|Muslim Gym-Goers Give New Meaning to Spinning Class|
|Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 3:38 PM|
|So, if I go to Bally’s this afternoon and try to do my daily Bible-reading in a spinning class, should I have the right to ask the manager to chill with the strobe lights and turn down the “She’s a Maniac?”
It’s ludicrous. When you do inappropriate things in inappropriate places, people’s reactions to your inappropriate behavior are not necessarily bigoted. They’re not always anti-Muslim. Sometimes they’re anti-silly.
To make a gym perfectly suitable for prayer at all times–five times a day, even– would make it something other than a gym, and the owners have no obligation to run anything other than a gym.
Would it really be “OK” or “regarded highly” for me to pray at a public gym and expect not to be disturbed? Of course not. I’m free to give it a try, as are Muslims, but I shouldn’t expect to be able to do it in peace. It’s. a. gym. I daresay if it happened to me, there’d probably be plenty of lefty groups willing to jump in on the manager’s side.
Speaking of doing inappropriate things in inappropriate places, check out the rules of “Flight Club,” another fabulous video from Sout al Kuffar.
Categories: Barry G., Culture, Nonsense, Politics, US Politics
The rest of us maybe after you hang like a dog jackass.
A somber Saddam Hussein called on Iraqis to forgive each other Tuesday, when he returned to court two days after another panel of judges had condemned him to death for crimes against humanity.
Saddam, speaking to the court in the afternoon session, cited references to the Prophet Muhamad and Jesus who had asked for forgiveness for those who had opposed them.
“I call on all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, to forgive, reconcile and shake hands,” Saddam said.
“Hello, my name is saddam and I am full of shit.”
Cross-posted at NeoCon Command Center.
Could Senator Edward Kennedy be a traitor to the United States of America, as well as a drunk and a man who arguably got away with murder? It seems that he very well may.
From Cybercast News: (All emphasis mine.)
KGB Letter Outlines Sen. Kennedy’s Overtures to Soviets, Prof Says
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 20, 2006
(CNSNews.com) – The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.
“We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger,” said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”
In my opinion, this is just a symptom of the major fault of the Democratic Party: An inexplicable self-loathing which leads them to believe that America is always at fault when faced with an aggressor; that we must have done something, or committed some sort of offense to make our enemies hate us. It is impossible that we are not to blame for the hostility of hateful or envious nations.
In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.
Ladies and Gentlemen, that is HIGH TREASON, is it not? We need to look into this, and if it has any veracity, I want to see Sen. Kennedy dragged from the Senate floor in handcuffs!
The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.
In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy’s offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.
Former Sen. Tunney should be prosecuted as well!
At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.
“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”
We definitely need to find out the scope of this treacherous Democratic ploy!
It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to “confidential contacts” so Andropov could be alerted to the senator’s proposals.
Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.
“Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan,” Kengor said. “But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders.”
Got that? Kennedy is more enamored of the COMMIES than our own leaders!
In Kennedy’s view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan’s unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter. “Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war,” Kengor said. “He hoped to counter Reagan’s polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects.”
I am aghast! Utterly aghast!
As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow — to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.
In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.
But Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.
In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor’s estimation. “If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can’t imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “Things could have gotten ugly.”
Reagan knew exactly what he was doing, and Kennedy actually thought that he would interfere. Thank God Almighty that he did not succeed.
In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan’s policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a “gracious concession” after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.
The Washington Times also has an article on this, albeit Op-Ed.
The apple obviously did not fall far from the tree, either; Joseph Kennedy, (Ted Kennedy’s father) met with the German ambassador in London on June 13th, 1938, who reported to Berlin that Kennedy told him that, “it was not so much the fact that we want to get rid of the Jews that was so harmful to us, but rather the loud clamour with which we accompanied this purpose. [Kennedy] himself fully understood our Jewish policy.”
I would submit to you, my friends, that if this matter is not seriously looked into that we will know beyond a shadow of a doubt who exists in the “culture of corruption.” I just cannot imagine why Kennedy is allowed to sit on the Hill, a god in his own mind, beyond culpability for his actions.
Categories: Cate, Culture
That’s the headline anyway. In Monday’s Raleigh News and Observer, there was a story below the fold on the front page about Johnston county teacher Rebecca Withrow who was charged earlier this month with having sex with an 11 year old student. The article takes a somewhat dismissive stance toward the case, apparently because 90% of charges nationally involve male teachers. Crediting Mary Kay Letournea and Debra LaFave with drawing added attention to what the figures say is a relatively rare phenomena.
“Only 4% of educators who were investigated for sexual misconduct were females” according to a US Department of Education 2004 report. Students tell another story. They say “43% of inappropriate behavior came from female teachers.” All very interesting statistics. But when it really comes down to it – does the gender of the predator matter? The real question is – are our children safe?
The same 2004 report by educators about educators offers startling insight that ought to rattle even the most complacent parents. “researchers found that nearly 10% of students are targets of sexual suggestions or contact by teachers at some point in their school career.” Yes. You read that correctly. A conservative illustration, because buses can hold more than 50 children, would be to say that out of every 2 busloads of children, 10 children will be a victim or propositioned in some way by an adult educator before he/she leaves the public school system. Let me ask you mom and dad, how many busloads of kids come to your child’s school? 10? 20? The odds it will be your child are 1 in 10. Most suburban elementary school have 300 children. That’s 30 victims – an entire 2nd grade class.
My guess is that children are more likely to be propositioned as they get older. But that’s just a guess. Middle school typically hold about 750 to 800 children. That’s 80. High schools hold 1500. 150 students of those are targets according to the Department of Education’s own admission.
Our children. In the crosshairs.
Categories: Brooke, Middle East & Radical Islam
Lessons since 9/11
It is difficult in history to find any civilization that asks as much of others as does the contemporary Middle East—and yet so little of itself. If I were to sum up the collective mentality of the current Arab Middle East—predicated almost entirely on the patriarchal sense of lost “honor” and the rational calculation to murder appeasing liberals and appease murdering authoritarians— it would run something like the following:
(1) We will pump oil at $3 and must sell it over $50— and still blame you for stealing our natural treasure.
(2) We will damn your culture and politics, but expect our own to immigrate in the thousands to your shores; upon arrival any attempt to integrate Muslim immigrants into Western pluralistic society will be seen as Islamaphobic.
(3) Send us your material goods, whether machine tools, I-pods, or antibiotics. We desperately want them, but will neither make the necessary changes in our own statist, authoritarian, religiously intolerant, tribal, and patriarchal culture to allow us to produce them ourselves, nor will show any appreciation for the genius of others who can do what we cannot.
(4) We ostensibly wish you to stop the killing of Muslims by ourselves and others—Milosevic murdering Kosovars, Saddam destroying Kuwaitis, Kurds, and Shiites, Russians killing Afghans and Chechnyans—but should you concretely attempt to do so, we will immediately consider your intervention far worse than the mayhem caused by others or ourselves.
(5) Any indigenous failure in the Arab Middle East will eventually be blamed on the United States or Israel.
(6) Your own sense of multiculturalism must serve as an apology for our own violent pathologies, that can only be seen as different from, never worse than, your own culture.
(7) We must at all times talk of anti-Americanism and why we want you out of the Middle East; you must never become anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, much less close your borders to our immigrants and students.
(8) We will tolerate and often defend those who burn churches, ethnically cleanse Jews from our cities, behead priests, kill nuns, and shoot infidels as the necessary, if sometimes regrettable, efforts of our more zealous to defend Islam. But if any free spirit in the West satirizes Islam, we will immediately demand that Western governments condemn such blasphemy—or else!
(9) Material aid—billions to Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, or the Palestinians—is our entitlement. Any attempt to curtail it is seen as an assault on the Arab nation
(10) We are deathly afraid of nuclear Russia, China, and India who have little tolerance for either Islamism or terrorism, and so will ignore their felonies, while killing you for your misdemeanors.
English is NOT America’s Official Language According to These 38 Senators – Election Day is Coming….Traitors!!Posted October 23, 2006 by barryg
Categories: Barry G., Nonsense, Politics, US Politics
38 SENATORS VOTED AGAINST MAKING ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF AMERICA. What do they all have in common? Gee….Can you say demlib?
HERE THEY ARE:
REMEMBER THIS THE DAY YOU VOTE. None of the above deserves elected office in the United States.
copywrite 2006 – Barry G.
Categories: Barry G., Nonsense, Politics, US Politics
On Friday night, Hillary Clinton finally had to face an unscripted, uncontrolled media event — a debate with her feisty opponent John Spencer, the Republican candidate for Senator from New York this year.
Spencer pinned her ears back with his opening statement when he declared: “I am the only person here who really wants to be the Senator from New York …. she wants to be president.”
And then he exploited the opening by reminding Hillary “you’re not the president yet.”
“How dare you? Do you know who I am?”
During the debate, Spencer highlighted Hillary’s vote against the NSA’s wiretapping program and her efforts to kill the Patriot Act.
John Spencer began his challenge to Hillary. The race starts today.
Spencer crushed her with snappy reparte’ like she used to hear at home
Hillary’s huge financial advantage and her lead in the polls was of little use because it was obvious that the empress has no clothes.
While Hillary gave scripted, rehearsed answers, Spencer challenged her failure to deliver on her campaign promises of 200,000 new jobs and mocked her refusal to accept blame for anything, pinning the job loss on Bush and the North Korea bomb on the State Department.
But beyond the words, there were the appearances. Hillary Clinton was a Richard Nixon look-alike tonight, wearing pancake makeup, featuring hooded eyes that never met the camera, and looking like she felt — angry at having to waste time justifying her Senate tenure in something as trivial as an election.
John Spencer may not beat Hillary, but he sure made her sweat . If she wins by less than 12 points — the margin Lazio lost by in 2000 — she will have a lot of explaining to do. And John Spencer, may just be the guy to make it happen.
Dugg…..please get the You Tube on this.
copywrite 2006 – Barry G.