Islamists Attempt to Weaken Security

Six imams got pulled off a plane recently for acting suspiciously. They claim they were only praying, but the below article demonstrates it was more. So why would these imams do these things that would attract attention to themselves. Normal Muslims in America who just want to be Americans wouldn't do such things. Imagine German-Americans during the early 40s walking into a store shouting "sieg-heil?"

The imams are trying to degrade American security. They are trying to do suspicious things, get arrested, and decry that their rights were abused. So next time Muslims terrorists are aboard, and are acting suspiciously (this time unintentionally), Americans will censor themselves and not pull them.

I applaud the US Airways pilot for doing what is right.

...Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department. Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.
"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."
A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry." ...
According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior. Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden... "They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."
The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot. "If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

Washington Times

Whites Only

It seems like a student at Boston University has set up a scholarship for White Students.

This is supposed to be a free country. That means no liberal double standard where it's okay for Black people and Hispanics to have racially based anything but when White people to do it becomes this disgusting horror. In the eyes of the White Guilters that double standard is okay. But it's not freedom.

Freedom means if a bunch of Black people want to get together and offer a scholarship to only poor Black students, they are free to do so. It's their money. Same goes for if White people want to do it. Even if either group is doing so because it believes their particular race is the "better" one, so be it. It's their money, they should be free set up scholarships as they please.

Anyway, no matter what your skin color; Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Another Victory in the WAR ON DRUGS!!!!

Good thing we're fighting the war on drugs. It claimed it's latest victim recently, a 92 year old Atlanta woman. The original dispatch is here and a video broadcast from Atlanta is here.

It's the police tactics that make these sort of things happen. The police use something called a "dynamic entry". The dynamic entry is intended to be used with suspects who are considered armed and dangerous. However, too many cowboy police outfits with not enough training and good judgement end up shooting of innoncent people at the wrong address.

A very good essay called Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America was written by the Cato Institute's Radley Balko. It discusses the increase in tactics like dynamic entries and midnight raids and the shift in police mentality into an us vs. them. That, combined with the rise of SWAT teams in every small town across America can lead to disaster. In this country, how has this:



become this:



Perhaps the men in the lower image are needed in a rare big-city hostage scenario. But to do the average pot raid? Police tactics have begun to claim more and more innocent lives. The war on drugs isn't worth it.

Hot for Martyrdom

The Nationial Post shows how terrorists really think and from their own words. Perhaps the West should listen instead of wringing their hands and saying how oppressed the poor Muslims are.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid doesn't tell people where he lives. Not the street, not the city, not even the country. It's safer that way. It's only the letters of testimony from some of the highest intelligence officers in the Western world that enable him to move freely. This medical doctor, author and activist once was a member of Egypt's Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Arabic for "the Islamic Group"), a banned terrorist organization. He was trained under Ayman al-Zawahiri, the bearded jihadi who appears in Bin Laden's videos, telling the world that Islamic violence will stop only once we all become Muslims.

He's a disarmingly gentle and courteous man. But he's determined to tell a complacent North America what he knows about fundamentalist Muslim imperialism.

"Yes, 'imperialism,' " he tells me. "The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe."

Hamid drank in the message of Jihadism while at medical school in Cairo, and devoted himself to the cause. His group began meeting in a small room. Then a larger one. Then a Mosque reserved for followers of al-Zawahiri. By the time Hamid left the movement, its members were intimidating other students who were unsympathetic.

He is now 45 years old, and has had many years to reflect on why he was willing to die and kill for his religion. "The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education," he says. "I was from a middle-class family and my parents were not religious. Hardly anyone in the movement at university came from a background that was different from mine.

"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way. There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free. If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."

His analysis is fascinating. Muslim fundamentalists believe, he insists, that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah. Thus the extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Kingdom to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation. The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia.

"We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world. It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."

He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings. If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men. Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world. Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis. Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.

"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition. But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith. Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."

A pause. "I know. I was one who accepted it."

This partial explanation is shocking more for its banality than its horror. Mass murder provoked partly by simple lust. But it cannot be denied that letters written by suicide bombers frequently dwell on waiting virgins and sexual gratification.

"The sexual aspect is, of course, just one part of this. But I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?"

He's exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. "Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want."

Then he leaves -- for where, he cannot say. A voice that is silenced in its homeland and too often ignored by those who prefer convenient revision to disturbing truth. The tragedy is that Tawfik Hamid is almost used to it.

Die, Babies, Die!

The list Europeans support killing babies born with disabilities has grown even larger with the recent addition of the Church of England. Yes, the Episcopal church. The British have objected to the death sentence of Saddam. Now, whether or not you think Iraq was the right move, its hard to argue that Saddam was anything other than evil. So it's no to the death of mass murderers, but yes to the death of babies.

Who's next? The old, handicapped? This is an unmentioned side effect of government healthcare. If they decide that you are too expensive, they can cut off care.

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.

The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.

A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 140 different organisations, said: "How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?

"It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a baby’s life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition."

The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants....

In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.

The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.

Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.

Daily Mail

Border Fence be Damned?

There are 6 billion people in people in the world, and given the opportunity I bet at least 3 billion of them would like to move to the US. I think 99.99% of people agree that the US cannot handle 3 billion immigrants tomorrow. So that means that there must be some sort of immigration control is needed. Not everyone who wants to come can come. I think more legal immigrants should be let in, and red tape reduced, but the US has a need a right to control its border.

The Vatican should really focus its efforts on improving the lives of Mexicans within Mexico. Perhaps it could focus on the overt racism that exists amongst the class of people as well as the extensive corruption. I'm sure the Vatican has its own immigration policies.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A senior Vatican cardinal on Tuesday condemned the building of walls between countries to keep out immigrants and said Washington's plan to build a fence on the U.S.-Mexican border was part of an "inhuman program".

Cardinal Renato Martino made his comments at a news conference presenting Pope Benedict's message for the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Migrants and Refugees, in which the Pope called for more laws to help immigrants integrate.

"Speaking of borders, I must unfortunately say that in a world that greeted the fall of the Berlin Wall with joy, new walls are being built between neighborhood and neighborhood, city and city, nation and nation," said Martino, head of the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace.

President Bush signed legislation last month approving the construction of a 700-mile (1,100-km) fence -- a move that angered Mexico's government.

Bush defends the fence as necessary to tighten control of the border to keep criminals and terrorists out. Thousands of poor Mexicans risk their lives each year sneaking across the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) border to seek jobs.

Asked if the U.S.-Mexican fence was the wrong thing to do, Martino said: "Yes, that's exactly what it is."

Martino praised Mexican and U.S. bishops for opposing what he called "an inhuman program, which is what the construction of that wall and all others is".

Example of Media's Bias

The title of the article is "Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire" and is supposed to be about how some city governments refuse to report illegals when they are arrested for other crimes.

First, the NY Times, conviently forgets the group under fire are illegal-immigrants. They do their best to eliminate any sort of distinction. Then the article starts off with three paragraphs of a sob story which pre-emptively tries to deflect attention away from the look-the-other-way policy. The average Times reader may think that the policy is needed because they read one story of out millions where illegals were adversely affected and afraid to come forward. It attempts to use one example to drive national policy.

This is what I'm going to call the Cider House Rules Strategy (message of the movie.... abortion on demand at any time is needed because in 0.0001% of abortion cases are the result of fathers raping their daughters).

If the NY Times was FOR the change in policy, the article would have looked much different. The article would have began with the criticism. The sob story would have been about a mother who's daughter was killed because an illegal was stopped for speeding but wasn't detained for being illegal and 3 days later the illegal raped and killed the daughter. They might have mentioned the murder of indie actresss Adrienne Shelly. The reported sob story could have even been after the discussion of the groups criticizing the policy.

While the Times may be fooling some readers, the ever declining readership means that many people are catching on. Abe Lincoln famously said: "It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time."

Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire
By JESSE McKINLEY
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 9 — Dr. Stephen B. Turner built a profitable business here by providing low-cost “immigrant medical exams,” including immunizations and blood tests, to hundreds of newcomers to America. Many of his clients did not speak English, but they paid in cash, spending a total of nearly $250,000 at Dr. Turner’s practice from 2003 to 2005.

It was only later, after a tip from a suspicious client, that the San Francisco police and the district attorney’s office learned the truth: Dr. Turner had been throwing out his clients’ blood samples and injecting them with “inoculations” of saline.

Kamala D. Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, said the case, which led to a seven-year prison term for Dr. Turner, was one of many her office had been able to pursue under San Francisco’s so-called sanctuary policy, which forbids police and city officials from asking people they encounter in the course of an investigation about their immigration status. It is a protection Ms. Harris says has made immigrants — legal and illegal — more willing to come to forward about crimes.

With immigration continuing to flare and frustrate as a national political issue, sanctuary cities like San Francisco may soon be the next battlefront. Critics argue that sanctuary policies discourage the police from enforcing laws, though about 50 cities and counties have enacted variations on sanctuary, according to the National Immigration Law Center. They include Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington. A handful of states have similar policies, including Alaska, Maine and Oregon.... NY Times

Do Democrats Want Energy Independence or Not?

Almost all Americans know that energy independence would be good for America. Without as much money from oil, the Saudis and other countries wouldn't be able to finance jihad. Democrats say the want energy independence, but when given an opportunity to do so, they refuse? Even if everyone drove hybrid cars, that would only create a tiny drop in demand. More supply is better. Why is basic economics so hard for some?

The Democrats' return to power is increasing pressure on House Republican leaders to accept a limited expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling.

Supporters of such exploration say the next Congress, with Democrats in control come January, probably will not tamper with the long-standing drilling bans that have protected most coastal waters for a quarter-century.

A stubborn standoff has festered for months between the House and Senate over developing more of the oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. The dispute is expected to be an issue in the final days of the Republican-run Congress this week when lawmakers meet in a lame-duck session.

The proposal is of great importance to Louisiana and three other Gulf Coast states. They stand to reap hundreds of millions of dollars under changes to the way the government shares royalties from oil and gas taken from the Gulf of Mexico.

House Republicans pushed through a bill that would open coastal waters for drilling everywhere unless a state objects. That essentially would end a ban on such drilling that Congress has imposed annually for the past 25 years in most areas outside the western Gulf.

Even drilling supporters said there was no chance that measure can pass the Senate, which has approved a compromise: opening 8.3 million acres in the east-central Gulf, no closer than 125 miles of land, and leaving other areas alone. AP

Bad Day For Republicans

Republicans lost last night. Yes, they lost, because Republicans couldn't generate the turnout. In the last four years, the Republicans didn't do anything except to squabble over pork money. Republicans failed to learn the lesson they should have learned in 1992, when Republicans act like Democrats, they lose.

In the last few weeks before the election, the Republican pundits big selling point was to try to scare their audience about the horror of Nancy as Speaker. That's an "inside the Beltway" mentality. Demonizing your opponent will only get you 45% of the vote. This one reason why Kerry lost in 2004, but Republicans failed to learn any lesson. You need successes to run on as well.

Iraq: I don't think Americans want us to leave, but they do expect victory or progress towards victory, even if that requires temporarily being more aggressive. If a pro football coach isn't doing well, he is replaced. You may like the man personally, but change him out nonetheless. Maybe you start dropping the hammer on types like Muqtada Al-Sadr. Maybe you actually try to rally the American people's will to fight. First stop calling it the "War on Terror" ... WWII was not the "War on Blitzkrieg."

Social Security: Bush tried to reform it, but spineless Republican Congressional leaders were afraid of being called extremists and felt that by challenging the status quo, they could hang onto power better.

Tax Cuts: An easy one would have been to make the tax cuts permanent, but spineless leaders failed to do even that.

Borders: Amnesty for illegals, calling the Minutemen "vigilantes", lip service on border security, etc.

Scandals: We all know about Mark Foley, but whatever happen to William Jefferson (D-La) who got caught stealing money by the FBI? Not only did the Republicans not play a full court press, Hasert defended the guy.... which reeks of "we have something also to hide."

Spending: Many Republicans completely abandoned the idea of limited government and began squabbling over pork spending.

Judges: Republican activists had to twist Bush's arm to get him to appoint Alito. Bill Frist never challenged the Democrats judicial filibuster. This spells weakness.

The Silver Lining: Republicans will start acting like Republicans again. We'll get new leaders in the House and the Senate. This could save the 2008 election. If Republicans reluctantly went to the polls again, nothing would have changed in the mindset of the Republican leadership and voter apathy would have finally crept into the 2008 election.

Other thoughts: There won't be one major story on voting problems or voter "disenfranchisement." Interesting column at Townhall on what Bush should say... but he wouldn't.

The Left Finally Seeing the Light in "Palestine"?

Perhaps those on the left are finally coming around to see the depravity and the lack of rights in Palestinian territories. Unfortunately in minds of the AP & Human Rights Watch, the lawless rape of women and killing of women who are raped in the Palestinian territories does not demonstrate that hey maybe the Palestinians are the cause of the terrorism. Nothing Israel does forces Palestinians to abuse their women or kill those who have been raped. So if one is willing to kill women who have been raped, isn't one likely to kill Jews in order to gain power? They can't put two and two together.

RAMALLAH, West Bank - A new report presents an alarming picture of the abuse of women in the Palestinian territories, with police, courts and government agencies failing to treat violence such as rape and beatings as a crime.

Human Rights Watch cited practices such as rape victims being forced to marry assailants and light sentences for men who kill female relatives suspected of adultery. In a report released Tuesday, the rights group said families, tribal leaders and authorities, backed by tradition and discriminatory laws, often sacrifice victims’ interests for “family honor.”

And the problem is getting worse with growing poverty and lawlessness in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the New York-based group said.

The report comes about a year after a Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics survey of more than 4,000 households found 23 percent of women said they experienced domestic violence, but only 1 percent had filed a complaint. Two-thirds said they were subjected to psychological abuse at home.

Human Rights Watch urged the Palestinian president, parliament and government ministries to make protection of women a top priority. It said more can be done despite the conflict with Israel and the cash crisis in the Palestinian Authority brought on by the rise to power of the Islamic militant group Hamas.

“The main failing of the system is the failure to treat violence against women as a crime and to address it accordingly,” researcher Lucy Mair said. “We want to say you can take some positive steps and it’s imperative to provide protection to more women."

Human Rights Watch’s report, based on dozens of interviews with victims, social workers, lawyers and police chiefs in the West Bank and Gaza, said abusers in the Palestinian territories are granted virtual immunity.

Rapists who marry their victims are not prosecuted, it said, and such deals are often arranged by the families, tribal leaders and police.

Palestinian law is lenient with men who kill female relatives because of adultery. Yet it bars rape and incest victims from having abortions. Rape within marriage is not considered a crime, the report said.

Police and hospital doctors are not trained to handle abuse cases and often further humiliate victims, the report said.

In one hospital in the West Bank city of Nablus, a doctor announced to a crowded waiting room that his unmarried 16-year-old patient was pregnant. The girl’s mother later cited that incident as the main reason for her decision to kill her daughter, according to a case documented in the report.

A premium is placed on female virginity, with rapists facing a lesser punishment if the victim is not a virgin, the report said. Virginity tests are imposed on sexual abuse victims against their will.

Women’s fates are increasingly determined by tribal leaders or Palestinian Authority-appointed governors, rather than the overloaded courts. The informal justice system is often arbitrary and biased against victims, Human Rights Watch said.

Victims are often afraid to come forward because of social stigma, the perceived futility of complaining and fear of inviting retribution by relatives, the report said. MSNBC

Tyranny isn't So Bad... so says the Guardian

People love tyranny! Saddam was needed to keep those animals in line. So a few people wanted to speak their mind and got killed. So what? They should have kept their mouths shut. That's what I get from reading the article.

People like David Cox, elitist, think that Saddam's hard fist was needed to control the people and prevent them from killing each other indiscriminately. That's actually a racist view....the people are inferior in ability to act civilized. Of course, at the same time David Cox, think that these same people who needed hard fist in their home country, should be granted whatever wishes they desire when they come to a Western country.

Cox also champions the Soviet Union....that modern-day Russia is no better. Whatever complaints he has about modern day Russia is the result of the fact that Russia is hardly a Western capitalist society. It resembles more a South American country.

Saddam would have had his work cut out to match these figures. So, why are the Iraqis better off without him? The only answer available is that now they are "free". Well, we all value freedom. Some value it more than life, and those who do certainly go on about it. Nonetheless, they are probably a minority.

Living under tyranny may not be ideal, but it is not impossible. In the Soviet Union, life took on a character of its own, in which the human spirit managed to flourish in spite of the political constraints. The literature generated in those conditions can still inspire us. Today, many former Soviet citizens feel no more free under the yoke of global capitalism than they did before, and some would like to see the return of Stalinism. The people of China seem in no rush to jettison a regime that holds out the prospect of prosperity at the expense only of liberty.

Even in Britain, our supposed attachment to our supposed freedom turns out to be tenuous. We seem content to toss aside ancient liberties in the face of a dubious war on terror, and we live, cheerily enough, under a regime of surveillance that the KGB might have envied.

Saddam offered his people a harsh deal. Yet, their lives were at risk only if they chose to challenge his authority. Now, they die because of the sect to which they happen to belong. Soon, their country may fall prey to a savage civil war. If that happens, the Iranians will doubtless intervene, along, perhaps, with Turkey and Israel. No one can predict where that might lead, but the outcome is unlikely to be positive for peace, prosperity, justice or, indeed, human rights.

If Saddam were still in power, he would have stopped this happening. Iraq's dissidents would have paid a price, but the rest of us would be a lot better off. As he goes to meet the hangman, the world has cause to rue his demise.

David Cox, UK Guardian

John Kerry = Humpty Dumpty

John Kerry is like Humpty Dumpty. All the liberal spinmeisters couldn't put John back together again. Kerry is an elitist and is completely out of touch with the common man.

Kerry's '72 Army Comments Mirror Latest - by John Solomon, AP
During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.
After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities.
Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'