Must be some Catholics upset about letting the Anglicans in to the Church or something.

A Massachusetts man has been arrested on charges of conspiring to support terrorists in a long-running investigation into Americans seeking military-style training overseas, federal authorities announced Wednesday morning.

Tarek Mehanna, 27, of Sudbury, a small town west of Boston, allegedly conspired from 2001 to May 2008 with Ahmad Abousamra and others to support and carry out attacks abroad, including on U.S. and allied soldiers in Iraq, the Justice Department announced.

An FBI agent alleges in a complaint and a search warrant affidavit that Mehanna, Abousamra and an associate traveled to the Middle East in February 2004 seeking training at a terrorist camp in Yemen, and that Abousamra made two similar trips to Pakistan in 2002. The men were unsuccessful, however, the agent said, and the associate became a government informant.

...The group also allegedly had several conversations about obtaining automatic rifles and randomly shooting people in a shopping mall, but abandoned the plan because they could obtain only handguns, FBI Special Agent Heidi L. Williams said.

Williams said Mehanna and the co-conspirators talked once or twice about assassinating two top U.S. elected officials. They are not charged in connection with that.

This is scary because an attack like that seems so obvious and relatively easy to carry out. It may not seem as spectacular as mass murder by airplane but a series of mall attacks right after Thanksgiving would terrorize a lot of people and do a good bit of economic damage in the process.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:00 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Seriously wasted. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:16 AM | Comments (144)
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

But they're really determined to seal the borders and make sure that American jobs are taken by American workers.

What's especially obnoxious about this is that many Senators -- Democrats, mostly -- voted for these provisions earlier, but are of course happy to see them disappear from the actual vote. They trust the voters won't notice.

Hey, they voted for it, right? They had no intention of ever seeing it through to actual action, but they did get that one vote up on the record so they can claim they favor this stuff, right?

That's all that matters.

"We're learning there's almost nothing politicians won't do to get out of promises they make in the daylight," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., complaining that conferees dropped a provision that would have required the Homeland Security Department to build 700 miles of double-layered reinforced fencing along the southern border.

DeMint reminded senators that a majority of the Senate voted to include the provision in the spending bill.

One of the dropped provisions to draw protests would have permanently reauthorized the E-Verify electronic system employers can use to verify the legal status of their workers. Another would have required employers to take action if the Social Security number provided by a worker did not match records with the Social Security Administration.

"People can have little confidence based on our votes here on the Senate floor," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La. "The conference committee work can be diametrically opposed to it on issue after issue."

Thanks to Gabriel Malor.

Posted by: Ace at 09:11 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

An ESPN analyst, Steve Phillips, had an affair with a worker there, Brooke Hundley.

The affair ended and she went psycho on him.

There are a couple of pictures of Hundley that make her look okay, but most of them make her look like, uh, a dude.

Although she did a lot of creepy stuff, the creepiest was trying to Facebook friend one of Phillips' teenaged sons in an effort to pump him for information, and suggest that maybe Mommie and Daddy ought to get a divorce.

"She said that she had overheard my mom telling someone at my brother's baseball game that my dad really likes someone at work and is probably going to move out and that if I need to talk to anyone, she would be willing to listen because her parents went through the same thing," the boy told cops.

"She asked inappropriate questions about my parents, such as: Do they sleep in the same bed? Do you think they will be getting a divorce? Do they fight a lot?" the youth added.

He said the woman even tried flirting with him to get information.

"She told me that she had stopped by the [football] field before to see me [practice] . . . She often awkwardly, flirtatiously complimented me, saying that I was a very sweet and nice guy."

But the son said he grew angry when she referred to his mother as his dad's "baby mama."

"[She] would often make comments of how lucky my mom was to marry a guy with money and not have to work . . . The tone was very jealous," he said.

The boy added that when he didn't immediately respond to the writer, she would start bombarding him with messages.

"Countless times, she asked me for my home phone number and stated that . . . her parents needed to contact my mother immediately," the rattled teen said.

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Ninja'd by Drew! I was loading this one up with other stuff. Okay, let me edit that stuff out.

Once again, I've met McCormack briefly at CPAC at stuff and I didn't get the sense he was a screamer. He seemed more like the quiet guy who keeps to himself (and then is one day revealed to have a Cub Scout Troop in cages in his basement, but how would she know that?).

Bill Kristol, McCormack's boss, has called shenanigans on this from the get-go.

Now the Scozzafava campaign accuses John of “a complete lack of decency” and of behaving in a “reprehensible” way. This is ludicrous. Needless to say, the police found nothing amiss. Moreover, the fact is that John didn’t interrupt a conversation between Ms. Scozzafava and voters -- she wasn’t talking to voters when John approached her. Nor did John “scream,” nor did he get “in the face” of the candidate -- he was at least ten feet away from her in the parking lot, partly because a Scozzafava staffer interposed himself as John tried to ask substantive public policy questions of Ms. Scozzafava. The notion that John intended to “follow her home” is of course risible.

Dede must withdraw. Hoffman is no longer playing spolier to her. She is playing spoiler to Hoffman. She cannot win this race and her presence in it does nothing except help a Democrat win.

Which, actually, based on her basic politics as a liberal Democrat -- not even a moderate Democrat, but a liberal one -- might be perfectly fine with her.

A GOP chairman from the area concerned has written her off as a viable candidate:

In an exclusive interview with the TCOT Report, George Joseph, Republican Party Chairman of Oneida County, one of the eleven counties in New YorkÂ’s 23rd Congressional District, today slammed Republican Party nominee Dede Scozzafava. This damaging news comes on the heels of ScozzafavaÂ’s ill advised attempt to intimidate a reporter from The Weekly Standard by calling the cops on him after he asked persistent questions about her position on card check legislation at a meeting held last night in Lowville, New York. Lowville is located in Lewis County, immediately to the north of Oneida County.

According to Joseph

“ I wasn’t sold on Dede from the beginning. That race represents 8% of Oneida County. Throughout the nomination process, I would have thought there would have been more sensitivity, in light of what happened with Tedisco in NY 20, who was the annointed front runner. [Republican Tedisco was defeated in a special election for an open Congresssional seat earlier this year]. Just with [Dede] coming out of Albany — any legislator in Albany is so tarnished why would we nominate them ? We acted very tone deaf in how we selected this nominee.”

Joseph also took a shot at Clinton County Chairman and Assemblywoman Janet Duprey, who threw the nomination to Scozzafava despite the fact that the majority of the Clinton County committee members who attended a candidate forum voted for the ideologically conservative Paul Maroun, and not for the ideologically liberal Scozzafava.

“I would be as much offended if I was a resident or committee person of that county. This process, that started in an honorable fashion has turned into a tainted runaway election.”

Joseph conceded that because of this, Scozzafava is almost certain to lose the election.

“ Do I write off this election? Absolutely. Unless something – a revelation comes through regarding Hoffman, or there’s a change in events for the Democrats — the Democrat’s going to win.That’s how we lose elections.”

Um, what about something like the withdrawal of Scozzoflava, or the local GOP reneging on its support of her and throwing support to the only candidate who can win, Doug Hoffman?

No chance of that -- even though he concedes that Scozzoflava can't win, he can't bear the thought of allowing a Conservative Party candidate to win instead:

“ As a party chairman I have intolerance for those who start banging the drum after the fact. It smells like a spoiler and it will be a spoiler. The relationship between the Republicans and Conservatives has been breached. For Republicans, the election is lost either way. If Hoffman can win it, which is a long shot ,where does that put us? ”

Joseph adamantly refused to call for Scozzafava to withdraw from the race. “ That would just be affirming Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long’s position. What are we going to do ? Let him tell us who we should nominate? ”

Where does that put you? It puts you with plus one Republican in the House, because Hoffman would caucus with Republicans and immediately re-affirm his partisan affiliation as Republican.

But look how petty and personal this is -- these people don't care about getting good conservatives elected. They care much more about retaining their power to decide who gets elected.

It's too much to say, "We were wrong"? Apparently so. Because then the Conservative Party wins or something. Better to let the Democrat win. Can't have the Conservative Party pushing around the Republican Party.

More at this site, all over this FUBAR situation.

Michelle Malkin notes that McCormack played his tapes for the AP -- and they demonstrate that Dede's campiagn is lying.

In the audio recording of the reporterÂ’s questioning played for The Associated Press by McCormack, the reporter didnÂ’t raise his voice, but repeated his unanswered questions several times, including one about abortion.

Another GOP Chairman at the meeting says that whatever Dede -- or, more accurately, her flack Matt Burns -- is alleging happened just didn't happen. Although he's nice enough to allow that maybe it happened when he wasn't looking or wasn't around.

But from his own observation? Did not happen.

Cool Scary Facts About John McCormack? One of John McCormack's hands has "HATE" tattooed on the knuckles.

But, to remind himself that life is duality, he has "MORE HATE" tattooed on the other hand's knuckles.

John McCormack, skulking around,
menacingly... his press credentials are
in his lucky murder kit

Kos' Endorsement: Now, it's possible he's playing an Operation: Chaos type game here. But... even if he is, he's right.

Furthermore, the Kos endorsement badly damages Scozzoflava and opens the door for a Hoffman victory, and I figure, as stupid as he is, he's smart enough to know at least that.

So itÂ’s official, IÂ’m rooting for the Republican to win. As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.

Posted by: Ace at 07:41 AM | Comments (146)
Post contains 1169 words, total size 8 kb.

The liberal Democrat running as a Republican in a House special election from NY's 23 Congressional District has retracted her spokesperson slander against John McCormick of the Weekly Standard. The campaign had claimed that the reporter "screamed questions" at her. Apparently this so terrified the delicate flowers that the cops were called.

Except, there was tape recording running and it was all made up?

In the audio recording of the reporter's questioning played for The Associated Press by McCormack, the reporter didn't raise his voice, but repeated his unanswered questions several times, including one about abortion.

"I never screamed, I never yelled, I never shouted," he said. "My voice was only loud enough so she could hear my questions."

In a statement released Tuesday to the blog Politico, Scozzafava's campaign said the reporter "repeatedly screamed questions (in-your-face-style)," but later issued a statement deleting the accusation.

So why did Scozzfava and her people call the cops? Are Republicans now on board with the idea that asking questions of candidates is a criminal offense?

The Conservative candidate for the seat, Doug Hoffman, is gaining while fades. Here's his website, with donation information.

As Mark Steyn puts it, Enough.

UPDATE: How worried is the liberal Scozzfava about Hoffman? Very.

Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate in the hot 23rd Congressional District race, picked an unusual spot for a news conference this morning -- the sidewalk in front of the Watertown headquarters of her Conservative opponent, Doug Hoffman.

“Doug Hoffman and (Democrat) Bill Owens continue to dodge, duck and bob and weave and don’t want to talk about the issues in debate, so we think it’s a great backdrop to stop over and ask what the holdup is in agreeing to debates,” said Matt Burns, speaking for the Scozzafava campaign.

Showing up on the doorstep of a 3rd party candidate to challenge them to a debate? That screams of panic. Usually major party candidates ignore the minor party people to marginalize them or they elevate them in the hopes that they will take votes from the other major candidate.

No one really thinks Hoffman is taking votes from the named Democrat. The fact that Scozzafava wants to go toe to toe with Hoffman means they are scared. Good.

Oh by the way, they are lying about Hoffman this time.

“Dede Scozzafava is either extremely cynical or has a very short memory. On August 19, 2009 the Hoffman campaign challenged Dede Scozzafava to a series of 3-5 debates across the district. We asked the Republican County Chairs to sponsor them. The Hoffman campaign even offered to pick-up the rental costs of the venues. Both Scozzafava and the GOP County Chairs refused.

“Dede Scozzafava is desperate; she flip-flops on issue after issue, she calls the police on reporters, and now she claims she hasn’t had an opportunity debate. It’s sad, Dede Scozzafava, staff needs to tell her that she’s the spoiler in this race and that for the good of the Republican Party and her own reputation she should drop out of the race now.”

Did I mention you can donate to Hoffman here

Posted by: DrewM at 07:11 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

Video Up: At BigGovernment.

ACORN's Philly office claimed the Pimp & Ho were thrown out. Bertha Lewis has claimed that. A new video demonstrates, um, not so much.

Here's the thing: The video apparently was running on Breitbart.com a while ago, but now it's been made private. So, at the moment, you can't watch it. I suppose this is a glitch and Breitbart intended to roll it out later, maybe in time for the evening cable talk shows, and accidentally revealed it early.

Not sure. I'll write someone to see what's going on here.

BTW: I didn't get to it fast enough and so I can't tell you what it shows. Confederate Yankee's description is all I have.

Description: Confederate Yankee writes:

Basically, it's O'Keefe narrating again as they show video clips of the office manager lying on camera to the media bout what was said, then contrasted with the hidden video of what she actually said. Damning stuff, though there was some annoying audio cut outs that I think were deliberate...

They also call out specific media outlets for buying ACORN claims and asks if they will correct.

I guess we'll see when it is re-released.

Posted by: Ace at 08:28 AM | Comments (131)
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

Kind of a mid-morning mini-ONT.

Remember this? Ran into it while watching old Beavis and Butthead videos.

Moderate Content Warning for MTV-Level (but Strong) Sexual Suggestion and General Disturbyness. more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:56 AM | Comments (49)
Post contains 117 words, total size 2 kb.

I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:08 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued a temporary stay which prohibits the release of the names of individuals who signed petitions for Washington's Referendum 71.

Referendum 71 was placed on the ballot to challenge the legislative expansion of domestic partnerships in Washington to include all the rights and responsibilities of marriage except for the name "marriage." Ordinarily, Washington releases the signatures of ballot referendum petitioners upon request because they are public documents, but the group mainly responsible for collecting the R-71 signatures sued to prevent their release in this instance.

The group argues (PDF) that "due to the highly charged nature of the topic of Referendum 71, (domestic partnerships, gay rights, the traditional definition of marriage, etc.) that the personal information on the petitions for Referendum 71 warrant particular protection." The idea is that the signers' First Amendment rights could be stifled if not stymied by disclosure, especially if we see the type of bad behavior which occurred around California's Prop 8.

A panel of the Ninth Circuit ultimately disagreed and ordered that the group could not prevent the release of the documents. But Justice Kennedy stepped in and referred the question to the full Court, which voted 8-1 to preserve the injunction until the parties have a chance to file a full petition for certiorari.

I've been chewing on this case for a few weeks now and I was initially sympathetic to the petition signers because of the Prop 8-like mischief that might follow disclosure. Now, some of that mischief was constitutionally protected, for example picketing and boycotts. But some of it was criminal, like vandalism and assault.

To the extent that signers want to avoid First Amendment activities like picketing by asserting their own First Amendment rights, the signers don't have a leg to stand on. It also creates a perverse incentive on the part of future petitioners to make every issue a highly contentious one.

I would be persuaded that the signers' First Amendment right to petition (as a form of speech and of redress) would be chilled if the signers' names were made public, except that in Washington the names of petition signers are routinely made public. So the signers knew—or should have known—that by participating they were making a public act. It's disingenuous to come out now and claim that their speech rights could be infringed after they've already exercised their speech rights.

And that was the key for me. If Olympia wants to pass a law which prohibits the release of signatures for ballot referenda, that's great. And then petition signers will have a reasonable belief that their names will not be disclosed. A few states have laws like that. On the other hand, states should be free to make that choice and Washington has decided not to give that protection.

Anyway, the practical result of the Supreme Court's stay is that the issue will not be resolved and the names will not be released before the November 3 election. At the moment R-71 appears likely to be approved, reconfirming the legislative expansion of domestic partnership rights. The Supreme Court's decision might be a blessing in disguise for folks hoping for approval. If bad behavior had been in the offing, backlash might have pushed the vote the other way.

I've tucked a poll under the fold. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:51 AM | Comments (70)
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.