Al Qaeda Group Claims Bomb Attempt – WSJ.com

Al Qaeda Group Claims Bomb Attempt – WSJ.com.

By MARGARET COKER and SUMMER SAID

ABU DHABI — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the branch of the extremist group based in Yemen, appeared to claim responsibility for the Christmas Day attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet, ratcheting up worry about the organization’s expanding reach and potency.

Al Qaeda claims credit for an attempted plane bombing, more aggressive help for housing again and more in the News Hub.

The group said it provided the Nigerian suspect in the attempted bombing, identified by U.S. officials as Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, with “a technically advanced device,” according to a statement issued by the group Monday and posted on several Web sites routinely used by Islamic militants.

The statement said the device failed to detonate because of an unspecified technical fault. Like other statements from the group in the past, it couldn’t definitively be verified.

The group, also known by its initials AQAP, said the suspect had the blessing of the organization in “his response” to U.S. attacks in Yemen, apparently referring to recent U.S.-backed military strikes conducted by the Yemeni government against suspected al Qaeda operatives. The group referred to Mr. Abdulmuttalab as “Umar Farouk al-Nigiri,” denoting his Nigerian origin.

Associated Press

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in a photo released by the U.S. Marshal’s Service

 

News Hub: Breaking Down PETN in Airline Attack

3:28WSJ’s Ron Winslow tells the News Hub’s Simon Constable more about pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN, the chemical that was allegedly used to try and blow up an an airplane on Christmas Day.

More Video

• The News Hub: Breaking Down Airline Attack
• Rethinking Airline Security
• Abdulmutallab Charged
• How Israel Screens for Terrorists

In the statement, the group warned of fresh attacks in the Arabian peninsula, in particular, calling for attacks against foreign embassies: “We call on all Muslims … to throw out all unbelievers from the Arabian peninsula by killing the crusaders who work in embassies or elsewhere,” the statement read. 

The al Qaeda statement said Mr. Abdulmutallab “managed to penetrate all devices and modern advanced technology and security checkpoints in international airports … defying the large myth of American and international intelligence, and exposing how fragile they are, bringing their nose to the ground.”

The claim of responsibility ratchets up pressure on both U.S. and Yemeni officials to bring the country’s growing al Qaeda network under control. Yemeni and U.S. officials have acknowledged cooperation between the two countries in the fight against Islamist extremists.

The Flight 253 Bomb Attempt

• Obama: U.S. Won’t Rest in Bomb Probe
• Wash Wire: Napolitano Says Security Failed
• Middle Seat: New TSA Measures Defy Logic
• U.K.’s Visa Policy Comes Into Focus
• Statement from Suspect’s Family
• Latest Airline Incident in Detroit Not a Terror Threat
• Terror Watch Lists Come Under Scrutiny
• A Primer in PETN
• Yemeni Groups Increased Aviation Threats
• Airlines Face Delays Amid Extra Security
• Incident Highlights Nigeria Concerns
• Suspect’s Privileged Existence Took a Radical Turn
• Routine Turned to Mayhem on Terror Flight
• Bombing Bid Spurs Air-Security Questions

In a recent interview, Ali Al-Anisi, a senior security aide to Yemen’s president and the director of the president’s office, said the government was determined to rid Yemen of al Qaeda and was cooperating with U.S. officials in that fight. “There is coordination and collaboration in the fight against terror,” he said.

Over the summer, Arab and Western intelligence officials grew alarmed by reports that al Qaeda members were retreating from the battlefields in Afghanistan and Pakistan to havens in Yemen.

In August, a Saudi al Qaeda member who had taken refuge in Yemen mounted a cross-border assassination attempt against Saudi Arabia’s deputy interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayyef al Saud, the kingdom’s point man on the war on terror.

U.S.-born cleric, Sheikh Anwar al Awlaki, who is now based in Yemen, said in a recent interview with Arabic news channel Al Jazeera that he provided the ideological support for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Foot Hood, Texas, shooter.

President Obama addresses the U.S. and discusses the nation’s air safety issues in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack on a Northwest Airlines flight. Video courtesy of Fox News.

Earlier this month, Yemeni security forces, supported by U.S. intelligence, launched two rare offensives against al Qaeda cells, based in three locations around the country. Yemeni officials say at least 35 militants have been killed and at least two dozen more have been arrested during the attacks on Dec. 17 and Dec. 24.

Those figures couldn’t be independently confirmed. It is unclear whether any of the dead or jailed included high-ranking members of the al Qaeda leadership there.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula vowed revenge for the deaths caused in the Dec. 17 attack. Despite that claim, it is unlikely that the foiled Christmas Day airline bombing was linked directly to this threat of revenge. Nigerian aviation officials have said Mr. Abdulmuttalab’s ticket was bought Dec. 16.

Suspect’s Journey

View Interactive

In recent days, both al Qaeda supporters and government opposition members have staged protests against what they claim are scores of civilian casualties in the government’s two operations against al Qaeda. Local media have reported up to 60 people, mainly women and children, killed in the attacks.

A Yemen government official, speaking to parliament last week, said the civilian loss of life was regrettable.

Local and Western analysts who specialize in Yemen says that the al Qaeda members have limited support throughout the fractured, unstable country, but the government also engenders little confidence. The government is also battling secessionists in the south and an insurgency in the north. Analysts warn that al Qaeda could capitalize on the growing anger over the civilian deaths to solidify the group’s hold in the country.

Write to Margaret Coker at margaret.coker@wsj.com and Summer Said at summer.said@dowjones.com

Beyond the Constitution: The Healthcare Bill Violates the Rule of Law » The Foundry

Beyond the Constitution: The Healthcare Bill Violates the Rule of Law » The Foundry.

Posted December 23rd, 2009 at 2.03pm in Health Care.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has pointed observers to a problematic section of the health care legislation now before the Senate that proposes (in Section 3403) to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Board. He rightly observes that the bill language makes it virtually impossible to repeal that part of the legislation, thereby attempting to bind future Congresses.

DeMint is right about all this, but—having read through the legislation—by my read it is actually much worse than has been suggested, and much more destructive of the rule of law and democratic governance.

The purpose of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” (p. 1001) Its proposals to reduce that spending “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.” (p. 1004) (And the legislation won’t pay for abortions – yea, right.)

But the Board’s proposals “shall include recommendations to reduce Medicare payments under parts C and D, such as reductions in direct subsidy payments to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans . . . that are related to administrative expenses (including profits) for basic coverage.” (Hmmm . . . . Sounds like rather than directly rationing health care, they just won’t pay for it.)

Setting the rationing questions aside for a moment, what is most disturbing is the process by which these cost-savings dictates made by an unelected board of experts will be implemented regardless of the majority opinion of the law-making branch of government. So much for the rule of law.

This Board—which is appointed by the President, is not required to hold any public meetings or take any testimony and cannot be disbanded except by a 3/5 vote of Congress—transmits a legislative proposal that implements its recommendations to the President, who shall immediately submit such proposal to Congress. (p 1011)

On the day on which the proposal is submitted it shall be introduced in Congress (p 1017) and referred to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives (p. 1018), despite any standing rules of the Senate (p 1019). If the committee does not act fast enough, the bill shall be discharged from (ie forced through) that committee (1019).

And then there is this zinger:

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board” if the bill, resolution, amendment or report does not satisfy the requirements of the legislation.

And here is DeMint’s troubling discovery (p 1020):

It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection” other than by three-fifths of the Members of Congress.

The section then goes on to promulgate the rules of debate in the Senate and House for considering the legislation, and that if the one House passes the legislation the other “shall consider the bill introduced in that House through all stages of consideration up to, but not including, passage.” No more pesky committee mark-ups and amendments.

If there is any doubt that this section of the Healthcare Bill changes the rules of the Senate and the House in violation of clear constitutional language guaranteeing each House’s determination of the rules of its proceedings (Article I, Section 5), consider this Orwellian language (p. 1028):

RULES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES.—

This subsection and subsection (f)(2) are enacted by Congress—

‘(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and is deemed to be part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of bill under this section, and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and

(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as they relate to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

Sooo, . . . the Secretary shall not implement the Board’s “recommendations” but only if Congress follows all these new rules and goes to great length to pass another law.

But wait! Perhaps the bureaucrats can implement the law anyway(p. 1031):

NO AFFECT ON AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN PROVISIONS.—Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to affect the authority of the Secretary to implement any recommendation contained in a proposal or advisory report under this section to the extent that the Secretary otherwise has the authority to implement such recommendation administratively.

Paragraph 3 is the exception under which Congress enacts legislation against the specific Board recommendation. Given the wide latitude by which bureaucrats wield their administrative authority, and the looseness of this language, the legislation could be read to give them a green light to proceed administratively despite congressional disapproval. And, just to make it clear they mean to rule us, there shall be no administrative or judicial review of this decision.

It has become commonplace for Congress to pass massive pieces of legislation with little serious deliberation; it is increasingly an administrative body overseeing a vast array of bureaucratic policymakers and rule-making bodies. Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of “laws” are promulgated by administrative agencies in the guise of “regulations”—a form of rule by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.

This bureaucracy is so overwhelming that it is unclear whether modern presidents actually can be held constitutionally responsible for “tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Presidents now appoint numerous policy “czars”—megabureaucrats operating outside of the existing cabinet structure—to forward their objectives over the inertia of their own administrations.

And now, in this new form of administrative governance, unelected and unresponsible experts who are beyond legislative control and the rule of law will tell us what is good for us and the rules by which we will shall live our lives.

This legislation is not about health care, but about placing one sixth of the American economy—and some of the most important and personal decisions in our lives—under the permanent control of government. This section of the legislation—and the operations of this Independent Medicare Advisory Board—is a prime example of the autocratic rule that is increasingly overtaking us.

Nothing Voluntary About Obamacare’s Mandate » The Foundry

Posted December 23rd, 2009 at 10.34am in Health Care.

Some supporters of the health care “reform” bill being shoved through the Senate are dismissing concerns over the individual insurance mandate and the tax penalty imposed on those who don’t meet that requirement. They claim that because § 5000A of the bill waives criminal prosecution of taxpayers and says that no liens or levies can be filed on the taxpayer’s property, this is supposedly a “voluntary mandate” and the IRS can’t do anything against you if you refuse to pay the penalty.

That claim is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, if you refuse to pay the penalty or you refuse to provide any information on your health care status on your tax return, you will face the prospect of being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, something that rightly scares all taxpayers, including those who are law abiding and have done everything they think they should to comply with the law. IRS tax audits are notoriously intrusive, intimidating, and expensive, and the IRS is known for its consistent inconsistency in applying its complex and Byzantine rules and regulations.The IRS, which is known for its habit of disregarding court decisions that disagree with its interpretations of the law, may use audits and the ability to find problems in a taxpayer’s finances in areas totally unrelated to the health care mandate to force compliance with the mandate and coerce payment of the tax penalty imposed by Reid’s bill. There will certainly be pressure from Congress, which has oversight and budget authority over the IRS, to do so. CBO itself made clear that the financing of healthcare reform is based in substantial part on generating $167 billion in “penalty payments” from individual taxpayers and employers, i.e., businesses whose worst nightmare is getting audited by the IRS. If there is mass civil disobedience by American taxpayers refusing to comply with this provision on their tax returns, there is no doubt that the need for this revenue will cause Democrats to attach a quick one-sentence amendment to a must-pass appropriations bill in the future that voids the waiver of criminal prosecution and the ability to levy a taxpayer’s property.

Second, taxpayers will have to make sure they calculate the regular taxes they owe during the course of a tax year precisely and not end up with the IRS owing them a refund. If they don’t, the IRS will be able to offset the refund against the health care tax penalty the taxpayer owes to the government. I spoke with one of the best tax litigation lawyers I know in Atlanta, someone with lots of experience representing clients against the IRS. He told me that the language li

via Nothing Voluntary About Obamacare’s Mandate » The Foundry.

Obama On Cutting Red Tape: No We Can’t » The Foundry

Posted December 23rd, 2009 at 2.02pm in Enterprise and Free Markets.

For the past week or so, President Obama has been trying to jawbone banks into lending more in order to jump start the economy. He continued the push yesterday, meeting with a group of small community bankers to urge them to open up the spigots. Interestingly, he acknowledged that federal regulation is itself a barrier to increased lending. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, he said the White House is working on ways to decrease that red tape, but warned that: “We don’t have direct influence over our independent regulators.”

That’s a surprisingly diffident response from a president who campaigned under the theme “yes, we can.” A president who is trying to remake the American health care system, refound the U.S. auto industry, and regulate the earth’s climate can’t clear up some red tape on loans?

Of course, the issue isn’t that simple. No one wants the White House pressuring bank examiners to go easy on banks for political reasons. There are reasons for the rules, and reasons why regulators have a good deal of independence in the area.

But that doesn’t mean the president is powerless. After making increased financial regulation a priority, can he really maintain with a straight face the level of regulation is outside his job description? Is the president’s authority a ratchet that allows him to consider expanding rules, but not trimming them?

It’s not clear at all that bank lending rules are indeed a problem. And the last thing we need is for politicians to encourage banks to again make irresponsible loans. But to shrug off the question, claiming a lack of influence, is simply a dodge. If there is a problem, the president has a responsibility to address it.

via Obama On Cutting Red Tape: No We Can’t » The Foundry.

A Democrats view from the House: Senate bill isnt health reform – CNN.com

A Democrats view from the House: Senate bill isnt health reform – CNN.com.

By Louise M. Slaughter, Special to CNN

December 23, 2009 — Updated 1531 GMT (2331 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Senate bill isn’t worthy of being called health reform, says Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York)
• Slaughter, who heads Rules Committee, says lack of public option is a fatal flaw
• She says Senate bill would not stir competition among big insurance firms
• Slaughter: Senate needs to go back and start over on health care

RELATED TOPICS

• Health Care Policy
• U.S. Senate
• Health and Fitness

Editor’s note: Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat, represents the 28th Congressional District of New York. Slaughter is the first woman to chair the House Rules Committee and the only microbiologist in Congress.

Washington (CNN) — The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago.

Even though the House version is far from perfect, it at least represents a step toward our goal of giving 36 million Americans decent health coverage.

But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?

I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform.

By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn’t worthy of its support.

The public option is the part of our reform effort that will lower costs, improve the delivery of health care services and force insurance companies to offer rates and services that are reasonable.

Although the art of legislating involves compromise, I believe the Senate went off the rails when it agreed with the Obama Administration to water down the reform bill and no longer include the public option.

But that’s not the only thing wrong with the Senate’s version of the health care bill.

Under that plan, insurance companies can punish older people, charging them much higher rates than the House bill would allow.

In the House, we fought hard to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, the antitrust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed for years. We did that because we believed firmly that those Fortune 500 corporations should not enjoy special treatment.

Yet the Senate bill does not include that provision — despite assurances from some members that they will seek to add it. By ending that protection, we will be able to go after insurance companies with federal penalties for misleading advertising or dishonest business practices.

The House bill would cover 96 percent of legal residents, while the Senate covers 94 percent. Compared with the House bill, the Senate’s bill makes it much easier for employers to avoid the responsibility of providing insurance for their workers.

And of course, the Senate bill did not remove the onerous choice language intended to appeal to anti-abortion forces.

Now don’t get me wrong; the current House and Senate bills are a significant improvement over the status quo. Given the hard path to reform and the political realities of next year, there is a sizable group within Congress that wants to simply cut any deal that works and call it a success. Many previous efforts have failed, and the path to reform is littered with unsuccessful efforts championed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.

Supporters of the weak Senate bill say “just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.”

I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.

It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Louise Slaughter.

The Copenhagen Shakedown – WSJ.com

The Copenhagen Shakedown – WSJ.com.

The U.N. climate-change conference in Copenhagen was supposed to be the moment when the world came together to save us from an excess of carbon dioxide. Like all such confabs, it’s coming down instead to cold, hard cash.

On Monday, the so-called G-77—in effect, the Third World—walked out of the talks for several hours in protest of the unwillingness, as they saw it, of rich countries to foot the bill for averting or mitigating climate catastrophe in the developing world. The negotiations have since resumed, but with the most difficult questions set aside and expectations lower than ever.

More than anything else, Monday’s walkout revealed the real reason that the developing world is in Copenhagen in the first place: They see climate change as a potential foreign-aid bonanza, and they are at the table to leverage the West’s environmental angst into massive transfers of wealth.

OpinionJournal Related Articles:

•Review and Outlook: The Copenhagen Concoction
•Review and Outlook:Global Warming Revolt
•Review and Outlook:Copenhagen’s Collapse

In theory, the money is supposed to help poor countries pay for their transition to a carbon-neutral future. But the developed world has been pouring trillions of dollars into development aid in various forms for decades, with little to show for it. The reasons are well-known: Corruption, political oppression, government control of the economy and the absence of rule of law combine to keep poor countries poor. And those factors also ensure that most aid is squandered or skimmed off the top.Recasting foreign aid as “climate mitigation” won’t change any of that.

Still, Copenhagen’s fixation on who pays for these huge wealth transfers is instructive because it lays bare the myth that greening the global economy is a cost-free exercise. The G-77 scoffed at a European offer of €7.2 billion ($10 billion) over three years. Instead, the Sudanese chairman of the group, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, suggested in an interview with Mother Jones magazine that something on the order of a trillion dollars, or more, would be appropriate.

“The world’s scientists and policy decision makers have publicly stated that this is the greatest risk humanity has ever faced,” says Mr. Di-Aping. “Now if that’s the case, it’s very strange that $10 billion is considered adequate financing.” Mr. Di-Aping deserves credit for taking the climate alarmists on their own terms and drawing consistent conclusions.

Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the Malthusian 1972 classic “The Limits to Growth,” also served up some climate honesty in a recent interview with Der Spiegel. “I lived long enough in a country like Afghanistan to know that I don’t want us to have to live like that in the future. But we have to learn to live a life that allows for fulfillment and development, with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan.” Mr. Meadows’s chilling corollary: “If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then . . . one or two billion” people is about all the population the planet can sustain.

Given that the world’s population is now about 6.8 billion people, that’s not likely to happen. Nor is the developed world about to reinvent itself as a greener version of Afghanistan, much less fork over trillions of dollars to avert the supposed catastrophe it has done so much to trumpet. If the summit at Copenhagen achieves nothing else but to expose the disconnect between climate alarm and climate “solutions,” it may even be worth it.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A26

The Associated Press: Dean urges defeat of emerging health care bill

The Associated Press: Dean urges defeat of emerging health care bill.

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

“You will now be forced to buy insurance. If you don’t, you’ll pay a fine,” said Dean, a physician. “It’s an insurance company bailout.” Interviewed on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he said the bill has some good provisions, “but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country.”

“This is an insurance company’s dream,” the former Democratic presidential candidate said. “This is the Washington scramble, and it’s a shame.”

Dean asserted that the Senate’s health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a prominent House liberal, protested the absence of any government-run insurance option in the Senate bill.

“We can’t let the perfect be enemy of the good,” Weiner said on CBS’ “Early Show,” “but we are reaching a tipping point.”

When House and Senate negotiators go to conference to work out a compromise bill, Weiner said, “We should move away from some of the things the Senate has done and move back to where the House is. You need to contain cost. You do that with a public option.”

News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | Cap Metro fires Veolia; hires new contractors

News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | Cap Metro fires Veolia; hires new contractors.

Updated: 12/9/2009 11:23 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff

	Cap Metro officials said this change will not affect the estimated timeline.

Capital Metro officials announced Wednesday their termination of a contract with Veolia Transportation.

 

Veolia Transportation is the rail and maintenance company that was responsible for the MetroRail project.

Cap Metro officials said Veolia was demanding term changes to the contract for the completion of the rail line, and it didn’t want to burden the community with additional costs and risks to meet those demands.

		WATCH THE VIDEO
	Contract News 8’s Jenna Hiller explains why Cap Metro cancelled its contract with Veolia and what happens next.

Capital Metro Board of Directors voted to approve two new contracts with two different companies Wednesday afternoon.

Herzog Transit Services will take over the commuter rail contract. According to a press release, the company is ready to begin work immediately. Herzog operates passenger rail systems in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Watco Companies Inc. will take over the freight line contract. Watco has been operating Capital Metro freight lines in Austin since October 2007.

Cap Metro officials said this change will not affect the estimated timeline.

Stay with News8Austin.com for more on this developing story.

Another Terrorist Dry Run « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Unbelievable!

Another Terrorist Dry Run « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier.

Remember the flight from Atlanta to Houston that got turned around because of the guy who wouldn’t get off the phone? That’s not what happened. From the website Nobody Asked Me via Pierre LeGrand:

I was in 1st class coming home. 11 Muslim men got on the plane in full attire. 2 sat in 1st class and the rest peppered themselves throughout the plane all the way to the back. As the plane taxied to the runway the stewardesses gave the safety spiel we are all so familiar with. At that time, one of the men got on his cell and called one of his companions in the back and proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very aggressively. This took the 1st stewardess out of the picture for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at the time. He ignored her as if she was not there.

The 2nd man who answered the phone did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess. In the back of the plane at this time, 2 younger Muslims, one in the back, isle, and one in front of him, window, began to show footage of a porno they had taped the night before, and were very loud about it. Now….they are only permitted to do this prior to Jihad. If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her. (don’t ask me….I don’t make the rules, but I’ve studied). The 3rd stewardess informed them that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time. To which one of the men said “shut up infidel dog!” She went to take the camcorder and he began to scream in her face in Arabic. At that exact moment, all 11 of them got up and started to walk the cabin. This is where I had had enough! I got up and started to the back where I heard a voice behind me from another Texan twice my size say “I got your back.” I grabbed the man who had been on the phone by the arm and said “you WILL go sit down or you Will be thrown from this plane!” As I “led” him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed out with him. I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, “You WILL do the same!” He protested but adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go. As I escorted him forward the plane doors open and 3 TSA agents and 4 police officers entered. Me and my new Texan friend were told to cease and desist for they had this under control. I was happy to oblige actually. There was some commotion in the back, but within moments, all 11 were escorted off the plane. They then unloaded their luggage.

We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happen, when suddenly, the door open again and on walked all 11!! Stone faced, eyes front and robotic (the only way I can describe it). The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw this, she was having NONE of it! Being that I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal. She told the TSA agent there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with these men. The agent told her they had searched them and were going to go through their luggage with a fine tooth comb and that they were allowed to proceed to Houston. The captain and co-captain came out and told the agent “we and our crew will not fly this plane!” After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane. 5 minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on.

Again…..this is where I had had enough!!! I got up and asked “What the hell is going on!?!?” I was told to take my seat. They were sorry for the delay and I would be home shortly. I said “I’m getting off this plane”. The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off. (now I’m mad!) I said “I am a grown man who bought this ticket, who’s time is mine with a family at home and I am going through that door, or I’m going through that door with you under my arm!! But I am going through that door!!” And I heard a voice behind me say “so am I”. Then everyone behind us started to get up and say the same. Within 2 minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met with more agents who asked me to write a statement. I had 5 hours to kill at this point so why the hell not. Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was cancelled. I was supposed to be in Houston at 6pm. I got here at 12:30am.

Recall, this post from Michelle Malkin and her thoughts on Anne Jacobson about the James Woods incident where Mohammed Atta was in a “dry run” a month before 9/11.

This has happened before. It could happen again. Will a country so cowed by political correctness, like the Army was, be unwitting dupes in their own demise yet again? If people in the Army were afraid to call out a psychotic superior, will common citizens resist?

I don’t believe we can count on the “officials” here any more than we’ve ever been able to count on them. Americans must be self-reliant. They must stand up for common sense. They must resist the social pressure to ignore threats because it might offend someone to do so.