Detroit newspapers know a good story when it falls on their heads like a ton of bricks.
Take the Detroit News, which on the day Saddam was going to be hanged buried a one-and-a-half inch news brief about it on page 7A.
The Detroit News’s above-the-fold front page was instead reserved for an unremarkable photo of some people laying mementoes at the Gerald R. Ford Museum in Grand Rapids (“Ford’s Last Journey”), and a windy news analysis on how Wall Street will do in 2007.
Today, now that Saddam is dead, the Detroit News and the rest of the media have noticed, because they can't help but notice, and the News has a lurid “SADDAM HANGS” headline in second-coming type.
Before Saddam actually became Dead Man Walking the press were all set to do their part covering the protracted ceremonies burying Gerry Ford. This was in hopes of lecturing America, (nobody in journalism reports any more—it’s all about “raising awareness”) that Ford was the great Republican president, in contrast to those other two guys whose names we won’t mention.
But then the Iraqis had to go and hang Saddam, completely bogarting the planned news cycle away from Gerry Ford’s funeral, (“Now there was a real leader. Remember how gracefully he presided over the rout of Saigon?”)
Even the Western media is not going to be able to keep people from involuntarily smiling at the all-too-rare occurrence in this world of actual justice taking place, instead of just being demanded and lied about by people who don't know the meaning of the word.
But that doesn’t mean the media won’t work mightily to keep the good fact of Saddam’s execution as far away as possible from the role played by the one man who is almost single-handedly responsible for getting him.
This is by no means a denigration of the role of the coalition forces, Iraqi interpreters and fighters, and countless other mostly unknown persons, thousands of them, who assisted in hunting him down, many of them at the loss of their lives.
But if you follow back the chain of events that led to Friday night's hanging of this war criminal, it is inescapable to conclude that the coalition forces and liberated Iraqis did not dispatch themselves to accomplish this goal, someone had to dispatch them; nor did the US Congress bestir themselves to support (briefly) this goal, someone had to lead them; nor did the UN, Chirac, Putin, Blix, Annan et al shame themselves to oppose and obstruct it, but that someone had to defy them; nor did the Western media almost universally lie, sabotage, and confabulate in an effort to accomplish the failure in Iraq they had themselves prophesied, but someone had to ignore them like the gnats and houseflies after whom they have closely patterned their behavior. The decision to depose Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice didn’t make itself, some leader had to make it.
Category 5 hurricanes are the results of blind forces and it is silly to blame them on policitical enemies. Liberating nations and bringing war criminals to justice takes human decision, and someone deserves credit.
When US Special Forces dug him out of his spider hole in December 2003, Saddam, disoriented and afraid, still had to try brassing it out. "My name is Saddam Hussein,” he said. “I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate."
US Special Forces, the smartest and best warriors the world has ever seen, knew exactly who had brought them all together that day, and who had earned the respect. They told Saddam, "Regards from President Bush."
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Shall They Overcome Some Day?
And speaking of civil rights heroes, DU readers from out of town may not be aware that Dearborn’s very own Henry Ford Museum, in recent years, obtained and now has on display the very Birmingham bus to the back of which the late Rosa Parks refused to move.
And now we have become aware that, right after the incident in Minnesota of the six imams having to be forcibly de-planed, one incisive MSNBC interviewer managed a comparison between the imams' refusal to exit the plane when ordered and the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on the Birmingham bus. Even interviewee Ibrahim Hooper had to choke on that one.
Still, DU has heard rumors, unconfirmed, that farsighted Henry Ford Museum curators seeking to expand their “civil-rights heroes” collection, have been negotiating with US Air for the purchase of the six unassigned seats from which the courageous imams refused to be removed (except by means of police escort).
Nor have we been able to confirm rumors that Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR is calling on all Muslim Americans to boycott US airlines and begin crossing the country on foot, in silent defiance of the airlines’ discriminatory policies.
And now we have become aware that, right after the incident in Minnesota of the six imams having to be forcibly de-planed, one incisive MSNBC interviewer managed a comparison between the imams' refusal to exit the plane when ordered and the refusal of Rosa Parks to give up her seat on the Birmingham bus. Even interviewee Ibrahim Hooper had to choke on that one.
Still, DU has heard rumors, unconfirmed, that farsighted Henry Ford Museum curators seeking to expand their “civil-rights heroes” collection, have been negotiating with US Air for the purchase of the six unassigned seats from which the courageous imams refused to be removed (except by means of police escort).
Nor have we been able to confirm rumors that Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR is calling on all Muslim Americans to boycott US airlines and begin crossing the country on foot, in silent defiance of the airlines’ discriminatory policies.
CAIR Awarded for Free Speech on Thursday, Silences Blog on Friday
According to CAIR’s website, CAIR-Michigan’s very own Dawud Walid was honored by the Detroit ACLU on Thursday for “courageously defending the Bill of Rights and helping to protect our civil liberties.” What the ACLU had in mind was congratulating one of its co-plaintiffs, CAIR-MI, in their ridiculous, and doomed, lawsuit against the NSA, which is on its way to being eviscerated by real judges at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. We took a look at that case in September.
But I really got a kick out of the article's description of CAIR's mission “to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”
The article, datelined December 15 and entitled "CAIR-MI Executive Director Honored By ACLU For Protecting Civil Liberties,” is listed on national CAIR’s website. Take a look and you'll see that, immediately above thatheadline trumpeting the award for protecting civil liberties, and with the same dateline of December 15, is another article entitled "CAIR-FL: 'Kill All Muslim Kids' Hate Site Shut Down ."
CAIR Florida succeeded in getting a blog-hosting site to shut down a blog that had posted a parody encouraging violence, something, as we all know, that neither CAIR nor any of its supporters would ever support. You can read another version of what happened at Free Republic.
As far as I'm concerned even if the Florida blogger went too far, (and I haven't taken time to try to find out), there is still this business about the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech, which is paramount. Isn't that what the ACLU just gave Walid an award for "couraegously defending"? and didn’t CAIR just claim its mission was defending civil liberties? And weren’t both the ACLU and CAIR championing the protection of speech, even hate speech with terrorists over international telephone calls, in their lawsuit against the NSA, claiming it was protected by the Bill of Rights even in the face of legitimate concerns about national security?
It just isn’t right that CAIR can be this unaware of its own hypocrisy.
But I really got a kick out of the article's description of CAIR's mission “to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”
The article, datelined December 15 and entitled "CAIR-MI Executive Director Honored By ACLU For Protecting Civil Liberties,” is listed on national CAIR’s website. Take a look and you'll see that, immediately above thatheadline trumpeting the award for protecting civil liberties, and with the same dateline of December 15, is another article entitled "CAIR-FL: 'Kill All Muslim Kids' Hate Site Shut Down ."
CAIR Florida succeeded in getting a blog-hosting site to shut down a blog that had posted a parody encouraging violence, something, as we all know, that neither CAIR nor any of its supporters would ever support. You can read another version of what happened at Free Republic.
As far as I'm concerned even if the Florida blogger went too far, (and I haven't taken time to try to find out), there is still this business about the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech, which is paramount. Isn't that what the ACLU just gave Walid an award for "couraegously defending"? and didn’t CAIR just claim its mission was defending civil liberties? And weren’t both the ACLU and CAIR championing the protection of speech, even hate speech with terrorists over international telephone calls, in their lawsuit against the NSA, claiming it was protected by the Bill of Rights even in the face of legitimate concerns about national security?
It just isn’t right that CAIR can be this unaware of its own hypocrisy.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Dearborn, Michigan: Where Hezbollah Gets Its Laundry Done
Just last week in greater Dearborn there were two barely reported money laundering-related stories. First, Elfat El Aouar, the wife, or possibly former wife, of federal fugitive and LaShish restaurant owner Talal Chahine, pleaded guilty to helping Chahine hide restaurant revenues from the IRS when she was financial manager for the chain.
The intended beneficiaries included Hezbollah. Chahine is believed hiding in southern Lebanon.
According to the Chicago Tribune, “[u]sing a double set of books, the owner of La Shish chain of 15 restaurants evaded taxes while funneling some $20 million to the Lebanese militant force Hezbollah in recent years.”
In a related story, Imad Majed Hamadeh, of neighboring Dearborn Heights, also was just convicted for his part in a multi-million dollar smuggling ring operating in the area handling contraband cigarettes, counterfeit Zig-Zag rolling papers, and counterfeit Viagra.
Profit beneficiaries included Hezbollah.
According to federal authorities, members of the ring (18 arrested in all), “charged a ‘Resistance Tax’ in excess of the contraband cigarettes’ black market price to fund Hezbollah.” Paying the tax enables Dearborn customers to smoke knowing they aren’t only killing themselves and evading a state tobacco tax, but are helping Hezbollah kills Israeli Jews and maybe even some American military men and women in Iraq. And every now and then some Lebanese civilians.
Meanwhile, “Federal prosecutors in Michigan say Hezbollah gets more support in their area than any other Mideast terrorist group. That may have drawn Mahmoud Kourani, a Hezbollah money man, to Dearborn, Mich. after slipping into the U.S. illegally through the Mexican border. The brother of a Hezbollah general, Kourani hosted fundraisers for the Party of God before he pleaded guilty last year to materially supporting the group. He will be deported after he finishes a 54-month prison sentence.” Read more about it here, and here.
Another article in the Chicago Tribune from last summer, “They’re 100% American, and Pro-Hezbollah,” describes how in Dearborn the “community leaders say Lebanese-Americans are not supporting terrorism against the United States. Even though the U.S. government has linked Hezbollah with the deadly attack on the Marine barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in the 1980s, Hezbollah has never attacked America at home, they argue, and has shown no interest in doing so.”
Not supporting terrorism? That's a pretty weak argument, since just because Hezbollah has never attacked America at home doesn't mean Hezbollah has never attacked America. Hezbollah’s slogan is “Death to America!,” and always has been. Hezbollah has been murdering Americans since its first year of existence. Here's just part of their long record of trying to live up to it.
And a report last week from Beirut only last Sunday described “more than a half-million pro-Hezbollah demonstrators chanting ‘Death to America!'’and ‘Death to Israel!’ in the heart of downtown,” so that “the Lebanese capital seemed more like a vision of Tehran.”
Nor is Hezbollah limiting itself to Lebanon. American intelligence sources report that Hezbollah is actively assisting in training the Mahdi army in Iraq, killing, by the way, a lot of Americans.
Another report has said “that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
“This should come as no surprise, really, since many of Baghdad’s Shiites were out on the streets chanting 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' …in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
“…’Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah,’ the crowd chanted.
“’Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one. Let them confront us if they dare,’ the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.”
No one needs to pretend any more that Hezbollah isn't getting Lebanese civilians killed, too. A new war crimes report shows how Hezbollah’s use of civilian cover, (as was reported in tiny media whispers in July and August and therefore widely ignored), was a key part of Hezbollah's strategy in its recent war against Israel.
"’[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories,’ said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. ‘You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.’
“Exactly what Mr. Nasrallah means is illustrated in the testimonials of the captured fighters. Asked why Hezbollah would risk the destruction of civilian areas by firing from them, [Hezbollah fighter Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman] replied that while in theory private homes belonged to ‘the residents of the village . . . in essence they belong to Hezbollah.’
"....Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras.... ”
The intended beneficiaries included Hezbollah. Chahine is believed hiding in southern Lebanon.
According to the Chicago Tribune, “[u]sing a double set of books, the owner of La Shish chain of 15 restaurants evaded taxes while funneling some $20 million to the Lebanese militant force Hezbollah in recent years.”
In a related story, Imad Majed Hamadeh, of neighboring Dearborn Heights, also was just convicted for his part in a multi-million dollar smuggling ring operating in the area handling contraband cigarettes, counterfeit Zig-Zag rolling papers, and counterfeit Viagra.
Profit beneficiaries included Hezbollah.
According to federal authorities, members of the ring (18 arrested in all), “charged a ‘Resistance Tax’ in excess of the contraband cigarettes’ black market price to fund Hezbollah.” Paying the tax enables Dearborn customers to smoke knowing they aren’t only killing themselves and evading a state tobacco tax, but are helping Hezbollah kills Israeli Jews and maybe even some American military men and women in Iraq. And every now and then some Lebanese civilians.
Meanwhile, “Federal prosecutors in Michigan say Hezbollah gets more support in their area than any other Mideast terrorist group. That may have drawn Mahmoud Kourani, a Hezbollah money man, to Dearborn, Mich. after slipping into the U.S. illegally through the Mexican border. The brother of a Hezbollah general, Kourani hosted fundraisers for the Party of God before he pleaded guilty last year to materially supporting the group. He will be deported after he finishes a 54-month prison sentence.” Read more about it here, and here.
Another article in the Chicago Tribune from last summer, “They’re 100% American, and Pro-Hezbollah,” describes how in Dearborn the “community leaders say Lebanese-Americans are not supporting terrorism against the United States. Even though the U.S. government has linked Hezbollah with the deadly attack on the Marine barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in the 1980s, Hezbollah has never attacked America at home, they argue, and has shown no interest in doing so.”
Not supporting terrorism? That's a pretty weak argument, since just because Hezbollah has never attacked America at home doesn't mean Hezbollah has never attacked America. Hezbollah’s slogan is “Death to America!,” and always has been. Hezbollah has been murdering Americans since its first year of existence. Here's just part of their long record of trying to live up to it.
And a report last week from Beirut only last Sunday described “more than a half-million pro-Hezbollah demonstrators chanting ‘Death to America!'’and ‘Death to Israel!’ in the heart of downtown,” so that “the Lebanese capital seemed more like a vision of Tehran.”
Nor is Hezbollah limiting itself to Lebanon. American intelligence sources report that Hezbollah is actively assisting in training the Mahdi army in Iraq, killing, by the way, a lot of Americans.
Another report has said “that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
“This should come as no surprise, really, since many of Baghdad’s Shiites were out on the streets chanting 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' …in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
“…’Allah, Allah, give victory to Hassan Nasrallah,’ the crowd chanted.
“’Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are one. Let them confront us if they dare,’ the predominantly male crowd shouted, waving the flags of Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.”
No one needs to pretend any more that Hezbollah isn't getting Lebanese civilians killed, too. A new war crimes report shows how Hezbollah’s use of civilian cover, (as was reported in tiny media whispers in July and August and therefore widely ignored), was a key part of Hezbollah's strategy in its recent war against Israel.
"’[The organization's operatives] live in their houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories,’ said Mr. Nasrallah in a TV interview on May 27, several weeks before the war. ‘You can't destroy them in the same way you would destroy an army.’
“Exactly what Mr. Nasrallah means is illustrated in the testimonials of the captured fighters. Asked why Hezbollah would risk the destruction of civilian areas by firing from them, [Hezbollah fighter Hussein Ali Mahmoud Suleiman] replied that while in theory private homes belonged to ‘the residents of the village . . . in essence they belong to Hezbollah.’
"....Islamists seek to use the restraint of Western powers against them. They shoot at our civilians from the safety of their own civilian enclaves that they know we are reluctant to attack. Then if by chance their civilians are killed, they call in CNN and al-Jazeera cameras.... ”
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Carolyn Glick on Freedom of Speech
“This is the nature of our times. We are at war and those who warn of its dangers are being systematically silenced by our enemies who demand that nothing get in the way of our complacency with our own destruction.
“If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, when students of history ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction, they will have to look no further than the contrasting fortunes of Al-Jazeera and Dyab Abou Jahjah on the one hand and Le Figaro and Robert Redeker on the other.”
She’s tough on Tony Blair, whom I admire, but her article on freedom of speech is worth reading.
“If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, when students of history ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction, they will have to look no further than the contrasting fortunes of Al-Jazeera and Dyab Abou Jahjah on the one hand and Le Figaro and Robert Redeker on the other.”
She’s tough on Tony Blair, whom I admire, but her article on freedom of speech is worth reading.
Propaganda Islam Style
They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
it will leap out right away to escape the danger.
But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.
This story illustrates the importance of watching slowly changing trends in the environment, and not just the sudden changes.
The
The jump should not be the move out of
The Islamic Jihad is not just about bombs and physical destruction. Jihad by sword is one method but, there is also jihad by pen.
How many readers out there are aware that ACCESS (
I believe that our fundamental right to safety was somehow violated here. Our country is at war with so called Islamic Extremists. These terrorist don’t generally arrive and stay here legally. ACCESS is in charge of helping Muslim immigrants get into the country. This is a lot like letting the inmates run the asylum. If ACCESS was raided I believe that deserves a headline and follow-up. This is our money in our town – don’t they have an obligation to speak and let us know what this is about?
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 the Freep’s Niraj Warikoo turns the heat up a little more with a headline about Muslim furor.
No clear moment marks the time when Dearborn's pot began to boil. This blog is perhaps the first overt sign of frogs beginning to jump out – but, we don’t plan to leave. We are determined to wake up lethargic citizens and impassion them with our boiling furor. We want to turn the heat down.
We invite anyone who feels the same to join, write, or spread the word.
Darby Shaw
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Global Warming: It's Not the Heat, It's Our Stupidity
For the first time, the United States Supreme Court last week heard oral arguments about global warming. A case was brought by the State of Massachusetts against the EPA for failing to regulate, among other harmful emissions, carbon dioxide. The first thing the Court wanted to know was whether or not Massachusetts even had any business bringing a lawsuit against the EPA on the facts it was alleging, in particular, whether or not the possible future damage that Massachusetts alleged was merely speculative, or, as required to give the state standing to sue, “imminent.”
I read about the case in a commentary on FindLaw by legal writer and commentator Michael C. Dorf. Dorf believes that global warming is quite real, and he was quite impatient that the Justices were even wasting their time with the question of imminent damage. He was especially disappointed that the Justices were quizzing the lawyer for Massachusetts about whether or not further regulating American car manufacturing would make much difference if the rest if the planet could churn out all the CO2 it wants.
Legal commentators at Dorf’s level are only too at home with the the hair-splitting of constitutional law issues and slow work of appellate reasoning. Yes, it may have taken years for the high court jurisprudence to grind through desegregation, the separation of church and state, and reparations for the interned Japanese. But as Dorf sees it:
OH MY GOODNESS THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING!
It may not be happening that fast, but it is DEFINITELY happening--slowly, surely, inch by inch, inexorably, until one day we will wake up and it will be too late. Failure by the Court to skip the standing issue and to act promptly on the merits of the case is fiddling while Rome burns. Dorf wrote this about global warming's less-than-obvious, but still lethal, dangers:
“Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues. Warming itself provides a familiar example. A block of ice slowly heated from 29 degrees Fahrenheit, to 30 degrees, to 31 degrees appears largely unchanged, until it hits 32 degrees, at which point it begins to melt.
“To the extent that global warming works in a similar fashion, waiting for cataclysmic change to be imminent may mean waiting to take action until the action taken will likely accomplish far too little to avoid the harm.”
Upon reading this, a light went on in my head, (usually it’s quite dark up there), and I asked myself, How can people who see a threat taking decades to unfold as so pressing, while remaining so utterly indifferent to the documented, unrelenting, clear and present dangers of global Islamic jihad?
It occurs to me that, if a percentage of the intensity and focus of people who are convinced of the imminent danger of global warming could ever be brought to bear on the imminent danger of global jihad, the war against global Islamic terrorism would be won and behind us in five years. If we could but convince the same segment of the population clinging to the “consensus” theory on the greenhouse affect that jihadists are--if not evil, bloodthirsty, and determined to kill us--at least projecting an unacceptably large carbon footprint way beyond acceptable limits recognized by the Kyoto Treaty or the Green Party platform.
Especially bizarre to me is the disjunct between the standard acceptable to global warmists' for showing a danger's "imminence," as compared with that required by people attempting to rally a response to global terrorism.
You all may recall that, on the subject of “imminence,” the Bush administration was savagely attacked for not waiting until the danger of a Saddam armed with WMD had become “imminent,” while at the same time claiming that Bush had lied by claiming that it was. For example, there was this volcanic eruption by Al Gore on the subject, the aftereffects of which are still being measured by climate scientists.
Except Bush did not claim that the danger from Iraq was imminent, but only that the threat was growing, and the logic, (and it was about the last time logic played any role in America’s war policy), was based on recognition that waiting for “cataclysmic change to be imminent,” (i.e., waiting until Saddam was too well-armed to be easily subdued militarily), would be irresponsible and foolhardy.
I quote: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent....If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.") Yet this is the identical logic of Dorf and the folks who worry about global warming.
Where's the difference? It looks to me that those on the left who tend to be most worried about the imminent danger of global warming, condemned the Iraq war's failure to meet an incontrovertible “imminent danger” standard. They argue that lack of a "smoking gun" have made all the actions taken to meet the potential threat in Iraq—again, to use the language of the liberal side that just won the Congress back—not only questionable, but certainly unnecessary, wasteful of the country’s resources, illegal, and probably were crimes against the Constitution, the UN, and all of humanity. In other words, those who opposed Bush and his aggressive response to worldwide jihad argued that, well, it wasn't imminent enough. Their standard for that category of threat is pretty high: come back when the airliners have changed course, when the dirty bombs have actually gone off, when the towers are actually burning.
As those of you who recall the November 7 election should now realize, the USA won’t be taking any pre-emptive steps in our own defense again. We may not even take them now if danger is imminent. Nancy Pelosi was wrong to keep telling us the election was a referendum on the war in Iraq. It wasn't. It was a referendum on the imminence of global jihad. And Americans voted in favor of the Teletubby version that things aren't really so bad.
And that's why these days, while the West still has time to stop Iran from getting a workable nuclear bomb, no one is willing seriously to discuss military intervention in order to forestall that imminent cataclysmic change: even though we all know that what might be difficult before Iran gets the bomb will be impossible after Iran has the bomb.
And remember how Kaddafi was so scared of George Bush in 2003 he voluntarily coughed up his WMD programs? Now he’s kicking himself between Seinfeld reruns and the Lou Dobbs Show wishing he had them back so he could join everyone else threatening to use them against a weakened Israel. And who's to stop them? Lebanon teeters inches above Syria’s iron glove. Pakistan is making a separate peace with the Taliban. The land-for-peace method of national self-destruction has worked so well for Israel, they're copying it in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Copenhagen, and Florence, with just as much promise of success.
The global warming argument in the Supreme Court literally came down to whether inches of Massachusetts coastline might be threatened with washing away at some point no earlier than the next few decades. Look at a map of the world and ask yourself how many inches will be lost if we lose Iraq? And when? Democrats are talking about pulling out in months. Or if we lose Lebanon again, and it becomes an armed base for Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda. We have already lost a province or two of Afghanistan. Israel, our only genuine ally in the region, has been weakened by letting herself be dragged out of her justified fight with Hezbollah. Large areas of European cities, in France, in Denmark, in Sweden, literally, have been de-nationalized and become “no-go zones” that belong now to the Umma.
(I think we lost San Francisco some time in the 1960s, but now the US military isn’t welcome there at all, while you can just bet that any Muslim “spiritual leader” with a few sharp words for America and the Jews can still expect a key to the city).
Whether you believe in global warming or not is neither here nor there as far as the danger of jihad is concerned. It isn't as if the two have to be mutually exclusive. The question is how we react to something that is at least as imminent as global warming, and, realistically speaking, much more so. Islamic militants won't like you better for saving the planet. They still think it all belongs to them, anyway.
If global warming is the biggest threat we all face, maybe there won’t be any polar bears left in 2030, because, as Al Gore pedantically explains, they’re all running out of ice floes to sail around on. But if the jihadists have their way, there won’t be any Europe in 2030, or anything we recognize as Europe, or possibly even any America. Now, while I myself have never actually seen a polar bear, I have seen Europe, and I’d like to go back someday without having to buy my wife a burka. For that matter, I’ve been to the top of the World Trade Center, but I can’t do that any more, and neither can anyone else. I would call that a more present measurable damage than the erosion of the ice caps.
And what difference is it going to make if the shore of the Kennedy compound extends ten fewer feet into Nantucket Sound in 2020, when the whole country is under Sharia law? And what if the global warmists are right and the mean temperature of Michigan rises by 10 degrees in our lifetimes? (Even true believers don’t say it will rise that fast). It gets up to 120 in Iraq all the time, and that’s not what’s killing our GIs--or the Iraqi police--or freedom-loving Iraqis who would choose democracy if anyone would let them do it.
It’s jihadists doing that killing, not the heat. Jihadists like the heat. In fact, they even support global warming, judging by the amount of excitement they show when their spiritual leaders preach about the coming death by incineration of their many, many enemies. If Iran gets the bomb, just the testing program alone will heat things up more than a million Ford Explorers. And if Tehran nukes Tel Aviv, isn’t the dust in the air likely to have a greenhouse effect, (or at least, cause a nuclear winter)? But, to borrow the emotive phrase of the left on issues they do care about, like global warming or Hurricane Katrina, “Nobody is doing anything!”
Remember why global warming is so urgent: “Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues.”
Global jihad is that block of ice melting, and it's more accurate now to say it has reached the slushy stage. We survived one cycle of this already. It began in earnest in 1983, and slowly progressed to the cataclysm of 9/11, when the world, we were told, changed forever. When America, for about 90 days, had a brief moment of wakefulness. But after that, hundreds of millions of us pressed the big American snooze button and just like that we were back to dreaming.
Now far too many Americans think the terror war is only a “so-called war,” nothing more than a talking point, a concoction. The whole goddamned country will rush to war against Mel Gibson or Michael Richards because they said something stupid while harming no one. But not a peep when our leaders seriously propose sitting down to tea with the fiends who turned Iran into a Muslim prison and Syria into a terror state, tormented our hostages, call for our nation’s death thousands of times a day, and are this minute pouring millions into Iraq to buy bombs to kill American sons and daughters.
Meanwhile the temperature of global jihad is still rising, and it's rising a lot faster than half a degree in 200 years. And yet how many people do you know who aren't convinced global warming is the "growing threat"?
So I propose somehow linking up the threat of global warming with the threat of global jihad. Perhaps a report can be released disclosing how many cubic feet of CO2 800,000 Lebanese Shiites give off per outraged chant of “Death to America!” Or how many polluting gasses are given off by just one Kassam rocket, whether or not it manages to kill an Israeli schoolkid? Or how much sulfur dioxide is given off by every IED, regardless of if it kills a US Marine? Or what an insult it was to the troposphere when the World Trade Center was burning, even if we have made peace with what that act of war as an insult to our national honor?
If it helps you sleep nights, just forget about global jihad as a national security issue. Think of it as an EPA violation.
Think of it as just plain bad for the planet.
I read about the case in a commentary on FindLaw by legal writer and commentator Michael C. Dorf. Dorf believes that global warming is quite real, and he was quite impatient that the Justices were even wasting their time with the question of imminent damage. He was especially disappointed that the Justices were quizzing the lawyer for Massachusetts about whether or not further regulating American car manufacturing would make much difference if the rest if the planet could churn out all the CO2 it wants.
Legal commentators at Dorf’s level are only too at home with the the hair-splitting of constitutional law issues and slow work of appellate reasoning. Yes, it may have taken years for the high court jurisprudence to grind through desegregation, the separation of church and state, and reparations for the interned Japanese. But as Dorf sees it:
OH MY GOODNESS THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING!
It may not be happening that fast, but it is DEFINITELY happening--slowly, surely, inch by inch, inexorably, until one day we will wake up and it will be too late. Failure by the Court to skip the standing issue and to act promptly on the merits of the case is fiddling while Rome burns. Dorf wrote this about global warming's less-than-obvious, but still lethal, dangers:
“Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues. Warming itself provides a familiar example. A block of ice slowly heated from 29 degrees Fahrenheit, to 30 degrees, to 31 degrees appears largely unchanged, until it hits 32 degrees, at which point it begins to melt.
“To the extent that global warming works in a similar fashion, waiting for cataclysmic change to be imminent may mean waiting to take action until the action taken will likely accomplish far too little to avoid the harm.”
Upon reading this, a light went on in my head, (usually it’s quite dark up there), and I asked myself, How can people who see a threat taking decades to unfold as so pressing, while remaining so utterly indifferent to the documented, unrelenting, clear and present dangers of global Islamic jihad?
It occurs to me that, if a percentage of the intensity and focus of people who are convinced of the imminent danger of global warming could ever be brought to bear on the imminent danger of global jihad, the war against global Islamic terrorism would be won and behind us in five years. If we could but convince the same segment of the population clinging to the “consensus” theory on the greenhouse affect that jihadists are--if not evil, bloodthirsty, and determined to kill us--at least projecting an unacceptably large carbon footprint way beyond acceptable limits recognized by the Kyoto Treaty or the Green Party platform.
Especially bizarre to me is the disjunct between the standard acceptable to global warmists' for showing a danger's "imminence," as compared with that required by people attempting to rally a response to global terrorism.
You all may recall that, on the subject of “imminence,” the Bush administration was savagely attacked for not waiting until the danger of a Saddam armed with WMD had become “imminent,” while at the same time claiming that Bush had lied by claiming that it was. For example, there was this volcanic eruption by Al Gore on the subject, the aftereffects of which are still being measured by climate scientists.
Except Bush did not claim that the danger from Iraq was imminent, but only that the threat was growing, and the logic, (and it was about the last time logic played any role in America’s war policy), was based on recognition that waiting for “cataclysmic change to be imminent,” (i.e., waiting until Saddam was too well-armed to be easily subdued militarily), would be irresponsible and foolhardy.
I quote: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent....If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.") Yet this is the identical logic of Dorf and the folks who worry about global warming.
Where's the difference? It looks to me that those on the left who tend to be most worried about the imminent danger of global warming, condemned the Iraq war's failure to meet an incontrovertible “imminent danger” standard. They argue that lack of a "smoking gun" have made all the actions taken to meet the potential threat in Iraq—again, to use the language of the liberal side that just won the Congress back—not only questionable, but certainly unnecessary, wasteful of the country’s resources, illegal, and probably were crimes against the Constitution, the UN, and all of humanity. In other words, those who opposed Bush and his aggressive response to worldwide jihad argued that, well, it wasn't imminent enough. Their standard for that category of threat is pretty high: come back when the airliners have changed course, when the dirty bombs have actually gone off, when the towers are actually burning.
As those of you who recall the November 7 election should now realize, the USA won’t be taking any pre-emptive steps in our own defense again. We may not even take them now if danger is imminent. Nancy Pelosi was wrong to keep telling us the election was a referendum on the war in Iraq. It wasn't. It was a referendum on the imminence of global jihad. And Americans voted in favor of the Teletubby version that things aren't really so bad.
And that's why these days, while the West still has time to stop Iran from getting a workable nuclear bomb, no one is willing seriously to discuss military intervention in order to forestall that imminent cataclysmic change: even though we all know that what might be difficult before Iran gets the bomb will be impossible after Iran has the bomb.
And remember how Kaddafi was so scared of George Bush in 2003 he voluntarily coughed up his WMD programs? Now he’s kicking himself between Seinfeld reruns and the Lou Dobbs Show wishing he had them back so he could join everyone else threatening to use them against a weakened Israel. And who's to stop them? Lebanon teeters inches above Syria’s iron glove. Pakistan is making a separate peace with the Taliban. The land-for-peace method of national self-destruction has worked so well for Israel, they're copying it in the cities of Paris, Marseilles, Copenhagen, and Florence, with just as much promise of success.
The global warming argument in the Supreme Court literally came down to whether inches of Massachusetts coastline might be threatened with washing away at some point no earlier than the next few decades. Look at a map of the world and ask yourself how many inches will be lost if we lose Iraq? And when? Democrats are talking about pulling out in months. Or if we lose Lebanon again, and it becomes an armed base for Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda. We have already lost a province or two of Afghanistan. Israel, our only genuine ally in the region, has been weakened by letting herself be dragged out of her justified fight with Hezbollah. Large areas of European cities, in France, in Denmark, in Sweden, literally, have been de-nationalized and become “no-go zones” that belong now to the Umma.
(I think we lost San Francisco some time in the 1960s, but now the US military isn’t welcome there at all, while you can just bet that any Muslim “spiritual leader” with a few sharp words for America and the Jews can still expect a key to the city).
Whether you believe in global warming or not is neither here nor there as far as the danger of jihad is concerned. It isn't as if the two have to be mutually exclusive. The question is how we react to something that is at least as imminent as global warming, and, realistically speaking, much more so. Islamic militants won't like you better for saving the planet. They still think it all belongs to them, anyway.
If global warming is the biggest threat we all face, maybe there won’t be any polar bears left in 2030, because, as Al Gore pedantically explains, they’re all running out of ice floes to sail around on. But if the jihadists have their way, there won’t be any Europe in 2030, or anything we recognize as Europe, or possibly even any America. Now, while I myself have never actually seen a polar bear, I have seen Europe, and I’d like to go back someday without having to buy my wife a burka. For that matter, I’ve been to the top of the World Trade Center, but I can’t do that any more, and neither can anyone else. I would call that a more present measurable damage than the erosion of the ice caps.
And what difference is it going to make if the shore of the Kennedy compound extends ten fewer feet into Nantucket Sound in 2020, when the whole country is under Sharia law? And what if the global warmists are right and the mean temperature of Michigan rises by 10 degrees in our lifetimes? (Even true believers don’t say it will rise that fast). It gets up to 120 in Iraq all the time, and that’s not what’s killing our GIs--or the Iraqi police--or freedom-loving Iraqis who would choose democracy if anyone would let them do it.
It’s jihadists doing that killing, not the heat. Jihadists like the heat. In fact, they even support global warming, judging by the amount of excitement they show when their spiritual leaders preach about the coming death by incineration of their many, many enemies. If Iran gets the bomb, just the testing program alone will heat things up more than a million Ford Explorers. And if Tehran nukes Tel Aviv, isn’t the dust in the air likely to have a greenhouse effect, (or at least, cause a nuclear winter)? But, to borrow the emotive phrase of the left on issues they do care about, like global warming or Hurricane Katrina, “Nobody is doing anything!”
Remember why global warming is so urgent: “Many phenomena are non-linear; that is to say, each small change leads to no discernible difference until a tipping point is reached, after which dramatic change ensues.”
Global jihad is that block of ice melting, and it's more accurate now to say it has reached the slushy stage. We survived one cycle of this already. It began in earnest in 1983, and slowly progressed to the cataclysm of 9/11, when the world, we were told, changed forever. When America, for about 90 days, had a brief moment of wakefulness. But after that, hundreds of millions of us pressed the big American snooze button and just like that we were back to dreaming.
Now far too many Americans think the terror war is only a “so-called war,” nothing more than a talking point, a concoction. The whole goddamned country will rush to war against Mel Gibson or Michael Richards because they said something stupid while harming no one. But not a peep when our leaders seriously propose sitting down to tea with the fiends who turned Iran into a Muslim prison and Syria into a terror state, tormented our hostages, call for our nation’s death thousands of times a day, and are this minute pouring millions into Iraq to buy bombs to kill American sons and daughters.
Meanwhile the temperature of global jihad is still rising, and it's rising a lot faster than half a degree in 200 years. And yet how many people do you know who aren't convinced global warming is the "growing threat"?
So I propose somehow linking up the threat of global warming with the threat of global jihad. Perhaps a report can be released disclosing how many cubic feet of CO2 800,000 Lebanese Shiites give off per outraged chant of “Death to America!” Or how many polluting gasses are given off by just one Kassam rocket, whether or not it manages to kill an Israeli schoolkid? Or how much sulfur dioxide is given off by every IED, regardless of if it kills a US Marine? Or what an insult it was to the troposphere when the World Trade Center was burning, even if we have made peace with what that act of war as an insult to our national honor?
If it helps you sleep nights, just forget about global jihad as a national security issue. Think of it as an EPA violation.
Think of it as just plain bad for the planet.
Nasrallah and Syria Closer to Seizing Lebanon
That's Hassan Nasrallah's face projected onto the big screen in this AP photo.
A BBC report says that “Demonstrators are waving the red, green and white flag of Lebanon, but others are also waving the yellow flag of Hezbollah emblazoned with a fist holding up an AK-47.”
Speaking on al-Jazeera TV, Mr Siniora said Nasrallah "is trying to stage a coup. Or at least he's threatening to stage a coup. And he has already decided the outcome."
Speaking on al-Jazeera TV, Mr Siniora said Nasrallah "is trying to stage a coup. Or at least he's threatening to stage a coup. And he has already decided the outcome."
The Detroit Free Press has decided that Hezbollah's attempt to take over Lebanon for itself and its Syrian/Iranian puppetmasters is the fault of--no surprise here--the USA!
According to its "news" report on Nasrallah's efforts to topple the government, "Many in Beirut say U.S. failure to stop Israel's onslaught against Hizballah last summer crippled the Lebanese government -- a U.S. ally -- while strengthening Hizballah -- a U.S. enemy. "
The article nowhere mentions that Israel--also a US ally--was defending herself against decades of unprovoked missile attacks and incursions by Hezbollah, and that it was Israel's--and the US's--lack of firm resolve to see Hezbollah destroyed that led to Israel withdrawing with Hezbollah still in place and armed, which in turn enabled Nasrallah to claim "victory." Hezbollah, just like all terrorist groups, exploits weakness and lack of resolve. E.g., "Hizballah has more support in the population now because they are the 'victorious resistance,' cabinet member Ahmed Fatfat said."
Hezbollah doesn't have more support now, they just know that no one is going to fight back. Many in Lebanon hate Hezbollah, hated Syrian discrimination, and were sorry Israel didn't finish the job. But now Hezbollah has been emboldened by the failure of the world community to stand up to them and disarm or destroy them.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
The Day the West Stood Still
Now Britain's Labour Party leader Tony Blair gets the credit for being the first world leader to say multiculturalism is a bad idea. And Earth wasn’t even incinerated by Gort! (But just to keep on the safe side, ever since the speech all BBC announcers have been muttering "Klaatu barada nikto" on the quarter-hour).
Blair gave his speech with the express purpose of addressing multiculturalism’s limits, directed straight at Britain's stubborn non-integrated Muslims. The part that will have everyone most upset is the very end, where he says:
“Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."
Whoa. So tolerance doesn't require subsidizing hate-mongers who want to destroy their host country, and never miss an opportunity to disrespect the majority culture? Our heads can't take it in.
We’re also gratified to hear the PM insisting on freedom to speak openly on the subject of Islam, an area in which the UK is much freer than we are here in the USA. Mr. Blair said it should be possible that all call can express their differences within the civility of “shared boundaries.”
“Partly we achieve it by talking openly about the problem. The very act of exploring its nature, debating and discussing it doesn't just get people thinking about the type of Britain we want for today's world; but it also eases the anxiety. It dispels any notion that it is forbidden territory. Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid.”
He also made it clear that there wasn't going to be any tolerance of the Muslim community's efforts to replace UK law in Islamic areas with Sharia. "Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK."
Blair gave his speech with the express purpose of addressing multiculturalism’s limits, directed straight at Britain's stubborn non-integrated Muslims. The part that will have everyone most upset is the very end, where he says:
“Our tolerance is part of what makes Britain, Britain. So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed."
Whoa. So tolerance doesn't require subsidizing hate-mongers who want to destroy their host country, and never miss an opportunity to disrespect the majority culture? Our heads can't take it in.
We’re also gratified to hear the PM insisting on freedom to speak openly on the subject of Islam, an area in which the UK is much freer than we are here in the USA. Mr. Blair said it should be possible that all call can express their differences within the civility of “shared boundaries.”
“Partly we achieve it by talking openly about the problem. The very act of exploring its nature, debating and discussing it doesn't just get people thinking about the type of Britain we want for today's world; but it also eases the anxiety. It dispels any notion that it is forbidden territory. Failure to talk about it is not politically correct; it's just stupid.”
He also made it clear that there wasn't going to be any tolerance of the Muslim community's efforts to replace UK law in Islamic areas with Sharia. "Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation. There is thus no question of the UK allowing the introduction of religious law in the UK."
Muslims Exhausted and Depressed
David Crumm’s Detroit Free Press article on Friday, “Muslims, Jews start to heal ” had a couple of interesting comments. The event, according to Crumm, included "nearly 200 Christians, Jews and Muslims met at Congregation Adat Shalom in Farmington Hills on Thursday night to listen to two rabbis and four Muslim leaders from metro Detroit.”
One of the leaders was Victor Begg, chair of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. He "said local Muslim leaders are fed up with non-Muslims’ demands that they continually condemn terrorism, as if they are responsible for all such crimes.
‘It is exhausting and depressing to be responsible for everyone in the world who uses our faith for evil,’ Begg said.”
Doesn't it sound as if Begg were suggesting that Islamic terrorists who commit acts of murderous evil are merely using Islam for evil, rather than engaging in violent acts in obedience to Islam? And isn't it more accurate that aren't demanding continual condemnations of terrorism, but that Islamic terrorist acts are being committed on a continuing basis?
Begg can’t be held responsible for the irony of the arrest, the very next day, of Derrick Shareef in Chicago. But, on the exhausting and depressing point of people using the faith for evil, Shareef was a Muslim convert, “who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians” by setting off “hand grenades at a shopping mall during the Christmas rush….Officials said Shareef had been under investigation since September, when he told an acquaintance that ‘he wanted to commit acts of violent jihad against targets in the United States as well as commit other crimes.’"
Is Begg asking us to accept, along with him, that, just supposing here, every once in a great, great while some person claiming to be of the Islamic faith commits an evil act, he is clearly doing it in part with the intention of making the Islamic faith look bad? That such a person isn't practicing Islam, he is only using Islam?
Najah Bazzy, teacher at the Islamic Center of America here in Dearborn was also one of the speakers.
She talked about the "fear" a lot of non-Muslims have of Islam "and its cultural symbols, such as Muslim women wearing scarves over their hair."
“’I will be so happy when people finally quit worrying about what's on my head and focus on what's inside my head.'"
Those of us who have fears about Islam aren’t the least bit fearful of Ms. Bazzy’s scarf.
And we are focusing upon what’s inside her head. And the heads of other Muslims, too. Say, like Derrick Shareef’s head, and whoever filled it with jihad.
One of the leaders was Victor Begg, chair of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. He "said local Muslim leaders are fed up with non-Muslims’ demands that they continually condemn terrorism, as if they are responsible for all such crimes.
‘It is exhausting and depressing to be responsible for everyone in the world who uses our faith for evil,’ Begg said.”
Doesn't it sound as if Begg were suggesting that Islamic terrorists who commit acts of murderous evil are merely using Islam for evil, rather than engaging in violent acts in obedience to Islam? And isn't it more accurate that aren't demanding continual condemnations of terrorism, but that Islamic terrorist acts are being committed on a continuing basis?
Begg can’t be held responsible for the irony of the arrest, the very next day, of Derrick Shareef in Chicago. But, on the exhausting and depressing point of people using the faith for evil, Shareef was a Muslim convert, “who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians” by setting off “hand grenades at a shopping mall during the Christmas rush….Officials said Shareef had been under investigation since September, when he told an acquaintance that ‘he wanted to commit acts of violent jihad against targets in the United States as well as commit other crimes.’"
Is Begg asking us to accept, along with him, that, just supposing here, every once in a great, great while some person claiming to be of the Islamic faith commits an evil act, he is clearly doing it in part with the intention of making the Islamic faith look bad? That such a person isn't practicing Islam, he is only using Islam?
Najah Bazzy, teacher at the Islamic Center of America here in Dearborn was also one of the speakers.
She talked about the "fear" a lot of non-Muslims have of Islam "and its cultural symbols, such as Muslim women wearing scarves over their hair."
“’I will be so happy when people finally quit worrying about what's on my head and focus on what's inside my head.'"
Those of us who have fears about Islam aren’t the least bit fearful of Ms. Bazzy’s scarf.
And we are focusing upon what’s inside her head. And the heads of other Muslims, too. Say, like Derrick Shareef’s head, and whoever filled it with jihad.
Friday, December 08, 2006
That's Our Congressman!
We have commented on legislative resolutions here before, but here is one we at DU support. US House Resolution 1082 condemns “the decision of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murder of Philadelphia Police Office Danny Faulkner.”
To his credit, Dearborn’s Congressman Dingell voted “yea,” to condemn. Guess who voted no? About 31 people, all Democrats, two of them from Michigan: John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick.
We’ve never expected much from Rep. Kilpatrick, but Rep. Conyers is taking over as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, his greatest ambition there to impeach President Bush for fighting the war on terror.
Okay, I admit, I’ve never expected much from Conyers, either. But one would think qualification for chairing the Judiciary Committee would include a more practical attitude of disapproval for honoring convicted cop killers.
I mean, even Alcee Hastings voted to condemn.
Then again, we note that St. Denis does enjoy its own Islamic "no-go zone," from which the police are forbidden. The no-go zones are a growing Euro-phenomena. Perhaps Rue de Mumia Abu-Jamal falls inside one of these areas, in which case the French city's decision has a certain logic. Mumia has an Arab name, and he is a hero of those who defy law enforcement and will back it up with murder.
To his credit, Dearborn’s Congressman Dingell voted “yea,” to condemn. Guess who voted no? About 31 people, all Democrats, two of them from Michigan: John Conyers and Carolyn Kilpatrick.
We’ve never expected much from Rep. Kilpatrick, but Rep. Conyers is taking over as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, his greatest ambition there to impeach President Bush for fighting the war on terror.
Okay, I admit, I’ve never expected much from Conyers, either. But one would think qualification for chairing the Judiciary Committee would include a more practical attitude of disapproval for honoring convicted cop killers.
I mean, even Alcee Hastings voted to condemn.
Then again, we note that St. Denis does enjoy its own Islamic "no-go zone," from which the police are forbidden. The no-go zones are a growing Euro-phenomena. Perhaps Rue de Mumia Abu-Jamal falls inside one of these areas, in which case the French city's decision has a certain logic. Mumia has an Arab name, and he is a hero of those who defy law enforcement and will back it up with murder.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
"Hypocrisy paralyzes Lebanon"
"What started with 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' has now turned into 'Death to Siniora'. Neither Nasrallah, nor Berri, nor Aoun has attempted to preach to their sheep otherwise."
Read about it here.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Watch This Space
Thousands of Hezbollah and pro-Syrian supporters have planted themselves in downtown Beirut in what is, essentially, an attempted coup aimed at Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government. This according to Lebanese MP Walid Jumblatt, quoted here.
I cannot resist pointing out that, if everything Hezbollah and its mouthpeices in the media were telling us ad nauseum in August and September about Israel having "completely destroyed" Lebanon's infrastructure were true, then, judging by those high-rises in the picture at the right (from Xinua Online), Hezbollah for Humanity has thrown up a helluva tent city in just a few days. Not my style maybe, but not much of a burned-out bombscape, either.
One can only assume that, if the UN's and the Dearborn Press & Guide's favorite social services group can take so many members away from their good works rebuilding southern Lebanon and passing out other people's money to have a days-long sit-in, maybe they should be allowed to run the whole country. Or, at least, co-run it with Syria's benevolent assistance.
All kidding aside, we have been warning that Hezbollah's lust to rule all of Lebanon, (on behalf of Syria) has only grown, and that Nasrallah will not relent unless he is made to do so, which no one appears willing to make him do.
According to Jumblatt, "They want south Lebanon to remain an arena for an open war so that it can be a commodity used for negotiations by the Iranian and Syrian regimes."
"Jumblatt added 'I never forget Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's answer when Siniora told him we have a promising summer and we expect to receive in Lebanon more than 2 million tourists.' Nasrallah looked at him in the eye and said 'My arms do not disrupt tourism.'
"Jumblatt said we lost the tourism business. The 6 % growth in the economy is now a 5 % deficit . The government revenue is down to zero. The hotels are empty. The only thing that is full are the foreign embassies ... full with the young Lebanese who have had enough of this mess and want to emigrate."
Gym Cited for Failing to Enforce Sharia
We’ll probably never know what the Fitness USA patron said to Wardeh Sultan of Dearborn, as she was dutifully at her prayers in a Dearborn Fitness USA. Perhaps it was something like, "if you’re through bowing on that treadmill, can I get on?" or even, "Move it lady, I have to be back to work in 20 minutes!" All that is reported is that the patron “interrupted” Ms. Sultan, which, of course, is enough to base a civil rights complaint on.
Ms. Sultan, who obviously spoke to the press before being properly prepared by legal counsel, said she has been a member of the gym for seven or eight years, and has never had problems praying there before. In other words, Fitness USA has honored her right to worship freely for a long time. But this time when she complained to the manager about being interrupted during her prayers, he told her something to the effect that while her fellow patron did have to respect Ms. Sultan, her fellow patron didn’t have to respect her God (Allah).
“I can’t believe you said that!” exclaimed Ms. Sultan, who, as if in a nightmare, suddenly realized that, after waking up that morning in America, had somehow found herself adrift in an unrecognizable land where people around her can't be forced by gym managers to respect Allah!
Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, has leapt into the fray, saying, “They (Muslims) are resenting that they are to be suppressed from expressing themselves freely, like others,” Hamad said.
Ms. Sultan, who obviously spoke to the press before being properly prepared by legal counsel, said she has been a member of the gym for seven or eight years, and has never had problems praying there before. In other words, Fitness USA has honored her right to worship freely for a long time. But this time when she complained to the manager about being interrupted during her prayers, he told her something to the effect that while her fellow patron did have to respect Ms. Sultan, her fellow patron didn’t have to respect her God (Allah).
“I can’t believe you said that!” exclaimed Ms. Sultan, who, as if in a nightmare, suddenly realized that, after waking up that morning in America, had somehow found herself adrift in an unrecognizable land where people around her can't be forced by gym managers to respect Allah!
Imad Hamad, regional director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, has leapt into the fray, saying, “They (Muslims) are resenting that they are to be suppressed from expressing themselves freely, like others,” Hamad said.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Cow College Cowed by CAIR
According to the Jewish Forward, Michigan State University has agreed to a plan, (at the prompting, of course, of the Michigan chapter of CAIR), to offer diversity training to students and faculty, “focusing on Islam-related subjects.”
This is MSU’s penance for harboring on its faculty Indrek Wichman, a professor of mechanical engineering, who dared to exercise his right to free speech in a private e-mail directed to the Muslim Students’ Association in the midst of the group’s tantrum over the Danish cartoons last February. The day before the group's campus protest was to be held, a website, SpartanEdge.com, owned by an MSU journalism teacher, published the cartoons. This caused further offense, as shown in an opinion piece that ran in the State News written by the Association’s “political chair,” Syed Mehdi Jafri:
“This is just a continuation of the university's anti-Muslim policies and practices, which include mandatory housing in dorms for all freshmen (which we were not given exemption from), the unavailability of halal food (which was denied upon request), the invitation to a speech by Salman Rushdie last year (which was not revoked upon request) and now remaining silent as SpartanEdge.com publishes such offensive and blasphemous caricatures.”
Apparently pushed to the point of distraction, Wichman fired off a private e-mail to the group.
“I intend to protest your protest,” he said. “I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians.” After citing several examples of brutal Islamic violence from around the world, Wichman, a rather poor speller, said “I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’”
The Muslim Students’ Association went public with the e-mail, and CAIR began demanding MSU discipline Wichman, “saying the e-mail creates a hostile learning environment for students.” CAIR also wanted a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.
MSU refused to discipline Wichman, citing his right to freedom of speech and that he hadn’t violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies. In the end CAIR got the diversity training it wanted, at least. But according to the Forward, Michigan law prevents the diversity training from being made mandatory. In that case, “Wichman told the Forward not to expect him at the training.”
This is MSU’s penance for harboring on its faculty Indrek Wichman, a professor of mechanical engineering, who dared to exercise his right to free speech in a private e-mail directed to the Muslim Students’ Association in the midst of the group’s tantrum over the Danish cartoons last February. The day before the group's campus protest was to be held, a website, SpartanEdge.com, owned by an MSU journalism teacher, published the cartoons. This caused further offense, as shown in an opinion piece that ran in the State News written by the Association’s “political chair,” Syed Mehdi Jafri:
“This is just a continuation of the university's anti-Muslim policies and practices, which include mandatory housing in dorms for all freshmen (which we were not given exemption from), the unavailability of halal food (which was denied upon request), the invitation to a speech by Salman Rushdie last year (which was not revoked upon request) and now remaining silent as SpartanEdge.com publishes such offensive and blasphemous caricatures.”
Apparently pushed to the point of distraction, Wichman fired off a private e-mail to the group.
“I intend to protest your protest,” he said. “I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians.” After citing several examples of brutal Islamic violence from around the world, Wichman, a rather poor speller, said “I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’”
The Muslim Students’ Association went public with the e-mail, and CAIR began demanding MSU discipline Wichman, “saying the e-mail creates a hostile learning environment for students.” CAIR also wanted a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.
MSU refused to discipline Wichman, citing his right to freedom of speech and that he hadn’t violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies. In the end CAIR got the diversity training it wanted, at least. But according to the Forward, Michigan law prevents the diversity training from being made mandatory. In that case, “Wichman told the Forward not to expect him at the training.”
Thursday, November 30, 2006
CAIRless Words
Okay, so maybe it wasn’t ten guys. But he fought like ten guys.
I’m referring to what I consider a genuinely unfortunate incident in the Warrendale community of Detroit, immediately adjacent to Dearborn, in which a homeowner was very badly beaten up either by a neighbor or a friend of a neighbor with whom he had a disagreement. According to what Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said at his press conference on the victim’s doorstep on Tuesday, the beating was a hate crime. Walid alleged “that a group of 10 white men repeatedly swore at victim Shafik Shoaib and told him “go back to where you came from.”
As Walid described it, “They beat an American citizen like a dog in front of his children. There is no excuse.”
We at DU do not condone the beatings of homeowners, nor, for that matter, do we condone the beating of dogs. But nothing in the press coverage of this incident anywhere suggests that anyone was making any excuses for what happened to Mr. Shoaib. In fact, the police promptly arrested a suspect. Within a few hours of the original story the young suspect was charged with two felonies exposing him to up to thirty years in prison. Based on the rather gruesome photos and descriptions of Mr. Shoaib’s injuries, there is no doubt that whoever attacked him, for whatever reason, is a savage, and belongs in jail for a long time.
I just don’t care (no pun intended) for the way CAIR jumps in and tries to turn everything into an example of “Islamophobia,” or worse, make an irresponsible statement that could well incite to further violence.
The only question for me is the level or irresponsibility in Dawud Walid giving a press conference in which he puts out the outrageously incredibly story that ten “white” guys beat up Mr. Shoaib while calling out ethnic slurs. It is irresponsible in the style of Al Sharpton and his shameless lies about the pretend attack on Tawana Brawley.
Within hours of Walid’s press conference it was reported that the prime suspect, Ernest Domenech, 19, of Detroit, was arrested and charged on Wednesday “with home invasion in the first degree and assault with intent to do great bodily harm.”
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy described what happened as “an extremely ugly neighborhood dispute that culminated in the defendant becoming violent. The primary motive for the home invasion and the brutal attack was because the defendant became upset about some words the victim allegedly said."
Mr. Shoaib’s neighbor, Kelly DuVall, (whose daughter is girlfriend of Domenech), stated that Mr. Shoaib started an argument with her because she was smoking on her front lawn near his children. Ms. Worthy is declining Walid’s demands that Domenech be charged with ethnic intimidation (the closest charge available to the “hate crime” charge CAIR wanted), because "while the evidence shows there were some ethnic insults uttered during the assault they do not support the two-year misdemeanor charge of ethnic intimidation."
Apparently, the cops are looking at a possible second suspect. But so far there has been no evidence supporting Walid’s wild charge that there were “10 white men” who attacked Mr. Shoaib simply because he was an Arab.
I repeat, I have no sympathy with the kind of lawless violence leading to a homeowner being beaten nearly to death in his own yard, for any reason. If it’s true, as Kelly DuVall claimed, that the fight started over some harsh words on one side or another, that is no excuse for the violence done to Mr. Shoaib. Nor is it an excuse if there is any truth that Mr. Shoaib was attacked merely because he was an Arab, a scenario I find almost impossible to believe. If the attacker was just one man, or even two, I hope they go to jail for a long time.
If Domenech is the kind of guy who works out his conflicts by committing mayhem, he is clearly a bad guy and a menace, and should be locked up. But the last thing that worries me about guys like him on the streets is his intolerant views about civil rights, or what unexamined prejudices surface during his tantrums. When guys like that slip into attack mode it’s the kicks and punches you need to worry about, not the insults.
This was a vicious assault in a tough neighborhood in a tough town that sees a pretty steady parade of such crimes by violent offenders every single day, often accompanied by the shouting at victims of insensitive insults on the subject of their race, sex, weight, relationship with their mothers, etc., etc. Walid is right that there is no excuse for the violence done to Mr. Shoaib, which is why our society treats things like this as crimes.
But how to excuse Dawud Walid’s cold decision to show up and commit the ethnic equivalent of shouting “fire” by announcing in the midst of a heavily Arab community that there was a gang of “10 white guys” out there with Arab blood on their hands? That makes Walid a menace, too. Fortunately, regardless of Walid’s careless announcement, there has been no sign of a neighborhood uprising in Warrendale of angry Arabs seeking revenge, which is a credit to the good sense of the Arab neighbors, and no credit at all to Walid.
I’m referring to what I consider a genuinely unfortunate incident in the Warrendale community of Detroit, immediately adjacent to Dearborn, in which a homeowner was very badly beaten up either by a neighbor or a friend of a neighbor with whom he had a disagreement. According to what Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said at his press conference on the victim’s doorstep on Tuesday, the beating was a hate crime. Walid alleged “that a group of 10 white men repeatedly swore at victim Shafik Shoaib and told him “go back to where you came from.”
As Walid described it, “They beat an American citizen like a dog in front of his children. There is no excuse.”
We at DU do not condone the beatings of homeowners, nor, for that matter, do we condone the beating of dogs. But nothing in the press coverage of this incident anywhere suggests that anyone was making any excuses for what happened to Mr. Shoaib. In fact, the police promptly arrested a suspect. Within a few hours of the original story the young suspect was charged with two felonies exposing him to up to thirty years in prison. Based on the rather gruesome photos and descriptions of Mr. Shoaib’s injuries, there is no doubt that whoever attacked him, for whatever reason, is a savage, and belongs in jail for a long time.
I just don’t care (no pun intended) for the way CAIR jumps in and tries to turn everything into an example of “Islamophobia,” or worse, make an irresponsible statement that could well incite to further violence.
The only question for me is the level or irresponsibility in Dawud Walid giving a press conference in which he puts out the outrageously incredibly story that ten “white” guys beat up Mr. Shoaib while calling out ethnic slurs. It is irresponsible in the style of Al Sharpton and his shameless lies about the pretend attack on Tawana Brawley.
Within hours of Walid’s press conference it was reported that the prime suspect, Ernest Domenech, 19, of Detroit, was arrested and charged on Wednesday “with home invasion in the first degree and assault with intent to do great bodily harm.”
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy described what happened as “an extremely ugly neighborhood dispute that culminated in the defendant becoming violent. The primary motive for the home invasion and the brutal attack was because the defendant became upset about some words the victim allegedly said."
Mr. Shoaib’s neighbor, Kelly DuVall, (whose daughter is girlfriend of Domenech), stated that Mr. Shoaib started an argument with her because she was smoking on her front lawn near his children. Ms. Worthy is declining Walid’s demands that Domenech be charged with ethnic intimidation (the closest charge available to the “hate crime” charge CAIR wanted), because "while the evidence shows there were some ethnic insults uttered during the assault they do not support the two-year misdemeanor charge of ethnic intimidation."
Apparently, the cops are looking at a possible second suspect. But so far there has been no evidence supporting Walid’s wild charge that there were “10 white men” who attacked Mr. Shoaib simply because he was an Arab.
I repeat, I have no sympathy with the kind of lawless violence leading to a homeowner being beaten nearly to death in his own yard, for any reason. If it’s true, as Kelly DuVall claimed, that the fight started over some harsh words on one side or another, that is no excuse for the violence done to Mr. Shoaib. Nor is it an excuse if there is any truth that Mr. Shoaib was attacked merely because he was an Arab, a scenario I find almost impossible to believe. If the attacker was just one man, or even two, I hope they go to jail for a long time.
If Domenech is the kind of guy who works out his conflicts by committing mayhem, he is clearly a bad guy and a menace, and should be locked up. But the last thing that worries me about guys like him on the streets is his intolerant views about civil rights, or what unexamined prejudices surface during his tantrums. When guys like that slip into attack mode it’s the kicks and punches you need to worry about, not the insults.
This was a vicious assault in a tough neighborhood in a tough town that sees a pretty steady parade of such crimes by violent offenders every single day, often accompanied by the shouting at victims of insensitive insults on the subject of their race, sex, weight, relationship with their mothers, etc., etc. Walid is right that there is no excuse for the violence done to Mr. Shoaib, which is why our society treats things like this as crimes.
But how to excuse Dawud Walid’s cold decision to show up and commit the ethnic equivalent of shouting “fire” by announcing in the midst of a heavily Arab community that there was a gang of “10 white guys” out there with Arab blood on their hands? That makes Walid a menace, too. Fortunately, regardless of Walid’s careless announcement, there has been no sign of a neighborhood uprising in Warrendale of angry Arabs seeking revenge, which is a credit to the good sense of the Arab neighbors, and no credit at all to Walid.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Powder Keg Denied Release for Now
"This community is angry. Something is going to happen. We're going to seek justice. This is a powder keg waiting to go off."
No folks, that’s not Dawud Walid complaining about the reaction of the Arab Street (known locally as Warren Avenue) to the latest outrageous examples of Islamophobia. Those lines were contained in a note confiscated from Sisaye Dinssa, the unemployed young man arrested November 14 with $80,000 in cash he was smuggling through Metro Airport. As mentioned earlier, the bust was facilitated by a sniffer dog.
A federal grand jury indicted Dinssa for bulk cash smuggling, making false statements and criminal forfeiture. US District Judge Marianne O. Battani ruled that he must remain in detention because, his “ominous note and materials detailing nuclear power and how to commit suicide…raised ‘red flags’ in a post-Sept. 11 era”, as reported by the Associated Press.
That’s exciting for two reasons. One, I’m glad to hear there are still flags being raised around here that aren’t white. And I’m gratified that Judge Battani recognizes we’re still in a post-9/11 era.
Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer, who had first crack at locking Dinssa up, was going to let him vanish into the immigrant underground by means of an unsecured bond. Scheer was undoubtedly convinced that Dinssa was probably not a flight risk, since the Ethiopian-born US citizen lied to customs officials, then said he had come in from Kenya where he has a wife and family, via Amsterdam, and was on his way to Phoenix before traveling onto his taxi business in Dallas. But District Judge Paul Borman, who outranks Scheer, put the kibosh on that. After Dinssa was formally charged by the grand jury Judge Battani denied Dinssa’s motion for release on bond.
Allegations of national-security violations contained in the government's original complaint were not part of the grand jury's indictment, but US Attorney Leonid Feller "said the government was still investigating suspected child pornography e-mails found on Dinssa's laptop and articles on nuclear power, using cyanide and other means to commit suicide, and the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
Dinssa may be guilty of nothing more than being a criminal smuggler of cash untainted by terrorists connections. Lord knows what we read in the papers can't be relied on for accuracy, nor do prosecutors release all the facts. But I am curious about what this guy was doing here in Detroit, which no one seems to be talking about.
But articles about nuclear power, suicide by cyanide, the anniversary of September 11, and notes about angry communities seeking justice ought to raise a red flag when you're busted under these circumstances. And in this case, I'm glad they did.
No folks, that’s not Dawud Walid complaining about the reaction of the Arab Street (known locally as Warren Avenue) to the latest outrageous examples of Islamophobia. Those lines were contained in a note confiscated from Sisaye Dinssa, the unemployed young man arrested November 14 with $80,000 in cash he was smuggling through Metro Airport. As mentioned earlier, the bust was facilitated by a sniffer dog.
A federal grand jury indicted Dinssa for bulk cash smuggling, making false statements and criminal forfeiture. US District Judge Marianne O. Battani ruled that he must remain in detention because, his “ominous note and materials detailing nuclear power and how to commit suicide…raised ‘red flags’ in a post-Sept. 11 era”, as reported by the Associated Press.
That’s exciting for two reasons. One, I’m glad to hear there are still flags being raised around here that aren’t white. And I’m gratified that Judge Battani recognizes we’re still in a post-9/11 era.
Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer, who had first crack at locking Dinssa up, was going to let him vanish into the immigrant underground by means of an unsecured bond. Scheer was undoubtedly convinced that Dinssa was probably not a flight risk, since the Ethiopian-born US citizen lied to customs officials, then said he had come in from Kenya where he has a wife and family, via Amsterdam, and was on his way to Phoenix before traveling onto his taxi business in Dallas. But District Judge Paul Borman, who outranks Scheer, put the kibosh on that. After Dinssa was formally charged by the grand jury Judge Battani denied Dinssa’s motion for release on bond.
Allegations of national-security violations contained in the government's original complaint were not part of the grand jury's indictment, but US Attorney Leonid Feller "said the government was still investigating suspected child pornography e-mails found on Dinssa's laptop and articles on nuclear power, using cyanide and other means to commit suicide, and the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
Dinssa may be guilty of nothing more than being a criminal smuggler of cash untainted by terrorists connections. Lord knows what we read in the papers can't be relied on for accuracy, nor do prosecutors release all the facts. But I am curious about what this guy was doing here in Detroit, which no one seems to be talking about.
But articles about nuclear power, suicide by cyanide, the anniversary of September 11, and notes about angry communities seeking justice ought to raise a red flag when you're busted under these circumstances. And in this case, I'm glad they did.
Flying While Still Remembering 9/11
The story of the 6 imams pulled off the Minneapolis flight last week was successfully mythologized as “flying while Muslim” almost immediately. It makes it so much less nerve-wracking to fly when you know that terrorists exist only in the fevered imaginations of Islamophobes—or perhaps in the UK, where they're actually catching these guys and then charging them.
Fortunately, the more information comes out about what really happened in Minneapolis, the clearer the picture gets.
Did you know, for example, that the mere fact that these guys were saying their prayers before boarding had nothing to do with why passengers and crew became alarmed? As explained by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, there was much more to it than that:
“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.’”
Now don't you find that interesting? First, one simply has to wonder what these gentlemen were up to. And then, don’t you just want to know more about what these “terrorist probes” in the airline industry are?
While the imams, CAIR, and Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee and John Conyers are trying to make it illegal to look too closely at a Muslims, I’m glad to see that some law enforcement authorities are swimming against the mind-control tide for the sake of security:
“Federal air marshals and others yesterday urged passengers to remain vigilant to threats.
“’The crew and passengers act as our additional eyes and ears on every flight,' said a federal air marshal in Las Vegas, who asked that his name not be used. "If [crew and passengers] are afraid of reporting suspicious individuals out of fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then terrorists will certainly use those fears to their advantage in future aviation attacks.’”
Read the rest of “Marshals decry imam’s charges” in the Washington Times.
Fear of being called, or fear of feeling you deserve to be called, a racist or a bigot can make it pretty hard to see things clearly. The path of least resistance makes it so much easier to simply go along with the hand-wringers blathering that what happened in Minneapolis was some kind of “flying while Muslim” case of abuse. Never mind what it cost the airline to sit on the tarmac for an extra hour while these clowns are being investigated, burning fuel and getting behind schedule. Never mind how many thousands of Muslims fly on US airlines every single day without being bothered at all. Never mind that everybody—and I mean everybody—who makes homeland security decisions these days expects regular supervisory visits from CAIR and the ADA, and that when a Muslim is occasionally detained, it becomes an instant national story and a guaranteed ten minutes of free air time for Muslim spokespersons to browbeat dhimmi interviewers on the cable news channels.
To cut through all that misplaced righteousness Townhall columnist Ben Shapiro breaks it down in a way almost anyone can understand: “Would you let your child take this flight?"
It's too bad the point has to be personalized that way to get it across. But it does appear that, even if we figure it isn't worth it to make a sane remark at a holiday gathering, at least when we're getting ready to trust our lives or those of our loved ones to commercial air travel, self-preservation wins out over political correctness. Which means that terrorists can't count on US passengers any more to sit back, relax, and enjoy being turned into missiles for the jihad.
Which means guys who hate us have to work that much harder to get their hands on our planes. Which means they have to probe the line where tolerance ends and aroused wariness takes over. So far, passengers faced with genuinely suspicious behavior (and that doesn't mean just praying), have chosen wariness over tolerance. It is remarkable how well Minneapolis authorities, especially the flight crews who have to fly all the time, have refused to cave in on this one.
These 6 guys were up to something, and no mistake. I don't believe these 6 "holy men" intended to hijack or blow up that plane. They were merely scouting the way for the guys who are intending to hijack or blow up a plane. Which makes them no better than Mohammed Atta to me.
They aren't going to stop trying. Based on this incident I'm sure meetings will be had to explain that barking out the name of Allah at a baording gate and making defiant political comments before taking up carefully choreographed guard positions throughout the cabin is definitely going to trigger suspicion from a planeload of travel-weary Kafirs. As long as passengers keep flagging down flight attendants and sending notes up to the cockpit, the bad guys aren't going to get things quite the way they need them to be to carry out their plans.
Which is why it would be a really big help to our enemies if some useful idiots in Congress could pass some laws requiring prior restraint on anyone in authority daring to even think of noticing anything suspicious about guys as bodaciously suspicious as the 6 imams. Maybe John Conyers can introduce a bill outlawing the instinct of self-preservation.
Fortunately, the more information comes out about what really happened in Minneapolis, the clearer the picture gets.
Did you know, for example, that the mere fact that these guys were saying their prayers before boarding had nothing to do with why passengers and crew became alarmed? As explained by Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times, there was much more to it than that:
“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.’”
Now don't you find that interesting? First, one simply has to wonder what these gentlemen were up to. And then, don’t you just want to know more about what these “terrorist probes” in the airline industry are?
While the imams, CAIR, and Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee and John Conyers are trying to make it illegal to look too closely at a Muslims, I’m glad to see that some law enforcement authorities are swimming against the mind-control tide for the sake of security:
“Federal air marshals and others yesterday urged passengers to remain vigilant to threats.
“’The crew and passengers act as our additional eyes and ears on every flight,' said a federal air marshal in Las Vegas, who asked that his name not be used. "If [crew and passengers] are afraid of reporting suspicious individuals out of fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then terrorists will certainly use those fears to their advantage in future aviation attacks.’”
Read the rest of “Marshals decry imam’s charges” in the Washington Times.
Fear of being called, or fear of feeling you deserve to be called, a racist or a bigot can make it pretty hard to see things clearly. The path of least resistance makes it so much easier to simply go along with the hand-wringers blathering that what happened in Minneapolis was some kind of “flying while Muslim” case of abuse. Never mind what it cost the airline to sit on the tarmac for an extra hour while these clowns are being investigated, burning fuel and getting behind schedule. Never mind how many thousands of Muslims fly on US airlines every single day without being bothered at all. Never mind that everybody—and I mean everybody—who makes homeland security decisions these days expects regular supervisory visits from CAIR and the ADA, and that when a Muslim is occasionally detained, it becomes an instant national story and a guaranteed ten minutes of free air time for Muslim spokespersons to browbeat dhimmi interviewers on the cable news channels.
To cut through all that misplaced righteousness Townhall columnist Ben Shapiro breaks it down in a way almost anyone can understand: “Would you let your child take this flight?"
It's too bad the point has to be personalized that way to get it across. But it does appear that, even if we figure it isn't worth it to make a sane remark at a holiday gathering, at least when we're getting ready to trust our lives or those of our loved ones to commercial air travel, self-preservation wins out over political correctness. Which means that terrorists can't count on US passengers any more to sit back, relax, and enjoy being turned into missiles for the jihad.
Which means guys who hate us have to work that much harder to get their hands on our planes. Which means they have to probe the line where tolerance ends and aroused wariness takes over. So far, passengers faced with genuinely suspicious behavior (and that doesn't mean just praying), have chosen wariness over tolerance. It is remarkable how well Minneapolis authorities, especially the flight crews who have to fly all the time, have refused to cave in on this one.
These 6 guys were up to something, and no mistake. I don't believe these 6 "holy men" intended to hijack or blow up that plane. They were merely scouting the way for the guys who are intending to hijack or blow up a plane. Which makes them no better than Mohammed Atta to me.
They aren't going to stop trying. Based on this incident I'm sure meetings will be had to explain that barking out the name of Allah at a baording gate and making defiant political comments before taking up carefully choreographed guard positions throughout the cabin is definitely going to trigger suspicion from a planeload of travel-weary Kafirs. As long as passengers keep flagging down flight attendants and sending notes up to the cockpit, the bad guys aren't going to get things quite the way they need them to be to carry out their plans.
Which is why it would be a really big help to our enemies if some useful idiots in Congress could pass some laws requiring prior restraint on anyone in authority daring to even think of noticing anything suspicious about guys as bodaciously suspicious as the 6 imams. Maybe John Conyers can introduce a bill outlawing the instinct of self-preservation.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Come One, Come All
San Francisco continues to blaze its trail for the rest of us back to the 60's. As an example, a 76-year old peace activist named Donna Sheehan, (no relation to Cindie), and her 55-year-old boyfriend, Paul Reffell, are proposing the "Global Orgasm for Peace" to be held(?), or is that staged(?), or anyway, occuring on the first day of winter, December 22. According to the AP:
"'The orgasm gives out an incredible feeling of peace during it and after it," Reffell said Sunday. "Your mind is like a blank. It's like a meditative state. And mass meditations have been shown to make a change.'"
Which does help explain the recent elections.
Reffell explained that he and his 76-year-old girlfriend
"have studied evolutionary psychology and believe that war is mainly an outgrowth of men trying to impress potential mates, a case of 'my missile is bigger than your missile,' as Reffell put it.'"
So this is how "evolutionary psychology" explains war? At least it isn't something dumb like Intelligent Design. And wasn't all this "my missile" stuff what JFK meant when he warned us about a missile gap? And why he kept calling Marilyn Monroe?
But speaking of missile envy, we're all hoping that Kim Jong Il, Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas intend to participate. They're all totally missile crazy, and we can all use a day off.
"By promoting what they hope to be a synchronized global orgasm, they hope to get people to channel their sexual energy into something more positive.
'The dream is to have everyone in the world (take part),' Reffell said. 'And if that means laying down your gun for a few minutes, then hey, all the better.' "
But not laying down your missile, eh, Paul, you sly dog!
I found it curious that nowhere does the AP story contain a single quotation from Ms. Sheehan, (who, I repeat, is 76, and, one would assume, is the ostensible, immodest feminine figurehead of the global orgasm). We refuse to speculate as to how she may have been occupied during the interview that she was unable to get a word in, or out, although we're sure it involved peace, meditation, and a blank mind.
"'The orgasm gives out an incredible feeling of peace during it and after it," Reffell said Sunday. "Your mind is like a blank. It's like a meditative state. And mass meditations have been shown to make a change.'"
Which does help explain the recent elections.
Reffell explained that he and his 76-year-old girlfriend
"have studied evolutionary psychology and believe that war is mainly an outgrowth of men trying to impress potential mates, a case of 'my missile is bigger than your missile,' as Reffell put it.'"
So this is how "evolutionary psychology" explains war? At least it isn't something dumb like Intelligent Design. And wasn't all this "my missile" stuff what JFK meant when he warned us about a missile gap? And why he kept calling Marilyn Monroe?
But speaking of missile envy, we're all hoping that Kim Jong Il, Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas intend to participate. They're all totally missile crazy, and we can all use a day off.
"By promoting what they hope to be a synchronized global orgasm, they hope to get people to channel their sexual energy into something more positive.
'The dream is to have everyone in the world (take part),' Reffell said. 'And if that means laying down your gun for a few minutes, then hey, all the better.' "
But not laying down your missile, eh, Paul, you sly dog!
I found it curious that nowhere does the AP story contain a single quotation from Ms. Sheehan, (who, I repeat, is 76, and, one would assume, is the ostensible, immodest feminine figurehead of the global orgasm). We refuse to speculate as to how she may have been occupied during the interview that she was unable to get a word in, or out, although we're sure it involved peace, meditation, and a blank mind.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Hezbollah Step By Step
As recognized here at DU since September, Hezbollah is determined to topple the legitimate government of Lebanon. Progress on this front was reported today by the Associated Press:
Hezbollah calls for mass protests to oust Lebanon's Western-backed government
By HUSSEIN DAKROUB Associated Press Writer
(AP) - BEIRUT, Lebanon-Hezbollah's leader urged his followers to prepare for mass demonstrations to topple the government if it ignores the militant group's demand to form a national unity coalition.
In a speech broadcast Sunday, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah railed against U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, calling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "bloodsucker" and claiming the current Lebanese government is a puppet of Washington.
He did not set a date for the anti-government protests, which he said should be nonviolent. But he told supporters and political allies to get ready to take to Beirut's streets for days or even weeks to force the resignation of the government.
"We, all of us, must be psychologically and morally ready to take to the streets. It is one means for the required movement," Nasrallah said in a speech Saturday which was aired Sunday on Hezbollah's TV station Al-Manar.
"We do not want riots ... We must respect private and public property. We will not allow any clashes even if (anti-Syrian groups) stage a counter street demonstration," he said. "We are capable of taking to the street and staying there for a day, two, or three, or a week, or two or three weeks, or for more or less until we eventually impose by our peaceful, civilized and democratic means the toppling of an illegitimate and unconstitutional government."
Political and sectarian tensions have been mounting in Lebanon as a result of a power struggle between rival factions intensified by Hezbollah's 34-day war with Israel this summer.
The Shiite guerrilla group, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has demanded the formation of a national unity government that would essentially give it and its allies veto power over major decisions. But negotiations among groups broke down last week, and six Cabinet ministers, including two from Hezbollah, resigned.
Shortly after Nasrallah's speech was broadcast, the sounds of gunfire and fireworks reverberated across Beirut's predominantly Shiite southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold heavily bombarded by Israel during the fighting in July and August. Al-Manar said Nasrallah delivered the speech on Saturday in the southern suburbs.
Nasrallah accused the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, which is backed by the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, of falling under the influence of the President Bush's administration. He said the government had become "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional" after the ministers resigned.
"This is the government of Feltman and not the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora," Nasrallah said, referring to the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman who has repeatedly reaffirmed his country's support for the Saniora government. The remark drew applause and chants of "Death to America" from Nasrallah's audience made up of Hezbollah members charged with organizing the protests.
"We want to liberate our country from the hegemony of Ambassador Feltman and the bloodsucker Rice," he said.
Hezbollah has accused Rice and the Bush administration of foiling Arab efforts in the U.N. Security Council to arrange an early cease-fire in Israel-Hezbollah war, claiming Washington wanted to give Israel time to try to destroy Hezbollah's military infrastructure. The fighting ended with a U.N.-brokered cease-fire resolution on Aug. 14 and more than 1,000 people died on both sides of the border.
Lebanon's political crisis has deepened since late October when Nasrallah began threatening mass protests unless Hezbollah's demand for a national unity government was met.
Saniora, backed by the anti-Syrian coalition, has vowed to stay in power and refused to give veto power to Hezbollah and its allies.
Nasrallah repeated his demand for the unity government to include Christian leader Gen. Michel Aoun's faction, a Hezbollah ally, as a way out of the current political deadlock. The move would also reduce the sectarian appearance of the exclusively Shiite group's bid for greater political power.
"We have two options to break the political deadlock: formation of a national unity government in which the country's major political forces participate in an effective way, or early parliamentary elections," he said.
But Nasrallah insisted he was not trying to cause radical change. "Come let's form a national unity government. ... Nobody is raising arms, nobody is making a coup or popular revolution," he said.
The demonstrations are not aimed at changing the ruling system or causing a "radical political coup" in Lebanon, he said. "All we want is to have a national government that will not make Lebanon an American or an Israeli tool."
Nasrallah ruled out civil war, undermining Lebanon's stability or Sunni-Shiite strife, all of which he said were "red lines" Hezbollah would not cross.
Washington has accused Hezbollah backers Iran and Syria of seeking to topple the Saniora government and attempting to block the formation of an international tribunal to prosecute the suspected killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Both Iran and Syria have denied the charges.
The Lebanese government last week approved the draft agreement for the tribunal's formation, and the U.N. Security Council was expected to discuss the draft on Monday. Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud opposed the Cabinet's decision, saying it lacked legitimacy after the ministers resigned.
Hariri was killed with 22 others in a suicide truck bombing in February 2005. The assassination sparked huge protests against Syria, which was widely seen as culpable. Syria denies it was behind the killing.
Almost everything Nasrallah, (know locally here in Dearborn as “Our Leader”), says is a lie. But give him a moment and he always admits what he really intends. For instance, he no sooner calls for demonstrations that “respect private and public property,” than he admits his intention is to demonstrate “until we eventually impose by our peaceful, civilized and democratic means the toppling of an illegitimate and unconstitutional government." We don't want a "radical political coup" in Lebanon, he says. "All we want is to have a national government that will not make Lebanon an American or an Israeli tool." In other words, he wants a Lebanon that is an Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah tool.
Nasrallah has no interest whatever in civilized, democratic, constitutional government. His only interest is in turning Lebanon into a regional staging ground for the coming war against Israel. And he doesn’t care how many Lebanese he gets killed in the process.
Hezbollah calls for mass protests to oust Lebanon's Western-backed government
By HUSSEIN DAKROUB Associated Press Writer
(AP) - BEIRUT, Lebanon-Hezbollah's leader urged his followers to prepare for mass demonstrations to topple the government if it ignores the militant group's demand to form a national unity coalition.
In a speech broadcast Sunday, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah railed against U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, calling Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a "bloodsucker" and claiming the current Lebanese government is a puppet of Washington.
He did not set a date for the anti-government protests, which he said should be nonviolent. But he told supporters and political allies to get ready to take to Beirut's streets for days or even weeks to force the resignation of the government.
"We, all of us, must be psychologically and morally ready to take to the streets. It is one means for the required movement," Nasrallah said in a speech Saturday which was aired Sunday on Hezbollah's TV station Al-Manar.
"We do not want riots ... We must respect private and public property. We will not allow any clashes even if (anti-Syrian groups) stage a counter street demonstration," he said. "We are capable of taking to the street and staying there for a day, two, or three, or a week, or two or three weeks, or for more or less until we eventually impose by our peaceful, civilized and democratic means the toppling of an illegitimate and unconstitutional government."
Political and sectarian tensions have been mounting in Lebanon as a result of a power struggle between rival factions intensified by Hezbollah's 34-day war with Israel this summer.
The Shiite guerrilla group, which is backed by Syria and Iran, has demanded the formation of a national unity government that would essentially give it and its allies veto power over major decisions. But negotiations among groups broke down last week, and six Cabinet ministers, including two from Hezbollah, resigned.
Shortly after Nasrallah's speech was broadcast, the sounds of gunfire and fireworks reverberated across Beirut's predominantly Shiite southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold heavily bombarded by Israel during the fighting in July and August. Al-Manar said Nasrallah delivered the speech on Saturday in the southern suburbs.
Nasrallah accused the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, which is backed by the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, of falling under the influence of the President Bush's administration. He said the government had become "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional" after the ministers resigned.
"This is the government of Feltman and not the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora," Nasrallah said, referring to the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman who has repeatedly reaffirmed his country's support for the Saniora government. The remark drew applause and chants of "Death to America" from Nasrallah's audience made up of Hezbollah members charged with organizing the protests.
"We want to liberate our country from the hegemony of Ambassador Feltman and the bloodsucker Rice," he said.
Hezbollah has accused Rice and the Bush administration of foiling Arab efforts in the U.N. Security Council to arrange an early cease-fire in Israel-Hezbollah war, claiming Washington wanted to give Israel time to try to destroy Hezbollah's military infrastructure. The fighting ended with a U.N.-brokered cease-fire resolution on Aug. 14 and more than 1,000 people died on both sides of the border.
Lebanon's political crisis has deepened since late October when Nasrallah began threatening mass protests unless Hezbollah's demand for a national unity government was met.
Saniora, backed by the anti-Syrian coalition, has vowed to stay in power and refused to give veto power to Hezbollah and its allies.
Nasrallah repeated his demand for the unity government to include Christian leader Gen. Michel Aoun's faction, a Hezbollah ally, as a way out of the current political deadlock. The move would also reduce the sectarian appearance of the exclusively Shiite group's bid for greater political power.
"We have two options to break the political deadlock: formation of a national unity government in which the country's major political forces participate in an effective way, or early parliamentary elections," he said.
But Nasrallah insisted he was not trying to cause radical change. "Come let's form a national unity government. ... Nobody is raising arms, nobody is making a coup or popular revolution," he said.
The demonstrations are not aimed at changing the ruling system or causing a "radical political coup" in Lebanon, he said. "All we want is to have a national government that will not make Lebanon an American or an Israeli tool."
Nasrallah ruled out civil war, undermining Lebanon's stability or Sunni-Shiite strife, all of which he said were "red lines" Hezbollah would not cross.
Washington has accused Hezbollah backers Iran and Syria of seeking to topple the Saniora government and attempting to block the formation of an international tribunal to prosecute the suspected killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Both Iran and Syria have denied the charges.
The Lebanese government last week approved the draft agreement for the tribunal's formation, and the U.N. Security Council was expected to discuss the draft on Monday. Lebanon's pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud opposed the Cabinet's decision, saying it lacked legitimacy after the ministers resigned.
Hariri was killed with 22 others in a suicide truck bombing in February 2005. The assassination sparked huge protests against Syria, which was widely seen as culpable. Syria denies it was behind the killing.
Almost everything Nasrallah, (know locally here in Dearborn as “Our Leader”), says is a lie. But give him a moment and he always admits what he really intends. For instance, he no sooner calls for demonstrations that “respect private and public property,” than he admits his intention is to demonstrate “until we eventually impose by our peaceful, civilized and democratic means the toppling of an illegitimate and unconstitutional government." We don't want a "radical political coup" in Lebanon, he says. "All we want is to have a national government that will not make Lebanon an American or an Israeli tool." In other words, he wants a Lebanon that is an Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah tool.
Nasrallah has no interest whatever in civilized, democratic, constitutional government. His only interest is in turning Lebanon into a regional staging ground for the coming war against Israel. And he doesn’t care how many Lebanese he gets killed in the process.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Next Time, Try Setting it on 'Vibrate'
Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog had this interesting post, providing a valuable lesson on how not to smuggle a cell-phone:
A SELF-proclaimed British multi-millionaire named Mohammed Islam who was arrested on the Gold Coast with almost $120,000 in cash is under investigation as to whether he has terrorist connections. Queensland police yesterday refused to comment on their investigation into the man, 22, but at this stage there is reportedly no evidence to link him with terrorist activity.
Islam allegedly had $118,000 in $50 notes in a suitcase and a mobile phone concealed in his rectum when he was arrested at a Surfers Paradise bus station on Thursday night.
A SELF-proclaimed British multi-millionaire named Mohammed Islam who was arrested on the Gold Coast with almost $120,000 in cash is under investigation as to whether he has terrorist connections. Queensland police yesterday refused to comment on their investigation into the man, 22, but at this stage there is reportedly no evidence to link him with terrorist activity.
Islam allegedly had $118,000 in $50 notes in a suitcase and a mobile phone concealed in his rectum when he was arrested at a Surfers Paradise bus station on Thursday night.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Pay Lots of Attention to Those Men Behind the Curtain
Certainly one of the most discouraging thing about politicians is the number of them who have been in office for decades in spite of having flunked high school Civics and never having read the US Constitution. Or if they have, they have sold out every principle they may have learned for the sake of the interests of a special-interest constituency—in this case, CAIR and other pro-jihadist pressure groups who have political leaders such as John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi in their pockets. As an example, take a look at H. Res. 288, introduced by Michigan Representative John Conyers last year, the man who is going to be the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.
Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;
Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;
Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;
Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;
Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States:
Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;
(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;
(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and
(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.
Like the silly resolution sponsored, in part, by Dearborn’s state representative to the Michigan Legislature, Gino Polidori, Conyers’s resolution has nothing to do with promoting freedom of religion. Instead, it is an explicit endorsement of one particular religion, Islam, and one particular holy book, the Quran, as deserving of protection from criticism or “intolerance,” a term conspicuously absent from, and nowhere prohibited in, the US Constitution.
Anyone who pays attention to recent trends in the law and popular culture knows there is a huge wave of animosity towards religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular. In its most simplistic form, (and it never rises far above a most simplistic argument), the good guys want a secular government, by which they mean one with policies cleansed of the influence of repressed persons who believe in kooky supernatural law-givers like Yahweh, Jesus, or Moses, and their wacky laws about honoring your parents, and not committing murder or stealing. (You can enjoy a “faith-tradition” in private, as long as you keep it at home, and ensure your public, political acts are always inimical to that faith tradition as a remnant of a bygone pre-enlightened era).
The bad guys are “theocrats,” a term that is scrupulously never defined by the people using the insult. One commentator I heard described Thomas Jefferson as a “secularist,” and John Adams as a “theocrat.” The description of Jefferson as a secularist is at least imaginably accurate, but tarring John Adams as a theocrat is nothing more than petulant ignorance.
But the really fascinating thing about these secularists is that, as much as they fear theocracy (whatever they mean by that), they never have a negative thing to say about the world’s biggest, most belligerent, and probably only, actual theocracy—Islam.
Anti-Christian secularists distinguish Islam as harmless, because, after all, Islam is all about “peace.” When they are forced to remark on Islamic violence, it is always as a defensible response to Christian and Jewish provocation and persecution. While secularists take it as dogma that Christianity especially has been responsible for war after war and massacre after massacre at some ill-defined point in the murky past, current and numberless examples of vast populations ground under the bloody heel of the Islamic theocracies go by without comment.
For those of this secularist ilk, James Dobson’s views on queer marriage are a clear and growing danger to America, while there is no threat at all from Islamic clerics and leaders of genuine theocratic dictatorships, like Iran, who are promising to force their religion on us, or kill us in the process.
I wish my only point was that the people who have adopted the secularist vs. religion model being popularized today simply can’t be taken seriously as thinking people. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, because silly people in high places make very powerful tools. (Could anyone be sillier, for example, than Jimmy Carter, and yet still such a handy weapon for our enemies? And silly me, I voted for him. Twice).
It's the people behind these useful idiots who are serious, and skillfully use these dupes as useful tools. In fact, it makes the tools more dangerous, because they can influence national policy. Of course John Conyers didn't draft this resolution on his own! it was dictated to him by his jihadist puppeteers. That means John Conyers is not just a very silly man. He is a very silly man with a powerful Congressional committee under his control, and who himself is under the control of someone no American ever voted for.
And though already dull, these tools will not rust from lack of use.
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.
Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;
Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;
Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;
Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;
Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States:
Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;
(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;
(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and
(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.
Like the silly resolution sponsored, in part, by Dearborn’s state representative to the Michigan Legislature, Gino Polidori, Conyers’s resolution has nothing to do with promoting freedom of religion. Instead, it is an explicit endorsement of one particular religion, Islam, and one particular holy book, the Quran, as deserving of protection from criticism or “intolerance,” a term conspicuously absent from, and nowhere prohibited in, the US Constitution.
Anyone who pays attention to recent trends in the law and popular culture knows there is a huge wave of animosity towards religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular. In its most simplistic form, (and it never rises far above a most simplistic argument), the good guys want a secular government, by which they mean one with policies cleansed of the influence of repressed persons who believe in kooky supernatural law-givers like Yahweh, Jesus, or Moses, and their wacky laws about honoring your parents, and not committing murder or stealing. (You can enjoy a “faith-tradition” in private, as long as you keep it at home, and ensure your public, political acts are always inimical to that faith tradition as a remnant of a bygone pre-enlightened era).
The bad guys are “theocrats,” a term that is scrupulously never defined by the people using the insult. One commentator I heard described Thomas Jefferson as a “secularist,” and John Adams as a “theocrat.” The description of Jefferson as a secularist is at least imaginably accurate, but tarring John Adams as a theocrat is nothing more than petulant ignorance.
But the really fascinating thing about these secularists is that, as much as they fear theocracy (whatever they mean by that), they never have a negative thing to say about the world’s biggest, most belligerent, and probably only, actual theocracy—Islam.
Anti-Christian secularists distinguish Islam as harmless, because, after all, Islam is all about “peace.” When they are forced to remark on Islamic violence, it is always as a defensible response to Christian and Jewish provocation and persecution. While secularists take it as dogma that Christianity especially has been responsible for war after war and massacre after massacre at some ill-defined point in the murky past, current and numberless examples of vast populations ground under the bloody heel of the Islamic theocracies go by without comment.
For those of this secularist ilk, James Dobson’s views on queer marriage are a clear and growing danger to America, while there is no threat at all from Islamic clerics and leaders of genuine theocratic dictatorships, like Iran, who are promising to force their religion on us, or kill us in the process.
I wish my only point was that the people who have adopted the secularist vs. religion model being popularized today simply can’t be taken seriously as thinking people. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous, because silly people in high places make very powerful tools. (Could anyone be sillier, for example, than Jimmy Carter, and yet still such a handy weapon for our enemies? And silly me, I voted for him. Twice).
It's the people behind these useful idiots who are serious, and skillfully use these dupes as useful tools. In fact, it makes the tools more dangerous, because they can influence national policy. Of course John Conyers didn't draft this resolution on his own! it was dictated to him by his jihadist puppeteers. That means John Conyers is not just a very silly man. He is a very silly man with a powerful Congressional committee under his control, and who himself is under the control of someone no American ever voted for.
And though already dull, these tools will not rust from lack of use.
STILL THINK THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM?
11/16/06 – Metro Airport
A
Sisayehiticha Dinssa was arrested at
According to the court records, when questioned about the information on his laptop, Dinssa said that he was "interested in learning about cyanide and nuclear materials."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Leonid Feller said the man is a potential risk to the community and federal agents want to get a warrant to search his computer more thoroughly.
8/9/06 -
Deputies stopped Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, 20, and Ali Houssaiky, 20, (Dearborn Citizens) and found:
- 12 tracphones *
- a map with locations of Wal-Mart stores in 5 different states
- Airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints
- They admitted buying about 600 phones in recent months
- $11,000 Cash.
*Note about these phones – ABC News reported in January 2006: Federal agents investigate the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and
The initial terrorism charges were dropped but, the case is still under investigation.
9/10/06 Airport Knife Scare
Mohammed Ghanem, 21, of
Nabih Ayad, Ghanem’s attorney, said someone had carved out the inside of the book and placed the knife inside it, but that his client had no idea where the knife came from. Local Muslims insist he is a gentle, peaceful, person who would never hurt a fly. Local Islamic leaders insist this has nothing to do with terrorism. They also insist we are Islamaphobes for even asking.
FACTS:
- Court documents in the
Brief list of HEZBOLLAH TERROR ATTACKS –
- March 16, 1984: CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped
- Sept. 20, 1984: Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of
- Dec. 3, 1984: Hijacking of
- June 14, 1985: Hijacking of TWA Flight 847
- October 1985: - January 1986Hijacking of cruise ship Achilles Lauro;
Bombing of Rome,
- April 5, 1986: Bombing of La Belle Discotheque
- December 21, 1988: Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
- March 17, 1992: Hezbollah bombs the Israeli embassy in
- July 18, 1994: Hezbollah bombs the Jewish community center in
- July 12, 2006: Hezbollah attacks
Still think it has nothing to do with Islam?
Still think Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization?
Here are a few questions to consider –
- How many Presbyterians have been caught at airports with weapons, with large amounts of cash, or with suspicious intelligence information all related to airplanes and bombs?
- Why does Osama Siblani, the publisher of
- Why did Siblani tell the Detroit News, he's not alone: "If morally supporting Hezbollah or associating with Fadlallah is a crime, 'there is not going to be enough buses to haul the people out and take them to jail.”?
Any sympathy or ties to Hezbollah contradict and are anathema to the security and freedom of US citizens.
Friday, November 17, 2006
ACLU Sues Government Dog for Profiling
Okay, that didn't really happen. But if it weren't for the dog we all know this guy would have gotten right through. This from the Detroit News:
Man with laptop, $80,000 cash arrested at airport
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
A man arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport carrying nearly $80,000 in cash and a laptop computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide will be held in custody at least until Monday, a U.S. magistrate judge ruled Wednesday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Leonid Feller said Sisayehiticha Dinssa, 35, is a potential risk to public safety and federal agents want to get a warrant to search his computer more thoroughly.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer ordered Dinssa held pending a detention hearing Monday.
Feller said Dinssa, who gave a Texas address, arrived in Detroit from Nigeria by way of Amsterdam and was headed for Phoenix.
The government considers Dinssa a potential flight risk and a potential "risk of harm to the community based on the material found in his computer," Feller said.
Dinssa, a U.S. citizen who is unemployed, was charged with currency reporting violations after he was arrested at the airport Tuesday. An affidavit filed in court said a dog found the scent of narcotics on cash Dinssa carried.
Dinssa told Customs agents he was only carrying about $18,000.
The joke about the dog comes from Democrats' stated intention to make it all but illegal for airport screeners to stop Muslims. For an example, listen to Robert Spencer describe some of Nancy Pelosi's recent comments here.
Man with laptop, $80,000 cash arrested at airport
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
A man arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport carrying nearly $80,000 in cash and a laptop computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide will be held in custody at least until Monday, a U.S. magistrate judge ruled Wednesday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Leonid Feller said Sisayehiticha Dinssa, 35, is a potential risk to public safety and federal agents want to get a warrant to search his computer more thoroughly.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer ordered Dinssa held pending a detention hearing Monday.
Feller said Dinssa, who gave a Texas address, arrived in Detroit from Nigeria by way of Amsterdam and was headed for Phoenix.
The government considers Dinssa a potential flight risk and a potential "risk of harm to the community based on the material found in his computer," Feller said.
Dinssa, a U.S. citizen who is unemployed, was charged with currency reporting violations after he was arrested at the airport Tuesday. An affidavit filed in court said a dog found the scent of narcotics on cash Dinssa carried.
Dinssa told Customs agents he was only carrying about $18,000.
The joke about the dog comes from Democrats' stated intention to make it all but illegal for airport screeners to stop Muslims. For an example, listen to Robert Spencer describe some of Nancy Pelosi's recent comments here.
Iran Pleased with "New Direction" in US Foreign Policy
I've been more or less avoiding all the commentators and columnists going on and on about the recent elections and what they mean. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what our enemies think the recent elections mean. Do you remember when Quaddafi gave up his nuclear program because he was afraid of George Bush? To show how things have changed, here's what Ayatollah Khameini said last Friday: "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale." This from Reuters:
Khamenei calls U.S. elections a victory for Iran
By Jon Hemming
TEHRAN, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.
Bush has accused Iran of trying to make a nuclear bomb, being a state sponsor of terrorism and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq, all charges Tehran denies.
"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday.
"Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."
The Democrats wrested control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans in this week's mid-term elections, partly because of voter concern over the war in Iraq.
Khamenei, a senior cleric in power since 1989, has the last word on matters of state in Iran's complex system of Islamic rule, while the government, under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in charge of day-to-day decision making.
"The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration," the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
Khamenei said military manoeuvres in the Gulf this week in which Iranian forces tested new missile systems showed Iran was ready to face any threat.
But, he said: "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."
Khamenei condemned Israel for its artillery attack on Wednesday in Gaza which killed 18 civilians, and also the "silence" of Western nations over "this great oppression".
The daily crimes by the savage Zionists in Gaza once more prove that holding talks with this occupying regime is of no use."
What this means is that Iran intends to increase its challenges to American policies in "Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan," and, of course, Israel. You may notice there are growing demands from jihadists that we abandon our alliance with Israel. The psychological war has already led to a bending (I'm not quite ready to say breaking) of the American will to win in Iraq. The jihadists are only going to increase the pressure now.
There is no way that Congressional leadership such as Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, and John Conyers are going to have backbone enough to stand up against threats with anything but hapless talk about problems "to be resolved." Today former President Hashemi Rafsanjani "also warned the US not to consider military intervention in Iran, saying Washington's 'iron fist policy' has failed." Why does he say "failed"? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't we?
But for how much longer? These guys know the history of the Democrats better than we do. They don't even have to wait until we pull out of Iraq to start kicking sand in our face again.
It is not possible that what Khameini and Ahmadinejad consider a victory for one of our bitterest enemies can possibly be a victory for America as well. And it is not.
Khamenei calls U.S. elections a victory for Iran
By Jon Hemming
TEHRAN, Nov 10 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.
Bush has accused Iran of trying to make a nuclear bomb, being a state sponsor of terrorism and stoking sectarian conflict in Iraq, all charges Tehran denies.
"This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday.
"Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."
The Democrats wrested control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans in this week's mid-term elections, partly because of voter concern over the war in Iraq.
Khamenei, a senior cleric in power since 1989, has the last word on matters of state in Iran's complex system of Islamic rule, while the government, under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in charge of day-to-day decision making.
"The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration," the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
Khamenei said military manoeuvres in the Gulf this week in which Iranian forces tested new missile systems showed Iran was ready to face any threat.
But, he said: "With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."
Khamenei condemned Israel for its artillery attack on Wednesday in Gaza which killed 18 civilians, and also the "silence" of Western nations over "this great oppression".
The daily crimes by the savage Zionists in Gaza once more prove that holding talks with this occupying regime is of no use."
What this means is that Iran intends to increase its challenges to American policies in "Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan," and, of course, Israel. You may notice there are growing demands from jihadists that we abandon our alliance with Israel. The psychological war has already led to a bending (I'm not quite ready to say breaking) of the American will to win in Iraq. The jihadists are only going to increase the pressure now.
There is no way that Congressional leadership such as Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, and John Conyers are going to have backbone enough to stand up against threats with anything but hapless talk about problems "to be resolved." Today former President Hashemi Rafsanjani "also warned the US not to consider military intervention in Iran, saying Washington's 'iron fist policy' has failed." Why does he say "failed"? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't we?
But for how much longer? These guys know the history of the Democrats better than we do. They don't even have to wait until we pull out of Iraq to start kicking sand in our face again.
It is not possible that what Khameini and Ahmadinejad consider a victory for one of our bitterest enemies can possibly be a victory for America as well. And it is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
