Friday, March 30, 2007

Agonizing Paralysis

Who hasn't heard the statement "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?

Well this has happened before but apparently no lessons were learned.

A group of Westerners is taken captive, in violation of international law. They are paraded before the TV cameras and forced to write letters and make public statements that parrot their captors' political propaganda.

Brings back a lot of memories doesn't it?

President Carter wringing his hands while 66 Americans were held captive in Iran by "Iranian Students". Nightline showing daily updates while Iran used the situation to boost its standing in the region. A superpower impotent.

Now it's Britain's turn.

Iran seized 15 sailors and marines - and did so outside Iranian territorial waters, says London. It's holding them incommunicado - save for the one woman, who has been forced to publicly demand the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

But Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has shown so much courage up till now in the War on Terror, is displaying surprising weakness and indecisiveness.

Which probably explains why Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is ignoring Blair's strangely subdued demands for the hostages' release and is playing it for full propaganda value.

And of course the United Nations proves itself worthless.

Several members of the Security Council are openly resisting the British call for sanctions, given Tehran's claim that the sailors were captured in Iranian waters. Moreover, the British demand that the council "deplore" Iran's actions was watered down to an expression of "grave concern."

Russia and China also objected to wording stating that the Royal Navy team was illegally arrested outside Iranian waters.

These countries are not our friends and we need to stop treating them as if they were.

Tony Blair's first concern is ensuring the hostages' safety. But the West can ill afford to have him turn into Jimmy Carter at this late date.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Israeli Version of Clinton?

Police Question Israeli President

Police on Thursday questioned President Moshe Katsav on new allegations by one of the women involved in previous accusations of rape, sexual assault and fraud, police said. Katsav underwent more than two hours of questioning at his Jerusalem residence, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. He declined to give any details.

Israeli media said the charge was filed by one of the former female subordinates who have complained against Katsav in the past. Police have said the new complaint by one of the women had nothing to do with the previous ones.

In January, Attorney General Meni Mazuz announced his intention to indict the president on charges of rape, sexual assault and fraud. The cases all involve women who worked for Katsav while he was president, and before that, as a Cabinet minister.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Lessons from History

America has been fighting Islamists for longer than many realize. Even before independence was declared, American ships were pirated and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”—an Ottoman Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. When the colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American ships lost Royal Navy protection. A Revolutionary-War era alliance with France offered French protection to US ships, but it expired in 1783. Immediately US ships came under attack and in October 1784 the American trader “Betsey” was taken by Moroccan forces. This was followed with Algerians and Libyans (Tripolitans) capturing two more US ships in 1785.

Lacking the ability to project US naval force in the Mediterranean, America tried appeasement. In 1784, Congress agreed to fund tributes and ransoms in order to rescue US ships and buy the freedom of enslaved US sailors.

In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

“…that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar?

By 1800 the annual tribute and ransom payments first agreed in the mid 1780s amounted to about $1 million--20% of the federal budget. (For fiscal year 2007, 20% of the US revenues would equal $560 billion.) In May, 1801 Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the US by chopping down the flagpole in front of the US Consulate. Seventeen years after appeasement and tribute payments had begun; President Thomas Jefferson led America into the First Barbary War.

From May 1801 to June 10, 1805 sailors and Marines of the young American nation fought battles immortalized in a line of the Marine Hymn: “…to the shores of Tripoli”. As American forces approached Tripoli on land threatening to capture it, Karamanli suddenly became interested in negotiations. The war ended with a treaty exchanging prisoners, Americans giving Karamanli another $60,000 in ransom and an agreement from the Muslims to cease attacks on US ships.

But for a Muslim to keep his word to an Infidel at the expense of opportunities to expand Islamic power is the Islamic equivalent of a mortal sin. In 1807 Muslim pirate attacks on American ships began anew. As a result Americans led by President James Madison fought Algerians in the Second Barbary War in 1815, leading to another treaty under which the Muslims paid American $10,000 for damages. The Algerian ruler almost immediately repudiated the new treaty after the US departure and again began piracy and the enslavement of captured Christian sailors necessitating an 1816 Anglo-Dutch shelling of Algiers and ultimately the colonization of Algeria in 1830 and Tunisia in 1881 by France and Libya in 1911 by Italy. By then most of the Islamic world was under Christian domination. With the Ottoman Empire defeated in WW1, secularist Turkish rebels in 1923 overthrew the last Islamic Caliphate, destroying the pinnacle of Islamist power and ending a line of succession allegedly reaching back to Mohammed.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Quote of the Day

"It's unfortunate that we live in a time where individuals and groups (including religious) are exploiting existing fears to promote their own cause."....Ahmed Bedier

You mean like CAIR is doing with the "flying imams"? CAIR Has completely orchestrated this entire event to EXPLOIT EXISTING FEARS and to PROMOTE THEIR OWN CAUSE.
You're a hypocrite Ahmed!

Thursday, March 22, 2007

CAIR's Solution

CAIR's solution in the case of the flying imams is that Muslims should not only be allowed to exhibit threatening behaviors to others, but that passengers should be prohibited from reporting any of these behaviors--to anyone.

Sounds ridiculous? Check paragraph 21 in the recent lawsuit.

It describes “John Doe” defendants whose identity the imams’ attorneys are still investigating. It reads: “Defendants ‘John Does’ were passengers … who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged ’suspicious’ behavior of Plaintiffs’ performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”

Paragraph 22 adds: “Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants’] liability … at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same.”

CAIR not only plans to sue the airlines but the passengers who reported the suspicious behavior.

By now, everyone knows that CAIR is representing the flying imams in a lawsuit to be filed at their behalf. Their lawsuit appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety.

In a 38-page document filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, the plaintiffs said they were "horrified and humiliated" after police removed them, under pilot's orders, from the plane in front of dozens of other passengers Nov. 20 "as if they were criminals."

Guess what? They ARE criminals.

The airlines number one responsibility is to provide safe and secure air transportation to the flying public.

International laws have been passed that directly relate to "Acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person on board."

By now, most people realize that this entire event was orchestrated by CAIR.
CAIR is a terrorist organization using the legal system to weaken airport security.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

A Little History Review

Another case study in hypocrisy and double standards.

As Democrats demand hearings in the wake of seven US attorneys being fired and call for the resignation of US Attorney General Gonzalez, let's go back to the beginning of Clinton's administration.

We should not forget that Bill Clinton’s first act as president was to fire all the U.S attorneys across the U.S. – an unprecedented act by an American president.

At the time, critics of the president linked the firing to an effort to stave off the prosecution of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski.

But the real truth became clearer as the scandal known as Whitewater unfolded.

The real reason Clinton fired every U.S. attorney was to save himself, not Rostenkowski.

As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock was closing in on Clinton for Whitewater-related matters and his and Hillary’s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration.

Clinton’s replacement for U.S. attorney in Little Rock was Paula Casey, a former law school student of his. She did much to protect her patron.

Clinton carried much criminal baggage before he arrived at the White House, and his administration soon opened his luggage to create an administration in his image: the most corrupt in American history.

Clinton is no dummy; he knew the Justice Department would be his Achilles’ heel.

This is precisely why he sacked all the U.S. attorneys.

This is why he put his "best" friend, convicted felon Webster Hubbell, over at Justice as associate attorney general.

This is why his administration secretly sabotaged the nominations of Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood to make way for Janet Reno, the prosecutor from Miami Vice who had almost a perfect record of never prosecuting white-collar criminals or politicians.

This is why he fired FBI Director William Sessions in an unprecedented and sudden act the day before Vince Foster was found with a bullet hole in his head in Fort Marcy Park.

This is why he had Janet Reno hand-pick Robert Fiske as Whitewater special counsel – a man who as U.S. attorney in New York never found one politician who had committed a crime.

This is why he accepted Robert Fiske’s recommendation of Louis Freeh as the FBI director.

This is why he consented as Freeh quickly removed, retired or transferred out the entire executive committee of assistant FBI directors in a most effective coup d’etat that got no press ink.

No doubt Clinton knew that by controlling the Justice Department and the FBI, he and his administration would have a free hand.

So powerful was Clinton’s control over the judicial and law enforcement apparatus of the country, the communist Chinese could illegally funnel more than $10 million to help his 1996 re-election campaign.

At the same time, the president could give away the most guarded secrets of our nation to China, an avowed enemy, including supercomputer technology to build nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology – technology that now allows China’s missiles to hit our cities with pinpoint accuracy.

And all of this could be done in silence and with the complicity of the highest officials in the land.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Too Good to Pass Up

Even in a $2000 Suit, Sharpton Still a Thug

The allegations that the Sean Bell shootings were racially motivated are preposterous. A group of undercover officers working in a gun and drug plagued strip in Queens had good reason to believe that a party leaving the club was armed and about to shoot an adversary.

But Al Sharpton would have you believe that the police regularly condone widespread mistreatment of blacks. And with his barely vealed threats of violence if justice wasn't done, three New York City cops were indicted.

News of the indictments of three NYPD officers in the Sean Bell case was hardly an hour old yesterday when Sharpton, in his $2000 suit, saw fit to throw fuel on this latest fire - gratuitously terming the Bell tragedy "just as ugly" as the mad, methodical massacre of two unarmed auxiliary cops Wednesday in Greenwich Village.

Nicholas Pekearo and Eugene Marshalik were sought out and deliberately executed. It's all on videotape.

Sean Bell was part of a group of young men partying at a skeezy Queens dive that was under police investigation for alleged drug and gun violations and prostitution. Detectives opened fire when he drove his car straight at undercover cops.

Equating the two incidents is disgusting and Al Sharpton was nowhere to be seen when the two New York officers were shot dead. Apparently dead police officers aren't worth getting out of bed for.

But for bottom feeders, such as Sharpton, there was no chance he would miss out on the publicity following this case. Sadly, it was just as inevitable that New York’s politicians would acquiesce in that gambit, thus sacrificing the New York Police Department to racial politics.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Patrick Kennedy addicted to OxyContin

Remember when Rush Limbaugh admitted his addiction to painkillers in October 2003? The liberals had a field day calling Limbaugh a hypocrite and the Jay Leno's of the world had a great time at his expense. But now it's Patrick Kennedy who has admitted his addiction to painkillers...the very same ones that Rush Limbaugh was addicted to... OxyContin.

Representative Patrick Kennedy Says He Sought Help for Addiction Before Crash

NEW YORK — Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday he sought treatment for an addiction to the painkiller OxyContin months before wrecking his car outside the U.S. Capitol last year.

The Rhode Island Democrat told NBC-TV's "Today" show that he felt great in his recovery from substance abuse and was determined not to let the disease "take its toll on me ever again."

Kennedy checked into the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota last May after the car crash, saying at the time that he had also been at the clinic the previous Christmas. He said only that he was addicted to "pain medication" and did not name OxyContin.

Kennedy has been open about his struggles with mental illness, including bipolar disorder and addictions to alcohol and other substances. He said it didn't matter what substance he was addicted to.

Well...he is a Democrat so mental illness and drug addictions shouldn't hinder his reelection campaign.

"Even though I had detoxified from pain medication, one thing you learn as an addict is you can substitute anything for your main addiction," Kennedy said.

Kennedy said Friday that his public profile helped him after he checked into rehab because it has prompted other recovering alcoholics and addicts to approach him. Still, he acknowledged being hesitant to admit his addictions publicly because he said he felt ashamed.

So here we have it. Patrick Kennedy asked for help but apparently none was available, at least that's what he would have us believe. I can't help but wonder if the media will cover Patrick Kennedy's addiction in the same way as they cover Rush Limbaugh's? Your thoughts?

Tuesday, March 13, 2007


CAIR is suing! That's right, CAIR, who coordinated last December's flying Imam debacle, has decided to sue US Airways.

The Council on American Islamic Relations is representing the six imams who were handcuffed and taken off the United Airways flight in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in November.

Handcuffed only because they refused to leave peacefully. It also makes better pictures and strengthens accusations of brutality.

Let's recall that the imams were leaving Minneapolis after meeting with CAIR's Congressman Keith Ellison. Also present at Ellison's meeting was was Imam Dr. Omar Shahin - who has been linked to fund raising activities for al-Qaeda and Hamas.

'The imams say their removal from the flight was based on racism and religious intolerance,' said a statement from CAIR released Monday before Tuesday's press conference.

Racism and religious intolerance. Two of CAIR's favorite charges. Perhaps the only two that are used more often are 'bigotry' and 'Islamophobia'.

But none of these charges fit. This orchestrated event was a military probe. A probe designed to test airport security, reaction times and attitudes of post 911 flyers.

Now that CAIR has received as much information as possible and now that they have used this publicity to cower other airlines for fear of being labeled bigots and racist(in case of a real attack in the future) it's time to get PAID.

I would call this a successful operation for CAIR.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Alternate Universe or World Gone Crazy

Have you ever woke up and thought that maybe you were in an alternate universe, very close to the one you've always known but just a little bit more crazy?

Me neither..until this morning.

Washington Times

A House Democrat has arranged for a conference room in the Capitol building to be used tomorrow by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim advocacy group criticized for its persistent refusal to disavow terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

It has also refused to denounce terrorist acts committed against Israel. Even Chuck Schumer has criticized CAIR for its ties to terrorism.

The District-based group also is singled out by other Democratic lawmakers and some law-enforcement officials because of financial ties to terrorists.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., New Jersey Democrat, reserved the basement conference room for CAIR's panel discussion Tuesday titled "Global Attitudes on Islam-West Relations: U.S. Policy Implications."

Why has this group decided that it needed space from the US Capitol? Aren't there enough forums or mosques for this type of event, or why isn't CAIR using its own headquarters in CAIR using the Capitol to legitimize itself and its conclusions? The last thing we need is to allow groups associated with terrorism to use the Capitol building as a soapbox.

"We just see it as a simple room request," Pascrell spokesman Caley Gray said. "We did receive a room request and evaluated it and approved it."
He said the forum "opens up an important dialogue about global public opinion concerning the United States."

Concerning the US? Are there US Representatives at this meeting or is this another media trumped event to legitimize CAIR?

Still, the event's sponsor raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, even if all sorts of groups routinely hold receptions and meetings in the Capitol.
"It does happen all the time but usually it is the United Way or some constituent group or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, not a group with supposed ties to terrorism -- in the Capitol no less," a Hill staffer said.
CAIR officials did not return a call seeking comment.
The room -- H-137 -- is controlled by the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Pascrell is a committee member and can reserve the room for any guest provided he "vouch it complies with House rules," said committee spokesman Matthew Beck.
CAIR, which is country's largest Islamic civil liberties group with 31 chapters nationwide, has never been charged with terrorism crimes and the organization is known to cooperate with the FBI and the Justice Department.
However, CAIR officials have been charged with -- and some convicted of -- offenses related to the support of terrorism, including CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad, founding board member Ghassan Elashi and former CAIR civil rights coordinator Randall Royer.

Let's keep this group out of our Capitol unless it is there to testify on its own terrorist ties and activities.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Top Pakistan nuclear scientists in Taliban Custody

Zee News Exclusive:

New Delhi, March 07: Two top nuclear scientists of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) are currently in Taliban custody. The two were working at PAEC’s facility in North West Frontier Province. Zee News investigations reveal that the two scientists were kidnapped about six months ago.

To avoid international embarrassment Pakistan Government has kept this information under wraps.

According to information available with Zee News, nuclear scientists have been kidnapped by Taliban at the behest of Al-Qaeda. Further investigations reveal that Al-Qaeda may be using the expertise of the scientists to produce nuclear bombs. The two scientists are reportedly being held somewhere in Waziristan, near Afghanistan border.

In January this year Pakistan security agencies had foiled another attempt by Taliban militia to kidnap nuclear scientists. Earlier, incidents of Taliban militia stealing uranium in NWFP have already been reported. PAEC also has a uranium mining facility in NWFP.

With repeated Al Qaeda threats to the US, news of kidnapping of nuclear scientists will increase pressure on Pakistan to attack terrorist camps.

I have to wonder just how much help these scientist would be able to give to the Taliban. Knowledge is one thing, but gaining access to the technology needed to build a nuclear device is an entirely different thing. Still, why didn't Pakistan acknowledge the kidnappings immediately?

The biggest threat I see is if these two scientist somehow collaborate with Iran.

What might be of much more importance is the defection of an Iranian general to the West.
Reports said the general was also briefing Western intelligence on Iran's links to groups in Iraq. These include the Mehdi Army of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Badr organization.

Other reports also say that Milliyet, the 63-year-old had information on Iran's nuclear plans. But the Iranian government has denied that he was part of its nuclear programme.

Iran has claimed that the General was most likely kidnapped by Western (US or Israeli) forces. Evidence showing that the General had removed his family from Iran before leaving shows that he intended to defect.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

No Justice Here

A fraud has been committed and we the public are the victims.

Spending millions of our dollars and in the end, no one has been convicted of outing Plame...and why would they?
There were absolutely no national security issues with Plame. She was a paper shuffler, a high paid secretary.
And everyone in DC knew who she was and what she did for a living.

A crime was committed but it is the not the crime prosecuted, it’s the wholesale fraud that the Libby case has anything at all to do with justice, national security, or even perjury.

Democrats and Bush-bashers in the media are chortling with glee, and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has a high-level scalp on his belt.

Scooter Libby's.

It might not have been the scalp he wanted, but it was the one he got.

Thus ends (pending appeals) a 38-month investigation into the so-called Plamegate case.

Despite the jury's guilty verdict yesterday on four of five counts, it's fair to say that Fitzgerald added nothing to what was well known about the question that ostensibly prompted this probe in the first place: Who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson's name to columnist Robert Novak?

The answer, as Fitzgerald knew for three years, was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage - in an off-hand conversation, not a leak.

And since Armitage was a critic of the Iraq war, that pretty much shot down any suggestion that the White House had deliberately sought to "out" Plame in order to sabotage her husband's public criticism of Bush's Iraq policy.

So what was this all about?

Scoring points against Bush.

That much is obvious, given prosecutor Fitzgerald's conduct during Libby's trial.

It's not just that his closing argument was blatantly political, charging that Libby's boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, had orchestrated the leak of Plame's name in order to discredit her husband.

In fact, Fitzgerald throughout the case seemed to violate a central rule set down by the judge: Valerie Plame Wilson's actual status at the CIA was wholly irrelevant to the charges against Libby. Whether or not she was a covert agent - meaning disclosure of her name might be a crime - didn't matter.

Yet Fitzgerald broadly suggested that Libby had been "discussing something . . . that could lead to people being killed."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was quick to hail yesterday's verdict, saying: "It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."

But nothing at the trial even hinted at the administration having manipulated intelligence.

In the end, the jury seemed wholly confused by the case. Indeed, just an hour before delivering its verdict, after 10 days of deliberations, the jurors were sending out notes trying to figure out precisely what Libby was accused of having done.

Maybe the jury was less interested in that little detail than in just going home.

Taken at face value, the verdict means that the jury refused to believe Scooter Libby's claim of having a bad memory - though the witnesses against him all showed equally bad, even conflicting, recollections about the same event.

Libby's lawyers yesterday confidently predicted he'll be vindicated on appeal.

He shouldn't have to wait.

President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.

Sure, he'd take a lot of political heat for it. But Libby was in the dock because of politics - and turnabout is fair play.

Free Scooter Libby.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Why the Employee Free Choice Act is Bad for America

The roots of our country's trade unions extend deep into the early history of America. Labor strikes in America began in the late 18th century. By the 19th century, recorded efforts by unions to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action, became more frequent.

Those who claim that this country still needs unions state the following:
Union members earn better wages and benefits than workers who aren’t union members. On average, union workers’ wages are 30 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts. While only 14 percent of nonunion workers have guaranteed pensions, fully 68 percent of union workers do. More than 97 percent of union workers have jobs that provide health insurance benefits, but only 85 percent of nonunion workers do. Unions help employers create a more stable, productive workforce—where workers have a say in improving their jobs.

Sounds good doesn't it? But obviously not all agree.

Take schools for example. It is easier to levitate then it is to fire a New York City schoolteacher who is a member of the Teachers Union.
"We tolerate mediocrity," said New York's Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, because "people get paid the same, whether they're outstanding, average or way below average."

And who pays for this mediocrity? We do...parents, students and dedicated teachers.

This is only one example. Unions also protect bad police.
"People don't know this, but police unions, particularly in New York, for example, have been lobbying so that officers who are accused of misconduct don't have to talk to their own police administrators," Kamau, a former police detective, says.

Everybody knows who a bad employees best friend is...their union. Pay your dues, show up at work long enough, don't do anything criminal and it's just about impossible to get fired.

Having a union may be good for some workers. And certainly, some companies have botched employee relations so badly they deserve to have their workers represented by a union.

But for the economy as a whole, a large increase in the number of unionized businesses would be a tremendous drag on growth, especially in dynamic sectors such as technology.

Yet that’s exactly what union backers in Congress are pushing for with the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. The measure was passed Thursday by the House. It’s expected to receive more skeptical reception in the Senate — where it deserves to die.

The bill would allow a union to be established when a majority of workers sign check cards giving their consent. Such a system would effectively supplant the current process of using supervised elections to decide on union representation.

The check-card system would deny workers the protection implicit in a secret ballot, leaving them exposed to intimidation from union organizers who collect the cards.

Unions are pressing for this change because they know it would mean many more bargaining units, many more members and a vast increase in the flow of mandatory dues revenue.

Yet a massive increase in unionization would lead to economic stagnation as the inflexible work rules of labor contracts percolate through more American businesses.

The economy grows by adding new work to existing work, a process that is spontaneous, unpredictable and often disruptive to the typical union contract, which divides work into strictly defined categories.

Unions tend to retard growth because it is in their interests that industries remain the same, in terms of technology. Any change can put unions in conflict not only with management but with the new innovations that make familiar products obsolete.

“Only in stagnant economies does work stay docilely within given categories,” she wrote. “And wherever it is forced to stay within prearranged categories — whether by zoning, by economic planning, or by guilds, associations or unions — the process of adding new work to old can occur little if at all.”

It’s no accident that the companies that produce the most amazing innovations of our day are largely non-union. The process of adding new work to existing work would be retarded if entrepreneurs must face down unions whenever someone comes up with a new idea that upsets existing arrangements.

Almost as bad as the check-card system is a provision in the bill that would impose binding arbitration when union and management cannot agree on an initial contract.

Normally, it takes several months to a year to achieve an initial contract. But the bill would give both sides only 90 days to reach agreement, after which federal mediators would be called in. If the two sides are still unable to settle, the dispute would go to arbitration.

This would dramatically tip the balance in favor of unions. If management takes a tough line, the union could simply run out the clock, knowing it will likely receive a better deal through the arbitration process — which would be controlled by individuals with no stake in the company’s future.

The secret ballot protects workers from intimidation from both labor and management. It has worked well for decades, and it should be retained.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Big Brother?

Are we going too far? I'm not one prone on being paranoid and the majority of my conversations would put most people to sleep...but I still like having my privacy.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Joe Kaufman Speech

Joe Kaufman Speech, March 3, 2007

Protest Against CAIR and Siraj Wahhaj


We gather here tonight to expose a fifth column that resides within America and, tonight, they are holding an event inside this convention center.

As has been told many times before, CAIR was created by a front for the terrorist organization Hamas, in 1994. That organization, the Islamic Association for Palestine or IAP, was the brainchild of none other than the number two leader in Hamas today, Mousa Abu Marzook. If it hasn’t been made clear in the past, I want to make it clear today – If it were not for Mousa Abu Marzook, CAIR would not be in existence!

The IAP, CAIR’s parent organization, was a Hamas propaganda center, as it published the Hamas charter in different languages, and it produced Hamas terrorist training videos. In 2005, the IAP was shut down, after it had been found liable for the murder of an American boy, David Boim, who lost his life during a Hamas operation in Israel. In fact, every U.S. organization that had ties to Mousa Abu Marzook no longer exists – all except CAIR.

CAIR is the only one that is still around, and we’re here to say to the government of the United States that it’s time to end this thorn in America’s side and SHUT CAIR DOWN!

CAIR’s National Executive Director, Nihad Awad, has publicly stated his support for Hamas, and CAIR-Florida’s Communications Director, Ahmed Bedier, said that there was “nothing immoral” about associating with Palestinian Islamic Jihad before 1995. As well, Bedier hosted a radio show, where all three of his guests lauded Hezbollah, a group that is responsible for the murder of 241 American servicemen on October 23, 1983.

Recently, United States Senator Barbara Boxer rescinded an award she had given to a CAIR leader. As pointed out by Newsweek Magazine, last December, “Boxer was particularly concerned by claims that CAIR had refused to condemn Hamas and Hizbullah and recognize those groups as terrorist organizations.” In fact, to prove the Senator right, in the course of just 13 days, four officials from CAIR refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups. They include CAIR’s National Executive Director, Nihad Awad, CAIR’s National Communications Director, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s National Legal Director, Arsalan Iftikhar, and CAIR-Sacramento’s Executive Director, Basim Elkarra.

Four former representatives from CAIR have been charged with terrorist activity by the U.S. government -- two were convicted and two were deported. One of those individuals is Randal Todd Ismail Royer. On September 24, 2001, as CAIR’s Communications Specialist, Royer spoke at a press conference on what CAIR called an “anti-Muslim backlash.” What’s interesting is that, less than ten days prior to the press conference, Royer had been in contact with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Royer had been plotting with a group from the U.S. to help Lashkar-e-Taiba murder Americans and Indians overseas. And just two days prior to the CAIR press conference, Royer possessed in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition.

CAIR is the defendant in a 9/11 lawsuit, put forward by the family of the former chief of the FBI’s counter-terrorism section, John P. O’Neill, who was killed during the attacks on the World Trade Center. CAIR is being sued for the murders of 3000 innocent Americans.

I remember when I was on a radio show debating CAIR-Florida’s Executive Director, Altaf Ali. It was exactly one month after 9/11, October 11, 2001. I asked Mr. Ali if he believed those that died during the attacks were innocent. He would not answer the question. I asked again and again and again. He still refused to answer. It was then that I realized why CAIR was here in America. If I may borrow a quote from a former CAIR official, it was not to become equal in America but to become dominant, where the Quran replaces the Constitution as the highest authority.

Tonight, within this building behind us, the Broward County Convention Center, CAIR is holding its annual event. It is an important event for CAIR, as slated to speak is CAIR’s National Chairman Parvez Ahmed, a man who calls America’s only true friend in the Middle-East, Israel, “a liability in the war on terror.”

Also speaking will be Sirah Wahhaj, a Brooklyn imam whose name is found on the U.S. Attorney’s list of “unindicted co-conspirators” to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which left six Americans dead and so many others injured – of course, a pre-curser to what would happen eight years later, when our beloved Twin Towers would stand no more. Also found on that list are Osama bin Laden and his Mentor Abdullah Azzam.

Wahhaj, during the bombing trial, would serve as a defense witness for the spiritual leader of the ’93 attack, the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman. As stated by the Wall Street Journal, in an article written in October of 2003, Wahhaj testified that it had been an honor to host Abdel-Rahman at his mosque and described him as a “respected scholar.” Imam Wahhaj, WHAT KIND OF RESPECTED SCHOLAR WOULD HELP IN THE MURDERS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE?

But after reading a quote from Wahhaj, we can understand how his name could appear on the U.S. Attorney’s list, and we could understand how he could call a degenerate like Abdel-Rahman a “respected scholar.” Wahhaj stated, “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Oh, by the way, Wahhaj was a former National Board Member of CAIR.

One more thing, and then I will conclude. Recently, CAIR and other organizations it affiliates with, called for Muslims to fast in solidarity with Sami Al-Arian, who has gone on a hunger strike. As well, CAIR has called for his release. Sami Al-Arian was a founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the group’s North American leader. He was responsible, at least in part, for the murders of over 100 innocent people, including two Americans. We say this to the government – KEEP SAMI AL-ARIAN LOCKED UP FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. HE IS A THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO OUR DEMOCRATIC ALLIES OVERSEAS. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LET THIS MAN GO.

My friends, CAIR and organizations like it, are not here to help build up America. They are here to tear it down. And we are here to tell our government not to let them. Bush Administration, Senate, House of Representatives, FBI, we plead with you, shut CAIR down now! Place CAIR alongside Hamas on the U.S. State Department list of terrorist organizations, and shut CAIR down now.

Thank you.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket