April 17-18, 2007
Apr 17 01:03 The MAC, MAS, Muslim Brotherhood & "The Project" Apr 17 03:44 Reid's Obstinance Hurting Soldiers Apr 17 10:08 Liberal Propaganda From Obey & Byrd Apr 17 10:46 Letter to A-Klo Apr 18 02:59 Animal Rights Activists Upset Apr 18 10:33 Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Apr 18 13:00 DFL-Dominated Senate Rejects Lobbying Reform Apr 18 15:35 Hillary Upset Over SCOTUS Ruling
Prior Years: 2006
The MAC, MAS, Muslim Brotherhood & "The Project"
This AP article is contradicted by Kathy Kersten article. Here's what the AP article said:
Islamic religious law forbids the carrying of alcohol.That's a pretty definitive statement. It isn't nuanced; there aren't any qualifiers in it. Now let's examine a paragraph from Ms. Kersten's article:
"I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi." Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."According to actual Somali Muslims, carrying alcohol isn't forbidden. According to the AP, it's forbidden. Given the AP's credibility problems, I think I'll trust the Somali Muslims quoted in Kathy Kersten's article.
The quote from the AP article is part of an article about the MAC's hearing today. Here's what happened:
A Metropolitan Airports Commission panel approved on Monday tougher penalties for cab drivers who refuse service to customers carrying alcohol. Airport officials say more than 70 percent of the cabbies at Twin Cities Airport are Muslim, and many refuse to take customers who have alcohol.It's nice to see the MAC put its foot down. I've said before that giving in on this would set a bad precedent. If the MAC had given in on this, it isn't that far-fetched to think that Muslim cabbies all over the Twin Cities would've tried expanding this rule to the entire Twin Cities.
Islamic religious law forbids the carrying of alcohol.
Under the new penalties, a driver's airport taxi license would be suspended for 30 days for the first offense and revoked for two years for a second offense.
Cab driver Abdinoor Dolal called the penalties punitive and asked commissioners to take a measured approach.
Commissioner Mike Landy said the commissioners have carefully weighed the issue. It passed on an unanimous voice vote.
The full commission was scheduled to vote on the matter later Monday.
The other thing that's curious is that the original complaint included that these same taxi cab drivers wouldn't pick up people with seeing eye dogs because dogs are considered unclean in the Muslim religion:
Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties, including suspension of an airport taxi license, to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs.This International Herald Tribune article doesn't mention anything about seeing eye dogs, either. The IHT article has some additional information that the earlier AP article didn't include, though:
Under the old rules, a driver who refused to transport someone carrying alcohol would be told to go to the back of the taxicab line. Airport officials said that since January 2002, there have been more than 4,800 instances of drivers' refusing to take alcohol-carrying travelers.It's time that we told the MSA that they can't push us around :
Commissioners said the old rules did not prevent customers from being stranded at the curb or, as reported in a few cases, dropped off before their destination after drivers learned of their alcohol on board.
How did the MAC connect with the society? "The Minnesota Department of Human Rights recommended them to us to help us figure out how to handle this problem," Hogan said.It's worth remembering who MAS is. Here's what Patrick Poole wrote about them:
Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, thinks he knows why the society is promoting a "no-alcohol-carry" agenda with no basis in Somali culture. "MAS is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs," he said. "MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation."
Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).Here's why Americans everywhere should be alarmed by that:
What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization's international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."Here's what we know about "The Project":
What makes The Project so different from the standard "Death of America! Death to Israel!" and "Establish the global caliphate!" Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the "cultural invasion" of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood "master plan". As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe, including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent "cartoon" jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London, the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.Based on their actions, it isn't a reach to say that MAS's current goal is to gain political legitimacy here in Minnesota. They're certainly propagandists. They're certainly trying to establish a shadow government. There's two immediately recognizable steps that they've taken in establishing that shadow government:
- They've lobbied the the " Minneapolis Community and Technical College " "to install facilities to help Muslim students perform ritual washing before daily prayers."
- They've lobbied against the penalties that the MAC unanimously voted for.
It's time that we woke up to what's happening. It's time that we realized that the Muslim Brotherhood, through its American proxy MAS, is trying to implement "The Project."
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:06 AM
No comments.
Reid's Obstinance Hurting Soldiers
If anyone thought that Harry Reid was interested in defeating the terrorists, then this article will prove them wrong. It's obvious that Reid's only interested in playing political chicken with President Bush to score political points.
Frankly, his posturing is pathetic and appalling. Here's what I'm basing that on:
The Senate's Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, responded that Bush must choose between holding to "discredited policies" in Iraq or working with lawmakers on a new course.It's long past time that President Bush took Reid, Pelosi and the other defeatist Democrats to the woodshed. Reid and Ms. Pelosi keep insisting that President Bush hasn't changed course, which is patently absurd considering the new results coming from Iraq.
- Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Tehran.
- Sadr's Mahdi Army is splintered.
- Sadr's cabinet secretaries resigned, weakening Sadr's political power.
- Sunnis in Anbar province are leading MNF and Iraqi forces to AQI troops.
Despite this litany of facts, Harry Reid and Pelosi insist that President Bush hasn't changed course. They're inferring that David Petraeus, the foremost authority on counterinsurgencies, is doing the same old same old. As far as I'm concerned, that's verifiable proof that Harry Reid isn't interested in facts or winning. His only goal is winning legislative 'victories'.
I'd further add that Harry Reid is as intellectually dishonest as any Congressional leader I've ever seen. Voters should recognize that Reid isn't interested in making America safer. They should recognize that Reid's mission at this point is in winning a political victory. The saddest thing is that that 'victory' will weaken America for a generation.
"The president has a choice to make in the coming days: Cling to the discredited policies that have led our troops further into an intractable civil war, or work with a bipartisan majority of Congress to make us more secure," said Majority Leader Reid.At the end of the day, Reid will get rolled. Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama have all said that they won't deny funds for troops in the field. That's a losing hand for Reid if ever I saw one.
"We're committed to pressing these goals to the administration until they do change course," he said.
I'll make another prediction: Reid will either retire voluntarily or he'll get fired the next time he's up for re-election.
Here's what Sen. Levin said:
Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters in Michigan Monday that if Bush vetoes their original bill, Democrats would go with a "second-best approach" to dealing with security issues in Iraq. He said the second bill would tie U.S. economic and military support to the Iraqi government's ability to meet performance benchmarks.That sounds alot like caving to the President to me.
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:07 AM
No comments.
Liberal Propaganda From Obey & Byrd
Strictly sticking with their party's line, Appropriations chairmen David Obey and Robert Byrd demand that President Bush accept defeat. Of course, they didn't word it that way. Instead, they chose to word it this way:
The time has come for President Bush to face reality and make some tough decisions about the future of America's involvement in Iraq. The president has two fundamental choices: He can demonstrate real leadership by reaching across party lines to establish common ground on a strategy for ending US involvement in Iraq's civil war, or he can continue to divide the country by clinging to his failed policy.If you're asking how many times will Democrats ignore what's happening in Iraq, the answer is simple: Democrats will ignore positive development until they've secured defeat. As I pointed out last night, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sing from the same songbook. The sad thing is that these 'leaders' are ignoring some awfully significant progress:
- Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Tehran.
- Sadr's Mahdi Army is splintered.
- Sadr's cabinet secretaries resigned, weakening Sadr's political power.
- Sunnis in Anbar province are leading MNF and Iraqi forces to AQI troops.
Frankly, it's time to start laying the groundwork for THEIR DEFEAT next November.
In the days ahead, Congress will send Mr. Bush legislation that provides funding for our troops and urgent priorities facing our nation. Our bill will supply vital resources for our soldiers in the field, and it will strengthen medical care for those returning from war and our veterans.Urgent priorities aren't the only things included in that legislation. What Mssrs. Obey and Byrd didn't tell you about is that they loaded the bill up with enough pork to choke a horse. They did that to buy enough votes to secure defeat for our troops.
These people aren't leaders, at least not in the noble sense of the word. They certainly aren't statesmen. Statesmen like Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and JFK would roll their eyes if they had to deal with these idiots. Legislators like Reid, Pelosi, Byrd and Obey are puppets on the pacifists' string.
We deserve better than that. In fact, our safety in a post-9/11 world depends on us replacing legislators like Reid, Pelosi, Byrd and Obey with real legislators.
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:34 AM
No comments.
Letter to A-Klo
I just sent my first email to A-Klo's office. Here's the text of that email:
Ms. Klobuchar, It's time that you started dealing with reality on Iraq. It's time that you stopped listening to Harry Reid about what's really happening there. I've made a list of the positive things that have happened in Iraq. (I even checked it twice.) Here's the list of things that should make you realize that Reid, Byrd & others are full of it:That's my email to her. Isn't it time A-Klo represented all of us? Isn't it time you told her what you expected of her? What are you waiting for? Get typing.In addition to that, I strongly recommend that you read Fred Kagan's article in the Weekly Standard about how Joe Biden is utterly clueless about Iraq.
- Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Tehran.
- Sadr's Mahdi Army is splintered.
- Sadr's cabinet secretaries resigned, weakening Sadr's political power.
- Sunnis in Anbar province are leading MNF and Iraqi forces to AQI troops.
It's time that you started leading instead of listening to the airheads that have commandeered your party. It's time that you started doing things based on facts rather than on what your campaign contributors tell you to do.
In short, it's time for you to stop being a McGovern Democrat & started acting like a Scoop Jackson Democrat. I know there aren't many men like that left. (Joe Lieberman seems to be the only one.) Still, that's the HONORABLE THING to do.
It's time you got started with a PRO-VICTORY agenda.
Posted Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:46 AM
Comment 1 by Old Man at 18-Apr-07 10:22 AM
How much does the RNC and Karl Rove pay you for this? Do you read anything besides the Weekly Standard? Have you gotten information from more than one person who has actually been in Iraq? And - I suppose you think we should re-invade Vietnam?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-07 02:32 PM
Unlike some paid political bloggers, I write this stuff because I believe it & I've researched it thoroughly. Perhaps you didn't notice that most of the links on my blog come from the so-called mainstream media. They are verifiable.
When I write that Sadr fled Iraq, my source was Iraqi PM al-Maliki. When you couple that with the fact that he hasn't been seen in Iraq since before the surge, it's reasonable to think that Maliki's claim is credible.
When I write that Anbar's Sunnis are pointing out al-Qa'ida in Iraq terrorists, I'm merely repeating what the Washington Times reported.
The Insane Left thinks that anything that the Weekly Standard writes is bogus & wasn't corroborated. In assuming that, they don't bother researching this beyond the Daily Kos.
Now who's believing a pile of Barbra Streisand???
Animal Rights Activists Upset
The Humane Society of the United States, Help Our Wolves Live & the Animal Protection Institute have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from removing the timber wolf from the Endangered Species List for Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan:
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., says the gray wolf essentially remains endangered in the three states, and it demands that the Fish and Wildlife Service be prevented from implementing its "delisting" plan.Mr. Lovvorn obviously wants the panel of judges to ignore section 4. Here's how the Secretary of the Interior shall determine what is an endangered or threatened species:
The lawsuit was filed by The Humane Society of the United States, Help Our Wolves Live, and the Animal Protection Institute.
"The agencies' decision to strip wolves of all federal protection is biologically reckless and contrary to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act," Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of litigation for the Humane Society, said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
- The animal's habitat must be threatened with "destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat" or
- if it's overutilized "for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes" or
- if it's threatened with "disease or predation" or
- if it's threatened with "other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence."
As a Minnesota sportsman, I'll guarantee that the timber wolf isn't threatened by any of these things. Let's look them one by one.
The timber wolf's habitat is expanding. The Endangered Species Act was signed into law when I was a teenager. At the time, timber wolves were being hunted for their pelts. Couple that with a waning deer population and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out why the timber wolves deserved to be on the endangered species lists.
The timber wolf isn't threatened by "overutilization" of any sort and it isn't "threatened by disease or predation." Considering the fact that its populations are growing in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, it's impossible to make the case that "its continued existence" is threatened.
In fact, I'd term the ESA a huge success. The goal should be to create situations where species on the list become more plentiful. The goal shouldn't be to eternally protect a species. Here's a couple statistics that show how successful the ESA is:
The wolf was classified as an endangered species in 1974, when Minnesota's population dipped as low as 350. Minnesota now has 3,020 wolves, mostly in the northern part of the state, living in about 485 packs. Nearly 1,000 more live in Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula.Minnesota has experienced mild winters in terms of snowfall, which has led to a booming deer population. When I started deer hunting in 1974, the population was almost 500,000 animals. We now have a population well in excess of 1,000,000 animals. According to this DNR spreadsheet, Minnesota hunters harvested 270,000+ deer last fall. The significance of that is that deer, rabbits and other small animals make up the majority of the timber wolf's diet.
We've eliminated hunting the wolves for their pelts and the deer population is at an all-time high. In other words, it's reasonable to expect the wolf population to continue growing. In fact, it's reasonable to expect the wolf population to accelerate its rate of growth.
The bottom line on the lawsuit will be used as these organizations' fundraisers. I'd be surprised if the animal rights activists think that they'll prevail.
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:01 AM
No comments.
Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
The Supreme Court has just given the pro life movement its biggest victory in ages. Here's some of the details:
The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.This provides a big morale boost for pro lifers. It also gives pro choice organizations a fundraising tool. Rest assured that every Democrat presidential candidate will have something to say on this ruling, too. This ruling will bring out the pro choice crowd with their slippery slope arguments. I don't think people will find their arguments compelling.
The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how-not whether-to perform an abortion.
I remember the first time the Senate voted on this bill. Daniel Patrick Moynihan voted not to ban the procedure. The next time it was brought up, he voted to ban the procedure, saying that "it was too close to infanticide" for his liking. That's worth noting because nobody ever accused Sen. Moynihan of being a shrinking violet on abortion issues.
I also remember Ted Kennedy railing that the bill was nothing more than payback to "rabid right wingers." I recall a Sen. Santorum asking Kennedy if he thought Patrick Kennedy and Dick Gephardt as "rabid right wingers." Kennedy say that "of course they aren't", at which point Santorum pointed out that they voted to ban the procedure. Teddy tried going back on offense but Santorum would have nothing of that. He said that thoughtful people recognized the procedure for what it is.
Frankly, the people who can decry this ban aren't worth listening to. Partial Birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that doesn't ever have to be used. That's essentially what Justice Kennedy wrote. There just isn't any evidence that the procedure has any medical value.
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:34 AM
No comments.
DFL-Dominated Senate Rejects Lobbying Reform
Earlier this session, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted into their permanent rules a 1 year waiting period before legislators could become registered lobbyists. This morning, the Senate defeated legislation that would've made this state law. Here's a lame excuse why DFL legislators voted against this legislation:
"There may be a bunch of people who are not planning on quitting but may lose an election and then they've got to find another job," said Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm. "You never know what may happen around here."Sen. Tomassoni obviously hasn't heard of private sector employment. Then again, he might not be qualified for management positions. I know this much: If the DFL votes for more taxes & fewer reforms, I can predict "what may happen" the next time they're up for re-election. I doubt that it'll be pretty.
"Lobbyists are part of the whole machine that runs this place," said Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley.Sen. Koering, that's part of the problem. Isn't it time to offer a reform package? Isn't it time to start showing voters that government needs reform? The simple answer is yes, it's obvious that the DFL-dominated legislature is out of control & it needs to be reformed.
"People back home are really concerned about lobbyists," said Sen. Sharon Erickson Ropes, DFL-Winona. "What we're talking about is a level of influence that I think we have to be very careful about."I couldn't agree more.
Here's today's roll call vote:
Those who voted in affirmative were:
Anderson, Betzold, Bonoff, Carlson, Chaudhary, Clark, Cohen, Dibble, Doll, Erickson Ropes, Foley, Frederickson, Higgins, Koch, Kubly, Lourey, Marty, Michel, Moua, Olseen, Olson M., Pappas, Pogemiller, Prettner-Solon, Rest, Rummel, Scheid, Senjem, Sheran, Sieben, Torres Ray, Vandeveer, Wiger
Those who voted in the negative were:
Bakk, Berglin, Dille, Fischbach, Gerlach, Gimse, Hann, Ingebrigtsen, Johnson, Jungbauer, Koering, Langseth, Larson, Latz, Limmer, Lynch, Metzen, Murphy, Neuville, Olson G., Ortman, Pariseau, Robling, Rosen, Saltzman, Saxhaug, Skoe, Skogen, Sparks, Stumpf, Tomassoni, Vickerman, Wergin
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:00 PM
No comments.
Hillary Upset Over SCOTUS Ruling
Predictably, Hillary didn't waste any time in demagoguing today's Supreme Court ruling. Here's her official statement:
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."It wasn't that long ago that Hillary told her supporters that pro choice advocates should try finding common ground with pro lifers. I guess that's out the window after this statement. Here's what she said then:
In late January, Sen. Clinton urged a group of abortion rights supporters to find common ground with pro-lifers. "We should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved," Clinton said in a speech near Albany, N.Y.She made that calculated move to establish her moderate bona fides. She's clearly shifted into extremist mode. How can she make such a statement when Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose retirement provide Hillary the opening to run for the Senate, called partial birth abortion too close to infanticide to tell the difference? As I said earlier, Moynihan was no shrinking violet on abortion-related issues.
Another thing comes to mind on this. The Second Amendment says explicitly that people have the right to keep and bear arms. Isn't it odd that she's fine with regulating guns but she won't tolerate the regulation of abortion?
This is just proof of what conservatives have known all along: Hillary believes in political moderation as little as Saddam Hussein believed in human rights.
Posted Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:36 PM
No comments.
