Global Warming Is Officially Over, Suck It Greenies!

Like I've been saying for years now (along with several others), mankind did not cause global warming, and mankind has not curbed global warming either. If you listen to Al Gore and his ilk you know that, according to them, man has not done anything to improve the environment ... so don't let them try to take credit here.

No doubt there will be wide spread panic tomorrow in the greenie community to counter this evidence. Their tactic will likely include widespread suppression of the issue by ignoring it. One might think they would try to discredit this info, but they simply can't. The satellite data is nothing new at all, but the greenies ignored it several other times it was published. The greenies have also never responded to NASA's repeated attempts to explain that the sun is the cause of global warming not only here, but on virtually every other planet ... not humans. Why? The answer is simple ... they can't counter the argument, and if they ignore it the idiots out there will never know it even happened. They've also paid no attention to scientists telling everyone that the planet's temperature has fluctuated for the past 10,000 years naturally, and without our help. Hell, even the dinosaurs were the victims of global warming.

I've been celebrating all day now that I know that global warming is officially over.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

I guess the founder of the Weather Channel was right about global warming being a crock eh? This does explain why scientist have been so baffled, and humbled, by the current weather patterns being so cold.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

As it turns out, NASA was right after all. Gee, who'd have thunk it.

Rest assured my little greenie friends ... the article still spells out doom for our planet because apparently cold is worse than heat. Which means you still have a cause to fight for by simply reverting back to the 1970's mantra that the planet was headed for a deep freeze, and then when it begins to warm again you can restart the cause of global warming. So you see, there is plenty to keep you occupied with. Problem is if global warming is less of an issue than global cooling ... maybe global warming was never a really big deal to begin with.

The way I see it, we need to make some changes, and start recognizing some basic truths.

Even though the US is performing better than the Kyoto countries in reducing carbon emissions we have a golden opportunity to squash the competition by removing all of our climate change restrictions on private business. Furthermore, since we know that carbon credits are a huge scam, that is stealing millions of dollars from the world's populations, we should put an end to these illegal businesses. We should also make sure that Kyoto is properly investigated for causing economic hardships, and needlessly destroying the world's forests.

It is also time that we launch massive investigation into the scientific community to find out which scientist continued to lie and manipulate data about global warming in order to get funding. You should already know the huge amounts of money involved with supporting global warming arguments through funding (over $80 billion). While we are punishing those scientist who have lied about global warming in order to get money ... we should reward the majority of published scientist that were honest by saying man is not responsible, or that there was not enough evidence to say either way. Less than half of published scientist support man-made global warming, so the investigation should go fairly quick.

It's also time that we accept polar bears are not in danger, and in fact are increasing their populations. However, we must be concerned with sea otters. It's time to save the poor little sea otters!

We should also consider not blaming our innocent children for destroying the planet. They have enough on their plate, and they deserve to get a good night's sleep without having nightmares about dieing in the middle of the night because of global warming. At least 6th graders are smart enough to know that man isn't causing global warming. Can you say the same?

We can also buy ourselves some nice SUVs without feeling guilty, and we no longer have to worry about sports cars being outlawed. Why not start eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream again while driving your new SUV. Since we don't have to worry about global warming anymore ... ice cream is safe. Well, not entirely safe ... they still have hidden soy products to slowly kill children and men.

It's a good thing global warming ended when it did so we don't have to worry about mercury poisoning with the CFL bulbs that congress keeps trying to shove down our throat. Whew, that was a close call. Now we can hold off until the even more energy efficient, and perfectly safe, LED bulbs hit the market in mass.

There have been some serious budget issue with regards to global warming that we don't need to worry about anymore either. Those new emissions standards that may ruin America's auto industry won't be necessary any longer. The military and intelligence community can also continue to focus on defending the country and fighting the war on terror without worrying about conducting war games to test how global warming will affect national security.

John Travolta can also stick around on Earth to entertain us with his acting,which is quite good, rather than going to another planet.

One of the best parts of global warming ending is that the UN will finally address the real issues that are causing the genocide in Darfur. Rather than wasting their time trying to tie Darfur to nonsensical theories. The conflict in Darfur predates the United States, it was not caused by global warming.

So you see, there is some work to be done now that global warming is no more. The predators who have preyed upon gullible people need to be punished, and those who stuck up for us rewarded. Even if it's only a thank you, but some funding for their research would be nice. The American people stand to get a windfall in money that the government no longer needs for climate change programs. We can only wait to see how our government will spend that money, but rest assured we won't get it back. My only hope is that it goes for truly necessary programs like veterans assistance, or a super dooper death ray mounted in space to evaporate our enemies. At a bare minimum I hope the money we save, from these now unnecessary programs, will be enough to cover the massive costs of the social programs Hillary and Obama have proposed, because I fear one of them will be president and we don't have the money to cover those programs.

Casey's Rules For Valentines Day

Meet my puppy Ranger

Casey's Valentines Day Rules To Live By

• Ladies, having sex with your partner is NOT a Valentines present. Even if you wear his favorite outfit, and do whatever he wants. This is insulting, and is the most flagrant of Valentines Day fouls. You are obligated to perform sexual favors (if of age) for your man ... the opposite is true for you guys as well. If men have to get you presents ... you have to get them presents. Now pony up cheap ass!
• Men, taking your partner out to dinner is NOT a Valentines present. You are supposed to be the MAN in the relationship. It is your duty to take your lady out to a nice dinner. When I say nice I mean someplace you have to actually dress up a little bit. Don't be a cheap ass!
• If you think your partner will do one of the two scams above ... it is completely appropriate to withhold giving your present to them until they pony up. If they think sex or dinner is a present, and don't get you anything else ... keep their present and return it tomorrow while looking for a new partner.
• Yes, flowers are considered a present. If you get a dozen roses ... don't you dare bitch about it. They are expensive (if you get good ones). Again, don't be a cheap ass!
• No, a card is not considered a present. If you think it is ... you are a cheap ass, quit it!
• Men, do not buy your ladies a big box of chocolates or candy. Small boxes are ok, but big boxes will only serve to encourage her to become fat and ugly. On this, you can be a cheap ass.
• Ladies, if your guy buys you lingerie it is considered a present for the both of you. No it does not absolve you of your present to him. Some women think lingerie is only a present for the man, and doesn't count. These women are selfish bitches, and should be discarded as soon as possible for younger, hotter, more agile models.
• Men, never EVER give a woman jewelery unless she is family or your fianc'ee. Some women will not like this rule because they like jewelery. However, I have spoken with several women about this and they agree with me. Only grandmas, moms, fianc'ees, and wives deserve jewelery. All others are unworthy. If you've been dating a woman for 5 years or more but never got engaged ... you are a cheap ass, stop it!
• Ladies, if you say you don't want anything for Valentines but your man's company, do not bitch when he doesn't get you anything. You are a lying, manipulative bitch who got exactly what she deserved.
• Men, if your lady tells you she doesn't want anything for Valentines, understand she is lying. The ball is now in your court. You can make her very happy by getting her something, or if you are ready to end the relationship ... get her nothing. When she gets angry, make sure you tell her how much of a lying, manipulative bitch she is before kicking her ass out onto the street.
• Ladies, Valentines Day is NOT your holiday. Saint Valentine was a guy. Valentines Day is a day to celebrate the relationship, and show admiration for your partner. It is not a day to show appreciation for you only. Make sure you remember that, and live by the rules. If you do you'll always get spoiled on Valentines Day.
• Men, you have been the victim for too long of this lie that you should spoil your lady, without expecting anything in return, because Valentines Day is all about the woman. It is not, and it's time to fight back. The only way to do so is to openly confront the selfish bitches who perpetuate this myth, and prey upon us men. Give these women no quarter, and cast them out of your lives. The women who understand the rules should be spoiled,pampered, and treated as the trophies they are. Put them up on a pedestal, admire them, brag about them, love and cherish them, and once in a while polish them up a bit to make them shine.

China Is Forcing Olympic Athletes To Promise They Won't Criticize Chinese Government

Well, technically it's the Olympics themselves, but China is a-o-k with it.

England is caving to the demands. I wonder who is next.

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China's appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.

The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.

The controversial clause has been inserted into athletes' contracts for the first time and forbids them from making any political comment about countries staging the Olympic Games.

It is contained in a 32-page document that will be presented to all those who reach the qualifying standard and are chosen for the team.

From the moment they sign up, the competitors – likely to include the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips and world record holder Paula Radcliffe – will be effectively gagged from commenting on China's politics, human rights abuses or illegal occupation of Tibet.

Prince Charles has already let it be known that he will not be going to China, even if he is invited by Games organisers.

It's pretty sad when Prince Charles is the moral compass, and pillar of strength in England. At least it looks like England is backing off on the gag order.

Exit question: If you are a guest of China ... should you insult your host? Why not just withdraw from the Olympics if you are so opposed to the hosting country?

Terrorists Make Threats At US Air Force Academy ... Media Chastised For Misreporting

Some former terrorists were speaking at the academy to give insights on the life and thoughts of Muslim terrorists so the cadets can better understand the enemy. Well, it turns out that some real terrorists showed up.

MMD:

Former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani addressed cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, during their annual political forum. They shared their experiences as terrorists and helped cadets understand the Islamic fundamentalist mind set.

During the event a Jordanian college student, identified as Omar Khalifa of Metro International, approached Kamal Saleem and spoke to him in Arabic, "you are an enemy of Islam and you must die." The incident was reported to Military Police, who investigated Khalifa's threat.

"The men receive threats of this nature all of time and we take each one very seriously," said Keith Davies, Executive Director of the Shoebat Foundation. "That is why each of the men live in seclusion."

As if the story wasn't juicy enough, this next little tidbit makes it swim in gravy. Not only is the article critical of the MSM's lack of accurate reporting on the matter, but it flat out accuses them of taking marching orders from unindicted co-conspirators CAIR.

Numerous media outlets (New York Times, the Associated Press, The Colorado Springs Gazette, the Rocky Mountain News) did not report on the former terrorists' message, but instead focused on the [inaccurate] media statements distributed by CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations), in an all-out campaign to discredit the speakers credentials and background.

"We have all been told that Islam has been hijacked by extremists,” said Walid Shoebat. "Yet CAIR, who professes to be ‘Moderate Muslims’ are the Three Ex Terrorists biggest critics, and pull out all stops to try and keep out voices from being heard. I beg to ask the question; if CAIR is indeed moderate as they claim, then WHY are they not supporting our campaign against 'extremists? If they are sincerely against the Fundamentalist Muslim agenda why do they appose us?"

According to the Air Force Academy's public affairs office CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, contacted them numerous times criticizing the scheduling of the three men, and requesting an opportunity to have a CAIR representative share with cadets information about the Islamic faith. The Academy informed Hooper that the event was not about religion, but about terrorism, and he denied CAIR's request.

Wait a minute. Did I just read that the Air Force Academy has a CAIR spokesman in their public affairs office? WHAT THE HELL!

For a group that professes to be vehemently anti-terrorist, CAIR sure does put a lot of effort into defending terrorists.

Paulbots Want Fredheads To Join Them

NEVER!!!!!!

Yet Another Example Of A Hate Crime Being Called "Not A Hate Crime"

I know it is getting pretty old hearing about these events, but it is necessary for you to understand that there a very clear double standard in regards to hate crimes. Apparently, whites and Jews can not be the victims of hate crimes.

Haaretz:

The Zionist Organization of America condemned the U.S. government's Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday for failing to protect Jewish students it says have been subject to a series of anti-Semitic provocations on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.

The ZOA alleged that Muslim students on campus have given anti-Semitic speeches, distributed Judeophobic literature, and used intimidation tactics against Jewish students. The university's failure to take disciplinary action constitutes discrimination against Jewish students, the ZOA charges.

The Office of Civil Rights, which operates under the auspices of the Department of Education, said in a report released last week that some Muslim student activities were offensive to Jewish students.

But the report concludes the speeches, marches and other activities were based on opposition to Israeli policies, not the national origin of Jewish students.

So what types of "other activities" were disregarded you ask.

"A Holocaust memorial was destroyed; that swastikas repeatedly defaced property on the campus; that a rock was thrown at a Jewish student; and that other Jewish students were harassed and verbally threatened with such statements as 'slaughter the Jews,' 'dirty Jew,' 'go back to Russia,' 'burn in hell,' and 'f_ _king Jew,'"

Yeah, dirty Jew is only opposition to Israeli policies ... RIIIGHT!

Note the school is UC Irvine, a school with a long history of radical Muslims who support murder. LGF has made a habit of documenting the extremists on UC Irvine's campus ... check it out here.

Yep, The US Is Still Doing Better Than Kyoto Countries On Emissions

It's been a year since you were last told that the US is doing better at reducing emissions than the Kyoto nations. Now it seems that some nations to have signed Kyoto are increasing their emissions by 80%.

Aftenposten:

Just as Norwegian delegates to the UN's conference on climate change started heading home from Bali, came news that Norway's own carbon emissions rose 80 percent from 1990 to 2004. Statoil's refinery at Mongstad is the biggest contributor.

So how exactly do they plan to fix this problem? Well, they don't. Instead they are invoking the Ultimate Scam, and using carbon credits.

Erik Solheim, the government minister in charge of environmental issues who was in Bali last week, admits that Norway's own high level of emissions is "embarrassing." That's why the government plans to donate NOK 15 billion (nearly USD 3 billion) over the next five years to help preserve the world's rain forests. That's viewed as an efficient way of offsetting carbon emissions.

I hate to be a scrooge so close to the holidays, but only the worst of dimwits view carbon credits as an efficient way of offsetting emissions. Let's not forget that Guyana slammed Kyoto's carbon credit scheme, and Kyoto's carbon credit program has also been causing deforestation.

Basically, Kyoto along with all of the signatory nations are FUBAR. Meanwhile, the US continues to grow its economy, reduce its emissions, and all without sacrificing any freedoms to a foreign body while throwing away billions of dollars. God bless capitalism!

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Mexican Trucks To Be Monitored By Satelite

This will at least be of some comfort for you NAU folks out there.

Commercial trucks traveling to or from Mexico will be outfitted with a satellite tracking device to assuage fears that participants in a cross-border pilot program may not follow safety rules.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA, will spend $367,000 on 100 devices for trucks from the United States and Mexico to monitor them as they pick up and deliver loads, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The decision to require the installation of satellite-tracking technology was made after members of Congress questioned participants' compliance with U.S. safety and trade laws, said Melissa Mazzella DeLaney, an FMCSA spokeswoman.

Viva Le Resistance!

Islamic Death Threat Posted On YouTube ... YouTube Takes No Action

H/T LGF

The threat is against British councillor Alan Craig who opposes a "mega mosque" that is being planned near the 2012 Olympics.


You can read the full story at the Daily Mail.

YouTube has a history of allowing Islamists to spread their propaganda on their site while making sure that conservative videos, and anti-Islamist material is taken down. Make sure you read this story about how terrorists are using YouTube for recruiting and propaganda.

So if you want conservative videos without dealing with the anti-American and liberal stance at YouTube then check out QubeTV.

60 Minutes Lies About Saddam's WMDs

I'll save the overall argument about Saddam's wmd programs for another time. I'm writing a book about it so I'm not giving out a bunch of free info on the matter. You can always join the over 1,500 people that have taken The Iraq War Test to learn more. Bottom line is that we found BM-21 rockets loaded with sarin and ready to fire during the invasion ... case closed.

The reason I'm focusing on the uranium argument here with 60 Minutes is that the 500 tons of uranium found, and removed from Iraq, is a slam dunk as it is the most reported story of Saddam having banned substances before the invasion. If you don't know the story of the 500 tons of uranium you should ...

1. Recuse yourself from any wmd discussion because you don't know what the hell you're talking about ... and
   
2. You should read on because I will give you more info, and provide you with links to the story.

Now back to 60 Minutes' lying ways.

Before we start in on 60 Minutes it is important to know the highly liberal stance they take. For instance, they did a whole segment on the Appeal for Redress (an anti-war petition from military personnel) a while back, but they refused to provide the same airtime to the Appeal for Courage (a pro-war petition from military personnel) even though the Appeal for Courage has more signatures. I've received the runaround from 60 Minutes about the issue, and I've spoken with LT. Nichols about the matter. For a giggle, you should look at both appeals media page to see the huge distortion in media coverage. LT. Nichols, by the way, is in Iraq.

Last week, 60 Minutes ran this story ...

Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We've known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was "Curve Ball" and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world's elite intelligence agencies?

60 Minutes spent two years, and traveled to nine countries, trying to solve the mystery. We talked to intelligence sources, to people who knew Curve Ball and to people who worked with him. As correspondent Bob Simon reports, Curve Ball's real name has never been made public, nor has any video of him, until now.

A very "unbiased" and "honest" introductory isn't it. Too bad the wmd statements are completely false, but I digress.

We do know that we were fed some bad intel on Iraq's wmd programs ... that is not in dispute. Charles Duelfer said as such in his report, and congressional testimony. He essentially said that Saddam did have the weapons programs, but they were not as advanced as we thought. More on that later.

60 Minutes then went on to out "Curve Ball" as Rafid Ahmed Alwan, and break down how he became an informant. It is important that you know he refused to see any Americans and was interrogated by Germany for a year and a half. Transcripts of what he said were sent to the CIA by Germany. The CIA was actually denied requests to debrief "Curve Ball" before making their case against Iraq to President Bush. 60 Minutes never blames Germany for misleading the US.

60 Minutes also completely ignores that the wmds found before the invasion by the UN. Here's an example, but you have to do the rest of the legwork.

They also ignore that every UN weapons inspector said Saddam was hiding weapons programs before the invasion. Yes I know some of them changed their mind suddenly after years of their own saber rattling. In response to that I would say to check out ex-inspector Richard Butler, and ask yourself why Ritter suddenly went from saying Saddam was hiding weapons to Saddam is a great guy. The answer to that is that Ritter started receiving money funneled out of the oil-for-food scandal, and was essentially paid by Saddam to make an anti-war film. It makes me wonder why other inspectors changed their tune so quickly.

So what did Duelfer really have to say about Saddam's weapons programs? Not what you've heard from your teenage friends on the left-wing blogs ... I guarantee it. Again, the programs were not as advanced as we thought, but he did have them. You can read his congressional testimony here. Listen to this little tidbit that 60 Minutes and others always leave out:

There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by
forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas. However, over time there was decay in the team.

Despite this decay, Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made
clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them.

He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear
component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat,
clearly implying matching Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.

What? You've never heard Duelfer say that before? Curious.

Here's what Duelfer said about the chemical and biological chapters of his report:

Once inspections began in 1991, Iraq chose to yield most of its weapons and bulk
agent as well as the large facilities that were widely known to exist. As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.

Let's recap so far. At a bare minimum Saddam did not declare and destroy all of his wmds, he committed hundreds of violations with respect to conventional weapons (most notably developing long range missiles), and he retained the infrastructure, knowledge and desire to restart his wmd programs once sanctions ended. All things listed as concerns for the future, and reasons for war.

Wait til you hear what Duelfer had to say about Saddam using the oil-for-food program to increase his wmd capability.

Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance
of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity.

By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two.

Uh huh ... so with the oil-for-food program Saddam was able to buy off at least one UN inspector, and increase his wmd capability. Nice.

Iraq decided to retain the main BW production facility, but under guise of using it to produce singlecell protein for animal feed. These decisions were taken with Saddam’s explicit approval.

Preservation of Iraq’s biological weapons capabilities was simpler than any other
WMD area because of the nature of the material.

What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had
experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001, things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended---and sanctions were eroding.

Duelfer also highlighted the threat of such knowledge being given to terrorists, which Saddam openly supported.

A risk that has emerged since my previous status report to Congress is the
connection of former regime CW experts with anti-coalition forces. ISG uncovered
evidence of such links and undertook a sizeable effort to track down and prevent any
lash-up between foreign terrorists or anti-coalition forces and either existing CW stocks or experts able to produce such weapons indigenously. I believe we got ahead of this problem through a series of raids throughout the spring and summer. I am convinced we successfully contained a problem before it matured into a major threat. Nevertheless, it points to the problem that the dangerous expertise developed by the previous regime could be transferred to other hands. Certainly there are anti-coalition and terrorist elements seeking such capabilities.

Take the statements above with his previous statements to Congress 7 months earlier, and you start to see the picture that 60 Minutes ignored in their latest report.

Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.

Then there is the dual use chemicals.

With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program.

Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX.

Since many of you out there don't believe chemical and biological weapons are "really" wmds ... here's info on Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

Likewise, in the nuclear arena, the ISG has developed information that suggests Iraqi interest in preserving and expanding the knowledge needed to design and develop nuclear weapons.

One significant effort illustrating this was a high-speed rail gun program under the direction of two senior scientists associated with Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program. Documents from this project show that the scientists were developing a rail gun designed to achieve speeds of 2-10 kilometers per second. The ostensible purpose for this research was development of an air defense gun, but these speeds are what are necessary to conduct experiments of metals compressing together at high speed as they do in a nuclear detonation. Scientists refer to these experiments as “equation of state” measurements.

Not only were these scientists developing a rail gun, but their laboratory also contained documents describing diagnostic techniques that are important for nuclear weapons experiments, such as flash x-ray radiography, laser velocimetry, and high-speed photography. Other documents found outside the laboratory described a high-voltage switch that can be used to detonate a nuclear weapon, laser detonation, nuclear fusion, radiation measurement, and radiation safety. These fields are certainly not related to air defense.

It is this combination of topics that makes us suspect this lab was intentionally focused on research applicable for nuclear weapons development.

No - he - did - not - just - say - that! Oh yes he did. Charles Duelfer, author of the famously misquoted Duelfer Report did just say that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.

Duelfer and Kay also stated that they found:

"Uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

Duelfer also went on to talk about the secret missile program that the UN failed to uncover even though Iraq test fired these missiles right under the UN's nose. Duelfer also stated that foreign assistance was utilized in assisting Iraq in these missile programs in violation of UN sanctions.

What were the three countries that were caught violating UN sanctions by assisting Saddam's weapons programs again? Ah yes, I remember, Russia, France and GERMANY! The same Germany that 60 Minutes fails to criticize for feeding us incorrect information from "Curve Ball."

Since we all now know that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program ... that brings me to the 500 tons of uranium we found in Iraq that so many news agencies choose to ignore these days. Of course, they didn't ignore it when it happened because it was a huge story. How soon we forget eh?

Here's a couple of links for the 500 tons of uranium. Full urls left in place so you know they are separate articles.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/20/85636.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516235/posts

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10613FA345B0C718EDDAC0894DC404482

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml -- this quotes a NY Times article

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml

Yep ... Saddam had 500 tons of uranium (1.8 tons partially enriched), and a clandestine nuclear weapons program. So how many nuclear bombs could this 500 tons of uranium have produced as a result of this clandestine nuclear weapons program? The answer is 142 nuclear bombs.

Too bad 60 Minutes didn't do any show prep before they ran this story. Especially since they said they spent two years on said story.

Just to add salt to the wound ... a friend of mine stationed in al Asad, Iraq sent me several pictures of chemical warheads. I figured I would share one with you today.


Al Asad is where Saddam's air force was found buried under the sand. Coincidently that's where they found this bad boy. When they removed the protective coverings they discovered that it was loaded with sarin bomblets. Notice that this is not an old, harmless weapon. It is modern, and in very good condition.

Below is a reference image of a US sarin warhead with its bomblets. Again, the bottom photo is older, and from an American warhead. It was not found in Iraq. It is only demonstrating what a sarin bomblet is.


Too bad 60 Minutes hasn't paid attention to what is really coming out of Iraq, and no the pictures are not classified.

11 Year Olds To Get The Pill, At School, Without Parent's Permission

This is almost as bad as requiring kids to attend an assembly, and forcing them to sign a contract that they won't tell their parents about it.

Portland Press Herald:

Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School's health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.

Although students must have written parental permission to be treated at Portland's school-based health centers, state law allows them to seek confidential health care and to decide whether to inform their parents about the services they receive.

I'm sure many of you are as confused about this "health center" at schools as I am. We don't have that here in Nevada, or anywhere else I've attended school. It's not quite the school nurse, but more like a quick care medical facility.

The city's Division of Public Health, which made the birth- control proposal, operates seven health centers in Portland Public Schools in an effort to increase access to physical, dental and mental health care.

They are located at Portland High School, Deering High School, Casco Bay High School, King Middle School, West School special education program, and two elementary schools -- Reiche Community School and East End Community School.

The first centers opened in the high schools more than a decade ago, Belanger said.

There are 27 school-based health centers in Maine, 20 of which are funded and overseen by the state, including those in Portland, Birkhimer said.

There are more than 1,700 school-connected health centers in the United States.

So while many schools around the country don't even allow aspirin, this one writes prescriptions in between your annual physical, teeth cleaning, and mental health evaluation. I am interested to see the data on the prescriptions recommended for ADD in these "health centers" as compared to schools without them.

ABC News Helped Osama Escape Capture

No, it is not a joke or a lie. Once again, a news outlet here in the US has exposed a classified operation to the enemy that has prevented us from capturing or killing key enemy figures ... including Osama bin Laden.

From now on when someone raises the question of why we haven't been able to get bin Laden after all of these years ... you respond by saying that the NY Times and ABC News are the ones responsible.

NY Sun:

Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy's system.

The intelligence blunder started with what appeared at the time as an American intelligence victory, namely that the federal government had intercepted, a full four days before it was to be aired, a video of Osama bin Laden's first appearance in three years in a video address marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 7, the Web site of ABC News posted excerpts from the speech.

But the disclosure from ABC and later other news organizations tipped off Qaeda's internal security division that the organization's Internet communications system, known among American intelligence analysts as Obelisk, was compromised. This network of Web sites serves not only as the distribution system for the videos produced by Al Qaeda's production company, As-Sahab, but also as the equivalent of a corporate intranet, dealing with such mundane matters as expense reporting and clerical memos to mid- and lower-level Qaeda operatives throughout the world.

The article then explains how AQ hacks legitimate websites, without the knowledge of site's owners, in order to communicate with each other.

One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system. America's Obelisk watchers even saw the order to shut down the system delivered from Qaeda's internal security to a team of technical workers in Malaysia. That was the last internal message America's intelligence community saw. "We saw the whole thing shut down because of this leak," the official said. "We lost an important keyhole into the enemy."

Government agencies are now denying that they were responsible for the leak, but it is impossible to speak on behalf of all of their employees.

Bottom line is that the evidence shows the leak came from a government employee after they were told it was classified ... we don't know who yet. After they leaked the video and transcript to ABC News ... ABC should have withheld the information until after it was aired.

These news organizations must be required to make a choice between the welfare of this nation and their "scoop." So far, the nation comes second. The US government had better start reimplementing some of the internal security measures we had in place during the Cold War, or senseless leaks will continue so long as their is money and/or a political objective to be reached.

Make sure you go to the Sun's website for the full story.

FINALLY, Someone Covers Why The Decline In Violence In Iraq Is Not News

H/T Hotair for the vid
Now it's time to go to work ripping these two idiot ladies to pieces.

Kurtz made it a point to tell you how major papers buried the news that I told you a week ago. He went on by giving the numbers of decline in Iraq deaths, and playing a clip from Gibson's program. Gibson was the lone exception in making the decline in Iraq deaths a lead story. Gibson reported that it was the fourth straight month that US deaths declined, and that Iraqi civilian deaths dropped by 50%.

Enter guest Robin Wright who proceeded to say that the news of the declines in deaths should NOT have been front page news. She went on to talk about an "enormous dispute" in how casualties are counted, and that we were at the beginning of a trend that we weren't sure was a trend yet.

She then talks about the military looking for irreversible momentum ... which would be after two months. She says that we haven't reached that time frame yet, but keep in mind that this was the fourth consecutive month of decline in troop deaths. That's a full 100% longer than she was looking for.

Barbara Star then weighs in on the issue by saying that "we don't know if it's a trend." She also said that it was not "enduring progress", but that it was a positive step. Kurtz then interrupted and said that if the numbers showed US and Iraqi casualties going up, it would have been front page news. Star agreed with him on that, and said that by "any definition, that is news." So why is it that by any definition an increase in casualties is news, but not a decrease?

Star went on to criticize the Pentagon for saying that there has been progress for five years (and there has been), but that she needed to see "a little bit more than one month before she gets too excited." Again, the numbers are four months straight of decline.

Either these two ladies are utterly stupid, or they didn't pay attention to the fact that these were four month numbers, or they are running damage control to negate any positives in Iraq. I'll let you decide which it is.

The bottom line is that US troop deaths are at a 14 month low. How is that for irreversible momentum? To top that off ... overall Iraqi violence, ethno-sectarian murders, and terrorism in Iraq and around the world is down from 2006.

If they were looking for more than a month of progress ... they got it. We can add in the increase in Iraqi cooperation with coalition forces, and the massive increase in weapons caches seized also. All have been increasing every month since June of '06. Even with a steady year of major leaps forward in Iraq ... the news still will not cover it because they are waiting for the insurgents to have a good month.

The Senate Is On Fire ... Literally

Several suspicious fires have been set in Senate offices. No doubt, Rush Limbaugh will be blamed by Harry Reid.

AP:

U.S. Capitol Police reported four fires in Senate office buildings Wednesday. All were extinguished by midafternoon, but an investigation continued.

"They are suspicious in nature," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

She said two fires in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and one in the Hart building next door were reported in women's bathrooms and were extinguished between 10:45 a.m. EDT and 12:30 p.m. A fourth, also in a Dirksen restroom, was reported later and extinguished by mid- afternoon, Schneider said.

There was at least one other similar fire last week in a Senate office building bathroom that was determined to have been caused by a cigarette, according to a knowledgeable Senate official who is not authorized to speak to reporters and demanded anonymity.

Capitol Police sent out a mass e-mail noting "a series of small fires that have occurred in the Senate Office Buildings in recent days," and asking for tips. The e-mail said that more building patrols have been added to investigate.

I suppose it could be a little wrath of God to let the Senators know that their lies are not going unnoticed.

25 Democrats Refuse To Condemn 'Betray Us' Ad In Senate Vote

Hillary has been ducking, dodging and flat out refusing to respond to questions about the MoveOn.org ad taken out against Gen. Petraeus.

Today she had her chance to speak up with the rest of the Senate and condemn the ad ... something that most Democrats have refrained from doing.

Amanda Carpenter:

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) would not criticize MoveOn.org on the campaign trail for an offensive advertisement the group produced to attack Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, but she sided with the anti-war lobby in a vote on Thursday.

Motivated by the full-page advertisement MoveOn.org published in the New York Times that accused Petraeus of betrayal, the Senate passed a resolution condemning “attacks of honor and integrity” on the general and other members of the Armed Forces.

The advertisement, purchased at a discounted rate, mocked Petraeus’ name as “Betray Us,” suggested he was “cooking the books” for the White House and characterized the general as a “military man constantly at war with the facts” who “will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s “sense of the Senate” resolution passed 72-25.

At least now we know which Democrats are so knee deep in MoveOn money they are willing to accuse a four star general of breaking the law, and violating his oath.

1. Akaka (D-HI)
2. Bingaman (D-NM)
3. Boxer (D-CA)
4. Brown (D-OH)
5. Byrd (D-WV)
6. Clinton (D-NY)
7. Dodd (D-CT)
8. Durbin (D-IL)
9. Feingold (D-WI)
10. Harkin (D-IA)
11. Inouye (D-HI)
12. Kennedy (D-MA)
13. Kerry (D-MA)
14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
15. Levin (D-MI)
16. Menendez (D-NJ)
17. Murray (D-WA)
18. Reed (D-RI)
19. Reid (D-NV)
20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
21. Sanders (I-VT)
22. Schumer (D-NY)
23. Stabenow (D-MI)
24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
25. Wyden (D-OR)

You can see the full role call here.

The following didn't vote.

1. Biden (D-DE)
2. Cantwell (D-WA)
3. Obama (D-IL)

You'll notice that John Kerry voted against the measure to condemn the ad. This is odd given that he was one of only three Democrats to criticize the MoveOn ad shortly after it came out. Kerry is on record as saying the following:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, criticized MoveOn.org Monday for taking an ad out in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus. The general is testifying before Congress today about the situation in Iraq. (Related: Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus)

“I don’t like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general,” Kerry told CNN, adding “who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country.”

Gee, I wonder what changed his mind?

The GOP also asked the Democrat leadership to condemn the ad in an internal memo, but didn't get many takers.

Today, Bush finally spoke out against the ad, and Democrats that support it, publicly for the first time. We have had reports that he was furious in private meetings.

In a press conference Thursday morning, President Bush told reporters he thought the advertisement was “disgusting.”

He also spoke candidly about Democrats who were reluctant to criticize MoveOn.org. “That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military."

"That was a sorry deal,” Bush said.

To top this whole thing off, Democrats have been running to hide under their desks to avoid having to go on record in support of the MoveOn ad. Dick "The Turbin" Durbin tried to block the vote from even happening.

Cornyn first offered his resolution immediately after the offending advertisement was printed on September 10—the day Petraeus was scheduled to make his first appearance to testify about progress in Iraq. When it was offered, Democratic Majority Whip, Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) used a parliamentary move--issued a point of order based on “germaneness”--against the measure to prevent the Senate from voting on it.

Make sure you don't question their patriotism everyone.

Does Chief Border Patrol Agent Work For Drug Cartel?

I'm starting to consider the possibility.

Whenever I talk about the border I always get someone who claims that there is a conspiracy. Not that someone is allowing our country to be conquered, but that high ranking Border Patrol and government officials are on the take. In other words ... the reason they don't stop illegals and the drugs coming across the border is that they are being paid off. Most likely by the drug cartels who not only smuggle drugs across the border, but people too.

To prove my point ... I will link four major stories dealing with the current Border Patrol sector chief of Laredo, Carlos X. Carrillo.

Carrillo made headlines a couple of weeks ago when he proclaimed that it was not the Border Patrol's job to stop illegal immigrants, or narcotics, from crossing the border. Naturally this was outrageous, yielded great criticism.

Carrillo's comments soon became laughable as he went on to proclaim that the Border Patrol was not equipped to stop illegals or drugs ... yet was somehow was equipped to stop terrorism.

I decided to go to the Border Patrol's website to see if, in fact, their mission did not include illegals or drugs. I knew the answer, but it was still worth looking into. After I confirmed the Border Patrols mission, I decided to go the the Laredo sector's webpage. What I found sent me into gut-busting laughter, and left me with tears running down my cheeks.

Only days after Laredo sector chief Carrillo said that immigration and drugs were not his problem ... there it was. Right there on the Laredo sector's page of the Border Patrol's website was a letter written by, and signed by, Laredo sector chief Carlos X. Carrillo.


It contradicted everything Carrillo had said just days before. In the letter posted on the site, Carrillo says:

Our primary function is to enforce the immigration laws and prevent illegal entry of aliens into the country.

I ended my previous with a question. "I wonder what changed his mind," I said.

Now, I think I have the answer, but more on that in a minute.

After Carrillo's ludicrous comments, Republican presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo, called for Carrillo to be fired.

WND:

U.S. Border Patrol sector chief Carlos X. Carrillo should be removed from his post after telling a town hall meeting in Texas the agency's job "is not to stop illegal immigrants," says Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo called on David Aguilar, the chief of the U.S, Office of Border Patrol, to remove Carrillo from his leadership position.

"I hope David Aguilar will repudiate Carrillo's statements and remove him from a leadership position in the agency," Tancredo said in a statement released by his office. "Anything less will leave doubts about the integrity of the agency's top management and its commitments to controlling illegal entry into our country."

To the surprise of many, Aguilar defended Carrillo's statements.

Aguilar, however, defended Carrillo and said the comments were taken out of context. He said the Border Patrol's mission "is to protect our country's borders from all threats. Our highest priority is keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering our country."

The problem with Aguilar's defense of Carrillo is that they weren't taken out of context at all, and Carrillo did not say that the Border Patrol's job is to protect our border from all threats. He said:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol's job is not to stop narcotics � or contraband or narcotics � the Border Patrol's mission is not to stop criminals. The Border Patrol's mission is to stop terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country."

Kind of hard to take that out of context, isn't it?

So far, Tancredo's call for Carrillo's job hasn't come to fruition. However, a few days after Tancredo's statements ... Carrillo apologized.

Liberty Post:

A Border Patrol chief yesterday apologized for saying the agency's mission is stopping terrorists, not illegal aliens or drug smugglers, a stance that outraged congressional lawmakers.

"It's painfully obvious to me that I could have done a better job of articulating my talking points," said sector Chief Carlos X. Carrillo, who made the controversial comments last week at a town hall meeting in Laredo, Texas.

The article goes on to describe the outrage of Republican lawmakers at Carrillo's comments.

Carrillo also describes what he "really" said.

"It was a two-hour town hall meeting," Chief Carrillo said. "One of the issues we discussed was illegal immigration. I said the Border Patrol cannot address the causes of illegal immigration. We're not supposed to address it. Our focus is enforcement, our focus is enforcement at the border."

A far cry different than what was reported.

Shortly after Carrillo's apology, there was another big story about Laredo in the news.

The AP did an expose on the drug cartels in Laredo, and how violent they are.

Mexican drug lords locked in a bloody fight for control of a pipeline that runs from Mexico to Dallas and up through middle America have brazenly stationed hit squads and reconnaissance teams in Laredo.

Maybe, just maybe it's not so brazen if the sector chief of the Border Patrol doesn't feel it's in his job description to deal with drug cartels.

Over the past few years, the Mexican Gulf Cartel and its rival Sinaloa Cartel have carried out a terrifying bloodbath in Nuevo Laredo, where the traffickers have a saying: "Plata o plomo" — "Silver or lead." So far, the worst of the violence has been confined to Mexico.

"Our mission is to make sure it doesn't cross over," said Jesse Guillen, a Laredo prosecutor who obtained guilty pleas from Reta and another hitman for the Gulf Cartel earlier this year. "Is it under control? Let's see."

Unlike many other drug-related killings, the Laredo slayings often involve careful planning, explicit orders and surveillance of law enforcement officers, Guillen said. And arrests aren't easy: In most cases, the killers flee back across the border.

Gee, if only we had an agency to prevent them from going back and forth across the border. Too bad sector chief Carrillo has better things to do ... like hunt Osama bin Laden.

Gone also is the grudging respect once accorded U.S. law enforcement. Holdridge said he and his wife have occasionally been followed by suspected cartel members as they drive around town.

You can't respect people you've paid off, can you?

Hitmen were paid $500 a week, according to Laredo police. When a job was done, they could get a bonus of $10,000 and two kilos of cocaine, police said in court documents.

The cartels have studied U.S. law enforcement procedures and know how to stymie officers.

Yeah, with cold, hard cash.

Cartels sometimes send out "suicide loads" — smaller piles of marijuana or cash that traffickers know will get caught by local law enforcement. Such busts tie up officers with paperwork for hours, giving traffickers time to drive a bigger load through unnoticed, Holdridge said.

I left that last part in there to illustrate what may have happened in the Ramos, Compean case.

Is Carrillo on the take? I don't know, but his behavior is dubious at best. Tancredo's calls for him to be removed are correct, and should go without saying. We need sector chiefs that don't double-talk, and contradict themselves. We need tough, smart agents who will not allow Laredo to turn into killing fields. Regardless of if Carrillo is corrupt ... he has shown he can not get the job done in his sector.

Sen. Craig ... & Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

Now that you've heard the audio of Sen. Craig's interrogation ... do you believe he's innocent, or guilty? Take the poll at the top right of this page.

If you haven't heard the interrogation yet ... go here (about 8 minutes).

I've been talking about this the past couple of days on my show, and found that many people now believe Craig to be innocent after I played the interrogation for them. For me the most important part is what is said in the first 1 1/2 minutes.

From the beginning Craig proclaims his innocence, but expresses that he does not want to fight the cop in court, and he must make that flight. The cop makes it very clear that if he pleads guilty this will go away quietly, and he won't contact the media.

Whether Craig is innocent, I don't know. However, it was a poor decision to plead guilty because there is no way in hell he would have been found guilty in any court of law. There is no evidence at all against him ... other than his plea ... which really doesn't mean much (I'll explain in a bit).

One thing I've been saying since this story broke is that at best this is shotty police work, and extremely unprofessional. Law enforcement never conducts a sting without any form of audio or video confirmation that there was a crime. Yet no standard police tactics used in sting operations were used in this case. I find this highly suspect. The officer could have been fitted with a camera to record the "foot taps" which would have proven his case. Instead, it's down to the word of these two men with no concrete evidence.

There was also, literally, no law broken. That scares me. People have been saying we are moving towards a "Minority Report" society for some time, and cases like this prove them correct.

There was no illegal exposure, or solicitation. Even prostitution stings require video, and for the 'John' to provide money. Merely asking for sex is not enough to arrest. It is not against the law to ask someone if they'd like to have sex (if that's what happened) ... there is only a law against them having sex in a public place, or offering to pay for sex ... neither of which happened. So Sen. Craig may have potentially broken the law had he found a willing partner, but he also may have taken his partner back to a hotel room. We just don't know, and he broke no law. Yet he was forced to decide to fight this publicly or plea when he committed no crime.

For those of you who find it impossible that an innocent person would plea guilty ... I have a reality check for you. Innocent people plead guilty ALL THE TIME! Case in point ...

Truth In Justice:

A defendant's actual innocence is more important than a guilty plea, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled today in siding with a man who admitted to sexual assault only to later produce evidence that would exonerate him.

Defense attorneys hailed the ruling as critical to keeping the justice system open to defendants who are convicted but can later prove their innocence.

The court had already determined that a defendant can appeal when new evidence contradicts a guilty verdict during trial. But it hadn't decided what to do with someone who pleads guilty to a crime. The court ruled 5-4 on a case from Dallas County. The defendant's new claim of innocence, with the evidence to back it up, outweigh his previous guilty plea, the court said.

Punishing an innocent person violates due process, the court majority said in an opinion written by Judge Tom Price. "The purpose of criminal proceedings is to separate the guilty from the innocent," Price wrote. "The guilty plea process is not perfect." Wesley Ronald Tuley went to trial on aggravated sexual assault charges in 1997.

It is not only sad that this man was forced to plea guilty to a crime he didn't commit, but it is more sad that 4 judges were not willing to overturn his guilty plea after he proved his innocence.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In the criminal justice system, defendants in federal court can be convicted one of two ways -- by pleading guilty or after a trial.

Those who choose to admit their guilt are often "rewarded" with lesser sentences.

Those who choose to take advantage of their Constitutional right to trials are often "penalized" with harsher sentences.

Prosecutors argue that guilty pleas are essential, and without them the system would be crippled by thousands of cases backlogged for trial. Further, they think that defendants who take responsibility for their crimes deserve to benefit.

Defense attorneys and some academics, though, argue that the system is so skewed that most clients are forced to accept pleas, knowing that if they take their chances at trial and lose, they will face sentences that are at least 25 percent higher.

Some view it as a "trial penalty." Others look at it as a "plea reward."

"However you prefer to frame it, if you go to trial [and lose], closer to the full wrath of the law will be brought down upon you," said John H. Kramer, a former director of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The article then provides an example of a couple who were charged with a crime. One plead guilty, and was sentenced to six months house arrest. The other went to trial, and was given 33 months in prison ... big difference.

Would you plead guilty to avoid 33 months in prison when you know you will only face 6 months at home? You likely would, but just in case you are telling yourself that you wouldn't ... take into account that 1/6 juries get the verdict wrong in this country. Did that change your mind?

By pleading guilty, a defendant receives an automatic sentence reduction of at least two levels, and sometimes three. In some cases, that means a 35 percent reduction in prison time before anything else is even considered -- like cooperating with the government or other mitigating circumstances.

A 35% reduction in punishment is pretty enticing if you have a family, and good job.

Carmen Hernandez, first vice president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, calls guilty pleas "the bane of our existence."

"As a defense attorney, you're caught between a rock and a hard place," she said.

Defendants often weigh the consequences they face -- even if they are not guilty -- and choose to plead just to avoid the possibility of an increased prison term, she said.

"The incentive is so great that it's hard to stand on principle and say 'I'm not going to do it,' " Ms. Hernandez said.

She also thinks that by avoiding jury trials, there's less of an effort to "keep the system honest."

"If the government had to try every case, maybe they'd be more selective in the cases they prosecute," said Ms. Hernandez, who worked as a federal public defender for 16 years.

And when defendants plead to the charges against them, prosecutors are not forced to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt, she added.

Nationally, for fiscal year 2004, 95.5 percent of the 51,666 (federal, not state) convictions were reached through guilty pleas. That means that only 2,316 U.S. District Court cases across the country went to trial.

95.5% of all convictions are guilty pleas, and we know for a fact that several of them are innocent. Most will never be allowed to prove their innocence, however, because unlike the Texas case mentioned above ... most guilty pleas are permanent.

Mr. Kramer, who now teaches at Penn State University, believes the American court system has been acclimated to processing guilty pleas.

"It's a perfectly laughable system," he said. "The prosecutors love it. The message is any sane defendant, guilty or innocent, ought to do the prosecutor's bidding."

Congress keeps increasing possible criminal penalties and establishing mandatory minimum sentences, which in turn give prosecutors more leverage to convince defendants to plead guilty, Mr. Alschuler said.

"We keep jacking up penalties to induce guilty pleas," he said.

"We have built up an opportunity for prosecutors to pile on," added Mr. Kramer. "It is a significant armament in the prosecution."

Naturally, the prosecutors disagree, and like the system. The defense attorneys also go too far in saying that all cases should go to trial. We just don't have the resources for that. That ruling in Texas has the right idea. You should be free to plea guilty if you don't have the evidence to defend yourself in court, but you should be allowed to retract that plea once you do have the evidence so you can defend your innocence. That is the only fair way of doing things.

That is why I see no problem with Craig retracting his guilty plea to defend himself. He clearly states several times during the interrogation that he wants this to go away, and the cop tells him it will ... if you plead guilty. Well, it went away for 3 months, but is very public now. Therefore, Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and take his chances in court. Given the release of the interrogation ... Craig would win his innocence in such a case.

Michael Vick fans should also watch the Craig case closely. If Craig succeeds ... you may see Vick withdraw his guilty plea at some point in the future to fight his charges.

Note:

I am not saying Vick is innocent, or guilty. Frankly, I would not be surprised either way. I do have many questions about the case, and I'm not convinced that Vick is guilty. Other than the word of 3 people (some already back in jail on other charges) that now only face 25% of their original sentence because they are fingering Vick ... there isn't any concrete evidence. At least not made public. That may mean that Vick will take his chances in court at a later date, if Craig is successful, as long as he can build his own case.

Update: Chief Border Patrol Agent Says Illegals Not Border Patrols Problem

Remember the Chief Border Patrol agent of the Laredo Sector saying:

• "Border Patrol agents don't have the responsibility of apprehending illegal immigrants."
• "The Border Patrol is not equipped to stop illegal immigrants," Carrillo said, noting that illegal narcotics are also not on the agents priority list.
• "The Border Patrol mission is not to do any of those things," he emphasized.

He instead said that the BP's job was to stop terrorists, and that they were ready for that mission. Which is odd because if you aren't equipped to stop illegals, and drug cartels, you aren't equipped to stop terrorists.

You can read more about his comments last week here.

Well, I decided to go to the Border Patrol's website, and check out the Laredo Sector's webpage. Guess what I found?

I was doing some checking on the BP website to see if this agent has any links to some of the other suspicious activities that have been happening on the border the past several months.

We have agents in prison for doing their jobs, and blueprints of border stations turning up in public garbage cans, and a few other things that have been suspicious.

To have a chief agent say that the BP isn't responsible for illegals crossing the border seems to point in the conspiracy direction as to why Ramos and Compean were arrested.

So I was poking around the Laredo Sector's webpage when I came across a letter written by the same agent that said last week illegals are not the responsibility of the border patrol.

Here it is:


Pretty damned funny and interesting all at once ... isn't it?

In this letter Chief Patrol Agent Carlos X. Carrillo contradicts everything he said last week at the townhall forum. In the letter, he states:

Our primary function is to enforce the immigration laws and prevent illegal entry of aliens into the country.

Hmmm ... I wonder what changed his mind?

Beauchamp Only Enlisted So He Would Have Something To Write About

That's right ... the soldier who penned columns making up stories of cruelty by our troops, hates the military, and only enlisted so he would have something to write about.

He's a fraud ... two-fold.

PJM:

Just as the world was beginning to wonder if The New Republic had been tricked by a fabricator for the third time in the past decade, the magazine’s staff went to a party.

It was a going-away party for a longtime New Republic senior editor Ryan Lizza, but the staff seemed more interested in discussing the magazine’s immediate future. It was July 20 and the avalanche of questions about a first-person “diarist” piece under the pseudonym “Scott Thomas” –a direct threat to the magazine’s credibility—was starting to tumble down.

Later that night, Robert McGee, a then-assistant to The New Republic’s publisher, went looking for the host. He is curious what Foer thinks about the building scandal. He wants the inside dope.

He finds Foer on the front porch and asks as casually as he can: “So, what’s up with this?”

As McGee recalls the conversation, Foer immediately volunteered the standard answer: conservatives have an ideological grudge to settle because they perceive the magazine to be anti-war, anti-military and so on.

“He sounded almost rehearsed,” McGee said.

What bothered McGee about the conversation was that Foer saw the questions from the bloggers as a completely ideological attack. “Foer wasn’t acknowledging that at least some of the attacks on the [Beauchamp’s] ‘Shock Troops’ piece came from active-duty military members whose skepticism was factually grounded, and not just from stateside political pundits.”

Ok, so we are at a party for the New Republic, and an employee is questioning the articles written by the soldier because of the new media and members of the military exposing them as lies.

I've skipped around a bit for this post ... make sure you read the whole thing. I assure you that you won't be disappointed.

I tracked down Beauchamp’s former fiancée in Schweinfurt, a town near a U.S. Army base in Western Germany. Her name is Priscilla. She didn’t give her last name. She describes herself as “half German, half American.”

Reluctantly and indirectly over a string of emails, Priscilla reveals a recurring pattern: Beauchamp was repeatedly willing to deceive those close to him to reach his goals.

By age 23, he had been engaged three times to three different women whom he did not marry.

Or consider his relationship with the Army. Priscilla writes: “He hates the army. The only reason he joined was because he wanted to have more experience to write about.”

Oddly he was secretive about his intentions to serve his country. “He didn’t even tell his mom he joined in the army. One day before basic training he left a note on the table for her…”

It is telling that he did not talk to her face-to-face, but simply made his admission and vanished.

He is manipulative. “He is very charming and he can convince people very good and he tries to make his side very clear.”

He is ambitious. “He always wanted to become a writer and he has a huge imagination,” Pricilla writes, without irony.

In another email, she notes: “He always wanted to write for The New Republic and so he thought the ‘Iraqi Diary’ is a good start and he could keep writing for them after that.”

Beauchamp wrote his first “Baghdad Diarist” for The New Republic, in January 2007, while he was still engaged to Priscilla.

Priscilla believes that one of the reasons that Beauchamp was interested in Reeve (and ultimately married her) was her position at The New Republic.

Indeed, it appears that Beauchamp’s relationship with Reeve shifted into high gear around the time he was first published in the magazine. “He knew Elspeth from college, but they never were a couple. Then she started emailing him in February or so.” That was a few weeks after his first piece appeared in The New Republic. “I really think she supports him with his articles.”

A marriage of convenience perhaps?

There is tons more. It is a real solid account of the whole Beauchamp saga in time line fashion. Well worth the read.