Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Iraq 'Civil War'

First off...I want to apologize for not answering the comments left here and for not making my usual rounds of the blogsphere.

Unfortunately I am fighting an infection that has laid me up the last two days. I hope to be feeling much better by this weekend.

NBC News made a dramatic announcement yesterday: Effective immediately, it will call the sectarian conflict in Iraq a civil war. And that's the way it is, as a rival network once upon a time might have put it.

"Today" Show host Matt Lauer - last heard from describing the progress of Scooby-Doo and SpongeBob SquarePants down Broadway during Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade - said his network gave "careful thought and consideration" to its decision. No doubt.

But that doesn't mean that what's happening in Iraq - as disturbing as it is - rises to the level of civil war.

As the White House noted in disputing NBC's decision, the increasing violence in Iraq is avicious but localized, largely centered around Baghdad - hardly a nationwide civil war.

What's the difference, you might ask; isn't this just a word game?


As radio host Don Imus suggested, NBC seems to be striving for a Walter Cronkite moment - a single broadcast decision that produces a major impact on public opinion about a long and difficult war, just as Cronkite did during Vietnam.

And that, of course, is the whole point.

Once Iraq becomes, in the public mind, a civil war between opposing factions competing for political power - and not a case of a terrorist insurgency aimed ultimately at Western civilization - the sentiment for a hasty withdrawal grows.

As does NBC's perceived power.

Which almost certainly is why NBC made its announcement yesterday.

But wishing doesn't make it so. And misrepresenting the situation in Iraq in hopes of ending the U.S. commitment there - and enhancing one's status at home - won't mitigate the disaster if this country abandons its mission.

Something for Matt Lauer to consider - if he can drag himself away from his next one-on-one with Ol' SpongeBob.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Cozy up to Syria?

US panel ‘urges direct talks with Syria, Iran’

A draft report prepared for an influential panel considering US alternatives for Iraq urges direct talks with Iran and Syria, but sets no schedule for troop withdrawal, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The bipartisan commission, known as the Iraq Study Group, is likely to accept the report's diplomatic recommendations for US dialogue with Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, the Times said, citing interviews with unidentified officials.

The draft will serve as a basis for discussions by the panel's 10 members, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, when they convene in Washington on Monday. The meeting could extend beyond its two scheduled days, the Times said.
Blah, blah, blah.

Are these people stupid?
Should we have cozied up to Hitler to end Nazi aggression in Poland?

After last weeks assassination of Lebanon's Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, the only thing that the United States should deal to Bashar al-Assad is a drone-launched missile. Syria knows nothing about 'keeping the peace' but instead is a master at keeping hostilities and political divisions on edge.

Assad and his master Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are killing not only anti-Syria/Hezbollah leaders but also American troops.
Iran and Syria are sponsoring the terrorism in Iraq...they don't want to it to stop.
And this is who the Iraq Study Group wants us to engage with?
Am I missing something?

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Missing in Action: ACLU And Other Free Speech Proponents

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For the woefully ignorant, that's the First Amendment to the Constitution.
There's a reason it's the first. It is the most basic of our constitutional rights.
Without it, all our other freedoms would be in jeopardy.

Wouldn't you expect our academic institutions to respect this basic right?
Wouldn't you expect the ACLU to fight against any institutional ban on free speech?

I guess the ACLU and Columbia University only respect the right to free speech depending on who is exercising their right.

48 days: That's how long it's been since Columbia University hosted a breathtakingly brazen attack on free speech and academic freedom.

Since then, not a word of apology has been offered to those whose rights were trampled - nor an ounce of punishment meted out to the offenders.

The only thing, in fact, that Columbia's administrators have done is to announce an "investigation" - which, of course, they would do.

Beyond that, Columbia's silent.

* No comment on when the investigation might wrap up.

* No comment on how many students are under investigation.

* No comment on how many face possible expulsion.

Maybe Columbia's hoping the whole matter will simply go away.

Or perhaps the administration is just too scared to confront its brownshirts.

Regardless, what transpired that night is clear: Just as Jim Gilchrist, founder of the anti-illegal-immigration Minuteman Project, opened his remarks at a campus event sponsored by the college's Republican Club, thugs bum-rushed the stage and physically attacked the speaker.

Their assault was premeditated. Gilchrist was barely able to utter a word before being hustled away by security.

Apart from some boilerplate rhetoric immediately after the attack, university President Lee Bollinger has had little of substance to say about it.

There has been no formal apology to Gilchrist.

There has been no invitation for him to return to Columbia for a do-over.

Worst of all, Bollinger - though a First Amendment specialist - appears perfectly content with how things are proceeding.

Bollinger, of course, hasn't been shy on another matter: Columbia's plans to expand its northern Manhattan campus, annexing surrounding neighborhoods in the process.

To realize the campus' expansion, considerable acquiescence from the school's neighbors, and the city, will be required.

But if Bollinger can't - or, worse, won't - come expeditiously to terms with the young thugs roaming his campus, then it's fair to ask whether Columbia ought to be permitted to expand at all.

If Columbia no longer holds freedom of speech in the highest regard, its neighbors surely can be forgiven for wondering if the university can be trusted on more mundane matters.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Arabian Nightmares

YESTERDAY, 80 terrorists in police uniforms raided an Iraqi research institute in Baghdad, rounded up 100-plus male students, loaded them into vehicles in broad daylight and drove away.

They couldn't have pulled it off without the complicity of key elements within the Iraqi security services and the government: "our guys."

The students probably will be executed and dumped somewhere. Partly for the crime of wanting to study and build a future, but primarily just to step up the level of terror yet again.

Apart from highlighting the type of regime of which both Shia and Sunni Arab extremists dream - a land of disciplined ignorance and slavish devotion - the mass kidnapping also highlights the feebleness of our attempts to overcome ruthless enemies with generosity and good manners.

With Iraqi society decomposing - or, at best, reverting to a medieval state with cell phones - the debate in Washington over whether to try to save the day by deploying more troops or withdrawing some is of secondary relevance.

What really matters is what our forces are ordered - and permitted - to do. With political correctness permeating our government and even the upper echelons of the military, we never tried the one technique that has a solid track record of defeating insurgents if applied consistently: the rigorous imposition of public order.

That means killing the bad guys. Not winning their hearts and minds, placating them or bringing them into the government. Killing them.

If you're not willing to lay down a rule that any Iraqi or foreign terrorist masquerading as a security official or military member will be shot, you can't win. And that's just one example of the type of sternness this sort of fight requires.

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating daily, sending more troops would simply offer our enemies more targets - unless we decided to use our soldiers and Marines for the primary purpose for which they exist: To fight.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Burqa Ban

The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.

The reason behind this proposal is that the burqa represents a security risk. Literally anybody could be hidden behind the burqa which covers every part of the body including the eyes (usually a transparent viel). Attention has turned to the burqa because police authorities have become concerned that a terrorist could use one for concealment.

The burqa would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.

The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently canceled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman.

Brave woman, the Netherlands has seen several murders such as film-maker Theo van Gogh by Islamic immigrants for far less.

One Islamic activist stated “Women have a very strong opinion about the burqa. If you ban it they won’t leave the house. It is not a good way to integrate and emancipate Muslim women.

Integrate? This isn't something that most Muslims are interested in anyways.

Famile Arslan, a Dutch Muslim lawyer stated "A country once known for its tolerance is now becoming known for its ignorance."

I wonder if he knows Turkey and Tunisia also ban wearing the burqa for security reasons?

***Please check Brookes NeoCon Command Center for an interesting and telling radio segment from my favorite Islamic group..No not CAIR but the Islamic Thinkers Society

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Imposing Sharia Law...What Lies behind Somalia's Civil War

Photo:Aweys has ordered "holy war" against Ethiopian troops in Somalia

Ethiopia, Uganda and Yemen have been arming the provisional Islamic Government in the provincial city of Baidoa.

But Eritrea, Djibouti, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya and Saudi Arabia are accused of sending weapons to the Council of Islamic Courts.

Why the infighting between opposing Islamic groups?

Because the Council of Islamic Courts goal is to impose Muslim Sharia law over areas under its control. The majority of its members are "Salafis" who promote a rigid and literal interpretation of Islamic texts and regard other Muslim sects as deviants. They teach against compromise and holy war is the pivot around which their beliefs revolve.

Notice our allies such as Saudi Arabia aligning themselves with Iran and Syria. They have common interest. Imposing Sharia Law.

Al Qaeda links? U.S. officials accuse their supreme leader, Hassan Dahir Aweys, of having links to al-Qaida. Islamist web sites have also threatened suicide attacks against any US intervention.

The report also details cooperation between the Islamists and the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah. About 720 Somalis fought alongside Hezbollah in this summer's war against Israel in exchange for support and training from Hezbollah patrons Syria and Iran, including guerrilla training of 200 Somalis in Syria in July, the report says.

Saudi Arabia with the help of CAIR, would like to see Sharia Law replace the Constitution here in America.

How do our friends at CAIR feel about this extreme Islamic group?

CAIR -- the Islamist front group that masquerades as a human rights group for Muslims -- has just called the Jihadist takeover of Somalia a "Positive Change." These are the nuts that are shooting up weddings because of music and killing people that watch the World Cup.
They have murdered people for WATCHING MOVIES...but CAIR calls this "Positive".

Apparently CAIR thinks killing moderate Muslims in favor of Salafism and Wahibism is a good idea. This should clarify their ambitions for America. As they intimidate those who speak out against them and buy off those who are willing to accept their blood money, CAIR is slowly carrying out its Islamist agenda.

CAIR should be exposed for their terroristic ambitions and deported from this country.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

CAIR vs DePaul

College basketball season has started but this isn't a game decided on the hardcourt.
The outcome is far more important.
This is a fight over FREE SPEECH

Many of you will recall Ahmed Bedier's 'passionate defense' of free speech in the Denmark cartoon controversy and the controversy over Pope Benedict XVI's reading of a 14th century document.
He claims that CAIR is a free speech advocate.

But as in the past, claiming to be for free speech isn't the same as actually supporting free speech.

By Thomas Ciesielka
TC Public Relations | November 14, 2006

Newly released evidence has revealed that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) worked privately to pressure DePaul University to fire adjunct professor Thomas Klocek for telling Muslim activist students that their views on Middle-East issues were wrong. According to a letter to DePaul’s President from CAIR’s executive director M. Yaser Tabbara, “In light of …Mr. Klocek’s biased remarks, we are requesting that the University…reprimand Mr. Klocek for his conduct by permanently dismissing him from any teaching post at DePaul University.” (Exhibit # DPU 945).

At a student fair on September 15, 2004, during the same month that DePaul launched its Islamic World Studies Program, Professor Klocek engaged several Muslim students in a heated discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict. He strongly disputed their assertions that Israeli treatment of Palestinians was equivalent to the Nazi treatment of the Jews. He also cited a Chicago Sun-Times columnist who was quoting an Aljazeera writer to the effect that although not all Muslims are terrorists, today most terrorists are Muslim. Later, in another connection between DePaul and the Muslim community, a DePaul Trustee, Michael Murad, wrote to DePaul’s president asking, “What steps have been taken to ensure that DePaul programs in the Middle East are not undermined by this incident?” (#DPU 003174)

According to documents furnished by DePaul in response to document discovery in the lawsuit between Klocek and DePaul, less than a month after the student fair incident, on October 12, 2004, CAIR’s Tabbara sent an email to those who opposed Klocek, stating, “…we [CAIR] will be ready to file a formal complaint with the Illinois State Board of Higher Education… This will also be accompanied by a press release, a press conference or both.” (DPU 003493)

Tabbara’s email also referred to a letter sent to DePaul’s president the next day in which Tabbara made the following demands of DePaul, “In light of the grave implications of Mr. Klocek’s biased remarks, we are requesting that the University take appropriate and immediate responsive action…including:

1. Provide a formal written apology to the students who experienced the incident firsthand.

2. Reprimand Mr. Klocek for his conduct by permanently dismissing him from any teaching post at DePaul University.

CAIR actually demanded the firing of a professor for professing his beliefs.

CAIR continued its campaign against Klocek when, according to another just released document (DPU 000763), on December 16, 2004 CAIR wrote Prof. Klocek’s Dean, Suzanne Dumbleton, and said, “The gravity of Mr. Klocek’s actions towards the students should result in his permanent dismissal as a matter of policy. Any alternative action will set a dangerous precedent…”

John W. Mauck, attorney for Thomas Klocek, said, “These documents confirm our suspicions. Rather than protect academic freedom or even treat Thomas Klocek, a professor with a 14 year spotless track record at DePaul, the university surrendered to behind-the-scenes Muslim activist pressure. At DePaul academic freedom has been subjugated to Sharia.”

Professor Klocek was dismissed without pay.

If this can happen at a Catholic University to a Catholic professor, what does this say to academic freedom? What does this say to free speech?
Just as CAIR attacked Congresswoman Brown-Waite, CAIR attacked Professor Klocek because he dared to challenge the perverted view of reality that CAIR would like to force on the American public. In the past, CAIR has been rewarded for its bullying techniques.

What happens when someone stands up to CAIR ?
They are usually charged with bigotry and outright lying as was the case with Congressman Brown-Waite who defended her constituents rights to free speech.

"It's unethical and shameful for a congresswoman to resort to lies and fabrication in order to defend anti-Muslim bigotry," Bedier said Thursday.

This is CAIR s usual response to anyone who states the truth about Islam.

Why is CAIR so afraid of an honest open discussion of Islamic philosophy?
Are they really afraid of the truth?

Monday, November 13, 2006

House Resolution 288

Now that CAIR's candidate Keith Ellison has been elected to Congress from Minnesota's 5th District, the next order of business is to get Congressman Ellison selected to the Judiciary Committee.
There he would be strategically positioned to support John Conyers's proposed HR 288 which under the guise of protecting all religions is actually a bill to provide special protection to Islam not afforded to Christians, Jews or members of other faiths.

Here are the provisions:

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.

This Saturday, Keith Ellison who received $50,000 from CAIR in campaign donations, will be the keynote speaker at CAIR's annual dinner. The former Nation of Islam member will have a hard time of balancing his constituents needs with those of his Masters at CAIR.

Why is CAIR afraid of Americans exercising their right to FREE SPEECH? Are they afraid that an open dialog on Islam will expose its Satanic Verses?

In a country where Muslims burn our flag, why are we giving Islam special protection?
Should the Quran, which promotes the killing of nonbelievers, be included in the same category as the Bible or the Torah?

CAIR has previously stated that it wants to replace the Constitution with Sharia law.
Is this the first step?

****This Just In

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Florida Congresswoman Stands Up to CAIR and Bedier

Brown-Waite defends Hogans speech rights

***UPDATE.. CAIR buys off County commission for $5,000. Money to be used for turkeys.

BROOKSVILLE — U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite has jumped into the fray created by Tom and Mary Ann Hogan’s recent comments about the Islamic faith.

The Brooksville Republican, fresh off her re-election victory to District 5, fired off a two-page letter Thursday to Ahmed Bedier, executive director of the Tampa Chapter of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), defending the Hogans’ right to free speech and suggesting that Bedier should resign.

“Mrs. Hogan expressed in her statements the views of many of my constituents, and while they do not encourage harmony in the community, they should demonstrate to you how many United States citizens perceive your faith,” Brown-Waite wrote. “Your area of concern should not be focused on the statements of the Hogans, but rather upon the actions of many in your community who created these beliefs.”

Brown-Waite sent the 1,100-word letter in response to a letter Bedier sent Nov. 3 calling for Brown-Waite to condemn the Hogans for what he called “anti-Muslim statements” his organization found “deeply disturbing” and “bigoted.”

Calling people bigoted is one of Mr. Bedier's favorite charges. He has in the past called me a bigot. He has also called Joe Kaufman, Robert Spencer and Paul Whitehead I feel I am in good company.

“With the election only a few days away, we are concerned about your close relationship to Mr. and Mrs. Hogan and encourage you to disassociate yourself from their hateful comments,” Bedier wrote, citing news stories in which Tom Hogan was described as “an ardent Brown-Waite backer” who flew to Washington, D.C. for Brown-Waite’s swearing-in ceremonies after she was first elected in 2002.

“As the only Congress-woman representing Hernando County, we call on you to send a clear message that hatred and bigotry by GOP leaders will not be tolerated,” Bedier wrote, reminding Brown-Waite that Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida GOP chairwoman Carol Jean Jordan condemned the Hogans’ comments.

“Florida is waiting to hear where you stand on this issue,” he wrote.

In her letter to newspaper editors last month, Mary Ann Hogan called Islam “a hateful, frightening religion.”
Her husband, a co-founder of the county Republican Executive Committee, came out in support of the comments. Bush had appointed him to a vacant County Commission seat in August.

“The stated goal of the Islamic faith is to kill us, the ‘infidels,’” Mary Ann Hogan wrote.

She penned the note to criticize the county for using personnel and equipment to assist a recent Ramadan festival at a local mosque.

Brown-Waite, in her letter to Bedier, praised the Hogans for standing firm in the face of criticism and calls to apologize.

“Mr. and Mrs. Hogan have shown tremendous fortitude by resisting the pressures of your group to retract their statements,” she wrote. “I am sorry that Jeb Bush and Carol Jean Jordan from the Republican Party were so quick to also forget that we have freedom of speech and that the Hogans were made to feel that they are the ones who were in the wrong.”

Brown-Waite then went into a little history, citing her work after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to “reach out to the Muslim community because many of my citizens were of the belief that all Muslims were to be blamed.”

She “met many fine Muslims” but “also met some local Muslims who expressed vehement anti-Semitic views and some who even attempted to justify the extremist wing ideology.”

She recalled in 2004 when she was invited to the home of a prominent Muslim doctor, whom she did not name, “allegedly for tea,” and found eight or more men sitting in a semi-circle waiting to confront her.

At that meeting, Brown-Waite claims that Bedier and CAIR were seeking a member of Congress sympathetic to their views. She was not that person, she said, because “neither I, nor my constituents, felt that the American Muslims or CAIR had adequately disavowed past terrorist acts.”

How can CAIR disavow terrorism with their proven ties to terrorist organizations?

Brown-Waite recalled in the letter that Bedier had told her, “Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex with young altar boys than those who flew planes into the World Trade Center.”

Mr. Bedier has no qualms attacking other religions. Apparently the label "bigot" only applies to those who attack Islam.

“I know many fine Muslims who would be well served by your resignation from the local CAIR office,” she wrote in closing. “Your militancy and manipulation of facts does not serve them well.”

Reached Thursday afternoon, Bedier said he was “getting over the shock” from Brown-Waite’s letter.

This is what happens when people stand up to bullies.

CAIR was not trying to stifle the Hogans’ free speech, he said.

“We didn’t say shut them up or don’t talk to them, we just wanted to make sure (elected officials) didn’t share the same views,” he said.

He said CAIR has actively campaigned against violence, citing television ads the nonprofit group purchased to run in the Tampa Bay market — including Hernando County — condemning acts of terrorism.

The Congresswoman’s recollection of the visit is a fabrication, Bedier said. The visit, he contends, included men and women and was planned well in advance. As for the comments about priests, Bedier said his only mention of Catholic priests was to make the analogy that the Catholic faith should not be judged for the actions of a few priests just as Islam shouldn’t be judged by the acts of terrorists.

He said he has even spoken at Brown-Waite’s church, St. Anthony Catholic, about fostering harmony between Christians and Muslims, and that CAIR recently donated money to rebuild Catholic churches in the Middle East that had been firebombed.

The $5,000 blood money donation came after the reaction to a quotation read by Pope Benedict XVI. Enraged Muslims firebombed churches and Christian symbols in Gaza and the West Bank. An Italian nun was also killed during this violence. A fine example of Islamic tolerance towards free speech.

Bedier questioned the timing of Brown-Waite’s response, pointing out that busy people such as both gubernatorial candidates Jim Davis and Charlie Crist had time to draft a letter condemning the Hogans’ words within a day or two after the news broke.

Nowhere in her letter, he said, did Brown-Waite do the same.

“She was so courageous to send it after she was elected,” he said. “If she had such strong convictions, she could have sent this letter on Friday of last week, like everybody else. It just shows how low people are willing to go to score cheap political points.”

Brown-Waite, in turn, called Bedier “cowardly” for sending his letter last Friday, “when he knew I was out campaigning all weekend and Monday and Tuesday,” she said.

She bristled when asked Thursday if she supported the content of the Hogans’ letter and raised her voice as she recalled the event in the doctor’s home.

“What about the content of his speech to me, attacking my religion?” she said. “He’s not going to get away with it.

Mr.'s time you learn that "free speech" goes both ways.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Ahmed Responds (lies) Again

From Ahmed Bedier's blog

FAQ: How does blog have anonymous comments, when it is not allowed

On 11/8/06, American Crusader asks the following:

Why does a site that does not allow anonymous comments have so many?Out of
five comments...four of them are anonymous.

ANSWER: Very simple, when I started this blog, the setting to accept Anonymous comments was enabled. After a flood of spam, I disabled it. Visitors in the past were able to post anonymous comments, visitors now can't.

I hope that clarifies things for you.


| would clarify the matter except you have also enabled comment moderation. This seems redundant but that's just me.

Since asking this question, I started receiving several "anonymous" responses here.
All of them attack my readership and label me and my readers "bigots".
Exactly the same way you attacked Jihad Watch

It's entertaining watching you and your ineffective friends get desperate."

"Bobby, the reality is NO ONE cares about your views and the handful of visitors that read the hate speech that you spew are the lowest segment of our society."

"The majority of Americans do not respect bigots like yourself "

Now compare those comments to the ones left anonymously here.

"Republicans = Racists & Bigots. "

"Are you going to think about abortion and gay marriage when you don't have food on your table to feed yourself and your family? You guys are as bad as talibans."

" I am so sorry that your blogs are read by few narrow minded republicans. "

Sound familiar?


Maybe we should add REPUBLICANS to this verse from the Koran:


Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.

Voter Fraud Philly Style

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Why the Democrats Control Congress

Barring a miracle, the Democratic party will control both the House and Senate come next January. Today the Monday morning quarterbacks (in this case Wednesday) will start the blame game. I'm sure many will question the results in Virginia and New Mexico but the truth is if the Republican party had stuck to its core values they would still control both houses.

I belong to the Republican Party because I believe in strong family values, the rights of property owners, lower taxes and fiscal conservatism, and tough policies to protect our neighborhoods from crime.
A balanced budget used to be a republican motto. We have let the Democrats steal it.

We need to be the party that represents high moral values. Even though I believe we still are, we allowed the perception of morality to slip. High ranking Republicans such as Tom DeLay, Bob Ney and Mark Foley put in question the high moral ground Republicans used to own. We cannot allow the Jack Abramoff's into our congressional offices and we need to be self vigilant for sexual predators.
Knowing that the press doesn't cover scandals such as these equally, it is even more important to not allow them to happen in the first place.

The sun will still rise today. This needn't be a day of despair. Let's get back to our core values. The Democrats won this election by offering no alternatives. Their plan was simple...criticize and distort.
But the good news is...after two years of Nancy Pelosi, November 2, 2008 should be a much better day.

John Hall Democrat 90,019 (51%)
Sue W. Kelly (i) Republican 86,491 (49%)

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Ahmed Bedier: Slams Jihad Watch


Maybe you should consider taking your hate-fest workshops on the road and train bigots how to restrain their hatred so not to expose themselves.

Bobby, the reality is NO ONE cares about your views and the handful of visitors that read the hate speech that you spew are the lowest segment of our society.

The majority of Americans do not respect bigots like yourself that spread hate daily. Including this letter writer, SEE:

It's entertaining watching you and your ineffective friends get desperate.

Remember to restrain yourself.

I am starting to see a trend here. Instead of answering any charges, CAIR spokesman
Ahmed Bedier attacks the messenger.
He accuses Robert Spencer of bigotry and spreading hate on a daily basis.
By showing how radical Islam stems directly from Mohammed's teaching, all Mr. Spencer has done is show the truth about Islamic fascism and its origins.

In the past, Ahmed Bedier as also accused me of spreading hate and lies.

"What have you done, but run your mouth, how are you helping bring people together. You and your buddies are only spewing hatred. Your comments are only one sided hate speech."

A similar response was given to Pim's Ghost for challenging CAIR.
Obviously, any negative comment towards CAIR is in some way "Hate Speech" and those commenting are bigots.

Mr. Bedier believes that CAIR is beyond reproach. He believes that if you criticize CAIR, you are criticizing all Muslims and Islam itself.
He equates CAIR with Islam.
Here are his own words:

"We are to the American Muslim community what the NAACP is to blacks in America. If you attack us, you are attacking the Muslim community and the religion of Islam in this country."

Who does CAIR really represent?
From Paul Whitehead:

Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired,
and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign
nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations,
to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations,
and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy.

CAIR has refused to condemn the slaughtering in Somalia of Muslims by a more extreme Islamic organization.
CAIR represents jihadist and terrorist organizations...not the majority of peaceful Muslims.
Look at CAIR's candidate to Congress...Keith Ellison...

Keith Ellison was a member of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. He wrote a story about "Minister Farrakhan" for the Minnesota Daily in which he talks about Farrakhan's virtues. Now running for Congress, Ellison now tries to minimize his involvement with this fiercely anti-Semitic racist organization.
How does Ellison respond to those critical of his past affiliations?

He calls them bigots. I wonder where he got that line?

Sunday, November 05, 2006

New York City's Most Dangerous Terrorist Group

Islamic Thinkers Society

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,deceiving, and being deceived”
—2Ti 3:13″

Right here in New York City(Jackson Heights, Queens), the Islamic Thinkers Society is spewing hate towards all non-Muslims. It goal? The ascendancy of Islam over all other religions and the return of the Islamic Caliphate. This group wants to implement Sharia law and establish an Islamic theocracy here in America.

This group has been associated with several New York terror related arrests and has also been tied to the 7/7 train bombings in London.a

Isn't it time to start profiling and institute 24-hour surveillance of this hate group? This terrorist organization needs to be put out of business before another major attack happens here in New York City.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Sour Grapes?

It isn't the largest victory on the war on terrorism, but it is a significant victory by President Bush and in particularfor John Bolton the US ambassador to the United Nations. John Bolton was able to keep Venezuela off the Security Council despite bribes of cheap oil and diplomatic support promised by Hugo Chavez. Despised by Democrats who have held up his appointment, Bolton also won unanimous approval from the U.N. Security Council for a U.S.-sponsored resolution to slap North Korea with a series of sanctions and travel restrictions for testing a nuclear device. North Korea has agreed to return to 6 party talks. These two victories have received minimal coverage during this overheated election season.

Hugo Chavez's bid to become a constant thorn to the Bush administration and the United States by winning a seat in the UN Security Council has failed.
Both Guatemala and Venezuela are withdrawing from consideration and backing Panamá as a consensus bid for the seat.

Venezuela didn't give up the fight easily.

President Hugo Chavez flew around the world several times to seek support for elevation to a two-year, non-permanent United Nations Security Council seat. In fact, Chavez's desire to win the seat became an obsession. From Belarus to Vietnam, Chavez offered cheap oil and diplomatic support to anyone who would support his country's candidacy.

He blasted President Bush and called him "the devil" a "tyrant" who acts like he owns the world.

Chavez later went to a church in Harlem and continued his attack on the President labeling him an "alcoholic" and a "sick man."

But when it came time to voting in secret, the support wasn't there. In 46 out of 47 votes it was Guatemala that had the lead.

Taking defeat in stride, Chavez downplayed his failed attempt.

Chavez portrays the U.N. voting as a diplomatic victory, saying Sunday that he achieved his objective of blocking Washington's candidate.

“We've taught the empire a lesson,” Chavez told supporters. Even if “Venezuela isn't able to enter the Security Council, we've done damage to the empire. That was our objective.”

Aesop would be proud.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

A Real Man's Apology?

Sen. John Kerry defiantly and in no uncertain terms declared Tuesday that he would "apologize to no one" for statements made about education and American troops.

"Shame on them, shame on them," Kerry said of the Bush administration, which he charged is afraid to debate "real men."

But now he's changed his tune.
Yesterday, Senator John Kerry apologized Wednesday for making a statement he calls a "botched joke." It happened in California as the senator addressed a group of college students.

I'm sorry but that just doesn't cut it. And the Democratic Party agreed.
Prominent Democrats pressured Kerry into making a "real" apology and asked him to retreat from the campaign spotlight.

And so it happened.

Democratic Senator John Kerry apologized to the US military.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., apologized to any U.S. soldiers or family members who were offended by his comments about the educational prowess of U.S. troops in Iraq.

But Kerry wasn't quite able to keep his mouth shut after the apology and adamantly accused Republicans of twisting his words.

Twisting his words? His fellow Democrats seemed clear on what he said.

"Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said. He needs to apologize to our troops," said Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr.

"It was a real dumb thing to say. He should say sorry," added Claire McCaskill a Missouri Democrat running for Senator.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., called Kerry's comments "inappropriate."

Maybe Montana Democratic Senate candidate Jon Tester said it best "Kerry's remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid."

I guess and John Kerry's mind, "real men" never say "I'm sorry".

Hat tip to Elmer's Brother for this picture.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket