It’s nice to see patriotic Americans come out in respectable numbers to inform a contingent of the Soldiers of Allah that their presence is not welcome here.
The event in question was a Sunday fund-raiser in Yorba Linda for some benign-sounding Islo-charity, which have been used for jihadist purposes in the past. The speakers included dodgy characters Siraj Wahhaj (an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing but never brought to trial) and Imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali (an Oakland cleric who is a popular campus speaker among radical Muslims for his incendiary remarks).
If the fund-raiser was indeed a gathering of mellow Muslims for non-hostile purposes, then why were the speakers so unsavory? Just repeating the phrase “Islam is a religion of peace” doesn’t convince people any more with so much evidence to the contrary on the table.
Another cultural note: It’s tragic to see British has become synonymous with cowardly surrender monkies, and rightly so, as an American declares in the article below. A few decades ago they courageously stood alone against Nazi attacks, but now the tribe of Britain has been reduced to censoring their own society for any possible British behavior that might cause offense to hostile Muslim immigrants. A truly Stalinist level of political correctness has taken hold and is choking the traditional values to death, such as music appreciation, equality under law, fondness for dogs.
Interesting touch that somebody brought their dog to the anti-sharia protest in Orange County (below). Muslims hate dogs and believe they are unclean. More photos from the event can be seen at the Orange County Register.
In addition, one of my favorite congressmen, Ed Royce, appeared briefly and noted that Wahhaj supports Sharia and the stoning of women. And Wahhaj is an American-born convert. Imagine what the born-there characters believe.
YORBA LINDA, Calif. (KABC) — Hundreds protested in Orange County on Sunday night, accusing speakers at an Islamic fundraiser of being radical Muslims.
“You’re messing with Americans now. We’re not England, we’re not British, we’re Americans,” one protester yelled.
The protesters are upset over the speakers who headlined an event at the Yorba Linda Community Center. Spokesman Waqas Syed said the Islamic Circle of North America is raising money to fight homelessness and abuse, and the speakers were only invited to talk about their charity work.
Brooklyn-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj was once named as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but he was never charged.
“He has said specifically he is in favor of Sharia law and stoning of women,” said Rep. Ed. Royce.
Imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali publicly supports Hezbollah, which the CIA calls a terrorist group.
“These people are known terrorist instigators, not even terrorist sympathizers,” said activist Deborah Pauly.
“They may have views which may or may not be political and which we may or may not agree with,” Syed said. “There is absolutely no basis to the fact that we are connected with any of the terrorist organizations.”
But hundreds of protesters don’t buy Syed’s explanation and staged a rally they say was both patriotic and religious. Some protesters even played the shofar, which is usually sounded on the Jewish high holy days.
“It’s also used in battle to announce to the enemy that God’s army is coming,” said Dena Newman of San Dimas.
The crowd screamed things like, “Go home you terrorists” at those entering the Yorba Linda Community Center.
“As an American citizen, it is hurtful. I’m being told to go back home. I’m actually from Fullerton, so I don’t know where back home is for me. Back home is Fullerton,” said Adel Syed of Fullerton.
Many protesters argued that First Amendment rights only go so far.
I remember very well the Sixty Minutes segment of 2008 that shrieked about the cruelty of Americans for not welcoming many thousands of Iraqi refugees ASAP. What a fine opportunity for fifth-column agents, I thought at the time. Islamist guys must have signed up in droves to be helpful translators and office help to US troops and administrators. What terror organization worth their Korans wouldn’t?
Furthermore, it wasn’t fair to US service members, who were dying to fix savage Iraq, for our government to rescue Iraqis who should be there fighting for their own nation. Not to mention, refugees take scarce jobs where soldiers should get first pick.
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of refugees who sought shelter in the United States during the early years of the Iraq war are coming under fresh scrutiny from U.S. government security officials for possible links to Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq.
FBI Director Robert Mueller surprised some terrorism experts Thursday when, in response to a question about threats inside the United States, he said the FBI was closely monitoring Al Qaeda’s Iraq-based offshoot. The group has killed thousands in Iraq but had not been viewed as a threat inside the United States.
Mueller said the possible threat rested with “individuals who may have been resettled here in the United States that have had some association with Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
Fortunately, given the magic of the internet, we can still see how the influential Sixty Minutes show favored a massive feel-good Iraqi rescue project — save them, save them, American government!
Perhaps some Iraqis were endangered, but the wholesale import of many thousands of them willy-nilly has jeopardized our country. According to Sixty Minutes, 100,000 needed to be admitted as refugees — which sounds like a major stretch. Now citizens are jeopardized because of the foolish liberal media and unwise government.
(CBS) The refugee crisis in Iraq is among the biggest humanitarian emergencies in the world. Millions of Iraqis have fled the war, many marked for death because they worked for the United States. They were translators, office workers, many other things, but now the enemy has branded them as collaborators.
When that happened in Vietnam, the U.S. brought more than 100,000 refugees to the states. But today, the U.S. government, which was so desperate for Iraqi workers, is not so eager to help them now.
As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, one young American named Kirk Johnson has jumped into this breach. All he wanted to do was rescue one of his Iraqi co-workers. When he did, a thousand more pleaded for help and Johnson began “the list.”
“The people on my list have been tortured, they’ve been raped, they’ve lost body limbs. There’s one guy on my list who’s been thrown out of a moving vehicle. And all of this because they helped us. They came every single day to try to pitch in, in our efforts there,” Johnson tells Pelley.
Johnson says we owe these Iraqis “speedy resettlement” in the United States.
The U.S. failed to grant that speedy resettlement. So Johnson has taken it upon himself to plead the cases of some of an estimated 100,000 Iraqis who worked for America.
“These are the names, the supporting documents, the recommendation letters, the cell phones, every bit of information that we could compile to help the government live up to their obligation to these people and help resettle them,” he says.
A binder holds the list of nearly 1,000 Iraqis Johnson is trying to get into the U.S. He gets Iraqis free lawyers, helps them navigate the system, and pleads their cases to the State Department, with praise from their former American employers. Continue reading this article
Illegal alien Ingmar Guandique was found guilty last November of murdering Washington intern Chandra Levy in 2001. The original missing person case got huge media attention because she was having a romantic affair with married Congressman Gary Condit who behaved suspiciously, convincing some that he was responsible for her disappearance. That was the summer preceding the 9/11 attacks, and when the planes hit New York and Washington, the Levy case fell from view.
Despite massive searches of Rock Creek Park at the time (her computer showed interest about the place), her body was not found until a year later by a man walking his dog in a steep forested area. Rep. Condit lost his seat in the 2002 primary because of the scandal.
The sex scandal starring a Washington politician was naturally more appealing to the press than another American killed by an illegal alien. Very little explication about Salvadoran Ingmar Guandique has occurred. The Washington Post produced an original investigation, Who Killed Chandra Levy?, that included a chapter on Guandique, The Predator in the Park, with details about his violent criminal history. However, for all the specifics given about Guandique’s rap sheet, there was no question about why he had not been deported after his 2001 arrest for burglary.
The Guandique trial was helpfully informational, however. While an earlier report said he came for the usual “better life,” the trial revealed that he came to America to escape a charge of attacking a woman with a knife. Such is the diversity we are supposed to celebrate uncritically.
The man convicted of killing Washington intern Chandra Levy nearly a decade ago was sentenced Friday to 60 years in prison, a term that could keep him behind bars the rest of his life.
Ingmar Guandique would not be released from prison until he was at least about 80 years old, assuming he lives that long, said District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher. The judge, who called Guandique a dangerous person and sexual predator, said the sentence would ensure he was not a danger to the community if he is released.
Guandique was convicted in November of first-degree murder in Levy’s 2001 disappearance and death, despite a lack of witnesses and no DNA evidence linking him to the crime.
During Friday’s sentencing hearing, Levy’s mother, Susan Levy, asked Guandique directly if he had been responsible for her daughter’s death. He looked her in the eyes and shook his head.
“Mr. Guandique, you are lower than a cockroach,” Susan Levy told Guandique, calling him a “hideous creature” before closing her statement with: “F— you.”
She also read statements from her son, who urged the judge to impose a life sentence, and from her husband, who said Guandique should “rot in hell.”
Guandique, wearing an orange jumpsuit, said in a brief statement in Spanish that he was sorry for what happened to Levy. But, he added, “I had nothing to do with it. I am innocent.”
Levy’s disappearance became a national sensation after she was romantically linked to then-California Rep. Gary Condit. Police initially focused on Condit as a suspect. Levy’s remains were found in Rock Creek Park a year after she disappeared. Police eventually shifted their focus to Guandique, who was already serving a prison sentence for attacking female joggers in the park in the same time frame Levy disappeared.
Guandique is expected to serve about 50 years of his sentence.
Prosecutors had asked for a life prison sentence, arguing that Guandique showed no remorse and had a history of violence toward women. They said Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, fled his village in that country as a teenager because he was suspected of attacking a woman at knifepoint. Continue reading this article
Now he is looking at a more Tea-infused political landscape with re-election looming in 2012, particularly after his Utah colleague Bob Bennett was knocked out by a conservative primary challenger last year. So Senator Hatch has been playing up his conservative cred, saying he was a Tea Party sorta guy before it was cool. (And he regrets his vote for the TARP bailout, as he told the CPAC audience Friday.)
The Diversity Visa (DV) Program is an unfortunate blind spot in our immigration system that has outlived its purpose. The applicants for these 50,000 “lottery” immigration slots require few skills. Qualifications nor identity can be properly vetted. The program does not know, really, who these applicants are nor their true purpose in coming to the United States. The program is a national security loophole, and has been used by terrorists and organized criminals to not only enter the U.S., but bring others to the U.S. as well.
According to unofficial statements from the State Department, the program is wrought with fraud in part because application standards are so low. The program claims to have strict eligibility requirements, but only calls for a high school education or its equivalent or two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation requiring at least two years’ training or experience. In most of the countries eligible for a diversity visa, neither education nor work experience can be verified, let alone identity. Consular officers in U.S. embassies abroad thus spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to determine if a person is who they say they are and actually qualifies for the program. Checking watch lists based on names or prior U.S. immigration histories thus often has little bearing on making a solid determination on identity, qualifications, or legitimate national security concerns.
National Security Concerns Associated with the DV Program Looking closely at the worldwide distribution of visa “lottery” winners from the most recent compilation of statistics by the State Department, almost the entire world is represented in the near 50,000 visas issued in 2009. What is perhaps most troublesome is that the low threshold of requirements to obtain a diversity visa and the wide breadth of foreign nations eligible for DVs means that foreign nationals from states sponsors of terror, states with terrorists operating within their borders that threaten U.S. national security, and struggling third world nations whose citizenry include economic migrants with few skills and no means to support themselves upon arrival, all are issued visas annually through the program.
Of the 186 foreign states represented in the State Department’s 2009 catalogue of actual diversity program visas issued, Iran — a designated state sponsor of terror since January 19, 1984 and the country with one of the longest, most tangled and unnerving terrorist resumes in the world — received 1,117 visas or adjustments of status (for those winning the lottery but already living in the U.S.). Thus, Iran was the third largest recipient of DVs amongst the 34 nations in Asia that also obtained DVs. Iran is known for its active security forces that seek infiltration abroad; support terrorist acts around the world (the 9/11 Commission made clear that Iran was involved to some degree in supporting the nineteen 9/11 hijackers); provide training and financial support for Hezbollah; and currently harbor Al Qaida. The United States has admitted more than once that our nation has little visibility into the actual terrorist on-goings of Iran on a day-to-day basis. Yet, the DV program provided Iran with the 12th largest number of DV visas in 2009, placing Iran in the top four percent of all DVs granted in 2009. There is a possibility that amongst those Iranians obtaining legal permanent residence through their DVs are those who do not support the United States, or perhaps worse. Continue reading this article
Banning burqas was not quite as sweeping as calling the entire multicultural enterprise a load of crap, but he was certainly drawing a line in the sand to support Western culture, when most other politicians were avoiding the subject.
Anyway, it’s terrific that the three top national leaders in Europe have agreed the diversity cult is wrong-headed, unworkable public policy. The elite view is returning to traditional assimilation, where immigrant newbies are expected to adopt the language, culture and values of the nation they voluntarily enter.
On the other hand, earnest policy statements favoring assimilation are unlikely to convince Muslims unfriendly to Western values to reform their hostile beliefs and behavior. One hopes that the next item of discussion will be ending Muslim immigration, although the hour is late for that in Europe.
Below, colorful Muslims celebrate diversity in Paris.
PARIS — French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.
“My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure,” he said in a television interview when asked about the policy which advocates that host societies welcome and foster distinct cultural and religious immigrant groups.
“Of course we must all respect differences, but we do not want… a society where communities coexist side by side.
“If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France,” the right-wing president said.
“The French national community cannot accept a change in its lifestyle, equality between men and women… freedom for little girls to go to school,” he said.
“We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him,” Sarkozy said in the TFI channel show.
British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia’s ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar have also recently said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.
It was alarming (but not surprising) to see the usual gun-grabbers immediately swing into action after the mass murder in Tucson that killed six and severely wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
As I wrote at the time, the public policy failure was in the mental health arena, not gun control. Fellow students in shooter Jared Loughner’s classes feared he would go violently crazy and start shooting them Virginia Tech style. The clearly disturbed young man needed a mental health intervention, but the college merely protected itself from a lawsuit by barring Loughner’s attendance, without warning the larger community. (See my blog, What Pima Community College Learned from Seung-Hui Cho.)
So I was pleasantly surprised to see that terrible event included as part of a PBS Newshour segment about a mental health intervention program in California, to identify young people suffering the onset of schizophrenia and get them appropriate treatment early on. Schizophrenia typically develops in persons between the ages of 15 and 25, so alerting teachers to the symptoms, to be followed up by professional help, is a sensible approach to preventing a variety of human tragedies.
The young man profiled said he began developing symptoms like hearing voices over a period of just days. He was fortunate to have alert and loving parents.
A decision made by California voters six years ago may well have a bearing on the mental health issues raised by the shooting spree in Tucson, Ariz.
Californians decided in 2004 to impose an extra 1 percent income tax for people who made $1 million a year. Some called it a “Robin Hood tax.” The money would be used to support mental health programs, which advocates said were underfunded. The initiative — called Proposition 63 –passed with very little opposition. In the time since, it has raised $6.3 billion- money the state is eyeing enviously in these days of big budget shortfalls.
Besides beefing up mental health services and using a team approach to keep the mentally ill from becoming homeless, Prop. 63 set aside some money for early identification and treatment of mental illness, as well as for innovation. Independent academic evaluations of some of these programs have judged them a spectacular success: dramatically lower arrest rates, lower hospitalization rates and less homelessness among the patients enrolled in Prop. 63 programs. Continue reading this article
For the immigration-is-merciless demography file, there’s this: White children will be in the minority of elementary school enrollment by the end of this decade, according to a recent Brookings study. The elite project of transforming America from a traditionally conservative society into one that accepts more intrusive government is moving steadily along.
Liberal elites like a compliant public who agree that leaders know best, and foreigners accustomed to big government fit the bill better than Tea-Party Americans (not all of whom are white, but nearly all of whom are citizens with traditional values).
Dutch politician Geert Wilders is back in court for trying to tell the truth to the people about Islam. European elites, however, appear determined to commit cultural suicide via the Religion of Peace, as they destroy free speech along the way. Perhaps they think they are merely enforcing Stalinist behavioral codes, but immigration-fueled demographic change and cowering dhimmitude indicate a failing culture allowing Islamic conquest.
The trial of anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders on discrimination and inciting hatred charges resumes in Amsterdam on Monday.
Last October the trial was abandoned after senior court officials ruled several irregularities in the proceedings could be deemed prejudicial. New judges have now been appointed. [. . .]
Apparently there is no such thing as double jeopardy in Dutch courts, since Wilders in now back in the dock for the same crime of speaking unpleasant truths about Islam for which he was prosecuted and exonerated last fall.
The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. Everywhere the foundation of the West is under attack.
All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us since fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.
My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass-immigration, which will ultimately result in an islamic Europe – a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom loving citizens who criticize islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.
This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.
Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:
It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people – and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament – to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.
On the surface, it looks like Rep. Peter King has folded like a cheap lawn chair on his March hearing about the danger of so-called home-grown terrorists lurking among Muslim communities. He has gotten a barrage of furious attacks from CAIR and the left, and King has appeared to shrink back from his original intent.
Supporters of hostile Islam realize that every day brings news of more deaths at the hands of jihadis around the world as the Religion of Peace works to establish a universal caliphate. The brutal facts on the ground make the job of Islo-propagandists increasingly more difficult. An elected representative of the United States Congress criticizing hostile Islam would add to the governmental voices (including David Cameron of the UK and Angela Merkel of Germany) who no longer support the multicultural fantasy of peace through weakness.
My priority for the hearing would be a discussion of Muslim immigration — why have it at all? It constitutes a national security threat and has nothing positive to offer the American people. Most citizens don’t feel culturally enriched by honor killing or attempted terror attacks. Yet Muslim immigrants continue to accumulate as if there were no problem with welcoming potential enemies.
WASHINGTON — The new chairman of the House Homeland Secur
ity Committee said Monday that he planned to call mostly Muslim and Arab witnesses to testify in hearings next month on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said he would rely on Muslims to make his case that American Muslim leaders have failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials in the effort to disrupt terrorist plots — a claim that was rebutted in recent reports by counterterrorism experts and in a forum on Capitol Hill on Monday.
“I believe it will have more of an impact on the American people if they see people who are of the Muslim faith and Arab descent testifying,” Mr. King said.
The hearings, which Mr. King said would start the week of March 7, have provoked an uproar from both the left and the right. The left has accused Mr. King of embarking on a witch hunt. The right has accused him of capitulation for calling Muslims like Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, to testify while denying a platform to popular critics of Islamic extremism like Steven Emerson, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. [. . .]
Mr. King said he had changed his mind about summoning as a witness Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born feminist critic of Islam who became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands and then fled because of threats on her life.
The visible symptoms look like creeping weakness, but Rep. King came out swinging today, by declaring that PC would not sway him from the truth.
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Tuesday he would “not allow political correctness” to prevent him from holding a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) began receiving criticism from the American-Muslim community and some colleagues after announcing plans last month to look into al Qaeda’s efforts to radicalize Muslims in the U.S. King also wants to examine the role American Muslims play in assisting law enforcement and counter-terrorism experts in fighting terrorism.
The ranking Democrat on the panel, Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), wrote to King last week asking that he broaden the scope of the hearings to examine extremist groups such as neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups.
But King on Tuesday wrote Thompson to say “the committee will continue to examine the threat of Islamic radicalization, and I will not allow political correctness to obscure a real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.”
Here is the Feb. 8 letter to Rep. Thompson, the ranking member of the committee:
I am writing in reference to your letter of February 1, 2011 wherein you state that the upcoming hearing on radicalization within the Muslim-American community should be expanded to include “a broad-based examination of domestic extremist groups regardless of their ideological underpinnings.” I strongly disagree.
While there have been extremist groups and random acts of political violence throughout our history, the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 and the ongoing threat to our nation from Islamic jihad were uniquely diabolical and threatening to America’s security, both overseas and in our homeland.
The sui generis nature of this threat was demonstrated by, among other things, (a) Congress authorizing the President to use military force against al Qaeda, (b) enactment of the PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004, (c) the largest government reorganization since 1947 in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and (d) the creation of the Homeland Security Committee.
Because of these and other measures taken after 9/11, al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have been charged with terror related crimes. Continue reading this article
Jurors clearly didn’t buy Muzzammil Hassan’s “battered husband” defense for the decapitation murder of his wife Aasiya. In fact, they came to a verdict in a little over an hour, which is pretty fast for a murder case.
An insanity plea might have worked better than trying to portray himself as a victim, because normal Islamic diversity can appear crazy to Americans. Women have no right to individuality under Islam, and a husband can do what he likes to a disobedient wife. It’s a cultural chasm, one of many that separates the West from Islamic society and makes many Muslims unsuitable immigrants. My sense is that Muzzammil is far too arrogant to claim insanity, even if it might have helped him in court. That last bit is just speculation, of course.
In addition, the accused fired his attorney midway through the proceedings, and Hassan acted as his own counsel for the remainder of the trial, as permitted by the Judge Thomas Franczyk. From time to time the judge had to tell Hassan to speed it up, and a slow presentation cannot have helped his appeal to the jury on top of everything else. Hassan’s comparing himself to Nelson Mandela and Gandhi during his summation probably didn’t score positive points either.
BUFFALO, NY – The jury in the Muzzammil Hassan trial has reached a verdict. Muzzammil Hassan is guilty of 2nd degree murder in the death of his wife, Aasiya Hassan.
The jury deliberated for a little over an hour before reaching their verdict.
The judge has scheduled Hassan’s sentencing for March 9, 2011, where he faces a sentence of up to 25-years-to life behind bars.
Hassan was led away in handcuffs.
Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita, Jr. called Hassan a “vicious murderer” during a press conference after the verdict.
The jury declined to speak to the media about the trial or their decision.
Earlier, Hassan delivered his closing arguments, followed by the prosecution.
“Ladies and gentlemen this is not a divorce case, this is a murder case,” said Colleen Curtin Gable, prosecutor.
Jurors were told that Aasiya Hassan may have been conscious when the defendant started to behead her on February 12, 2009.
Curtin Gable started off strong telling the jury that Hassan wants them to believe that what he did was in self defense, “not a chance, not even close.”
“There is absolutely no doubt that the defendant killed his wife intentionally,” said the prosecutor. “He was carefully and deliberately planning to kill her.”
The prosecutor told jurors Hassan was efficient and deliberate in killing his wife in just “thirty-seven seconds.” While describing the murder, Curtin Gable described how Aasiya was stabbed in the head and from the mouth to her ear. “How is that self defense, stabbing an unarmed woman from behind,” she asked jurors. Continue reading this article
They’re ba-a-a-a-ck!. The Open-Borders Republicans, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, are being courted by the usual Democrat suspects (Chuck Schumer in particular) for a retry at amnesty for illegal aliens. And Senator McCain appears about to revert to his pro-amnesty self now that he’s been reelected.
The long-lasting jobs depression (which may well last for years into the future) does not concern globalista Senators who plan to plop additional millions of excess workers into the labor pool. As it happens, I just caught the tail end of a live Brookings panel discussing how to increase high-tech immigration. Why would any young American major in computer science or similar fields when the system is so skewed in favor of foreign workers? The message is sent every day that citizens have very few friends in the capitol city.
Realistically, though, how likely is any foreign-lawbreaker-rewarding amnesty to get through the current House of Representatives? Slim to none. A certain amount of politics is theater to convince interest groups that pols are busy with their issue. One understands that tendency with Democrats, who Hispander at every opportunity. However, Lindsey Graham seems to be running for the position of King of All the RINOs — curious.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.
Their call list hasn’t focused so much on House and Senate members who’ve been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they’re looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a “safety net” of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up.
“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham told POLITICO. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”
For all the groups getting a call from the pair, it is the presence of Graham himself who elevates the odds — however bleak — that the Senate could move on a comprehensive, bipartisan overhaul bill. Graham abruptly departed the talks last spring and took with him any hope of getting a bill in the past Congress.
Now, conservative evangelicals, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, business organizations and immigrant advocacy groups say they have gotten word from Schumer’s office that a renewed effort is under way. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce confirmed that it is back in the mix, after a hasty exit last year when Schumer proposed a legislative framework with a temporary worker program that favored labor unions.
And Schumer and his staff have quietly begun reaching out to some unlikely players in the Senate, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has professed a newfound freedom since winning reelection last year without the Republican Party’s help.
“What we’re doing is beginning these preliminary talks, particularly with outside groups, to try and regain the consensus that was pretty nicely formed last year,” Schumer said in a phone interview. “And who knows, we might surprise everyone and get something done. We realize it is a tough thing to do, but it is very important, and it’s worth a shot. We’ve been getting interesting, positive responses — from places you wouldn’t expect it.”
The task won’t be easy. For starters, Republicans control the House, and they can’t say it often enough: A pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants won’t fly on their watch.
The most popular immigration proposal in recent years, the DREAM Act, fell five votes short of passage in the Senate last year, in part because of Democratic defections. Now picture how a bill with a sweeping legalization program would fare in a chamber where Democrats control fewer seats and the Republican majority is more conservative.
Still, advocates of comprehensive reform see some reason for optimism.
Democrats believe the November elections put a bit of a scare into Republicans, who failed to capture the Senate in part because of strong Latino turnout in California, Nevada, Colorado and Washington. If the GOP hopes to win the White House in 2012, it will need to reverse that trend.
President Barack Obama made a more forceful pitch for action in this year’s State of the Union address than he did in last year’s, when he devoted a single, tepid line to it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ranked immigration reform as his third priority for the new Congress, after cutting government spending and taxes.
House Republican leaders blocked Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a foe of illegal immigration with a penchant for harsh rhetoric, from taking over the immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee — signaling that they are sensitive to the political pitfalls of alienating Latinos. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has also shied away, at least for now, from pursuing the most divisive proposals, such as revoking birthright citizenship.
And in one closely watched comment, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) let it slip recently that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “seems to think that there’s a shot at this.” It led to a round of speculation that the McCain of the past, the senator who ushered a comprehensive bill through the chamber in 2006, might be ready to come back. Continue reading this article
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent speech criticizing multiculturalism’s fawning to hostile Islam is a promising sign. In doing so, he has joined his fellow leaders Angel Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in noting the regrettable failure of Islamic immigration, although the “i” word is still used infrequently by top elites.
Like many well-meaning infidels, Cameron took pains to explain to Muslims and everyone else that true Islam is actually kind and gentle: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority.” All that ka-boomy diversity is overblown, he thinks.
Naturally, the remarks were newsworthy on both sides of the Atlantic. The New York Times started out well enough, but found it necessary midway through to mischaracterize Enoch Powell’s famous 1968 speech as a racist statement which all British politicians must now avoid. (NB: Islam is a religion open to all races, from Jihad Jane to you or me.)
LONDON — Faced with growing alarm about Islamic militants who have made Britain one of Europe’s most active bases for terrorist plots, Prime Minister David Cameron has mounted an attack on the country’s decades-old policy of “multiculturalism,” saying it has encouraged “segregated communities” where Islamic extremism can thrive.
Speaking at a security conference in Munich on Saturday, Mr. Cameron condemned what he called the “hands-off tolerance” in Britain and other European nations that had encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”
He said that the policy had allowed Islamic militants leeway to radicalize young Muslims, some of whom went on to “the next level” by becoming terrorists, and that Europe could not defeat terrorism “simply by the actions we take outside our borders,” with military actions like the war in Afghanistan.
“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries,” he said. “We have to get to the root of the problem.”
In what aides described as one of the most important speeches in the nine months since he became prime minister, Mr. Cameron said the multiculturalism policy — one espoused by British governments since the 1960s, based on the principle of the right of all groups in Britain to live by their traditional values — had failed to promote a sense of common identity centered on values of human rights, democracy, social integration and equality before the law.
Similar warnings about multiculturalism have been sounded by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. But, if anything, Mr. Cameron went further. He called on European governments to practice “a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” and said Britain would no longer give official patronage to Muslim groups that had been “showered with public money despite doing little to combat terrorism.” [. . .]
British leaders, particularly from the Conservative Party, which Mr. Cameron leads, have mostly been careful to avoid arguments that might expose them to charges of holding racially tinged views since a notorious speech in 1968 in which Enoch Powell, a leading Conservative, warned of “rivers of blood” if nothing was done to curb Caribbean immigration to Britain.
Of course, Powell never used the words “rivers of blood” but quoted the Aeneid when he remarked, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” It’s dangerous to be better read in the classics than journalists.
Another notable point is Cameron’s call for a return to “muscular liberalism” which the Times quoted. Tough liberals — politicians realistic about America’s enemies — were once fairly common in this country, like Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. These days, however, the loony pacifism of the far left is the dominant ideology, even though it is often not followed in fact, as shown by pols like Obama who swear to immediately abandon conflicts in progress but don’t.
Cameron’s speech naturally got a lot of attention in Britain.
Entering the debate on national identity and religious tolerance, the Prime Minister declared an end to “passive tolerance” of divided communities, and say that members of all faiths must integrate into wider society and accept core values.
To be British is to believe in freedom of speech and religion, democracy and equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality, he will say. Proclaiming a doctrine of “muscular liberalism”, he said that everyone, from ministers to ordinary voters, should actively confront those who hold extremist views.
He warned that groups that fail to promote British values will no longer receive public money or be able to engage with the state.
His speech, to an international security conference in Munich, comes after The Daily Telegraph disclosed the extent to which the British intelligence community fears the “unique threat” of terrorist attacks by radicalised British Muslims.
Here’s a relevant video clip:
The Vlad Tepes blog helpfully created a reminder video that contrasts an earlier, more dhimmified Cameron with his recent Munich remarks.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.