as flaccid as those of the Democrats. Speaking of which...

Republicans turned back an effort by Minority Leader Harry Reid to grant the same expenditures for border security but without making cuts elsewhere in the emergency spending bill, which has ballooned to a $106.5 billion proposal. The Nevada Democrat, whose amendment failed on a mostly party-line 54-44 vote, said the Republican amendment would hurt the military.

"Democrats offered a way to secure our borders and support our troops," he said. "Instead, Senate Republicans chose to slash $2 billion desperately needed by our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in order to offset the costs of additional border security."

It wouldn't surprise me if Reid is just trying to take things out of context in order to smear the Republicans. How typical.

Yesterday's action -- if approved by the House -- would make a comprehensive immigration bill like President Bush wants more difficult to pass through Congress. Border security unites virtually all lawmakers, while the guest-worker program is disliked by liberals who say it creates unfair competition for American workers, and a path to citizenship is disliked by conservatives who view it as amnesty.

The 59-39 vote came one day after Mr. Bush appeared to endorse a Senate proposal that would give many illegal aliens already in the country a path to citizenship.

After meeting at the White House with more than a dozen senators Tuesday, Mr. Bush told reporters that there was a broad and bipartisan consensus for immigration reform legislation that "recognizes we must have a temporary worker program, a bill that does not grant automatic amnesty to people, but a bill that says somebody who is working here on a legal basis has the right to get in line to become a citizen."

By yesterday, however, there was some dispute about whether Mr. Bush had actually endorsed the Senate proposal hatched early this month by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida.

Under that plan, illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. five years or more could apply for citizenship without leaving the country while those who have been here between two and five years would have to apply at a point of entry. Those here less than two years would have to return to their home country to apply for citizenship.

"I'm extremely confident that there was no endorsement," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, who didn't attend the White House meeting because he thinks the Hagel-Martinez proposal amounts to amnesty. "Matter of fact, I'm extremely confident that they were told, 'I'm not endorsing the bill.'"

Well you see, here's the thing: as the AP Wire (via Michelle Malkin) reported some time ago, Bush "privately" favors amnesty. But because he seems to understand that his support for such an idea is unpopular with the general public, he cannot. Either way, it's a real shame that he can't just respect the public's wishes and put his whole amnesty notion on the scrap heap where it belongs. All that Dubya has done is to irritate people and put the Republicans' reputation at risk. And no matter where he stands, that's why the Republicans are doing the right thing to distance themselves from him.

Meanwhile, it's a good thing if the public was able to mail enough feedback to protest Dubya's positions, and the senators were hopefully paying attention when this was done.

Air America goes off the air in NYC; flagship station down

It took some time, but finally, the dreaded Air America Radio has now lost its flagship station in New York. At long last, Al Franken's scandalous station is going under! MediaWeek (via Michelle Malkin) has more:

Air America Radio will lose its New York flagship station, WLIB-AM, on Aug. 31. While the left-leaning radio network’s original lease for the Inner City station ran out March 31, AAR managed to get an extension which only lasts until Aug. 31, according to an informed source.

Through an agreement with ICBC, WLIB will be operated as a joint venture and programmed by P1, a company run by former Clear Channel and Jacor Communications executive Randy Michaels. Michaels is expected to program a progressive-talk format, but replace AAR’s network programming with more local programming. A likely addition to the new lineup: Ed Schultz, the left-of-center talker syndicated by P1.

“To be clear, Air America will not go silent on the New York City airwaves. We do not, however, comment on hypothetical speculation,” said an AAR spokesperson.

You do not comment on hypothetics because it's just too embarrassing by now, lefty spokesperson. Send us all a postcard from the garage radio station you'll be confined to broadcasting from (that is, if you're ever able to afford one).

Also available at Cao's Blog, Church and State, Jo's Cafe, Woman Honor Thyself. Others glad to see AAR going off the air include Pajamas Media, Marathon Pundit (plus, another one), Right Minded, Right Wing News, Left Wing = Hate, Hillbilly White Trash, Right Voices.

Even if there's no coalition agreement that includes withdrawals within...

It would be strongly advised to pay attention to the Shas party, to make sure that they know better than to just simply join an Ehud Olmert led government without taking care that withdrawal under any name is not part of the basic government program (קווי יסוד). On the matter of withdrawals from Judea, One Jerusalem's webmaster watched the BBC and said that:

...this morning in its report about Kadima and Labour having reached a coalition agreement to form a new government it included the fact that the elections did not give a clear mandate for further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank[Judea].

This a fact that Olmert has been trying to cover up by maintaining that Israel's elections was a mandate in support of further withdrawals. If the BBC understands that there is no clear mandate for such a policy perhaps the White House understands this as well.

We still can't underestimate the White House. And seeing this report here, about Shas being ready to join Olmert's coalition, while there are some things I'd like to be appreciative of here, they still need to be studied.

The Shas Party, a Sephardic hareidi party that opposed the Disengagement and maintains that it opposes another unilateral withdrawal, appears to be on the verge of signing a coalition agreement.

Party leader Eli Yishai, however, was quoted today as saying that an agreement will not be signed today, as "we are insisting on certain points."

It has been reported that Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, known to be against unilateral withdrawals, instructed Yishai to insist on receiving four ministerial portfolios, and not the three that have been offered.

Political analyst Yoav Yitzchak noted that the coalition guidelines do not specifically mention the convergence plan that Olmert has touted for some months. Yitzchak implies that Olmert has thus betrayed his voters.

Others note, however, the fact that the guidelines promise that, if negotiations with the Palestinian Authority are not fruitful, the government will "take action" in the framework of "reducing Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria." They say that this gives Olmert ample room in which to carry out his convergence plan, withdraw from large areas of the Land of Israel, and uproot additional tens of thousands of Jews from their homes.

Shas MK Nissim Ze'ev told Arutz-7, "Olmert is smart and wily, and these guidelines give everyone what they wish to understand... When he talks of reducing settlement areas, he means removing some outposts, not bona-fide communities."

A-7: "Are you too, then, not falling into this trap of understanding the guidelines in a way that is convenient to you? Do you not feel that Olmert himself will understand them differently? After all, he is outspokenly in favor of a massive withdrawal."

Ze'ev: "I don't believe that uprooting Jewish settlements is on the agenda. We, in any event, will quit the government the moment such an issue is brought up... But in the meanwhile, there are many other issues in this country that have to be dealt with, such as the Rabbinical Courts, child allowance payments, civil marriages, and more."

With all due respect, Ze'ev, let me make a point in fairness: Without proper security and state, those subjects, if you ask me, bear no meaning. And Shas' constituency, people of Sephardic backgrounds, have a right to safety and security as well, not to mention their right to live throughout the Land of Israel. Not to worry though, Matot Arim does seem to be prepared:

The grassroots "Cities of Israel" organization called upon Land of Israel loyalists to "include in your Sabbath preparations today the buying of a newspaper at your local grocery, and going to your local Shas representative, and asking him what he thinks about his party joining a government with guidelines calling for a unilateral 'reduction in Israeli settlement areas in Judea and Samaria.'

"You should tell him that we thought that Shas' regret over its participation in the Oslo process was genuine. But now it looks like you're saying 'I will sin and then repent' [in which the repentance is not accepted].

"Any local Shas representative, such as the Shas representative on each city's council, has a direct connection to the top echelons of the party," a Cities of Israel volunteer explained. "It is imperative that each of us employ the 'grocery-newspaper-Shas' method today, immediately, so that the Shas leaders receive a strong message from below, before Sabbath, that they are returning to their Oslo sins."

Cities of Israel veteran spokesperson Susie Dym urged Israelis who have already implemented the above method "to double and triple their individual influence by encouraging several friends to follow their good example. None of us should be willing to leave their own local Shas stone unturned."

Here's the Shas e-mail address, avidaniiz@012.net.il, and, while only in Hebrew, here's their website: http://www.shasnet.org.il/

Avigdor Lieberman's own party, Yisrael Beitenu, appears to be staying outside the government. From one of the members:

(IsraelNN.com) Yisrael Beitenu Knesset member Yitzkak Aharonovitch said Friday that the party’s ideologies and principles could not be sold or bought.

Aharonovitch is number eight on his party’s list. “Anyone who doesn’t want us in this government will accept us many times more in the next one,” he said.

He made his remarks at a meeting of the party’s membership.

Somehow, I think I have to agree with him there.

Rallies to help Darfur across the US

The humanitarian and human rights groups Save Darfur and Million Voices for Darfur are launching rallies on April 30 to help support the opressed and persecuted people of Sudan (Hat tip: Atlantic Review). The campaign, as explained by Million Voices, is in order to

...generate one million postcards for delivery to President Bush, who recently pledged to push for additional UN and NATO help to protect the people of Darfur. We applaud the President's leadership, but the work is far from done. We are urging President Bush to take steps necessary to end the genocide and build a lasting peace.

If you can attend what will be held, please do so, since this is important for stopping the genocide that's still continuing there. And Dubya needs to know that even the plight of the residents of Sudan, who are being persecuted by Islamofascists, cannot be ignored.

Where John Howard is at fault

There are things for which Australian prime minister John Howard is rightly lauded, but his views on gun control are decidedly not one of them. From ABC Online (via The House of Wheels):

The Prime Minister has used the 10th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania to call for a further crackdown on gun ownership.

John Howard says he is still concerned about the level of gun use in Australia, despite the introduction of tough national gun laws in 1996.

While having no specific plans for changes himself, Mr Howard has urged state and territory governments to take a tougher stance.

"I think there's always more that can be done at a state level, yes," he said.

"We did a lot more in 2002 and 2003 with handguns, but we really must resolve as a nation never to go down the American path.

"There are many things about America that I admire, but I do not admire their gun culture."

Say again?!? What gun culture? IMO, Howard has been watching too many movies. He must surely think that every Texan with a pickup truck keeps a rifle in it. Nonsense, but that aside, it needs to be pointed out that, not only are background checks usually done when buying a firearm in the US, but that the right to self-defense has helped keep down the crime rates there. By preventing your average citizen from owning a gun, all it does is to enable the criminals to get them from illegal gun runners.

Here's a suggestion for Howard: why not introduce something similar to the National Rifle Association, which can help to know who wants to practice and to keep tabs and profiles on the customers? In fact, genuine civil rights groups in Europe should be stepping up and arguing the right to self-defense for the ordinary citizen too, if you ask me. And to establish their own versions of the NRA in European countries too. It's time for the citizens of many countries outside the US to start standing up and making it clear that they want to have the genuine right to defend themselves against Islamofascism, and now is as good a time as any to start.

United 93 gets it right

Can it be? Is there really hope for Hollywood? Well, having looked at The Wall Street Journal and Debbie Schlussel's reviews of Paul Greengrass' new movie adaptation (via the brand new Hot Air podcasting site co-founded by Michelle Malkin), I think it can be said that yes, the movie industry has finally realized that showing responsibility can pay off very rewardingly. Here's some more links to other sites covering the movie.

Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh praises United 93.
BoingBoing.Net
TammyBruce.Com
The Air Force Pundit
A Lady's Ruminations
Dalai Pac's Blog
Palm Tree Pundit
IMAO
This Sporting Life
Little Nuances
Darleen's Place
Hugh Hewitt
Canadian Political Weblog
Normblog
The Movie Blog
Spin and Stir
Church and State
Point Five
Blackfive
Latino Issues, Conservative Blog
Dadmanly
Lead and Gold
Ace of Spades HQ (plus, another one)
The Buzz Blog
Libertas
Atlas Shrugs
Kesher Talk
Okie on the Lam in LA
Small Town Vetetan
Pirates Cove
Publius Rendezvous

Make sure you go to the theater to see it, because success may be one of the best ways to tell the industry that movies like this that are willing to deal with the meat-and-potatoes facts are what we the audience want to see. It's time for Hollywood to start showing its patriotic side again.

Shimon Peres suspected of taking illegal gifts

And money is one of them. From Israel National News:

State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss has submitted evidence to the Attorney General that Shimon Peres accepted illegal campaign contributions. Peres in response: "Everything was legal."

The State Comptroller's Office acknowledges that over the past several months, it has been investigating the contributions received from abroad by MK Shimon Peres for his recent primaries bid for Labor Party leadership against Amir Peretz. The contributions in question total $320,000, reportedly from the billionaires Chaim Saban, Bruce Rappaport, and Daniel Abrams.

The Comptroller's Office notes that laws that Peres may have broken include the Public Service law, the Campaign Contributions Law, and others.

Peres and his representatives were given early notice of the ongoing investigation, and were also told that the material would be forwarded to Attorney General Mazuz.

Peres said in response that the three contributions were given him prior to the period of the elections. The Comptroller's Office stated that this point is irrelevant. Peres further maintains that the contributions were approved by the Labor Party.

The anchor of official Israel Radio's main newsmagazine, Anat Davidoff, spoke with Israel Radio's legal commentator Moshe Negbi, and began by saying that the news on Peres "is not surprising, because of this problematic law that doesn't allow a candidate for party head or Prime Minister to collect [money] or to run things as he- because there is some type of distortion in the law."

Negbi explained that the law is designed to ensure that politicians are not bought by outside interests with business affairs in Israel.

MK Michael Eitan (Likud) praised the State Comptroller for his work in uncovering political corruption. When interviewer Davidoff protested that Lindenstrauss need not run to the press with every investigation, Eitan said, "It's great that he does that! That's the only way to get things done, and that's the only way to end this plague of corruption."

And Peres has been asking for it for some time now. Here's more from Eitan on the case, from a radio interview he gave.

Richard Convertino was right all along

There is an update available now for Richard Convertino, the district attorney who's been prosecuted on trumped-up charges. From the AP/Detroit Free Press (via Debbie Schlussel):

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A botched Detroit terrorism case that already has embarrassed the Bush administration is taking a new twist: A fresh FBI analysis of the evidence undercuts the recent indictment of the former chief prosecutor in the case.

The 13-page report by FBI Agent Paul George concludes that satellite photos of a Jordanian hospital closely match hand-drawn sketches found in 2001 inside the Detroit apartment of four North African immigrants who the government claimed had surveyed the site as part of a terrorist plot.

The new analysis conflicts with the Justice Department's argument that photographic evidence did not match the sketches, and renews questions about whether the government correctly arrested the four men as a terrorist cell shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

[...]

Last month, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard G. Convertino and a State Department investigator were indicted on charges they conspired at the trial to withhold the pictures because they would have shown that the drawings were not surveillance sketches of the hospital, as Convertino and trial witnesses had portrayed.

"The object of the conspiracy was to present false evidence at trial and to conceal inconsistent and potentially damaging evidence," the indictment says.

In an earlier court filing, Justice went further, saying the photos disproved the sketches: "It is difficult if not impossible to compare the day-planner sketches with the photos and see a correlation."

Department officials said they were aware of George's report but remained confident they could prove the ex-prosecutor and the State Department official lied about the existence of photos, which were e-mailed to Convertino before the trial and were not turned over to defense lawyers. Convertino said he never saw the e-mail or photos.

"The pending prosecution is not about the guilt or innocence of the defendants" in the original terror case, Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra said. "This is about lies perpetrated by a federal prosecutor and a federal agent, as alleged in the indictment. It's about perjury and the integrity and fairness of the judicial system."

Justice officials also acknowledge they don't possess one of two sets of photos taken in the case and don't know if they exist anymore. Aerial photos believed to have been taken by helicopter before the trial are missing, but prosecutors do have a set of ground and helicopter photos of the Jordanian hospital they say were e-mailed to Convertino before the trial.

Convertino says he is being prosecuted solely because he sued then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004, alleging mismanagement of the war on terror.

Convertino and the investigator, Harry Raymond Smith III, were arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit and pleaded not guilty. His lawyer said Thursday that the new FBI analysis "disproves the indictment's preposterous allegations" and vindicates the original terrorism convictions.

"The government now agrees, after three years of inquiry and millions of dollars, that the evidence in the original case proves the terrorist convictions originally rendered by the jury," attorney Bill Sullivan said.

A next court date for Convertino and Smith wasn't immediately set.

The criminal charges against Convertino are based on the principle that prosecutors must turn over to defendants all evidence that could help them prove their innocence.

Legal experts said the emergence of George's analysis could help Convertino's lawyer create reasonable doubt. Defense lawyers could argue that if photos matched the sketches -- instead of disproved them -- Convertino would have had no motive to hide them and no obligation to turn them over, experts said.

I certainly hope it can help. Because it seems that the bad feds are trying to sneer at this new development that helps prove Convertino's innocence, showing more why the US law enforcement needs some repairs.

Visit the Convertino's website and blog for more on this case.

And now, while I'm on the subject, about two weeks ago, I got an obnoxious reply to the earlier post by a commentor calling herself "Qiyyama Ra'eesha", allegedly the wife of one of the criminals whom Convertino prosecuted. She yelled:

RICHARD CONVERTINO GETS WHAT HE DESERVE'S. MY HUSBAND AND TWO OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE TAKEN A BITE FROM CONVERTINO'S CORRUPTINESS. LET HIM GO TO PRISON LET HIS FAMILY SEES WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO NOT HAVE HIM AROUND FOR 12 YEARS. ANGER WIFE OF ONE OF THE MEN HE INCARCERATED IN 1996

Interesting what a bad misspeller this Ra'eesha is. And if he hadn't turned to a life of crime, maybe he'd be around the house today; did she ever think about that? And doesn't she mean "taken a blow" when she says "bite"? I dunno. She lost me somewhere along the way anyway. All I have to say in response to Ra'eesha now is: you're husband was a terrorist supporter, and is paying for his crimes. If you can't come to terms with that, tough. I shed no tears for him or for you, and all you've done and are doing is something similar to what's spoken about in this topic: you don't care that your relative caused harm and pain to someone else, because the victims are just inferior dhimmis in your twisted viewpoint, one so twisted in fact, that I question your femininity, no joke. So enough with the sob-stories, unless you want to entertain the public some more.

I'd say more, but, since that's all I can think of for now, I'll let someone else sum it up...
Also available at Basil's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, bRight & Early, Cao's Blog, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Free Constitution, Freedom Watch, Is it Just Me, Jo's Cafe, The Liberal Wrong-Wing, The Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Stuck on Stupid, Third World County, TMH's Bacon Bits.

Dubya continues to disrespect the public, by going on with amnesty

And not just Dubya. There's also a couple of bad senators who're supporting what should be considered unlawful, to be giving amnesty to illegal aliens. The Washington Times (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin) has the following news:

President Bush and a group of senators yesterday reached general agreement on an immigration bill that includes a pathway to citizenship for many illegal aliens.

But left out of the closed-door White House meeting were senators who oppose a path to citizenship. The meeting even snubbed two men who had been considered allies of Mr. Bush on immigration -- Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and chairman of the immigration subcommittee, and Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican.

Mr. Bush in brief remarks to the press said there was agreement to get "a bill that does not grant automatic amnesty to people, but a bill that says, somebody who is working here on a legal basis has the right to get in line to become a citizen." But senators, speaking afterward, said Mr. Bush was far more specific in the meeting.

"There was a pretty good consensus that what we have put into the Hagel-Martinez proposal here is the right way to go," said Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican. "I think he was very clear [on] pathway to citizenship, so long as it goes to the back of the line, and he even opened the door here for something we've haggled back and forth on, that you can shrink the time for people to become citizens by simply enlarging the number of green cards."

And Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, said Mr. Bush "endorsed the concept of an earned citizenship."

That would represent a substantial change on the part of the Bush administration, which just last year said it opposed a path to citizenship for those currently here illegally.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October the administration didn't support "a path through which they can get their permanent residence or citizenship," and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao echoed that: "We feel that a pathway to citizenship would reward those who have violated our laws."

Yawn. Gentlemen, I'm sorry, but this isn't just brand new amnesty, to be followed by yet more of the same, it's also unconstitutional, and it's being done without any public mandate. I think it also warrants a national referendum that can let the public decide.

All concerned should contact the White House and send a clear message: NO amnesty for illegal aliens, period.

See also this info about GAO.

I think this could very easily be grounds for impeachment. It's also a leading reason why the Republicans are going to have to distance themselves from Dubya.

Others rightfully angry at this betrayal include The Cassandra Page, Church and State, Right Minded, HR901.Com, Hillbilly White Trash, Hyscience, Most Certainly Not, The Write Jerry, A Certain Slant of Light, Amber, Fullosseous Flap's Dental Blog, Martin's Musings.

AADC meets deserved defeat

I don't hear much about the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee these days, maybe because CAIR's been taking up so much space in the news, but now, here's some good news on the immigration scene in which we learn that AADC, which is just as slimy as CAIR, has been defeated in an attempt to dictate immigration requirements to their favor. Note though that there is a bit of whining in this AP article:

DETROIT — With an Arab-American rights group threatening mass court filings, a U.S. immigration spokesman said Tuesday that the government would change its naturalization procedures to stave off such legal challenges.

Lawyers say it's not uncommon for cases to be delayed for years, particularly for people from the Middle East, even though immigration officials are supposed to rule on naturalization petitions within 120 days after interviews.

To call attention to the problem, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was coordinating an effort by 40 attorneys to file federal court petitions on behalf of dozens of immigrants starting Tuesday.

Chris Bentley, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, said Tuesday that "to avoid burdening the federal court with these cases," the agency would no longer schedule citizenship interviews until after background checks are complete.

The American-Arab committee said it was disappointed with the procedural change, which would not eliminate delays, but make it impossible for immigrants to fight them.

Bentley said only about 1 percent of naturalization petitions are not ruled on within 120 days. About 450,000 people are naturalized yearly, he said.

Immigration lawyer Ramsey Malkawi said he has about 14 clients facing long delays in their naturalization applications, including some who have waited five or six years.

"This is completely unacceptable," he said. "It's clearly a racial profiling issue."

Dr. Mohammad Attar, an Iraqi immigrant who has lived in the United States since 1991, petitioned for citizenship in November 2004. Six months later, he had an interview with immigration officials — then he waited. He was eventually cleared, but it wasn't until nearly a year after his interview. He was sworn in as a citizen April 14.

"My feeling about it is, it's OK, they can check, but it took too long," said Attar, a neonatologist on the faculty at the University of Michigan. "If they were concerned about something, they could have called, and I could have clarified something."

I knew they'd whine about racial profiling! But really, it's not racial, it's ETHNIC PROFILING that's being done here, to make sure that the Muslim immigrants coming in aren't extremists. Those Islamists who can't come to terms with that need not apply.

Also available at Adam's Blog, Basil's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, bRight & Early, Cao's Blog, Free Constitution, Jo's Cafe, Point Five, TMH's Bacon Bits.

Mexico went overboard by publishing its own edition of Protocols of the Elders of Zion

As J.F. Beck discovers in the pages of the New York Times.

And to think we wondered how they ended up supporting so much anti-Americanism, under the table or over it.

Belgian teen murdered by Muslim thugs, authorities blame victims (Update: culprits were Polish)

Almost two weeks ago, a 17 year old Belgian, Joe Van Holsbeeck, was murdered by two Muslim youths who wanted to steal his MP3 player. The news on this can be found The Brussel Journal.

But wouldn't you know it, the police, in making their inquiry, did the following:

Joe Van Holsbeeck, the 17 year old boy who died after being butchered with a knife by North African youths in Brussels Central Station last week, was buried today. Muslim immigrants distributed home baked bread during the funeral. Joe was savagely stabbed to death Wednesday a week ago when he refused to hand over his MP3 player to the North Africans. Immediately after the assassination the police inquired whether Joe had made any “racist remarks” whilst been mugged, but Joe and his family and friends were not racists. On the contrary.

Joe’s parents opted for a memorial service instead of the traditional funeral Mass. The parish priest of the Catholic St. Elisabeth Church of the Brussels borough of Haren told Belgian radio this morning that the parents wanted to ensure that “immigrants would not feel excluded at the funeral service.” The priest did not hand out the Holy Eucharist to the mourners, but the immigrant neighbours of the Van Holsbeeck family distributed home baked bread. This, the priest explained, was “a sign of fraternity” between Belgians and immigrants.

How about that. Not only did the police opportunistically ask if the teen "provoked" his murderers, and the parents bent over backwards by making this some kind of a multiculti memorial service (and the Belgian parliament also went the appeasement route). If you ask me, that is desecration of the worst kind against the innocent.

Joe’s killers have not been caught yet. Some doubt whether they ever will. The North African youths who slaughtered a 16 year old black boy in a similar fashion last January, have not been found either. Yesterday Senator Jean-Marie Dedecker, a member of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt’s Liberal Party (VLD), wrote in an op-ed article in De Standaard, a major Brussels newspaper, that the Belgian police, when confronted with criminal immigrants, all too often “look the other way in order to avoid being accused of racism.” Dedecker called Joe’s murderers “thugs.”

The maverick Senator was reprimanded by Verhofstadt and Interior Minister Patrick Dewael because he had ignored the government’s appeal for “calm and serenity.” According to Verhofstadt Dedecker is “inciting hostilities.” The senator replied that “One has to have the courage to say that these murderers are scum.” He feels this is the only way to counter Belgium’s main opposition party (which is also the country’s largest party), the Flemish secessionist and “islamophobic” Vlaams Belang (VB). Another leading Liberal, Herman De Croo, the Speaker of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, said Dedecker is a “poujadist” and a “populist” – two qualifications which are often applied to the VB as well.

Yes, courage is a very important thing to have, and the Senator did the right thing to speak up.

There's been a protest attended by at least 80,000 people in Belgium following this ghastly murder and the acts of appeasement that accompanied it. We must hope that, just like with the case of the murder of Ilan Halimi, this too will be the beginning of some much needed protests by the citizens of the European countries that have been sold into dhimmitude by their phony leaders. It's important, including if we're to protest against the political correctness that's been a sorry staple in many of these incidents.

Update: the news now is that the murderers were Polish gypsies living illegally in Belgium. One of the two has been arrested, the other, the one with the knife, is still at large. And most strangely enough, as the BJ reports, it was the Belgian justice ministry that first said that the culprits were North African.

What I don't get though is, if this happened almost two weeks ago, how is it that it took so long for the exact news to come out? And seeing this e-mail the BJ got, I have to wonder, is someone at the justice ministry trying to be insulting?

That aside, what's really angering about this case is that it serves as the perfect excuse for moonbats to use to smear innocents as "islamophobes". As told here:

Yesterday Laurette Onkelinx, the far-left Belgian minister of Justice, said that “those who have wrongly stigmatised an ethnic community will have to search their own consciences.” It is noteworthy, however, that the Vlaams Belang, the main opposition party and one with a firm stance on immigration and law and order, kept a low profile during the past two weeks. Its leaders hardly commented on the Van Holsbeeck case. Nevertheless, it looks as if the Van Holsbeeck case will turn into an opportunity for the leftwing Belgian regime to crack down on so-called “racists” and “islamophobes.” Today, in the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Glenn Audenaert of the Brussels federal police comments: “Now I understand how anti-semitism was able to creep into our homes in the thirties.”

Seeing this, I can only wonder if this confusion was caused deliberately.

Others on the subject include CDR Salamander, Conservative Culture, Voce Libera, Mr. Mustard, The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill, Planck's Constant, Discarded Lies, Nordish Portal, Done With Mirrors, Arab World Analysis, Gateway Pundit, Power Line.

Why was Abu al-Hawa murdered?

Caroline Glick (via One Jerusalem) explains why an Arab resident of eastern Jerusalem who sold property to Jews ended up being murdered (see earlier post for more details): because the left-wing establishment in Israel would not protect him from the Islamic mufti that incited the Islamofascists to carry out the crime.

When the PA was established in 1994, the first legal step its chairman Yasser Arafat and its justice minister Freih Abu Medein took was to declare null and void all laws that had been in force until that date. After plunging Palestinian society into legal chaos, Arafat and Medein reinstated one law. That law was a Jordanian law which Israel had revoked in 1967. It made selling land to Jews a capital offense.

SINCE 1994, dozens of Arab Israelis and PA residents have been murdered on suspicion of selling land to Jews. Abu al-Hawa's murder - like those that preceded it - tells us several important things about Palestinian society. It tells us that like the PA today, any successor Palestinian state will be a racist, apartheid state where laws will be promulgated based solely on race and religious origin. Jews will be denied all basic human rights and Arabs who peacefully coexist with Jews will be accused of treason and made targets for murder.

On Saturday night Sheikh Raed Salah, the former mayor of Umm el-Fahm and the head of the northern branch of the Israeli Islamic Movement, spoke to an audience of some 30,000 Israeli Arabs in Kafr Kana. There he placed Abu al-Hawa's murder in the context of the Arab-Islamic strategy for conquering Jerusalem. His address, which was broadcast live by al-Jazeera, was devoted to calling for the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem. He called on his Arab brethren to "save Jerusalem from the hands of the Jews," promising that "Jerusalem will soon be the capital of the world Islamic nation, and it will be governed by a caliphate."

Salah's speech placed him in the company of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based Sunni cleric who acts as a religious authority for both Hamas and al-Qaida. Speaking in Sanaa, Yemen, last December, Qaradawi, who chairs the Al-Quds Foundation, referred to the goal of Islamizing Jerusalem by ending coexistence with Israel as "a civilian jihad that should go side by side with armed resistance."

Today, there is no figure of authority in the Arab and Islamic world in general and in the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority particularly who would have stood up for Abu al-Hawa. For today's Arab and Islamic leaders, murders like Abu al-Hawa's serve an "educational" goal of terrorizing Palestinians into ending any ongoing relationships they may have with Israelis.

Neither Abu al-Hawa nor countless other victims before him had an opportunity to answer the charges leveled against them. According to Palestinians and to Jews involved in purchasing lands from Palestinians, in the majority of cases, the Arabs murdered for the "crime" of selling land to Jews never sold land to Jews. At most they were "guilty" of having ties of friendship or commerce with Israelis. The fact that merely having relations with Jews can expose an Arab to allegations of collaboration is enough to convince most Palestinians that they shouldn't have anything to do with Israel or Israelis. So by murdering people like Abu al-Hawa, the Palestinian leadership ensures that Palestinians will be too afraid of being killed to risk peaceful coexistence with Israel.

YET WHILE once marked as a land seller Abu al-Hawa could expect no protection from the Palestinian leadership, as a resident of Jerusalem he had a legal right to expect Israeli authorities to protect him.

Indeed, it was the responsibility of the Israel Police to protect him. Disturbingly, not only did the police not protect him, they may well have made it impossible for him to escape death.

Last month the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered the police to evict squatters from the building formerly owned by Abu al-Hawa who had moved in during the previous weeks. Sources intimately involved with the story allege that rather than carry out the eviction order as quietly as possible in order to minimize local Arab attention to what was already shaping up to be a difficult and dangerous situation for Abu al-Hawa, the police leaked the court-ordered operation to Israel's TV Channel 10.

Last Sunday and Monday nights, Channel 10 led its primetime news broadcasts with footage from the police operation at A-Tur. The footage showed riot police ejecting the squatters and their personal effects from the apartment building. Reporter Assaf Zohar portrayed the Arab squatters as innocent victims and the Jews who bought the building legally, guarded the building legally and moved into the building legally as arrogant bullies and greedy, wealthy fanatics.

Abu al-Hawa described Jews approaching him with a suitcase filled with cash offering to buy his apartment. He vociferously claimed that he refused their pushy offers because he would never sell to Jews. Zohar made no mention of the fact that the PA conducts extrajudicial murders of those accused of selling land to Jews.

IT WAS hard to imagine Al-Jazeera portraying Jews in a worse light than Israel's Channel 10. The fact that the building in question is located in Israel's capital city across the street from the Temple Mount apparently made absolutely no impression on Zohar.

After the Channel 10 "expose," the level of incitement against Abu al-Hawa went up several decibels in A-Tur and in the PA. Sources in the neighborhood argue that if he had been harassed by the PA before the Channel 10 broadcast, Abu al-Hawa's life was immediately imperiled in the broadcast's aftermath.

The fact that the police allowed and allegedly facilitated Channel 10's coverage of the evictions together with the decidedly anti-Israel slant of the Channel 10 story says two very disturbing things about the state of Israel's elites today. In the case of the police, it says that the one body responsible for safeguarding Abu al-Hawa's life operated in contradiction to its basic mission.

If the police had wished, they could have made it clear to neighborhood residents and PA interlopers that it was in their best interests to leave Abu al-Hawa and his family alone. Yet rather than do so, they apparently facilitated the Channel 10 coverage which made killing Abu al-Hawa a matter of honor for his murderers eager to prove their mettle as defenders of Palestinian pride and Islamic solidarity against the Jews.

For its part, Channel 10's unsettlingly biased story was noteworthy not merely because it made Abu al-Hawa an irresistible target. It was noteworthy for what it said about how Israel's elites view official Palestinian anti-Semitism. By leading their primetime news broadcast night after night with a sevenminute segment that portrayed Jews moving into a building in Jerusalem as wealthy, exploitative trespassers, Channel 10 showed that its editors, producers and reporters accept the anti-Semitic basis of Palestinian claims against Israel.

That is, these representatives of the Israeli elite classes believe that the goal of establishing a Palestinian state justifies nullifying the right of Jews to own land in areas that the Palestinians claim are theirs.

As Glick indicates here, it is largely the fault of the left-wing establishment in Israel that this savage murder ended up being committed. And both Channel 10 and Channel 2, IMO, are major offenders among TV stations in Israel, and should be viewed skeptically.

Also available at bRight & Early, Is it Just Me, The Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU.

US Congress now faces a serious test

The Island Packet of Hilton Head, South Carolina, has an op-ed stressing the need for Congress to show that they're serious about passing some serious reform on the immigration issue in the US:

Congress and the president are going to face a real leadership test as they attempt to hammer out their differences on immigration reform.

That's assuming they're actually willing to tackle the job. The Senate's performance before the Easter break was dismal.

[...]

The immigrant work force might be enabling a booming economy here, but we're all paying the price for services, such as education, health care and law enforcement. Some companies claim they're getting priced out of business by those paying low wages to undocumented workers.

[...]

The House bill takes a simplistic approach to the problem: Build a fence and throw on tougher penalties for employers and aliens. The Senate appears likely to approve a guest worker plan and offer legal status for undocumented aliens, but it, too, would boost penalties. The two bodies will have to work out their differences.

The state of Georgia isn't waiting on federal officials. Gov. Sonny Perdue signed into law Monday a sweeping immigration bill. The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act calls for verifying that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally; sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants; mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of their employees; and requires police to check the immigration status of the people they arrest to see whether they face deportation orders.

What stricter regulations just across the state line will mean here is anyone's guess. But the question shows that what we need is federal reform, not individual state reform.

An excellent point. Though there's another one that may need to be stressed:

If Dubya's gone off the deep end on the immigration issue, among others, that's why the Republicans will have to distance themselves from him, and I think they already have/are. My recommendation would be for Sen. Tom Tancredo, who's stood very well on the immigration issue, to lead the way in the campaign.

They'll also have to distance themselves from would-be reps like John McCain, and the Republicans in Arizona will need to choose a candidate who can prove the ideal replacement for him in the Senate elections.

And most important of all, they'll need to pass some solid laws that can make the public stand up and cheer, and get the authorities to make effective raids to round up the illegals.

If they can fulfill these important steps within the time prior to the US House elections, then I think they'll be able to secure a successful campaign for Congress.

I knew it. Britain is doomed

The police system in England is being ruined by the home office, and the judicial system is the part next to collapse: As The UK Times (via Michelle Malkin) reports, they're legitimizing child abuse, if it's even a Muslim woman who committed the crime.

As a commentor at the Free Republic asks:

"What's next, allowing honor killings because the male family members don't know any better?"

It makes no difference how badly they've been indoctrinated; a crime is a crime, pure and simple. Could any US human rights groups, including the United American Committee, do anything to protest this?

Others horrified at this sellout by the UK judicial system include Daily Pundit, Discarded Lies, Don Singleton, A Tic in the Mind's Eye, Nordish.Net, Verum Serum, Leather Penguin.

Kadima loses a member (already?!? - Yep)

The Jerusalem Post reports that Prof. Uriel Reichman has rejected Ehud Olmert's offers for a cabinet position, because he couldn't get the ministries he wanted:

Kadima MK Uriel Reichman told Interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he would not attend their meeting scheduled for Sunday afternoon. Olmert had expected to take the opportunity to inform Reichman that he would not be offered the Education portfolio - promised him by Ariel Sharon - which will most likely go to Labor MK Yuli Tamir.

Reichman's aides had said that he would reject Olmert's offer of the justice portfolio instead of the education portfolio and return to the presidency of the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.

Sources close to Olmert criticized Reichman's cancellation of the meeting. "Pressure and threats won't help here," they said.

Tamir told Israel Radio that she admired Reichman, and that despite the difference in their ideologies, there was no conflict between them. She added that she would be very glad to see Reichman remain in politics.

The TV news has reported that he's now resigning from the Knesset and politics and returning to his job at a college institution, and it certainly weakens Olmert's reputation. But that aside, what's really irksome is how these would-be politicians are wasting money:

In regard to the projected cost of 27 ministers in the new government, Tamir said that a wide coalition necessitated a wide government, which would assure stability.

It should be noted that the direct elections law, which was legislated and then nullified, referred to a government of 18 ministers and six deputy ministers. A government of 27 ministers would cost an additional NIS 400 million for the four-year term.

However wide the government might be, some disappointment among ministerial candidates was inevitable. Since Labor party chairman Amir Peretz will likely receive the defense portfolio, Olmert met with current Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz on Sunday morning to ask Mofaz to resign. Olmert reportedly offered him an economic portfolio, and asked Mofaz to remain a member of the security and defense cabinet.

New Labor MK Shelly Yahimovic on Sunday called the coalition agreement reached on Thursday night between Olmert and Peretz "a significant political achievement for Labor."

But not for Kadima. However, what certainly is angering is that the overspending that's likely to occur if this is how they form a government.

On NFC, while this is in Hebrew, they give some additional data, and report that Reichman is leaving Kadima. In fairness, I will say that the current development strengthens Shas and Yisrael Beitenu's own coalition demands, and that they could send some sterner messages that way.

For the record, see also this article, which talks about how some left-wing newspaper writers are no longer sure they want to support Olmert's plans to retreat from Yesha.

Foggy Bottom flirts with the Muslim Brotherhood

The US State Dept. continues to maintain ludicrous positions, as the Counterterrorism Blog reports (Hat tip: One Jerusalem). Now, it seems that they're even conversing with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, from which many modern terrorist organizations first stemmed from:

Over the last weeks there have been numerous signs of a new attitude at Foggy Bottom in relation to the international movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. While scores of moderate Muslims and Islamic scholars, the 9/11 Commission, and European security officials point to the Muslim Brothers as the forefathers of modern Islamist terrorism, the State Department is, in fact, flirting with them. As noted by Doug Farah here, last month the State Department sent its head of counterterrorism, Ambassador Hank Crumpton, to be the keynote speaker at a conference co-sponsored by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), an infamous Brotherhood-linked Northern Virginia outfit. And in two weeks, as Rachel Ehrenfeld reported, the U.S. Embassy in Rome will co-sponsor a high-profile two-day symposium about immigration and integration where the highly controversial Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan has been invited as a keynote speaker.

Isolated blunders? Unfortunately not. Two weeks ago the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on Islamist Extremism in Europe where various government officials outlined their initiatives to reach out to European Muslims. Particularly interesting was the testimony of the US Ambassador to Belgium, Tom Korologos, who explained how, over the past few months, together with the State Department, has been promoting various seemingly laudable initiatives in which American and European Muslim organizations meet with US officials, opening a dialogue that, in the Ambassador’s hopes, will “break stereotypes and foster networking opportunities.”

Dialogue with Muslim leaders, both in the West and in the rest of the world, is a crucial aspect of America’s war on terror, which, in the long run, is more important than any military or anti-terrorist operation. Yet Ambassador Korologos, and the State Department with him, seems to have completely missed the mark. The organizations that have been chosen to participate in his initiative, in fact, represent the gotha of the Muslim Brotherhood’s network on both sides of the Atlantic, raising serious doubts as to whether a genuinely open and constructive dialogue is being fostered.

In all due fairness, it's unlikely that you can even get through to such demented fiends, and in fact, the Muslim Brotherhood should not be recognized as legitimate at all.

There needs to be a lot more attention brought to subjects like this, and not only that, Congress should also be told that we don't want the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas, the PLO, or any other such terrorist gangs from being recognized politically, period. For which reason, that's why all concerned should contact their representatives in the House about this.

Others on the subject include Winds of Change, Making Sense of Jihad.

Rock throwing violence, in France and in Santa Barbara

Two weeks ago, some Muslim thugs in Seine Saint Denis threw stones at two German schoolgirls visiting a local college because they were dressed "too sexy". My answer: make sure you continue to wear those great outfits, girls, and don't let those Islamofascists scare you, but at the same time, I strongly recommend studying aikido...AND BREAKING BONES!!!

And even in the United States, people are having problems with stone throwers (even here too in Israel, there have been some with Muslim hoodlums in past years): in Santa Barbara, at one of the illegal immigrant marches, the house of an elderly couple was confronted by hoodlums who threw stones, and even eggs (via Michelle Malkin):

A peaceful school-sanctioned protest march in support of illegal immigrants turned ugly Monday when students from Santa Barbara High pelted the home of an elderly couple with rocks and eggs.

The incident took place at the home of Joel and Eloise Gomez on East Canon Perdido Street after the couple exchanged words with some of the 300 or so students making their way back to campus, about one block away.

Off-campus student protests against a proposed law that would make felons out of illegal immigrants have taken place across Santa Barbara in recent weeks. But this one, conducted with police escort and with school officials close by, is the first that has involved any report of violence.

Mrs. Gomez, 70, said she and her 74-year-old husband heard the marchers approach, chanting "Sí, se puede" (Yes, we can) and other slogans.

"We were out there and there they come with their shouting and shaking their fists," she said. "We were just saying stay in school, learn English, you know? They didn't like this."

Mr. Gomez said he saw two girls pick up rocks and throw them at the house. One ripped through the screen and hit the front door, he said...

...Fifteen minutes later, said Mrs. Gomez, another group of girls returned.

"They all lined up there and at the command of one of the girls they threw eggs all of a sudden," she said. "They did their damage and ran like rats."

In all, nine eggs were lobbed at the home.

"I was going to go out there," said Mrs. Gomez. "I would have been pelted by eggs. Something told me just stay in."

Once the students had left, she added, two other girls knocked on the door to offer assistance, said Mrs. Gomez. Soon after, the couple called police.

If the vandals were illegals themselves, one can only wonder if they pelted rocks and eggs because they don't want to stay around anyway. I don't know, but, they may not want to get citizenship now, because if they do...they'll be making it easier for the authorities to arrest, convict, and send them to jail!

The Santa-Barbara News Press article, unfortunately, is as pro-illegal immigration as can be, not to mention very propagandistic. Watch carefully now:

"This is not just a movement that's happening in Goleta or Santa Barbara," he said. "It's a worldwide uprising of people that are standing up for themselves."

Mayor Marty Blum told the students that she thinks the city will soon vote to oppose any federal legislation that would make being in this country illegally a felony. "City Hall has already heard your voices," she said.

Freshman Jonathan Aguiar said he didn't learn anything from the speakers. "I knew it already."

The 15-year-old added, "It's not fair for the immigrants to be told they're criminals."

Phillip Kuzmanovski, 15, agreed.

"This state used to be Mexico," he said. "We can't make it illegal for them to be here."

So let's see what we have here. They're completely ignoring the Hidalgo Treaty of 1848, and saying that they'll support illegalities to boot. But worst of all, they're strongly hinting at the Muslim uprising in other parts of the world, France included, and taking it all out of context by justifying it! (See also this topic for an earlier example.) I think I can see now what Diana West was talking about in her columns.

Others on the subject include Common Sense Journal, Wall Street Cafe, Right Wing News, Christians Under Attack, Flopping Aces, Right Voices, California Conservative.

Now a real terror suspect has been found at Georgia Tech

When Georgia Tech was in the news last, it was due to the actions of a prankster with a blog on MySpace.Com (and yes, that's bad news. WND has more to explain why) who seemed to think he was being a genius with his offensive actions.

Now, however, it looks like there's a terror suspect, much more authentic at that, who's been arrested at the university in Atlanta. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (via The Buzz Blog and Michelle Malkin):

A 21-year-old Georgia Tech student taken into federal custody last month has been charged with giving "material support" to a terrorist organization, according to a federal indictment unsealed Thursday.

The student, Syed Haris Ahmed, a mechanical engineering major who had become increasingly religious in his Islamic faith, was arrested March 23 by the FBI.

"This is the first international terrorism charge ever filed in Georgia," said U.S. Attorney David Nahmias shortly after unsealing the indictment "The charge against Mr. Ahmed is serious and involves national security and will be prosecuted with that in mind."

Authorities declined to provide details about the charges but said they had investigated Ahmed for about a year.

Jack Martin, Ahmed's court-appointed lawyer, refused to comment on the case. Ahmed's family has rejected the suggestion that the student has been involved in terrorism.

On Wednesday, Ahmed appeared before U.S. Magistrate Joel Feldman and pleaded not guilty, prosecutors said Thursday. Ahmed was ordered to be held in custody pending trial.

Ahmed was taken into custody, his family said, apparently because authorities suspect a videotape he made of a building may have been related to terrorism.

Gregory Jones, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta office, would not say what started the investigation.

Ahmed's family immigrated from Pakistan in 1997 and are now U.S. citizens living in Dawsonville.

Family members said agents confiscated computer hard drives and data CDs from their home last month.

Ahmed told his family that authorities found a video on the Internet and apparently traced it to him. The video was of a building and was perhaps made during a trip with friends. Ahmed's family members said they did not know the location of the building or when the tape was made.

WAGA-TV reported that the station's sources say the FBI believes Ahmed traveled to Pakistan last year to attend a terrorist training camp. His family acknowledged that he traveled to Pakistan, but they said he was merely attending a religious school. The report cannot be independently verified.

When the prank-pulling student at Georgia Tech did his dirty deed last year, he did something very dangerous: he risked causing people to let down their guard, and when you let down your guard, there's the danger of letting suspects like Syed Ahmed get past us. Thank goodness the Feds were able to catch him, because there's every possibility that he could've been up to no good.

The AP, via the Ledger-Enquirer of Columbus, GA, also reported that:

Ahmed's mother, Samia, said he did visit Pakistan in 2005 for a month, but for Islamic study.

Ooooooops! "But?" Sorry, but, NO buts, please! And why do I get the feeling that the use of word "apparently" could be propaganda too? There's something to ponder as well.

Also available at Alabama Improper, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Voteswagon.

Now, it's official: Al-Arian confesses his ties to jihad

But it seems to be simply because of a plea bargain he's getting, that'll enable him to just be deported. From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (via Jihad Watch):

Details of Sami Al-Arian's plea agreement emerged Monday after a federal judge unsealed documents related to hearings held last week out of public view.

In it, the fired University of South Florida professor admits being a member of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and helping others associated with the terrorist group -- including his deported brother-in-law Mazen Al-Najjar -- in immigration matters and lying to conceal their ties.

Al-Arian pleaded guilty to one count of "conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors dropped eight outstanding terrorism-related charges on which jurors deadlocked during a six-month trial.

Prosecutors also agreed to recommend that immigration officials "expedite" Al-Arian's expulsion after his sentencing. His family has previously said their first stop may be Egypt before they try to begin anew in the Palestinian territories.

Oh, he'd be warmly welcomed there, wouldn't he. And the latter part of this article contains quite a bit of gushing, sob-story quality bits about the creep's own wife, Nahla Al-Arian. That aside, this does prove that Al-Arian, despite initial attempts to claim otherwise, was indeed involved in terrorism against the US.

Robert Spencer's already published an article about this at Front Page Magazine, and sums it up well about the MSM failing its duty to the public:

After years of denial, Sami Al-Arian has finally admitted it: he has pleaded guilty to a charge of “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist” organization. He has agreed to accept deportation. In his 2002 defense of Al-Arian, Eric Boehlert wrote: “The al-Arian story reveals what happens when journalists, abandoning their role as unbiased observers, lead an ignorant, alarmist crusade against suspicious foreigners who in a time of war don't have the power of the press or public sympathy to fight back.” Reality is just the opposite. The al-Arian story reveals what happens when journalists and Leftist academics, abandoning their role as unbiased observers, lead an ignorant, alarmist crusade against Americans who in a time of war try to defend our country from those whose politics make them the darlings of the Leftist media and academic establishment.

When the media takes the side of dangerous criminals, all they end up doing is hurting many, including themselves, in the end.

While Al-Arian's defenders have nothing left to use now, the sad truth, as Debbie Schlussel explains, is that the prosecution of Al-Arian was a failure, because the Justice Department proved itself so inept in dealing with the case to begin with. And there should not be any plea bargains, but rather, retrials, to prove the guilt of such terrorists as Al-Arian and to prevent dangerous monsters like him from walking among innocent people ever again.

Also available at Cao's Blog, The Mudville Gazette, Third World County.

Dominique de Villepin DESERVED it. Plus, a rebuttal of a Le Pen apologist

It's time to deal now with something that's been bugging me about The Brussels Journal's Paul Belien. In this entry, he talks about how, following faux-president Jacques Chirac's withdrawal of the employment bill, his prime minister de Villepin announced that he wouldn't be running for president in the next election. He then goes on, without providing any truly authentic data, to accuse Nicholas Sarkozy of being "a worthy dauphin of Chirac." So now, some points:

-- Considering that de Villepin is a jelly-spine who downplayed the Muslim riots by telling the public that it was all caused by "social unrest", this is exactly why his defeat is richly deserved. And while I do support free-market trade, the problems with that are NOTHING compared to the crime and terror situation now grasping at France.

-- If you ask me, Chirac and de Villepin brought this upon themselves because they allowed the riots of November to go on for at least a month before clamping down on the Muslim thugs properly. Because of their wimpy attitude towards Islam, they pretty much gave the impression to the student rioters that they could get away with rioting too (and enabling the Muslim thugs to take advantage of their actions to commit more violence as well). Lack of convincing law and order is one of the things that encourages crime even among local youth as well.

-- In fact, it wouldn't have done much good for Chirac and de Villepin to take serious steps against the student protestors either, because then, they could've been accused of discrimination due to the fact that they had gone soft on the Muslim rioters in November. Simply put, they stuck themselves both ways.

And where's Belien get the idea that Sarkozy is really against free trade and markets? How does he know that Sarkozy doesn't know how to talk to the students and help reach an understanding with them?

Whatever, one of the reasons why I find Belien's whole argument unconvincing is because, guess what? He apparently supports Jean-Marie Le Pen! The following is enough to vomit:

I met Le Pen twenty years ago at an international press conference that the Front National leader was giving in Brussels. He made quite an impression. The mainstream media were very hostile to Le Pen (they still are), which made me instinctively sympathise with him. I was about the only conservative journalist in Belgium and because of this I was not very popular with my overwhelmingly liberal colleagues. During the press conference they tried to roast Le Pen, but he roasted them instead.

When at a certain moment an arrogant Brit from The Guardian asked Le Pen a denunciatory question, the latter bluntly replied: “I do not answer that question. Next question!” The journalist retorted: “I have a right to ask this question,” whereupon Le Pen: “And I have a right not to answer it.”

Although I disagree with some of his opinions – his anti-Semitism, his anti-Americanism, his economic protectionism – and though his style is often needlessly provocative and offensive, Le Pen is by far the most authentic of all the French politicians. In last week’s Spectator Taki wrote that it would have been better for France if Le Pen had become president in 2002. It would have been better for the whole of Europe.

Okay, that does it, Belien. The gloves are off.

"It would have been better for the whole of Europe"?!?!? NO. IT. WOULDN'T.

And the mainstream media are hostile to Le Pen? Suuuurrre they are. They've actually given him quite a platform on which to babble in the past few months, stating his phony nationalist arguments, namely because they're doubtless hoping he can win against Sarkozy or anyone else who's good. Belien sympathises with him? End of story.

Belien also does not specify just what that question was that a Guardian reporter asked Le Pen. Maybe it was "denunciatory", but without explaining clearly what he said, there's no genuine way to tell.

And if there's something Belien forgot to mention, it's Le Pen's visit to Iraq four years ago. From this CNN report from 2002:

Le Pen rejects U.S. pre-eminence and visited Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in part to make a point -- that France should pursue its own political and economic interests.

Le Pen toned down some of his rhetoric in this campaign. He previously called for immigrants to be expelled but dropped that message this time.

Aha! No doubt to appease his good friend Saddam, who, were he still in power today, would've been quite satisfied that Muslims under Le Pen could remain in France and cause destruction galore. And given that Le Pen paid the visit to Saddam just shortly before the US raid, don't be fooled by the claim that Le Pen argued that France should pursue its own political and economic interests. Because if he could be against the raid, he could be against free trade even within his own country too. His recent partnership deal with the Muslims in France (who don't exactly seem interested in free trade economy any more than they do in jihad conquest) can certainly help give a clue that even on the trade issue, he doesn't really mean it. The man's just a clever talker, and nothing else.

To make matters worse, Le Pen, in his continuing spiral to insanity, has even been making up excuses for Iran's nuclear weapons building. Here's an entry from View From the Right that talks about that dreadful development, and also one from The Anti-Jihad Pundit.

In more optimistic news, Angus Reid finds that Marianne published a poll that shows that few in France coincide with Le Pen's bigoted, double-faced standings. That's good to know, and it helps show that there are plenty of people in France who aren't fooled by that monster.