Daily Archives: January 24, 2013

From: Jim Pasero [mailto:jim@thirdcenturysolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:18 PM
To: ‘dlister@idatacon.com‘; ‘Dan Yates’; ‘Mark O’Donnell’; ‘Dom Biggi’
Subject: Dave Madore First Month in Office

Clark County cuts off economic development group over Columbia River Crossing support

Elliot Njus, The Oregonian By Elliot Njus, The Oregonian 
on January 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM, updated January 22, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Email

interstate_5_bridge.JPGClark County’s governing body has cut off its annual contribution to the county’s economic development nonprofit because of the group’s advocacy for the Columbia River Crossing project, which would replace the Interstate 5 bridge. Jamie Francis/The Oregonian  

Clark County’s governing board is cutting off funding to the county’s leading economic development nonprofit because of the group’s advocacy for the Columbia River Crossing project.

Commissioners David Madore and Tom Mielke, both Republicans, voted earlier this month to cut off the $100,000 the county sends to the Columbia River Economic Development Council each year to recruit businesses to the region.
The previous board pledged two years of funding in December. But Madore — the newest commissioner whose political career was born out of his NoTolls anti-CRC political action committee — raised the issue again last week and joined returning commissioner Mielke in blocking future payments.

The development council “does a lot of good, but this one is a showstopper,” Madore said Tuesday of the nonprofit’s backing for a new I-5 bridge across the Columbia.

Madore said the project in its current form would cost hundreds of jobs from companies that might be affected by a new, non-lifting bridge’s lower clearance.
The development council said in a statement its various public and private contributors believe the bridge-and-highway project, estimated to cost nearly $3.5 billion, is vital to the region’s ability to attract businesses. It added it hadn’t taken a stance on the light rail component, though extending TriMet’s MAX line across the Columbia river is seen by other boosters as key to securing $850 million in federal transportation funds.
“This is a very disappointing action on the part of the commissioners,” the council’s board chairman Bill Dudley said in the statement. “CREDC is one of the few venues available for the private sector to partner with the public sector regarding a broad variety of important economic development issues. To withdraw support from the enterprise based on a single issue is unfortunate.”
He said the group’s board would consider the matter at its next meeting.
Madore said he wouldn’t support reinstating the county’s funding unless development council comes out in opposition of the bridge project.
Madore also said he wasn’t concerned about a legal challenge from the council — it would be “very bad PR,” he said — or collateral damage to the councils economic development efforts.
“People will say, oh, you’re against jobs,” he said. “When we are charged with stewarding taxpayer funds, we must not violate our own conscience.”
Madore said the county is the development council’s largest contributor. In 2011, the council took in just over $1 million, according to tax documents
 
Third Century Solutions
 

Rees Lloyd: “IT MATTERS"

 Hillary Clinton’s  “What does it matter!” challenge dismissing  the deliberate deception of the American people by the Obama administration in the Benghazi scandal as irrelevant, should not be minimized. It should be regarded as historic, revelatory, and meaningful as Marie Antoinette’s alleged statement, “Let them eat cake!” when advised the French people had no bread.
            The difference is that Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” alleged 

response has been cited as revealing the despicable arrogance and contempt for the people of the elitist French monarchical ruling class; whereas Hillary Clinton’s “What does it matter!” response reveals the despicable arrogance and contempt for the people of the elitist American Progressive Liberal ruling class.
            The other difference is, of course, that Marie Antoinette never said “Let them eat cake,” as scholars now agree.
            In contrast,  Hillary Clinton most definitely did utter the revelatory assertion “What does it matter!” She did it as the American Secretary of State in sworn testimony  on January 23, 2013, in hearings before the Senate and House committees investigating the Benghazi scandal and the multiple lies about it emanating from  the Obama administration from the top down. She did it on full view of the American people, knowing her testimony would be broadcast and written about throughout the nation
            Perhaps what is most remarkable, is that Hillary Clinton, did it believing she could utter “What does it matter” about the national government lies with impunity, without repudiation by a transformed American people who would not stand and insist that Americans will not be lied to by their government.
            Hillary Clinton did it  without a scintilla of remorse for the now undeniable fact that the American people were lied to, utterly deceived, by the Obama regime, including Clinton. Rather than any apology for the deception, the lies, without any sign of the slightest remorse, Hillary Clinton with haughty elitist arrogance and contempt for the American people,  responded “What does it matter!.”
            Four Americans were killed at Benghazi. There are a welter of unanswered  questions of how and why they were allowed to be killed by Muslims. It  cannot  now be reasonably disputed that the President of the United States, Office of President, the State Department, the Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Obama regime generally, deliberately deceived the public, lied that four Americans were murdered  not as a result of an organized terrorist attack by Muslims associated with al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9-11, but because of the appearance of a video on the internet of a “trailer” to what appears to be a non-existent “film” which insulted Muhammad and thus offended the religious sensibilities of ever-so-devout murderous Muslims.
            When asked by elected members of the Senate and House to explain how this happened, Hillary Clinton, who in 2008 was favored to be the Democrat candidate for president until upset by Barack Obama, and who occupies one of the highest positions of public trust in our constitutional republic, Secretary of State, an office once held by Thomas Jefferson, refused to answer and instead challenged: “What does it matter!!”
            She, of course, prefaced her insulting, contemptuous and contemptible “What does it matter!” assertion by invoking the by now patently specious Liberal Progressive Politician ploy of rhetorically accepting “responsibility” for the governmental failures in Benghazi while in reality accepting none of the “blame,” as did Barack Hussein Obama before her.  
            “I accept full responsibility, Obama said, and Hillary said, then both accepted no blame, shifting it to others by claiming they hadn’t made relevant decisions, shifting the blame by implication to others in the vast bureaucracy.
             “I wasn’t aware of it ” Hillary testified, when asked to explain how it is that the murdered ambassador in Libya had warned of danger and requested extra security but the State Department denied the request. As to the lies that followed, including without limitation when Hillary joined with Obama to make a video broadcast to the Muslim world blaming, and apologizing for, the “offensive” video trailer insulting Muhammad as causing protests by offended Muslims which resulted in the murder of the ambassador and three other Americans, Hillary responded: “What does it matter!”
            It matters.  It matters whenever those occupying positions of public trust deliberately lie to the American people they are supposed to serve, not rule.             Americans have become used to being lied to by politicians, i.e., persons so  narcissistic that that they  actually believe they have a calling to govern the lives of others – always self-righteously  described  by them as a call to “public service,” to “give back” to the country that has given them so much. They “give back”  by ruling it.
            Indeed, William Jefferson Clinton would go before the American people and knowingly lie: “I did not have sex with that woman—Monica Lewinsky. “ Hillary Clinton would go on national television to denounce the accusations against her husband, the President,  as lies of a “vast rightwing conspiracy.” Later, of course,  he was found guilty of perjury by a federal court, had to pay some $800,000 in damages to Paula Jones because of his lies, was debarred as an attorney, and became the second president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, and the first to be impeached based on provable grounds of misconduct based on moral turpitude.
            While, then, Americans are aware that “public servant” politicians in general, and the Clintons in particular, will and do lie, what Americans are not used to is politicians so brazen and so contemptuous of “the public,” that is, “We, the People,”, that they would lie and then arrogantly and defiantly  challenge, when caught in a massive deception  over a matter as serious as the murder of Americans by Muslim terrorists – “What does it matter!”
            Thus, I suggest that Hillary Clinton’s utterly arrogant, contemptuous, elitist utterance “What does it matter” should not be minimized and is a matter of significance: It represents a turning point in how the Progressive Liberal government views the American people, and how the American people view their government.
            I suggest this is true  not just because what it reveals about  Clinton or Obama individually or as exemplars of Liberal Progressivism. But because of what it will reveal about the degree to which the American people have been “transformed” by Liberal Progressivism. That is, the significance ultimately is what will be revealed  about the contemporary content of the American character if the American people do not take a stand, demand truth from their government, rebuke and repudiate Clinton, Obama, or anyone in government who would deliberately lie to and deceive the American people  and then, when called upon to answer for their lies, refuse to do so and respond with arrogant, elitist, contempt for the governed: “What does it matter!”
             
(Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blog force).               
           
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Scott St. Clair: Women in Combat – Not Your Daddy’s DoD Anymore

A full-action G.I. Jane is one giant step closer to reality, and this right-winger is down with it. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is proposing to lift the 1994 banon women in the military serving in combat positions, and the White House supports it. As my soldier-son would say, “It’s not your daddy’s defense department anymore.” Roger that.


Why, you ask through clenched teeth while shaking your fist at me for selling out and siding with Obama?


Fair enough. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1776 when he poked a stick in the eye of the British lion, “A decent respect to the opinions of mankind” compels me to offer two reasons, one practical and cultural and the other quite political.


The inevitability of women in combat was fixed the day they got the right to vote. Once given political power, it was a matter of time before they insisted upon the whole nine yards economically, educationally, socially and now militarily. If you want to keep women out of combat, repeal the 19th Amendment. But consult your mother, your wife or your daughter first —then duck.


Since the Panetta announcement, social media has gone ballistic on how the proposed policy change means the destruction of America’s military and the end of Western Civilization.

My personal military expert is my oldest son, an army senior non-commissioned officer with 12-years of service and four deployments, most recently to Afghanistan. Commenting on a Facebook thread of mine, he endorsed women in combat:


“Well DADT (Don’t ask, don’t tell) went the way of the Dodo without a hitch, and ‘standards’ change all the time. This will be a hard sell to many, particularly those in line units who have only known or worked with men their entire careers. The problem is not that there are no women who can hold their own versus whomever, the problem is that they’ll make it, be promoted into leadership positions, and take huge amounts of biased s*** from idiots who can’t get with the program. The Department of Defense knows what it’s doing, and like Oldsmobile’s, this is not your father’s DoD. It’s fast-paced, quick-reaction all the time. Yes, it will be hard on women’s bodies. Yes, field sanitation and billeting are concerns, but I know male soldiers out there that are 122 pounds and 5’3″, and the difference is not all that much. Also, any woman brave and tough enough to do this has more moxie than the vast majority of men she’ll train and serve with. This is a good decision for the military as a whole. It shows progressive thinking in the one area of government that could use a whole lot of it.”


I’m inclined to give a serving soldier with first-hand experience far more credence on this issue than I would someone who says we shouldn’t do it because we’ve never done it before and it might unduly arouse male soldiers, which is the gist of a lot of the argument against it.


But “experts” bombard us with statistics, data and upper-echelon assertions that it will be a failure resulting in more casualties and despair – many of the same arguments that were used to keep women out of American military academies.


But experts were once convinced that the earth was flat now warming then cooling or both at once. And when it comes to military experts, who gave us the Maginot Line and court-martialed Col. Billy Mitchell, they’re eager to prepare for the last war rather than the next. Arguments about how tough it will be for women because they might be killed, tortured, wounded or captured don’t take into account how tough it is for men who are likewise threatened. War is hell irrespective of gender. 

The young black woman we see on TV advertisements for the Wounded Warrior Project who lost a leg while serving might quibble with hers being considered a “non-combat assignment.”


Soldiers and Marines no longer go to war – war comes to them. Given what we see daily of modern warfare, there are no real “front lines.” If you’re an American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine anywhere in the world, wherever you are is a potential combat zone. Fort Hood, TX, where three military women were killed and three wounded, was no less a battlefield than any forward outpost in Afghanistan.


Finally and perhaps most compelling is that in our current all-volunteer military, nobody goes into combat unless they made the first move by enlisting. If our military was still a conscript force maybe the argument for women in combat might not hold, but that’s not the case. Instead and for whatever reason, the women who serve our country in uniform do so because they choose to serve. Pro-choice in action.


It goes without saying that there shouldn’t be lower, softer standards for women combat soldiers than for men. They should be able to do whatever it is their male counterparts can do, with the recognition that not all men are equal either. So far, nobody has proposed ladies’ tee-equivalenttraining standards.

And mandatory Selective Service registration ought to go hand-in-hand with combat assignments. Currently, all men between the ages of 18 and 25 must register for what used to be called “the draft.” If women are going to be in for a combat-penny, then they should be in for a draft-registration-pound. Full equality isn’t without its downside. Young ladies should register before getting a pedicure and wax.


 It’s also stupid politically to stand in the way of women in combat.


Want to know why Republicans can’t get traction with a lot of voters, particularly women? Making a stink over issues like women in combat will anger more women than get them to listen to how low taxes, economic liberty, constitutional freedom and limited government create growth and opportunity for all Americans.


President Obama received 55 percent of the female vote in 2012, about the same as his 56 percent in 2008. Among unmarried women, those who would be most inclined to join the military, he received 67 percent of their vote in 2012and 70 percent in 2008.


If Republicans are going to win anything on the national stage ever again, they will have to cut into those substantial Democratic majorities. They won’t do it by continuing to have a tin ear on not just women’s issues, but women’s intelligence, character, courage and ability to serve their country.


Like Sen. Marco Rubio’s respectful effortsto reach out to Latino voters by developing a common-sense immigration-reform proposal, gracefully accepting what is the growing reality of women in combat makes good political sense.


It’s no longer the 1950s, and trying to pretend that nothing has changed from June Cleaver-then until Lady Gaga-now gets the right nowhere. Some fights are best left un-fought – upon some hills it’s a bad idea to die. Women-in-combat is one of those fights and just that hill. 


A year ago on these pages, I commented on a gay marriage bill in the Washington State Legislature saying that social conservatives had nobody to blame but themselves for its passage. They hadn’t been out in the hustings doing the political things necessary to prevail. That ship sailed because they never bothered to go to the dock in numbers or energy sufficient to urge it not to.

I was criticized by some who said no state had ever supported gay marriage at the ballot box.

In 2012, Washington state voters authorized gay marriage by a comfortable 53.7 percent of the vote. While I missed other election predictions, I got that one because I could see that the attitude of the voting public on the issue had changed. Rightly or wrongly, they were in an accepting mood.

My sense is that it’s in the same place on women in combat. Looking at how women voted during the last two election cycles cements that.


The social construct has changed. Women are heads of households, run major corporations, become rich in their own right and get elected to office. One of the toughest leaders on the world stage in my lifetime was Margaret Thatcher. I’d be glad to have her in my platoon any day.

Seventy-nine percent of Americans expect a woman president in the next 25 years. Unless conservatives get a lot smarter about addressing issues such as women in combat, it will be considerably sooner than 25 years and probably someone who has lived in the White House already, but who has political persuasions not of our liking.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Mohamud Trial Day 8: There’s a "Portland Mosque That’s Legit!"

The Sword, How Islamism is Spread or
Metaphor  for Right and Wrong?

When the FBI was putting out feelers for the young man who had already reached out to Al Qaeda and written for a Jihad magazine, they wanted to find out how serious he was about being an operational terrorist. They spent months writing emails back and forth with Mohamed Mohamud in two separate and consecutive FBI probes. 

Mohamud was arrested on November 26, 2010 for attempting to detonate–twice–a weapon of mass destruction that, if it had been real, would have wiped out two blocks of downtown Portland, Oregon murdering thousands of onlookers who had gathered for the lighting of “The Tree” at Pioneer Courthouse Square. 


The man who helped oversee the first probe did so as a member of the Portland Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). FBI Special Agent Jason Dodd testified in Mohamud’s trial Wednesday that he worked alongside a paid informant and helped write a series of emails to Mohamud in 2009.

Under the email name “TruthBeSpoken@gmail.com” they posed as a recent convert to Islam living in Idaho. Using the name “Bill Smith,” the FBI wanted to find out how to help “the brothers,” and if Mohamud knew anybody he could talk to. 

Mohamud helpfully suggested to watch out for spies, told him to avoid Saudi Salafists (though he himself was a believer in that extreme form of Islam) and said Arab brothers were “sketchy.” He eventually encouraged the FBI informant to move to Seattle and hang with the Somali ‘brothers.’ 

When the informant asked Mohamud how “these guys get their things” –referring to weapons– Mo Mo told him they shouldn’t discuss such things via email and encouraged him to find ‘brothers who share your views.’

At this point in the trial yesterday the defense introduced another email in which Mohamud suggested that his mosque in Portland was such a place. “It’s cool. Saber or something. Yeah, Saber. It’s legit.”

The mosque to which Mo Mo was referring is the same one, Masjed As-Saber which produced the Portland 7 terrorists. The same one endorsed by one of the Portland 7 because the Imam taught violent jihad there. The same one in which Mo Mo was let out to pray in when he lived nearby in school as a youngster and where he wanted to meet FBI agents in their first face to face meeting as a prospective mujahid. (They met in a downtown hotel instead. )

Five of the members of the mosque, including the Somali born Imam, are on the DHS No Fly list. 

One mosque, 8 convicted or accused terrorists, in nine years. Now THERE’S  a track record. 





Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

From: Jim Pasero [mailto:jim@thirdcenturysolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:18 PM
To: ‘dlister@idatacon.com‘; ‘Dan Yates’; ‘Mark O’Donnell’; ‘Dom Biggi’
Subject: Dave Madore First Month in Office

Clark County cuts off economic development group over Columbia River Crossing support

Elliot Njus, The Oregonian By Elliot Njus, The Oregonian 
on January 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM, updated January 22, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Email

interstate_5_bridge.JPGClark County’s governing body has cut off its annual contribution to the county’s economic development nonprofit because of the group’s advocacy for the Columbia River Crossing project, which would replace the Interstate 5 bridge. Jamie Francis/The Oregonian  

Clark County’s governing board is cutting off funding to the county’s leading economic development nonprofit because of the group’s advocacy for the Columbia River Crossing project.

Commissioners David Madore and Tom Mielke, both Republicans, voted earlier this month to cut off the $100,000 the county sends to the Columbia River Economic Development Council each year to recruit businesses to the region.
The previous board pledged two years of funding in December. But Madore — the newest commissioner whose political career was born out of his NoTolls anti-CRC political action committee — raised the issue again last week and joined returning commissioner Mielke in blocking future payments.

The development council “does a lot of good, but this one is a showstopper,” Madore said Tuesday of the nonprofit’s backing for a new I-5 bridge across the Columbia.

Madore said the project in its current form would cost hundreds of jobs from companies that might be affected by a new, non-lifting bridge’s lower clearance.
The development council said in a statement its various public and private contributors believe the bridge-and-highway project, estimated to cost nearly $3.5 billion, is vital to the region’s ability to attract businesses. It added it hadn’t taken a stance on the light rail component, though extending TriMet’s MAX line across the Columbia river is seen by other boosters as key to securing $850 million in federal transportation funds.
“This is a very disappointing action on the part of the commissioners,” the council’s board chairman Bill Dudley said in the statement. “CREDC is one of the few venues available for the private sector to partner with the public sector regarding a broad variety of important economic development issues. To withdraw support from the enterprise based on a single issue is unfortunate.”
He said the group’s board would consider the matter at its next meeting.
Madore said he wouldn’t support reinstating the county’s funding unless development council comes out in opposition of the bridge project.
Madore also said he wasn’t concerned about a legal challenge from the council — it would be “very bad PR,” he said — or collateral damage to the councils economic development efforts.
“People will say, oh, you’re against jobs,” he said. “When we are charged with stewarding taxpayer funds, we must not violate our own conscience.”
Madore said the county is the development council’s largest contributor. In 2011, the council took in just over $1 million, according to tax documents
 
Third Century Solutions
 

Rees Lloyd: “IT MATTERS"

 Hillary Clinton’s  “What does it matter!” challenge dismissing  the deliberate deception of the American people by the Obama administration in the Benghazi scandal as irrelevant, should not be minimized. It should be regarded as historic, revelatory, and meaningful as Marie Antoinette’s alleged statement, “Let them eat cake!” when advised the French people had no bread.
            The difference is that Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” alleged 

response has been cited as revealing the despicable arrogance and contempt for the people of the elitist French monarchical ruling class; whereas Hillary Clinton’s “What does it matter!” response reveals the despicable arrogance and contempt for the people of the elitist American Progressive Liberal ruling class.
            The other difference is, of course, that Marie Antoinette never said “Let them eat cake,” as scholars now agree.
            In contrast,  Hillary Clinton most definitely did utter the revelatory assertion “What does it matter!” She did it as the American Secretary of State in sworn testimony  on January 23, 2013, in hearings before the Senate and House committees investigating the Benghazi scandal and the multiple lies about it emanating from  the Obama administration from the top down. She did it on full view of the American people, knowing her testimony would be broadcast and written about throughout the nation
            Perhaps what is most remarkable, is that Hillary Clinton, did it believing she could utter “What does it matter” about the national government lies with impunity, without repudiation by a transformed American people who would not stand and insist that Americans will not be lied to by their government.
            Hillary Clinton did it  without a scintilla of remorse for the now undeniable fact that the American people were lied to, utterly deceived, by the Obama regime, including Clinton. Rather than any apology for the deception, the lies, without any sign of the slightest remorse, Hillary Clinton with haughty elitist arrogance and contempt for the American people,  responded “What does it matter!.”
            Four Americans were killed at Benghazi. There are a welter of unanswered  questions of how and why they were allowed to be killed by Muslims. It  cannot  now be reasonably disputed that the President of the United States, Office of President, the State Department, the Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Obama regime generally, deliberately deceived the public, lied that four Americans were murdered  not as a result of an organized terrorist attack by Muslims associated with al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9-11, but because of the appearance of a video on the internet of a “trailer” to what appears to be a non-existent “film” which insulted Muhammad and thus offended the religious sensibilities of ever-so-devout murderous Muslims.
            When asked by elected members of the Senate and House to explain how this happened, Hillary Clinton, who in 2008 was favored to be the Democrat candidate for president until upset by Barack Obama, and who occupies one of the highest positions of public trust in our constitutional republic, Secretary of State, an office once held by Thomas Jefferson, refused to answer and instead challenged: “What does it matter!!”
            She, of course, prefaced her insulting, contemptuous and contemptible “What does it matter!” assertion by invoking the by now patently specious Liberal Progressive Politician ploy of rhetorically accepting “responsibility” for the governmental failures in Benghazi while in reality accepting none of the “blame,” as did Barack Hussein Obama before her.  
            “I accept full responsibility, Obama said, and Hillary said, then both accepted no blame, shifting it to others by claiming they hadn’t made relevant decisions, shifting the blame by implication to others in the vast bureaucracy.
             “I wasn’t aware of it ” Hillary testified, when asked to explain how it is that the murdered ambassador in Libya had warned of danger and requested extra security but the State Department denied the request. As to the lies that followed, including without limitation when Hillary joined with Obama to make a video broadcast to the Muslim world blaming, and apologizing for, the “offensive” video trailer insulting Muhammad as causing protests by offended Muslims which resulted in the murder of the ambassador and three other Americans, Hillary responded: “What does it matter!”
            It matters.  It matters whenever those occupying positions of public trust deliberately lie to the American people they are supposed to serve, not rule.             Americans have become used to being lied to by politicians, i.e., persons so  narcissistic that that they  actually believe they have a calling to govern the lives of others – always self-righteously  described  by them as a call to “public service,” to “give back” to the country that has given them so much. They “give back”  by ruling it.
            Indeed, William Jefferson Clinton would go before the American people and knowingly lie: “I did not have sex with that woman—Monica Lewinsky. “ Hillary Clinton would go on national television to denounce the accusations against her husband, the President,  as lies of a “vast rightwing conspiracy.” Later, of course,  he was found guilty of perjury by a federal court, had to pay some $800,000 in damages to Paula Jones because of his lies, was debarred as an attorney, and became the second president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, and the first to be impeached based on provable grounds of misconduct based on moral turpitude.
            While, then, Americans are aware that “public servant” politicians in general, and the Clintons in particular, will and do lie, what Americans are not used to is politicians so brazen and so contemptuous of “the public,” that is, “We, the People,”, that they would lie and then arrogantly and defiantly  challenge, when caught in a massive deception  over a matter as serious as the murder of Americans by Muslim terrorists – “What does it matter!”
            Thus, I suggest that Hillary Clinton’s utterly arrogant, contemptuous, elitist utterance “What does it matter” should not be minimized and is a matter of significance: It represents a turning point in how the Progressive Liberal government views the American people, and how the American people view their government.
            I suggest this is true  not just because what it reveals about  Clinton or Obama individually or as exemplars of Liberal Progressivism. But because of what it will reveal about the degree to which the American people have been “transformed” by Liberal Progressivism. That is, the significance ultimately is what will be revealed  about the contemporary content of the American character if the American people do not take a stand, demand truth from their government, rebuke and repudiate Clinton, Obama, or anyone in government who would deliberately lie to and deceive the American people  and then, when called upon to answer for their lies, refuse to do so and respond with arrogant, elitist, contempt for the governed: “What does it matter!”
             
(Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blog force).               
           
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Mohamud Trial Day 8: There’s a "Portland Mosque That’s Legit!"

The Sword, How Islamism is Spread or
Metaphor  for Right and Wrong?

When the FBI was putting out feelers for the young man who had already reached out to Al Qaeda and written for a Jihad magazine, they wanted to find out how serious he was about being an operational terrorist. They spent months writing emails back and forth with Mohamed Mohamud in two separate and consecutive FBI probes. 

Mohamud was arrested on November 26, 2010 for attempting to detonate–twice–a weapon of mass destruction that, if it had been real, would have wiped out two blocks of downtown Portland, Oregon murdering thousands of onlookers who had gathered for the lighting of “The Tree” at Pioneer Courthouse Square. 


The man who helped oversee the first probe did so as a member of the Portland Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). FBI Special Agent Jason Dodd testified in Mohamud’s trial Wednesday that he worked alongside a paid informant and helped write a series of emails to Mohamud in 2009.

Under the email name “TruthBeSpoken@gmail.com” they posed as a recent convert to Islam living in Idaho. Using the name “Bill Smith,” the FBI wanted to find out how to help “the brothers,” and if Mohamud knew anybody he could talk to. 

Mohamud helpfully suggested to watch out for spies, told him to avoid Saudi Salafists (though he himself was a believer in that extreme form of Islam) and said Arab brothers were “sketchy.” He eventually encouraged the FBI informant to move to Seattle and hang with the Somali ‘brothers.’ 

When the informant asked Mohamud how “these guys get their things” –referring to weapons– Mo Mo told him they shouldn’t discuss such things via email and encouraged him to find ‘brothers who share your views.’

At this point in the trial yesterday the defense introduced another email in which Mohamud suggested that his mosque in Portland was such a place. “It’s cool. Saber or something. Yeah, Saber. It’s legit.”

The mosque to which Mo Mo was referring is the same one, Masjed As-Saber which produced the Portland 7 terrorists. The same one endorsed by one of the Portland 7 because the Imam taught violent jihad there. The same one in which Mo Mo was let out to pray in when he lived nearby in school as a youngster and where he wanted to meet FBI agents in their first face to face meeting as a prospective mujahid. (They met in a downtown hotel instead. )

Five of the members of the mosque, including the Somali born Imam, are on the DHS No Fly list. 

One mosque, 8 convicted or accused terrorists, in nine years. Now THERE’S  a track record. 





Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Mohamud Trial Side Bar: Oregon Muslim Activist Kicked Out of Courthouse

She has run for Congress,  been a Muslim activist and kicked out a citizen journalist from an “open” meeting of Muslims at a public university (Portland State). 

And now Saba Ahmed knows what it feels like to get booted out of a public forum. 

Ahmed has not only been tossed from the trial of accused terrorist Mohamed Mohamud for harassing family members and breaking cell phone rules, she’s been tossed from the overflow court room as well. And when she broke the rules there, according to a court document, she was tossed from the entire Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse. 

According to the document (see nearby),

“[Ahmed] violated court orders regarding the use of cell phones in the courtroom, she had failed to follow directions from the US Marshal, she has attempted to have inappropriate contact with the defendant’s family, and has interfered with the family’s ability to attend this trial without harassment.  I…find that excllusind Ms. Ahmed from entering the …Courthouse is the only appropriate option.”


Saba Ahmed Leaves Courthouse in 2010

She’s been booted out till further notice. A hearing is set for a couple months from now, well after the trial is done. 

When Mohamud was arrested Ahmed was described as being a friend of the family.  Apparently she’s worn out her welcome.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Ripped Paper in Shape of Gun Gets Kid in Trouble at School

A ripped paper “gun” gets a kid in trouble at school. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. When you train kids that any “guns” are evil, you’re bound to get the pint sized school Stasi turning in their friends.  And simpleton Principals with zero tolerance rules don’t know what to do.

According to Philadelphia mother Dianna Kelly, who spoke with FOX 29 about the incident, her daughter, Melody Valentin, was given a sheet of paper by her

grandfather that was torn and folded to look like a pistol. When another student saw the fake gun, which Melody had thrown in the trash can, he alerted the teacher.

The teacher then went over the top when reprimanding Melody, Kelly told Fox 29, saying that he “should call the cops on her” and that she could “be arrested.”

Here’s the rest of the story.  

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com