Laura Ling & Euna Lee Sentenced to 12 Yrs in N. Korean Labor Camp
Two journalists who were arrested for crossing the border of North Korea unlawfully, and accused of illegally filming for the purpose of showing the trafficking of females, were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in a North Korean camp late last night.
Al Gore, rather than immediately trying to free the women, only got the brilliant idea to help them after their sentencing. He had an opportunity to save them from “man-bear-pig” a couple of months ago, but the weather was not warm enough for him to leave a massive carbon footprint via his personal jet.
The Korean Central News Agency says the Central Court tried American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee from June 4 to 8.
It said Monday the trial confirmed an unspecified “grave crime” against the nation, and of illegally crossing into North Korea.
The report says the court “sentenced each of them to 12 years of reform through labor.”
The journalists – working for former Vice President Al Gore’s California-based Current TV – were arrested March 17 as they were reporting about the trafficking of women. It’s unclear if they strayed into the North or were grabbed by aggressive border guards who crossed into China.
Although the Americans were accused of illegally entering North Korea and unspecified “hostile acts,” Pyongyong has yet to publicly announce the exact charges against them. South Korean legal experts have said a conviction for “hostility” or espionage could mean five to 10 years in a labor camp.
U.S. officials and others working for the reporters’ release have said they’ve received no information about the defendants and even lacked independent confirmation about whether the trial has started. The North has said the proceedings wouldn’t be open to foreign observers, including Swedish officials who act as Washington’s proxy in Pyongyang because the two countries do not have diplomatic ties.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she was “incredibly concerned” about the plight of the two women. In working for their release, Clinton said she has spoken with foreign officials with influence in North Korea and explored the possibility of sending an envoy to the North, but suggested that no one would be sent during the trial.
Now, the big question is, will North Korea finally close its labor camps to repair its image abroad?
North Korea Abandons Armistice From Korean War (1953) – “Declares War” on South Korea
B-r-r-r-ing… B-r-r-r-ing… Uhhh, Ummm, Hello? President Obama, there is an urgent matter regarding North Korea!
The breaking news this evening was North Korea’s provoking statements towards South Korea and its allies. Within the last few days it has launched more missiles and tested a nuclear weapon underground.
North Korea says it will use immediate military force if any ship searches are conducted by South Korea. Kim Jong Il also stated that he deems South Korea’s decision to join the anti-proliferation program a declaration of war.
There are sure to be more detailed articles tomorrow, but for now, the biggest question is in regard to Obama’s preparedness for immediate foreign diplomacy and not the usual niceties either. Eventually, I hope, Obama comes to realize that the world is not made up of chocolate covered mountains and rainbows, but rather some very cruel and unusual individuals.
I have to wonder if Hillary’s ad during the primaries was indeed correct. As much as I would like to think that the TelePrompTer could get us out of this one, I’m sure that a lot of clever improvisation and intelligent communication/negotiation will be required to resolve this conflict. Plus I also don’t think that North Korea has the electronic infrastructure to support a TOTUS hookup.
I also tend to get the feeling that some of these countries, like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, who are otherwise non-entities on a normal basis, may be acting up because of what they sense from the leadership in the United States? Definitely a possibility…
Just as Sarah Palin recently stated “Now is not the time to cut missile defense!” Common sense just isn’t all that common anymore.
*Side Note: North Korea tends to be dramatic – if troops are moved that’s when there is definitive declaration of war — this is still a precarious situation though.
Update: Hsu Found Guilty by Jury; Former Democratic Fundraiser, Hsu, Pleads Guilty to Ponzi Scheme & Fraud
Another small time Bernie Madoff. Norman Hsu pleads guilty!
Former top Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to charges he cheated investors out of at least $20 million in a massive Ponzi scheme.
The 58-year-old Hsu (SHOO) pleaded guilty to 10 counts of wire and mail fraud before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
“I knew what I was doing was illegal,” Hsu told the judge.
The former Democratic fundraiser’s list of donors:
- Hillary Clinton
- Barack Obama
- John Kerry
- Barbara Boxer
- Teddy Kennedy
- Al Franken
- Debbie Stabenow
- Dianne Feinstein
- Jay Rockefeller
- Mark Udall
His contributions went 83% to Democrats; 17% to Other, and 0% to Republicans…
For more detail go to the smoking gun- they reported on this story back in December, but it was pushed under the rug because the Madoff case was the big news of the day.
UPDATE:
I reported above that Hsu was in fact a contributer to the Obama campaign – which should matter to Americans. What was not known was another interesting detail as to the extent of their relationship. Something the media will not report:
Businessman Norman Hsu, 58, was convicted by a jury in federal court in New York of violating election laws by making donations to political campaigns in other people’s names. Hsu also pleaded guilty on May 7 to charges of mail fraud and wire fraud in running a Ponzi scheme of up to $60 million.
Jurors convicted Hsu of violating four counts of federal election law between 2004 and 2007. During the trial, prosecutors said Hsu pressured some of the investors involved in his Ponzi scheme to make thousands of dollars in contributions to political candidates on his behalf.
Obama has considerably more of a connection to Hsu than Reuters relates. In 2007, The Washington Post reported in the story “Hsu Steered Major Fundraiser to Obama:”
Before becoming a major bundler for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, disgraced Democratic donor Norman Hsu helped host a 2005 California event for Barack Obama’s political action committee and introduced the senator from Illinois to one of the biggest fundraisers for his presidential bid.
Federal Election Commission records show that Hsu gave $5,000 to Obama’s Hopefund PAC in connection with the fundraiser and that people publicly identified with Hsu and his companies gave an additional $19,500 to the PAC in 2005 and 2006.
Mark Gorenberg, who now sits on Obama’s national finance committee and is one of his biggest fundraisers, said Hsu organized an early 2005 event for the Hopefund and invited him to help raise money.
“He introduced me to Barack Obama,” Gorenberg said of Hsu. “He was working on an event for Barack’s PAC, and he asked me to help, and I did. Barack came up to San Francisco, and [Hsu] introduced him to a bunch of people.”
Obama’s relationship with sleazy hustlers like Norman Hsu doesn’t comport with the narrative of Mr. Hope and Change tailored by the mainstream media. That’s possibly why Hsu’s conviction, which occurred this morning, still hadn’t been reported on CNN as of 4:00 PM (ET) this afternoon.
Chock it up to more hope and change!
Israel; Obama’s Red-Headed Step Child
In the past couple of days, more has come to light with Obama’s stance, or lack there of, for support of Israel, compared to the rest of the Middle East and in particular, Iran and Palestine.
The Obama administration, namely Rahm Emanuel, also holds similar beliefs, which may strike some as odd, due to the fact that Rahm is Jewish. However, Rahm insisted on Monday that the only way to thwart Iran’s nuclear threat and resolve relations with the Middle East would come to fruition through Palestinian-Israeli talks.
Israeli TV stations had reported Monday night that Emanuel had actually linked the two matters, saying that the efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. The remarks were reportedly made in a closed-door meeting previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors on Sunday.
Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem’s commitment to the peace process.
Meanwhile, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post on Sunday, former US House speaker Newt Gingrich blasted the Obama administration for setting itself on a collision course with Israel and endangering the Jewish state.
He called US President Barack Obama’s program of engagement with Iran a “fantasy,” and his Middle East policies “very dangerous for Israel.” He summed up Obama’s approach as “the clearest adoption of weakness since Jimmy Carter.”
And Newt is right, we should have learned our lesson after Carter, but we didn’t. One could then argue that we should have learned it after Clinton tried this same peace treaty mumbo-jumbo between Palestine and Israel. (The Oslo Accord in 1993 and the Wye River Memorandum). Later we came to find out that Yasir Arafat spoke out of both sides of his mouth and eventually was caught speaking at PLO and Hamas engagements/rallies. (But by then he had already received the Nobel Peace Prize)
If liberals are so adamant about the United States staying out of the business of other nations (their biggest qualm for the last 8 years was Iraq and forcing democracy) then why is forcing a treaty, peace, or a recognized state on a nation ok?
What causes those that are so progressive to think that Iran and other nations, that have continuously ranted and raved about the Jews and Israel, would ever want peace? Middle Eastern history has a very large Nazi influence and therefore, they have called for the extermination of Jews, and the West. There is something seriously wrong with a situation in which people cannot call a spade a spade and see the threat that is in front of their very eyes.
Take for example the latest; Ahmadinejad went on another tirade about Israel yesterday:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad slammed Zionism as “occupation” and “aggression” Tuesday as he delivered his latest diatribe against the Jewish state on a visit to key Middle East ally Syria.
Zionism is merely the recognition of the Jewish state based on biblical times. The state of Israel was promised to the Jews before WWII and before others in the Middle East occupied the region. Israelis do not try to force themselves onto other nations by attempting to conquer the rest of the Middle East or enforce their religion on others – that’s the main difference and the reason why Ahmadinejad cannot be taken seriously.
“The Zionist occupiers are destructive microbes, because Zionism itself is occupation, aggression, the use of assassination and annihilation,” he told a joint news conference with President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian capital.
“Zionism was created to threaten us. To support the Palestinian resistance is a humanitarian and popular obligation,” Ahmadinejad said in remarks in Farsi that were translated into Arabic.
“Syria and Iran are united in supporting the Palestinian resistance.”
The Iranian president’s comments came barely two weeks after he sparked a European walkout from a UN anti-racism conference in Geneva by equating Zionism with racism.
This intolerance does not help the cause in the Middle East and it only raises more eyebrows from the majority of the public who do not define themselves as progressive or liberal. This is not the way to show you are ready for peace. Even if some peace accord was met, it would be hard for me to believe that Iran and others would not continue to hold their “thousand” year grudge against Israel and have the same anti-Semitic sentiments.
Ahmadinejad asked why it was the Islamist Hamas movement which controls Gaza that is blacklisted by the European Union and the United States, and not Israel after its devastating offensive against the territory at the turn of the year.
“They’ve attacked Gaza, killing people in their own land and massacring women and children… and yet it’s the Palestinians they accuse of terrorism,” he complained.
Maybe because Israel didn’t initiate attacks? Maybe they retaliated in a more powerful way to stop the thousands of missiles from entering their country and endangering their citizens? Hamas sent over 3,000 missiles into Israeli airspace over the course of last year.
Israelis have also evacuated the Gaza strip and it is Palestinians that use their own for propaganda purposes reporting deaths in the region and accuse Israelis of those crimes. The main difference between Hamas and the Palestinians and the Israelis is that Israelis do not use women and children as shields, they use themselves to shield their women and children – I respect that more than the prior.
The United States “has put pressure on Syria and Iran, but it needs us and wants to develop relations,” he said.
The scariest statement by Ahmadinejad is the following:
“Circumstances are changing rapidly in our favour. We are on the road to victory.”
That should give you the chills!
The appeasement and call for universal nuclear disarmament is another alarming policy change on the horizon. This step to disarm would include Israel’s nukes, which would cause an inevitable disaster, leaving Israel completely vulnerable to any and all attacks on their soil by countries like Iran who are not a party to the United Nations or any other international treaties.
President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.
The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
“Universaladherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.
She declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.
A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated “apples and oranges.”
Apples and oranges? The weapons programs may be different as far as quality and caliber, but if you continue to let Iran build up its nuclear facilities, centrifuges, and uranium/plutonium supplies, it will be sure to catch up – especially whilst Israel is vulnerable and doesn’t have the weaponry to defend itself anymore.
AIPAC, the strongest pro-Israeli lobby in the nation and on Capitol Hill, is on the case and working to fight the urgent push from the Obama administration to create a Palestinian state.
US congressional leaders and the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in the US are attempting to forestall a significant shift in the White House’s Middle East policy.
The move comes amid growing signs that the US president, Barack Obama, intends to press for urgent efforts to be made towards the creation of a Palestinian state.
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is visiting Washington later this month amid growing expectations that Obama is preparing to take a tougher line over Israel’s reluctance to actively seek a two-state solution to its conflict with the Palestinians.
It will be the first time that Netanyahu and Obama have met since both were elected.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) this week sent hundreds of lobbyists to urge members of Congress to sign a letter to Obama.
The letter, written by two House of Representatives leaders, calls for Israel to be allowed to set the pace of negotiations.
I would agree, that the pace of negotiations for an international issue be set by the countries involved, not the United States.
Maybe the issue here is that too many progressives have gotten the jihad hip-hop bug. I hear it’s hard to ignore!/sarc.
Don’t Democrats Care About Human Rights?
With so much turmoil in the Middle East and the recent reports of the horrible infringements upon human rights and common decency it makes me wonder if Democrats even care about human rights anymore?
Obama thus far, believes that Iran is full of gumdrop mountains and chocolate falls, but yet they make statements like the one earlier today in which they say that “it will take 11 days to wipe Israel out of existence!?”
Afghanistan has violated various human rights protocols and most recently shot and killed a man and a woman whom they felt were committing adultery and flogged another woman for some other sexist law.
Saudi Arabians don’t allow women to make eye contact or even drive cars, but we still conduct plenty of business with them and feminist liberals don’t seem to have as much outrage when it comes to crimes that are committed by these regimes.
There are other countries that also have human rights issues (China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.) and lately it seems like the majority of these cruel dictatorships are now on Obama’s ally list.
The latest act that violates human rights took place in Iran over the weekend, where a 23 year old girl, convicted of murder as a juvenile, was hanged. Authorities executed the 23-year-old woman Friday in northern Iran without informing her lawyer or allowing the family to be present, said the lawyer, Mohammad Mostafaei. She was 17 at the time the crime was committed, in 2003.
Which leads me to this op-ed written in the Boston Globe of all places:
ARE HUMAN RIGHTS still a Democrat priority?
To Democrats of a certain age, such a question might seem incomprehensible. After all, it was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy, whose inaugural address proclaimed “to friend and foe alike” that Americans would resist “the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed.” It was another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who made support for human rights an explicit foreign-policy concern, declaring at his inauguration: “Because we are free we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere.” It was Senator Henry Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik – Democrats both – whose landmark Jackson-Vanik amendment helped win freedom for tens of thousands of Soviet dissidents and refuseniks.
But somewhere along the way, Democratic priorities seem to have changed.
For example: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have used her recent trip to China to vigorously defend human rights – to make it clear to those who rule the world’s largest dictatorship that the new administration in Washington cares about the liberty and dignity of China’s people. Instead, she more or less announced in advance that talking to Beijing about human rights was pointless, since “we pretty much know what they’re going to say.” Besides, she told reporters, human rights must not “interfere” with more important issues, such as the economic crisis or climate change.
China got the message. As Clinton arrived in Beijing, dozens of pro-democracy dissidents were placed under virtual house arrest. True to her word, the secretary of state made no fuss about the regime’s brutality.
[...]
Closer to home, President Obama last week relaxed US policy toward Cuba, making it easier for Cuban-Americans to travel and send money to relatives living there. The president’s order was titled “Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Cuba,” but in fact it said nothing at all about democracy and human rights in Cuba. Nowhere did it mention the Communist tyranny of the last 50 years – there was nothing about the denial of free speech; the abuse and murder of political dissidents; the persecution of journalists, librarians, and human-rights activists; the relentless surveillance and secret police; the regime’s stranglehold on property and employment.
Unfortunately, I think that over the years the priorities of the Democrat Party have become power and control. This in turn has lead to less freedoms, liberties and more infringement upon our basic values like freedom of speech.
The party of JFK, it is not.
