THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE

Sudan shifts attention from crisis in its Darfur region. Teacher to be punished according to the nation's sharia, or Islamic, law.

Sudan Charges Teacher Over 'Muhammad' Bear

British Premier Expresses Disappointment

By Kevin Sullivan

Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 29, 2007; Page A18

 

LONDON, Nov. 28 -- Authorities in Sudan on Wednesday formally charged a British schoolteacher with inciting religious hatred for allowing her primary school students in Khartoum to name a teddy bear Muhammad. The move escalated diplomatic tensions between the two countries.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in a statement that he was "surprised and disappointed" at the charging of Gillian Gibbons, 54, of Liverpool, who faces up to 40 lashes and six months in prison if convicted.

Officials said Foreign Secretary David Miliband would summon the Sudanese ambassador "as a matter of urgency" to discuss the prosecution.

"This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith," Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said in a statement urging Sudan to release Gibbons from her "shameful ordeal."

Several analysts said the Sudanese government could be pressing the teacher's case as leverage against the intense criticism from Britain and other Western countries over its handling of the crisis in its Darfur region. "It's impossible to know, but it's clear that this is a government that likes to distract people," one British official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official noted that on Tuesday the top U.N. peacekeeping official reported to the Security Council that the Sudanese government was blocking efforts to deploy a U.N.-backed peacekeeping force in Darfur. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Darfur and more than 2 million have been driven from their homes, largely by government-backed militia groups known as the Janjaweed, in one of the worst humanitarian crises in African history.

Fareena Alam, editor of Q-News, a leading Muslim magazine in Britain, said she also suspected the Khartoum government was saying to the West, "We're going to show you how tough we are."

Alam said she visited Darfur and Khartoum in August on a British government-sponsored humanitarian mission. She said she found that there are "elements of the government that are upset about the embarrassment" caused by world criticism. "This could be possibly a revenge, or leverage," Alam said.

She said the Sudanese government was "hypocritical" to prosecute Gibbons when its actions in Darfur were a much greater affront to Muslim values.

Alam said an official from the British Foreign Office had contacted her and other Muslim leaders to ask that they issue statements of support for Gibbons, whose 7-year-old students named the bear as part of a class project.

Friends and co-workers of Gibbons, who was arrested Sunday, have said that the teacher meant no insult to Islam. They said that the boy who gave the name to the bear was also named Muhammad and that he chose it because of his affection for the prophet.

But the Sudanese government's position appeared to toughen Wednesday with a statement from the nation's top Muslim clerics calling for Gibbons to be punished according to the nation's sharia, or Islamic, law.

"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said, according to news reports.

"It is part of the campaign of the so-called war against terrorism and the intense media campaign against Islam," the statement said.

"It is an explosive issue," Timothy Garton Ash, an Oxford University professor and specialist in foreign affairs, said of the teacher's situation. "My hunch is that it will still be resolved as an individual case, but many will see it as symptomatic of much larger problems."

America wants to control illegal immigration. Close the borders, enforce the laws already on the books. That's a start.

Source: Human Events .com

NYT: An Undocumented Newspaper

by Ann Coulter

Posted: 11/28/2007

Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal immigration. (This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a copy of The New York Times.)

In support of this assertion, the Times was required not only to ignore the stunning defeat of this year's amnesty bill, but also to proffer provably absurd evidence. I dearly hope Democratic politicians continue to look to the Times as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment.

In addition to secret polls showing that "the majority of Americans" support "a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally," the Times cited election results from 1994 and 2006 that directly contradict this thesis.

First, the Times raised former California Gov. Pete Wilson's "precipitous slide" in the polls after he supported Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied most taxpayer-supported services to illegal immigrants.

The problem with this example is that Proposition 187 was wildly popular with California voters.

Times reporter Michael Luo seems to be referring to the Times' own prediction of catastrophe for Proposition 187 -- not actual election results.

One week before Californians voted on Proposition 187 in 1994, B. Drummond Ayres Jr. reported in the Times that there had been "a sharp falloff in support for the proposition."

He said Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and African-American ministers were coming out strongly against Proposition 187 and that "this outcry, along with the increasing opposition being voiced by liberals, civil libertarians and assorted national political figures" was having an effect.

And then Californians voted.

Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.

I'm no campaign consultant, but I think Wilson's support for an off-the-charts popular initiative probably didn't hurt him.

In fact, here on planet Earth, about the safest thing a California politician could do would be to wildly, vocally support Proposition 187. But in New York Times-speak, politicians are walking a dangerous "tightrope" if they dare to defy a slight majority of San Francisco voters!

The initiative went to Carter-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who issued a permanent injunction and then, in a series of decisions, found the initiative unconstitutional. Her rulings were still on appeal when Democrat Gray Davis became governor and dropped the appeals. Everyone remembers how popular Gray Davis was! (First governor in California history to be recalled.)

The crown jewel of the Times' pathetic attempt to marshal evidence for its thesis that Americans want more, not fewer, illegal aliens choking our roads, schools and hospitals also included this gem: "J.D. Hayworth, a hard-line incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in Arizona."

How many times do we have to disprove this canard?

As with Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegals -- and B. Hussein Obama's entire campaign -- the Hayworth-Graf example works better when no follow-up questions are allowed. For example:

Q: Did Hayworth's and Graf's opponents campaign against them on illegal immigration?

A: No.

Q: Were there any other issues on the ballot that year that might tell us if it was Hayworth's and Graf's positions on illegals that led to their defeats?

A: Si! Oops, I mean, yes -- why, yes there were! The very election that the Times cites as proof that anti-illegal sentiment is a loser at the ballot box also included four measures that passed overwhelmingly: (1) a measure to deny bail to illegal aliens, (2) a measure that would bar illegals from being awarded punitive damages, (3) a measure that would prohibit illegals from receiving state subsidies for education or child care, and (4) a measure to declare English the state's official language.

Whatever Arizona voters didn't like about Hayworth and Graf, it wasn't that they were too tough on illegals.

My theory is that Hayworth and Graf lost because the multitudes of Times reporters losing their jobs due to the Newspaper of Record's plummeting circulation have recently moved to Hayworth's and Graf's districts. (This is what's known as a "brain drain" in those districts.)

My theory -- like the Times' theory -- is supported by no evidence. But unlike the Times' theory, mine is not specifically disproved by other evidence such as common sense, an everyday observation of my fellow man, and also those four anti-illegal immigrant measures passing in landslides in the very same election.

HAMAS IS SUICIDAL. Palestinian militants had launched 14 Kassam rockets and mortar shells at Israel as of midday.

Israel May Launch Military Operation in Gaza Following Annapolis

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - As the U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian summit in Annapolis was winding up on Tuesday, the Israeli defense establishment was preparing for the possibility of a large-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip, the Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday. Despite talk of peace, Palestinian militants had launched 14 Kassam rockets and mortar shells at Israel as of midday on Wednesday, the army said. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has been saying for some time that Israel is getting closer to launching a large military operation "with every day that passes." An unnamed Israeli defense official was quoted as saying that Israel had refrained from launching a major military operation in the Gaza Strip to avoid being blamed for the failure of the Annapolis summit, but now that the summit is over, "there is an opportunity to go into Gaza and strike back at Hamas." Some defense officials reportedly believe that a large military operation in Gaza could help Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas regain the control of the area by weakening Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said by telephone from Washington that no military plans for an operation had been presented to the cabinet yet, but it was possible that would happen now.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to resolve the most difficult issues -- Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, final borders and the fate of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Want to bet. They can't forget about the past. They need to look to the future

Israelis, Palestinians Doubtful Peace Can Be Achieved In a Year
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
November 28, 2007

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Despite optimism in Washington and Annapolis over the re-launch of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Israelis and Palestinians voiced skepticism about the possibility of achieving a final agreement by the end of next year.

President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas are meeting on Wednesday kick off the renewed talks that are supposed to resolve the most difficult issues -- Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, final borders and the fate of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations and senior advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wondered how the two sides could reach a final peace agreement by the end of 2008 when it took months to come up with a "watered-down joint declaration."

The U.S. apparently pushed Olmert and Abbas to accept the joint statement just moments before Bush read it at the official opening of the one-day conference in Annapolis on Tuesday.

In the declaration, the two sides pledged to "usher in a new era of peace" and agreed "to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations" to end decades of animosity between them.

Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have been on hold for seven years during which time thousands of Israelis and Palestinians have been killed in Palestinian terror attacks and Israeli counter-terror operations.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs said that while the joint statement made no "big waves," it could pressure on Israel to make concessions.

"[The statement] minimizes the sacrifices Israel has made; misrepresents the "occupation"; ignores Arab responsibility for the problem that "Palestine" is meant to address; and minimizes the damage to Israel of 60 years of Arab wars, rejection and terrorism," JINSA said in a statement.

"Thus, it starts small waves that may gather momentum and wreak havoc later in the form of pressure on Israel to produce incentives to show progress."

Former Palestinian Authority minister and peace negotiator Ghassan Khatib said the declaration was in the end "disappointing."

The two sides didn't bring anything new to the declaration. It was a "cut and paste" from the road map peace plan and other documents, Khatib told Cybercast News Service.

The Palestinians are happy that the negotiations will resume and that Israel is taking a bi-lateral approach (unlike its unilateral pullout from Gaza) and that America is more engaged, but the people expected something more, he said.

The declaration didn't close any gaps between Israel and the Palestinians, he added.

In his speech at Annapolis, Abbas said the region was at a "crossroads" between the pre- and post-Annapolis phases. He called for an end to the "occupation" of the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem, and a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees.

"We need East Jerusalem to be our capital, and to establish open relations with West Jerusalem," he said. Abbas also said that the U.S., its Quartet partners - European Union, Russia, United Nations - and the entire international community as well as Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states were "facing a test" of their credibility.

Olmert pledged that Israel would not avoid dealing with any of the main issues and said Israel knew that change was inevitable.

"We will not avoid any subject, we will deal with all the core issues," Olmert said.

"I have no doubt that the reality created in our region in 1967 will change significantly. While this will be an extremely difficult process for many of us, it is nevertheless inevitable. I know it. Many of my people know it. We are ready for it," he said at the opening of the conference.

In 1967, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt and the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem from Jordan as a result of the Six-Day War. Over the years, Israel has built well-established settlements in the territory, which many consider to be the eternal Biblical inheritance of the Jewish people in Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

When Olmert took office two years ago, he indicated that he was ready for massive withdrawals from West Bank territory either as part of an agreement with the Palestinians or unilaterally if need be. He also indicated recently that he would be willing to divide Jerusalem -- a city over which he was once mayor and pledged would never be divided.

But historian Michael Oren of Jerusalem's Shalem Center said such a withdrawal is not feasible.

"The Olmert government has had fluctuating popularity at best," said Oren. "[It] will be incapable of removing 80,000 [to] 120,000 Jews from their homes in the West Bank."

Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who led a much more popular and stronger government, had to mobilize 55,000 Israeli soldiers -- the largest Israeli army operation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War -- to remove 8,100 Jewish settlers from their homes in the Gaza Strip, Oren said in an earlier interview.

"Keep in mind that while there was a disagreement in this country over whether Gaza is really part of the [Biblical] Land of Israel, there's really no disagreement about whether the West Bank -- Judea and Samaria -- are part of the Land of Israel. [It] is universally acknowledged here," he said.

Gidi Grinstein, founder and president of the Reut Institute, said there are five "structural difficulties" that he does not believe the two sides can surmount in the coming year.

Any political process will cause the collapse of the Israeli government, Grinstein told Cybercast News Service. The Palestinian government is weak; Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and has a strong underground presence in the West Bank; and the Palestinians have no agreed-upon mechanism for ratifying any agreement they make with Israel, he said.

Furthermore, most permanent status issues are still outstanding between the parties and would require "exhausting negotiations and historic decisions" and they are all stacked on top of one another, he said.

Grinstein named issues such as control of air space, Jewish access to holy sites in the West Bank and water as some of the issues that are not usually noted but are sticky issues in talks.

The process also marginalizes radicals across the region, and at some point they will act out; and finally Israel has no strategy for dealing with Hamas, he said.

Grinstein predicted that Israel and the Palestinians are heading for a "very serious crisis" in the weeks and months ahead, in which Israel will have to decide whether to stabilize the status quo, bet everything on the political process or resort to a more modest, lower risk strategy.

Such a strategy might involve transferring power to the Palestinians and concentrating on their institution building but letting go of the idea of establishing a state, Grinstein said.

Looking at a secondary motivation behind the Annapolis conference, that of forming a united regional coalition to confront the growing threat of Iran, Gold said that the last thing Israel should do is give away territory.

"If it is in the interest of all the attendees in containing Iran [except Syria] then what sense is there in turning over more territory that will be taken over by Hamas, which is funded by Iran," Gold told Cybercast News Service.

Today the only force keeping Abbas and P.A. Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad in power in the West Bank is the Israeli army, he said.

Political calculus - 101 From the Prince

Source: Evans Novak Political Report

Outlook

1. Talk about New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D) primary campaign decline was accelerated by the new Zogby International poll. It shows every major Republican candidate nationally defeating her, while Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D) beat every major Republican candidate. National polls at this stage of the game should not be taken too seriously, but Zogby does indicate decline by Clinton.
                           
    
2.                       The continued talk about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a third-party candidate was recently joined by speculation about CNN commentator Lou Dobbs as a fourth-party candidate, though Dobbs has stated that he has no interest in running. Dobbs might have more voter appeal than Bloomberg with protectionist, anti-immigrant and anti-globalism rhetoric. The problem is that Dobbs would have no financing, while billionaire Bloomberg could write checks for his.
                           
         
3. The new conventional wisdom is that the improved military situation in Iraq makes the war less of a biting issue for Democrats, who must now look to the failing economy. That could apply to general election campaigning, but the Democratic presidential primary voters will generate lots of anti-war rhetoric by the candidates.

 

President 2008

                   

Democrats: An Iowa poll before Thanksgiving showed for the first time Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in first place, raising the prospect of a truly competitive race for the nomination.

                   

1. The poll, commissioned by ABC and the Washington Post, surveyed 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers, and showed Obama with 30 percent and Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) with 26 percent -- within the +/- 4.5 percent margin of error. Because of the inherent imprecision in polling, and because earlier polls all showed Clinton with a small lead, this shouldn't be taken to mean Obama is now the front-runner.
                           
                        
2. However, Obama has shown steady improvement in his campaign performances, beginning with his rave-reviewed speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner earlier this fall. He is undoubtedly in striking distance in Iowa. Because the media already love him, Obama would gain huge momentum from an early win, which would wipe out his cash and polling deficits in other states. Basically, an Iowa win for Obama would set the stage for a one-on-one battle on level turf.
                           
                        
3.                       Winning Iowa will come down to organization and execution. On that front Hillary has the advantage, and Obama looks a little bit like Howard Dean looked four years ago at this time. The caucuses are always unpredictable because turnout is so low and second choice matters.
                           
                        
4. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) could play a decisive role in Iowa. While he comes in third in most polls, he gains the most when second-place choices are examined. In precincts where minor candidates don't meet the 15% threshold of "viability" Edwards could do very well. If Edwards can sneak into second place, it will be a huge blow to whoever finishes third.
                           
                        
5. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has not surged and shows no signs of doing so. His easy treatment of front-runner Clinton, combined with the entrance of Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) -- a top tier-candidate -- into his state's Senate race, confirms suspicions he is really running for Vice President.

      

                                

Republicans: Although former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls, this still looks like it's a two-man race between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

                   

1. Huckabee's surge is driven by the evangelical Christian vote within the Republican Party -- highlighting the risk the party undertook by embracing this voting bloc that is not necessarily a limited-government constituency. While evangelicals have been crucial to electing Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, Mike Huckabee is the first presidential candidate to actually arise from their ranks and share their populism and willingness to use big government. (Even second-tier evangelical candidates in the past, such as Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, have toed the free-market line).
                           
                        
2. Huckabee's record as governor is one of taxing and spending, and his campaign ideas have included nanny-state proposals such as national smoking bans and big-government intrusions into energy such as a carbon dioxide cap. He also criticized President Bush for vetoing the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion -- a bill nearly all Republicans considered to be a cynical Democratic ploy.
                           
                        
3.                       The same ABC/Washington Post poll that found Obama leading Clinton in Iowa found Huckabee four points behind Romney, and well ahead of Giuliani and former Sen. Fred Thompson (R). Unless future surveys confirm these findings, it has to be considered possible that these are simply bad polls.
                           
                        
4.                       Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has not made a big splash, but he is quietly campaigning as the moderate of the group. With Giuliani tacking as hard right as his record will allow, McCain has sent out direct mail portraying himself as an Al Gore-type environmentalist. The race to the middle has never worked for an underdog candidate in Republican nomination battles, but with his past success in New Hampshire and Michigan (whose primary is now confirmed on a January date), McCain has a chance to make a splash.
                           
                        
5. Representatives Duncan Hunter (Calif.) and Ron Paul (Tex.), the candidates with the strongest limited-government and pro-life records, still are not catching on in polls. The enthusiasm of Paul's base and his fundraising are extraordinary, which could help in Iowa's caucuses, but they haven't translated into big poll numbers anywhere. Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and perennial candidate Alan Keyes do not threaten to take any sizable portion of the primary vote.

Lott Resignation

                     

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) surprised nearly everyone when he announced this week he would resign from the Senate by the end of the year. His early departure has sparked a slew of leadership races within the Senate GOP, created something of a mess in Mississippi politics and raised questions and frustration about his decision.

                     

Leadership races: By stepping down from his post as minority whip, Lott has set up a domino effect in the Nos. 2 through 5 leadership posts.

                     

• Minority Whip: Lott's heir apparent as minority whip is Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). Kyl, currently the No. 3 Republican as the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, is in good favor with the party's conservatives and its establishment. He was close to Lott and worked well with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Combining the support of leadership and the conservatives makes Kyl unbeatable, which drove Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to drop his bid for the spot, which he lost to Lott last year by one vote.
                          
  Kyl votes the conservative line on important votes, but, more impressively, he regularly sides with the conservative back-bench reformers such as Senators Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in their quixotic battles against pork and government growth. His ascendance to the No. 2 spot provides hope for dissident fiscal conservatives.
                          
                        
• Conference Chairman: Kyl's move up the ladder creates a vacancy at conference chair, and this is the one leadership job where a real race is in the offing. Policy Committee Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) is running against Alexander. Sen. Richard Burr (R.-N.C.) is considering a bid, and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) may run, as well.
                          
  Hutchison is the favorite in this race. While sometimes aggravating to conservatives, Hutchison has paid her dues in the lower leadership ranks. Also, conservatives would prefer her to fellow moderate Alexander for two reasons: She is slightly more conservative than Alexander, and she may resign in two years to run for governor -- thus possibly opening up the spot for a conservative.
         
                        
• Policy Chairman: Just as Kyl and Hutchison look to move up the ladder one rung, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), currently the vice chairman of the conference (the No. 5 spot), is poised to replace Hutchison at the Policy Committee. Cornyn, like Kyl, has a conservative record and consistently bucks the party's appropriators and big spenders.
                          
                        
• Conference Vice Chairman: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is the conservative favorite to replace Cornyn in the No. 5 spot. He currently has no clear challengers.
                          
                        
• Conservatives: Burr and Thune, the other conservative senators considering leadership bids, suffer from having been disengaged as first-term senators. Some conservatives have lobbied for DeMint to make a run, but he has passed.

                                           

Mississippi Senate: Lott's announcement came days after his longtime colleague, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) announced he was running for re-election. The vacancy and a special election transform what would have been a boring year in Mississippi politics into an interesting one.

1. Gov. Haley Barbour (R) will have 10 days after Lott's resignation to appoint a replacement. Barbour likely will name a permanent choice who will then run again in the special election.
         
    
2. The date of the special election -- depending on the meaning of Mississippi law -- immediately become a hotly contested topic, and it may not yet be settled. While most states hold special U.S. Senate elections at the same time as the next congressional elections (November 2008 in this case), Mississippi law calls for a special election within 90 days in most cases. Democrats have angrily called on Barbour to schedule a special election this winter, which would help Democrats by decoupling the election from the presidential election and Cochran's certain re-election, while also adding more uncertainty by compressing the time frame. The outgoing secretary of State -- a Democrat -- has ruled that a close reading of the relevant law requires the election happen in November 2008. Democrats control both chambers of the legislature, but not by veto-proof margins. The November 2008 date will stay unless a court changes it.
         
    
3. The natural heir to Lott's Senate seat would have been Rep. Chip Pickering (R), a former Lott staffer. Pickering, however, is retiring from the House, presumably to make more money and spend more time with his family -- conditions not satisfied by a Senate job. He would have trouble changing course.
               
    
4.               Next in line could be Rep. Roger Wicker (R), who represents the Northern end of the state, including Ole Miss and Tupelo. The Hill newspaper suggested businessman Jim Barksdale (R) and party-switching outgoing Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck (R) could be the appointees. Barbour certainly will choose whoever he thinks is most likely to hang onto this seat.
               
    
5. Three Democrats with statewide election success are mentioned as possible challengers next November: former four-term Atty. Gen. Mike Moore (D), former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) and current Atty. Gen. Jim Hood (D). Moore would have huge fundraising potential, making him probably the best Democratic bet in this Republican state.

What to do about Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Grant statehood to the Palestinians on the West Bank.  Declare Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, a terrorist group.  Proceed with a surge strategy to remove al-queda and Hamas in Gaza.  Jerusalem remains in Israeli hands to insure religious freedom.  There is no right of return.

Will Murtha apologize? I doubt it, he has no honor. He should be removed from Congress.

Marine Leader Charged Over Haditha Is Innocent, Legal Group Says
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
November 28, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - High-ranking government officials in the United States pre-judged the criminal case against Marines involved in the 2005 Haditha incident in Iraq, said the Thomas More Law Center, which is co-defending the commanding officer charged in the case.

U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani was arraigned Nov. 17 at Camp Pendleton on charges of dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order for allegedly failing to investigate the conduct of four Marines under his command after a Nov. 19, 2005 house-to-house battle in Haditha.

In that battle, 24 Iraqis were killed, 15 of whom allegedly were noncombatant civilians. (See Haditha Investigation Timeline)

The Thomas More Law Center, a conservative group, is joining Chessani's military legal defense team for his trial, which starts in April 2008. Chessani is the highest ranking official charged in the case.

The law center plans to make motions to dismiss the charges against Chessani on grounds of "unlawful command influence," because high-ranking government officials pressed the case early before all the facts were in, said Brian Rooney, a spokesman for the group.

The center announced its involvement in the case as a leaked government report seemed to indicate weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

Military prosecutors have tried to make the case that the soldiers - supposedly motivated by revenge - intended to kill the civilians after a roadside bomb killed one Marine and injured two others.

However, according to a 37-page military assessment recently obtained by Newsweek , the Haditha case is unraveling. The report, by investigator Lt. Col. Paul Ware, said, "The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited, and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."

While civilians were killed in Haditha, insurgent fighters in Iraq have frequently hidden among civilians and used them as shields, which makes the case for a revenge killing difficult to prove.

Meanwhile, all charges have been dropped against two of the Marines in the case, while a third faces court martial for involuntary manslaughter, a drop from the original murder indictment against him. Ware reportedly suggested a similar reduction in the charges against the fourth shooter.

Chessani was charged for dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order. Specifically, prosecutors accuse him of failure to report or investigate the killings of Iraqi civilians, which would be a violation of war by Marines under his command. He faces up to 30 months in prison and dishonorable discharge from the Marines, if convicted.

In a sworn statement in August 2006, Chessani said the killing of civilians was unfortunate but he did not consider the shooting incident to be out of the ordinary or beyond routine combat.

It is a military order that commanders report to their superiors any time their subordinates violate the laws of war.

Chessani reported the incident on the day it happened, but prosecutors claim he did not report it to officials high enough in the chain of command, Rooney said. Further, it happened during combat and thus was not a violation of war, said Rooney.

Further, Rooney said, Chessani did a preliminary investigation by going to the scene and interviewing the soldiers about what happened. This should have met the legal requirements, Rooney said, but he again blames the media and politicians for making this a "political prosecution."

The Thomas More Law Center contends that previous reports by Army Gen. Eldon Bargewell and Army Col. Gregory Watt from last year back up the conclusion of the 37-page report leaked to Newsweek.

"A U.S. Army colonel and an Army general conducted two separate investigations and came to the same conclusion: There was no 'massacre' and no 'cover-up,'" said the law center's president, Richard Thompson, in a statement.

"Yet the government still pursued a multi-million dollar investigation in order to appease an anti-war politician and the blame-America-first media. Now we have the absurd situation of Lt. Col. Chessani being charged with failing to report and investigate a crime that never occurred," Thompson added.

The "anti-war politician" referred to by Thompson is Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a retired Marine colonel who became a vocal critic of the Iraq war in 2005.

In May 2006, Murtha said at a Capitol Hill press conference: "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

As chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Defense, Murtha wields power over defense spending and that power potentially could influence the investigation and case against Ware, according to the law center.

In addition to Murtha, the law center's legal motions name other officials who supposedly biased the case, including Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who, in 2006, was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and vowed to hold hearings on the matter; Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who compared Haditha to the My Lai massacre of Vietnam; and U.S. Navy Secretary Donald Winter, who also made comments that potentially could pre-judge the case, said Rooney.

"They all showed a bias that these men were guilty before an investigation was complete," Rooney told Cybercast News Service .

"It's frustrating to me, as a former Marine, that a lot of reporters, media types, and politicians have the worldview from the 1960s that never changed. They wanted to make this the new My Lai because they have tried from the beginning to make this the new Vietnam," he said.

In a speech given on the House floor last June, Rangel repeated Murtha's view that the soldiers might have snapped under pressure, "committing atrocities they would never have otherwise committed."

Rangel also said: "The verdict is already in; and it is not in the U.S.'s favor. While Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assures us that 99.9 percent of our servicemen and women are behaving humanely, the majority of the Iraqis confess no surprise at learning about the war crimes of the U.S. soldiers."

Rangel was also referring to Time magazine, which broke the story of the Haditha incident and referred to it as "massacring innocent civilians."

A spokesman from Murtha's office could not be reached for comment on this story, nor could a spokesman from Warner's office.

It was the Time story that prompted the investigation in mid-2006. By that point, the forensic and ballistic evidence was scant and autopsies weren't obtainable, according to the military report in Newsweek. Prosecutors relied on the word of two other Marines who got an immunity deal, but Ware writes in the report that these men have "low credibility."

Sharia law coming to a nation near you. This is what to expect if Islamofascism is not stopped.

UK Presses Sudan to Release Teacher Held Over Teddy Bear 'Blasphemy'
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
November 28, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - A Sudanese diplomat in London has raised hopes that a British teacher accused of blasphemy over a teddy bear named Mohammed may be freed.

Sudanese Embassy spokesman Khalid al Mubarak told BBC radio he was sure the case against Gillian Gibbons would be resolved amicably. "Our relationship with Britain is so good that we wouldn't like such a minute event to be overblown," he said.

But in Khartoum, a justice ministry official told the AFP news agency that the case was still under investigation by the country's chief prosecutor, and that if new elements emerge, "the charges could become more serious" -- prompting British media to speculate about the possibility that the 54-year-old teacher could face a sedition-related charge.

The incident looks set to cause a diplomatic row between Britain and its former colony. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told a monthly press conference Tuesday that British authorities were in contact with Sudanese police and government to "ascertain that she is safe and well and to clarify the position so that she can be released soon."

Relations between the West and Islamist President Omar al-Bashir's regime are already strained over the conflict in Darfur, which has dragged on for almost four years and cost more than 200,000 lives.

According to British media reports, Gibbons has been in custody since Sunday, following a complaint lodged by parents of a child at the English-language independent school for Christian and Muslim children in Khartoum where she teaches.

As part of a class project, Gibbons had asked her seven-year-old pupils to come up with a name for a teddy bear, which each child had taken home for a weekend to keep a diary about its activities. They chose "Mohammed" -- the name of Islam's prophet but also a common name in the Muslim world.

The semi-official Sudan Media Center was first to report the news, saying in a brief dispatch at the weekend that the woman was "arrested for insulting prophet Mohammed" after the naming of the teddy bear "was met with wide condemnation by guardians of the students."

British media say she faces the possibility of six months' imprisonment and 40 lashes if convicted on charges of insulting or degrading a religion.

However, according to chapter 21 of Sudan's penal code, which was amended in 2003, the offenses of "insulting or exciting contempt of" religion, abuse of religious belief, or defiling an object held sacred, each carry prison terms of up to three years.

Under "sedition" offenses (chapter 10), anyone convicted of excit[ing] hatred or contempt against any class of persons ...in such a way as to endanger public peace" faces imprisonment of up to five years.

The case has caused a stir in Britain, where senior opposition Conservative lawmaker William Hague urged the government to pressure Khartoum to release Gibbons immediately.

Muslim Council of Britain Secretary-General Muhammad Abdul Bari also called on the Sudanese government to free Gibbons, saying that "it is obvious that no malice was intended."

The story is getting front-page treatment in the British press and has sparked lively online media debates.

"One hopes that the prospect of a half-naked 54-year-old English woman being lashed until she bleeds in a square in downtown Khartoum is not something that the British Government will tolerate for more than five seconds," columnist Jan Moir wrote in the Daily Telegraph  Wednesday.

"For we have all had enough of this inflamed, reheated, religious outrage, cooked up by extremists to advance their own cause at the expense of everything else, including reason."

Writing in the mass-circulation tabloid, The Sun , contributor Anila Baig -- a Muslim -- said the news from Khartoum "reinforces the image of Muslims as intolerant barbarians."

"But the truth is Muslims are not offended by a teddy being called Mohammed -- they're offended that this story has got so much publicity."

Baig said Islamic laws were open to abuse in countries like Sudan. "Having a dispute with someone? Just accuse them of blasphemy. Simple."

Many Muslims are sensitive about anything they consider to be demeaning towards Islam and Mohammed, as witnessed by the angry reaction in the Islamic world over a Danish newspaper's publication two years ago of a dozen cartoons caricaturing the prophet.

How's the war going? - Iraq We are winning but you couldn't tell by the Dems.

   

                



Source: Townhall.com

Dems in Denial Over Iraq Recovery
By Donald Lambro
Monday, November 26, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The significant decline of violence in Iraq is well documented: fewer insurgent attacks, far less roadside bombs, fewer U.S. casualties and little or no sectarian warfare.

Last week, a series of reports by U.S. military officials in Iraq revealed the dramatic changes that have taken place there. A 55-percent drop in attacks since the surge offensive began nine months ago. Overall violence in key areas of Iraq has dropped to its lowest levels since the summer of 2005. Iraqi civilian casualties have also fallen, a staggering 60-percent drop since June, down 75 percent in Baghdad alone.

Life in much of Iraq has begun to return to what passes for near normal, though the war is far from over. Yet it is clear that the American military surge -- begun earlier this year -- is responsible for the changes taking place in this embattled nation that has become ground zero in the global war on terrorism.

The pessimists and defeatists who declared the surge doomed and prophesied that we were digging ourselves into a deeper hole have been proven wrong. The story of Iraq at this point is that terrorists have been killed, captured or driven out of territory retaken and cleansed by American and Iraqi forces -- a coalition that has stabilized much of the country.

But statistics are one thing, and the response of the Iraqi people is quite another. The most dramatic sign of improvement in Iraq can be seen in the number of Iraqi refugees who fled the violence at the height of the war and are now returning home in increasing numbers. Most of these returning Iraqis do so with the knowledge that their land is still a dangerous place, that the war is not over and that al-Qaeda killers still have the power to strike.

But there is a sense that the tide has turned in the Iraqis' favor, at least for now. There is renewed hope for their country's future, hope that Iraq will one day be united and safe. Hope can be a very powerful ally to a people beset by war, imparting a strength that can overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges, hardships and grief. And little by little we are beginning to see a rebirth of hope in Iraq.

Perhaps the most important change to emerge from Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency has been his efforts to cement nationalist alliances with Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders who have turned against their common al-Qaeda enemy.

One of the most interesting trends that has followed in the wake of the offensive has been a growing confidence among many Iraqis, a feeling that they are responsible for their country's destiny, that they must fight back when threatened by the thugs and killers in their midst.

When a bullet fired from a trucking convoy struck a young girl in the foot in a busy commercial area in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood last week, a group of Iraqis attacked the suspected assailants, hurling rocks at them as they hid in the truck. "I love my country. I want stability to be regained," said one of the men who helped take the stricken high school student to the hospital, as reported in the Washington Post.

It turned out the suspects were not responsible for the shooting, but the incident revealed a newfound courage among common Iraqi citizens, a realization that they must defend themselves when help is not available. "We did this because each of those men will kill 30 more people," one of the Iraqis said, according to the Post.

You would never know that anything had changed for the better in Iraq if you were listening to the Senate Democrats this month. They refused to even acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had vastly improved.

Indeed, despite all of the evidence proving that President Bush's surge has been successful, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is still pushing legislation to set a timetable for the quick withdrawal of all U.S. forces.

Reid and his cohorts do not want to see a successful conclusion to the war in Iraq. They want a political issue that will fire up their party's anti-war base in the 2008 election.

But Bush, Petraeus and the Republicans are seeking something very different. They want to achieve enough progress there, and buy enough time, to allow the Iraqi military to take over the defense of their country so that we can start bringing our men and women home.

As of last week, the surge was working better than anyone could have possibly predicted and the Democrats' political exploitation of the war as a campaign issue was losing.

Look for the first contingent of U.S. forces to begin coming home by the end of the year at the earliest -- early next year at the latest.

The dominent liberal mass media hates business and so do liberals. The dominent liberal mass media and leberals have a lot in common.

   

                



Source: Townhall.com

Media Consider American Businessmen ‘Bad Company’
By Herman Cain
Thursday, November 22, 2007

The American dream is alive and well, though you wouldn’t know it from watching the network news.

Liberal election rhetoric is counting on middle-class Americans believing someone is out to get them – and that they need the government’s protection. Recently we’ve seen this in media coverage of lenders, which ABC News called “the home wreckers.”

“Locking families out of the American dream by offering mortgages too good to be true,” was anchor Charles Gibson’s description.

Sure, there are unscrupulous lenders out there. But to describe an entire class of businesspeople in such a way is unforgivable.

If it were not for hard-working businessmen and women, we would not have grocery stores stocked with food, cars, our computers, houses or any of our comforts of life.

There’s an old African proverb that says it takes a village to raise a child. Well, it takes a whole country full of businessmen to sustain America. They keep America – and others around the world – eating, driving, playing, and building homes.

But many Americans don’t view businessmen that way. A 2007 Harris Poll revealed that in a list of occupations rated for “very great prestige,” businessmen came in 15th place, after farmers and lawyers. Those specifically in the financial sector ranked even lower – stock brokers, accountants and bankers came in 19th, 20th and 21st, respectively.

The unfortunate truth is that the crimes and scandals of a few – like Enron and WorldCom – have tainted the nation’s view of all in the same profession.

The news media have been the constant bearers of bad news and negative portrayals of businessmen. Yes, Enrons do happen, but very few executives are involved in such scandals. Watching CNN, however, you might think crime was practically a job requirement. On CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” in 2006, 76 percent of the show’s portrayals of businessmen were negative. The program had criminal businessmen seven times as often as it featured businessmen-philanthropists.

That interesting nugget comes from a study by the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute, which looked at an entire year of evening newscasts. It found when businessmen were included in the news, they were often under attack.

This in-depth study, which took thousands of man-hours, identified journalists’ portrayals of businessmen and women and evaluated those that had a tilt toward the positive or the negative. Of those, it found 57 percent were negative. Businessmen were described as “fat cats” or “another corporate crook,” and stories were laced with worries about “stratospheric sums” of “CEO pay run amok.”

From company profits to consumer prices, money was the name of the game. CBS even did a story that scolded a multibillionaire for spending his money! Maybe those reporters didn’t learn in Economics 101 that spending money creates jobs for countless people. Instead, CBS got huffy about one businessman’s buying habits.

Everybody’s always making too much money to suit journalists … never mind that some of those network anchors are pulling in tens of millions themselves. According to TV Guide, CBS’s Katie Couric makes $15 million a year, while NBC’s Brian Williams makes $8 million.

No, the nightly newsers didn’t focus on the positive. Despite more than $51 billion pledged from the most generous Americans in 2006, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, journalists portrayed businessmen as criminals one-and-a-half times more often than they were portrayed as philanthropists.

I know businessmen who give generously, and they wouldn’t want to be featured on the evening news. They prefer to give without widespread fame. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t good stories about businessmen out there – stories that enterprising reporters could dig up – about those who build companies and communities.

Other nations would love to have a chance at this system of free enterprise that our media take for granted and even attack. Bill George, a Harvard Business School professor and businessman himself, wrote about that system on BusinessWeek.com August 5.

“Every government leader and business executive I have met in developing countries –from the mayor of Beijing to the ruler of the United Arab Emirates – is eager for one thing: U.S.-style capitalism to build their economies, create jobs and wealth for their people, and bring their countries fully into the global trading network,” George wrote. “From Kazakhstan to Vietnam, people are hungry for capitalism.”

People from around the world come here to work. That coveted capitalism that creates jobs and wealth is maintained by hard-working businessmen and women – most of whom stay out of the spotlight. They’re not scandal-ridden. They’re inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs. They provide jobs to more than 100 million Americans. And they give back to their communities.

Unfortunately, they’re just not making headlines.