Sep 242010
 

An obvious scientific mistake in the indictment of a former U.S. nuclear weapons scientist accused of attempting to sell atomic secrets to an undercover U.S. agent could undermine the federal government’s case against him, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 21).

Former Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist Leonardo Mascheroni, 75, and his wife Marjorie Roxby Mascheroni, 67, are alleged to have provided classified bomb data to an FBI agent posing as a Venezuelan operative. Both pleaded not guilty to the 22 federal charges against them.

The federal indictment alleged the scientist had told the undercover agent that a clandestine nuclear reactor could be built below ground for “enriching plutonium.”

Nuclear weapons experts, however, were quick to point out the scientific impossibility of the statement. Reactors are unable to enrich plutonium. The indictment’s mention of enrichment speaks instead to the process of enriching uranium, a fissile material that like processed plutonium is used to build nuclear weapons.

“You don’t enrich plutonium. You create plutonium,” former U.S. Energy Department official Charles Demos said.

“It doesn’t make sense,” ex-Los Alamos Director Harold Agnew said. “I haven’t the slightest idea what that would be about.”

“At a minimum [the error is] incredibly sloppy but it tends to undermine the credibility of the entire indictment,” Federation of American Scientists security analyst Steven Aftergood said. “Anyone who has read a book about nuclear weapons,” he continued, would have recognized the mistake.

The error could have little legal impact on the case as U.S. prosecutors could refile another indictment to replace the first that removes the phrase in question. Still, the Mascheroni defense team is seeking to capitalize on the error.

“This raises questions about the credibility of the allegations,” said Erlinda Johnson, legal counsel for Marjorie Mascheroni. “We’re going to dissect every bit of the case to make sure the government has not overstepped its bounds.”

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the agency had no comment on the scientific misnomer.

“We look forward to presenting our case in court and will let a jury decide the guilt or innocence of the defendants,” Boyd said (William Broad, New York Times, Sept. 23).

Share
Sep 242010
 


Share
Sep 242010
 


Share
Sep 242010
 


Share
Sep 242010
 

In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party callegues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.


When news of the visit was released under the auspices of transparency, the White House denied that the Malik Shabazz on the visitor’s log was the same Malik Shabazz involved in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. According to Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, the records contained “a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else.” He specifically cited Malik Shabazz as an example of one of these “false positives”.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you

At the time, the media did not challenge the White House on the veracity of this claim. The White House’s position was, basically: “We’re being transparent, here are all the visitor logs, and this guy is not the guy you think he is, TRUST US.”

The great thing about transparency – when there is actual transparency – is that it renders trust unnecessary. We ask that the White House identify which Malik Shabazz visited the White House residence on July 25, 2009.

In July 2010, J. Christian Adams, former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Dept. of Justice, testified before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights that Obama Appointee Julie Fernandes, deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division in charge of voting matters, told DOJ attorneys charged with enforcing Voters’ Rights Law that the Obama administration would not file election-related cases against minority defendants — no matter the alleged violation of law.

According to Adams, that policy is what allowed Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson to walk away without punishment and weapon wielding King Samir Shabazz to receive a wrist-slap sentence that merely prohibits him from appearing at a polling place until after 2012.

Although the Administration has tried to ignore the New Black Panther scandal, their apologists have contended the story was nothing more than a conspiracy theory of the right-wing spun by a lone, partisan, disaffected lawyer looking for attention on Fox News. But today, Mr. Adams is joined by a fellow government whistle-blower, his former supervisor at the Dept. of Justice.

Today, Christopher Coates, former Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Dept. of Justice, has testified before the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. His testimony corroborates J. Christian Adams’ testimony before the same commission in July. Mr. Coates had originally signed-off on Mr. Adams plan to go forward with the civil charges against Shabazz. He and Mr. Adams had been ordered by the DOJ not to testify before the commission, and he was subsequently transferred to South Carolina last Christmas.

Coates’ testimony calls into question the Justice Department’s earlier denials that the handling of the New Black Panther case was politically motivated. And their refusal to allow attorneys at Justice to testify under oath about this case recalls the same attitude toward transparency exemplified by the White House visitor’s log policy: “We didn’t drop the charges against the Black Panthers because of politics, TRUST US.”

Continuing to say you’re transparent does not mean you are transparent.

The idea that an individual named Malik Shabazz had a private meeting in the White House residence in July 2009 is highly relevant because throughout July, Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) were beginning to ask questions about to the dropped charges against the NBPP. So was the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Here is a timeline, according to Adams:


* July 8, Representative Frank Wolf sent a letter to Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith demanding hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.
* July 9, Ten members of the House sent a letter demanding the DOJ Inspector General open an investigation.
* July 13, The Dept. of Justice replied but their letter contained factual inaccuracies about the case
* July 17 Smith and Wolf send a swift and pointed rebuttal
* July 20, Low-level DOJ staffers were sent to the Hill to brief Wolf on the Panther story, but Wolf threw them out of his office claiming they weren’t being truthful to him.
* July 22, Wolf sent another letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding answers.
* July 24, Portia Robinson, intergovernmental liaison at DOJ, sent a letter to the Civil Rights Commission trying to deflect attention.
* July 25, a man named Malik Shabazz visited the exclusive, private residence in the White House.
* July 30, the Washington Times broke the news that top political appointee, Tom Perrelli (the #3 official at Justice) was involved in the dismissal of the case. Perrelli was also a top campaign bundler for Obama.

The White House has assured the American people that the Malik Shabazz that visited the White House at that time is not the same Malik Shabazz at the center of the New Black Panther story. But, the White House has not provided any information to verify its contention or who this “other” Malik Shabazz is.

We call on the White House to act in the spirit of their transparency policy and provide further information, sufficient to independently verify the identity of the person named Malik Shabazz who visited the White House private residence in July of 2009.

~by Andrew Breitbart

Share
Sep 242010
 
gz idiot

Ground Zero Mosque leader Feisal Abdul Rauf has maintained a long relationship with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, including taking Mohamad’s advice on getting Malaysia more involved in the Middle East peace process, long after Mohamad’s anti-Semitic and anti-American statements were widely known.

That includes a three-year association with Mohamad’s Perdana Global Peace Organization, which kicked off a December 2005 conference with Mohamad saying the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 because it “it was about getting at the wealth of a country rich in oil” and implying a U.S. role in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

While Rauf now says he only attended Perdana’s December 2005 conference, the organizations’ web site listed him just below Mohamad from 2005 to 2008. During that time, Perdana’s website shows Mohamad met with activists who believed the 9/11 attacks were set up by the U.S. government and conducted more conferences in which he “congratulated” Iraqi insurgents for killing U.S. soldiers.

Mohamad, one of Rauf’s advisers on world peace, implied the United States played a role in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri after the U.S. government passed a law in 2003 calling for sanctions against Syria. “Fortuitously, Rafik Hariri of Lebanon was assassinated and Syria is implicated,” Mohamad said. “Whether the findings are factual or not is irrelevant. I am not being cynical but remembering the lies about Iraq. I cannot help but wonder.”

Rauf, the leader of the Ground Zero Mosque effort, has worked for years with Mohamad, records show. Those ties came long after Mohamad earned a reputation for making anti-Semitic comments. For example:

* The Perdana Global Peace Organization. Rauf attended this group’s inaugural December 2005 conference and signed a document that included a call to have any killings in war subject to an “international law of crimes.” He was also listed as the No. 2 person on the group’s roster between 2005 and 2008. Rauf, however, has said he has had nothing to do with Perdana since December 2005. He did not attend a 2007 conference in which Mohamad “congratulated” Iraqi insurgents for killing U.S. soldiers, but his name was still listed on Perdana’s website.
* The Cordoba Initiative, the nonprofit organization that Rauf says is going to build the mosque, has long had a Malaysian office. In August, however, investigative reporter Claudia Rosett reported in Forbes that Cordoba had removed the Malaysian office from its website. A 2009 newspaper report says Cordoba is funded by the Malaysian government.
* The two organizations Rauf created – Cordoba and the American Society for Muslim Advancement – held several conferences in Malaysia with Mohamad or his associates. They included a 2006 conference on Shariah law.

Rauf had at least a three-year association with Mohamad’s Perdana group, whose website also features reports of meetings with believers in a 9/11 conspiracy.

From 2005 through 2008, Rauf was listed on the group’s website, just below Mohamad’s, according to the group’s records and website.

~JUST read the rest here

Share
Sep 242010
 

Mr. President,

I write this letter as a patriot, a taxpayer, a lifelong resident and as concerned citizen of what I consider to be the greatest nation ever known to man, the United States of America.

I am Caucasian, so let’s get the racial aspect out of the way to start with. This letter has nothing to do with your race. I lived through the cruelty of Jim Crow and segregation and learned early on in my life that the color of my skin does not make me better or worse than any other man.

We all remember Martin Luther King, Jr.’s statement about judging people, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, and I believe that with all my heart.

I believe that America is an exceptional country. We have been liberator, benefactor and leader of the free world for centuries. America is an example of what can be achieved by free people living under the free enterprise system.

We have led the world in technology, industry, science and medicine for a long time.

Our capitalist system guarantees that those who explore new worlds and bring us new products and better techniques are amply rewarded for their efforts, and this is as it should be.

A person who is the first one to get there and the last one to leave, who burns the midnight oil and never gives up until they realize their goals, are a boon to humankind. They’re the ones who discover new cures, start new industries and create jobs.

These people deserve to be rewarded for their hard work and for the products and services they bring to make life better for all mankind.

Mr. President, it is my personal opinion that you want to take the well-earned rewards of these people and give it to those who have done nothing to deserve them.

It’s really redistribution of wealth, and it’s nothing new. It’s been tried many places before and it has miserably failed in every one of them.


It’s called socialism.

Am I calling you a socialist? Yes, I am. I firmly believe that you are a socialist and a globalist, and that you think America should have a comeuppance and have our playing field leveled to match those of other countries not as industrious or as innovative as we are.

Mr. President, how can you support the building of a mosque in the very same area where Islamic radicals murdered so many Americans?

Just who’s side are you on?


Am I accusing you of being a Muslim? No I’m not, but the jury is still out a little bit on that subject in my mind, because many times your sympathies seem to lean in that direction. You need to watch who you bow to Mr. President.

You have betrayed a whole generation of African-Americans who voted for you because they really believed all that junk about “hope and change,” they really thought you were going to do something great and the only thing you’ve done is to make their jobs disappear and their health insurance go up.

You and your party have corrupted duly elected officials in an effort to get your legislative agenda passed. Remember the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback,” and that’s just a couple we know about, but you bought off a bunch of congressmen and senators, knowing that you were going against the will of the majority of Americans, because you think that you and your arrogant friends know more about what’s good for America than the citizens your disastrous actions effect.

Am I accusing you of being an elitist? You bet.

I don’t believe you take the Islamic threat to America nearly as seriously as you should. You use semantics like “Overseas Contingency Operation” and “Man Caused Disasters” to soften your rhetoric toward people who would like nothing better than decapitate the entire population of America.

And Mr. President, if you’d really like to know the kind of warriors who are fighting the “Overseas Contingency Operation,” and you would like to really know about what kind of enemies they’re fighting, you should read a book called Lone Survivor by a brave, young Navy Seal named Marcus Lutrell who went to hell and back for his country, and is still a dedicated patriot. I think you’d find it enlightening, Mr. President and after you finish it would you pass it on to Janet Napolitano? And by the way, tell her that my invitation to take her to Iraq and show her some “Man Caused Disasters” is still open.

Am I calling you naïve? Absolutely.

You seem to think that America has an endless supply of tax dollars for you to waste and give away, and the debt you’ve piled up could well bankrupt the greatest nation on earth.


Am I calling you a failure, Mr. President? With all due respect that’s exactly what I’m doing.

~MUST SEE-an awesome narration of the beauty of America-America – The Land I Love

~Charlie Daniels

Share
Sep 242010
 


Stephen Colbert’s satirical routine as a conservative commentator on “The Colbert Report” leaves millions of his fans laughing every night, but the comedian failed to amuse lawmakers Friday during a House panel hearing on farm jobs and illegal immigrants.

The Comedy Central star stayed in character during testimony as he made light of his experience working for one day as a migrant laborer on a vegetable farm in New York.

“America’s farms are presently far too dependent on immigrant labor to pick our fruits and vegetables,” Colbert said. “Now the obvious answer is for all of us to stop eating fruits and vegetables, and if you look at the recent obesity statistics, you’ll see that many Americans have already started.”

While some audience members laughed, most of the members of the House Judiciary subcommittee barely cracked a smile.

“This is America,” Colbert continued. “I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican. I want it picked by an American, then sliced by a Guatemalan and served by a Venezuelan in a spa where a Chilean gives me a Brazilian.”

While some Republicans criticized Democrats for inviting Colbert, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Fox News that she believes it’s “appropriate.”

“Of course I think it’s appropriate,” she said. “He’s an American. He can bring attention to an important issue. I think it’s great.”

~Showboating…At the beginning of the hearing, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, tried to pull the plug on Colbert’s testimony in an effort “to get to the bottom” of the issue.

But Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the subcommittee chairwoman who invited Colbert to testify, intervened.

“Many are eager to hear his comments,” she said.

Colbert replied that he would leave only at her request.

“I’m here at the invitation of the chairwoman, and if she would like me to remove myself from the hearing room, I am happy to do so,” he said. “I’m only here at her invitation.”

~On a side note , she needs to be fired for making the Halls look asinine. And she’s Chair – Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ?! I don’t have anything against Colbert, but he is an avowed atheist. Many Progressives in Congress are closet atheists , I Wonder if she’s up for reelection hmmm?…

Share
Sep 242010
 

~RELATED:

Congresswoman:(Let’s check her out IN DEPTH) White Supremacist Groups Behind Arizona Immigration Law

Ethics probe of Sanchez sisters part of panel leak

House Ethics Committee may be reviewing deal between office of Rep. Linda Sanchez and her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez

Share