'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, June 27, 2009

Celebrate Persian Women

Bookmark and Share
posted by Carlos Echevarria at permanent link# 5 Comments

Leave It to Carol!

Carol's Full Metal Jacket Reach Around:

Leave it to Beaver was an overly romanticized look at family life in the late 50s and early 60s. Ward and June Cleaver are raising two sons: Wally and Theodore, who everyone calls by the nickname "Beaver."

Beaver is a kid who gets into trouble usually because one of his friends talks him into it. It is then that his father Ward has to help straighten the situation out by gently but firmly teaching Beaver the lessons of life.

Overly romanticized? Yet bet. The Beaver still brings smiles to my face.

Let’s get started with our weekly FMJRA ritual that shamelessly obeys Rule 2 on how to get a million hits on your blog.

Our taciturn professor at American Power gets into a flamethrowing contest with a verbose atheist-libertarian-socialist-vegan haggis-eatin’-blogger. There’s also a dynamic Photoshop™ of the blogger as well. Have a look and a laugh.

Saber Point’s Stogie kicks in with a few definitions of a libertarian-socialist too.

Pat, our Southern Belle, at And So It Goes In Shreveport points out some “fun facts” about Cap And Trade. Teh. Something about a SCOTUS ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower.

Dave, the proprietor of At The Point Of A Gun, has two great posts. The first is a school-age Barry at the blackboard as a kind of ”Johnny One Note” and the second is a kind of Sherlock Holmesian detective piece on how Fearless Reader is better than you.

Common Cents strongly believes in common sense and points out that Congressman Barney Frank is up to his old tricks, this time with more power. He wants to “roll the dice” again with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Good gweef, Bahney. You’re such a putz.

Cyclops Guy over at Eye of Polyphemus has a little cheesecake for the cheesecake lover in you.
The lovely Fausta injects some humor into the carbon offsets scam by informing us that shallow breathers and couch potatoes will reap a goldmine from those who “spew out earth-threatening gas at an alarming rate. Are you reading this, Trog?

The eternal optimist, Fishersville Mike has some good news from South Carolina.

Kathy Shaidle’s Five Feet of Fury offers some valuable information for the time zone challenged.

A courageous woman flips the bird to the president and the Founding Bloggers has the pic.

The newest addition to the No Sheeples Here blogroll is Left Coast Rebel. Tim doesn’t disappoint with his piece on adventures on the high seas. Shiver me timbers!

Carlos, my dear, I considered not mentioning your blog this week because you highlighted the score of a certain baseball game involving a certain team that I love. It’s only because you’re so darn cute and you stole my heart some time back that I have decided to be the better person and throw you some linky-love.

Hammer Time for health care? Legal Insurrection declares a Michael Dukakis “kah-kah” boo boo.

The pearl-wearing scourge of the blogosphere, Little Miss Attila, reminds us that no one likes a whistleblower who doesn’t play well with others.

Moe Lane alerts us to The Great Mutated Frog Pollution Scare.

Paco intertwines the drama of stooges, buckets of water and toy trains.

Is it correct to pluralize the word “woman” as “wimmin”? Read Dan Collins’ piece on Angry Wimmin.

I think William Teach over at Pirate’s Cove believes that Harry Reid should walk the plank or some such. Aaaargh!

Power Line lines up the case that our would-be masters have no intention of relying on the hideously substandard socialized medicine they intend to ram down our throats.

Imagine you’re at the poker table and you’ve been dealt three aces. You ask the dealer for one more card and that card is the fourth ace in the deck. How can you lose the game? Oh you can and Pundit & Pundette explain the rules of the game.

Red State has a meme on electricity rates: Barry Soetoro stars in The Electric Horseman.
Are we trading our wealth for politics? The carnivorous conservative, Dan Riehl of Riehl World View, has a thought or two on the subject.

Is America in a death spiral? John Hawkins discusses the looter/moocher sleeper hold on productivity in his piece entitled, “Will Atlas Shrugged Come True?”

The Astute Bloggers have dubbed Dear Leader a sociopath who thinks maybe our elderly would be better off not having needed surgery and take a painkiller instead. Heartless. Simply heartless.

What we have here is a stunning case of eco-douchebaggery. Jesse, my spellchecker says that’s not a word. I like it nonetheless. Go have a peek at Athens Runaway.

Mr. Million Hits schools Jesse Hathaway, the Ohio Snark King.

Andrea Shea King connects the dots on the shady shenanigans of the Simon Corp. [Obambots] as they shut down the upcoming Atlanta Tea Party.

From the bowl of the Rude Dog we have a tale of two women, or is that now “wimmin”?

The Deucemeister over at Skepticrats has a post up about Chairman Maobama’s directive to bring me some “ethicists” who see nothing wrong with cloning humans for experimentation.

The Sundries Shack’s Jimmie Bise wants to put a “cap” in the cap and trade program which will kill jobs and cost you a lot more money and will have no discernible effect on the environment.
“Common sense and a sense of humor is the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.” The TrogloPundit could not resist firing up his 1953 IBM 8088 processor with 256KB of memory [he is a caveman after all] to download some “Thriller” videos. A day later he was able to dance to them.

Monica, not of Lewinsky fame, but Conyers of Detroit City Council President Pro Tem fame is in a weeeeeeeeee bit’o’dookie and the blogprof has every sordid detail over at his place. What’s that you say? Couldn't have happened to a more deserving politician. Right you are!

A delusional Democrat who’s lying? WHAAAAAAAT? Trac-A-‘Crat drops a dime on Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

I had my doubts about whether Wiki rocks but Velociworld desperately tries to point his readers to a very odd co-inky-dinky.

Well, that’s a wrap for this week. Tune in again next week for another exciting edition of Full Metal Jacket Reach-Around. Please enjoy this episode of “Leave It To Beaver”.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Carlos Echevarria at permanent link# 0 Comments

Western Law Vs. Islamic Law

From the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, via Vlad Tepes:

Is Islam Compatible With Democracy and Human Rights?

Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society 22 June 2009

” Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies…” Hurgronje [277]

” The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region… The system of free elections is not suitable to our country” King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

At least King Fahd has had the honesty to admit the incompatibility of Islam and Democracy. Meanwhile Western Islamic apologists and modernising Muslims continue to look for democratic principles in Islam and Islamic history.

[A] Human Rights and Islam

Let us look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and compare it to Islamic law and doctrine.

Article 1 ” All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood “.

Article 2 ” Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status “.

Article 3 ” Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person ”

Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms ”

Comments: (1) Women are inferior under Islamic law; their testimony in a court of law is worth half that of a man; their movement is strictly restricted, they cannot marry a non-Muslim

(2) Non – Muslims living in Muslim countries have inferior status under Islamic law, they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammed who said ” Two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia “, non _ Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion, build churches, possess Bibles etc.

(3) Non-believers — atheists (surely the most neglected minority in history) — in Muslim countries do not have “the right to life “. They are to be killed. Muslim doctors of law generally divide sins into great sins and little sins. Of the seventeen great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery etc..

(4) Slavery is recognised in the Koran. Muslims are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves (Sura iv.3); they are allowed to take possession of married women if they are slaves (Sura iv.28); the helpless position of the slave as regard his master illustrates the helpless position of the false gods of Arabia in the presence of their Creator (Sura xvi.77).

Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Comments (1) We have seen what punishments are in store for the transgressers of the Holy Law: amputations, crucifixion, stoning to death, floggings. I suppose a Muslim could argue that these were not unusual for a Muslim country, but what of their inhumanity? Again a Muslim could contend that they are of divine origin and must not be judged by human criteria. By human standards, they ARE inhuman.

Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

The whole notion of a person who can make choice, and can be held morally responsible is lacking in Islam; as is the entire notion of human rights.

Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 deal with the rights of an accused person to a fair trial.

Comments (1) As Schacht has shown under the Sharia considerations of good faith, fairness, justice, truth, and so on play only a subordinate role. The idea of criminal guilt is lacking.

(2) Revenge for a killing is officially sanctioned, though a money recompense is also possible.

(3) The legal procedure, under Islam, can hardly be called impartial or fair, for in the matter of witnesses all sorts of injustices emerge. A non _Muslim may not testify against a Muslim. For example, a Muslim may rob a non _Muslim in his home with impunity if there are no witnesses except the non_ Muslim himself. The evidence of Muslim women is admitted only very exceptionally and then only from twice the number required of men.

Article 16 deals with the rights of marriage of men and women

Comment (1) As we shall see in our chapter on women, women under Islam do not have equal rights: they are not free to marry whom they wish, the rights of divorce are not equal.

Article 18 ” Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance “.

Comments (1) Quite clearly under Islam, one does not have the right to change one’s religion, if one is born into a Muslim family. Applying double standards, Muslims are quite happy to accept converts to their religion, but a Muslim may not convert to another religion, this would be apostasy which is punishable by death. Here is how the great commentator Baydawi (c.1291) sees the matter:

” Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard “.

Comment (2) Statistics on conversions from Islam to Christianity, and therefore apostasy, are hard to establish for obvious reasons. There is, however, a myth that Muslims are impossible to convert. On the contrary we do have enough evidence of literally thousands of Muslims abandoning Islam for Christ from the Middle Ages to Modern Times; the most spectacular cases being, amongst others, those of Moroccan and Tunisian princes in the 17th century, of the monk Constantin the African. Count Rudt – Collenberg has found evidence at the Casa dei Catecumeni at Rome of 1087 conversions between 1614 and 1798.According to A.T. Willis and others between two or three million Muslims converted to Christianity after the massacres of the communists in Indonesia, in 1965, described earlier [chapter x] In France alone, in the 1990s, there are two or three hundred converts to Christianity from Islam, EACH YEAR. According to Ann Mayer, in Egypt conversions have been ” occurring with enough frequency to anger Muslim clerics and to mobilize conservative Muslim opinion behind proposals to enact a law imposing the death penalty for apostasy “[Mayer177]. Ms. Mayer points out that, in the past, many women have been to tempted to convert from Islam to ameliorate their lot.

Comment (3) Those who convert to Christianity and choose to stay in the Muslim country do so at great personal danger. The convert has most of his rights denied him, identity papers are often refused him, so that he has difficulties leaving his country; his marriage is declared null and void, his children are taken away from him to be brought up by Muslims, and he forfeits his rights of inheritance. Often the family will take matters into their own hands and simply assassinate the apostate; the family are, of course, not punished. [Gaudeul]

Article 19 ” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers “.

Comments (1) The rights enshrined in articles 18 and 19 have been consistently violated in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In all three countries, the rights of their Bahai, Ahmadi and Shia minorities respectively have been denied. All three countries justify their actions by reference to Sharia. Christians in these countries are frequently arrested on charges of blasphemy and their rights denied.

The rest below the fold:Read More »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments

Obama's Appointments: Koh and Pandith

Obama continues to appoint people who do not have America's interest at heart, to say the least.

From Islam in Action:

One world government, here we come.

Harold Koh Confirmed After Long GOP Delay

Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed as the State Department Legal Advisor in a roll call vote, 62-35.

Koh was tapped for the job nearly four months ago, but has faced criticism from some conservatives for an alleged "transnational" approach to the law. But ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) threw his support to Koh, in a statement Thursday: "After reading his answers to dozens of questions, attending his hearing in its entirety, meeting with him privately, and reviewing his writings, I believe that Dean Koh is unquestionably qualified to assume the post for which he is nominated."

But, here's the truth:

The Islamic catering, America destroying Obama is at it again. He has announced his pick for the State Department's top legal advisor. His pick is radicalHarol Koh, who has stated that he has no problem allowing Sharia law into our US courts. It is sad that the American voters could not figure out just how radical Obama is.

Koh: Wants US courts to apply "world law."
March 30, 2009

JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations' legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North Korea and Saddam-era Iraq. 

Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.

President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. 

It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international law should vanish. 

What would this look like in a practical sense? Well, California voters have overruled their courts, which had imposed same-sex marriage on the state. Koh would like to see such matters go up the chain through federal courts -- which, in turn, should look to the rest of the world. If Canada, the European Human Rights Commission and the United Nations all say gay marriage should be legal -- well, then, it should be legal in California too, regardless of what the state's voters and elected representatives might say. 

He even believes judges should use this "logic" to strike down the death penalty, which is clearly permitted in the US Constitution. 

The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified -- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes. 

Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States." 

A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts." 

Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy. 

Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In 2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law -- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience." 

He has also accused President George Bush of abusing international law to justify the invasion of Iraq, comparing his "advocacy of unfettered presidential power" to President Richard Nixon's. And that was the first Bush -- Koh was attacking the 1991 operation to liberate Kuwait, four days after fighting began in Operation Desert Storm. 

Koh has also praised the Nicaraguan Sandinistas' use in the 1980s of the International Court of Justice to get Congress to stop funding the Contras. Imagine such international lawyering by rogue nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela today, and you can see the danger in Koh's theories. 

Koh, a self-described "activist," would plainly promote his views aggressively once at State. He's not likely to feel limited by the letter of the law -- in 1994, he told The New Republic: "I'd rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning." 

Worse, the State job might be a launching pad for a Supreme Court nomination. (He's on many liberals' short lists for the high court.) Since this job requires Senate confirmation, it's certainly a useful trial run. 

What happens to Koh in the Senate will send an important signal. If he sails through to State, he's a far better bet to make it onto the Supreme Court. So Senate Republicans have a duty to expose and confront his radical views. 

Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be: You can pick 'em as radical as you like. 

And then, there's Obama's new Special Envoy to the Middle East, Farah Pandith:

Farah Pandith: Obama’s Recycled Envoy to the Muslim World

Is this the change we had in mind?


June 27, 2009


The Obama administration has appointed a Muslim woman, Farah Pandith, as America’s special representative to the Muslim world.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Farah Pandith would play a leading role in US efforts to “engage Muslims around the world”.

Ms. Pandith’s appointment is yet another bizarre move by the Obama Administration that has managed to slither under the dysfunctional radar of America’s MainStreamMedia®.

During his inaugural speech, and again in his “Apology to Islam” rant at Cairo University, President Barack Obama pledged to seek a ‘new way forward’ with the Muslim world, after what he claims were eight years of tense relations with the Ummah under former President Bush.

Obama’s actions and proclamations should keep historians and psychoanalysts occupied for decades to come.

Consider this;

Barack Hussein Obama, who has obviously assumed the role as spokesman for the “Muslim World”, is the only leader of a Muslim country to have complained about the Bush Administration’s relations with the Islamic leadership. Indeed, many American conservatives and non-Muslims were appalled by what they viewed as Dubya’s unhealthy preoccupation with all things Islamic.

For those delusional souls who insist on embracing every unsubstantiated statement, and shallow, whimsical appointment made by the Administration, may I remind you of these uncomfortable facts.

The Obama-Clinton envoy to the “Muslim World” has, since 2007, been George W. Bush’s “Senior Advisor for Muslim Engagement”. Perhaps Ms.Pandith’s appointment is part of an energy saving and recycling scheme. There certainly will not be much of a carbon footprint cast in D.C. since Farah has held virtually the same position for over two years. She won’t even have to move offices.

The main significance of the Bush-Obama-Clinton envoy is her gender. Islam’s representatives to the Judeo-Christian World have traditionally been bearded males.

Osama bin Laden , Ayman al-Zawahiri , and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should be favorably impressed by Ms.Pandith’s re-appointment.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 3 Comments

Okay, This Is Silly

With a hat tip to Social Sense:

Well, at least Bugs Bunny wasn't an interfaithing dhimmi. Heh.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments

Obama Proposes Detaining Terrorists Indefinitely - Wow, What a Hopey-Changey Idea

From Ace:

Even more likely to be smothered in the wall-to-wall MJ coverage and with every politics-minded person watching the circus in the house, the Obama Administration leaked this afternoon that the President is drawing up an executive order to allow indefinite detention of terrorism suspects.

It's like I've already seen this movie...

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January deadline.

Another day, another Obama campaign promise broken. I'd just like to hear him say once: "Okay, so Bush was right."

Pamela's take on this is completely different than mine. She says, this is not good news at all. Taking into account the photograph below, I gotta admit, she may be right:

Khelil Mamut, Ablakim Turahun, and Salahidin Abdulahat (left to right) enjoy butter pecan ice cream at a local Hamilton shop

Obama is releasing Gitmo terrorists to vacation resort spots with pink beaches, crystal clear water and azure blue skies. Obama is hell bent on closing GITMO and yet .....

Obama has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely. If he is releasing the Islamic terrorists at GITMO, reaching out to Hezballah and Hamas, who exactly are the "terrorism suspects"? The "right wing extremists" outrageously and falsely accused in this report?Vets, tea party attendees, Jews and great American patriots like .....moi?

Who exactly would Obama lock up indefinitely? I don't care how the BO's hos in the media frame it, this executive order is not for Islamic terrorists. Don't spit in my face and tell me it's ocean spray. I would sooner let every terrorist go than give that maniac in the White House this kind of power.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts