Well, I wasn’t expecting to get back on the subject of the trials of the 9/11 plotters being held in NYC so soon, but something that both Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama said this morning got my attention.

Eric Holder defended his decision to hold civilian trials in NYC, as opposed to a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, by stating that “I have every confidence that the nation will see him for the coward that he is. I’m not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.”

“We need not cower in the face of the enemy,” he continued. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

Obama agreed, and referred to those who would be offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by the benefit of a civilian trial as opposed to a military tribunal “won’t find it offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

Almost as if catching himself, he quickly added that “I’m not going to be in that courtroom. That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

Look you fools… we’re not cowering before these terrorists. We’re not scared of what Mohammed or his ilk has to scream in the courtroom. Saddam Hussein did plenty of yelling and screaming in the courtroom… that didn’t stop him from becoming an Iraqi tree ornament. 

We have plenty of real, legitimate reasons for not wanting the trials being held in NYC, one of them being security concerns, which I discussed earlier. 

The biggest reason, however, is the idea that these Islamic, terrorist thugs, captured while trying to kill us, will receive the same rights and privileges as a U.S. citizen under the Constitution. They’re lawyers can claim that they’re rights weren’t read, that they were tortured, that they have a right to an attorney, etc. Don’t forget, even with Mohammed’s confession that he was the mastermind of the attacks, that confession could be thrown out. They could, even though the chance is small, be acquitted. 

Now here’s the best part… what happens if they are acquitted?

Well, according to Eric Holder, that’s never going to happen. 

“Failure is not an option” he vows. “These are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we’ll have a contrary result.”

Does anyone really believe that these guys, particularly Mohammad, will be released back into the populace if found “not guilty”? 

Can you imagine what would happen if we were talking about American citizens still being held after being found not guilty?

So… what exactly is the point of a civilian trial then? If we’re hell-bent on convicting them and keeping them locked up, wouldn’t a military tribunal make more sense? Why are they making the taxpayers go through with this? 

My guess is that their intention is to “show off” to the rest of the world just how “unafraid” we are by holding these trials in the very city that the terrorists attacked, of the complete faith we have in our justice system. 

Instead, we’re going to be showing the world how our justice system has become a complete mockery of what it once stood for. 

Links:

Graham Accuses Holder of ‘Making Bad History’ with Sept. 11 Trial Decision: Fox News, 11/18/09

Obama, Holder Firm on Convicting 9/11 Plotter: CBS5 news.com, 11/18/09

Holder: ‘I’m Not Scared of What Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Has to Say: Rachel Slajda, TPM Livewire, 11/18/09

At least 7,000 people were waiting for an event hosted by a French marketing site called “Mailorama.fr” to start an event, in which a London double-decker bus named the “Bus of Fortune” would drive past the crowd in Paris and hand out envelopes that could contain anywhere from $7.50 to $750 out the windows to the waiting crowd below. 

At least, that was the plan. 

When the police got a good look at the crowd waiting for them, they changed their minds and canceled the event. 

Uh ohhh.

Well, that didn’t sit well with the crowd, and predictably, things got ugly quickly. Windows were pelted with fruit, and at least one car was overturned. I guess that’s what happens when you deny people their “hard-earned” money. After all, have you ever overturned a car and decorated windows with fruit? It’s more difficult than it sounds. They really worked for that money.

While the organizers themselves claimed that they regretted that the event didn’t go as planned, a government official named Eric Woerth expressed shock that the marketing site even considered organizing the event.

“Just because they do this sort of thing in the United States, that’s not a reason to do it in France. It borders on the ludicrous”.

You gotta love the French. Even though the U.S. had absolutely nothing to do with the event, they still find a way to pin the blame on us. 

Oh, and someone needs to clue in Monsieur Woerth that his Socialist government gives money away to slackers all the time, just not as openly as “Mailorama” tried to do.  

Still, frenchie here does bring up an interesting topic. He’s correct when he says that we’ve actually done this kind of thing before. 

Last year in February of 2008, an internet company called “Cashtomatoe.com” decided to throw their own little cash giveaway promotion in Union Square, NYC. The idea was for representatives of the company, dressed as tomatoes, to pass out tomatoes with money attached to them to the homeless. 

Apparently, the mob got tired of waiting, and began yelling “make it rain” and (my personal favorite) “give me my money!” as the clock counted down until the event started. With only 5 minutes to go, the impatient mob of 100 people then pushed their way to the workers, and began grabbing the bags of tomatoes with the money in them. 

Long story short… the money was stolen, fights broke out and people got trampled and stomped on. The money didn’t make it into the hands of the homeless as it was intended, but into the greedy hands of an unruly mob out for quick cash. 

I’m reminded of a scene from that old “Batman” movie back in the 80’s, when the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) announced on television that he would be celebrating Gotham’s anniversary by throwing a parade and tossing out millions of dollars to the crowd. However, unknown to the greedy parade attendees, he also intended on releasing a deadly gas from the parade floats on the money-grabbing revelers. 

And he would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that meddling freak in a bat costume.

Looking back, I sometimes wonder if maybe the Joker was the real hero. 

Sources:

Free Money Event Turns Violent: Frank Carnevale, MyFox Illinois, 11/16/09

Cashtomatoe Money Giveaway Turns Rotten with Union Square Riot: Seth Fiegerman & Tracy Connor, NYDaily News.com, 03/01/08

When I first heard this story on the radio on the way home from work, my first thought was that it was a possible terrorist attack. However, the FBI stated that they did not believe that it was terrorist related (as if some guy randomly shooting and killing people didn’t cause terror to anyone). They later stated that the shooter was in military uniform, and that he was a known soldier.  At the time, they refused to give the soldier’s name. 

I had a bad feeling that I knew why. I remembered how back in 2003, there was a big story about how a U.S. soldier had rolled 3 grenades into his fellow soldiers’ tent, killing 2 officers and injuring 14 other soldiers. It turns out that the soldier was a Muslim; Sgt. Asan Akbar. Apparently, Sgt. Akbar felt that his fellow soldiers were unfairly “personalizing the war as being the fault of all Muslims”.

What better way to make your point that Muslims are not at fault than by rolling a few grenades into your fellow soldiers’ tent? 

Well, my suspicions that the soldier is a Muslim, or at least of Arabic descent, has proven correct so far. The soldier’s name? Sgt. Malik Nadal Hasan. 

I’m going to take a wild guess here; I’ll probably be wrong, but here it goes…

Sgt. Hasan, and possibly his accomplices who may also be Muslims, are unhappy with the war that is going on in Afghanistan.   They’re upset that their Muslim “brothers” are being killed by American soldiers. They’re ashamed to be American soldiers themselves, so they decided to arrange a little shooting spree to “redeem their honor”.   

Naturally, liberals will claim that they condemn the shooting, but the condemnation will be followed by something along the lines of “but it’s understandable why they would do that. If we weren’t over there killing innocent Afghanis/Iraqis to begin with, this would never have happened. The pressure to them must be unbearable”. 

Some have already tried blaming the shooting on the high levels of stress and the numerous deployments to Afghanistan that many of the soldiers have already been through. Naturally, they’ll conveniently leave out the part where hundreds of our soldiers have already gone through this, yet it never occurred to them that as much stress as they may be going through, they never thought to deliberately shoot up their fellow soldiers.

I know that this isn’t the politically correct thing to say, but hey… somebody has to say it. And yes, I’m probably jumping to conclusions, but let’s face it, I’m sure many of you are thinking along similar lines. 

It’s unfortunate that Sgt. Hasan chose to “express himself” in this matter. He’s done more harm to the Muslim image than anything we could have done. 

Sources:

12 Killed in Shooting at Fort Hood: Sig Christensen and Scott Huddleston, Express News, 111/5/09

Officers Testify of Warnings before Tent Attack: Richard A Serrano, LA Times, 07/17/03

As of late, the Republicans have been using the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to support their argument that the cost of the Democrats’ health care reform bill would cost billions more than originally projected. Now, the Democrats are using the CBO to push their argument that not only would just a small percentage of Americans would sign up for the public option (2%), but that it would also help insurers as well. 

That’s the thing about relying on a non-partisan organization like the CBO; it’s a double-edged sword. Their findings can be just as easily used against you by the other side, as you can use its data against their side. And that’s assuming that the CBO is correct to begin with. No organization is always right.

However, this really isn’t so much about the CBO, as it is about the “sandman” tactics that the Dems are using again. 

“Only 2% of Americans are going to use the public option.” the Democrats claim. “What’s all the big fuss about? You’re getting all worked up over nothing! 2% is hardly a government takeover, is it? Hell, it will even help private insurers out because the premiums for the private plans will be cheaper due to the higher premiums of the public plans. What’s everyone so afraid of? We won’t let a government takeover happen; we’re on your side!”

In other words… back to sleep, middle-class America… back to sleep.

This argument is strikingly similar to one that was used with another policy that the Democrats pushed way back in 1913… you know it now as the income tax.  

The Dems were successfully able to make it Constitutional for the federal government to grab a percentage of your income, by force, by using a tried and true tactic; they played the wealth envy game. They targeted their campaign towards poor and middle class Americans by soothingly assuring them; “Don’t worry…only the wealthiest 1% in the north-eastern United States would ever have to pay that mean ol’ income tax.  That’s hardly a government takeover, is it? After all, we’re only making the richest among you pay their fair share. They have plenty of money. You won’t be affected at all! Remember, we’re on your side!”

Not surprisingly, the tax was passed by an overwhelming majority, and the 16^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was added.  

We all know how that little promise turned out now, don’t we? 

You may be wondering right now, “Wait a second… I don’t live in the north-eastern U.S….I’m not wealthy; so why am I’m paying income taxes?”

I’ll get to that later but until then, I leave you with this; don’t listen to the sandmen, don’t fall back asleep, we have enough nightmares with the income tax as it is.

Sources:

After All the Fuss, Public Health Plan Covers Few: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, 11/01/09