http://newsbusters.org/blogs/alana-goodman/2010/08/17/arab-tv-director-ground-zero-mosque-would-be-monument-terrorists
Arab TV Director: Ground Zero Mosque would be ‘Monument’ for Terrorists
By Alana Goodman
The director of Al-Arabiya TV, a popular Arab-language news station, wrote that "Muslims never asked for" the proposed mosque at Ground Zero, and "do not care about its construction," in a column for London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on Aug. 16.
“I can't imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime,” wrote Al-Arabiya director Abd Al-Rahman al-Rashid in the column, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?”
Al-Rashid said that President Barack Obama’s support of the mosque was similar to the administration’s previous decision to close Guantanamo Bay and try suspected terrorists as civilians. “"Muslims do not [really] yearn [to build] a mosque near the 9/11 cemetery, nor do they care whether bin Laden's cook is tried in a civilian court [or a military one],” said al-Rashid, noting that “tens of thousands of Muslims, likewise accused of extremism, are imprisoned in [even] worse conditions in the Muslim countries.”
According to the director, Muslims care about issues that impact “the destinies of [entire] peoples,” such as the creation of a Palestinian state.
“The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery,” said al-Rashid.
Al-Arabiya TV is based out of the United Arab Emirates, and is a direct competitor with Al-Jazeera, another Arab-language news station. Al-Arabiya “is consistently rated among the top pan-Arab stations by Middle East audiences,” reported BBC News in 2003.
According to Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, al-Rashid’s column “should mean the end of plans for a mosque near Ground Zero.”
“Mr. Al-Rashid supports President Obama’s stand for the mosque in principle (as he supports Obama-like or even beyond-Obama-like policies with respect to the Middle East). He’s no neocon. But his practical case against building the mosque is irrefutable,” wrote Kristol on the Weekly Standard website on Aug. 17. “It should lead well-meaning liberals to join with us dastardly conservatives (well, it would be too painful for them to join with us—they can simply act in parallel, on their own, while continuing to denounce us) in calling for the organizers to shelve the plans for a mosque at this site.”
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Barstow, California- Illegal Immigrant sent to trial for the Rape and Murder of an Arizona Woman
http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/stand-21110-barstow-trial.html
BARSTOW • An illegal immigrant will stand trial for the May rape and murder of an Arizona woman in a Barstow motel.
Judge Glenn Yabuno ruled Thursday that there was enough evidence for Cesar Rascon, 31, to face a jury trial for the killing of Melissa Curley, 33, of Arizona. Rascon is charged with murder, rape and kidnapping for the purposed of rape.
Curley’s body was found by her friend, Stewart Johnson, in a room at the Sunset Motel on the morning of May 15.
Detective Leo Griego gave testimony describing a surveillance video from the motel that he viewed showing Curley arriving at the Sunset Inn, drunk, staggering and barely able to stand. The video footage also showed Johnson trying to help her up and get her into her room.
After Johnson gave up on attempting to help Curley and left her leaning against her truck, Griego said the video showed Rascon forcibly taking Curley into his room.
Forensic pathologist Steven Trenkle testified that he examined Curley’s body and concluded that she died from a combination of being strangled and asphyxiation from a plastic bag that was shoved down her throat, with alcohol intoxication and injuries from a recent drunken fall as contributing factors.
Rascon’s lawyer, Susan Slater said that there was a gap in the surveillance tape between 6:30 and 9 a.m. on May 15, and there was no evidence linking Rascon to the killing other than footage of Rascon and Curley entering Rascon’s room.
Slater said that Curley entered the room on her own free will and that she did not pull away from Rascon on the video, but was drunkenly swaying. She said that kidnapping and rape charges should be dropped.
Judge Yabuno said that Curley was so intoxicated that she was nearly comatose and did not drop the rape or kidnapping charges.
Rascon’s next day in court is scheduled for Wednesday.
BARSTOW • An illegal immigrant will stand trial for the May rape and murder of an Arizona woman in a Barstow motel.
Judge Glenn Yabuno ruled Thursday that there was enough evidence for Cesar Rascon, 31, to face a jury trial for the killing of Melissa Curley, 33, of Arizona. Rascon is charged with murder, rape and kidnapping for the purposed of rape.
Curley’s body was found by her friend, Stewart Johnson, in a room at the Sunset Motel on the morning of May 15.
Detective Leo Griego gave testimony describing a surveillance video from the motel that he viewed showing Curley arriving at the Sunset Inn, drunk, staggering and barely able to stand. The video footage also showed Johnson trying to help her up and get her into her room.
After Johnson gave up on attempting to help Curley and left her leaning against her truck, Griego said the video showed Rascon forcibly taking Curley into his room.
Forensic pathologist Steven Trenkle testified that he examined Curley’s body and concluded that she died from a combination of being strangled and asphyxiation from a plastic bag that was shoved down her throat, with alcohol intoxication and injuries from a recent drunken fall as contributing factors.
Rascon’s lawyer, Susan Slater said that there was a gap in the surveillance tape between 6:30 and 9 a.m. on May 15, and there was no evidence linking Rascon to the killing other than footage of Rascon and Curley entering Rascon’s room.
Slater said that Curley entered the room on her own free will and that she did not pull away from Rascon on the video, but was drunkenly swaying. She said that kidnapping and rape charges should be dropped.
Judge Yabuno said that Curley was so intoxicated that she was nearly comatose and did not drop the rape or kidnapping charges.
Rascon’s next day in court is scheduled for Wednesday.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Surprise Surprise Obama Promotes Mosque
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obama-reframes-mosque-deb_b_684160.html
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Freedom of Speech and the Right We The People Have
Everyday here in The United States people say things that can be considered off color, hateful, untrue, distasteful or against public policy; With this said, many Americans claim that such speech should be banned or ruled illegal. Though I disagree many of the doctrines preached by many who use there freedom of speech to express there views, I still defend the right of free speech and the rights included by the 1st Amendment. Many people don't truely understand this "Right" and take free speech for granted. Many Americans don't realize that in many countries, if you step out of line in terms of speech, you might lose your tongue better yet your life. Mainstream America doesn't understand that our forefathers fought and died just for this right, and that the 1st Amendment wasn't written to protect "politically correct" polite speech, but rather it was written to protect offensive speech. These days people feel that they must watch what they say because something might be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive or insensitive, but why? The term political correctness as defined by Merriam Websters dictionary is : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.
Political Correctness is a totalitarian ideology, and "the totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole"(1).
So why are we as a people and as a nation, policing our freedom of speech in order to "stroke" or "ease" the senses of others who are "victims" of such speech? I understand that we don't have to be malicious and/or attack one another verbally, but what I'm discussing is the very fact that people feel they can only say certain things in certain crowds in order to not be offensive. For example, today I was at a dinner with some fairly intellectual adults and I wanted to bring up the controversial Ground Zero mosque being built due to the fact some of our guests were from Long Island and they are right near where the highly debated issue is taking place. Deep down inside I wanted to let everyone know how I felt, yet something in my head told me don't say anything some of these people might be muslim or highly liberal and accuse me of just being a racist. Now I think back on where in the world I might have learned this thought process where I can't mention something because someone might label me something Im not. I think back to two years ago in which I was in a debate and discuss style English class, and in this class we had 8-10 foreign exchange students from Taiwan and China. We debated the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry firearms in ones household. One of the students from China spoke out that they are not allowed to carry guns and that the crime rate is low in China, he also said in a demanding tone that no one in America should be able to have a firearm and that they should all be taken away. This "offended" me and due to my immaturity at the time I blurted out to the individual in class that the reason he doesn't understand this right is because in China he has not rights, and that he should not be allowed a voice in an American classroom in which he was directly trying to spew communist rhetoric into my ears. Now 50 years ago this comment would of been applauded, but to the contraire the teacher was aghast and the class acted as if I screamed "Heil Hitler". Later on in the week I was approached by a guidance counselor in which he told me that the professor had requested a meeting with me, the guidance counselor and the other Chinese students, all claiming that what I said was racist! My question to the professor is when did Chinese become a race? Thats a nationality! Not one racial slur came from my mouth in that classroom yet the accusation was that I screamed racist comments at the student! This is just another case of Academia blaming your opinions and use of the 1st Amendment as racist whenever the topic of choice is opposite of their own opinions.
I just want every American to realize he/she can say what you want as long as it is not threatening someone.
The 1st Amendment :
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.
1) The Origins of Political Correctness, Accuracy in Academia.org
Political Correctness is a totalitarian ideology, and "the totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole"(1).
So why are we as a people and as a nation, policing our freedom of speech in order to "stroke" or "ease" the senses of others who are "victims" of such speech? I understand that we don't have to be malicious and/or attack one another verbally, but what I'm discussing is the very fact that people feel they can only say certain things in certain crowds in order to not be offensive. For example, today I was at a dinner with some fairly intellectual adults and I wanted to bring up the controversial Ground Zero mosque being built due to the fact some of our guests were from Long Island and they are right near where the highly debated issue is taking place. Deep down inside I wanted to let everyone know how I felt, yet something in my head told me don't say anything some of these people might be muslim or highly liberal and accuse me of just being a racist. Now I think back on where in the world I might have learned this thought process where I can't mention something because someone might label me something Im not. I think back to two years ago in which I was in a debate and discuss style English class, and in this class we had 8-10 foreign exchange students from Taiwan and China. We debated the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry firearms in ones household. One of the students from China spoke out that they are not allowed to carry guns and that the crime rate is low in China, he also said in a demanding tone that no one in America should be able to have a firearm and that they should all be taken away. This "offended" me and due to my immaturity at the time I blurted out to the individual in class that the reason he doesn't understand this right is because in China he has not rights, and that he should not be allowed a voice in an American classroom in which he was directly trying to spew communist rhetoric into my ears. Now 50 years ago this comment would of been applauded, but to the contraire the teacher was aghast and the class acted as if I screamed "Heil Hitler". Later on in the week I was approached by a guidance counselor in which he told me that the professor had requested a meeting with me, the guidance counselor and the other Chinese students, all claiming that what I said was racist! My question to the professor is when did Chinese become a race? Thats a nationality! Not one racial slur came from my mouth in that classroom yet the accusation was that I screamed racist comments at the student! This is just another case of Academia blaming your opinions and use of the 1st Amendment as racist whenever the topic of choice is opposite of their own opinions.
I just want every American to realize he/she can say what you want as long as it is not threatening someone.
The 1st Amendment :
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.
1) The Origins of Political Correctness, Accuracy in Academia.org
Friday, August 6, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Wake Up America: To All that are concerned with America's safety, s...
Wake Up America: To All that are concerned with America's safety, s...: "This morning as I woke, I turned on the news just like every other middle class person in America. But the events that unfolded in front of ..."
Wake Up America: What happened to Patriotism?
Wake Up America: What happened to Patriotism?: "Well its a simple question. What happened to Patriotism? What happened to the spirit that each and everyone of our fellow countrymen used to..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)