I wonder if the ACLU will sue for mixing church and state? Hezbollah Marshals The Young Via Scout Troops

On a Bekaa Valley playing field gilded by late-afternoon sun, hundreds of young men wearing Boy Scout-style uniforms and kerchiefs stand rigidly at attention as a military band plays, its marchers bearing aloft the distinctive yellow banner of Hezbollah, the militant Shiite movement.

They are adolescents — 17 or 18 years old — but they have the stern faces of adult men, lightly bearded, some of them with dark spots in the center of their foreheads from bowing down in prayer. Each of them wears a tiny picture of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Shiite cleric who led the Iranian revolution, on his chest.

“You are our leader!” the boys chant in unison, as a Hezbollah official walks to a podium and addresses them with a Koranic invocation. “We are your men!”

This is the vanguard of Hezbollah’s youth movement, the Mahdi Scouts. Some of the graduates gathered at this ceremony will go on to join Hezbollah’s guerrilla army, fighting Israel in the hills of southern Lebanon. Others will work in the party’s bureaucracy. The rest will probably join the fast-growing and passionately loyal base of support that has made Hezbollah the most powerful political, military and social force in Lebanon.

Does this remind you of someone elses idea and followers?

So, I go and read the whole NY Times story a few times, which fawns on these tea drinking AK-47 carrying Mahdi Scouts, who are just oh-so-faithful, and ya know, I seem to be missing several issues. The writers fail to mention the inherent violence, the anti-semitism, the anti-Israel and pro-radical Islam fervor, and the fact that this is the next generation of Islamic terrorists.

Surrendie and his cousin Do! love this story, because it involves surrender of kids to public schools, creating the perfect Democrat voters!

More than twice as many Americans – 56 percent — know that Paula Abdul is a judge on “American Idol” as know that the phrase “government of the people, by the people, for the people” comes from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (21 percent) — a phrase President-elect Barack Obama used in his election-night victory speech.

The average American is nearly illiterate when it comes to basic principles of American history, government and economics, according to a new report from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute – and politicians are even worse.

More than 2,000 people were administered a 33-question test this Spring on American history and our political and economic institutions. Of them, 71 percent — college and non-college educated alike – got a failing mark, ISI’s Josiah Bunting III said, presenting the study at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Thursday.

“It can truly be said that we are suffering from an epidemic of civic ignorance,” Bunting said. “The extent of failure is pervasive, cutting across every segment of the American population.

How bad was it?

• Less than half of Americans can name all three branches of government.
• Only 27 percent of Americans know that the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from establishing an official religion in the U.S.
• 54 percent do not know that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president.

Politicians scored even lower.

Darryl DeMarzio, an assistant professor in the education department at the University of Scranton, told CNSNews.com that many politically correct college campuses no longer teach “history” classes, as most people remember.

“One of the purposes of a history course now is not the acquisition of historical knowledge, but it’s a vague skill like ‘thinking historically,’ or something like that,” DeMarzio said.

The culprit is that teachers are steeped in a philosophy called “constructivism.”

“That’s the idea that knowledge is not something that teachers possess and give to students or teach students,” DeMarzio tolld CNSNews.com. “Rather, knowledge is a process in which students construct meaning for themselves.

So what we are talking about is more feel good socialization education, rather then practical reality.

Cross posted at Pirate’s Cove,  the home of the Surrender Monkey

The gay activists opposing Proposition 8 in California sure know how to sway the public…NOT! This is probably why they want to force their way of life on others through the courts. They can shut their mouth about tolerence, cuz they have nothing but hate. This poor girl, Christine Cloud, was singing “Amazing Grace” when one of the gay activists took her Bible from her and smacked her in the head with it! Thankfully the police saw this and responded!

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

The bubble beside Norm Coleman’s name appeared to have both an X and a squiggle in it, but the Al Franken campaign wants the state Canvassing Board to rule on whether it should count. That’s the only challenge in the special envelope in Plymouth so far, according to Sandy Engdahl, the city clerk and the official running the city recount.

So much for “count every vote” and “voter intention,” eh? (Via Ace thru The American Spectator)

Say, I wonder if the Brad Blog will bother covering this, and decry this obvious attempt by Violent Al to disenfranchise someone who obviously was voting for Coleman?

snapped shot has more, and Sister Toldjah discusses other ballot issues. Me, I think they should give the seat to the Lizard People, see what kind of leaders they are

I have asked a more eloquent writer to post on this, so you may see more on this later. I just want to do a basic rundown and roundup of reactions on it.

Washington Post:

For the first time, a federal judge today ordered the release of enemy combatants from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ruling that the government had provided insufficient evidence to continue their detentions.

The decision came in the case of six Algerians who were detained in Bosnia after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and have been held at the military prison in Cuba for nearly seven years. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, a Bush appointee, ruled that five of the men must be released “forthwith” and ordered the government to engage in diplomatic efforts to find them new homes.

In an unusual move, Leon also urged the government not to appeal his ruling, saying “seven years of waiting for our legal system to give them an answer” was long enough.

In the case of the sixth Algerian, Belkacem Bensayah, Leon found that the government had met its evidentiary burden and could continue to hold him. Bensayah’s lawyers said he would appeal.

Andy McCarthy:

All that said, though, Judge Leon concluded that “[t]o rest [combatant detention] on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation.” That is puzzling. There is nothing in the training of a judge that makes him an expert in military matters. In our system of divided government, the question of who is an enemy combatant should be committed to the executive branch — specifically, to the military professionals waging the war. If there is any evidence supporting the military’s wartime decision to detain (and, to reiterate, Judge Leon said there was sufficient evidence to hold these men for intelligence purposes), the court should defer to the military judgment.

In any event, the Times reports that Leon “directed that the five men be released ‘forthwith’ and urged the government not to appeal.” The government is considering its appellate options. Meanwhile, one can only hope that either Algeria or some other country is willing to take these guys. Otherwise, we are in the same fix presented by the Uighur case (which will be argued on appeal next week): facing the prospect of jihadists being released into the United States.

This is the tricky and scary part of the controversy. The legal loopholes leaving open the possibility of releasing dangerous individuals, and the possible consequences that could occur from this. This is the danger with involving judges in national security matters. As Andy states above, these issues should be left to our military. However, all responsibility for this judge’s decision can’t squarely be put on him alone. He had to make a judgment call based on the evidence at hand, which he didn’t find sufficient, because of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant enemy combatants habeas corpus rights in the first place. It’s a complicated mess of legal mumbo jumbo that remains a controversy.

Over at Ace’s Gabe touches on this a bit:

Judge Leon has been extremely fair in all his war on terror cases. If he says the classified documents provided by the government do not credibly establish that these five men are enemy combatants, I am inclined to believe him. That he did, in fact, rule that the sixth should continue to be detained reinforces the idea that he is giving some deference to the military’s evidence.

Keep in mind that he is required at this point to rule on their habeas petitions. He originally upheld the MCA and was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court. It was not his idea to allow overseas detained enemy combatants access to the federal courts. But now that they have been given such access, he is bound by his oath to give them a fair hearing.

Drew adds a conclusion:

Boumediene v. Bush basically offered these detainees a way to short circuit the military tribunals and threw open the court house doors by saying detainees had Habeas rights. They basically then told the lower courts to work out what other rights they had and the standards to adjudicate them. Judge Leon, like all other lower court judges have to figure this out for themselves but they are bound to give these guys fair hearings and that’s not their fault, that’s the Supreme Court’s fault.

The Boumediene decision is one that has forever transformed the way America will proceed in war during the future. We will be seeing consequences from the decision for years to come. Advocates for terrorist habeas corpus are absolutists in their passion for the pure principle of justice for all, and very shortsighted on the consequences granting such rights to enemy combatants can and probably will bring about. A balance between civil liberties and national security is a very thin line to tread, and the decision to grant constitutional rights to captured foreign combatants pushes over that line. In war, one can not stop in the heat of battle to read rights, or obtain search warrants, etc. Military tribunals have been sufficient for those captured in war throughout history, and they should have been sufficient even now. The door has been opened to a slippery slope, and we will see more consequences from this original decision.

As for Judge Leon’s decision, I won’t comment or criticize much. He made a difficult decision based on the information he had at hand. It very possibly could have been the right decision. The fact that he had to make the decision at all is the problem. It’s hard to criticize something when the evidence and witnesses are kept secret. The fact that the government was ordered to engage in diplomatic efforts to find them new homes is a bit muddy too. Lets hope their “new homes” are in the country of origin.

The Justice Department has the best conclusion for now:

“These cases present extraordinary circumstances where wartime enemies have been captured abroad and are being detained based often on the same sort of classified intelligence relied upon by the military in conducting wartime operations,” spokesman Peter Carr says in a written statement. “Today’s decision is perhaps an understandable consequence of the fact that neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has provided rules on how these habeas corpus cases should proceed in this unprecedented context.”

Expect to see more terrorists released, as Obama still plans on shutting down Gitmo and giving the detainees U.S. trials!

I’m gonna take a wild guess here and bet the government appeals. If not, the question we are left with is “where will these detainees go?”. Here is the basic rundown. If they really are guilty and dangerous, caught on the battlefield, and their confessions were obtained through interrogation some interpret to be “torture”, that evidence is thrown out. What little evidence is left may not be enough to convict them, and a guilty dangerous terrorist gets to go free. In the meantime Obama wants to move them all to already overcrowded prisons in the U.S.

Here is the problem in a nutshell from a blog that probably disagrees with me on the overall topic:

Even if the government doesn’t appeal, the problem will be finding a place to put all of the people wrongfully detained. Other countries don’t want them. And we can’t easily release them into the U.S., because even if they weren’t our enemies before they were detained and likely tortured, they sure as hell probably consider us an enemy now. And who could blame them?

By the way, I don’t buy the idealistic purity crap on any of this. Being merciful when the enemy knows no mercy is asking to be taken advantage of. Our judicial system is totally screwed up and corrupted. Is there any such thing as an unbiased judge anymore? The only ethics our lawyers have is greed. They argue what the highest bidder’s tells them to. Groups like the ACLU that are backed with taxpayer money and millions of donations ensure they can buy the best lawyers and you can bet they will always argue against America. I trust the military tribunals much more. Too bad that isn’t an option anymore.

Hmm, kinda makes the whole “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” thing sound pretty good, eh? Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The figures detailing Iran’s progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country’s main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.

Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

Yeah, because they couldn’t buy the plans from other countries or arms brokers, couldn’t find basic plans on-line, or hire someone to do it for them.

I bet Barry is just itching for his one on one no preconditions talks now. Because 6 years of talks between the EU and Iran, along with tons of UN resolutions, have worked well!

My bet is Israel decides a redux of Operation Opera (will they call it Firefox this time?) is in order by January 9th. What’s your guess?

Jules Crittenden

Obama is already showing himself to be a singularly gutless leader, between the uninspired Biden pick and the raids on the Clinton White House. Just as he wants the Clintons to govern for him, he may expect the Israelis to solve his problems. JPost: “We won’t let Iran go nuclear.”

And, as typical, there is a meltdown in Liberal World, where this is all being blamed on Bush. Funny, wasn’t it the left who decided that tough diplomacy, up to and including military strikes, was bad? Can we blame Barry when Iran detonates a nuke during his presidency, or will it still be Bush’s fault? In reality, it would be….Iran’s fault.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove.

The community activist types — like Barack Obama — who helped bring about our financial crisis by using Jimmy Carter’s insane Community Reinvestment Act to terrorize banks into making bad loans based on race are still causing havoc. IBD reports on self-described “bank terrorist” Bruce Marks:

Bruce Marks, founder of the leftist Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, makes a good living shaking down banks for loans to deadbeat borrowers that he thinks are entitled to homes.

Last month, he and about 100 urban protesters stormed Fannie Mae’s headquarters, demanding it stop foreclosures on subprime houses — the same homes his group pressured Fannie to fund.

As usual, the bullying tactics worked: Fannie Mae is now reviewing every foreclosure, while increasing the number of mortgages it restructures by lowering interest rates and extending loan terms to make payments more affordable. The government-backed firm guarantees some 30% of the nation’s outstanding mortgages.

Marks founded Boston-based NACA last decade to fulfill his warped sense of the American dream. He thinks owning a home is a right, not a goal. And he thinks every American should have a house — even those who can’t pay for one.

Marks, who proudly calls himself a bank terrorist, has extorted billions of dollars from Citigroup and other large banks to subsidize uncreditworthy borrowers in the inner city, where he accused the banks of “redlining.”

Marks believes that expecting The Oppressed to have good credit or make a down payment before receiving a mortgage loan is “patronizing and racist.” According to moonbat ideology, it is everyone’s right to have the home they want at someone else’s expense.

Even before The One ascends to the White House, the government is already infested with leftists who share Marks’s viewpoint:

Congress’ banking committee chiefs, Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, are also demanding banks stop foreclosures. And guess who they’ve invited to testify about that? That’s right: Marks, who has proposed stopping all resets on subprime adjustable mortgages and allowing late payments for up to 90 days. Marks insists that regulators “force” lenders to restructure their loans to prevent foreclosures from going forward.

Marks gives an example of the sort of testimony he’ll offer the Socialists running Congress:

NACA has done lending the right way. No down payment. No closing costs. No fees. No perfect credit. At a below-market fixed rate.

This must have sounded wonderful, until society got the bill in the form of a collapsed mortgage industry that — combined with the corruption, irresponsibility, and incompetence of our congressional kakistocracy — is bringing down the entire economy.

On tips from Dennis S, Watching, nanc, and Name. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Interestingly, Dan Morain of the L.A. Times had discovered back in April that Barack Obama has a pretty thin resume prior to being elevated to the presidency. Between 1993 and ‘96, Obama, the much-ballyhooed “Constitutional scholar,” had only an unusually low 3,723 billable hours of legal work accrued over a four-year stint with his law firm employer Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. Further, he seems to have worked on but few cases and made little impact commensurate with his reputation. Yet, just this month the Orlando Sentinel decides to re-print the Morain piece. The question I have, of course, is why is the Orlando Sentinel only NOW interested that Obama was “involved in relatively few cases before entering politics”? Where was this investigating before the election?

The Morain piece begins by recounting how Obama has so often made a big deal out of his days as a “civil-rights attorney” claiming it a key ingredient of his early, formative community development years. Yet, Morain finds that there isn’t much record proving that Obama did a whole heck-of-a-lot back in those days. (bold mine)

Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases before entering politics.

So, Obama, for all his claims of being involved in the lives of “churches and community groups” as a lawyer with the firm is… what? Blowing smoke? If the paper trail reveals he didn’t work on many cases or have very many billable hours, how is it that he found this experience to be a monumental involvement in the community that shaped his career?

Morain doesn’t directly ask these questions in his piece, wisely preferring to let the facts talk to the reader. But, a careful read of his L.A.Times piece cannot help but elicit the pertinent question: what the heck was Obama doing during those four years, anyway? After all, it sure doesn’t look like he was doing much legal work!

Here’s how Morain sums up Obama’s paper trail:

30: The approximate number of legal cases Obama was involved in:

4: The number of years Obama was a full-time lawyer

70%: The amount of time Obama spent on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. (The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real-estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.)

3,723: The number of billable hours Obama accrued while working at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard.

According to Morain, some of Obama’s “big” cases were the case of a shortchanged babysitter, the case of a cold building tenant, and a lawsuit against a corporation that owned low-income housing on behalf of a guy that slipped and fell down. Additionally, Obama was involved in the enforcement of the federal Motor Voter law in Illinois — at lest that one being a higher profile case.

So, it appears Obama has less billable hours during those four years than most young lawyers are expected to accrue (which is up to 2,000 hours a year according to some estimates), worked on but few cases, and only on one notable one. On top of that, he was rarely more than a “junior associate” the whole time.

This is the man that was praised for his extensive legal career? A slighted babysitter and a guy that fell down are the amazing legal challenges he faced as a young lawyer?

Of course, the biggest question is, why are we only now seeing this report from the L.A. Times? Where was this report two months ago or more?

Need I even ask?

-By Warner Todd Huston

According to the website CityWatchLA.com, it looks like the Department of Water and Power Board of Commissioners seems to be so cozy with its public employees union that it is planning massive new “Green” programs without taking them before the public for approval.

In a piece on a proposed Rate Payers Advocate position to monitor the DWP, Jack Humphreville gave us this interesting tidbit:

The DWP Board of Commissioners claims to be our Watch Dog, and to some degree it may have been when Nick Patsaouras was there. But now, where is the Board on the multibillion dollar Green Initiative? What public outreach has been held? Indeed, the City Council is asking questions that DWP won’t even report back on for months. Who is watching out for the Rate Payers when its main union has a stranglehold not only on labor, but on management too?

And isn’t this same City Council that recently approved, without a dissenting vote, the multibillion dollar Green Initiative without the benefit of DWP’s analysis, a thorough vetting by the Energy and Environment Committee, or even informing the Rate Payers and Neighborhood Councils, despite the fact that the monopoly elements of the initiative could easily cost Rate Payer hundreds of millions of dollars?

The union has so much cash to disseminate amongst politicians in LA that anything it wants it gets, apparently. And it gets it whether the voters are told about it or not.

This is just one more reason that unions are anathema to good government.