Democrats want you to shut your pie-hole

There was a vote in the US Senate on the evening of July 19th on an amendment by Susan Collins. The purpose of the amendment was to provide limited immunity for reports of suspicious behavior and response. 60 yea votes were needed for passage, and it fell short by 3 votes. All 39 No votes were cast by Democrats.

The List:

Akaka (D-HI)
*Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
*Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
*Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
*Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
*Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
*Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
*Pryor (D-AR)
*Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
*Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I put an asterisk beside the name of each Senator who is up for reelection in 2008. Maybe some of them have a safe seat, but I think every one of them should called out for their vote. Every one of them should be asked to explain why they want everybody who reports suspicious behavior subjected to facing lawsuits filed against them by CAIR & company. History shows us that terrorist attacks are thwarted by reports of suspicious behavior from ordinary citizens. example: the Ft Dix six. We need to seize on every misstep these Democratic congresscritters up for reelection in '08 take, and call them out on them.

Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence

The title of this blog are words in a speech Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave recently to the National Press Club. They obviously fell on deaf ears when you read the editorial pages or opinion pieces written. The underlying reason why the lefties and wobbly Republicans like Lugar and Warner want to surrender is because they think the Muslims ARE half-wits who can respond only in violence. Many also believe the world's oceans are going to keep the violence from coming to our shores. IMO bigoted folks like this are wrong on both counts.

First thing is let us make a moral distinction between Muslims and Islamists. Ms Ali put it this way:

Muslims are diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.

Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?

And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers? Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does it?

It is important to understand how radical islamists make absolutely no separate distinction between the church and the state. They are one and the same to these folks, and this is totally contrary to Western life. Ms Ali details the stark differences between the USA and Islamic countries in the world:

As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice. I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by. I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business. This is what makes the West so great.

In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers. In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies; they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have. They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army and Indonesia none. In none of these countries--except for the usual show-pieces to delude the West--are women allowed to establish their own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run for office.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam--from Riyadh to Tehran, from Islamabad to Cairo--know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.

Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices--in or out of the veil--that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.

I know there is a war fatigue in the USA that has set in, but we need to think instead of responding like half-wits. It is madness to think that we can just stop fighting and then all of the islamist terrorists will stop fighting too. It doesn't work that way, and it never has. We also should not think we are in a global war against all Muslims. We need to make the moral distinction between a diverse large percentage of the world's population, (Muslims) and the politics of the radical islamists. All of the other great religions have reformed from their rudimentary beginning, and I still hold out hope for reform in Islam.

Scolding Western Journalists...to No Avail

Late last month Ayaan Hirsi Ali produced 2 short publications at AEI. One on June 19th was The Role of Journalism Today. The other one on June 25th was An Honor Worth Defending.

The June 19th article is about the odd feeling she had giving a speech at the National Press Club. In her speech she talked about defending freedom of expression, free press, and the rights of women. What felt odd to her is she noticed the embarrassment the western journalist felt at defending the very right from which they earn their bread.

She noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times urged the Pope to apologize.

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal. And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence.

I encourage anyone to read the entire publication. She writes about many good questions that she is often asked by people, and she writes some very interesting answers to these good questions. Her final paragraph is this admonition.

If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the West--why one is so great and the other so low--and we don't fight back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or mine.

Her second article is about the reaction in Pakistan to Sir Salmon Rushdie being honored by Queen Elizabeth II with knighthood.

Imagine if a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags. Imagine if they then built a bonfire and hurled the items one at a time into that fire screaming "Long Live the Queen!" each time the flames shot up.

This would be the equivalent of what hardline Muslim students did in the eastern Pakistani city of Multan, to take just one example, when they burned effigies this week of Queen Elizabeth II and Salman Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!" in response to his recently bestowed knighthood.

Westerners have too often shrugged their shoulders at the trashing of their icons--such as when the queen is burned in effigy--by the foot soldiers of tribal barbarism. This perceived weakness makes the foes of the West more ferocious and helps recruit more jihadists.

Instead the West should join together to vigorously defend its symbols and civilization that, with all its flaws, still offers the best life to the most people.

Strident demands for apologies from power holders should be met with stoicism. Not one inch should be given.

Governments like that of Pakistan, which encourage and even stoke the flames, ought to be brought to account instead of coddled. The United States and Britain ought to demand that Pakistan's religious affairs minister, Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, resign for saying, in the Pakistani Parliament: "The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title."

With this episode involving Sir Salman, the Nigerian playwright Wole Soyinka is absolutely right: It is a fatal mistake for the West to let the forces of intolerance "define the territory of insult." The West must stand its ground.

By knighting Salman Rushdie, the queen has honored the freedom of conscience and creativity cherished in the West, making her a symbol of the essence of our way of life.

I have a lot of respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and unfortunately her admonitions are simply being directed at a segment of the West that have their heads stuck firmly in the sand like ostriches. I also think there is one type of target the press will stand their ground against and beat the drum against. That target is rich white middle-aged men like POTUS or CEO of Halliburton or Exxon. I also think there is an elitist bigotry wrapped in a fear by many western journalists that Muslims ARE half-wits who can only respond in violence.

We can not win any battles of ideas through the MSM, so I suggest we support somebody who, like Reagan, bypasses the MSM and speaks directly to the people.

Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Andrew West wrote an article about how Ayaan Hirsi Ali became a hero of the right because the left deserted her in hour of need. In the article ms Ali explain in her words:

‘I called it the paradox of the Left,’ she told The Guardian. ‘On the one hand they support ideals of equality and emancipation, but in this case they do nothing about it; they even facilitate the oppression.’

In one of the more disgraceful episodes in the recent history of the European Left, Dutch Labour chose the votes of primitive mullahs — and I make no apology for labelling them as such — and the communities over which they hold sway, instead of a passionate human rights campaigner. Hirsi Ali bolted first to a libertarian business Party and, following her resignation from Parliament, to a Right-wing think tank in the United States.

What a loss. She became a victim of the Left’s fatal embrace of cultural relativism over universal human rights.

The Left is not being ‘culturally sensitive’ when it argues we need to accept or even ‘understand’ cultures, be they in Central Asia or Central Australia, that challenge liberal and social democratic norms or accommodate violence in the community or the home — it is being dangerously indulgent and its adherents need to rethink their position, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s words ringing in their ears.

Fred understands Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the message that she has for the world. This is just one more reason that I'm with Fred.

Obama girl vs McCain Mama vs Hott 4 Hill!

On those really slow news days some dueling You Tube videos that have me ROFLMAO.

Behind curtain #1 we have Glenn Beck, Amber Lee Ettinger, Obama, and McCain, and old ladies.

Behind curtain #2 we have Taryn Southern, Hillary, and young students.

WARNING: If you open curtain #2 scenes of Hillary's face on Mt Rushmore my be too graphic for the weak hearted. I'm kind of sick & twisted like Glenn Beck.

Last Name Magic for POTUS

POTUS who have last name ending in “n”
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Harry Truman
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
William J. Clinton
16 of POTUS have last name ending in “n”

POTUS who have last name ending in “r”
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Chester Arthur
Herbert Hoover
Dwight Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
6 of POTUS have last name ending in “r”

POTUS who have last name ending in “e”
James Monroe
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
Calvin Coolidge
4 of POTUS have last name ending in “e”

POTUS who have last name ending in “t”
Ulysses S. Grant
Theodore Roosevelt
William H. Taft
Franklin D. Roosevelt
4 of POTUS have last name ending in “t”

POTUS who have last name ending in “s”
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Rutherford B. Hayes
3 of POTUS have last name ending in “s”

POTUS who have last name ending in “d”
James Garfield
Grover Cleveland
Gerald Ford
3 of POTUS have last name ending in “d”

POTUS who have last name ending in “y”
William McKinley
John F. Kennedy
2 of POTUS have last name ending in “y”

POTUS who have last name ending in “h”
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush
2 of POTUS have last name ending in “h”

POTUS who have last name ending in “k”
James Polk
1 of POTUS have last name ending in “k”

POTUS who have last name ending in “g”
Warren Harding
1 of POTUS have last name ending in “g”

0 of POTUS who have last name ending in “a”, “i”, “o”, or “l”

2008 candidates with the right ending to their last name
Joe Biden
Hillary Rodham Clinton
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Tommy Thompson
Fred Thompson

2008 candidates with the wrong ending to their last name
Barack Obama
Rudy Giuliani
George Pataki
Tom Tancredo
Chuck Hagel
Mike Gravel
Ron Paul
Sam Brownback
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Dennis Kucinich
John Edwards
Chris Dodd
Jim Gilmore
Al Gore
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter

The other magic has to do with 10 of the 42 POTUS have the same last name. In 220 years from 1789 to 2009 we have had 20 years of Roosevelt, 12 years of Bush, 10 years of Johnson, 8 years of Adams, and 4+ years of Harrison. I personally do not want to see any more years of Clinton as POTUS. Maybe it is just coincidence, and there is not a “royal class” of Americans from whom POTUS is elected. I hope so. In any event I am pleased that my guy’s last name ends with the letter “n”. I’m with Fred.

Those who cure you will kill you

Today the London Times has an article about a senior British cleric, Canon Andrew White's conversation in Ammon, Jordan.

Canon White, who runs Baghdad’s only Anglican parish, said that he met the al-Qaeda leader on the fringes of a meeting about religious reconciliation held in Amman, the Jordanian capital.

“He talked to me about how they were going to destroy British and Americans. He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said the people who cure you would kill you.”

The man, who was in his forties and had travelled from Syria for the meeting, said that the plans would come to fruition in the next few weeks and target the British first. He said that the British and Americans were being targeted because of their actions in Iraq. He did not learn the man’s identity until after the meeting, and will not disclose it now, but said: “I met the Devil that day.

Canon White told The Times that he had passed the general warning, but not the specific words, to a senior official at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in mid-April. A Foreign Office spokesman said last night that it was forwarding the actual words to the Metropolitan Police.

I think that this article is another example of how important it is to pay very close attention to what terrorists are saying. In mid-April he passed along the general warning. With 20/20 hindsight he should have passed along the actual words.

Another idea I get from this article is the reinforcement of the idea that the enemy we have is not an impoverished class of people in the developing countries. We have an enemy that does not separate religion and government. They are one and the same to them, and their mission is to create a 'New World Order' with sharia law in control of the world.

This day when we celebrate our country's Independence is a good day to also remember all of our forefathers who came here to escape religious persecution. We don't want no state religion for our country, and we really don't want a religion controlling the entire planet. We will fight, and we will prevail. God Bless the USA.

Gore vs Mother Nature... Mother Nature Wins

It's Sunday morning, and I click on the TV for Washington Journal on C-SPAN. I'm thinking that the terrorist attacks in the UK will be the morning topic. But noooooooo, instead they want callers to talk about man made global warming. I suppose in one respect it makes sense. After all it is Sunday morning, a time for church services, so the church of MMGW convened.

I do not argue with Al Gore or anybody else that says there have been natural disasters in terms of hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, floods, etc., and human activity and nature are intertwined to a certain extent. What I do argue with is the arrogant God-like assertions that Gore and others appear to make that we humans can accurately predict, forecast, and take corrective actions before a natural disaster occurs. In other words if we Americans will just shut down our economic engine then we won't have any future natural disaster facing us.

Sorry, Al, but it does not work that way today, yesterday, or tomorrow. We mere mortal western capitalists can not take control over nature. Nature will do its thing, and those who survive will take whatever action is required after the natural event has occurred. There are still secrets in this universe that are not yet revealed to us including a totally reliable model for predicting precisely what Mother Nature will do next. You want to pick a fight against an enemy you can beat. Try getting behind an effort to defeat radical islamists. just a thought.

We Won't Get Fooled Again

So Senator Clinton is looking for a campaign song. Well The Who have the perfect fit for her.

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

The GOP has had a Dole or a Bush on the ticket in every Presidential election from 1976 thru 2004. The Dems have had a Gore or a Clinton on the ticket in every Presidential election from 1992 thru 2000. This is The United States of America and not the United Kingdom. The lyrics to the song here are 'My Country Tis of Thee' not 'God Save the Queen'. We do not have a royal line from which to elect our POTUS. 2008 Presidential election is going to be the most significant one this country has had in years. People in this country are completely fed up with the folks who have occupied the White House and currently sit in the Congress. So Hillary, you have already got 2 strikes against you.

Some folks probably don't want to read this, but I don't think anybody currently elected to any seat in Congress can be elected in 2008. That takes the list of candidates down quite a bit. On the Dem side you have Edwards, Richardson, and Gravel, and on the GOP side you have Giuliani, Romney, F. Thompson, Gilmore, Huckabee, and T. Thompson. If John Warner wants to retire, then I would just as soon have Gilmore run for Senate as well as the last 2 run for seats in their home states.

I support Fred Thompson because from his written articles, radio addresses, and speeches I get the same kind of feelings that President Reagan sparked. We need to shrink the breadth, width, and depth of how much the Federal Government involves itself in our daily life. That is a sentiment that will bring the independent voter back. We need to get back to this philosophy of governing as soon as possible.

Trent & Diane

Little ditty about Trent and Diane
Two congresscritters™ tearin up the heartland
Trents gonna be a cheap labor star
Diane debutante backseat of Hillarys car

Chorus:
Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of payback is gone
Oh yeah life goes on
Long after the thrill of payback is gone they walk on

Who is on a roll having a good year in 2007?

The answer is Iran Supreme Leader Khameini. The year started out real bad with a report by Michael Ledeen that suggested Khameini is dead. Turned out to be false, and meanwhile he has been busy supporting the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Taliban in Afghanistan, and al Sadr in Iraq. The Hamas have routed the Fatah government in Gaza, aka Hamastan. The Hezbollah have been busy assassinating Lebanese politicians they don’t like. Mookie al Sadr has been given arms support and returned to Iraq after a short stay in Iran. The Taliban in Afghanistan have been receiving arms from Iran to fight NATO forces in Afghanistan. The rest of the time they have been spending on accelerating the process of producing weapons grade uranium, and sending officials to Cuba and Venezuela to work out treaties. The best part of all is that he stays in the shadows, and lets the President of Iran be the flak catcher. He certainly has enjoyed some good news lately. I sure do hope the situation does not continue to be so wonderful for him. The world needs to pull their collective heads out of the sands, and take care of this looming threat on the horizon.

California GOP...what the future GOP will be like.

Mohammad Khatami
Ron Nehring
























The future of the GOP are not from the USA . The California GOP chairman, Ron Nehring, is a protege of Grover Norquist . Grover Norquist has argued for years that Muslims should be a vital part of the Republican party. In a June 2001 article in The American Spectator, he wrote that Muslims are "a faith-based, naturally conservative community," noting, for example, that majorities of Muslims oppose abortion and support school choice. Grover Norquist was a supporter of a Florida college professor, Sami al Arian. Sami was later indicted on conspiracy charges as the alleged head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in America. As a protege of Norquist does Ron Nehring believe that Muslims who support radical Islamists should be a vital part of the Republican Party? In addition to hiring people to fill some top posts in the party from Australia and Canada he also prefers to hobnob with the former president of Iran instead of attending California GOP fundraisers. Ron Nehring explains as follows: "This trip is part vacation, visiting with family in Germany, and part participating in the St. Gallen Symposium in St. Gallen, Switzerland next week, as I have every year since 2003."

Maybe the California GOP chairman has the party on the right track, but I personally agree more with another Californian, Karen Hanretty, a political commentator and former state GOP party spokeswoman who said "In the nation's most populous state -- which has produced a roster of nationally known veteran political consultants -- "it's insulting but also embarrassing ... to bring people from the outside who don't know the difference between Lodi and Lancaster ... and who can't even vote.''

In case you don't click on the link, the real shock for me was seeing that the Canadian's name is 'Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews was hired as full-time deputy political director, with responsibility for handling campaign operations and information technology for the country's largest state Republican party operation. OUCH!

President Abe Lincoln vs President George W. Bush

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things ... liberty and tyranny.

There are some jobs in America that Americans won't do and others are willing to do.

The push and the “fix” by President Bush and other inside the beltway politicians for a plan to get cheap foreign laborers into the USA legally is the most odious part of the CIR. This is worse to me than the ‘path to citizenship’ components of the bill. Rich Lowry of NRO wrote a piece about this:

“A core element of the American creed has always been a belief in the dignity of labor — at least until now. Supporters of a guest-worker program for Mexican laborers say that "there are jobs that no Americans will do." This is an argument that is a step away from suggesting that there are jobs that Americans shouldn't do.

President George Bush, a strong supporter of the guest-worker program, has long said that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." We are supposed to believe, however, that the work ethic does stop there — it is only south of it that people can be found who are willing to work in construction, landscaping and agricultural jobs. So, without importing those people into our labor market, these jobs would go unfilled, disrupting the economy (and creating an epidemic of unkempt lawns in Southern California).”

I sense that many rank and file Democrats are mostly concerned with the guest-worker program part of the CIR. If the Republicans who oppose CIR for other reasons will remain united with the Democrats on the guest-worker part, then this bill should remain DEAD.

President Fred Thompson – Veto or Sign It?

Pat Toomey has written an interesting idea over at NRO If you don’t bother to read the article, the basic premise: “Veto or Sign It” poses hypothetical Democratic bills to the candidates and asks if they would veto or sign them.

I would like to run with that idea on a question that I have about Fred Thompson.

President Fred Thompson, a Democratic bill comes to your desk that removes enhanced law enforcement investigatory tools allowed by the US Patriot Act. Veto or Sign It?

Let me add that I do support Fred Thompson for POTUS. Fred is the conservative political outsider who also has some Washington insider experience from being an attorney during the Nixon Watergate hearings to serving in the US Senate. Fred has written some excellent essays at Townhall.com from where I can get an understanding of his position about the important issues the USA faces. Fred has given some excellent stump speeches that also make clear where he stands. From my research on Fred Thompson there is only one instance that really bothers me. What really bothers me is why Sen. Fred Thompson voted with Sen. Russ Feingold on a “poison pill” amendment that Sen. Feingold introduced to kill the US Patriot Act. I don’t know why Fred voted this way, and it troubles me because I truly believe that the enhanced law enforcement investigatory tools that the US Patriot Act have provided are the reason there has been no successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11/01. Maybe somebody else has done better research than I, and they can provide me with answers that will give me comfort.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.1510 )

Vote Number: 302 Vote Date: October 11, 2001, 11:43 PM

Required For Majority: ½ Vote Result: Bill Passed

Measure Number: S. 1510

Measure Title: A bill to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 96

NAYs 1 Feingold (D-WI)

Not Voting – 3 Domenici (R-NM) Helms (R-NC) Thurmond (R-SC)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Feingold Amdt. No. 1900 )

Vote Number: 300 Vote Date: October 11, 2001, 10:28 PM

Required For Majority: ½ Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1900 to S. 1510

Statement of Purpose: To limit the roving wiretap authority under FISA.

Vote Counts: YEAs 90

NAYs 7 Cantwell (D-WA) Corzine (D-NJ) Feingold (D-WI)

Levin (D-MI) Specter (R-PA) Thompson (R-TN) Wellstone (D-MN)

Not Voting – 3 Domenici (R-NM) Helms (R-NC) Thurmond (R-SC)

Not anti-immigration-Not a xenophobe

I am anti pool of cheap labor and future Democratic voter pool. For me the US borders are the responsibility of US law enforcement agents to keep them secure. USCIS immigration agents are supposed to do their work in US embassies that are located in foreign countries. I do not have a problem with increasing the workforce of the USCIS personnel so that they can do a better job of managing legal immigration, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the US borders getting secured. The US needs a leader like Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt today. Too many politicians today will choose money over the well being of US citizens. We already have laws in place to secure the borders. We need to enforce them. We need additional laws to end the institution of some businesses to go out and get cheap illegal alien laborers. We need political parties to stop projecting an underclass culture of victims from whom they garner votes. Every US citizen is responsible for his own 'pursuit of happiness.' The government cannot solve all of your problems.

Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.

With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.

Abraham Lincoln

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.""Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
Third Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1903

"There are good men and bad men of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing."
Letter, Oyster Bay, NY, September 1, 1903

Teddy Roosevelt

It is not about this Bill in Congress or that Bill. The problem for the United States right now is that we desperately need a leader.

What Happened to the Party of Lincoln?

Today we live in a country where some enjoy a good life with the practice of getting poor foreigners to work for them. Some people here just feel like they need to have these poor foreigners doing this work that no American worker wants to do. Some people justify this practice by arguing that bringing these poor foreigners is an act of kindness. They will be taken care of here better than any place else. If we really think about it this is not the first time some folks in this country were enjoying a good life with the practice of getting poor foreigners to work for them. Today the poor foreigners come from Mexico to pick tomatoes, pack meat, or clean livestock pens. Years ago the poor foreigners came from West Africa to pick cotton, cut sugar cane, or harvest tobacco.

I let Google be my friend, and I found an interesting little item that described the history of the Republican Party. An excerpt:

The Republican Party evolved during the 1850's when the issue of slavery forced divisions within the existing Whig and Democratic Republican parties. Faced with political turmoil, a new party -- dedicated to states rights and a restricted role of government in economic and social life -- began making history.

Alan Earl Bovay, one of the founders of the Republican Party, believed that a new party should be formed to represent the interests of the North and the abolitionists. He decided to call that party "Republican" because it was a simple, yet significant word synonymous with equality. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson had earlier chosen "Republican" to refer to his party, which gave the name respect borne of historical significance.

The first stirrings of the Republican Party came in February, 1854, when Whig Party defectors met privately in Crawfordsville, Iowa, to call for the creation of a new political party. The first public meeting was held one month later at a small church in Ripon, Wisconsin, when Alan Bovay rallied anti-slavery forces and adopted resolutions opposing the Kansas Nebraska Act.

A second meeting was held in a one story schoolhouse in Ripon on March 20, 1854. Fifty-four citizens, including three women, dissolved their local committees and chose five men to serve as the committee of the new party: Alan Bovay, Jebediah Bowen, Amos Loper, Abram Thomas, and Jacob Woodruff. Said Mr. Bovay: "We went into the little meeting Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats. We came out Republicans and...were the first Republicans in the Union."

In July of the same year, when the meeting hall was too small, the "Anti- Nebraska Convention" met in a grove of oak trees in Jackson, Michigan, to write a national platform and concentrate its efforts to counter the Democrats plan to extend slavery to new territories joining the Union. The new party adopted a platform, nominated candidates for state offices, and produced two anti-slavery resolutions, one of which stated, "Resolved...in view of the necessity of battling against the schemes of an aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the Earth was ever cursed or man debased, we will cooperate and be known as Republicans."

In 1856, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Freemont!" was the slogan of the Republican Party. At its first national convention in Philadelphia, the party nominated John C. Freemont for president (Abraham Lincoln was proposed for vice-president, but Senator William L. Dayton won the nomination). Although the party lost the election to the Democrats, it captured a third of the total vote, boosting its optimism for the 1860 elections.

"It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world: They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes . . . it is the same tyrannical principle."

“Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.”
Abraham Lincoln

Now I am certain that some wiseguy is going to tell me that I am all wet because illegal cheap labor is performed by poor foreigners who were not forced to enter this country like those poor foreigners from West Africa. The difference between then and now is not a change of heart. It is a change of strategy. The strategy then was to control poor foreigners through a brutal forceful master with a whip. The strategy now is to offer candy in the form of offering a paying job. Once they accept this deal, and come here they are told they have no rights, and they must toe the line and make no trouble. I hate this marriage of convenience between some rich guy who wants a pool of cheap labor and Democrats who want a pool of new voters. Abe, what happened to your party? I miss you. A LOT.

I am giving Sam a second look

I have decided since the 2^nd debate at South Carolina to give Sam Brownback a second look. I have not reached a decision about who I am going to support yet. My impression of Sam Brownback has been that he is just a “single issue” pro-life candidate. After the debate in South Carolina I decided to dig a little deeper into the background of Sam Brownback.

Sam is one of four candidates who have been interviewed and graded by Club for Growth. Reading their white paper I have learned this about Sam from Club for Growth President Pat Toomey:

"Over his year and a half in the House of Representatives and his ten years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Brownback has proven himself to be, on balance, a strong defender of limited government and pro-growth policies," said the Club's President, Pat Toomey. "On taxes, Social Security reform, school choice, and tort reform, Senator Brownback has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to fighting for American taxpayers. His record on trade, political speech, and government regulation of business is generally pro-freedom, with a few exceptions."

Sam Brownback on free speech

"Groups that seek to advertise a point of view should not, and I believe constitutionally can not, be limited from their participation in the political system. If provisions to hinder constitutionally protected free speech issue advocacy are added to the bill, I will vote against the final bill" (10/12/99).”

Senator Brownback was also one of seven Republican senators to sign a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist in 2006 that threatened a filibuster against the House-passed bill to impose draconian speech restriction on certain nonprofit advocacy groups (Letter, 06/09/06). The letter played an important role in the demise of the House bill. In our interview with him, Senator Brownback continued to emphasize his support for free speech.

Compare Sam to John McCain wrt free speech

Over the ten-plus years since Senator McCain first introduced campaign finance reform legislation, he has pursued his trampling of the First Amendment with a vengeance. On a April 28, 2006 taping of The Don Imus Show, McCain cavalierly admitted as much: "He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform . . . I know that money corrupts . . . I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

In defense of the provision banning issue advocacy ads that mention a candidate 60 days before an election, McCain said, "These ads are almost always negative attack ads, and do little to further beneficial debate and healthy political dialogue." In his brief to the Supreme Court, Senator McCain continued along the same lines: "These ads are direct, blatant attacks on the candidates. We don't think that's right."

Thus, Senator McCain and his partner in crime, Senator Russ Feingold, have anointed themselves the arbiters of appropriate political speech, worthy of deciphering which speech is "right" and which should be permitted in American political debate. To this day, Senator McCain remains responsible for the greatest modern infringement of political free speech. While bestowing significant advantages upon incumbent office holders, this feat has created neither a less corrupt political domain nor a more democratic one.

Compare Sam to Rudy Giuliani wrt free speech

From a speech Mayor Giuliani gave:

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. [Interruption by someone in the audience.] “You have free speech so I can be heard.”

Sam Brownback quotes from 2^nd debate:

9:09PM First question for Brownback, about his initial response to the troop surge. "I think we've got to pull together over here to win over there.... it's difficult for democracy for one party to be for a war and another party to be against a war." Smacks around Harry Reid for saying that we've lost.

9:24PM Brownback is asked about gasoline prices. Ethanol from Kansas (or Iowa) - drilling more at home - supports drilling in ANWR. More conservation here. Technology and increasing supply here.

9:49PM Brownback is asked about "difficult decisions" w/r/t abortion - How would you explain to a rape victim why her trauma should be compounded... "The basic question remains - is the child in the womb? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, is it entitled to respect?... Abortion is a procedure, we're talking about a life... ending a life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that takes place?"

10:20PM Brownback is asked whether he would go to the United Nations for authorization - Brownback says "No." "Is your primary concern U.S. lives, or how you're going to be perceived in the world. And my standard is, U.S. lives."

Maybe Sam will do something I don’t like, but right now I am willing to give Sam a second look.

Sickos that support Mikey

<-Leslie Burger



Ellen Bernstein ->












<-Judith Krug



from the Chicago Sun-Times

Michael Moore has always been controversial, but now he has the feds on his case.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker is being investigated by the Treasury Department for taking approximately 10 sick 9/11 Ground Zero rescue workers to Cuba to film a segment in his upcoming ''Sicko'' documentary -- expected to be a scathing indictment of the American health care system.

''Sicko'' is scheduled to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival May 19 and open June 29 in the United States.

Prior to the release of Mikey's latest propaganda film we have the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival going on this Mother's Day weekend. This festival includes a film about Cuba that is in the same style and manner as a Michael Moore film. It is titled 'Salud! What puts Cuba on the map in the quest for global health at the Princeton Human Rights Film Festival. A blogger name Fausta attended this weekend, and here are excerpts of her report.

Leslie Burger, head of the Princeton Public Library and the American Library Association, opened by saying that she'd rather be working at her garden ( we had very good weather) than be at the PHRFF - which was organized and sponsored by the PPL - but she was there because she knew this was a controversial subject. She then introduced Ellen Bernstein, of IFCO/Pastors for Peace., who urged us to keep an open mind for what we were about to watch.

After sitting for 1 1/2 hrs of this there was a question-and-answer session with Ms Bernstein, who stated that she's travelled to Cuba "over fifty times", and urged us all to keep an open mind, again.

The most memorable member of the audience was Luis Abreu, a former political prisoner in Cuba, who spoke of how he had been sent to prison for trying to have the freedom to show films like this in Cuba. Mr. Abreu is executive director of the Commitee to Aid Human Rights Activists (CAHRA), and asked Ms Bernstein if she had met other Cuban doctors, like Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. Ms Bernstein said she had heard of them.

A gentleman in the rear of the room pressured Ms Bernstein to answer whether she believed that Cuba was a democracy, something she apparently had stated in the past. She first avoided the question by saying, "In a democracy we all wait our chance to speak"; he then waited and the second time he pressed for a reply, she said that Cuba has had elections, and that we must study the situation with an open mind because it's not as bad as we think.

As a third-party observer I found it very insulting of Ms Bernstein to tell an audience where she knew there was at least one former Cuban political prisoner "to study the situation with an open mind". Obviously someone who spent over a decade in a concentration camp has had plenty of time to ponder the situation.

Of course, exiled Cubans in the audience (I'd say half the audience) were offended. One gentleman demanded that the film festival be called "the right to healthcare film festival" since Cuba and human rights have nothing in common.

I heard that a journalist, Nat Hentoff, turned down an award from the American Library Association. If you read one of his recent articles, then you'll understand why. Nat has a problem with the ALA refusing to protest against the treatment of librarians in Cuba. Here is an excerpt from Nat:

"The American Library Association — the largest organization of librarians in the world — continually declares that it fights for everyone’s “Freedom to Read!” and its Library Bill of Rights requires its members to “challenge censorship.” Yet the leadership of the ALA — not the rank and file — insistently refuses to call for the immediate release of the independent librarians in Cuba — designated as “prisoners of conscience” by Amnesty International. They are serving very long prison terms because they do believe in the freedom to read — especially in a dictatorship.

Among the many organizations demanding that Fidel Castro and his successors release these courageous Cubans — who have opened their homes and libraries to offer books censored in the Cuban state libraries — are such groups as the library associations of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. All these librarians, finally freed from Communism, agree with their colleagues in the Polish Library Association, who say in their declaration, “The actions of the Cuban authorities relate to the worst traditions of repressing the freedom of thought and expression.”

However, the top officials of the American Library Association — as well as the majority of its Governing Council — speak derisively of these “so-called librarians” in Castro’s gulags.

It’s true that these prisoners, many brutalized and in failing health, in their cells, don’t have master’s degrees in Library Science; but as poet-novelist-educator Andrei Codrescu told last year’s ALA Midwinter Conference: “These people have been imprisoned for BEING librarians!” Why dismiss them “as ‘so-called librarians’ when clearly there is no one (in that dictatorship) to certify them.”

A key ALA official, Judith Krug, heads its office of Intellectual Freedom. In my many years of reporting on the ALA’s sterling record of protecting American librarians from censorship, I often quoted her in admiration. But now, she said at an ALA meeting about supporters of the caged librarians, “I’ve dug in my heels ... I refuse to be governed by people with an agenda.” The Cuba issue, she continued, “wouldn’t die,” though she’d like to “drown it.”

The agenda, Ms. Krug, is freedom. “Every burned book,” wrote Ralph Waldo Emerson, “illuminates the world.” But ALA’s leadership refuses to bring light to the cages of these Cuban prisoners of conscience. The ALA’s membership booklet proclaims “the public’s right (everywhere) to explore in their libraries many points of view on all questions and issues facing them.

An issue facing all members of the ALA is their leaders’ shameful exception of the Cuban people’s freedom to read."

Leslie Burger, Ellen Bernstein, and Judith Krug are lefties that should not be called liberals. In fact calling them liberals is an insult to liberals. I remember liberals from the '60's. These were people who believed in liberty and freedom. They erred in believing that socialism and communism would bring the utopia they were looking for. The only ones left that come to mind are Nat Hentoff, Christopher Hitchens, and David Horowitz. Most of the lefties have morphed into this moral relativism and political correctness blather that blinds them from finding any fault in any leader or movement that HATES America. The buzzwords of people like this include 'keep an open mind', 'so-called librarians', and 'people with an agenda'. They keep their heads stuck deep in the sands like ostriches when they are challenged to stand up for freedom and liberty. These are the 'sickos' that support Mikey.

Cuba-Mitt doesn't get it...Fred does.

At this Tuesday night Republican debate I hope Mitt is asked a question about Cuba. Mitt went to Miami to give a speech to some Cuban-Americans, and he quoted a line Fidel uses in his speeches. This was a huge mistake by Mitt. He has tried to blame the media for taking things out of context, and say that he speaks Spanish poorly. These excuses are not helping. He needs to convince the Cuban-Americans that he understands the myths about Castro, and understands how nothing created by Castro should be embraced including a slogan.

Fred Thompson does get it. Val Prieto of Babalu Blog definitely hopes that Fred runs in2008. He has an article that Fred Thompson recently wrote concerning the myth of Castro's 'Health Care'. Fred writes about a new Michael Moore on the subject. Here's an excerpt:

"The other thing that irks me about Moore and his cohort in Hollywood is their complete lack of sympathy for fellow artists persecuted for opposing the Castro regime. Pro-democracy activists are routinely threatened and imprisoned, but Castro remains a hero to many here. According to human rights organizations, these prisoners of conscience are often beaten and denied medical treatment, sanitation or even adequate nutrition.

If Moore wants a subject for a real documentary, I would suggest looking into the life of Cuban painter and award-winning documentarian Nicolás Guillén Landrián. He was denied the right to practice his art for using the Beatles' song, "The Fool on the Hill," as background music behind footage of Castro climbing a mountain. Later, he was given plenty of free Cuban health care when he was confined for years in a "mental institution" and given devastating, repeated electroshock "treatments."

There are many other artists and activists who have enjoyed similar treatment. I suspect we'll see movies with sympathetic portrayals of terrorists held in Guantanamo before we ever hear about the torture of true Cuban heroes. Even Andy Garcia's brilliant fictionalized movie about the real Cuban experience, "The Lost City," was given the Hollywood silent treatment. My bet, though, is that we'll hear lots about how Michael Moore showed that Cuba's socialized medicine is better than ours.

So go ahead and start working on the Oscar speech, Michael."

Val Prieto understands how Fidel's running of Cuba should be talked about, and he appreciates that Fred Thompson gets it too. I agree with Val.

A new symbol for the Democratic Party

I was born during the Truman presidency, and I have seen both Republican and Democratic administrations at the White House. The current Democratic Party symbol of the donkey just simply does not match the spirit of today's party. The donkey is a beast of burden, and a reliable support for getting work done. This stubborn spirit was seen best in the words of President John F. Kennedy:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "

That kind of spirit is not around nowadays in the Democratic Party. They don't care about liberty. They only care about getting power by getting elected. They put their finger to the wind, closely watch the polling numbers, and choose their actions accordingly.

Victor Davis Hanson writes an article describing this behavior. An excerpt:

"When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.

But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.

So why not come clean about their changes of heart?

Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front.

Bob Novak has written another article as an example of this behavior with respect to support of a friend of the United States in the 'war on drugs'. An excerpt:

"Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe returned to Bogota this week in a state of shock. His three-day visit to Washington to win over Democrats in Congress was described by one American supporter as "catastrophic." Colombian sources said Uribe was stunned by the ferocity of his Democratic opponents, and Vice President Francisco Santos publicly talked about cutting U.S.-Colombian ties.

Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. Military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. The first Colombian president to crack down on his country's corrupt army officer hierarchy, and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, last week confronted Democrats wedded to out-of-date claims of civil rights abuses and to rigidly protectionist dogma.

In the wake of Uribe's visit, two prominent House Republicans -- former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee -- made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces in techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists.

Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to such help or such progress. Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia because of "human rights" concerns. While Pelosi and her colleagues could not find a kind word for Uribe, Leahy insisted that he "supports" the Colombian. As Lenin once put it, he supports him as a rope supports a hanged man."

Another example of today's Democratic party departure from that clarion call to 'assure the survival and the success of liberty' is an article by Daniel Pipes titled 'A million moderated Muslims on the march' . He reports good news of protest marches in Turkey and Pakistan by moderate Muslims. The Democratic party of Clinton do not want to hear this stuff. They think that the existence of moderate Muslims is a myth. The Clinton administration went out of its way to bring Islamist extremists into power in the Balkans. The Iranians are Bill Clinton's 'guys'.

Really though, the idea of this new symbol came to me from reading an article by Mohammed Fadhil of the 'Iraq the Model' website. Maybe somebody can explain to me the errors in my thinking. Until then I believe the new symbol best represents today's Democratic Party.

A Culture That Demands Special Treatment

The United States of America is a young country in comparison to other parts of the world. In the 200 plus years many have come from many different places in the world to the USA. They come here for new opportunities to live long and prosper. The United States is a melting pot because the children of these new arrivals do not continue to follow their parents' ways. Rather, the children adapted to the fashions, manners, and attitudes of American ways. It is called assimilation. There is a new wind blowing that is troubling, and its name is multicultural diversity. The children and society at large is not allowed to be proud of an American Way. Now, it is politically correct to not question any other culture in the world. Political correctness means that your culture is no better than another person's culture. This political correctness in my opinion is BS. We do not need to be ashamed of our American culture. The children of immigrants should not be forced to be exactly like their parents. This is the United States of America.

Over at Townhall.com, Mary Graber has an excellent article about her American experience as the daughter of Slovenians.

O'Reilly had a segment of his show about public funding for an Arabic school in New York City. As a former teacher he was aware of students with English not their primary language, but he was unaware of an entire public school being constructed for any other ethnic group in New York City. I let google be my friend, and I found another similar school in Bridgeview, Illinois.
I don' think the Illinois school is publicly funded.

Coast Guard drops ban on religious headgear in photos ID

A town council is a small Michigan village was persuaded to change their 'noise laws' to accommodate area mosques to broadcast over loudspeakers tape recordings of the Islamic call to daily prayers.

A New Orleans cabbie assaulted his fare for getting in his taxi with a dog. CAIR replied by pointing out that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer" and left it to the scholars of Islam to decide whether a guide dog should be allowed in a cab. The judge, after researching Islamic attitudes and finding no support for the driver's claims, called his behavior "a total disgrace."

A group of law enforcement officers go to a convention in Delaware, and a speaker at the convention urges them to indulge Muslim misbehavior.

A lady in Florida pursues a legal court battle to wear a veil in her Driver's License photo ID.

This Sunday's election in France gives me hope for France. I just worry more now about what will happen in the United States.

Fred Thompson KNOWS US History

Recently I wrote a blog here at RedState that asked one simple little question. Who is the first foreign government to declare war on the United States of America, and why did they do it? I got some wrong answers until Raven posted the answer I was looking for. Now, Tuesday, May 8th, Fred Thompson has provided the very best answer to this simple question. Many questions still surround Fred Thompson, but for me today he answered one important question.
Does Fred Thompson know US history? Yes, he does know US history quite well. I recommend
checking out the article on the Townhall.com web site.

I'm shocked. 60 minutes runs Good News story

I'm shocked I tell ya shocked. I click over to see what 60 Minutes is running, and they have this story about a former Mujahideen jihadist, Nasir Abas. This dude from Indonesia. Excerpts from this story:

(CBS) It's not often you get a chance to talk to someone who was a key player inside a terrorist organization for twenty years, but 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon did just that when he interviewed Nasir Abas, one of the most valuable members of a terrorist group ever to change sides and work for the authorities. Abas is from Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. And he was a top commander in Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda's franchise operation in Southeast Asia.

Like so many terrorists around the world, he learned his trade in Afghanistan. Hundreds of militants from Southeast Asia traveled there in the 1980's to defend Islam against the Soviet occupiers. They trained as Mujahideen in a rugged camp, which Abas calls a military academy.

Abas graduated with honors in artillery and ended up giving weapons training to scores of young men from Southeast Asia.

Nasir Abas had become a very serious player in the movement. He established a military camp for Jemaah Islamiyah, where he trained hundreds of young believers to become fighters. He was promoted to be one of the four regional commanders.

But then in 2000, well before his arrest, something happened which would make Abas question everything he believed in: a fatwa, a religious edict, was issued by Osama bin Laden.

"It should be understood that killing Americans and Jews anywhere found are the highest act of worship and the highest form of good deeds in the eyes of Allah," Simon quotes bin Laden.

Abas and his fellow commanders were ordered to read the fatwa to their men and make sure they carried it out. The others obeyed, but Abas refused. It was his moment of truth. He firmly believed that jihad was to be fought only on the battlefield in defense of Islam; he had always been taught that the killing of civilians had nothing to do with holy war and that it was forbidden.

The fatwa justified killing non-Muslim civilians everywhere.

Abas stopped participating in the violent activities of Jemaah Islamiyah and started withdrawing from the organization that had been his life. He has provided a wealth of information, helping the Indonesian authorities unravel the inner workings Jemaah Islamiyah.

According to Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group, who has been tracking Jemaah Islamiyah for the last ten years, Nasir Abas has been a huge resource.

Asked how valuable Abas has been to police, Jones said, "I think he's been invaluable. I think he understands the network of jihadists in Indonesia in a way that nobody who's outside that network could possibly ever hope to understand."

The man who lived his life in the shadows, as an insider in a secret organization, will now tell you that what’s most important is to bring things into the light of day, and that the most important weapon is education.

"Yes. We need to educate people. We need to give more explanation. Yeah, about what was is right, what is wrong," Abas says.

"And this is what you're trying to do?" Simon asks.

Says Abas, "Yeah. This is what I’m saying, that this is my new jihad."

The only problem with the way CBS presented this story has to do with what they chose to emphasize. CBS just had to make the emphasis of the story about how Indonesia captures terrorists and holds trials in public to convict them instead of holding them indefinitely like the US does at Gitmo. Sorry CBS that is not the important part of this story.

The good news is this dude used REASON in his thought processes. Just because Osama says something doesn't mean you have to believe it. It is good news to me when a person from the world's most populous Muslim nation can refuse to follow a command from a Muslim leader. The conventional wisdom is that Islam is such a top-down structurally based system that nobody can question what the leaders say. This guy is an example of somebody who did question a command, and refused to follow it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another example of somebody who is brought up in this Islamist way of life, and then turns away later on. Although Hirsi Ali turned away to a larger extent than this dude I think they are similar. Abas and Hirsi Ali both believe education is the most important weapon.