Blackwater liscense being pulled in Iraq

Interesting.

Tens of thousands of foreign private security contractors work in Iraq — some with automatic weapons, body armor, helicopters and bulletproof vehicles — to provide protection for Westerners and dignitaries in Iraq as the country has plummeted toward anarchy and civil war.

Monday's action against Blackwater was likely to give the unpopular government a boost, given the contractors' widespread unpopularity.

BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government said Monday that it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghda.

I would guess that there will be pushback against this move by the US, specifically in regards to prosecuting members of Blackwater.

.. come back, and everything's changed around. You guys just felt like changing it, are there upgrades and new features, or is this some kind of feng shui thing?

Rudy Guliani trashing Hillary over the MoveOn/Patreaus/Betray US ad . Of course Rudy essentially says Hillary is a traitor and he's the only American capable of leading the US to WAR with every other nation on earth.....Oh? What? He doesn't want to attack every other nation on earth? Well, he hasn't announced it yet. that is. As soon as that tin foil hat of his cuts off the oxygen to his piddling little brain (his ego takes up so much room, something had to go), UK look out! You'll be on one of the short "To nuke today" lists.

It was previously a site for some pirate game but it looks like they let it expire.

Dunno if we wanna buy that and redirect it here.

I'm glad to see some of today's students taking an active role in championing the 2nd Amendment:

Students Aim To Form Club That Promotes Gun Ownership

No Hillary in 2008!

That was the theme I just saw on an ad for a right-wing tee-shirt.  Once again the conservatives out there can spot a communist in sheep's clothing (note reference to Democrat Leadership from DailyKos ad a while back)!

Seems that her anti-nuke crusade may have had unintended consequences:

'NYT' Sunday Preview: Jane Fonda to Blame for Global Warming?

By E&P Staff

Published: September 14, 2007 1:50 PM ET

NEW YORK In their regular "Freakanomics" column which will appear in this Sunday's edition of The New York Times Magazine, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, pose this question: "If you were asked to name the biggest global warming villains of the past 30 years, here's one name that probably wouldn't spring to mind: Jane Fonda. But should it?"

The authors observe that Fonda's antinuclear thriller "The China Syndrome," which opened just 12 days before the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, helped stoke "a widespread panic." Fonda became a high-profile anti-nuke activist in an already-strong movement. The nuclear industry halted plans for expansion. "And so," they continue, "instead of becoming a nation with clean and cheap nuclear energy, as once seemed inevitable, the United States kept building power plants that burned coal and other fossil fuels. Today such plants account for 40 percent of the country's energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions.

"Anyone hunting for a global-warming villain can't help blaming those power plants -- and can't help wondering too about the unintended consequences of Jane Fonda."

Of course, there were many other factors in the nuclear industry decline, including cost over-runs, disposal of nuclear waste, the threat of terrorism and numerous other accidents beyond TMI. Then there was, ahem, Chernobyl. But the columnists cite the "big news" that with global warming fears mounting, "nuclear power may be making a comeback in the United States," with plans for two dozen reactors on the drawing boards.

Will they get built? The authors conclude that "it may all depend on what kind of thrillers Hollywood has in the pipeline."

Michelle Malkin raises a good point about the laundering scheme coming out of the corruption wing of the Clinton campaign.  Even if she refunds the money and then accepts the money right back from the "donors" the money STILL came from Hsu and is tainted money in violation of campaign law.  Rather than respect the law it is clear that the Clinton campaign intends to try and circumvent the law, something that we are all too familiar with from the 1990's when Hillary's lord and master Bill ran afoul of campaign finance laws.  Seems these people can't find a campaign finance law that they aren't willing to break.

These tactics are eerily familiar raising questions of just who is running the this Clinton campaign and just who we would be electing.  Is Hillary just going to be Bill's puppet in the Oval Office as she apparently is on the campaign finance planning?  We already know that Hillary is his submissive handmaiden from the 1990's when he publicaly disgraced her before the entire nation and she was too weak to make a break from the abuse.

Hillary is just Bill's end run around the 2 term limit as far as I can tell. You have to give him credit for finding the sneakiest ways to thwart the law at every turn.

Hillary was warned about Hsu; Update: Clinton campaign wants to re-purpose the dirty money :

See-Dubya follows the tainted rinse-and-spin cycle:

If the worry is that Hsu was using at least some of these people as fronts so that he could exceed the federal limits on how much he could donate to Hillary, then how will the money be any less tainted if they re-gift it to her? I.e., if Hsu cuts John Doe a check for $100,000 and asks him to spread it around among Democrats A-Z, then giving that money back to John so that he can give it right back to you doesn’t “cleanse” it. It’s Hsu’s money; John never should have had it in the first place. If you donate the money to charity and then hit John up for a donation from his own bank account, that’s fine. But that ain’t what she’s planning to do. Exit question: Why not at least wait until the DOJ investigation of Hsu’s bundled donations is over so you know which donors are clean and which aren’t?

Answer: Because they don’t care.

Seems like the Democrats have not one, but two Jack Abramoffs in their closet.  First it was Norman Hsu, and thanks to Michelle Malkin now we find out about ...

Another dirty Democrat fundraiser: William Lerach pleads guilty to conspiracy

Well, now Lerach may be headed to jail. *  The Washington Post reports tonight:

William S. Lerach, one of the nation’s best known and wealthiest plaintiff lawyers, is preparing to plead guilty as early as today to a single criminal conspiracy charge that could send him to prison for up to two years, according to sources familiar with the case.

Lerach, 61, resigned from his California law firm last month after intense speculation about his personal exposure in a lengthy federal criminal investigation. At the time, he said he wanted “to focus single-mindedly on putting the matter behind me once and for all.”

During his heyday, Lerach won settlements worth billions of dollars from major companies, including a record $7.3 billion payout from firms that helped Enron disguise its financial problems.

For seven years, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles have been probing allegations that Lerach and his former partners at the Milberg Weiss law firm enlisted people to buy shares in big corporations and then paid them to serve as plaintiffs in lawsuits. Government lawyers said that the payments, totaling more than $11 million, were not disclosed to judges or other investors and allowed Lerach and his team to arrive first at the courthouse to seize control of the class-action cases and to collect bigger slices of settlements or court victories.

Lerach is to plead guilty in court papers to be released as early as this week, with a court appearance following over the next several days, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

------------------------------------------------

* Wow, there's even an Enron connection.  This guy helped Enron defraud its investors by covering up its true financial position.  Do the Democrats have no decency?