Abdi Aynte, one of Keith Ellison’s biggest supporters, used Minnesota Monitor to deny Keith Ellison’s being the Grand Marshal of the Sept. 9 Muslim Day Parade in New York City. Here’s what Mr. Aynte said:

Contrary to reports circulating widely in conservative publications and blogs in recent days, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison will not be the grand marshal of the Muslim parade in New York next month, according to his office.

The freshman Democrat from Minneapolis was never scheduled to be there, said Brian Elliot, district director for Ellison.

Elliot said the congressman “was equally surprised” when he learned the buzz that he would be the grand marshal for the 22nd Annual Muslim Day Parade in New York City, which is scheduled for Sept. 9. Ellison “declined the offer to be the grand marshal a long time ago because he has other obligations in the district,” said Elliot.

Mr. Elliot might want to contact the Muslim foundation of America and find out why they had a flyer posted on their website announcing Rep. Ellison as the Grand Marshal:

Aynte made a major mistake when he wrote this:

In her “Rogues Gallery of Radical Islam” column, Canada Free Press’ Judi McCleod wrote that Ellison’s alleged role in the parade would have been “totally ignored were it not for the courage of a single freelance journalist.” Yet that journalist, FrontPage magazine writer Joe Kaufman, seems to have ignored a basic tenet of reporting: fact-checking.
(Ed.- emphasis mine)

I’ve known Joe for almost two years now. Joe is nothing if not meticulous. (continue reading post »)

The AP is reporting that Sen. Larry Craig will resign tomorrow. My initial reaction is simple. Good riddance. He’s disgraced himself by putting himself in an untenable position.

The announcement follows by just five days the disclosure that he had pleaded guilty Aug. 1 to a reduced misdemeanor charge arising out of his arrest June 11 at the Minneapolis airport.

The three-term Republican senator had maintained that he did nothing wrong except for making the guilty plea without consulting a lawyer. But he found almost no support among Republicans in his home state or Washington.

What type of defense is that? Now he’s claiming that his only mistake was in not consulting a lawyer before pleading guilty? If he wasn’t guilty, that should’ve been his first move. That move should’ve been a total no-brainer. The only thing more insulting is his claim that he was entrapped.

As the audiotape clearly shows, Craig initiated the contact. It isn’t entrapment when the criminal makes the first move.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter appeared Friday to have already settled on a successor: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, according to several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations.

This is the best option under the circumstances for Republicans. They won’t have to run a primary challenger against a sitting senator, thereby saving the party alot of money. They also sweep this story out of the news. I’d be surprised if it had legs beyond Labor Day.

Technorati Tags: Larry Craig, Resignation, Criminal Behavior, Senate, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Bottom Line Up Front:  Today’s U.N.’s WMD snafu is a reminder of the unusual change in U.N. reporting regarding Saddam’s WMD program.

New proof has emerged that Saddam had no WMD ambitions! Okay, that was sarcastic, but it is pretty ironic that dangerous chemical weapons taken at an Iraqi chemical weapons plant in 1996 by weapons inspectors were found in an office in the United Nations in New York City today.

Why ironic? As late as 2004 the U.N. weapons inspectors officially reported that Iraq had no WMD after 1994.  The chemicals found at the U.N. today are from 1996 and are the kind used as lethal weapons during World War I.

Even more ironic is that 1996, the year these chemicals were taken from Iraq and stored in the U.N. as souvenirs, the infamous Oil for Food programme was begun by the U.N.

So a year after Operation Iraqi Freedom had begun, a war which U.N. WMD inspectors resisted, they reported there were no WMD after 1994 knowing WMD were found in Baghdad in 1996. Enter Oil for Food. Hmmmmm….

David Kay, top U.S. weapons inspector who headed the Iraq Survey Group, addressed a Congressional committee in October 2003, saying:

-Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.

-Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage.

In their final report, David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group Final Report (Global Security) announced:

On Feb. 14, 2003:

“Saddam issues directive banning private companies and individuals from importing WMD materials or producing WMD.”

That was weeks before the start of the invasion.  Even John Bolton serving as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security voiced grave concerns about Syria’s WMD capabilities. in Sept. 2003 to Congress.

Confusing?  Here’s how it looks chronologically.

TIMELINE:

• 1996: Chemical agents found in Baghdad, moved to U.N. office
• 1996: U.N. began corrupt Oil for Food programme that lined Saddam’s pockets with billions in kickbacks.
• 2003, Feb 14:  on the eve of war Saddam “issues directive banning private companies and individuals from importing WMD materials or producing WMD”, according to the Iraq Survey Group/David Kay.
• 2003, March: U.S. invaded Iraq.
• 2003, Sept. 16:  John Bolton as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security address Congress concerning Syria’s WMD capabilities.
• 2003, Oct: Kay and ISG told Congress WMD may have moved over Iraq’s border.
• 2004, March: U.N. reports Iraq had no WMD after 1994.
• 2007, Aug: U.N. finds WMD from 1996 in their NYC building.

If Democrats were serious about preventing terrorist attacks, there wouldn’t be a basis for an article like this.The fact that there’s a basis for this article should be a warning sign to voters.

A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.

The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies, on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.

The Nutroots are going to be exceptionally upset with Democrats when the FISA law that President Bush signed comes up for renewal. Despite Ms. Pelosi’s charge to John Conyers and Silvestre Reyes to rewrite the FISA reform bill, it won’t be a big enough change to satisfy the Nutroots because they’re totally opposed to warrantless intercepts regardless of what intel is gleaned from them.

At the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress yesterday, panelists discussing the balance between security and freedom lashed out at Democratic leaders for not standing up to the White House. “These are matters of principle,” said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the center. “You don’t temporize.”

Mr. Agrast is wrong. It isn’t a matter of principle. It’s a matter of survival. (continue reading post »)

Brian Baird’s statements that the surge is actually working has drawn the wrath of the Netroots. According to this article in the Hill, MoveOn.org is calling Baird a flip-flopper in a series of ads:

Rep. Brian Baird’s (D-Wash.) recent conversion on the Iraq war is beginning to affect more than the national dialogue. On Wednesday, liberal group MoveOn.org announced an ad campaign against the congressman in his own district.

Baird recently returned from a trip to Iraq and reversed his position on a withdrawal timetable, citing military progress in the four-year-old war.

MoveOn is calling the move a “flip-flop” and says it goes against the views of his constituents.

The ad does not make specific reference to Baird’s conversion. Instead, it features a soldier who served in Iraq talking about the amount of resistance troops encountered and at the end asks viewers to tell Baird to bring the troops home.

Here’s the striking sentence in that section of the article:

MoveOn is calling the move a “flip-flop” and says it goes against the views of his constituents.

What’s striking is that it doesn’t say that Baird lied about the improving conditions on the ground. (continue reading post »)

The anti-war left has announced that they’ll descend upon our nation’s capitol on Sept. 11 to protest the Iraq War. According to a quote in this Michelle Malkin column, International ANSWER won’t have the stage to themselves:

As retired Army Col. Harry Riley explains, “Unlike the ’60s and ’70s, the anti-war lemmings will not have the streets or the political stage to themselves. This time, Eagle Americans; we who support our troops, understand the stakes in the War on Terror and the true nature of our enemy, who aren’t blinded by an insane hatred of our way of life and our form of government; will also be in Washington, D.C., to show Congress that we will not tolerate another betrayal of our own forces or our allies…While the anti-democracy forces are well-funded by pro-left, anti-Americans, we Eagles have steadily been building our own coalition to stop ANSWER in its tracks, and keep Congress focused on winning the war, not their political ambitions.”

In addition to the numerous articles I’ve written about the troop surge, I’ve also talked about the implications of the announcement that al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army taking a six month ‘leave of absence’. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, Slow Joe Biden and Harry Reid whined about Bush’s failed Iraq policy. Today, we receive more news that Bush’s Iraq policy, as implemented by Gen. David Petraeus, has failed:

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, an aide said Wednesday. The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to “rehabilitate” the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.

“We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued,” al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.

It was predictable that Sadr’s Mahdi Army would fracture in the absence of his leadership. It’s difficult, if not impossible, maintaining discipline when Sadr and his top generals are hiding in Tehran. It’s even more difficult now that Shiite politicians can’t protect these groups like they were able to in the past.

Bit by bit, it’s getting more difficult for Democrats to deny that the surge isn’t working. If the Iraqi Parliament is able to pass an oil revenue sharing plan when they return, it’ll be apparent to the American people that political progress is being made. (continue reading post »)

Holy smokes, you can say that again.

AP reports: “Malaysia’s government ordered a Tamil-language daily to immediately halt publication for a month Friday as punishment for printing an image of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette, an official with the newspaper said.”

“Of course we are shocked by this. My entire staff are all in tears. They will lose a month of income,” Periasamy said, adding that the newspaper would abide by the order but plans to appeal the suspension.

Ministry officials in this Muslim-majority nation could not immediately be reached for comment.

The newspaper had said it published the photo by mistake Tuesday and carried a front-page apology Thursday.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said Thursday that the picture was hurtful and an insult to Christians. Kuala Lumpur archbishop, Murphy Pakiam, criticized the picture as a “desecration,” but later accepted the newspaper’s apology.

Meanwhile, there were no Christians rioting or laying siege to the country. Thank God.

UPDATE: Editor&Publisher is apparently amused…
For Christ’s Sake? Newspaper Suspended…

Something tells us they wouldn’t run a piece called “For Allah’s sake..” It could lead to a beheading or two.

Led by Harry Reid and Joe Biden, Democrats are whining that President Bush is painting a rosy picture of Iraq. While it’s true that he’s pointed to the successes of the surge, it’s absurd to think that he’s painting an unjustifiably rosy picture of what’s happening in Iraq. Here’s what Joe Biden said about President Bush:

Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee told reporters that Bush’s logic on the Iraq war was flawed, but a key House of Representatives Republican leader backed the president.

“It’s been (Bush’s) misguided policy and his mismanaged war that have actually fueled extremism and extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond,” Biden said. “The president, in my view, likes to confuse the American people by conflating Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.”

Slow Joe isn’t the only Democrat to allege that President Bush’s prosecution of the war has created more extremists or terrorists. In fact, it’s difficult to find a Democrat not named Lieberman who doesn’t take that position. Thus far, I haven’t heard anyone offer proof or statistics that that’s happening. In fact, I can’t think of a single Democrat that’s offered even anecdotal evidence to support their claims.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that allegations like what Slow Joe just made aren’t based on verifiable facts. Think about it this way: If Biden knew of a study from a think tank that researched whether the Iraq war had created more terrorists, wouldn’t he state that as the basis for their allegations? Wouldn’t such a study from a respected think tank like the Brookings Institution strengthen or validate their case? (continue reading post »)

AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman has issued a press release condemning the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-Los Angeles (CAIR-California), Affad Shaikh, for calling “Senator Joe Lieberman, Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, Lt. General Thomas McInerney, and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and Sheppard Smith as ‘Extremist Right Wing Nut cases.’”

I’d never heard of Affad Shaikh before this morning but I don’t think he’ll be used as a spokesman for CAIR again anytime soon, especially if this is the quality of his work product. First of all, using the term “extremist right wing nut cases” isn’t the way to win friends and influence people. Secondly, calling Joe Lieberman, Sheppard Smith, Bill O’Reilly and Jim Woolsey extremist right wing nut cases is wildly inaccurate. I couldn’t tell you how O’Reilly or Sheppard Smith vote. I know that Joe Lieberman isn’t an extremist right wing nut case because he’s still part of the Democratic Party.

I strongly recommend that you read the entire press release.

Technorati Tags: CAIR, Tolerance, Joe Lieberman, Bill O’Reilly, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto, Jim Woolsey, Sean Hannity, John Bolton

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog