Thursday, July 18, 2013

Before Benghazi, There Was Extortion 17


By Pamela Geller
http://www.americanthinker.com
July 18, 2013



Karen and Billy Vaughn are the parents of a fallen Navy Seal, Aaron Carson Vaughn (pictured at right). I met with the Vaughns when I spoke to a sold-out Tea Party event in Fort Lauderdale in June. The Vaughns are extraordinary heroes. Their courage to speak about Obama's crippling rules of engagement is to be applauded.

The Vaughns have exposed the delusional U.S. military "rules of engagement" policy that led to the takedown of a Chinook helicopter, Extortion 17, by the Taliban. All 38 people on board the Chinook -- 15 SEAL Team Six members (including Aaron Vaughn) and seven Afghan National Army commandos -- were killed. The attack on Extortion 17 came just three months after the Osama bin Laden kill, and both Obama and Biden had identified the team that took OBL out. Retribution was inevitable.

The Vaughns were also one of the families that released the video that revealed the incredible fact that military brass invited a Muslim cleric to their children's funeral in 2011 -- an imam who "damned to hell" our fallen soldiers, in line with Islamic doctrine for infidels. Video here.

Now Billy Vaughn and U.S. Army Major General (ret.) Paul Vallely have teamed up to write a shocking new book: Betrayed: Exposing the High Cost of the War on Terror (coming in August from Hugo House Publishers). It tells the story of how on August 6, 2011, Taliban jihadists ambushed Extortion 17 as it was transporting American forces to an area where Army Rangers were engaged in a firefight.

Betrayed is an accurate account of events, but it is not some dry recounting from a military operation logbook; instead, it's as engrossing as any novel. The first part centers on Billy Vaughn as he tries to find out -- against immense obstacles -- what really caused the tragic death of his son. Obama's bureaucrats put up heavy resistance, but Billy Vaughn was determined. Then in the second part of the book, Major General Vallely analyzes the mission of Extortion 17, using his decades of military experience to point out the many errors and mistakes of this mission -- all due to Obama's impossible Rules of Engagement for American troops in Afghanistan.

That's not all. Vaughan and Vallely show that this was more than just a matter of mission failure. As they search for the facts and demand answers from recalcitrant government time-servers, they discover that the poor planning and execution of Extortion 17's mission can be traced directly to the failed political and military strategy that the Obama Administration and senior military leaders continue to pursue in Afghanistan.

The fault lies with the Counter-Insurgency (COIN) doctrine, which both Bush and Obama have clung to despite massive evidence of its failure. The U.S. government is more concerned with appeasing Muslims both in America and in Muslim countries than in defending Americans against the global jihad. Obama even refuses to name the enemy. Meanwhile, his disastrous Rules of Engagement place our troops -- like Aaron Vaughn -- in unnecessary danger, and have cost countless American lives. When Extortion 17 was fired on, it wasn't allowed to fire back -- because of the Rules of Engagement.
Our troops in Afghanistan are so restricted in ways that they're not even allowed to fire on the enemy without permission -- which means that the Taliban and al Qaeda can shoot at our soldiers at will and then disappear while our forces are trying to get permission to return fire. And that isn't even the worst of all. The COIN doctrine forbids us to try to vet Afghans who want to work with the military.

The result has been massive infiltration and an ever-growing number of green-on-blue attacks by our supposed "allies" against the American troops who are risking their lives to train them. And the green-on-blue attacks are only one aspect of the infiltration. The Taliban always seem to know what operations our troops are going to undertake.

Obama knows all this, and yet he lets it continue, day after day, week after week, month after month. Really, which side is he on? And just as in the case of the Benghazi jihad massacre, the Obama Administration is covering up the facts of the Extortion 17 affair -- just as he continues his massive campaign of deceit about the jihad threat in general. The evidence keeps piling up of how dangerous his policy is, with the latest being the FBI's failure to investigate mosques that the Boston jihad bombers attended, despite plenty of evidence that they had Islamic supremacist ties.

Our government is deliberately standing down the U.S. military to appease Islamic jihadists. The evidence lies in the death of Aaron Vaughn and his cohorts aboard Extortion 17. And it's all laid out, in stunning and unforgettable detail, in Betrayed. Get this book and use its facts to fight against these monumental injustices. The tragic and unnecessary death of Aaron Vaughn should be a wake-up call for all our politicians, left, right and center. Use Betrayed to make it one.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/07/before_benghazi_there_was_extortion_17.html at July 18, 2013 - 05:22:47 AM CDT

Interview: Erick Stakelbeck



What next for the troubled country? 

July 18, 2013


With Mohamed Morsi out and Egypt’s future unclear, Erick Stakelbeck, author of the new book The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy, talks to National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez about what the “Arab Spring” turned into and where Egypt may go from here, with a warning for the United States.

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Is there anything about what’s going on in Egypt right now that surprises you?

ERICK STAKELBECK: I’m a bit surprised that it took the Egyptian military a full year to finally step in and pull the plug on Morsi’s disastrous, aggressively Islamist tenure. Beginning in August 2012, when Morsi suddenly and boldly sacked Egypt’s longtime defense minister and other top generals, and continuing through that November, when Morsi seized dictatorial powers and then rammed through a nakedly sharia-driven constitution, it was obvious that he and the Brotherhood (aided by a freshly minted, Islamist-dominated parliament) were going “all in” on their dream to transform Egypt into a draconian Islamic state. In the process, they dropped their longtime strategy of stealthy gradualism and made their nefarious intentions for Egypt abundantly clear to the world.

All the while, the Egyptian military brass largely stayed silent, even as Morsi attempted to stack its ranks — and those of Egypt’s military academy — with Islamists. Why the military waited so long to turn back the MB tide is unclear. As NRO’s Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, top general Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, who was handpicked by Morsi, may himself have Islamist tendencies. But Morsi’s ham-handed, polarizing, and tactless methods of going about the Islamist project in Egypt had to be red flags for al-Sisi and other possible sympathizers in the military (as was the looming possibility of famine and starvation among segments of the Egyptian populace). The final tipping point for the military was clearly the demonstrations — the largest in human history — against Morsi and the Brothers during the first week of July.

And that brings us to the greatest surprise of all: that the Muslim Brotherhood, long the world’s most politically astute, patient, and disciplined Islamist movement, overplayed its hand so badly in Egypt and revealed its true intent so early. At the end of the day, instituting sharia was more important to Morsi and his fellow Brothers than feeding the Egyptian people or making even the slightest attempt at jumpstarting the Egyptian economy. That in itself is not surprising. This is who the Brothers are, after all: committed ideological fanatics. What is surprising is that they made it so obvious, so soon.

LOPEZ: What is going on in Egypt now? What do Egyptians want?

STAKELBECK: I’m not even sure if Egyptians know what is going on in Egypt. Think about it. In the past two and a half years alone, we have seen the most populous and influential Arab country — the recipient of billions in U.S. aid — rocked by two massive revolutions. Simply put, Egypt, circa July 2013, is a positively schizophrenic society and practically ungovernable. What do Egyptians want? In February 2011, as Mubarak was being overthrown, we were told by a giddy mainstream media and the Obama administration that Egyptians were sick of tyranny and hungry for democracy and freedom. Then, when given the chance, the Egyptian people turned around and elected an overwhelmingly Islamist parliament and a Muslim Brotherhood president and voted “yes” on a new constitution that sought to enshrine sharia law. Then, after just one year of an Islamist project that a majority of Egyptians voted for, three million people flooded Tahrir Square and precipitated a military coup against those same Islamists. What comes next is anyone’s guess. But I have a nasty hunch that it won’t be Jeffersonian democracy.

LOPEZ: Is the U.S. to blame for any of this?

STAKELBECK: In enthusiastically supporting the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration made one of the greatest blunders in American foreign-policy history. Mubarak was a tyrant in his own right and no saint, but he kept the peace treaty with Israel (albeit a cold peace), maintained stable relations with the U.S., and kept al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Brotherhood, and other revolutionary, anti-American Islamists in check. In Egypt, sad to say, that’s about as good as it gets. Even casual observers knew that once Mubarak was gone, the Brotherhood — the most organized, powerful, and ruthless political movement in Egypt — would be the prime beneficiaries.

The Obama administration knew this as well, and its officials were absolutely giddy about it. The Muslim Brotherhood was no longer the inherently anti-American, anti-Semitic organization that had collaborated with the Nazis and spawned al-Qaeda and Hamas. Suddenly, they were recast by the Obama White House as Islamist “moderates”: a devout but pragmatic bunch that could be used as a counterweight to the really bad guys from al-Qaeda. This was sheer madness from the beginning and remains so today. Yet the Obama administration doggedly continues to support and empower the Brotherhood both overseas and at home — a phenomenon I cover in detail in the book.

In Egypt, the U.S. government backed Morsi at every turn, even after he seized virtual dictator’s powers in November 2012, spewed anti-Semitic venom, tacitly approved Islamist attacks on Egyptian Christians, and saw millions of his own people turn against him. It’s safe to say that without the support — financial and otherwise — of the Obama administration, Morsi would not have lasted eight or even six months in office. The predictable outcome of the administration’s Bro-mance was on full display during the anti-Morsi rallies in Tahrir Square earlier this month, as countless signs and chants were directed against Obama and his ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, who unfortunately provided cover for Morsi in his final months.

LOPEZ: Are you perhaps being unrealistic about the Muslim Brotherhood’s power and reach?

STAKELBECK: No. Remember, while my new book is subtitled “America’s Next Great Enemy,” that label applies not solely to the Brotherhood in Egypt but to the global MB movement. That includes not only the ones in Egypt, but MB branches around the world (as I point out in the book, the group is present in some 80 countries), and also includes MB offshoots like al-Qaeda and Hamas and homegrown jihadists in the U.S and Europe who are brainwashed in Brotherhood-controlled mosques and weaned on the group’s violent ideology. Essentially, America’s next great enemy is the global Sunni Islamist movement (rivaled, and, at times, complemented, by Iran’s Shiite-jihadist axis), with the Muslim Brotherhood as its main fount and ideological bedrock.

And by the way, don’t count the Brotherhood out in Egypt. They’ve been down this road before there, with their leaders imprisoned and executed and the movement banned for decades by the Egyptian government. Yet by 2012, they were able to regroup to the point that Morsi won the Egyptian presidency just one year after being released from prison. Now that power has been wrenched away from them so suddenly and violently, the Brotherhood and its Salafist allies will not just go silently into the night. Things will get uglier in Egypt, and likely very soon.

LOPEZ: Would the world really be better off with Mubarak in power still?

STAKELBECK: Judging by how the last two and a half years have unfolded, I don’t think that there is any doubt. Egypt’s relationship with America would be stable, its peace treaty with Israel would be relatively solid, and the Brotherhood and other revolutionary Islamists and terrorists would be kept largely in check. Mubarak’s Egypt also provided a Sunni bulwark against Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Unless Egypt magically turns around over the next few months, even the most starry-eyed advocate for Middle East “democracy” may begin to pine for Mubarak’s return.

LOPEZ: Could your book be, in part, a Coptic plea to the world?

STAKELBECK: In many ways, yes. As the Obama administration was tripping over itself to embrace the Brotherhood in the wake of Mubarak’s ouster, Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority was frantically sounding the alarm to anyone who would listen about the threat posed by the MB. Sadly, their warnings were largely ignored. The Copts had been harassed and even killed by the Brotherhood and its acolytes for decades and knew the true, totalitarian face of the movement all too well. Things were already bad for the Copts under Mubarak and became practically intolerable under Morsi. Now the Copts are being scapegoated by Egypt’s Islamists for Morsi’s ouster and will be targeted even more fiercely in the weeks and months to come. In fact, the wholesale persecution of Christians across the Middle East by Islamists is one of the hallmarks of the so-called Arab Spring and no one is suffering more because of it than Egypt’s Copts.

LOPEZ: What does the Boston marathon have to do with anything going on in Egypt right now?

STAKELBECK: One of the first things I asked when it was revealed that the Tsarnaev brothers had indeed carried out the Boston bombings was this: Where did they go to mosque? We soon learned that the brothers attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, just a few blocks from their home. This has significance because both the Cambridge mosque and its sister mosque in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood are controlled by a group called the Muslim American Society (MAS). Federal prosecutors have identified MAS as “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” So you do see the connection. What did they learn there? I think that is a fair question, given that Muslim Brotherhood ideology has spawned terror and mayhem for close to a century. As I document in the book, Brotherhood-linked organizations control a disturbing number of American mosques, and official MB strategy documents (which our own government has in its possession, by the way) call mosques, or Islamic centers, the “axis” of the MB movement, where “battalions are supplied.” Most Americans are probably unaware that the number of mosques in the United States has nearly doubled since the year 2000 alone. That is astounding. And I don’t believe it is by coincidence.

LOPEZ: Could there ever be conditions for an actual Arab Spring?

STAKELBECK: If we’re talking about the sweeping emergence of vibrant Middle Eastern democracies that reject strongman-type rulers and ensure rights for everyone, then, no (unless you count Israel, of course, which is a model democracy and beacon of light in a dark and chaotic corner of the world). For one, the history of the region from the dawn of time screams otherwise. Second, despite the jettisoning of Morsi in Egypt, moderate, cultural Muslims are currently on the run and fervent Islamists are on the rise across the Middle East and North Africa. For a true Arab Spring to have even a remote chance of happening, Islamism and jihadism would need to be completely repudiated by Muslim peoples. That has never happened in the 1,400 years of Islam’s existence, even with the unspeakable atrocities committed by al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Brotherhood, the Iranian regime, and their ilk being splashed across TV sets throughout the Muslim world every day. At the end of the day, though, it all boils down to one undeniable fact: Judeo-Christian, Western civilization is one of a kind in its promotion of tolerance, freedom, and human rights.

LOPEZ: Do you ever worry you sound overly alarmist? Particularly about domestic threats?

STAKELBECK: Never. As I document in The Brotherhood, I have a very unique perspective that others might lack when discussing these threats. I have traveled the world to interview Muslim Brotherhood figures and wanted Islamic terrorists face-to-face, been in radical mosques, interviewed radical imams, and strolled through some of Europe’s more restless Islamist enclaves. My on-the-ground perspectives, combined with the hard facts and developments on the ground (including, for example, dozens upon dozens of Islamic terror-related arrests on U.S. soil since 2009 alone), have led me to the unpleasant conclusion that if we don’t wake up as a society, ditch political correctness, and acknowledge the existence of a formidable Islamist enemy that is devoted to our destruction, we’ll suffer through more domestic carnage like we saw in Boston and at Fort Hood, and make increasingly disastrous foreign-policy decisions vis-à-vis the Muslim world that will get more Americans needlessly killed: both “over there” and over here. And that doesn’t just mean violent jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic documents say the MB’s goal is to “destroy Western civilization from within.” Slow and steady.

— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Angela Corey’s Checkered Past


Her peers describe an M.O. of retaliation and overcharging. 

State Attorney Angela Corey in Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester's courtroom during George 

Zimmerman's bond hearing in April 2012. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel)


Angela Corey, by all accounts, is no Atticus Finch. She is “one hell of a trial lawyer,” says a Florida defense attorney who has known her for three decades — but the woman who has risen to national prominence as the “tough as nails” state attorney who prosecuted George Zimmerman is known for scorching the earth. And some of her prosecutorial conduct has been, well, troubling at best.

Corey, a Jacksonville native, took a degree in marketing from Florida State University before pursuing her J.D. at the University of Florida. She became a Florida prosecutor in 1981 and tried everything from homicides to juvenile cases in the ensuing 26 years. In 2008, Corey was elected state attorney for Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit, taking over from Harry Shorstein — the five-term state attorney who had fired her from his office a year earlier, citing “long-term issues” regarding her supervisory performance.

When Corey came in, she cleaned house. Corey fired half of the office’s investigators, two-fifths of its victim advocates, a quarter of its 35 paralegals, and 48 other support staff — more than one-fifth of the office. Then she sent a letter to Florida’s senators demanding that they oppose Shorstein’s pending nomination as a U.S. attorney. “I told them he should not hold a position of authority in his community again, because of his penchant for using the grand jury for personal vendettas,” she wrote.

Corey knows about personal vendettas. They seem to be her specialty. When Ron Littlepage, a journalist for the Florida Times-Union, wrote a column criticizing her handling of the Christian Fernandez case — in which Corey chose to prosecute a twelve-year-old boy for first-degree murder, who wound up locked in solitary confinement in an adult jail prior to his court date — she “fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state-attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.”

And that was moderate. When Corey was appointed to handle the Zimmerman case, Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, a former president of both the American Bar Association and Florida State University, criticized the decision: “I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.” Corey responded by making a public-records request of the university for all e-mails, text messages, and phone messages in which D’Alemberte had mentioned Fernandez. Like Littlepage, D’Alemberte had earlier criticized Corey’s handling of the Fernandez case.

Not many people are willing to cross Corey. A Florida attorney I spoke with declined to go on record because of “concerns about retaliation” — that attorney has pending cases that will require Corey’s cooperation. The attorney mentioned colleagues who have refused to speak to the media for the same reason. And to think: D’Alemberte crossed Corey twice. He should get a medal.

But what these instances point to is something much more alarming than Corey’s less-than-warm relations with her peers.

In June 2012, Alan Dershowitz, a well-known defense attorney who has been a professor at Harvard Law School for nearly half a century, criticized Corey for her affidavit in the Zimmerman case. Making use of a quirk of Florida law that gives prosecutors, for any case except first-degree murder, the option of filing an affidavit with the judge instead of going to a grand jury, Corey filed an affidavit that, according to Dershowitz, “willfully and deliberately omitted” crucial exculpatory evidence: namely, that Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman bloody at the time of the fatal gunshot. So Corey avoided a grand jury, where her case likely would not have held water, and then withheld evidence in her affidavit to the judge. “It was a perjurious affidavit,” Dershowitz tells me, and that comes with serious consequences: “Submitting a false affidavit is grounds for disbarment.”

Shortly after Dershowitz’s criticisms, Harvard Law School’s dean’s office received a phone call. When the dean refused to pick up, Angela Corey spent a half hour demanding of an office-of-communications employee that Dershowitz be fired. According to Dershowitz, Corey threatened to sue Harvard, to try to get him disbarred, and also to sue him for slander and libel. Corey also told the communications employee that she had assigned a state investigator — an employee of the State of Florida, that is — to investigate Dershowitz. “That’s an abuse of office right there,” Dershowitz says.

What happened in the weeks and months that followed was instructive. Dershowitz says that he was flooded with correspondence from people telling him that this is Corey’s well-known M.O. He says numerous sources — lawyers who had sparred with Corey in the courtroom, lawyers who had worked with and for her, and even multiple judges — informed him that Corey has a history of vigorously attacking any and all who criticize her. But it’s worse than that: Correspondents told him that Corey has a history of overcharging and withholding evidence.

The Zimmerman trial is a clear case of the former and a probable case of the latter. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder, also known as “depraved mind” murder. The case law for that charge, an attorney who has worked in criminal prosecution outside Florida tells me, is near-unanimous: It almost never applies to one-on-one encounters. Second-degree murder is the madman who fires indiscriminately into a crowd or unlocks the lions’ cage at the zoo. “Nothing in the facts of this case approaches that.” Which Angela Corey, a veteran prosecutor, should have known, and a grand jury would have told her. In fact, both the initial police investigation and the original state attorney in charge of the case had determined exactly that: There was no evidence of any crime, much less second-degree murder.

But that did not stop Corey from zealously overcharging and — the facts suggest — withholding evidence to ensure that that charge stuck.

Still, by the end of the case it was clear that the jury was unlikely to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder; hence the prosecution’s addition of a manslaughter charge — as well as its attempt to add a charge for third-degree murder by way of child abuse — after the trial had closed. “In 50 years of practice I’ve never seen anything like it,” says Dershowitz. It’s a permissible maneuver, but as a matter of professional ethics it’s a low blow.

Corey’s post-trial performance has been less than admirable as well. Asked in a prime-time interview with HLN how she would describe George Zimmerman, Corey responded, “Murderer.” Attorneys who spoke with me called her refusal to acknowledge the validity of the jury’s verdict everything from “disgusting” to “disgraceful.”

But will Corey ever be disciplined for prosecutorial abuses? It’s unlikely. State attorneys cannot be brought before the bar while they remain in office. Complaints can be filed against Corey, but they will be deferred until she is no longer state attorney. The governor can remove her from office, but otherwise her position — and her license — are safe.

Meanwhile, those who speak out against her continue to be mistreated. Ben Kruidbos (pronounced CRIED-boss), the IT director at Corey’s state-attorney office, was fired last week — one month after testifying during the Zimmerman trial that Corey had withheld from defense attorneys evidence obtained from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. Corey’s office contends that Kruidbos was fired for poor job performance and for leaking personnel records. The termination notice delivered to Kruidbos last Friday read: “You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, wilful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.” Less than two months before this letter, Kruidbos had received a raise for “meritorious performance.”

The records in question — Kruidbos maintains he had nothing to do with leaking them — revealed that Corey used $235,000 in taxpayer money to upgrade her pension and that of her co-prosecutor in the Zimmerman case, Bernie de la Rionda. The upgrade was legal, but Harry Shorstein, Corey’s predecessor, had said previously that using taxpayer funds to upgrade pensions was not “proper.”

Meanwhile, while Kruidbos has been forced out of the state attorney’s office, the managing director who wrote his termination letter — one Cheryl Peek — remains. In 1990 Peek was fired from the same state attorney’s office by Harry Shorstein’s predecessor, Ed Austin, for jury manipulation. Now, as managing director for that office, she trains lawyers in professional ethics.

Since her election, Corey seems to be determinedly purging from the ranks any who cross her and surrounding herself with inferiors whose ethical scruples appear to mirror her own. Meanwhile, those she chooses to victimize — most recently, George Zimmerman — far too often have little recourse.

“Make crime pay,” Will Rogers once quipped: “Become a lawyer.” Angela Corey seems to be less interested in making crime pay than in making her critics pay.

— Ian Tuttle is an editorial intern at National Review.

To Avoid Looking Like a Criminal, Don't Commit a Crime


By Ann Coulter
July 17, 2013

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the "not guilty" verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don't walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

The Justice-for-Trayvon crowd keeps pretending there hasn't been a trial where the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman. Instead, the race agitators are sticking with the original story peddled by the media, back when we had zero facts. To wit, that Zimmerman had stalked a young black child and shot him dead just for being black and wearing a hoodie.

Dozens of these hair-on-fire racism stories are retold in my book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. In the golden age of racial demagoguery, they came at a pace of about one a year. Al Sharpton was usually involved.

A normal person would hear some of the more outlandish allegations and think, "I can't believe it!" not meaning, "Wow! What a blockbuster story!" but rather, "I would like to hear the facts because I literally don't believe it." (That was much of America's reaction to the media's claim last year that a neighborhood-watch captain in Florida had hunted down a black teenager and shot him dead just for wearing a hoodie.)

Whenever a much-celebrated claim of racism turned out to be false -- which was almost always -- you'd just stop hearing about it. There would never be a clippable story admitting that the media's harrumphing had been in error: Attention, readers! That story we've been howling about for several months turned out to be a complete fraud.

A little time would pass, and then we'd get an all-new, excited "America is still racist" media campaign. Journalists are incapable of learning that they should get all the facts before launching moral crusades.

As a result, the official record shows: A few hate crimes and some unverified hate crimes with no clear resolution one way or another. As long as the fraudulent hate crimes didn't get counted as strikeouts, liberals always looked like Ted Williams.

Since they didn't keep an accurate batting average, I did it for them in Mugged.

The case most like George Zimmerman's is the Edmund Perry case. In 1985, Perry, a black teenager from Harlem who had just graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, mugged a guy who turned out to be an undercover cop. He got shot and a few hours later was dead.

Instead of waiting for the facts, the media rushed out with a story about Officer Lee Van Houten being a trigger-happy, racist cop. When that turned out to be false, The New York Times looked at its shoes. It was the kind of story the elites wanted to be true. It should be true. We had such high hopes for that one. Damn!

The initial news accounts stressed not only that Perry was a graduate of Exeter on his way to Stanford, but that he was unarmed. (In all white-on-black shootings, the media expect the white to have RoboCop-like superpowers to detect any weapons on the perp as well as his resume.)

A few weeks after the shooting, The New York Times called Perry "a prized symbol of hope." In a telling bit of obtuseness, The Times said that "all New Yorkers have extraordinary reasons to wish for the innocence of the young man who was killed." I doubt very much that the cop being accused of being a murderous racist hoped for that.

An article in The Village Voice explained: "[L]ike so many other victims in this city," Perry was "just too black for his own good."

Luckily for the policeman, Perry had mugged him in a well-lit hospital parking lot. Twenty-three witnesses backed the officer's story in testimony to the grand jury. (Unlike Zimmerman, Van Houten's case was at least presented to a grand jury.)

As I wrote in "Mugged": "God help Officer Van Houten if he had been mugged someplace other than a hospital parking lot with plenty of witnesses." Such as, for example, a dark pathway in The Retreat at Twin Lakes. There weren't 23 witnesses backing Zimmerman's story, only about a half-dozen. But, as with Van Houten, the evidence overwhelmingly corroborated Zimmerman's story.

In Van Houten's case, even after it was blindingly clear that Perry had mugged him, the truth was only revealed amid great sorrow. When the facts were unknown, the cop was a racist. When it turned out Perry had mugged the cop, it was no one's fault, but a problem of "violence," "confusion" and "two worlds" colliding.

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

As with Zimmerman's case this week, some journalists pretended to have missed the court proceedings that supported the self-defense story. Even after the grand jury's refusal to indict Van Houten, Dorothy J. Gaiter of the Miami Herald wrote about Perry in an article titled "To Be Black and Male Is Dangerous in U.S." She asked: "How do you teach a boy to be a man in a society where others may view him as a threat just because he is black?"

Van Houten said he was jumped, knocked to the ground, punched and kicked by Edmund Perry. Grand jury witnesses backed his story. Isn't it possible that Van Houten saw Perry as a threat for reasons other than "just because he is black"?

(And please stop talking about Martin's "hoodie"! Zimmerman wasn't worried about the hoodie; he was worried about being beaten to death.)

Instead of turning every story about a black person killed by a white person into an occasion to announce, "The simple fact is, America is a racist society," liberals might, one time, ask the question: Why do you suppose there would be a generalized fear of young black males? What might that be based on?

Throw us a bone. It's because a disproportionate number of criminals are young black males. It just happens that when Lee Van Houten and George Zimmerman were mugged by two of them, they survived the encounter.

COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER 

What CNN Cut Out of the TWA 800 Interview


By Jack Cashill
http://www.americanthinker.com
June 27, 2013



This past Saturday morning, I did a live remote from Kansas City for CNN's "New Day" program, hosted by Alison Kosik, on the subject of TWA Flight 800.  This Paris-bound 747 was destroyed in mid-air twelve minutes out of JFK, just off the coast of Long Island, on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on board.


On Tuesday of this week, I posted an article on American Thinker explaining how -- and perhaps why -- CNN cut a minute or so out of the CNN transcript of this five-minute interview.


Some time after that article appeared, CNN added the missing minute back into the transcript.  It begins with Kosik asking, "Jack, but when people hear this, they want to know, OK, if there was an external blast, who shot [TWA Flight 800] down, why would anybody shoot it down, and why would there be this cover-up?"


Having no irrefutable evidence as to who shot the plane down and only a minute to answer, I focused on a subject that I know better than anyone but the participants.  My response:

Let me address the cover-up. Five weeks after the crash, the New York Times had this headline above the fold right: "Prime Evidence that Explosive Device Found in or Destroyed TWA Flight 800."  That's a paraphrase, but it's close.

The actual headline was this: "Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800."  This article ran on August 23, 1996.  The Times argued that the FBI was uncertain whether the device was a bomb or missile, and only that uncertainty kept the FBI from declaring the plane's destruction a crime.  Needless to say, the article stole the thunder from Clinton's election-driven approval of welfare reform in that same day's paper and threatened to undermine the peace and prosperity message of next week's Democratic National Convention.

I continued:

Above the fold left was "Clinton Signs Welfare Reform Bill on Eve of Democratic National Convention."  One of those headlines had to go.  It was this line.

By "this line" I meant the headline on the right, the TWA 800 headline, and I pantomimed dropping it from the screen.  I resumed:

This was Bill Clinton's Benghazi moment. They [the Clintons] just wanted to kick this can down the road until after November, and so it would not affect the outcome of the election.  Now, they did not tell that to the people involved in the investigation, of course.  I'm sure they were told it was high-level national security, Iran shot these missiles, blah, blah, blah.

To get an insight into Clinton's thinking that scary August 1996, consider his confidential monthly interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Taylor Branch on August 2.  By agreement, the collection of these interviews would not be published until 2009 -- presumably until after Hillary was safely settled in the White House.


"Unless some telltale chemical survived the brine," Clinton told Branch, "[the investigators] must try to reassemble the plane to determine the cause."  During that August 2 taping, Clinton also told Branch that the FBI was "rechecking" its interviews with "some fifteen ground witnesses who saw a bright streak in the sky near the plane."  If corroborated, Branch adds, this "could suggest a missile rather than a bomb."


For posterity's sake, Clinton traced the likely attack to Iran.  "They want war," Branch quotes Clinton as saying.  What Branch did not know is that Clinton was setting up his alibi.  On August 2, 1996, Clinton had yet to get the investigation under his full control.  If telltale chemicals were not found, perhaps the eyewitness testimony could be marginalized.  This seems to have been the plan.


If so, the investigators could "reassemble the plane," and that Potemkin dumb show would take the investigation past the November election.  Unfortunately for Clinton, the FBI found "telltale" residue of the explosives PETN and RDX throughout the plane, and the New York Times reported the same.  I explained to Kosik what followed:

Now, what happens, though, is that three weeks later they have to explain away the explosion, explosive residue found all over the plane, the explosive residue that led the New York Times to write the story they did, and so they discover that there was a dog-training exercise in St. Louis months earlier in which this poor African-American cop spilled explosive devices all over the plane.  
They [the administration] started leaking this story before they talked to the cop.  The cop only recorded...he did not record the tail number of the plane, and he did not record the gate number; he only recorded the time and a wide body. 
Now, at the time that he did that explosion (on Flight 800), that training on, the Flight 800 plane was filled with 400 passengers and was leaving for Hawaii.  There was an empty wide body sitting right next to it.  They made this up.  Then they started corrupting all of the evidence, including the eyewitness testimony.

At this point, Kosik rescued me from my hasty explanation. "OK.  Well, the good thing is," she said, "I have to cut you guys off.  But the good thing is that there's a documentary about this."


For the record, on September 21, 1996, the FBI found its way to Officer Herman Burnett the day after the stories about the dog-training exercise began to appear in the media.  In other words, the authorities were leaking this particular story even before anyone had talked to the officer in question.

According to the FBI, airport management told Burnett that a "wide body" was available for training at Gate 50 on the day in question, June 10, 1996.  The officer then withdrew some exercise "aids" from departmental supplies and drove to a gate where an empty 747 was parked.


According to the FBI, Burnett "made no notations regarding the tail number of the aircraft."  As Officer Burnett told me, he made no notation of the gate, either. He listed only specific start and stop times and the notation "wide body."


According to the FBI, "[a]t 11:45 AM, the patrolman began the exercise by bringing the dog into the aircraft."  He finished the exercise about 12:20 or 12:25 and saw no one else on board the plane.  That same day, Capt. Vance Weir piloted TWA 17119 -- the plane that would become Flight 800 -- from St. Louis to Hawaii.  He departed with several hundred passengers on board at 12:35 pm, roughly ten to fifteen minutes after Burnett finished his exercise aboard an empty plane.


In February 1997, NTSB Chairman Jim Hall officially explained all the explosive residue away.  "The dog handler," wrote Hall of the officer, "had spilled trace amounts of explosives while placing training aids on board the aircraft during a proficiency training exercise."  This same officer, Hall added, "told investigators that he was aware that he had spilled trace amounts of explosives."  Burnett told me he did the training on another 747 at a nearby gate and never said otherwise to anyone.  The records totally validate him.  Hall's was one more lie on top of the others that corrupted this investigation.


That documentary is simply titled TWA Flight 800, produced by Tom Stalcup and Kristina Borjesson, and it will preview on July 17.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/06/what_cnn_cut_out_of_the_twa_800_interview.html at July 17, 2013 - 06:34:08 AM CDT

Today's Tune: Bruce Springsteen - New York City Serenade (Live in Rome 2013)

The Rise of European Islamo-Fascist Police


Posted By Bruce Bawer On July 17, 2013 @ 12:39 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 4 Comments

Here’s another Arabic word that both you and I would prefer not to have to know but probably should: mutaween. It means “religious police” or “morality police.” In Saudi Arabia it’s an officially constituted entity whose officers are fully empowered to arrest and punish anyone who violates sharia law – which, of course, can mean anything from committing various sexual acts to being caught taking a sip of water during Ramadan. The Saudi morality police made international headlines in March 2002 when they physically prevented dozens of girls from escaping a burning school in Mecca because they weren’t properly covered.

After that horrific incident, which resulted in fifteen deaths, people around the world congratulated themselves on not living in such a backward culture. And yet the Islamic morality police, far from being confined to Saudi Arabia – or even to the Muslim world – are an increasing presence in Europe and elsewhere.

To be sure, Islam’s moral cops in the Western world aren’t officially sanctioned. They aren’t even necessarily an organized force; many, if not most, of them are self-appointed monitors of public morality. And compared to their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and the Gaza Strip, they’re amateurs. But hey, you’ve got to start somewhere. Given time, and given enough leash by the real police and others in positions of public trust who prefer to look away from this deplorable state of affairs, these amateurs will increasingly resemble their Saudi models. In the meantime, they already wield real power. Authentic refugees from the Muslim world – non-Muslims or secular Muslims who fled to the West precisely to avoid such surveillance and control – are very aware of that power. So are an increasing number of natives of Western countries who live in largely Muslim neighborhoods – and who are increasingly being reminded that their ways of life conspicuously violate sharia strictures.

Consider the situation in Oslo, where things are bad, though not quite as severe (yet) as in many other European cities. Zahid Ali, an actor and stand-up comic, recalled in a 2010 interview that he’d been living with Oslo’s morality police for twenty years, ever since his early teens. “If he smoked on the street in Oslo,” reported NRK, “his mother, father, uncles, and aunts know about it before he got home” – because the news had been passed to them via Pakistani cab, bus, and tram drivers, a class of people whom Ali described as the “largest intelligence service” in Norway. Ali, now a familiar face on Norwegian television, said that members of the morality police in the heavily Muslim neighborhood of Grønland now routinely stopped him on the street to tell him: “I don’t like what you’re doing! I hate you! I’m going to kill you!” The threats, which he said had grown steadily worse over the previous five or six years, were usually delivered in Punjabi, and when Ali replied in Norwegian, his tormentors grew even angrier. (“If I answer in their language,” he explained, it means that “I’ve accepted their culture, accepted that they’re right.”) Ali said he took the threats seriously enough to avoid Grønland whenever possible.

It was also in 2010 that thirty gays held a group walk across Grønland in defiance of the burgeoning presence of morality police there. One of the participants told a reporter that several of his gay friends who lived in Grønland had been “knocked down right outside their homes” by the enforcers of sharia. The point of the walk was to demonstrate that “many different people with various religions and sexual orientations can live together.” Alas, it takes more than a single stroll through Muslim streets to crush the morality cops’ power. In a June 2012 article, Somali-Norwegian writer Amal Aden reported that the cops had in fact spread beyond the capital to other Norwegian cities, including Kristiansand. And last October, Erik Torset, a gay man, and Jean Jacobsen, a transsexual, both of whom live in the heavily Islamic Oslo neighborhood of Tøyen, complained that Muslims who used to just taunt them and their friends were now attacking them physically. Muslims had thrown stones at Jacobsen; Torset, for his part, had ended up on crutches after a shop sign was torn loose and flung at his legs. Everyone in Oslo knows that the city’s Muslim neighborhoods are dicey territory for infidels, especially gays, but the head of Norway’s gay-rights organization told Aftenposten that (surprise!) he had no reason to believe that gay-bashings occur more frequently in Muslim areas than in other parts of town. Jacobsen, however, can’t afford to stick her head in the sand: she said she was considering moving out of Tøyen. This is how a neighborhood becomes a Muslim enclave, a no-go zone, a sharia realm – one assault, and one move, at a time.

In last Friday’s Aftenposten, the subject of the morality police surfaced yet again. This time we were introduced to Erfan Tarin and Bahar Shekari, a non-religious Kurdish couple from Iran who endure daily harassment at the hands of their Muslim neighbors. One day, Shekari was out shopping when an elderly woman in hijab spit on her, saying: “What kind of clothes are those? We’re Muslims. You can’t go around dressed like that!” Another day Shekari was at a playground with her daughters, aged two and three, who were in summer dresses, when another old bat came over and explained that the girls should be covered. “Every time I go to the mall I just look down at the ground and walk very fast,” Shekari told Aftenposten. “I don’t feel safe there.” The couple moved recently from Tøyen to another Oslo neighborhood, Furuset, hoping things would get better, but instead they just got worse. Now they’re considering leaving the city entirely.

Norwegian newspaper articles on this topic are, needless to say, never complete without a comment or two from folks in authority eager to make light of the problem. Anne Myhrvold, principal of one of Oslo’s growing number of majority-Muslim schools (fewer than 4% of the kids have Norwegian as a mother tongue), said she’d heard about students being criticized for not wearing hijab, but she took the line that this is no different than being called fat or whatever. Lena Larsen, a convert to Islam who used to head the Islamic Council of Norway and is now at the University of Oslo (where else?), also dismissed the situation, insisting that it goes both ways – non-Muslims, after all, often cast suspicious looks at veiled women. (The difference, naturally, is that I have yet to hear of non-Muslims throwing rocks or shop signs at captives of hijab.)

Larsen isn’t alone in drawing a moral equivalence between Muslim morality police and non-Muslims who chafe at the sight of garments that betoken subservience. A couple of years back, Norwegian anthropologist Lorenz Khazaleh responded on his blog to some of the above-cited news stories. Contending that “it’s wrong to link social control and harassment to ‘foreign cultures’ or ‘Muslims’” – and especially wrong to paint a picture in which white Norwegians (Allah forbid) occupy the moral high ground – Khazaleh underscored the fact that “social control exists in every society.” In Norway’s small towns, for instance, “networks of old women” keep an eye on how local girls dress and behave. Then there’s the “white feminists who criticize Muslim girls’ dress code.” (Hmm…which feminists would those be?) Khazaleh seconded an inane observation by writer Erling Lae, who complained that since Norwegian pastors aren’t held responsible for their parishioners’ foolishness, why should imams be? And Khazaleh congratulated a noted sociologist for “remind[ing] us that the morality police have their good side” – for example, Christie argued, it’s good for an adult to stop a child he doesn’t know from crossing at a red light. (As if this be compared to threatening a comedian with death!)

The other day, noting Aftenposten‘s renewed attention to the morality police, Hege Storhaug of Human Rights Service pointed out that that newspaper’s editors have consistently rejected, and even mocked, her own organization’s efforts to persuade the government to address this grim challenge in a constructive, assertive way. There’s no surprise in that contradiction. The fact is that morality-police stories make such good copy that your average Norwegian newspaper editor can’t bring himself not to run them – but, at the same time, his own cultural-elite politics, his reflexive need to stand with Islam against the odious “Islam-haters,” compels him to oppose any serious attempt to put a stop to this supreme example of creeping sharia.

And so the problem worsens by the year, and the media continue to exploit it to sell papers – even as they routinely ridicule and demonize those who actually want to do something about it. It doesn’t take a genius to see where all this will lead in the long run; on the contrary, it takes a fool to not see it – or to refuse to. Unfortunately, the fate of Norway – and of most of its Western European neighbors – is, at present, to a dispiriting extent, in the hands of fools of the first water.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/europes-morality-cops/

Ennobling Us All


Edmund Burke’s life was noble, his thought sublime.
By  from the JULY-AUGUST 2013 issue of The American Spectator
Edmund Burke: The First ConservativeBy Jesse Norman(Basic Books, 325 pages, $27.99)
SAMUEL JOHNSON said of him, “you could not stand five minutes with that man beneath a shed while it rained, but you must be convinced you had been standing with the greatest man you had ever yet seen.” Wordsworth celebrated his “genius” in The Prelude. W.B. Yeats thought his lifelong opposition to tyranny a “great melody.” And in this superb new biography, Jesse Norman, a rising member of Parliament, convincingly declares Edmund Burke “the greatest and most underrated political thinker of the last 300 years.”
In politics, such encomiums are generally reserved for holders of high office. But Burke was neither prime minister nor a member of the Cabinet. Rather, his fame rests upon his dazzling polemical skill (he wrote like an angel), humane political philosophy (for Catholic emancipation in Ireland; against colonial abuses in India), and gift for prophecy (he foresaw the disaster of the French Revolution long before the guillotine fell). He championed “a moral, regulated liberty,” and resisted “metaphysical abstractions.” His philosophy was based on history and experience, and he left behind a roadmap for a more just society. And according to Norman, Burke was not merely the founder of modern conservatism but “the pivot of political modernity, the thinker on whose shoulders much of the Anglo-American tradition of representative government still rests.” 
This book is divided into two parts: the first a concise account of Burke’s life and career; the second a study of his thought and its influence down the centuries. This might be clunky in less able hands, but Norman pulls it off. Burke’s life was crowded with incident, but it is his legacy that most commands our attention. Separating the two allows the reader to concentrate on each more fully.     
Born in 1730 by the Liffey in Dublin, Burke graduated from Trinity College, that citadel of Protestantism in Ireland, at an unusually young age. An unremarkable student, he seemed destined to follow his father to the bar. But an early talent for composition set him apart, and upon his arrival in London at the age of 20, his ambition was evident. A man of endless industry, he poured out his views in pamphlet and tract. Under the patronage of Whig magnates, he entered politics, and in 1765 won a place in Parliament. He was soon acknowledged as one of the greatest orators of the age, and was the intimate companion of Johnson, Reynolds, Garrick, and other leading lights of London.   
His life was noble, his thought sublime. His campaigns against colonial injustice in Ireland, America, and India were driven by a profound respect for culture and tradition. Burke was a perpetual enemy of arbitrary power and a zealous proponent of limited government. He declared that “to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle…of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind.” Thus he illuminates the vast and vital space between the individual and the overweening state. Though Burke fought all his life for individual rights, he rejected radical individualism. And he conceived of society as a covenant between the generations—Thomas Jefferson’s spurious rot about the earth belonging only to the living would have been anathema to him.  
For all the elegance of his prose, Burke was a man on the make, a recognizable type in modern London or Washington. He scribbled where he could for modest sums and angled for political preferment. Though he was immensely civilized (his art collection included works by Pouisson, Titian, Reynolds, and da Vinci), his fiery and sensitive nature set him apart. Prone to self-righteousness, he possessed none of the equanimity that enables most leaders to shrug off criticism. And in an era exquisitely attuned to such things, his Irish accent remained “as strong as if he had never quitted the banks of the Shannon,” according to a contemporary. He never lost the air of the novus homo, in Norman’s phrase, though he served the British state more ably than most native Englishmen.   
NORMAN IS SAID to have his eyes on the Tory leadership; like Disraeli before him, he climbs the greasy pole with pen in hand. A product of Eton and Oxford, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he combines politics and scholarship in a manner more common in Westminster than Washington. Boris Johnson, mayor of London and a rival in the race for Downing Street, dashes off witty works of popular history with ease; the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has authored polished biographies of Pitt and Wilberforce. There is no equivalent in America; books by politicians here are almost invariably bland, ghostwritten policy tracts or memoirs. This impoverishes our politics—historical ignorance and inarticulacy preclude statesmanship. Policies inspired not by the wisdom of the ages but by the whims of the moment are doomed to failure. The inability to explain them is both cause and symptom of our political maladies. 
“I like a little rebellion now and then,” wrote Jefferson in 1787, words that would have horrified Burke, as did the French Revolution that would so captivate the future president. Burke knew better. He saw what others did not: that the ferment in France would lead only to chaos. And in his greatest literary and philosophical triumph, Reflections on the Revolution in France, he set down in the twilight of his life a vision of society that combined respect for culture and tradition, a hatred of tyranny, and a firm belief that change should be gradual and in keeping with established norms.      
Norman makes a strong case for Burke’s continuing relevance—indeed, the thoughtful reader will find him a tonic after a decade of military misadventures and reckless domestic policy. One can imagine Burke condemning both the Iraq war (a rash attempt to plant the seeds of democracy in stony soil) and health care “reform” (a bureaucratic nightmare and exaltation of the executive) with the same zeal he brought to the impeachment of Warren Hastings, the autocratic governor-general of Bengal.  
Some might say that Burke can teach us little, that his support for the established order in the hierarchical 18th century makes him too remote.
But are things really so different? An Ivy League degree sets one apart as much as a peerage once did, and the former fluidity of American society is but a memory. Social mobility has given way to an entrenched class system. The question is not so much whether we should have an aristocracy—we do, for better or worse—but what role elites should play in  our society. Better they read Burke than fall under the sway of the fashionable nonsense and pernicious doctrines picked up at university. Too often, our elites fail to hold up their part of the social bargain, instead cherishing beliefs and advocating policies the wretched consequences of which rarely intrude upon their leafy college towns and chic urban enclaves. 
Jesse Norman succeeds in bringing Burke to life and championing his thought. The greatest of Irishmen has much to teach both liberals and conservatives, and a politics guided by his spirit would ennoble us all. King George III never asked Burke to form a government, but should Norman kiss hands with the monarch, Britain might be well served. Perhaps the strains of the great melody may yet be heard wafting from Downing Street.