Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Yielding to political opposition, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged henchmen will be referred to military commissions for trial rather than to a civilian federal court in New York.
The families of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks have waited almost a decade for justice, and “it must not be delayed any longer,” Holder told a news conference.
Holder had announced the earlier plan for trial in New York City in November 2009, but that foundered amid widespread opposition to a civilian court trial from Republicans and even some Democrats, particularly in New York. Congress passed legislation that prohibits bringing any detainees from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States.
On Monday, the attorney general called the congressional restrictions unwise and unwarranted and said a legislative body cannot make prosecutorial decisions.Most Republicans applauded the turnabout, but Holder said he is still convinced that his earlier decision was the right one.
“We’re delighted,” said Alexander Santora, 74, father of deceased firefighter Christopher A. Santora. The father called the accused terrorists “demonic human beings, they’ve already said that they would kill us if they could, if they got the chance they would do it again.”
Commentary
Finally the Government gets it right.As far as yielding to political pressure please spare me te media theatrics AP.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Gov.Patrick Stays Politically Correct
Governor Patrick Makes History With SJC Pick
Now Has Selected A Majority Of The Court.
Gov. Deval Patrick has tapped Barbara Lenk, who would be the first openly gay Supreme Judicial Court justice, to fill an open slot on Massachusetts' highest court.
Patrick nominated Lenk, a state appellate court justice, on Monday.
In a statement, Patrick called Lenk a ``brilliant and thoughtful jurist, with a deep sense of justice.''
Lenk was appointed to the Superior Court by former Gov. William Weld in 1993 and became an appellate justice in 1995.A native of Queens, N.Y., she graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979 and joined the Boston law firm of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer.
If confirmed, Lenk would succeed Judith Cowin, who has announced plans to retire.
Commentary
Just what we needed another left wing inept legal unjust pick by this empty suit Gov.Patrick.It wouldhave been pretty much the same with Charlie Baker seeing that he was a RINO.But elections have consequences so lets hope that the Governor's Councilors have a no confidence vote.
Patrick nominated Lenk, a state appellate court justice, on Monday.
In a statement, Patrick called Lenk a ``brilliant and thoughtful jurist, with a deep sense of justice.''
Lenk was appointed to the Superior Court by former Gov. William Weld in 1993 and became an appellate justice in 1995.A native of Queens, N.Y., she graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979 and joined the Boston law firm of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer.
If confirmed, Lenk would succeed Judith Cowin, who has announced plans to retire.
Commentary
Just what we needed another left wing inept legal unjust pick by this empty suit Gov.Patrick.It wouldhave been pretty much the same with Charlie Baker seeing that he was a RINO.But elections have consequences so lets hope that the Governor's Councilors have a no confidence vote.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
NYT Wants Environmental Policy Over What Is Good For America's Economy
 |
| Lead Opinion Editorial |
The title of this mornings lead OPED in this mornings New York Times boggles one's mind."No to a New Tar Sands Pipeline" is a grotesque look at the thought process of the NYT editorial board and the lack of common sense that they have.
It begins "Later this year, the State Department will decide whether to approve construction of a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast called Keystone XL. The underground 36-inch pipeline, built by TransCanada, would link the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to Texas refineries and begin operating in 2013. The department should say no."
One can only imagine why the NYT would want the Department Of State to say no.You got it environMENTAL policy would supposedly be affected.
Here is what I mean "The environmental risks, for both countries, are enormous. The first step in the process is to strip-mine huge chunks of Alberta’s boreal forest. The oil, a tar-like substance called bitumen, is then extracted with steam or hot water, which in turn is produced by burning natural gas. The E.P.A. estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil — even without counting the destruction of forests that sequester carbon — are 82 percent greater than those produced by conventional crude oil."
Once again the NYT have to go back to the doctrine of the the GREEN movement and the Al Gore founded (or for you lame-brained tree hugging liberals out there) the made up religion of global warming with the use of the phrase "greenhouse gas emissions" another BS spin word for carbon dioxide.
They continue to keep hitting on more text book Liberal socialist scare tactics "The project poses a major threat to water supplies on both sides of the border. Turning two tons of tar sand into a barrel of oil requires four times as much water as producing a barrel of conventional oil. Operations in Alberta have already created 65 square miles of toxic holding ponds, which kill migrating birds and pollute downstream watersheds, a serious matter for native communities.
In the United States, the biggest potential problem is pipeline leaks. The Keystone XL would carry bitumen — which is more corrosive than crude oil — thinned with other petroleum condensates and then pumped at high pressure and at a temperature of more than 150 degrees through the pipeline."Now lets apply a little bit of common sense here shall we.There is a natural cycle that water goes through does it not?Ok.Well if memory serves me doesn't the far left have a fixation over something called"alternative energy" I not talking about solar panels but a source of energy a product called ETHANOL which would have major effects on our food supply since ethanol is extracted from corn is a natural bi-product of the corn and would not be cost effective it would be more expensive.But hey it would make the members of the Communist/Democrat Party "feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside."And make them FEEL like they did something good .AWE!I think that am going to cry.
Didn't President Barack HUSSEIN Obama just give a major speech earlier last week about the need for America to become more energy independent .Hey this just shows us the American people that Obama is not accountable to us the taxpayer but beholden to the whacked out so called Green environMENTALists.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Obama’s energy hoax By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
There must be something in the White House water.
For decades presidents have been promising to cut oil imports and still nothing much happens. President Barack Obama’s promise of a one-third cut by 2025 is squarely in that unworthy tradition.
The president got his headline but in fact hardly mentioned imports, except to note a small decline in recent recession years. He made no argument that cutting imports would be beneficial in itself, just airy genuflections to the security of supply, a non-problem since nobody can block U.S. access to the world oil market.
The emphasis was on a vast expansion of “clean energy.” The familiar pipe dreams were unfurled again: Bio fuels. Further increases in fuel economy requirements. Electric cars. Flexible-fuel vehicles. High-speed rail. Public transit.
Sure all nifty ideas, their regulatory quirks notwithstanding. And all are costly, many to the point of wiping out any possible benefits. If the president sought increased oil production to hold down prices, he’d do a lot more good.
Here and there a project might be worthwhile. Encouraging use of abundant natural gas as a fuel (for truck fleets, say) with modest subsidies could produce far greater benefits than the current $7,500 subsidy for electric cars.
The president’s increased production scenarios are too rosy. He wants holders of federal oil leases to develop their leases faster and produce more. Producers produce what they want to produce. If forced to develop one lease — assuming there’s oil there — instead of holding it for later, they may idle another well elsewhere.
If the president were serious about increasing domestic production, he would urge exploration of promising no-drill areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves.
Fat chance.
Commentary
As the Herald just stated we need to cut our alliance with foreign oil producers.DRILL BABY DRILL as the Great Sarah Palin once said
For decades presidents have been promising to cut oil imports and still nothing much happens. President Barack Obama’s promise of a one-third cut by 2025 is squarely in that unworthy tradition.
The president got his headline but in fact hardly mentioned imports, except to note a small decline in recent recession years. He made no argument that cutting imports would be beneficial in itself, just airy genuflections to the security of supply, a non-problem since nobody can block U.S. access to the world oil market.
The emphasis was on a vast expansion of “clean energy.” The familiar pipe dreams were unfurled again: Bio fuels. Further increases in fuel economy requirements. Electric cars. Flexible-fuel vehicles. High-speed rail. Public transit.
Sure all nifty ideas, their regulatory quirks notwithstanding. And all are costly, many to the point of wiping out any possible benefits. If the president sought increased oil production to hold down prices, he’d do a lot more good.
Here and there a project might be worthwhile. Encouraging use of abundant natural gas as a fuel (for truck fleets, say) with modest subsidies could produce far greater benefits than the current $7,500 subsidy for electric cars.
The president’s increased production scenarios are too rosy. He wants holders of federal oil leases to develop their leases faster and produce more. Producers produce what they want to produce. If forced to develop one lease — assuming there’s oil there — instead of holding it for later, they may idle another well elsewhere.
If the president were serious about increasing domestic production, he would urge exploration of promising no-drill areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves.
Fat chance.
Commentary
As the Herald just stated we need to cut our alliance with foreign oil producers.DRILL BABY DRILL as the Great Sarah Palin once said
Presidential Weekly Address GOP Response
Obama Weekly Address: Gas Prices & Energy Security
Compare these addresses and how political philosophies differ from one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)