Give It Up For Islam, Or Die

In Iran, and most other Muslim countries, you can freely practice any religion you want without repercussions, as long as it’s Islam.

Iranian Pastor Could Face Death

The former pastor of a network of Christian house churches in Iran has been told to exchange his faith for his life, according to news reports and human rights groups.

“We are dismayed over reports that the Iranian courts are requiring Youcef Nadarkhani to recant his Christian faith or face the death penalty for apostasy,” wrote U.S. Department of State Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland in a recent press statement.

Mr. Nadarkhani was arrested in his home city of Rasht on October 13, 2009 while attempting to register his church after protesting compulsory Islamic religious instruction in Iranian public schools. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights group, reports that he was originally charged with protesting, however, the charges against the 32-year-old convert to Christianity were later changed to apostasy and evangelizing Muslims.

See also:
BREAKING NEWS: Iran’s Supreme Court “Confirms” Pastor’s Death Sentence
Death sentence for Christian convert in Iran
Unofficial Translation of Pastor Youcef Nadakhani’s Verdict
Iranian Man Faces Death over Religious Conversion
Yousef Nadarkhani to Be Executed for Faith
Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani’s Death Sentence
Iran: A convert from Islam, Iranian pastor risks the death penalty
U.S. Condemns Iran For Threatening To Execute Pastor
Christian Pastor Facing Execution in Iran
Iran: Supreme Court upholds death sentence for Christian priest

Hey, how about that religion of peace and tolerance? What a sick joke. Can you just imagine the international uproar if courts in Christian countries started sentencing converts to Islam to death?

/evil is as evil does and no religion does evil like Islam, just read the daily news

The 2010 Aftermath

Not total victory, but all in all, it was a very good day for Republicans.

After GOP landslide of Election 2010, what next for Obama?

The Republican Party has swept the Democrats out of power in the House and gained seats in the Senate, sending a strong message of voter discontent to President Obama on the economy.

Republicans scored at least a 60-seat gain in the House, the biggest partisan shift since the Democrats lost 75 House seats in 1948. In the Senate, the Republicans fell short of the 10 they needed to take control, and failed to capture their most-hoped-for quarry: the seat of Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, who defeated tea partyer Sharron Angle by five percentage points. It is the first time in 80 years that the House has changed hands without the Senate following.

The historic wave that makes Rep. John Boehner (R) of Ohio the expected next speaker of the House also hands Mr. Obama the biggest challenge of his political career. Suddenly, the president has no choice but to work toward his unfulfilled 2008 campaign promise of greater bipartisanship. The alternative is gridlock and the appearance of ineffectiveness. But if Obama concedes too much to the Republicans, he risks losing the support of his Democratic base when he runs for reelection in 2012, as expected.

Maybe even more impressive and certainly just as important was the Republican near sweep at the state level. Republicans will now be in charge of redistricting in the majority of states, which will set legislative boundaries for the next ten years.

Forget D.C., look what Republicans won in state legislatures

This is especially important in years ending in ’00 because these newly elected governors and state legislators will (with the exception of California) be the ones redrawing legislative and congressional district lines that will stand for the next decade until the 2020 census. And occupying the governor’s mansion puts that party in control of an immense statewide political apparatus to help its presidential ticket two years hence.

Come January, Republicans will now run crucial governors’ offices in….

…major presidential battleground states like Florida (Rick Scott), Ohio (John Kasich), Pennsylvania (Tom Corbett) and Iowa, where former Gov. Terry Branstad returns. New Mexico voters elected their first female governor, Republican Susana Martinez, a Latino. Sometimes-maligned South Carolina voters chose Nikki Haley, who is not only the state’s first female governor but only the nation’s second of Indian American descent (Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal being the other.) Oklahoma also picked its first female governor, Republican Mary Fallin.

According to the authoritative Stateline.org, the country’s contests for governor and lieutenant governor cost $850 million. Heading into 2012, the GOP will control at least 29 of the 50 governor’s suites.
Perhaps more importantly, the Republican wave at the national level was also felt at the grass-roots level, where Republicans gained control of at least 19 more state legislative chambers, possibly two dozen as vote-counting continues.

The GOP will have a majority in at least 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers, including a minimum of 53% of state legislature seats (about 3,900). That’s the most the party has controlled in 82 years — and up about 700 seats from Monday.

Of course, we didn’t win them all and this one personally sticks in my craw. If it wasn’t for third party spoiler candidate Tom Horner (former Republican), Republican Tom Emmer would already easily be the next Governor of Minnesota. Mark Dayton should send Horner some flowers or candy or a tip or something.

Guv’s race: Long ride, no end in sight

A seismic shift in Minnesota’s political landscape unfolded Wednesday as the most game-changing election in a generation sent Republicans and the DFL scrambling for the last undecided prize — the governor’s office.

DFLer Mark Dayton unofficially leads Republican Tom Emmer by 8,856 votes — a margin so slight that it could trigger a hand-ballot recount for the second election cycle in a row.

Officials began the tedious, nerve-wracking task of locking up ballots, which both parties may guard around the clock.

The day’s events placed the state, yet again, in political suspended animation, awaiting the prospect of another recount brawl that could take months to resolve and get tangled in the courts.

See also:
2010 Elections Exit Poll Analysis: The Political Price of Economic Pain
Election Day 2010 and its aftermath
Exit polls Election 2010
Karl Rove, U.S. Chamber Amass Winning Record in 2010 Elections
Tea Party Top 10 biggest winners and losers
Statehouse wins put GOP in redistricting driver’s seat
Vote 2010 Elections: What’s Your Reaction to Republicans’ Big Win?
With 2010 Behind Us, A Look Ahead To 2012
Republicans celebrate, outline legislative goals
In Social Media Election, The GOP Capitalizes
How will Obama react to GOP gains?

Tuesday’s vote was an absolute thumping repudiation of Obama and the Democrats and their big government, far left agenda. Now that the Republicans have a tight leash on the Democrats, will the Democrats learn to play ball in the poetical center? Will the Democrats learn to at least read the destructive legislation they vote to cram down the throats of the American taxpayers, over the vociferous objections and protestations of the electorate.

/because, if the Democrats don’t learn their lesson this time, they’re going to get thumped even harder in 2012, the American people have spoken and they’ve had enough of Obama and the Democrats’ progressive socialism

Is The Obama Administration Insane Or Just Mind Numbingly Stupid?

Let’s see, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the world’s worst terrorists, has already confessed to masterminding 9/11 and tried to plead guilty multiple times to a military commission at Guantanamo Bay. Now, most right thinking people would say, fine, let the scumbag plead guilty, execute him, and be done with it. But nooo, not the Obama Administration, that’s too easy, Eric Holder has a better idea.

New York trial for 9/11 suspects

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is to be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York for trial in a civilian court, the US has confirmed.

Attorney General Eric Holder said he would be transferred from the US prison camp in Cuba with four other suspects.

Mr Mohammed has admitted planning the 9/11 attacks, the US military says.

The move is part of US President Barack Obama’s effort to close Guantanamo, but some relatives of 9/11 victims say they oppose a federal court trial.

Responsibility for the case will go to the Southern District of New York, with proceedings taking place near Ground Zero.

The five men have until now been facing prosecution at US military commissions in Guantanamo. The government had faced a 16 November deadline to decide how to proceed in their cases.

Speaking in Tokyo ahead of Mr Holder’s announcement, Mr Obama said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would face “most exacting demands of justice”.

Bringing al-Qaeda to New York

Candidate Barack Obama urged a return to pre-9/11 counterterrorism-by-courts. President Obama’s Justice Department overflows with lawyers who spent the last eight years representing America’s enemies. Thus, Friday’s announcement that top al-Qaeda terrorists will be brought to New York City for a civilian trial is no surprise. That doesn’t make it any less inexcusable.

The treatment of jihadist terror as a mere law-enforcement issue, fit for civilian courts, was among the worst of the national-security derelictions of the Nineties. While the champions of this approach stress that prosecutors scored a 100 percent conviction rate, they conveniently omit mention of the paltry number of cases (less than three dozen, mostly against low-level terrorists, over an eight-year period, despite numerous attacks), as well as the rigorous due-process burdens that made prosecution of many terrorists impossible, the daunting disclosure and witness-confrontation rules that required government to disclose mountains of intelligence, the gargantuan expense of “hardening” courthouses and prisons to protect juries and judges, and the terrorists’ exploitation of legal privileges to plot additional attacks and escape attempts.

In placing the nation on a war footing after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration invoked the laws of war to detain terrorists as enemy combatants and to try those who had committed provable war crimes by military commission — measures that were endorsed by Congress despite being challenged in the courts by some of the lawyers now working in Obama’s Justice Department. This military-commission system provided due-process protections that were unprecedented for wartime enemies, including the right to appellate review in the civilian courts. But they protected national-defense information from disclosure.

This commission system is tailor-made for the 9/11 plotters, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suicide-hijacking mastermind who is brazen in taking credit for that and numerous other attacks against the United States. In fact, last December, KSM and his four co-defendants indicated to the military judge that they wanted to plead guilty and move on to execution. But then the Obama administration swept into power and undertook to repudiate many of Bush’s counterterrorism practices, declaring its intention to close Gitmo within a year and forcing a moratorium on military commissions so the process could be “studied.” Friday’s announcement that KSM and the other 9/11 plotters will be sent to federal court in New York for a civilian trial is the most significant step to date in Obama’s determination to turn back the clock to the time when government believed subpoenas rather than Marines were the answer to jihadist murder and mayhem.

It is difficult to quantify how dangerously foolish this course is. As they demonstrated in offering to plead guilty while bragging about their atrocities, KSM and his cohorts don’t want a trial so much as they want a soapbox to press their grievances against the United States and the West. With no real defense to the charges, they will endeavor to put America on trial, pressing the court for expansive discovery of government intelligence files. Having gratuitously exposed classified information on interrogation tactics and other sensitive matters in order to pander to Obama’s base, the Justice Department will be in a poor position to argue against broad disclosure, even if it were so inclined. As the court orders more and more revelations, potential intelligence sources and foreign spy services will develop even graver doubts about our capacity to keep secrets. They will reduce their intelligence cooperation accordingly, and the nation will be dramatically more vulnerable.

Moreover, the transfer of the worst al-Qaeda prisoners into the U.S. will grease the skids for many, if not most, of the remaining 200-plus Gitmo terrorists to be moved here. This will be the worst of all possible outcomes. These are trained terrorists who have been detained under the laws of war, but most of whom cannot be tried because the intelligence on them cannot be used in court. We are still holding them because they are deadly dangerous and because no other country is willing to take them off our hands. Once inside the United States, they will indisputably be within the jurisdiction of the federal courts — which are staffed by judges predisposed against wartime detention without trial. As long as the terrorists were at Gitmo, those judges were reluctant to order them released into the U.S. — a transfer that would violate federal law. If the terrorists are already here, though, judges will not be as gun-shy. Inevitably, some will be freed to live and plot among us.

The Obama Left delusionally argues that running these risks will make us safer. The international community will see how enlightened we are, the fable goes. The hostility of America’s enemies will melt away. They’ll lay down their bombs and stop attacking us. As observed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey — who presided over terrorism cases as a federal judge — “We did just that after the first World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents.”

So Now Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Is A 9/11 “Suspect”

Team Obama has to postpone these trials until after the 2010 elections or this will go down as the biggest “own-goal” of the century millenium.

See also:
New York to host terror trial
9/11 suspects face New York trial
9/11 mastermind, 4 others to face trial in New York
Strong reaction to announcement of 9/11 trial in New York court
9/11 Plotters Trial Divides New York
Reaction Mixed as Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Face Trial in New York
UPDATE 1-New York split over plan to try Sept. 11 plotters
Families of 9/11 victims divided over decision to hold trial in New York
Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani disagree on trials
9/11 comes full circle in New York City
Why Bring KSM to the United States?
The Worst Decision by a US President in History
Justice Denied
9/11 mastermind, 4 others to face trial in New York
Holder in the dock as critics focus on New York 9/11 terror trial
U.S. Republicans blast Obama decision on Gitmo
Mukasey Fears Attacks on New York During Trial of 9/11 Defendants
Mukasey: ‘very high’ risk of attack over NYC 9/11 trial
The World’s Worst Al Qaeda Terrorists, Coming Soon To A U.S. City Near You

So, instead of quietly letting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plead guilty and executing his terrorist ass, we’re going to drop him onto U.S. soil in New York for a public spectacle. And, make no mistake about, it, once card carrying ACLU defense attorneys get a hold of this case in Federal court, it will become a circus, a crusade against the policies of the Bush administration. A trial in civilian court will drag on for years, cost millions of taxpayer dollars, cause untold security headaches, endanger American lives, embarrass the U.S. government, disclose classified information, hamper ongoing intelligence operations, give aid and comfort to the enemy, etc., etc.

For what? The Obama administration has already hinted that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will never go free, even if aqitted. So what’s the point of conducting a sham civilian show trial where the outcome is already predetermined? There is absolutely no upside to this stunt, other than to pantomime the boneheaded and discredited liberal ideal that terrorism is a law enforcement problem, rather than warfare against Western civilization.

/seriously, sometimes I think people in the Obama administration stay up late at night thinking, how can we best screw up America tomorrow?