Terror Plot Stopped- Kennedy Airport was the Target
According to wnbc.com:
According to NewsChannel4’s Jonathan Dienst, sources said federal investigators have made arrests in an alleged terror plot on Kennedy Airport.
Four people have been charged. One is in custody in New York.
Sources said the plot involved a plan to blow up a jet-fuel pipeline at JFK setting off a potential massive explosion.
Law enforcement officials said the plot may involved a former airport worker.
A press conference is scheduled for 1 p.m. this afternoon.
Excellent work, this just shows how we need to stay vigilant.
I’m sure the Bush haters out there are going to say this is because of the Iraq war, but the truth is that they have perverted their religion into a means to justify killing all non-Muslims.
After hearing this news it makes you wonder how the people who believe global warming is a bigger threat to us than terrorists can possibly justify their position.
I just hope none of their civil rights were violated. Lets see how long it takes the ACLU to come to these monsters defense.
“Global warming is the crisis of our time,” says the Environmental Defense Action Fund. The activist group is urging Americans to sign a “Declaration of New Patriotism” — a petition to be delivered to Congress on July 4.
Forget about that little terrorist thing, the true threat to our existence is man-made global warming.
“Today, we recognize that patriotism is not only about love of country. It is also about a shared commitment to the welfare of our planet,” Environmental Defense said in a message to supporters.
Signers of the petition pledge to:
— Recognize that we live in a time of crisis. (“We must be active and forceful in bringing about the necessary changes — based on science, not politics — to stop global warming, no matter how difficult that may be,” Environmental Defense said in a news release.)
Actually patriotism is about love of country:
PATRIOTISM, as defined on dictionary.com- devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.
Based on science, not politics? This whole hoax is a political issue. Why do you think the leading voices against global warming are politicians? Scientists are split on global warming. You can read my many posts on global warming to see all the different scientists that have spoke out against global warming being man-made, yet they continue to treat this as scientific fact. Politicians see this as a future source of tax revenue.
Recognize we live in a time of crisis. That part is true, we do live in a time of crisis. Only the crisis is terrorism. If only more Americans would realize this. I can’t believe anyone would think man-made global warming is a more serious threat to our future than terrorists. It boggles my mind.
By the way, has Al Qaeda signed this pledge yet?
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is among the lawmakers calling for legislative solutions to climate change. He’ll discuss his recommendations — and his new book, “This Moment on Earth” — at a press luncheon next week.
His new book, wonderful. Looks like he is now trying to capitalize on the global warming hoax. Doesn’t Mr. Heinz have enough money? Maybe he is jealous that Al Gore receives all the global warming headlines.
You can read the whole article here.
Al Qaida to sue Boeing, ACLU to Defend Them
From worldtribune.com:
WASHINGTON — Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called “extraordinary rendition program.” The suit charged that Jeppesen helped the CIA transport the three plaintiffs to secret locations in Egypt and Morocco, where the company knew they would undergo torture, Middle East Newsline reported.“American corporations should not be profiting from a CIA rendition program that is unlawful and contrary to core American values,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. “Corporations that choose to participate in such activity can and should be held legally accountable.”
What else needs to be said?
When Cindy Sheehan retired from whatever the hell she was doing, I guess it was her job as a professional protester, she said she would sell her property next to President Bush’s ranch that was used for war protesters for any reasonable offer.
Now a group has stepped forward.
Move America Forward, which bills itself as the nation’s largest grassroots pro-troop organization, says it plans to buy the land near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where Cindy Sheehan has waged her anti-war protests.
The group said it plans to build a monument to America’s war heroes on the five-acre site. A sketch of the planned monument shows a pillar topped by a cross.
“This land has been used as a staging ground for anti-war activists to denounce and denigrate the heroic service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces,” said Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America Forward. “It is our intention to turn this around and make this a site that will honor the heroic accomplishments of the men and women who have fought with honor and courage in the war against Islamic terrorism,” she said.
How sweet would that be? Using land to honor our brave men and women who have served our country on the same land that was used to denigrate our troops and de-legitimize their mission?
Of course Cindy Sheehan doesn’t want any part of actually honoring our troops, which include her son who heroically gave his life for a cause that he believed in, even if she didn’t.
The Associated Press on Friday quoted Sheehan’s sister as saying “It’ll be a cold day in hell” before Sheehen sells the property to Move America Forward. “She’ll sell it to them for $5 million,” Dede Miller was quoted as saying.
He called civil unions “the New Hampshire way” and the law a way to further “the strengthening of New Hampshire families.”Dating back to the abolitionist movement,” Lynch said, “we in New Hampshire have had a long and a proud history in taking the lead in opposing discrimination. Today, that tradition continues.”
That is what Governor Lynch said while signing the civil union bill into law, making New Hampshire the first state to legalize civil unions without the threat of a court hearing hanging in the balance.
This is the first tough issue Gov. Lynch had to make a decision on since he has been governor. And this decision was not a popular one. Gov. Lynch has portrayed himself as a moderate Democrat and with Republican majorities in the state house and senate he was able to successfully pull this con job off. However with a Democrat majority in the state house and senate his true liberal colors are starting to show.
Governor Lynch knew he was signing a very unpopular piece of legislation into law, and his actions before signing this bill show he might not be as proud of this bill as he lets on.
The governor’s office notified reporters of the bill-signing ceremony a little more than an hour before it took place, yet the room was jammed with supporters.
A conservative group later questioned if the governor’s office provided such short notice to avoid possible protests.
Afraid of the protesters that were sure to show up, Governor Lynch didn’t let the public know about the signing ceremony in time to organize any type of protest. But then again, why would he? He wouldn’t let the public know where he stood on this issue before the last election. Of course, that should have given New Hampshire voters an idea of where he stood on this issue, but evidently it didn’t.
I give the governor credit for finally making a tough decision, but I find it deplorable he didn’t have the courage of his liberal convictions to let the public know about the signing ceremony.
In 2008, I will be voting against Gov. Lynch for the third time, hopefully the rest of New Hampshire will wake up and vote this now out of the closet liberal out of office.
Possible Cease-Fire talks being Conducted in Iraq
From breitbart.com:
U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease- fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he has authorized commanders to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals.
“We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won’t conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.,” Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.
“It’s just the beginning, so we have a lot of work to do on this,” he said. “But we have restructured ourselves to organize to work this issue.”
Odierno said the effort goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders are under increasing pressure from Washington to do more to achieve reconciliation among factions because, officials argue, no amount of military force can bring peace to the country without political peace.
Al-Maliki announced a national reconciliation proposal nearly a year ago that has made limited progress. It offered some amnesty to members of the Sunni-led insurgency and a change in a law that had removed senior members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party from their jobs.
You know the Democrats are going to try and portray this as America can’t win so we now have to negotiate with terrorists, we are giving in to them. The fact is that if we were losing the war as Harry Reid has said then these terrorists would not be willing to negotiate with us. They would want to keep fighting. We are winning and they know it, that is why they are willing to negotiate.
Of course I don’t trust these people at all, we see what their cease-fires have meant in the past, but it has to be a step in the right direction.
Has anyone seen this on the news? I know I haven’t.
Hat Tip: reggienation
A globe-trotting Atlanta lawyer with a dangerous strain of tuberculosis was allowed back into the U.S. by a border inspector who disregarded a computer warning to stop him and don protective gear, officials said Thursday. The inspector has been removed from border duty.
We can’t even trust our borders enough to believe a TB patient on the do not fly list, with warnings to stop him at border crossings will be stopped and detained. How are we supposed to stop the influx of illegal aliens into the country? This also bring up another question, all these illegals who will get amnesty, are they going to be screened for infectious diseases that are no longer a problem in the USA? I think we know the answer to that question.
So what was this border patrol agent’s excuse?
The unidentified inspector explained that he was no doctor but that the infected man seemed perfectly healthy and that he thought the warning was merely “discretionary,”
He seemed healthy? How lame of an excuse is that? The warning on this man was to stop him and don protective gear. It doesn’t matter how he looked. Discretionary? Does that sound like a discretionary warning to you? It doesn’t to me.
It’s time to close the borders.
Just when I thought the nanny state was going to totally take over the state the mandatory seatbelt bill was defeated.
The state Senate late this afternoon rejected mandatory seat belts for all ages, voting 16-8 against passage of House Bill 802.
The vote kept New Hampshire the only state in the country without such a requirement.
The bill had passed the House 153-140 on April 4.
This may show that the state government isn’t totally ready to regulate all aspects of our lives just yet. Maybe they will treat voters as adults after all. We finally won a battle.
But then there’s this:
The New Hampshire House today approved a ban on smoking in restaurants, cocktail lounges and some other public places, moving the bill to Gov. John Lynch, who is expected to sign it into law.
The vote today was 224-117, coming after a 216-135 vote rejecting a proposed amendment to allow separate “smoking rooms” in restaurant and lounges.
The bill also bans smoking in state-licensed public educational facilities, hospitals, grocery stores, elevators, tramways, gondolas and “other such public conveyances.” It exempts members-only private bars operated by social, fraternal or religious organizations unless they are also open to the general public.
They couldn’t help themselves on this issue apparently. They must regulate this bad behavior.So much for personal choice here. They did exempt clubs like the VFW and such, but have no fear, they are next. Why don’t they just ban smoking? A good guess would be that the new budget calls for a .28 cent increase in the cigarette tax. I guess that the increased tax revenue is ultimately more important than the health of the average New Hampshire citizen.
Maybe the nanny state isn’t quite here yet, maybe I jumped the gun. Maybe New Hampshire voters are more like the child who is old enough to be left alone when you make a quick trip to the store, but not old enough to left alone for extended periods of time.
Don’t worry though, children, these people never give up, even in defeat. They just keep trying and trying all the while gaining support and eventually they will win and the nanny state will be here.
Unless we vote them out, and get back to true New Hampshire ideals.
Today it became official as Gov. Lynch signed civil unions into law. They will begin on Jan. 01, 2008.
From the New Hampshire Union Leader:
CONCORD – New Hampshire became the fourth state to legalize civil unions today, as Gov. John Lynch signed the bill, calling it “the New Hampshire way.”
As more than 100 supporters gathered in the Executive Council chambers of the State House, Lynch said, “Dating back to the abolitionist movement, we in New Hampshire have had a long and a proud history in taking the lead in opposing discrimination.
“Today,” he said, “that tradition continues.
Lynch signed the bill, declaring, “This bill is now law,” and handed his pen to Rep. James Splaine, D-Portsmouth, the bill’s chief sponsor.
“I’ve listened and I heard all the arguments,” said Lynch. “I do not believe that this bill threatens marriage. I believe that this is a matter of conscience and of fairness. It is never too soon to act to prevent discrimination.”
Starting tomorrow, actually it’s been going on for a while, there will be letters to the Union Leader saying the citizens should vote in this issue. That is not the issue I have however, as I believe New Hampshire voters already voted on civil unions last November. You can read this to see why I feel this way.
My issue is this, Governor Lynch would not come out before the election last November and say whether he was for or against civil unions. This was not the only issue he would not take a side on before the election. In the interest of protecting his high approval rating he would only give his positions on issues that had wide support of the people. Any tough issue he would carefully talk around his position. It worked.
The latest example of this is the mandatory seatbelt bill, he would not say whether he would sign it or not.
Gov. John Lynch had not given his opinion of the bill, and the Senate vote today saved him from being forced to do so, at least for now.
Luckily for him, that bill was killed in the senate today, we may never know where he stands on that issue. One less decision he had to make.
This is what you get when you elect someone who won’t tell you where he stands on tough issues. You wanted this state government, you got it.
New Hampshire is the only state in the union without a seatbelt law for adults. Our government has always treated us like adults. That could change today. If the bill passes today it will head to Gov. Lynch’s desk and he will…..uh, I don’t know what he will do. Nobody does.
On the eve of a major public policy vote at the State House, a state senator yesterday called on Gov. John Lynch to take a stand on legislation that would mandate the use of seatbelts for all drivers.
The governor’s spokesman said Lynch remains undecided and is “talking to lawmakers and a lot of other people” about it.
This man got elected without taking a side on any tough issues, that way nobody could be against his policies. We didn’t know what they were. This is the same reason we are going to have civil unions here.
I can’t believe New Hampshire voters couldn’t see through this.
So, I ask you Gov. Lynch, where do you stand on this issue? I just want to know.
