Sending a message

US special forces crossed the Iraqi border into Syria and conducted an raid:

Syrian officials claim the US military conducted a cross-border raid into Syria from Iraqi territory.

The raid was reportedly carried out in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria. According to witnesses, four US helicopters crossed the border and two of the helicopters landed to drop off special operations forces.

Syrian television claimed nine people were killed and 14 were wounded during the raid. Syria claimed of those killed and wounded were construction workers.

The raid occurred close to the main border crossing point between Iraq and Syria. Al Qaeda declared an Islamic Emirate in Al Qaim right along the Iraqi border during the spring of 2005. Al Qaeda terrorized the local tribes and attempted to institute a Taliban-like rule. Al Qaim was the main infiltration route into Iraq until US Marines and Iraqi troops launched a campaign to dislodge al Qaeda from the region.

The US has neither confirmed nor denied the operation took place. If the attack occurred, it would have been carried out by Task Force 88, the special operations hunt-killer teams assigned to target al Qaeda operatives as well as Shia terrorists in Iraq.

The US has shied away from conducting strikes inside Syria in the past. If confirmed this would be the first such strike inside Syria since the US invaded Iraq in March of 2003.

Syria has sheltered Iraqi insurgents and foreign al Qaeda fighters, and allowed the groups to run camps inside the country. Syria also facilitates the movement of foreign fighters into the country and across the border into Iraq.

Who or what was the objective?

The US military incursion into Syria was aimed at the senior leader of al Qaeda's extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq, a senior intelligence official told The Long War Journal.

US special operations hunter-killer teams entered Syria in an attempt to capture Abu Ghadiya, a senior al Qaeda leader who has been in charge of the Syrian network since 2005. US intelligence analysts identified Ghadiya as the leader of the Syrian network, The Washington Post reported in July. Ghadiya was identified as a “major target” by the US military in February 2008.

The raid to capture Ghadiya occurred in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria, just five miles from the Iraqi border. Four US helicopters crossed the border and two of the helicopters landed to drop off special operations forces, who then proceeded to clear structures.

Nine people were reported killed and 14 were wounded. Syrian officials claimed innocent construction workers and women and children were killed in the raid.

US officials contacted by The Long War Journal would not comment if Ghadiya was killed or captured during the raid.

The US military has officially refused to confirm or deny the raid took place. But several senior intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject told The Long War Journal that the raid was indeed carried out inside Syria.

The raid is the first of its kind against Syria. The US has been striking regularly at Taliban and al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan’s tribal areas since the beginning of September.

Michael Yon gives some analysis:

The insurgency in Mosul is the last big thorn left in Iraq’s paw. That we struck targets in Syria does not surprise me and I am not appalled. I am appalled that Syria allows these groups to use its territory as a base and conduit to destabilize Iraq. A Syrian government that allows these groups to penetrate Iraq’s borders and murder Iraqis and Americans doesn’t have much moral standing to complain about an incursion into its territory.

Still, now comes the political posturing. The Iraqi government has condemned the action and is claiming that they didn’t authorize the U.S. attack. Of course Syria is doing the same. That’s okay. This is one way we give the new Iraqi government cover to do what has to be done. We can take the blame; they have to coexist with their neighbors. So we are a convenient public bad guy for both sides. But there is little doubt that Iraqis are taking some comfort that the “bad guy” is not respecting a border that is violated repeatedly by Syria. Syria has played a dangerous game, with few consequences until yesterday. If Syria wants its border to be respected, it will have to respect the border with Iraq.

Another conspiracy theorist

who wonders about Obama's commitment to the defense of the US: The Wall Street Journal asks Will Obama Gut Defense?

I've been asking the same question pretty consistently over here, and been called an extremist wack job for even asking it, leta lone projecting a very disconcerting answer. I guess the Wall Street Journal is full of extremist wack jobs, too.

Required Reading

Two things:

1. The Manifesto of the Silenced Majority. Excerpts:

• We believe that Barack Obama is a brilliant orator and a man possessed of more charisma than any politician since JFK.

• But we also believe that his philosophy of "spreading the wealth around" is an ill-disguised form of socialism that undermines everything America holds dear.

• We believe that a "tax cut on 95% of working Americans" when only 63% of Americans pay taxes is nonsensical.

• We believe that the Obama campaign's obfuscated funding for ACORN (originally described as "event planning") undermines the integrity of our elections and calls into question the legality of his tactics.

• We believe that Barack Obama's plan to form a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military is ill-considered at best.

• We believe that the Obama campaign's efforts to intimidate WGN (on two separate occasions) when it interviewed his political foes endangers free speech.

• We believe that Obama's choice of Joe Biden as VP runs counter to his twin aspirations of "hope" and "change".

• We believe that a man who could not otherwise receive a security clearance should not serve as Commander-in-Chief.

• We believe that Obama's 20-year relationship with his pastor, who he once described as his "spiritual adviser", displays a basic affinity for a racist ideology that runs counter to everything his candidacy should stand for.

• We believe that most of Obama's senate experience has been spent running for office; from the time he was sworn in as a U.S. senator to the time he formed a presidential exploratory committee, he logged only 143 days in the senate.

• We believe that Obama does voters a disservice by hiding his chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (a $165 million dollar effort to improve Chicago's schools) when he used that service as his central experience in 2000 during his first run for Congress.

• We believe that Obama made a series of very poor choices by serving on boards and sharing an office with Bill Ayers (for three years); Ayers' organization killed three police officers, bombed numerous government facilities and nearly detonated a nail bomb at a Fort Dix Officer's Dance.

• We believe that, no matter Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, his evasive and ever-morphing answers about their work together smack of a coverup.

[...]

• We also believe that Obama's experience as a community organizer and as a trainer for ACORN are not qualifications for the presidency.

• We believe that the candidate has not been forthcoming with his background and the key influencing forces during his formative years.

We therefore believe that Barack Obama is ill-prepared and ill-suited for the Presidency.

2. And, to deviate from my most recent blog theme of "All Obama Sucks, All the Time," let's rip Al Gore for a change (no pun intended): Gore’s Dangerous Call for Environmental Civil Disobedience. Excerpts:

Last month, in a speech before the Clinton Global Initiative, [Gore] called for young people to engage in “civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.” This was not the first time such calls came from the man who used to be the “next president of the United States.” Last year he told New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof: “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”

Gore’s call to arms is typical of his environmental conduct: asking others to do what he himself wouldn’t — sacrifice. His massive carbon footprint, his frequent use of private jets, and his inflated electricity bill — more than 20 times the national average — have all been widely reported. Calling for young climate activists to engage in unlawful, albeit non-violent, action takes the hypocrisy to a whole new level. Unlike the symbol of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, who led millions of freedom seekers and who spent years in prison for his convictions — Gandhi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times but was never awarded — or civil rights activists who through their personal sacrifice won equality for blacks in South Africa and the U.S., Gore prefers to send young activists to chain themselves to bulldozers and potentially spend their best months, if not years, in prison while he himself continues to tour the world and attend carbon-neutral Hollywood parties.

[...]

U.S. electricity demand is growing by leaps and bounds, and in the absence of new power-generating capacity, large parts of the U.S. including New England, New York, Texas, and California are likely to experience brownouts in the next few years. So when your AC goes off in the middle of the summer or when your energy costs skyrocket due to utilities’ shift to more expensive power sources, remember Al Gore.

The biggest problem with Gore’s call for civil disobedience is that it clears the way to violence. Civil disobedience is somewhat like Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power “for peaceful purposes.” What starts peacefully can quickly change its face, especially when the inspiration comes from messianic and highly charismatic leaders. For years, radical elements in the environmental movement have tested the borders of permissibility. Some, like the Earth Liberation Front, have crossed the lines and become engaged in full-fledged eco-terrorism. The FBI considers eco-terrorism as one of the greatest domestic threats. Last year it reported 180 ongoing eco-terror investigations and over the last several years has tied them to some 1,800 criminal acts, one of which was the torching of luxury homes in an affluent Seattle suburb. “Despite the gains law enforcement has made, it just takes one person to reignite the movement,” retired investigator Bob Holland said to Fox News. This person can easily be Al Gore.

I've had a theory that Gore's flunking out of divinity school motivated him to start his own religion, of which he could be the "Pope." In radical environmentalism, Gore has proceeded to do so, in the process creating as bigoted, spiteful and irrational a movement as any -- religious or political -- in history.

The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama

Hot Air has posted what it calls "The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama." It's lengthy, but a must-read. Their introduction to him:

If recent polls are to believed, freshman Senator Barack Obama has a better than average chance of becoming America’s 44th President, the Commander-in-Chief of the planet’s most powerful military, and the proverbial leader of the free world. It’s worth mentioning that just four years ago as President Bush and Senator John Kerry were vying for the White House, Obama was still a part-time State Senator representing a liberal district in Chicago. Before that he was an attorney and, famously, a community organizer. In 2008, Obama has positioned himself as a post-partisan, thoughtful moderate with the superior judgment required to lead the country. These are lofty promises from a man with precious little executive experience, and a Senate career that lasted exactly 143 legislative days before he launched yet another campaign for higher office. No one can deny his ambition. In fact, if Obama wins on November 4th—and serves one full term in the Oval Office—the Presidency of the United States would be the longest consecutively held full-time job he has ever held without seeking another.

Barack Obama promises “change,” which is an appealing concept to an American public weary of a beleaguered administration and worried about the future. They are faced with a candidate who promises them everything: Tax cuts for 95% of Americans, universal healthcare, peace, saving the planet, and—according to his wife—the “healing” of Americans’ souls. As the saying goes, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Questions abound: Is this man prepared to be president? Does he hold mainstream values and policy preferences? Who has influenced his thinking, and where does he want to take the country? Has he been honest with the people from whom he seeks votes?

Some excerpts:

FILE: RADICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Barack Obama does not want anyone talking about his radical associations. He’s even sought criminal prosecutions against those who have dared to speak out on issues that make him squirm. Average Americans are judged by the company they keep, and our leaders ought to be held to the same standard.

Even though Obama says the issue is resolved (and John McCain refuses to raise it) voters must consider the case of Jeremiah Wright. Think of it this way: Barack Obama has himself estimated that he attends church twice a month. He spent twenty years at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ under the leadership of Rev. Wright. Within this metric, a rough calculation concludes that Obama sat through approximately 500 sermons at that church. 500. Still, he claims he never heard outrageous, racist, or anti-American comments from the pulpit. [...]

Bill Ayers is another name many Americans have heard by now. He is a former terrorist who detonated bombs at federal buildings and plotted to blow up an army dance at Ft. Dix, New Jersey. He remains proud of his actions, and only regrets not having bombed more. Obama has been personal and professional friends with Ayers for more than a dozen years. When confronted with this association, Obama has said Ayers is (a) just a guy in his neighborhood, (b) a local professor, and (c) someone with whom he’d served on a charitable board. These are all true statements, but they obfuscate a much deeper relationship about which Obama is not being honest. In fact, the two served together on two boards—The Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where together they funneled huge sums of money to a who’s-who leftwing causes. Obama’s 1995 political coming-out party took place in the home of Ayers and his wife, a fellow unrepentant terrorist. Obama now denies this, but it’s a matter of record, confirmed by individuals who attended the party. Investigative journalist and Ethics and Public Policy Center Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, has written many thorough and indispensable articles on Obama’s substantial ties to Ayers. [...]

Second, Obama repeatedly states that Ayers’ violence took place 40 years ago when he was just eight years old. This is true, and it’s irrelevant. Would you shake hands with, let alone work comfortably with, someone who bombed the US Capitol and Pentagon, and remains proud that he did so? It is implausible that Obama didn’t know about Ayers’ sordid past, just as it’s implausible that he was unaware that Ayers’ hatred of this country continues to fester to this day. The following video features a 1998 ABC News interview with Ayers and his wife that showcases their continued defiance. It also portrays Ayers at a 1960s radical reunion just last year during which he describes the United States as he sees it today. Why did Obama feel comfortable around these people, and is it any wonder that he’s been less than forthcoming about their relationship?

ACORN is a community organization whose fraudulent voter registration activities have drawn indictments and investigations in more than a dozen states. Their intimidation tactics in the 1990s forced banks into issuing unwise mortgage loans to low-income individuals, setting the stage for the recent mortgage crisis that send the economy into a tailspin. Barack Obama has denied any connection to ACORN beyond performing some minimal legal work on their behalf in the distant past. Once again, this is an intentionally misleading understatement. As it turns out, Obama was a top ACORN activism trainer for several years. The charitable boards he and Ayers controlled funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN. His campaign paid ACORN more than $800,000 to register voters in the primary, but tried to disguise the purpose of those spent dollars in official expense reports. He’s since scrubbed his “fight the smears” website after these untruths were exposed.

This is a complicated issue, so it plays into Obama’s hands: Team Obama’s gameplan of spinning half-truths and muddying the water is in full effect as he tries to “run out the clock” on the election. Although Stanley Kurtz did the heavy lifting , syndicated columnist Mona Charen’s explanation summed up the issue quite well: Putting Obama in charge of cleaning up the mortgage mess would be akin to hiring an arsonist to put out a fire.

[...]

FILE: FOREIGN POLICY JUDGMENT

Barack Obama gained much of his early traction by speaking out against the war in Iraq. He cites his initial opposition to the war as the crown-jewel example of his judgment on foreign affairs. Although many people credit him for being “right” on the war from the beginning, it’s indisputable that he did not have an actual vote on the war resolution. As a state senator from a liberal, antiwar district, one wonders how much political risk he assumed by speaking out against a Republican-led conflict. Regardless, after he was elected to the US Senate, Obama was faced with an actual vote on a controversial issue: The surge. John McCain and others said the strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from our missteps there. History has proven them correct. Obama not only opposed the surge, but actually predicted it would make matters worse. In other words, he was spectacularly wrong on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate. He stubbornly refuses to admit he was wrong. This may be the kind of judgment that’s expected from a partisan rookie Senator, but not a Commander-in-Chief:

During the CNN-YouTube debate in the summer of 2007, Obama unequivocally promised to meet without preconditions with the rogue leaders of America’s worst enemies—all within the first year of his administration. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have called this approach reckless, expressing concerns that Obama may be playing into our enemies’ propagandistic designs. In October 2008, the Iranian government announced its own preconditions for one-on-one meetings with the Unites States: Pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for “Zionist” Israel. These absurd demands further expose Obama’s very poor judgment vis-a-vis a regime that is actively aiding and abetting terrorists in Iraq who are killing US servicemen. Iran’s “preconditions” prove that negotiating with bad-faith actors who hate Americans and Jews would accomplish nothing other than handing their regime a PR coup. In recent months, Obama’s campaign has continually claimed that he didn’t actually make the promise that he did.

As I said earlier, read the whole thing.

Latest addition to my book rotation and a thought

Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople, by N. J. E. Austin.

Meanwhile, a friend of mine told me Friday night that there is evidence that the Olmec civilization and possibly others collapsed because of clear-cut logging. That is, they cut down all the trees within reasonable distance of their population centers. Without these resources, they collapsed. I'm trying to find source material for this hypothesis.

Dirty bomb attack on Israel thwarted?

Remember those hijacked freighters off Somalia? Particularly the freighter MV Iran Deyanat, where shortly after taking control of the ship the Somali pirates developed some, shall we say, unusual medical symptoms? There is a theory floating around about that:

On August 21st, 2008, the MV Iran Deyant, 44,458 dead weight bulk carrier was heading towards the Suez Canal. As it was passing the Horn of Africa, about 80 miles southeast of al-Makalla in Yemen, the ship was surrounded by speedboats filled with members of a gang of Somalian pirates who grab suitable commercial ships and hold them and their cargos and crews for ransom. The captain was defenseless against the 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades blocking his passage. He had little choice other than to turn his ship over to them. What the pirates were not banking on, however, was that this was no ordinary ship.

The MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) - a state-owned company run by the Iranian military that was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on September 10, shortly after the ship's hijacking.

According to the U.S. Government, the company regularly falsifies shipping documents in order to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments to avoid the attention of shipping authorities, and employs the use of cover entities to circumvent United Nations sanctions to facilitate weapons proliferation for the Iranian Ministry of Defense. The MV Iran Deyanat departed Nanjing, China, July 28, and, according to its manifest, planned to sail to Rotterdam, where it would offload 42,500 tons of iron ore and "industrial products" purchased by an unidentified “ German client”. The ship has a crew of 29 men, including a Pakistani captain, an Iranian engineer, 13 other Iranians, 3 Indians, 2 Filipinos, and 10 Eastern Europeans, stated to be Albanians.

The MV Iran Deyanat was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates - 50 onboard and 50 onshore. The Somali pirates attempted to inspect the ship's seven cargo containers but the containers were locked. The crew claimed that they did not have the "access codes" and could not open them. Pirates have stated they were unable to open the hold without causing extensive damage to the ship, and threatened to blow it up. The Iranian ship’s captain and the engineer were contacted by cell phone and demanded to disclose the actual nature of the mysterious “powdered cargo” but the captain and his officers were very evasive. Initially they said that the cargo contained "crude oil" but then claimed it contained "minerals." Following this initial rebuff, the pirates broke open one of the containers and discovered it to be filled with packets of what they said was “a powdery fine sandy soil” ....

Within a period of three days, those pirates who had boarded the ship and opened the cargo container with its gritty sand-like contents, all developed strange health complications, to include serious skin burns and loss of hair. And within two weeks, sixteen of the pirates subsequently died, either on the ship or on shore.

News about the illness and the toxic cargo quickly reached Garowe, seat of the government for the autonomous region of Puntland. Angered over the wave of piracy and suspicious about the Iranian ship, authorities dispatched a delegation led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman to investigate the situation on September 4. and they witnessed some of the deaths due to exposure to ‘something on that ship.’

The Somali pirates initially set the ship's ransom at $2 million and the Iranian government provided $200,000 to a local broker "to facilitate the exchange." The $2 million dollar ransom agreement, which was supposedly secured on September 6th, never took place for reasons unknown. After September 10th, sanctions on IRISL were applied specifically because the company was said to engaged in illicit operations on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Serious negotiations were broken off completely. Iranian authorities subsequently denied that it agreed to the price nor had paid any money to the pirates. Nevertheless, after sanctions were applied to IRISL on September 10, Osman says, the Iranians told the pirates that the deal was off. "They told the pirates that they could not come because of the presence of the U.S. Navy." The region is patrolled by the multinational Combined Taskforce 150, which includes ships from the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. Subsequently, it was disclosed that the U.S. government had offered to pay $7 million to the pirates to "receive entry permission and search the vessel." Officials in the Pentagon and the Department of State have consistently refused to comment on the situation.

The exact nature of the cargo remains officially a mystery but officials in Puntland and Baidoa are convinced the ship was carrying weapons to Eritrea for Islamist insurgents. "We cannot inspect the cargo yet," Osman said, "but we are sure that it is weapons."

The US Navy (and the French and the Russians) have been hove to off the coast of Eyl, going anywhere once released, it will be seized once it gets to sea. The specific clauses that have been approved in both the UN and in Congress would allow the US Navy to seize the ship under the suspicion clause. The claims that there are weapons onboard, and the possibility there might be chemical weapons, has insured there is at the very minimum, an inspection of the ship by outside authority will be mandated. At this writing, the MV Iran Deyanat is at anchor, watched closely by American, French and Russian naval units.

Although American intelligence and government sources are maintaining a strictly observed silence, the same does not apply to the Russians and so it is that we learn the real story of the MV Iran Deyanat. She was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.

Given the large number of deaths from the questing Somali pirates, it should be obvious that when the contents of the ship’s locked cargo containers finally descended onto the land, the death toll would be enormous. This ship was nothing more nor less than the long-anticipated Iranian attack on Israel. Not the expected rocket attacks (which could be intercepted by the Israelis) but an even more deadly and unexpected attack by sea.. It is very interesting to note that the Israeli government has in the past few weeks, been loudly demanding that the United States establish a naval blockade of Iran.

(via Doug Ross.) Ace notes some flaws in this theory:

1) There's no way that we just happen to get so lucky that pirates randomly seize this particular ship. [Objection to that objection: Maybe the pirates were in our employ. But I'm not really a believer in the competency of our intelligence services anymore -- how could they possibly have learned of this plot?]

2) There's no way the pirates wouldn't have already have allowed our intelligence agents on to the ship yet -- it's not only a get out of jail free card, it's a likely $10 million payday for each pirate, their biggest booty ever. [Objection to that objection: It's possible that this has already all been done, and the US and Israel are keeping quiet for the moment as they try to plot their response.]

3) Why would Iran do this with a ship registered out of Iran, for Pete's sake? [Objection to the objection: None, really, that I can think of, unless Iran figured that it would be obvious who'd done it anyway and so they might as well announce it to the world.]

Although this all seems patently absurd, so did 9/11. While liberals will all laugh at the cowardly chicken little conservatives, the difference between us seems that we can imagine the possibility of the next 9/11, whereas they can barely even acknowledge the last one.

But Ace also points out:

While it seems hard to believe Iran would risk this before it had nukes, what if the idea was to put a sleeper ship out there, a maritime second-strike, going from port to port, just killing time, in case and until Israel struck Iran?

And only then attacking?

Meanwhile, you haven't heard much about this story, have you? Drawn Cutlass explains why:

This story is under tight wraps, it isn't getting coverage at all. There's another Somali pirate story, the ship with the tanks aboard, and this isn't that ship. If this story was covered by the MSM it would doom Obama's chances at being elected, because the electorate would turn to McCain in a nuclear war situation. The MSM, which would normally jump at the chance to reveal a story that the administration is keeping under wraps, has its own reasons to spike this story.

John Stossel asks the question

I've always wondered about: are some people too stupid to be allowed to vote?



On a related note, many of my friends of various political persuasions say "Power to the People!" But isn't the prospect of those people using that power to actually elect someone like Barack Obama POTUS a pretty persuasive argument against "Power to the People"?

It sure seems so to me.

My Dream Girl (or "The real reason my Browns won on Monday night.")

Yes, many, many people out there are wondering how my Cleveland Browns could pull the improbable upset over the New York Giants this past Monday night. Those of us who were at the game know the real reason.

To quote the Cleveland Browns Stadium's public address announcer, "And now, please rise and join actress Melina Kanakaredes in the singing of our National Anthem."

The announcement didn't register with me for a second until I saw her face on the video board.


Actress Melina Kanakaredes holds up a Cleveland Browns jersey with her name before an NFL football game between the Browns and the New York Giants on Monday, Oct. 13, 2008, in Cleveland. Kanakaredes was scheduled to sing the national anthem before kickoff. (AP Photo/Amy Sancetta)

Melina Kanakaredes, who plays detective Stella Bonasera on one of my favorite shows, CSI: NY.

Melina Kanakaredes, native of Akron, attended college at Ohio State and Point Park University in Pittsburgh, and proud of her northeast Ohio roots and Greek heritage.

Melina Kanakaredes, beautiful, smart, strong, funny, nice, doesn't take herself too seriously. Ties to Ohio State my ancestral homes in northeast Ohio and Pittsburgh. Is it any wonder why she has been one of my favorite actresses for a long time? Is it any wonder that I'd pretty much marry her on the spot.

(Ed: Of course, Pro, if she is beautiful, smart, strong, funny and nice, why would you think she'd want anything to do with YOU? Good point ... of course, she also wouldn't want anything to do with me because she's happily married with two children.)

It is a shame that the the sleazebuckets of Hollywood like Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan get all the press while quality individuals like Melina Kanakaredes get shoved into the background.

And if you think I'm saying that physical beauty is nothing without intelligence and strength of character, you're right.

All the best to Melina.

Libertarian theory put to the test

For years we have heard libertarians among us lament how we have given government too much power, and how eventually our elected government will abuse that power. For the most part, I believe, they have been incorrect, as the American people themselves have proven to be an effective check on government, only invoking government power where they believe it necessary, which in a representative democracy is their right.

An effective check until now.

For if current trends hold, on November 5 we will wake up with the realization that the American people will have been corrupted into electing a man -- Barack Obama -- who actually hates them.

Hates them and wants them to suffer.

High energy prices? Obama wants them. High taxes. Obama wants them. A right to own and use firearms for self-defense? Obama opposes it. Defending and protecting our country? Obama isn't interested.

The man Obama designated as his spiritual mentor says "God damn America." His wife calls us "downright mean" because we won't give in to her sense of entitlement. His patrons are two anti-American terrorists.

So get ready. All those things the libertarians have been warning us about for years might actually be coming true.

Another proud moment

for your judiciary:

A federal judge today ordered that 17 Chinese Muslims held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison be released into the United States by Friday, agreeing with the detainees' attorneys that the Constitution bars holding the men indefinitely without cause.

It was the first time that a U.S. court has ordered the release of a Guantanamo detainee, and the first time that a foreign national held there has been ordered brought to the United States.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina issued the landmark ruling in the case of a small band of captives, known as Uighurs, who have been held at Guantanamo for nearly seven years and are no longer considered enemy combatants by the U.S. government.

At a hearing packed with Uighurs who live in the Washington area, Urbina rejected government arguments that he had no authority to order the men's release. He said he had such authority because the men were being held indefinitely and it was the only remedy available. He cited a June decision by an appellate court that found evidence against the Uighurs to be unreliable.

Urbina said in court that he ordered the release "because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause." He added, "The separation of powers do not trump" the prohibition against holding people indefinitely without trial.

Members of the area's Uighur community reacted to the decision with jubilation. "We won!" one attendee exclaimed after the hearing, setting off a loud cheer.

Justice Department lawyer John O'Quinn asked Urbina to stay the order for a week, giving the government time to evaluate its options and file an appeal. Urbina rejected that request and ordered the Uighurs to appear in his courtroom for a hearing on Friday. He said he would then release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area.

O'Quinn said the legal ramifications from the order are complex and that he wants time to consult with officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Under existing U.S. law, immigration authorities may be forced to take the Uighurs into custody shortly after they arrive in the United States, O'Quinn said. The Justice Department alleges they have ties to a group that has been designated a terrorist organization by the government.

Urbina chastised O'Quinn for suggesting that the government might take the Uighurs into custody for a second time.

"I won't take that kindly," Urbina said. He then ordered the government to stay away from the Uighurs until a follow-up hearing on Oct. 16, at which time he said he would hear testimony from Homeland Security and Justice Department officials about their thoughts on monitoring the Uighurs.

Hot Air:

The seventeen men were captured in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan during the 2001-2 campaign to topple the Taliban and fight al-Qaeda. The judge said that the government had unreliable evidence to show them as a threat to the United States. If living in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn’t provide prima facie evidence of just that kind of threat, it’s difficult to know what Urbina needs.

Now, unless the 4th District overrules Urbina in the next 72 hours, we will knowingly transport 17 Uighers who lived in terrorist training camps to our nation’s capital, and release them on their own recognizance. Why? Because we can’t send them to China, who might mistreat them. Every other country in the world has more sense than to agree to take these Uigher separatists, who like many of their compatriots, have allied themselves with al-Qaeda. Every other country, that is, except the US, or at least one of its judges.

This is what we can expect when the judiciary decides to usurp the role of the executive branch in waging war. Urbina ruled that the detention of the Uighers violates the Constitution with their indefinite detention, but that doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants of any war, and never has. We would be within our rights to hold prisoners of war until an end to hostilities, and Urbina has now given these terrorists a better deal than POWs get.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy:

Judge Ricardo Urbina rejected the government's arguments that he was without authority to order the release. He reasoned, despite the fact that the Uighurs are non-Americans held outside the United States, that they are vested by the United States Constitution with a right against indefinite detention. The government has been trying to find a country that (a) will take them and (b) will not persecute them. Where in the Constitution it says these aliens have a right to enter the United States and live among our population is not clear.

Note that under the 2005 REAL ID Act, the immigration law grounds for excluding aliens from the United States were expanded to include, among other grounds, the following: If the alien (a) "is a representative of (1) a designated or non-designated terrorist organization; or (2) any political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity"; or (b) "has received military-type training, from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization.

The Uighurs endorse and espouse terrorist activity against — at the very least — China. (As I explained in yesterday's post, an elementary understanding of jihadist ideology would alert one that militant Muslims do not confine their jihad against a single country.) They have also received military-type training at al Qaeda connected camps — that, indeed, is why they were detained in the first place. As I detailed in a prior NRO article, "These guys weren't out of China on Hajj. They were getting combat training from Islamic militants in Afghanistan. Moreover, many ... have been involved in serious incidents at Gitmo, including numerous assaults on U.S. military personnel and participation in riots incited by jihadists."

But not to worry. Judge Urbina thinks they're suitable neighbors for you.

Money grafs:

[D]id anyone notice that a federal appeals court in New York last week reversed convictions in a major terrorism case on the ground that it was unduly prejudicial for the government to introduce evidence about vicious terrorist attacks?

A year ago, the prosecutor on that case, Kelly Anne Moore penned an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, "Take al Qaeda to Court." Highlighting her case as Exhibit A, Kelly (a friend with whom I deeply disagree on this subject) argued that the criminal justice system is the ideal way to combat Islamic terrorism.

That's Sen. Barack Obama's position, too: Go back to September 10th and let the federal courts handle it. Now, Sen. John McCain has been given on a silver platter perfect examples of where that will lead us. Let's hope he takes the opportunity.

Intentional omission or just lost in the equation?

This past weekend finally saw the start of a McCain effort to attack Barack Obama for his long-standing ties to Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers and his partner in crime (literally) Bernadine Dohrn. In my opinion, this line of attack is long overdue, but I suspect this has been planned for a launch this month, a month after the traditional start of the campaign season but at about the time voters start paying attention to the election, the candidates and the issues.

This effort might very well be swamped by the disasters on Wall Street, but it is so explosive that it may not. Among the many, many reasons to oppose Barack Obama as POTUS, this is probably the best and potentially the most effective.

However, I keep hearing Ayers described as a "terrorist," or a "former terrorist," or even an "unrepentant terrorist" or some variation thereon. Such descriptions are misleading and do not accurately convey the problems with Ayers and Dohrn.

Many good people in history (though far, far more bad people) could arguably be described as terrorists. Menachem Bagin comes to mind, as he was part of a Jewish terrorist group that attacked both Palestinian Arabs and British troops before Israeli independence. Begin was a "former terrorist," but I am not bothered by that in the slightest.

So what is the difference with Ayers and Dohrn?

They were anti-American terrorists.

Ayers and Dohrn advocated the violent overthrow of the elected US government. In fact, they still do. But Ayers and Dohrn went beyond mere advocacy and actually planned and executed bombings against government installations and civilians. They are not only unrepentant about having done so, they feel they didn't do enough. And they go around the world cavorting with the likes of Hugo Chavez.

Ayers and Dohrn hate the United States of America. it's not that they were -- or are -- terrorists, but that they are anti-American terrorists.

Yet, somehow, the "anti-American" part has rarely been mentioned in this debate.


And Barack Obama has surrounded himself with a lot of people who seem to hate the United States. Ayers. Dohrn. Wright. Pfleger. Even his own wife.

Obama's stated positions in favor of cutting defense and placating America's enemies looks even worse in this context.

Obama's choice to surround himself with people who hate the United States and who have sought to hurt the United States calls into question his fitness to be entrusted with the protection of the United States.

Anti-American.

An American government that is anti-American.

That is the "change" Obama wants to bring to the White House.

Wouldn't it be cool

if Indianapolis looked like Gotham City?