Wednesday - December 20, 2006

Rimshot

“Momentum is still building for Barack Obama. Do you know what his middle name is? Hussein. It could have been worse – it could be Kerry.”

-- Jay Leno

“You know, ladies and gentlemen, there’s a new ‘Rocky’ film opening. Listen to this, the President knew about it and failed to act in time.”

-- David Letterman

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/20/2006 at 02:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Reading Assignment

Before the really cold weather settles in, go ahead and order these two books. Warning: if you live in Europe, you better contact your physician and have him or her prescribe a strong anti-depressant. You’ll need it. I finally got around to reading Melanie Phillips book last week and I was left speechless. The situation in Europe is much, much worse than many of us on this side of the pond are aware.

Europe is a sick old man and is dieing from a cancer within. The Old World may quite possibly be beyond help at this point. If anything, you should take away from these two books the fact that America is next on the list for assimilation into the New Muslim World order. You can learn from the example of what is happening in Europe and start pushing back on the invaders or ... you can grow a beard, beat your wife and start bowing to the East. It’s up to you ...

Londonistan
-- by Melanie Phillips (Amazon - $17.13)

“In contrast to the overwhelming majority of her British compatriots, who prefer to avert their eyes from the radical Islamic horror growing in their midst, Melanie Phillips has compiled a unique record that fearlessly, brilliantly and wittily exposes this problem. Londonistan builds on and goes beyond her prior work by showing the role of what she calls the British ’spiral of decadence’ in permitting Islamist ideas and demands to ride roughshod over the UK’s traditional ways. Phillips rightly warns Americans of the acute dangers for them, too, from Britain’s being a source of Richard Reid—like terrorists to the ending of the two countries’ special relationship.”

— Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America

“Londonistan is one of the most compelling books you will ever read on the ascendancy of Islamic fundamentalism, violence and intimidation in the West. Melanie Phillips exposes the scandalous appeasement of militant Islam by British officials, the media, even the Church of England, capturing in extraordinary detail how British society and institutions have either ignored or actively fostered the growth of extremist groups on British soil. This book will both enlighten and enrage. Although its story is focused on the United Kingdom, it could be applied to any European capital or to the United States.”

— Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us

“Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan is a last-minute warning for Britain and for much of the free world. In the 1930s, Britain was the leading appeaser of the world’s most intransigent foe, refusing to see the gathering signs of danger until it was almost too late. Today, the same tendency to appeasement and self-delusion is evident again—only now, the threat is within. Britain refuses to recognize the clear and present danger of Islamism inside its own borders, which steadily corrodes its social values and moral compass. Once again, only the good sense of the British can save their country—and the same may be true in many other democracies. This book is powerful and frightening, but also courageous. In dictatorships, you need courage to fight evil; in the free world, you need courage to see the evil.”

— Natan Sharansky

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
-- by Bat Ye’Or (Amazon - $23.95)

Bat Ye’or is the world’s preeminent historian of Islam, jihad and dhimmitude--the reduced state of non-Muslim peoples living under Islamic rule. Here, she has masterfully portrayed the means by which the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) unfolded over the past 30-plus years, and how that process relates to the World War II Axis--as well as the historical, 1,400-year jihad.

“There are three forms of jihad,” says Bat Ye’or today, “the military jihad, the economic jihad and the cultural jihad.” The EAD between the European Union and the Arab League has been a means of spreading the economic and cultural jihads from the Middle East to Europe.

The process outlined here began with Charles DeGualle’s 1967 pronouncement that henceforward, France would assume a pro-Arab policy. In 1971, France began selling arms to Qaddafi, a step from which the EAD flowed as naturally as it did from DeGualle’s policy initiative.

Another factor, according to Bat Ye’or, was the French desire to regain a leading role in European history; Georges Pompidou furthered the process in October 1973, following the Syrian and Egyptian Yom Kippur war with Israel.

At that time, the Arab world imposed an oil embargo on Denmark, Holland and the U.S., cut oil production and began to raise oil prices by five percent a month. These new global geopolitics terrified the leaders of Germany and France.

Before it agreed to establish the EAD, the Arab League had demanded that Europe establish pro-Arab and anti-American policies in all their united political, cultural and economic endeavors. The oil embargo was the catalyst which finally moved the European Economic Community to action. Now, writes Bat Ye’or, EEC ministers enacted resolutions that met the Arab demands, and which at the same time reversed the true intent of United Nations Resolution 242. Only then was the Arab oil embargo to Europe lifted.

As Bat Ye’or also suggests, America is the last frontier, and the American people should take it as their duty to avoid Europe’s fate. Read this book for the depressing details.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/20/2006 at 02:01 AM   
Filed Under: • EUro-peons • RoPMA •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Book-Worm

Far be it from me to miss an opportunity to bash Dhimmi Carter. Today, I step aside and let Mona Charen at National Review pick up the cudgel and start slamming away. Not that it will make any difference to Carter. Why? Three kinds of people cannot feel pain inflicted on them because their sensory apparatus is turned off to protect them from reality. They are drunks, drug addicts and mental defectives. As fas as I know Carter doesn’t drink or do drugs. I’m sure you can figure out the rest ....

_{Michael Ramirez - Investors Business Daily}

Brave Jimmy Carter?
-- by Mona Charen
_{(NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE) - December 15, 2006}

Having scolded the Western world for its “inordinate fear of communism,” Jimmy Carter is now, 30 years later, attempting to legitimize the shameful Zionism Equals Racism resolution passed and later repealed by the United Nations. The man has a seemingly unerring instinct for error. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is touted (by Carter himself) as an evenhanded analysis of the Israeli/Arab conflict — but one need go no further than the title to suspect otherwise.

Carter, like all Israel bashers, proclaims his courage. Please. It takes courage to criticize Israel? The world is teeming with Israel-haters. No other nation in the world — not Russia, not Saudi Arabia, not Cuba — is the subject of so much concentrated calumny. In Europe, as Melanie Phillips recounts in her dazzling book Londonistan, Israel is cursed not just among the rabble but at elegant dinner parties and embassy soirees. And while it’s true that in the United States, Israel enjoys high levels of support, it is also routinely castigated (and nearly always by people who imagine they are defying some powerful cabal). What is amazing is that even a former president of the United States confuses freedom of speech with freedom from criticism for the content of that speech.

Here’s a precis of the book: Israel is the problem. In fact, it’s all summed up in the final paragraph: “Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens — and honor its own previous commitments — by accepting its legal borders.” By the way, that kind of awkward phrasing is found throughout this slapdash work.

Sixty years of withheld recognition by its neighbors, ceaseless terror against Israeli civilians, countless agreements defaulted upon — none of this disturbs President Carter’s certitudes.

The book is so foolish that you can pretty much close your eyes and point to any page to find something simplistic, naïve, or tendentious. On page 97, for example, Carter asserts that “The militant group Hezbollah . . . was formed in Lebanon in 1982 to resist the Israeli occupation.” Not quite. Hezbollah’s founding document calls for Islamic rule in Lebanon, an end to Western imperialism and the destruction of the state of Israel. An arm of the Iranian Islamic revolution, Hezbollah’s operatives have been found in France, Spain, Cyprus, Singapore, the “triborder” region of South America and the Philippines, reports Foreign Affairs magazine.

Carter tells the history of the Six-Day War in 1967 this way: “On June 5, Israel launched preemptive strikes, moving first against Egypt and Syria, then against Jordan.” That’s false. Israel did strike first at Egypt and Syria (waiting to be attacked would have meant national suicide), but specifically called upon Jordan to stay out of the fighting. Jordan’s King Hussein, putting faith in Gamal Abdel Nasser’s claim that Egypt was defeating Israel, chose to shell Jerusalem. Israel then turned its full might on Jordan, driving them out of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Carter claims that “The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians.” What? In December 2000, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, Israel (unwisely) gave nearly complete autonomy to the Palestinians in the disputed territories and even gave the Palestinian security forces weapons. In return, the Palestinians were supposed to prevent terror attacks against Israel. Not only did the PA fail to prevent terror attacks, it organized and carried them out.

Explicating last summer’s Israel/Hezbollah war, Mr. Carter offers a distorted history. He claims that Hezbollah “attacked two Israeli vehicles, killing three soldiers and capturing two others.” Hezbollah did this, Carter explains, in order to exchange them for captives in Israel. Very understandable. But then Israel just went wild, attacking Lebanon without mercy. In fact, Hezbollah’s attack on the Israel Defense Forces was accompanied by rocket attacks on several Israeli towns, which wounded several civilians and displaced many others. It was also timed to hit Israel when she was already under attack by Hamas from Gaza.

These are not careless errors, they flow from Carter’s pointed animus toward Israel and corresponding softness toward the Arabs (read his elegy to Saudi Arabia if you want to gag). How else to account for the fact that he takes Yasser Arafat’s peaceful declarations at face value? Or that he lets slip nasty anti-Semitic asides like this: “It was especially interesting to visit with some of the few surviving Samaritans, who complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.” Those Jews never change, do they? What complaints exactly did Jesus receive about holy sites and culture? We could ask President Carter, but we should know better than to expect an honest answer.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/20/2006 at 01:34 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Show Me The Money

We’re being asked to trust our politicians here in Missouri. Yeah, right. They managed to slip a new law onto the books last summer that removes limits on campaign contributions. It also imposes stricter reporting of those contributions, which may be a good thing - provided the goobers in government honestly report everything.

Oddly enough, there is a Catch-22 here and for two days after the New Year lobbyists can throw unlimited cash at the local politicians - right before the legislature begins its session. Hmmmmm. What could possibly go wrong with that ... ?

_{RJ Matson - The St. Louis Post Dispatch}

Missouri Campaign Finance Law Has Loophole
_{(KANSAS CITY STAR) - December 2, 2006}

Gov. Matt Blunt, who signed legislation that scrapped Missouri’s limits on campaign donations, has sworn off accepting large contributions — at least for the first 60 hours of next year.

Blunt’s office issued a statement this week pointing out a loophole in the bill he signed into law last summer. The bill eliminated all limits on the contributions candidates can accept. But it also prohibited lawmakers and statewide elected officials from accepting contributions while the legislature is in session.

Blunt’s statement pointed out that the law takes effect Jan. 1 and the legislative session does not begin until noon on Jan. 3. That gives those elected officials 2½ days to collect lobbyists’ and special interests’ contributions just before lawmakers begin deliberations on legislation that affects those special interests.

But Blunt wants to end the party before it begins. “It is important to begin the legislative session focused on doing the people’s business and making Missouri a better place rather than engaging in a fundraising frenzy,” Blunt said.

Therefore, he is discouraging lawmakers and other elected officials from accepting contributions in excess of the current limits — $1,275 for statewide officials, $650 for senators and $325 for House members. Blunt said he would abide by his own advice. He pledged not to accept contributions beyond the current limits for those first 60 hours of 2007.

Once the legislature adjourns on May 17, candidates could accept unlimited contributions. The new law will require stricter reporting of those contributions and prohibits funneling contributions to candidates through committees established by political parties.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/20/2006 at 01:18 AM   
Filed Under: • Corruption and Greed • Politics •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - December 19, 2006

Through The Looking Glass

“The Real North Pole”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/19/2006 at 05:12 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Christmas Gift Idea #6

OK, ladies! You just had to know I’d get around to it sooner or later so ... here goes .... GUYS! Pay attention! Buying one of these for your lady-friend will guarantee you p***y for the next year (maybe two) and if you think about it, she will be wearing it in a place you look at a lot. It’s a win-win situation. Go for it!

Suzy Fabrikant Diamond Platinum Pendant, 1.92 carat

Buy It On The Web At: Neiman-Marcus ... $26,260.00

Description: Platinum with pavé diamonds, G color diamonds with SI quality, 1.92 total carat weight. Suzy Fabrikant designs in elegant gold, which compliments her perfectly matched, finely-cut G color diamonds of SI clarity. These “eye-clean” diamonds contain no visible inclusions, resulting in brilliant and dramatic shimmer.

Suzy Fabrikant designs her diamond jewelry from a uniquely feminine and personal perspective. Each detail is from her own inspiration and life experience. With a long family history from one of the most prestigious diamond houses, Suzy has carved an extraordinary niche as a talented new American luxury designer.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/19/2006 at 03:17 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Monitoring The Kids

Speaking of children (see post below this one), The Skipper has been doing a little research over at his personal blog, The ArgoKnot for some of the techie readers there and answers the question about how to keep track of the rug rats in your household when they get on the family computer.

It’s a package called Spector Pro and it costs $99.95. The Skipper has a full review and also a cautionary warning for any of the asshats out there who just want to spy on their wife or girlfriend.

Go take a look and decide for yourself but consider this ... if you have to covertly spy on your own kids, something is wrong with discipline in the old homestead. Maybe what you need is a thick leather belt ($19.95 at Wal-Mart) instead of an expensive software package.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/19/2006 at 01:31 PM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

On Being A Babysitter

What’s amazing is that I agree with Mr. Patteron’s editorial in the NY TIMES below. The idea that President Bush’s concept of promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East is a liberal one is almost laughable though. Liberals and Conservatives have that one thing in common. The only difference between the two is that Liberals tend to think of freedom as that happy state of being able to do whatever one wants without any responsibility for one’s actions and the libertine attitude of “anything goes.”

Therein lies the reason why democracy will probably fail in the Middle East. Some people just aren’t wired correctly to be able to handle it. These people need a strong authoritative figure in charge to keep them from going over the edge. Yes, I’m referring to Liberals ... also to most of the Arabs and Persians in the Middle East and Asia. Their minds aren’t capable of handling freedom of expression, religion or tolerance of others without someone making sure they do it. Think of them as children. They need parents.

Saddam Hussein was a bad parent. So was the Ayatollah Khomeini. Osama Bin Laden wants to be a parent of the new caliphate but has already proven to be an abusive parent. On the flip side of the coin, Liberals in the West have had no parent to look up to for guidance for ages. Witness the almost glorification of Bill Clinton and (gasp!) Jimmy Carter. The Liberal establishment here in America has been perfectly willing to sit at “daddy’s” feet and worship their every word, no matter how wrong or deluded they were. Bill Clinton was a bad parent. Jimmy Carter was ... obviously adopted.

Yes, President Bush is a good man for thinking that the people of the Middle East deserve a chance at freedom and democracy. It is indeed a high-minded, liberal concept ... but are they ready for it? The Liberals in the West obviously aren’t ready for it. They have made that clear with demands for “gay marriage”, homosexuals in the military, struggling to remove religion from public view, imposing socialism and nanny states and finally, rigorously demanding politically correct speech from everyone. Too much freedom and no responsibility are traits of the neo-liberal today. Calling it “progressive” is a laughable disguise.

So, can the concept of personal freedom and democracy be introduced into the Middle East? Maybe, but first we have to learn how to teach people to handle it responsibly. A good place to start is with the Liberals in the West. If we can’t train them to behave rationally and accept responsibly for their actions, how can we expect the average man or woman in the Middle East to do the same?

After all, if we can’t keep our “children” here in the West from trashing the house, how can we expect to do the same with someone else’s children in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.? Our own children are pampered, wild and reckless in their demands. The neighbor’s children are merely wild and reckless. Both are decidedly intent on trashing the sandbox, are easily offended and seem intent on breaking all the rules. As good parents, maybe we need to start administering the discipline that is called for. The “children”, both here in the West and in the Middle East are in dire need of adult supervision. The only question is ... where do we start first?

[موسليم] الناس حمقاء بشكل لا يصدّق الذي يحتاج أن يكون ضربت على الرأس إلى أن يقرّر هم أن يتصرّف [رأيشنلّي]. إن أنّ لا يعمل ، سيتمّ سيف إلى العنق [جوست س ولّ].

God’s Gift?
-- By ORLANDO PATTERSON
_{(NY TIMES EDITORIAL) - December 19, 2006}

One of the more disquieting aspects of the Iraqi occupation is that the president’s final rationale for it is a cherished, though groundless, liberal belief about freedom. As we now know, the war was motivated less by any real evidence of Iraqi involvement with terrorism than by the neoconservatives’ belief that they could stabilize the Middle East by spreading freedom there. Their erroneous assumption was a relic from the liberal past: the doctrine that freedom is a natural part of the human condition.

A disastrously simple-minded argument followed from this: that because freedom is instinctively “written in the hearts” of all peoples, all that is required for its spontaneous flowering in a country that has known only tyranny is the forceful removal of the tyrant and his party.

Once President Bush was beguiled by this argument he began to sound like a late-blooming schoolboy who had just discovered John Locke, the 17th-century founder of liberalism. In his second inaugural speech, Mr. Bush declared “complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom ... because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.” Later an Arab-American audience was told, “No matter what your faith, freedom is God’s gift to every person in every nation.” Another speech more explicitly laid out the neoconservative agenda: “We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the greater Middle East.”

A basic flaw in the approach of the president and his neoliberal (a k a neoconservative) advisers was their failure to distinguish Western beliefs about freedom from those critical features of it that non-Western peoples were likely to embrace.

Those of us who cherish liberty hold as part of the rhetoric that it is “written in our heart,” an essential part of our humanity. It is among the first civic lessons that we teach our children. But such legitimizing rhetoric should not blind us to the fact that freedom is neither instinctive nor universally desired, and that most of the world’s peoples have found so little need to express it that their indigenous languages did not even have a word for it before Western contact. It is, instead, a distinctive product of Western civilization, crafted through the centuries from its contingent social and political struggles and secular reflections, as well as its religious doctrines and conflicts.

Acknowledging the Western social origins of freedom in no way implies that we abandon the effort to make it universal. We do so, however, not at the point of a gun but by persuasion — through diplomacy, intercultural conversation and public reason, encouraged, where necessary, with material incentives. From this can emerge a global regime wherein freedom is embraced as the best norm and practice for private life and government.

Just such a conversation has been under way since the first signing, in 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations. Several Asian nations — some, like China, rather cynically, and others, like Singapore, with more robust reasoning — have vigorously contested elements of the culture of freedom, especially its individualism, on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the more communal focus of their own cultures. The doctrine of freedom, however, with its own rich communitarian heritage, can easily disarm and even co-opt such arguments.

The good news is that freedom has been steadily carrying the day: nearly all nations now at least proclaim universal human rights as an ideal, though many are yet to put their constitutional commitments to practice. Freedom House’s data show the share of the world’s genuinely free countries increasing from 25 to 46 percent between 1975 and 2005.

The bad news is Iraq. Apart from the horrible toll in American and Iraqi lives, two disastrous consequences seem likely to follow from this debacle. One is the possibility that, by the time America extricates itself, most Iraqis and other Middle Easterners will have come to identify freedom with chaos, deprivation and national humiliation. The other is that most Americans will become so disgusted with foreign engagements that a new insularism will be forced on their leaders in which the last thing that voters would wish to hear is any talk about the global promotion of freedom, whatever “God’s gift” and the “longing of the soul.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/19/2006 at 10:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials • Iraq • Middle-East •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Quote Of The Day

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

-- Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, 1391 AD

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/19/2006 at 02:30 AM   
Filed Under: • RoPMA •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The Nutcracker

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/19/2006 at 01:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - December 18, 2006

Christmas Gift Idea #7

My father was an alcoholic ... a trait I never inherited from him thanks to my mother and an incident in 1965 involving a bottle of Apple Wine, two girls and ... never mind. The result was I had to sleep on my stomach for nearly a month and I also did a lot of standing up - even at the dinner table.

The fact is I never developed a taste for whiskey or wine. A case of beer usually lasts me a month or more. One of the lessons my dad taught me was the following: “Son, if you’re going to drink, then drink the really expensive stuff. That way you’ll never be able to afford the habit.” It’s that time of year when I treat myself to a fifth of Crown Royal. It usually lasts until March.

But if you want to try the REALLY expensive stuff or just buy a gift for your boss (Ahem!) this is the way to go. I tasted some Springbank 32-year-old single-malt ($900 per bottle) at a friend’s party some years ago and yes, there is a difference. This bottle of Glenlivet is actually 42 years old and there were only 1824 bottles created (Glenlivet was founded in 1824). Forget drinking it. Just put it on the shelf to impress visitors ... or give it to the boss at the Christmas party. Your co-workers will hate you ....

Glenlivet Single Malt
Scotch Vintage 1964

Qty.    Price

(1)    $2,666.66

(3)    $7,599.96

(6)   $14,399.94

(12) $27,199.92

Internet Wines & Spirits

Only 1824 of these bottles are to be sold worldwide, created from 15 specially selected casks at cask strength and without chill-filtration.

THE Glenlivet has been enjoyed for nearly 200 years, and today visitors to the distillery can see bottles in the museum that date right back to 1824 when George Smith first began legal production. These are of course, eminently collectable, as are any from THE Glenlivet range that date back more than 20 years.

The whisky itself stops maturing the moment it is taken from the wood, so the taste will not change over the years. However, it is highly likely that these bottles will gain in value as time goes by as less and less remain in circulation. A small number of these casks that have reached their peak of perfection and illustrate the classic rich and elegant characteristics of THE Glenlivet.

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/18/2006 at 04:41 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (10) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Through The Looking Glass

“Christians In Pakistan”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/18/2006 at 04:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Sleeping With The Enemy

I think we have this backward. CAIR needs to come get some “sensitivity training” from average, everyday Americans. They just don’t get it. They think we hate them because they’re Muslims. Wrong. And they know it. This is all just a smoke screen to distract us from their anti-American agenda behind the smoke and mirrors.

Thanks to the idiot Robert Mueller, FBI agents have to go spend precious time being brainwashed into believing the Islamists have nothing but peaceful intentions. This when three of CAIR’s leaders have been arrested and imprisoned for terrorist activities. And the greater Muslim community at large here in the United States act like they have no intentions of assimilating into our culture.

No, they want us to assimilate into theirs. That just will not do. If the FBI wants to send their agents to propaganda classes from Muslims, let them go ahead. There have already been too many cases of FBI translators hired after 9/11 covertly ignoring and suppressing information critical to the war on terror from agents because they refuse to “rat out” their fellow Muslims.

There is an evil culture at work in the United States today and its intent is to destroy America from within. The FBI, CIA and other government agencies are riddled with Muslim agents whose goal is the destruction of the “Great Satan” and imposition of Shari’a law in America. Caving in to this political correctness in order “not to offend” is madness.

Yes, I’m mad as hell at CAIR and they know why. Silencing critics and brainwashing government agents is treason. Do you hear me? T-R-E-A-S-O-N! The day is coming when the enemy in our midst finds that out. Internment camps and mass deportations are just around the corner if they persist.

The United States Of America was founded on certain freedoms and liberties that are in direct opposition to the Muslim ambitions. “Submission” to religious leaders, demoting women to second-class citizens, killing all Jews and infidels (non-Muslims) and a hundred other core concepts inherent in Islam is un-American.

If CAIR and their fellow travelers in the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations bent on “jihad” with the West aren’t directly blowing up Jews or flying airplanes into buildings they are guilty of giving aid and comfort to those who do. And if CAIR wants to get all uppity with me over my language, let’s get it on. I’ll see you in court and one of the first things my attorneys will do is ask for disclosure of CAIR’s finances. CAIR, are you ready to rumble ... ?

Muslims Train FBI In Sensitivity
Group with radical ties teaches counter-terror agents
_{(WORLDNET DAILY) - December 2, 2004}

FBI counter-terrorism agents in Florida attended a “sensitivity training” workshop yesterday conducted by a controversial Islamic lobby group. Although it has been described by two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a spin-off of a U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, led the workshop on “Islam and the American Muslim community” at the FBI’s Jacksonville Division All Employee Conference.

CAIR’s Florida branch, CAIR-FL, said in a statement that “more than 150 law enforcement agents, including FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force supervisory personnel, attended the workshop that examined basic Islamic beliefs and concepts, common stereotypes of Islam and Muslims and ways in which to improve interactions with the Muslim community.”

“This type of positive interaction between law enforcement officials and the Muslim community helps break down barriers to communication and promotes mutual understanding,” said CAIR-FL Chairman Parvez Ahmed. Ahmed said his group wants to expand the program to help train law enforcement authorities in other parts of the state. Officers already have been trained in Miami and in other states, including Kentucky, where 13 FBI agents received training in Lexington in October.

The training is part of a campaign by CAIR to counteract what it sees as widespread anti-Muslim prejudice in the United States. A report released last year, titled “Guilt by Association,” blasted the Bush administration for government policies that unfairly single out Muslim individuals and organizations” – a charge denied by the Justice Department.

CAIR claimed that when compared to the year preceding Sept. 11, its 2002 report on bias or hate-related incidents against Muslims showed a 64 percent increase.

Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez told WorldNetDaily, on the contrary, he saw a vastly improving situation in “backlash” incidents since a “spike” in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

As WorldNetDaily reported last year, the FBI put its agents and new recruits through a Muslim sensitivity program that included inviting Muslim clerics and leaders to preach about the allegedly peaceful attributes of Islam.

National Arab-American and Muslim leaders have made presentations at an FBI training course on civil rights in Washington D.C., and at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., as part of “Enrichment Training Sessions” for new special agents there.

In addition, the imam of a large Manhattan mosque has lectured veteran counterterrorism investigators at the FBI’s New York field office about misinterpretation of the meaning of jihad in the Koran, the sacred book of Muslims.

The sensitivity training program, denounced by some active and former agents, was mandated last year by FBI Director Robert Mueller. FBI headquarters defends the program as a way to reach out to the Muslim community in America. “I hate the word ‘sensitivity’ training,” said FBI spokesman Ed Cogswell. “I would call it an awareness training relative to cultural issues.”

Since 9-11, CAIR, a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, has seen three of its former employees indicted on federal terrorism charges.

Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida. In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.

Another CAIR figure, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested in January 2003 while serving as the group’s director of community relations. The previous December, Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, was indicted for financial ties to Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook.

Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam. As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR’s chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America’s highest authority.

He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future,” Hooper told the paper. “But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/18/2006 at 01:57 PM   
Filed Under: • Crime • RoPMA •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Discussion: Women As Sexual Predators?

I have strong feelings about this for several reasons: (1) Any man who has ever been in divorce court (I’ve been there four times) knows women are not sexual predators but are financial predators - they will clean you out in a heartbeat; (2) One of my first sexual experiences was with a gal who was twelve years older than me - I was 14 at the time and I am eternally grateful for what she taught me; (3) When did teenage boys forget Man Rule #1: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT?

I’m not trying to say there are “good” sexual predators and “bad” sexual predators but it seems to me that trying to equate a 26-year-old female teacher having sex with a 14-year-old teenage boy is just not the same as the opposite. Maybe it’s my Southern heritage that still tends to think of girls as a protected gender while boys are pretty much on their own.

Does that make me a male chauvinist pig? Am I not taking into account the “fact” that boys have feelings too that can be hurt? Is this more “pussification” of the modern male or is there a case to be made for locking up older women (in their 20’s) for taking advantage of the raging testosterone that has every teenage boy in its grip?

Help me out here, people. This is an open discussion and I need some answers. What do you think? Get it off your chest (or breasts). Are 26-year-old teachers “sexual predators”? If not, then do we have a double standard? What is the answer ... ?

Many Still Don’t See Women As Sex Predators
Boys can have trouble eliciting sympathy — when they’re willing to come forward
_{(HOUSTON CHRONICLE) - Dec. 17, 2006, 12:37AM}

Diana’s grandson came to her with his secret on a Thursday evening. School had just started after another humid summer, and she and the 14-year-old, whose parents had their bowling league that night, finished cleaning up the kitchen after dinner. She took a glass of iced tea and her cigarette pack outside for a smoke.

Minutes later, he followed. The boy said he had something to tell her, something that had been bothering him for many months. And that’s when things changed. “He had broke down,” recalled Diana, who asked that her last name be withheld to protect her family’s identity. “And he told me about it.”

Diana won’t say exactly what “it” was. But the Harris County Sheriff’s Office detailed the teenager’s disclosure in criminal reports this fall. Her grandson, a football player who speaks in ma’ams and sirs, said he had been sexually abused the year before, when he was 13, by a woman nearly 20 years his senior.

She was a former neighbor and his mother’s close friend in Highlands, the small town just east of Pasadena where his family once lived. The pair had sex at least twice and sexual contact another time, according to the reports.

The teenager had been saving himself for marriage, he later told his grandmother. He worried that God might not forgive what he did. Police arrested Deborah Joyce Lux, 33, in September and charged her with two felony sexual assaults of children: one in connection with Diana’s grandson and a second in connection with another teenager, a then-15-year-old boy from Highlands who also said he had sex with her.

.........................

Shifts in the legal system and public opinion have made it easier to prosecute women who molest boys in their pubescent years, experts say. And cases continue to draw public attention. But those who work closely with victims such as Diana’s grandson say rite-of-passage myths still make it hard for many, including jurors, to sympathize with older boys in such cases, who are also less likely to tell parents or police about abusive relationships with older women.

Pam Hobbs, who heads the children’s court services program in Harris County district courts, said she’s seen police and prosecutors taking underage boys’ allegations more seriously in the past decade. Potential jurors, though, are another matter. “The general public still does not let boys be victims like they do girls,” said Hobbs, a 23-year veteran of the department. “And I don’t think they hold the offenders as accountable when the offender is a female.”

.........................

When the nightly news began broadcasting stories about Lux, some residents expressed shock, quickly calling her a child abuser. But doubters are still easy to find. Pam Ward bartends at The Sunset, a dimly lit beer joint in the one-highway town. News of the abuse was the talk among her patrons for a few days, she said. Most knew only about the older boy, and few had sympathy for him.

“My own kids said, ‘Why did he even say anything? It was kind of cool,’ “ Ward said. Ward grew up in an age when few believed women could sexually abuse boys. Her own son, now grown, dated a 42-year-old when he was 16, she said.

Historically, many statutory rape laws applied only to female victims. But in the late 1970s, state laws, including Texas’, began to change. Alabama waited until the turn of the century to adopt gender-neutral language.

.........................

Often police find out through friends or family members. That’s what happened with the older boy involved with Lux. Lilly, the child-abuse detective, said he got dozens of calls from the boy’s mother saying her son was raped, but the high school student didn’t want to talk at first.

“A lot of times, it’s their parents that come forward, and, a lot of times, the males are very upset about that,” Lilly said. “(For) 15-, 16-year-old males, that female is a trophy. To them, that is lifelong bragging rights.”

Counselors say societal pressure can keep boys from expressing discomfort. Many times, they may have crushes on an older teacher or neighbor but aren’t ready for the adult sexual relationship that follows, counselors say. It’s only later that they realize the adverse effects.

“In my experience, men do not come to treatment as adolescents for these things,” Gartner said. “They are more likely to come to treatment on their own in their 20s — or more likely their 30s, 40s or 50s.”

.........................

Diana saw subtle changes in her grandson months before she knew what caused them. For one, his grades dropped. He also developed a “nasty attitude.” “He does not want to talk about it,” she said. “He wants to forget about it.”

This, too, is typical of male victims. Carine Meyer, a sexual assault services coordinator at the Houston Area Women’s Center, said the center recently started a group-therapy session for male sexual abuse survivors. Fewer than five attended.

“It is hard for them to let themselves be vulnerable and admit that someone could have had control over them,” she said. “Teenage boys especially are very resistant to admitting they were abused.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 12/18/2006 at 01:15 PM   
Filed Under: • Sex •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner