November 13, 2009
In today’s news, there is a story that is (to me) very disturbing. The story deals with the fact that the Obama administration has decided to bring Khalif Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators to New York to be tried in a civil court. It was also announced that the AG (Eric Holder) has not decided if they will seek the death penalty in these cases. Let’s assume that all of the defendants are found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. That’s 5 times around $30,000 per year of taxpayer’s money pledged to support these pieces of shit for the rest of their lives. Also, by doing this, (regardless of the sentences imposed) we are giving them all a fresh supply of possible converts to their radical form of Islam. This is an outrageous turn of events that (since Obama took office) has become more about water boarding and other forms of “torture” that may have been used on these animals than what they did to our country. Once again, this president and his administration are focusing more on what tactics the United States may have used to protect ourselves rather than what those animals did to us. This is wrong and must stop if we are to exist as the America that was strong, fair, and leader of the free world. Our current government is selling us out, and this is just another example of it.
Why should these animals be tried in a civilian court anyway? They are all enemy combatants and should be tried in a military court. The administration, by trying them in a civilian court, has provided them with all of the protections given US citizens; something to which none of them should have access. Obama also had promised that he would NOT bring Gitmo prisoners to US soil. Another broken promise. How many new converts might these animals get while they are under our roof? It is a fact that more criminals in our prisons/jails convert to Islam than to any other religion during their incarceration. We are providing the venue for this process by bringing them here. We are also subjecting New Yorkers to additional danger from attempts of other terrorists to free these animals during their trial. Regardless of the outcome of this “show”, we are also making these animals martyrs to their followers and supporters. Don’t forget what they did…they arranged for the murder of 3,000 Americans; they attacked us; they did what had never before been done…they succeeded in attacking the United States of America on its’ own continental soil. Why the hell are we concerned about them getting a fair (civilian) trial?
Maybe if we summarily executed them (and the other terrorists like them), we would let the terrorists know that the United States of America is a force to be reckoned with, rather than a politically correct and gutless place that can be exploited and intimidated.
This defendant in this trial will quickly become the (United States) rather than these animals. They will be judging the methods used to extract the information from the terrorists; they will probably suggest that the confessions were ‘coerced’ and are therefore, not admissible in court; they will probably say that the terrorists’ civil rights were violated, etc. etc. They (the defense) might even try for a change of venue stating that the defendants can NOT get a fair trial in New York. This entire move is meant to be another method of “Bush-bashing” in the hope of solidifying the hold the Democrats/Socialists have on this country. It is also a continuation of the political correctness that plagues our society.
Later:
Eric Holder just held a press conference to announce that the terrorists will be tried in Federal Court in New York. He touted the announcement as though it was a great thing. The truth of the matter is that these animals will probably not even go to trial for years! Meanwhile, they will be our ‘guests’ in New York. If they were tried in a military court, the trial would probably take place within a year and they could then be executed. We are providing our sworn enemies with the constitutional rights and privileges that should be reserved for our citizens. This is a complete outrage!
How was the attack on 9/11 any different from the attack on 12/7/1941 at Pearl Harbor? We were not in a declared war with Japan, but when they attacked us at Pearl, we immediately declared war on them. That is what George Bush did when the twin towers were attached. He declared war on the terrorists! We ARE at war with terrorists, and have been since 9/11. These terrorists were an integral part of the attacks on our country. It was a sneak attack, deliberately carried out against civilians and our government, and planned for a time when the most damage could be done. These animals are war criminals, and should be tried in a military tribunal, and while I personally don’t know if I could put someone through water boarding, or any other elaborate method of questioning, I am grateful to those who could.
I remember seeing the people jumping out of windows that had been blown out from the impact of the jet liners. People who made a decision to jump (in some cases) 100 stories to their death rather than burn alive in the inferno. I remember seeing the aftermath of the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and D.C. I remember the fear that many, many more attacks were to come. I also remember after the attacks, how the American people began to come together against this common enemy.
But, once again, the Obama administration plays to the world stage rather than to this country and its citizens. Obama has never stopped campaigning and the campaign now is to the ‘citizens’ of the world because he hopes that he will become a leader in the new world order after he has finished screwing up this country. He doesn’t want to ‘offend’ Muslims by acknowledging acts of terror, he doesn’t want to offend other governments by being too “American”, but he does NOT care how he offends those of us in this country who are still proud to be Americans, and who have a sense of patriotism and intestinal fortitude to protect our way of life, regardless of the direction from which our enemies approach us. I have a question for those among you who voted for Obama
………………………have you seen enough yet?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
IS AMERICA AT WAR WITH ISLAM?
IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT WAR WITH ISLAM?
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO PROFILING?
November 11, 2009
Last week, when Major Nadid Hasan shot and killed 13 of his fellow soldiers, and wounded 39 others (before being shot by a police officer), the question reared its ugly head, once again. As it turns out, Hasan is, by all descriptions, a ‘devout’ Muslim. He had lectured that Muslims in the US military should all be exempted from serving overseas as conscientious objectors. He was quoted as saying that Muslims love death more than Americans love life. He corresponded with Al-Queda, he stood on a table and shouted “Allahu Akbar:(Allah is great) just before he began shooting. The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge this incident as an act of Terrorism, regardless of all of the evidence presented to this date. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, it was immediately recognized as ‘an act of domestic terrorism’.
Webster says this: Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective
violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
So, if we set aside the current ‘requirement’ of applying political correctness, we can see that Hasan is a terrorist, and his act(s) were acts of terror. He (Hasan) thought enough of the Military to enlist and have the taxpayers of this country pay for his education, but when the time came for him to live up to his part of the bargain, he became a terrorist, a traitor, and an enemy combatant. At this point, we (the American taxpayers) get to pay for his medical expenses, his legal defense (although how can one even begin to defend his actions is beyond my understanding), and his ultimate trial. It is the current atmosphere of political correctness that prevented those who were aware of his radical views from removing him from the Military, investigating him more thoroughly, or even considering bringing him up on charges of conspiring with the enemy (as a result of his many emails and conversations with Al-Queda). Some would have accused the Army of ‘profiling’. Would it have been profiling? Of Course, but we engage in profiling every day (as does the government). Let’s see; he is a radical, extremist Muslim, saying that they (Muslims) love death more than we love life, suggested on many occasions that Muslims should in fact ‘kill the infidel’, and spoke against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan many, many times.
And from the news today (11/11/09):
The government counterterrorism investigator familiar with the FBI's review of the Fort Hood case told Fox News that they simply did not have enough evidence to launch an investigation. Though officials discovered Hasan's e-mails to the imam, the investigator said the messages suggested he was seeking "spiritual and religious guidance."
"Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified," the investigator said, adding that the communications were shared with the "appropriate chains."
But even after the attacks, some have been reluctant to cite religion as a factor, as evidence has mounted that the alleged gunman's Muslim faith was at least a partial factor in the decision to mount the attack.
So, let’s examine this situation: The United States has been attacked by Extremist Muslims who call for death to America. American soldiers are being killed daily by these same people either in direct combat, or through cowardly acts of violence. The people who are doing these things are Muslims with radical views. Hasan is a Muslim with radical views! If it looks like a duck………
We (the US) are NOT engaged in a war against Islam, however, we are engaged in a war against terrorists, most of whom are Muslim. These Muslim extremists are dedicated to the destruction of every society on earth that does NOT adhere to their doctrine. They take a vow to kill the infidels *Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-dəl, -fə-ˌdel\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at Date: 15th century
1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood
— infidel adjective
They obviously believe that 2a applies in this case, designating anyone who does not believe in Islam as the only true religion an Infidel, and therefore marked for death.
The question of whether we are at war with Islam should probably be asked of Islam, i.e. is Islam at war with America? If the answer is ‘yes’, then we should be prepared to defend ourselves without the restraints being imposed upon us by those politically correct super-liberals whose agenda is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States.
As sad as it may be, we are in a world that REQUIRES us to be even more vigilant than ever with regard to protecting our country and citizens from any threat to our way of life, and/or our freedom. The world court has prosecuted people for engaging in, and/or promoting genocide;
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
— geno·cid·al \ˌje-nə-ˈsī-dəl\ adjective
Doesn’t the radical Muslim objective meet the definition above? So what is the answer to this dilemma? Do we simply group all Muslims as terrorists? No, of course not, but we also do NOT hesitate to label a terrorist as a Terrorist, whether from another country, or born in the USA.
Our current president has traveled extensively since taking office. He has repeatedly apologized for the actions of America without ever actually asserting our right to defend ourselves at home, or abroad. He has taken great pains to make sure that the answer to the question (“Is America at war with Islam”) is a resounding “NO”. The real question being asked should be ‘why is Islam at war with America”? The Muslim extremists say that they are at war with us because of the problems in Israel (between the Israelis and Palestinians). We all know that is nothing but an excuse for them to carry out the Jihad against democracy and freedom all over the world. They kill “infidels” all over Europe, in the US, and anywhere else they can reach them. If we don’t do something very soon, they will have the power and ability to reach us (the infidels) no matter where we are on earth. Their objective is world domination and they don’t even hesitate to kill Muslims who don’t bow to their will. They (the extremists) use Islam as a shield.
Our founding fathers wrote that we would be guaranteed our religious freedom. This was written as a direct result of the imposition by the King of England of his religion upon the people (subjects). Much like Iran is today. When America was founded, there was religious diversity among the people, but of course, nothing like we have today. Suppose for example, in 1790, the Catholics in the US, began preaching that all non-Catholics should either embrace their religious beliefs, or be executed. The non-Catholics would have had to defend themselves and their beliefs, as would any of the other denominations that existed at the time. That, of course didn’t happen. However, that is what is happening today around the world. I have nothing against a Muslim unless he or she believes the way the extremists believe and seek to do me, or my country harm. I don’t want to see all Muslims who are here legally put through hell just because they are Muslims. However, I don’t want to be restrained from questioning their intentions or their political views just because they might be offended.
In my early career, I was a financial advisor. Being Jewish, I certainly would not want to be a financial advisor (and Jewish) after the Bernie Madoff case. I think that Muslims who are NOT extremists should be doing more reaching out to the American public than they are doing in light of this type of terrorist act. There is a fundamental lack of trust between so-called westerners and Muslims and always has been. I had a client years ago from Pakistan. He was very polite, well-educated and he was a devout Muslim. He knew I was a Jew but that didn’t seem to keep him from wanting my business advice and help and I had no reason to dislike, or distrust him. He and I spent hours from time to time, having conversations during which he would tell me about the similarities between Islam and Judaism. He was very learned about both religions and told me that rather than being enemies, we were cultural “cousins”. He had a young wife who was very nice also, and two young daughters with her. She was beautiful as were the children. It was after one of those sessions with him during which he told me of the peaceful nature of Islam that he beat his wife so brutally that she called me rather than the police as she felt I would understand their culture after these sessions with her husband. I didn’t contact the police. I did get her medical attention and then began some sessions of my own. I told her about our law and that it was NOT ok for him to beat her. Eventually, she did call the police after a subsequent beating, and this coward left the US and returned to Pakistan. At a meeting with her and her Attorney, she showed us some photos of her husband standing in an embrace with Edi Amin, Momar Khadafi, and some other early terrorists. Did this experience make me hate or distrust all Muslims? No, however, it did teach me that anyone can be smiling, shaking your hand, kissing your brow, and all the while plotting your demise.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for Americans to be cautious regarding the intentions of Muslims, any more than it would be unreasonable to be cautious if walking through East Los Angeles, Harlem, North Philadelphia, or Camden NJ. This cautiousness does not make me a racist; however, I would rather be a suspected racist than a confirmed victim.
WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO PROFILING?
November 11, 2009
Last week, when Major Nadid Hasan shot and killed 13 of his fellow soldiers, and wounded 39 others (before being shot by a police officer), the question reared its ugly head, once again. As it turns out, Hasan is, by all descriptions, a ‘devout’ Muslim. He had lectured that Muslims in the US military should all be exempted from serving overseas as conscientious objectors. He was quoted as saying that Muslims love death more than Americans love life. He corresponded with Al-Queda, he stood on a table and shouted “Allahu Akbar:(Allah is great) just before he began shooting. The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge this incident as an act of Terrorism, regardless of all of the evidence presented to this date. When Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, it was immediately recognized as ‘an act of domestic terrorism’.
Webster says this: Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
— ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun
— ter·ror·is·tic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective
violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
So, if we set aside the current ‘requirement’ of applying political correctness, we can see that Hasan is a terrorist, and his act(s) were acts of terror. He (Hasan) thought enough of the Military to enlist and have the taxpayers of this country pay for his education, but when the time came for him to live up to his part of the bargain, he became a terrorist, a traitor, and an enemy combatant. At this point, we (the American taxpayers) get to pay for his medical expenses, his legal defense (although how can one even begin to defend his actions is beyond my understanding), and his ultimate trial. It is the current atmosphere of political correctness that prevented those who were aware of his radical views from removing him from the Military, investigating him more thoroughly, or even considering bringing him up on charges of conspiring with the enemy (as a result of his many emails and conversations with Al-Queda). Some would have accused the Army of ‘profiling’. Would it have been profiling? Of Course, but we engage in profiling every day (as does the government). Let’s see; he is a radical, extremist Muslim, saying that they (Muslims) love death more than we love life, suggested on many occasions that Muslims should in fact ‘kill the infidel’, and spoke against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan many, many times.
And from the news today (11/11/09):
The government counterterrorism investigator familiar with the FBI's review of the Fort Hood case told Fox News that they simply did not have enough evidence to launch an investigation. Though officials discovered Hasan's e-mails to the imam, the investigator said the messages suggested he was seeking "spiritual and religious guidance."
"Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified," the investigator said, adding that the communications were shared with the "appropriate chains."
But even after the attacks, some have been reluctant to cite religion as a factor, as evidence has mounted that the alleged gunman's Muslim faith was at least a partial factor in the decision to mount the attack.
So, let’s examine this situation: The United States has been attacked by Extremist Muslims who call for death to America. American soldiers are being killed daily by these same people either in direct combat, or through cowardly acts of violence. The people who are doing these things are Muslims with radical views. Hasan is a Muslim with radical views! If it looks like a duck………
We (the US) are NOT engaged in a war against Islam, however, we are engaged in a war against terrorists, most of whom are Muslim. These Muslim extremists are dedicated to the destruction of every society on earth that does NOT adhere to their doctrine. They take a vow to kill the infidels *Main Entry: in·fi·del
Pronunciation: \ˈin-fə-dəl, -fə-ˌdel\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English infidele, from Middle French, from Late Latin infidelis unbelieving, from Latin, unfaithful, from in- + fidelis faithful — more at Date: 15th century
1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood
— infidel adjective
They obviously believe that 2a applies in this case, designating anyone who does not believe in Islam as the only true religion an Infidel, and therefore marked for death.
The question of whether we are at war with Islam should probably be asked of Islam, i.e. is Islam at war with America? If the answer is ‘yes’, then we should be prepared to defend ourselves without the restraints being imposed upon us by those politically correct super-liberals whose agenda is in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States.
As sad as it may be, we are in a world that REQUIRES us to be even more vigilant than ever with regard to protecting our country and citizens from any threat to our way of life, and/or our freedom. The world court has prosecuted people for engaging in, and/or promoting genocide;
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
— geno·cid·al \ˌje-nə-ˈsī-dəl\ adjective
Doesn’t the radical Muslim objective meet the definition above? So what is the answer to this dilemma? Do we simply group all Muslims as terrorists? No, of course not, but we also do NOT hesitate to label a terrorist as a Terrorist, whether from another country, or born in the USA.
Our current president has traveled extensively since taking office. He has repeatedly apologized for the actions of America without ever actually asserting our right to defend ourselves at home, or abroad. He has taken great pains to make sure that the answer to the question (“Is America at war with Islam”) is a resounding “NO”. The real question being asked should be ‘why is Islam at war with America”? The Muslim extremists say that they are at war with us because of the problems in Israel (between the Israelis and Palestinians). We all know that is nothing but an excuse for them to carry out the Jihad against democracy and freedom all over the world. They kill “infidels” all over Europe, in the US, and anywhere else they can reach them. If we don’t do something very soon, they will have the power and ability to reach us (the infidels) no matter where we are on earth. Their objective is world domination and they don’t even hesitate to kill Muslims who don’t bow to their will. They (the extremists) use Islam as a shield.
Our founding fathers wrote that we would be guaranteed our religious freedom. This was written as a direct result of the imposition by the King of England of his religion upon the people (subjects). Much like Iran is today. When America was founded, there was religious diversity among the people, but of course, nothing like we have today. Suppose for example, in 1790, the Catholics in the US, began preaching that all non-Catholics should either embrace their religious beliefs, or be executed. The non-Catholics would have had to defend themselves and their beliefs, as would any of the other denominations that existed at the time. That, of course didn’t happen. However, that is what is happening today around the world. I have nothing against a Muslim unless he or she believes the way the extremists believe and seek to do me, or my country harm. I don’t want to see all Muslims who are here legally put through hell just because they are Muslims. However, I don’t want to be restrained from questioning their intentions or their political views just because they might be offended.
In my early career, I was a financial advisor. Being Jewish, I certainly would not want to be a financial advisor (and Jewish) after the Bernie Madoff case. I think that Muslims who are NOT extremists should be doing more reaching out to the American public than they are doing in light of this type of terrorist act. There is a fundamental lack of trust between so-called westerners and Muslims and always has been. I had a client years ago from Pakistan. He was very polite, well-educated and he was a devout Muslim. He knew I was a Jew but that didn’t seem to keep him from wanting my business advice and help and I had no reason to dislike, or distrust him. He and I spent hours from time to time, having conversations during which he would tell me about the similarities between Islam and Judaism. He was very learned about both religions and told me that rather than being enemies, we were cultural “cousins”. He had a young wife who was very nice also, and two young daughters with her. She was beautiful as were the children. It was after one of those sessions with him during which he told me of the peaceful nature of Islam that he beat his wife so brutally that she called me rather than the police as she felt I would understand their culture after these sessions with her husband. I didn’t contact the police. I did get her medical attention and then began some sessions of my own. I told her about our law and that it was NOT ok for him to beat her. Eventually, she did call the police after a subsequent beating, and this coward left the US and returned to Pakistan. At a meeting with her and her Attorney, she showed us some photos of her husband standing in an embrace with Edi Amin, Momar Khadafi, and some other early terrorists. Did this experience make me hate or distrust all Muslims? No, however, it did teach me that anyone can be smiling, shaking your hand, kissing your brow, and all the while plotting your demise.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for Americans to be cautious regarding the intentions of Muslims, any more than it would be unreasonable to be cautious if walking through East Los Angeles, Harlem, North Philadelphia, or Camden NJ. This cautiousness does not make me a racist; however, I would rather be a suspected racist than a confirmed victim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)