Now, I usually do not announce my submissions in the RWN polls, but, I thought it would be interesting to list mine

In no order:

• FDR
• The Rosenberg’s
• Aldrich Aimes
• Jimmy Carter
• Woodrow Wilson
• John Walker Lindh
• Tim McVeigh
• Charles Coughlin
• John Wilkes Booth
• Nathan Forest
• J. Edgar Hoover
• Ramsey Clark
• Noam Chomskey
• Al Gore (which is a shame, since I used to be a big fan of his, and even voted for him in 2000. Unfortunately, he has done serious damage worldwide, IMO)
• Lee Harvey Oswald
• John Dillinger

And, yes, I left Obama off the list, as he is not history as of yet.

Who’s on your list?

Minutemen groups, a surge in Border Patrol agents and a tough new immigration law are not enough for a reputed neo-Nazi who is now leading a militia in the Arizona desert.

Jason Ready is taking matters into his own hands, declaring war on what he calls “narco-terrorists” and keeping an eye out for illegal immigrants. So far, he said, his patrols have found only a few border crossers, who were given water and handed over to the Border Patrol. Once, they found a decaying body in a wash, and alerted the authorities.

Now,  I can certainly understand the Times’ concerns, which are mirrored by several law enforcement figures quoted in the article. Do we really want people who literally wear the Nazi symbol on their clothes patrolling the border? Hell no.

“We’re not going to sit around and wait for the government anymore,” Mr. Ready said. “This is what our founding fathers did.”

Nice subtle little way to link this group to the TEA Party, eh? The Times tries this multiple more times in the story. But, the Times forgot to do some research

But local law enforcement officials are worried, given that Mr. Ready’s group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes that only non-Jewish, white heterosexual people should be American citizens and that everyone who is not white should leave the country — “peacefully or by force.”

Let’s examine some of what the NSM believes (we’ll take the blatant racism, bigotry, and hatred of other races, creeds, religions, as read, OK?)

• We demand equality of rights for the American people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the World Bank, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. (except for the UN, those are all lefty beliefs)
• We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle surplus population. (give us for free!)
• We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) will be deported. (leftist belief)
• In view of the enormous personal sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the ruthless confiscation of all war profits. (sound like liberals during the 2000′s?)
• We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). (sound familiar?)
• We demand the treasonable system of health care be completely revolutionized. (bullet points underneath this one are exactly what you think they would be)
• We demand absolute religious freedom for all denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the White race. The Party combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common good before self-interest. (hmm, the “common good”)
• To put the whole program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central national government for the nation; the unconditional authority of the political central parliament over the entire nation and its organizations; and the formation of committees for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the nation and the various American States. (interesting. A strong central government)

Certainly, there are a few things that those on the right believe, such as being able to bear arms, yet, most of the points contained with in their 25 Points of American National Socialism are Left side beliefs. Free healthcare for all, welfare, education as indoctrination, intolerance, business and profit bad, and a strong government to control all. Now, granted, these folks are way, way, way out on the fringe, but, it is the fringe left, not the right.

Amazing what 5 minutes of research can dig up, eh, Fish Wrap?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

The United States welcomed John Pham in 1979 when he was a child and had moved from Vietnam to make a new life. Now Pham, owner of Ninh Kieu restaurant in Swatara Township, wants to return the favor.

“This country has been good to me,” said Pham, 40. “Now the economy here is bad. Unemployment is up. I want to give something back to my country and community.” That something is a bowl of Vietnamese soup, offered for one penny to those who have lost their job in the current economy. The beef noodle, shrimp or chicken pho (Vietnamese name for soup) is served to the unemployed all day Wednesday and from 9 to 11 a.m. and 2 to 4 p.m. Thursday.

Pham said he doesn’t require proof of a lost job because, “I trust people.”

Pham, who became an American citizen in 1985, knows what it means to be down on luck. After moving to the United States from Vietnam, he spent two years learning English. He eventually headed to Virginia Technical Institute, where he became an electrical engineer.

That’s what it means to be a part of our great Melting Pot.

President Barack Obama has proclaimed his administration will be more open than the previous administration. However, his counterparts in the House and the Senate aren’t following suit.

The Washington Post has reported that negotiations between House and Senate Democrats have resulted in a stimulus bill with a price tag of “about $789.5 billion.” This agreement raised the ire of Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., and he went outside of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to express it.

“My name’s Tom Price and I represent the Sixth District of Georgia and [am] the privileged chair of the Republican Study Committee,” Price said. “It’s now noon on Wednesday. I’m standing outside the office of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The door is closed. We just heard news break there’s been an agreement between the House and the Senate on the non-stimulus bill.”

And we aren’t even 30 days into Obama’s presidency! He has gotten rid of his 5 day pledge for people to review legislation before he signs it, he is hiring lobbyists, he has completely dropped his ”post-partisan” pledge (unless post-partisan means claiming to be non-partisan then acting partisan,) and….well, you know the hit parade. Now we are going to get a massive bill that people who crafted it do not know if it will actually work. Think Obama will review it line by line? Sure, that promise was about the federal budget, but, semantics. I think this qualifies. 

Kim Priestap

So, how much of a tax cut is he delivering to 95% of the American peoplewith that $790 billion? A whopping $13 per paycheck that later gets reduced to $8 per paycheck. Stimuluspalooza!

Hey, I thought he was going to give us all $1,000 welfare, oh, sorry, rebate, checks. No?

And The Anchoressreminds us of how Michelle Obama sneered at the $600 stimulus checks previously sent out. I’m not sure if the $13 a week will help Michelle’s kids, but, I think we can figure out what it will do to her great-grandkids.

Others: Macsmind, Balloon Juice, RedState, Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, The Nation, Michelle Malkin

January 28 1986 We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and “slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”

Visitors to the World Trade Center site will soon get a visual update on the work in progress.

The agency began wrapping the fence that surrounds the 16-acre site with vinyl mesh Sunday.

The fence wrapping will have renderings of some of the buildings being constructed at the site, like the Freedom Tower and the World Trade Center Transit Hub and it will provide information about construction progress.

Oh, good, visuals of the buidlings. It’s seven years later: how about having the actual buildings?

“A lot of tourists come down here, they don’t understand what will happen here,” said Community Board 1 member Catherine McVay Hughes. “They know there have been a lot of controversies, a lot of stories, but they want to see what is actually happening. And those photographs will let people know what is happening at the site.”

A lot of us would like to know that there is actually progress, seven years later. Which there is. Some. A bit. Including a plan to make it green.

This is still my favorite design for the new WTC.

But, it is going to look like this

After years of litigation a verdict was finally reached for Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden’s driver and detainee accused of war crimes. While cleared of conspiracy he was convicted on multiple counts of material support for terrorism. Legal groups like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights quickly criticized the ruling. Certain media elements were not far behind. Much of the criticism was understandable, and much was distorted through the lens of bias. Most of the criticism ended up being deflated after a surprisingly lenient sentence of five and a half years, including five years and a month already served. This sentence fell short of the thirty years to life the prosecutors wanted. Even one of Salim’s defense attorneys admitted the verdict was fair and just. However, a fair outcome doesn’t necessarily reflect a fair process. So, are the military tribunals for the Guantanamo detainees fair? To answer this question we must critically look at both sides of the argument, the details of the process itself, and understand how we arrived at this point.

When war has been declared the United States has made use of military tribunals to try captured enemies outside the scope of conventional civil and criminal matters, historically providing a trial for combatants acting in violation to the Rules of War. The Geneva Conventions established what most countries have adopted as the international standard regarding such rules.

The perception pushed by some is that combatants held at Guantanamo deserve protection under the provisions provided by the Geneva Convention. Others argued that the essence of the Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and civilians and that terrorists violate this by being non-uniformed, negating this distinction and endangering innocent civilians. This argument applies that Prisoner of War status and the rights that come with that should not extend to those that violate its rules. The Supreme Court settled this argument in 2006 in favor of extending many of these rights to captured combatants held at Guantanamo. This decision was Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld which extended certain rights to the detainees and placed limits on the authority of the executive branch. This decision was the catalyst for Congress to pass the Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorizing the establishment of military commissions within the parameters set by the Supreme Court.

The 5-4 ruling in Boumediene vs. Bush threw another wrench into the efforts to prosecute prisoners at Guantanamo by determining that habeas corpus rights extend to these prisoners and that the Military Commissions Act unconstitutionally suspended those rights. Defense lawyers used this ruling in an attempt to delay the military trial of Salim Hamdan, but were unsuccessful in their argument that the procedures violated certain constitutional rights. District Judge James Robertson ruled against delaying the trial on the grounds that these arguments could be raised on appeal after the completion of the trial. How this ruling’s precedent will affect future proceedings against Guantanamo detainees is yet to be seen.

Determining whether the military commission process is fair requires looking at several factors. Hamdan’s trial served as a test case for the government prosecutors and the detainee defense lawyers. Behind Hamdan there are around 80 other Guantanamo detainees, including five alleged September 11th plotters, the Pentagon intends to try before the commissions. It is important to observe Hamdan’s case to determine the probability of fairness in future military commissions because of the precedents it has set.

Most of the key criticisms in Hamdan’s case were addressed. The concern that evidence obtained through coercive interrogation would be used was alleviated when the judge excluded statements obtained from Hamdan prior to his arrival at Guantanamo. Concerns remained over allowed statements obtained after his arrival due to defense allegations they were obtained through abusive procedures. However, no convincing evidence was presented to prove these allegations. Defense attorneys were also given adequate opportunity and access to challenge secret evidence. Many other points exist in favor of the fairness in this trial including the fact that Hamdan’s conviction is automatically appealed to a military appellate court. That court can reduce, but cannot increase, his sentence. Hamdan can then appeal to U.S. civilian courts as well. However, many legal concerns remain such as the question of whether his prosecution violated the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. Concerns addressed in Hamdan’s case do not guarantee future trials will be addressed similarly, but recognized respect of precedent makes it probable.

In my opinion, Salim Hamdan received a fair trial and a lenient but just sentencing. The system in place for future military trials is still not perfect, but provides more protections and rights for captured enemy combatants than ever provided in history. Certain elements definitely need to be addressed while others are yet to be determined. The legal journey to refine the process has only begun.

The metal for Zoe and Dana Falkenberg was just under 3,000 degrees, glowing in heavy, black cauldrons that hung from the ceiling on cables and huge iron hooks. Workers at MetalTek International, a foundry 30 miles south of St. Louis, had finished the memorials for all the other victims, and they had saved those for the youngest, the two sisters, for last.

The girls and their parents were heading to Australia for a family vacation Sept. 11, 2001, when hijackers seized their plane and slammed it into the western side of the Pentagon at 530 mph. Zoe was 8 years old. Dana was 3.

When the nation’s first 9/11 memorial opens at the Pentagon this Sept. 11, two long, curving, stainless steel benches engraved with the sisters’ names will be among the first objects visitors see. There will be 184 memorial benches at the site, one for each of the 125 people killed in the building and the 59 who died on American Airlines Flight 77.

It was something of a milestone, then, for the small crowd that gathered in yellow hard hats and plastic goggles on the shop floor of MetalTek one recent morning to watch the sisters’ benches forged side by side. Engineers and metallurgists stood with victims’ family members as workers in protective suits and welder’s masks streamed molten steel into special, sand-lined casts, from which sparks and jagged flames erupted.

No comments necessary. See the Post story for video, as well.

Penalties for Massachusetts residents who can afford health insurance but do not purchase it in 2008 could quadruple compared with the maximum penalty in 2007, according to draft regulations released by the Department of Revenue yesterday.

The maximum penalty for those who flout the law and do not buy health insurance would be $912 a year, compared to $219 in 2007.

The higher penalty is intended to get those who are on the fence to buy health insurance. For those wavering, it could make more sense to pay for insurance than to pay the penalty.

Now, the article does make the point that it is mandatory to get car insurance if you have a car, so why not health insurance? It does make sense, right? But, liberals constantly push the meme of “choice.” It is our bodies, so government should not interfere with our rights. Of course, what they mean is that everyone should be able to get an abortion up to the 40th tri-mester.

Should government be allowed to mandate health insurance? The Mass. law only applies to those who can afford it and do not get it. If liberals want to discuss loss of personal freedom, they should look at what they push.

And guess who signed this bill passed by Democrats in Mass. in to law?

Do you have an interesting post? Well, go ahead and leave a trackback, with a reciprocal link back to me. And vote for Fred!