Friday, February 24, 2012


Posted by BH 11:05 pm 2-24



Number of deportation cases drops by nearly a third, report says

The drop recorded in the last three months of 2011 may reflect the administration's plan to focus its deportation efforts by weighing discretionary factors, including whether the person is a veteran, came to the United States as a child or is a college student.


A group of deported men ride in the back of a Grupos Beta pickup through Mexicali, Mexico. Grupos Beta is a government migrant protection organization. (Don Bartletti, Los Angeles Times / September 20, 2011)

By Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times
February 24, 2012

The number of deportation cases filed by federal immigration officials dropped by nearly a third in the first three months of the fiscal year, according to a report by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

The drop recorded in the last three months of 2011 may reflect the Obama administration's plan to focus its deportation efforts by weighing a variety of discretionary factors, including whether the person is a veteran, came to the U.S. as a child or is a college student, according to the report. But experts said it's too soon to say if deportations overall will decline.

From October through December, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated 39,331 deportation cases in immigration court, down from 58,639 the previous quarter, the report says. Filings are typically lower during the holiday months, but even adjusted for the seasonal drop-off the numbers are significantly lower, according to the authors.

Immigration officials said they have not had the opportunity to review the data to verify their accuracy but added that the numbers don't fully encompass the ways in which a person can be deported. The report, said ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen, is focused only on submissions for deportations made to immigration courts.

"It ignores the fact that ICE regularly removes individuals without going through formal [immigration court] proceedings utilizing voluntary, administrative, expedited and stipulated removals as well the reinstatement of old removal orders," she said.

From October through early February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 121,780 people from the country, according to the agency.

Immigration officials said a review of 300,000 deportation cases announced by the Obama administration in August is well underway and tens of thousands of cases have been reviewed.

Congress has provided enough funds for the ICE to deport about 400,000 people annually, and the administration has said it intends to focus those resources on cases deemed high-priority, including those involving national security, serious felons, individuals with lengthy criminal records, known gang members and others who pose a threat to public safety.

"We're being smart about how we enforce the law. We're doing it in a way that makes sense and in a way that uses tax dollars effectively," said ICE spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez. "Law enforcement has to have set priorities because the American public doesn't want us to just arrest the first 400,000 people we can remove. Why arrest the first 400,000 people when you can arrest those who are threats to the community?"

The proportion of filings during the period that sought deportation on grounds of alleged criminal activity was 14%, down from nearly 16% in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. Those numbers led the report's authors to say there is little evidence cases are being better targeted toward serious criminals. But agency officials strongly disputed that notion as based on incomplete data.

"As it has done in past reports, this report focuses only on the technical reasons why an individual is legally removable from the US and ignores the criminal history that triggered the decision to seek the person's removal," Christensen said.

The number of convicted criminals deported by the agency nearly doubled last year. So far, 52% of those removed this fiscal year are convicted criminals, Christensen said.

The report's analysis is based on case records obtained by the data research center under a Freedom of Information Act request made to the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which administers the nation's immigration courts.

Some immigration attorneys said they have started to see a change in the types of cases the government pursues.

"It's too early for me to say it's a trend," said Carl Shusterman, a Los Angeles-based immigration attorney and former trial attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. "But it is something I didn't necessarily get in the past.

"Before, if you had these Dream Act students and we wanted to keep them in the U.S., I'd have to go to a congressman and beg for a private bill. Now I can just go to a deportation officer who has the case and say, 'You know this person falls within these prosecutorial discretion guidelines. You don't really want to deport them, do you?' And they'll agree with you. That is a sea change."




Posted by BH 10:54 pm 2-24


He's 'coming down on the side of the Muslims WHO VOTED FOR THIS LEADER ?

Posted by BH 10:45 pm 2-24

Remember in Audacity of Hope, where he says, "If things turn ugly, I'll come down on the side of the MUSLIMS."
 He's 'coming down on the side of the Muslims.' - 
Watch for another Haditha-style show trial for the brave troops who followed an order to burn the defaced Korans. CIC' coming down on the side' of the 7th c. freaks, persecuting U.S. military personnel to impress his Islamic masters with his cultural zeal on their behalf.

Obama Threatens To “Hold Accountable” U.S. Soldiers for Burning of Koran

by Ulsterman on February 23, 2012 with 45 Comments in News
Multiple reports now circulating of President Obama quickly taking the side of Muslims against American soldiers who were simply following orders to remove and burn materials taken from terrorist detainment cells in Afghanistan – including already defaced copies of the Koran.
While there exists an argument that Barack Obama is simply hoping to diffuse the agitation among Afghans that the destruction of some copies of the Koran has caused – that argument falls short of explaining the aggressive tone the Commander in Chief so quickly took against the very American soldiers his administration so often uses as political props when the opportunity presents itself to the Obama re-election campaign.  Those soldiers were simply following orders – and initial reports are already suggesting those copies of the Koran that were destroyed had already been defaced by the captured terrorists who were using them to communicate to each other – sharing the Koran within the prison facility.
A military official said the materials were removed from the detainee center’s library because they had “extremist inscriptions” on them and there was “an appearance that these documents were being used to facilitate extremist communications.
That information – which certainly the president is aware of, did little to lessen his promise to Muslims that he would seek out and punish those Americans responsible:
I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident,” Obama wrote. “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.”
The president concludes the letter: “The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”
What an honor and privilege it must be for those soldiers to serve this Commander in Chief who so quickly turns against them in order to seek favor among the very enemies those soldiers are directed to defeat.  And don’t forget – it was not so long ago that senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett – the same one who political insiders deem the defacto president within the Obama White House, told a high ranking U.S. military officer to go fetch her another drink during an exclusive D.C. dinner party.


Posted by BH 10:37 pm 2-24
I was talking with my wife and married daughter the other day about Muslims, Sharia law and the Obama administration’s support of them.  We were talking about how Sharia law allows for physical and emotional abuse of women.  It makes women a third class person, barely better than an animal or even a possession like a car.  They can be abused, beaten and even killed.
Strict Sharia law does not allow a woman to receive an education, work in many industries, drive a car, walk alongside a man in public or even to speak to a man other than her husband or son in public.  Women under Sharia law are no better off than the black slaves were before the American Civil War.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have had numerous opportunities to speak out against Sharia law and how it violates women’s rights.  But to date, neither one of them have condemned the Muslim practice.  They have readily condemned other human rights violations around the globe, but never have they done so with Sharia law.
Obama and Clinton claim to be all about women’s rights when it comes to things like abortion and health, but not when it touches on the President’s own faith.
So I can’t help but ask the question of why would any woman in America vote for Obama, Clinton or any of the other Democrats that remain silent about Sharia law and the treatment of women?
With the threat of Sharia law actively creeping into the American judicial system, why would any women vote for those that won’t stop it?
In a number of states, Republicans have been trying to stop Sharia law and the people have passed measures to stop it, but Democrats and liberal judges appointed by Democrats repeatedly block the anti-Sharia law measures.  So why would any woman vote for any of these Democrats?
Women, when you go to the polls this year, ask yourself if you want to be under Sharia law or not.  Do you want your husband, son or boyfriend to have the legal right to beat the dickens out of you or even kill you if he thought you dishonored him?  If the answer is no, then think about who you are going to vote for before it’s too late

The Establishment’s Last Stand - : Keep Obama (A BINGO GAME) - ON US - I HOP NOT ?

Posted by bh 10:05 pm 2-24

The Establishment has done everything it can to absorb the Tea Party, to condescend to the Tea Party, to divide the Tea Party.

The Establishment’s Last Stand: Keep Obama
By Daren Jonescu,
Mitt Romney cannot win the Republican presidential nomination. He is a man who seemingly entered the race because, after a long and successful working life, he could think of nothing more impressive to top it all off than being President of the United States. From last spring to this very moment, much of the Republican Establishment has been solidly, viciously, in his corner. And yet he cannot win. Most people, when their candidate looks hopeless, turn to another available candidate who might be satisfactory. The Republican Establishment, which is not like most people, is beginning to murmur about a brokered convention. They are determined to get what they want, by hook or by crook, by Drudge or by Fox.
What is it that they want, exactly? To get a hint of an answer, one must look at the man they have supported thus far.
Romney clearly has no feeling for the constitutional discussion that is now the animating principle among Republican primary voters. He never talks about the Constitution, and one senses that he would sound vastly out of his element if he did. His argument against Obamacare—the tipping point policy in the final transformation of America from a constitutional republic to a top-down regulatory state—is purely financial, as though the annihilation of natural rights would be acceptable if it could be done frugally.
Romney keeps telling everyone he worked in the private sector for twenty-five years. (So what? Abraham Lincoln flopped as the owner of a general store at age 23, and later practiced law while serving multiple terms in the Illinois House of Representatives.) This private sector experience, as he repeatedly reports, taught him how to balance a budget. There are two problems with this practical knowledge about which Romney boasts often enough for us to identify it as his main case for being (a) qualified for the presidency, and (b) a conservative. The first problem is that the way a business balances its budget is, first and foremost, by finding innovative ways to increase its revenues—not exactly what a conservative Republican ought to be aiming at as a principle of good government. The second problem, related to the first, is that a business that cannot balance its budget (like Lincoln’s general store) can, and eventually must, shut its doors—not an option for a government that is failing to make ends meet. Profitability is not the determining factor for government as a whole, or even for specific departments or agencies within the government. Romney has undoubtedly made good business decisions about closing up unprofitable shops. The same kind of reasoning cannot be used in government. (Consider the military, as just one clear example.)
One does not need specialized business skills to see how the most bloated government in human history could save money. The issue is how to persuade enough of the humans who make decisions within that government, along with those whose votes determine the identity of the former group, that eliminating government “waste” is a good thing. The problem is that the majority of that “waste” is administered with the protective love of a mother by people who see opportunity, power, hope and change where conservatives see fat, and is supported by the voting decisions of a public whose range of worldly concerns extends no wider than their own toy box, and no further than today’s bedtime.
Romney can and will do nothing to awaken people from the profound moral desuetude that is bringing the abyss closer every day. And, strange as it may seem, that’s just why the Republican Establishment chose him. It must not be forgotten that, at the very beginning of the primary process, back at the 2011 CPAC Conference, the Establishment-manufactured man of the moment was Mitch Daniels. “Mitch Who?” asked those genuine conservatives who smelled a rat. It was understood, and made explicit by prominent Establishment voices, that he was the man precisely because he spoke like a reasonable fiscal manager—while simultaneously speaking out strongly against allowing the so-called “social conservative” agenda to play a role in the 2012 election.
In other words, while Ronald Reagan had worked hard to bring the so-called “social” and “fiscal” conservative camps together, in part by showing them that the “fiscal” issue was, in fact, a major “social” issue—i.e. a moral problem—today’s Republican elite is dead-set on erecting the old barrier again. The aim is to keep moral questions out of the equation, thus preserving the long-standing Washington charade of optics politics, in which two factions argue about whether the noose around America’s neck ought to hang twenty feet high, or ten feet, while the public, oblivious in its cell, enjoys its last meal while staring at “American Idolatry” and “Dancing with the Dimwits.”
The Tea Party movement, at its best, was the curative for all that, and a near-perfect embodiment of the spirit of Reagan’s “conservative coalition.” Indeed, it went one step further, not simply establishing common cause between fiscal and social conservatives, but forging a genuine commonality of intentions. The lynchpin of this marriage of purposes was the Constitution itself. The Tea Party represented the crystallization of a sentiment that had long been present, but which had previously lacked clarity of expression—an understanding that the financial bankruptcy facing the country was indistinguishable from a moral bankruptcy. Or rather, that the former was the product of the latter, in the precise sense that abandoning the principles (i.e. the moral foundations) of the Constitution—property rights, individual liberty, limited government—was the source of the ever-expanding entitlement-based federal government that has rendered America insolvent. Thus, the Tea Party presented the corrective for America’s critical illness in properly moral terms: Get back to individual self-reliance and property rights, or face societal doom.
And here, in simple terms, is where Tea Party constitutionalism runs afoul of the Republican Party machine. The Party Establishment, like any animal, is made up of soul and body. The body consists of the usual parts: its head, namely those elected Republicans for whom electoral success, privilege, and a vague sense of wanting to be admired, are the chief motivations; a torso comprised of the support staff, appointees, and campaign apparatchiks of the Party, operators who see winning and losing as the meaning of politics; and its limbs, made up of those media Republicans and other public personalities who are seemingly motivated primarily by the hope of being invited to George Will’s house.
While this physical bulk is more imposing to look at, the Establishment’s soul is the real essence of the beast. And that soul—the “conservative” intellectuals in the think tanks, in the media, and in the academy—is, at this time, made up entirely of practical devotees of Nietzsche. They see themselves as beyond good and evil, and regard the Constitution merely as their particular mask in the parlor game called Politics. They are enjoying themselves too much to get all worked up about such peccadilloes as catastrophic debt, regulatory agencies usurping the legislative role of Congress, and a world-wide dependency culture that is willing freedom out of existence. Their version of sobriety tells them they would look silly and hysterical if they stepped out of their hubristic calm for a moment and started shouting, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” (That won’t stop them from being the first to say “I told you so” when the sky does inevitably fall.)
The Establishment, body and soul, has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And this means they need to corner the market on “conservative” principle and policy. George Washington is a direct threat to the unprincipled privileges of office. His spiritual heirs must be kept out of the meetings. Conservatism, as a theoretical position, must continue to be the daunting Jesuitical puzzle of the select few, in order to keep the parlor game going.
Today’s constitutional conservatives threaten to end the parlor game. They have committed the faux pas of noticing that their national story is about to end, and of objecting—forcefully—to the quality of leadership that has brought things to this bleak prospect. They are demanding a new establishment, and immediately. Worst of all, they are winning the intellectual argument against those who, until just a moment ago, felt certain that they were the only ones thinking.
These constitutionalists will make a lot of mistakes and miscalculations along the way. They have already made many. That’s fine; it’s the nature of life, and it’s beautiful to see life where once life seemed to have receded. The one mistake they cannot afford to make, however, is to accept the Establishment’s olive branch, on any terms. (Ron Paul true believers, take note: Your man has taken the bait.) The Establishment wants Mitt Romney because they see him as their best bet at maintaining business as usual in the Republican-Democrat scenario. If they cannot have him—as it appears they cannot—then they will try to hold out for a brokered convention, where they can foist some new bright hope of their choosing upon unsuspecting Republicans.
But that’s the trick: a whole lot of Republican voters are anything but “unsuspecting” now. They are watching the Establishment’s calculations, and reading them, even predicting them. It will be much more difficult to put one over on them than it would have been even a few years ago. In this climate, even a brokered convention could blow up in the Establishment’s face.
But here is a final, harsh consideration. If the Establishment does not get what it wants through the Party’s own process, it has a fall-back option: Undermine the Republican candidate, and accept a short-term loss in the form of four more years of President Obama. They did it to John McCain; if you think they would not do it again—and even more aggressively—to a constitutional conservative, think again. McCain was merely a loose cannon. A genuine conservative, with the full moral backing of constitutionalists of all shapes and sizes, would threaten to cancel the entire show—to strike at the heart of the entitlement society, to shrink the government, both in manpower and in range of authority, and to begin stepping away from those international agreements and commitments that guarantee the slow transfer of American sovereignty to an international bureaucracy.
In short, a president with constitutionalist tendencies, and egged on by a fully-energized Tea Party movement, would, by his very presence, show up the farce that Washington politics has been—including on the “R” side of the ledger—for so long. And this would be an implicit poke in the eye with a sharp stick to everyone currently presiding in the Republican Establishment, i.e. the people who have been complicit in creating the current mess.
Be clear about this: there is pride at stake here. Thomas Hobbes, a pessimist, identified fear and vainglory as the two prime motive passions of man. The current Republican Establishment has been the custodian of the “conservative” side of the national debate for decades—decades during which the nation has all but ceased to exist as anything that would be recognizable to the Establishmentarians’ own fathers, let alone the Founding Fathers. The Tea Party’s challenge writes that failure across the sky in huge, red letters. How would you react if someone told you your whole adult life’s achievement had in truth been one gigantic flop? Well, if you were possessed of the noblest and severest integrity, you might look hard at your endeavors and, if the claim against you should turn out to have been fair, you might acknowledge your misguidedness, or even seek to put things right. But that, alas, is not how most people would react, and certainly not those inclined to judge themselves worthy of the highest praise and privilege.
The Establishment has done everything it can to absorb the Tea Party, to condescend to the Tea Party, to divide the Tea Party. The continued recalcitrance of so many constitutionalists, through all of these efforts, just sharpens the point of that stick in the Establishment’s eye. From an insider’s point of view, even four more years of Obama would be preferable to this effrontery. Vainglory is the motive now.

Daren Jonescu
Most recent columns

Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea. He can be reached at .

Daren Jonescu
Most recent columns

Daren Jonescu has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. He currently teaches English language and philosophy at Changwon National University in South Korea. He can be reached at .


Posted by BH 9:49 pm 2-24
 We fight not for glory, nor for riches, nor for honor, but only and alone for Freedom, which no good man lays down but with his life. --Declaration of Arbroath, Scotland, 1320

In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free. —Edward Gibbon

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

"I have been made victorious through terror" (Bukhari 4.52.220) --Mohammad.  1400 YEAR AGO


Posted by BH 9:40 pm 2-24
The attached is an ad that ran in this Sunday's paper:
The News Herald, Panama City , FL.
It sums up a lot of local feelings re the current administration.


Posted by BH 9:18 pm 2-24
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card 
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it.
Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposesSince nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message,

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program.
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent!


Posted by BH 10:05 Somewhere  2-24


Posted by BH 8:20 am 2-24

Weekly News Wrap-Up 2.24.12

24 February 2012 No Comment
By Greg Hunter’s 
Syria is the top story, this week, because the bloody revolution there has big super power war implications.  This violent uprising against Bashar Assad has been going on for months. Two journalists covering the story were killed in the fighting.  Now, there is talk of a NATO type involvement much the same as Libya.  They called that “lead from behind,” but NATO is mostly a U.S. operation.  There really is no such thing as lead from behind for America when NATO is involved.   Russia has a naval base on the Syrian coast, and China and Iran are also staunch allies.  If NATO intervenes, there could be heavy pushback and even military conflict with Russia, China and Iran.

Speaking of the Middle East, Iran threatened to strike Israel first if it feels it’s going to be attacked or its national interests are undermined.   At the beginning, of the week Iran cut off oil sales to Europe.  700,000 barrels a day are gone.  The EU voted to stop buying Iranian oil this summer, but Iran didn’t wait and cut off crude early.  Is a first strike by Iran all that farfetched?  These are the two most dangerous places on the planet, and either could spark World War III.   Is there any wonder why oil and gold prices are soaring?  Oil is well over $100 per barrel and gold is inching towards $1800 an ounce.  Before it’s all over, both will be much higher, that is for sure.  All these stories and more are highlighted by Greg Hunter’s in the Weekly News Wrap-Up.

The man yelled, “allahu akhbar,” sang in praise of Osama Bin Laden (hey, buddy, he’s dead!)

Posted by BH 8:10 am 2-24

Obama Immigration Policy Allowed Saudi Muslim Qaeda Fan on Flight After Drunk Driving, Attempted Murder

By Debbie Schlussel
Yesterday, I told you about the dry run/testing the system episode featuring a Saudi Muslim on a Continental Airline flight on Tuesday night. The man yelled, “allahu akhbar,” sang in praise of Osama Bin Laden (hey, buddy, he’s dead!), and yelled about his hatred of women. Now, we’re learning more about this Islamo-thug, including that the man is an illegal alien.  It’s yet more proof that the Obama/Bush immigration policy of not arresting illegal aliens without criminal records is a failure. It’s also evidence that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents under Obama aren’t even allowed to follow that policy. If they were, Yazeed Mohammed Abunayyan would never have been on that flight. He led police on a drunk driving chase Sunday Night in Oregon, in which he deliberately rammed into two police cars and tried to murder innocent people.

Obama ICE Didn’t Deport Muslim Illegal Alien Yazeed Mohammed Abunayyan, Allowed Him on Flight to Conduct Dry Run
So, why was he allowed to bond out of jail and fly around the country?  I’d bet the ranch that his bond agreement required him to stay in Oregon.  And I’d also bet he didn’t seek a judge’s order allowing him to fly out of the state.  Was he planning to flee the U.S. and avoid justice, once he got to Houston, the final destination of the flight?
Abunayyan is a Saudi national and not a U.S. citizen, something the federal indictment of him goes to great pains to avoid discussing. It isn’t clear if he’s here legally on a visa or not. Regardless, once he led police on a drunk driving car chase and crashed into their cars, he was clearly in criminal violation of any visa on which he could possibly be in the United States, making him an illegal alien whether he had a visa or not.  And he should have never been granted bond of any sort, as it’s in complete contravention of U.S. immigration laws.
Why was he not turned over to ICE? Why didn’t ICE take him? I’ve heard of so many situations in which ICE has been called to pick up illegal aliens like him, and they decline. And I wonder what actually happened here. Did Oregon police contact ICE? If they didn’t, that’s another Barack Obama failure. Obama just canceled a program that trained local police on how to identify illegal aliens and turn them over to ICE for deportation, and as I first reported here, Obama hired a clown who opposed immigration enforcement to run the program into the ground in the first place.  Thanks Barack. And we can thank Obama ICE chief, John Morton, too. He’s too consumed with using ICE and his personal employment agency and travel agent (in his quest to get a showbiz legal job) to worry about immigration enforcement or the dangers aliens like Abunayyan pose to average American travelers who don’t travel in style like he does.
The man who repeatedly yelled “Allah is great” as he was removed yesterday from a plane that was forced to make an emergency landing due to his unruly behavior is a 19-year-old Saudi Arabian who was arrested Sunday night after he led Oregon police on a drunken car chase that saw him ram two cop cars and attempt to run over pedestrians, The Smoking Gun has learned. . . .
Abunayyan . . . also hit or attempted to hit other passengers and was “speaking or singing about Usama bin Laden and his hatred of women,” the indictment charges. Abunayyan, who reportedly has been in the U.S. visiting relatives, was charged with a felony count of interfering with flight crew members. . . .
Abunayyan, who is scheduled to appear later this afternoon before a federal magistrate, was arrested Sunday evening by cops after a wild car chase in Medford, an Oregon city 275 miles south of Portland.
Police reported that the intoxicated teenager led them on a 20-minute chase that ended after his Ford sedan got stuck on a dirt embankment. During the chase, Abunayyan was spotted driving in circles, attempting to run over pedestrians, and driving the wrong way on a street. He also rammed two patrol cars.
“It was like ‘Grand Theft Auto’,” a witness told a local newspaper.
Abunayyan was booked late Sunday into the Jackson County jail on a variety of charges, including driving under the influence of intoxicants, assault on a police officer, criminal mischief, hit and run, and reckless endangerment.
He was freed from custody Monday around 6 PM after posting $65,000 bond. Which allowed him, a day later, to board Flight 1118, albeit briefly.
Again, if Barack Obama allowed ICE agents to do their jobs and to properly train local law enforcement officials to help them do it, Abunayyan would still be behind bars, either in Oregon or an ICE detention center awaiting deportation.
If we were serious and enforced our nation’s immigration laws, Abunayyan would never have been on the Continental flight to Houston, on which he could have cost a whole plane full of passengers and crew their lives.
That he got on that plane shows that 10.5 years after 9/11, our national security is a joke. He got on that plane, but you and I will still be forced to take off our shoes and get felt up by TSA.
Only in America.


Posted by BH 7:19 am 2-24

Air Force Lt. Col. Mike Ross stands beside a reconnaissance aircraft similar to the one he was flying in a 1987 training mission when he was shot down by a Navy pilot and had to eject.Air Force Lt. Col. Mike Ross stands beside a reconnaissance aircraft similar to the one he was flying in a 1987 training mission when he was shot down by a Navy pilot and had to eject.

When retired Air Force pilot Mike Ross learned this month that the Navy aviator who shot him down is on a nomination list for the rank of admiral, he had a visceral reaction.
“I almost got sick,” said Col. Ross, 56. “He ruined by life.”
All the horror and pain came rushing back when he read The Washington Times story aboutNavyCapt. Timothy W. Dorsey’s pending promotion to flag rank. The Pentagon sent his nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee this month.
This tale of two officers began nearly 25 years ago. Col. Ross, an Air Force captain at the time, was flying his RF-4C reconnaissance jet over the Mediterranean Sea in a NATO non-fire exercise.
He refueled with an Air National Guard aerial tanker and saw Lt. (j.g.)Dorsey’s F-14 Tomcat monitoring him.
“Nothing like cheating,” Capt. Ross recalled thinking after getting back to his squadron at Aviano Air Base, Italy. “This is supposed to be an exercise. You’re supposed to come find me - not sit on my tanker and then chase me for 15 minutes and then shoot me down.”
Back-breaking whiplash
As Capt. Ross approached the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, Lt. Dorsey literally obeyed a radio command to fire, even though the exercise was planned to be purely simulated. He launched a Sidewinder missile, blowing the RF-4C out of the sky.
A Navy investigation found that Lt. Dorsey knew the RF-4C was friendly, saying his decision to fire was “deliberate” and “illogical.” TheNavy banned him from flying, a punishment that at the time would seem to have ended the career of the Navy admiral’s son.
Capt. Ross and his back-seat weapons officer ejected just before the fireball would have killed them.
First the canopy flew off, subjecting Capt. Ross to a strong gravitational force that pushed up his body and exposed his head to a 500-knot wind. The rocket-powered ejection seat slammed beneath him, thrusting him from the cockpit.
The subsequent whiplash took a slow, excruciating toll.
Over the years, his spine degenerated, requiring painkillers and multiple surgeries. The ejection also dislocated his shoulders, broke his left hand and his left knee, and damaged an ankle.
Capt. Ross, who had no history of back problems until the shoot-down, continued his Air Force flying career.
But his degenerating spine worsened. He had his first major back surgery in 1992. Six more would follow as surgeons installed screws, plates and rods to keep a cracked and fragile spine functional.
I’m not trying to say I flew when I was unable. I never did that,” Col. Ross said. “But it got to the point where I started getting myself in positions where I was doing more desk work than flying.”
He decided on a medical discharge in 1997 and retired as a lieutenant colonel.
“My body was breaking down,” he said. “I just couldn’t do it anymore.”
Since then, he has watched as several of his contemporaries, such as Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, attained senior rank.
‘A deliberate act’
Col. Ross said his mentors, performance evaluations and duty assignments would have put him on track to brigadier general or higher. “I had a damned good shot,” he said.
“It’s very interesting that folks like [Lt. Dorsey] get admiral and folks like me who are on a similar track have something like that happen,” Col. Ross said.
He assumed the incident would have ended Lt. Dorsey’s naval career.
After all, the Navy investigative report said: “The September 22, 1987, destruction of USAF RF-4C was not the result of an accident, but the consequence of a deliberate act. His subsequent reaction [to the radio command] demonstrated an absolute disregard of the known facts and circumstances.
“He failed to utilize the decision-making process taught in replacement training and reacted in a purely mechanical manner. The performance of Lieutenant Timothy W. Dorsey on September 22, 1987, raises substantial doubt as to his capacity for good, sound judgment.”
Lt. Dorsey was not punished beyond the ban on flying, nor was he forced to resign.
Instead, he held support jobs and then switched to the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer while he pursued a law degree. He now works for the Navy inspector general and is due to lead an intelligence unit in Norfolk, Va.
“It was an unfortunate incident that occurred when I was a rookie naval aviator,” he told the Virginian Pilot on Tuesday. “I regret that it occurred, but I have worked very hard over the years since that time.”
Last week, the nominee for admiral declined to be interviewed by The Washington Times.
“I’m going to have to decline to talk right now, based on the kind of job I’m going to be taking,” he said. “I’m not really big on talking to press for anything.
It means heading up some intel factions. So it’s really not something I would typically do. … I [would] rather not see my name in the paper at all right now because of the job I’m getting ready to take. A lack of press is good on what I’m getting ready to do.”
Col. Ross, a Milton, Ga., resident, estimates he has spent well over $100,000 on medical bills, paid by depleting his savings. He lives on Air Force retirement benefits and Social Security disability checks.
In one of his dozens of surgeries, doctors three years ago performed an anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Surgeons “removed my guts” during the eight-hour operation to reach his spine, then put them back, he said.
In 2010, a flight surgeon who had begun treating him in 1991 wrote on his behalf to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was reviewing his disability status.
“I would like to assure you that indeed his current medical problems and level of disability are unquestionably and completely attributable to his combat-related shoot down and the subsequent injuries he received in the following high-speed ejection,” wrote Lt. Col. Scott Phillips. “He can no longer walk more than a few yards without assistance.”
After being fished from the Mediterranean, Capt. Ross ended up on the Saratoga minutes after Lt. Dorsey landed his F-14.
“I’ve never heard from him,” Col. Ross said. “He didn’t come over and apologize  on the boat or anything.”
Timothy W. Dorsey

Photo by:Timothy W. Dorsey


Posted by BH 7:06 am 2-24 

We can lend a hand to its tyrannized people or 

risk turning the country into a devil's 

playground of religious extremism.



There are the Friends of Syria, and there are the Friends of the Syrian Regime. The former, a large group—the United States, the Europeans and the bulk of Arab governments—is casting about for a way to end the Assad regime's assault on its own people. In their ranks there is irresolution and endless talk about the complications and the uniqueness of the Syrian case.
No such uncertainty detains the Friends of the Syrian Regime—Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and to a lesser extent China. In this camp, there is a will to prevail, a knowledge of the stakes in this cruel contest, and material assistance for the Damascus dictatorship.
In the face of the barbarism unleashed on the helpless people of Homs, the Friends of Syria squirm and hope to be delivered from any meaningful burdens. Still, they are meeting Friday in Tunis to discuss their options. But Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad needn't worry. The Tunisian hosts themselves proclaimed that this convocation held on their soil precluded a decision in favor of foreign military intervention.
Syria is not Libya, the mantra goes, especially in Washington. The provision of arms to the Syrian opposition is "premature," Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently stated. We don't know the Syrian opposition, another alibi has it—they are of uncertain provenance and are internally divided. Our weapons could end up in the wrong hands, and besides, we would be "militarizing" this conflict.
Those speaking in such ways seem to overlook the disparity in firepower between the Damascus ruler with his tanks and artillery, and the civilian population aided by defectors who had their fill with official terror.
The borders of Syria offer another exculpation for passivity. Look at the map, say the naysayers. Syria is bordered by Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and Israel. Intervention here is certain to become a regional affair.
Grant the Syrians sympathy, their struggle unfolds in the midst of an American presidential contest. And the incumbent has his lines at the ready for his acceptance speech in Charlotte, N.C. He's done what he had promised during his first presidential run, shutting down the war in Iraq and ending the American presence. This sure applause line precludes the acceptance of a new burden just on the other side of the Syria-Iraq frontier.
The silence of President Obama on the matter of Syria reveals the general retreat of American power in the Middle East. In Istanbul some days ago, a Turkish intellectual and political writer put the matter starkly to me: We don't think and talk much about America these days, he said.

Yet the tortured dissertations on the uniqueness of Syria's strategic landscape are in fact proofs for why we must thwart the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah nexus. Topple the Syrian dictatorship and the access of Iran to the Mediterranean is severed, leaving the brigands of Hamas and Hezbollah scrambling for a new way. The democracies would demonstrate that regimes of plunder and cruelty, perpetrators of terror, have been cut down to size.
Plainly, the Syrian tyranny's writ has expired. Assad has implicated his own Alawite community in a war to defend his family's reign. The ambiguity that allowed the Assad tyranny to conceal its minority, schismatic identity, to hide behind a co-opted Sunni religious class, has been torn asunder. Calls for a jihad, a holy war, against a godless lot have been made in Sunni religious circles everywhere.
Ironically, it was the Assad tyranny itself that had summoned those furies in its campaign against the American war in Iraq. It had provided transit and sanctuary for jihadists who crossed into Iraq to do battle against the Americans and the Shiites; it even released its own Islamist prisoners and dispatched them to Iraq with the promise of pardon. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and an Alawite community beyond the bounds of Islam is facing a religious war in all but name.
This schism cannot be viewed with American indifference. It is an inescapable fate that the U.S. is the provider of order in that region. We can lend a hand to the embattled Syrians or risk turning Syria into a devil's playground of religious extremism. Syria can become that self-fulfilling prophesy: a population abandoned by the powers but offered false solace and the promise of redemption by the forces of extremism and ruin.
We make much of the "opaqueness" of the Syrian rebellion and the divisions within its leadership. But there is no great mystery that attends this rebellion: An oppressed people, done with a tyranny of four decades, was stirred to life and conquered its fear after witnessing the upheaval that had earlier overtaken Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.
In Istanbul this month, I encountered the variety, and the normalcy, of this rebellion in extended discussions with prominent figures of the Syrian National Council. There was the senior diplomat who had grown weary of being a functionary of so sullied a regime. There was a businessman of means, from Aleppo, who was drawn into the opposition by the retrogression of his country.
There was a young prayer leader, from Banyas, on the Syrian coast, who had taken up the cause because the young people in his town had pressed him to speak a word of truth in the face of evil. Even the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Riad al-Shaqfa, in exile for three decades, acknowledged the pluralism of his country and the weakness of the Brotherhood, banned since 1980.
We frighten ourselves with phantoms of our own making. No one is asking or expecting the U.S. Marines to storm the shores of Latakia. This Syrian tyranny is merciless in its battles against the people of Homs and Zabadani, but its army is demoralized and riven with factionalism and sectarian enmities. It could be brought down by defectors given training and weapons; safe havens could give disaffected soldiers an incentive, and the space, to defect.
Meanwhile, we should recognize the Syrian National Council as the country's rightful leaders. This stamp of legitimacy would embolden the opposition and give them heart in this brutal season. Such recognition would put the governments of Lebanon and Iraq on notice that they are on the side of a brigand, lawless regime. There is Arab wealth that can sustain this struggle, and in Turkey there is a sympathetic government that can join this fight under American leadership.
The world does not always oblige our desires for peace; some struggles are thrown our way and have to be taken up. In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama dissociated himself from those who preach the doctrine of America's decline.
Never mind that he himself had been a declinist and had risen to power as an exponent of America's guilt in foreign lands. We should take him at his word. In a battered Syria, a desperate people await America's help and puzzle over its leader's passivity.
Mr. Ajami is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and co-chairman of the Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...