The internet has been abuzz about the plans of a Christian church in Florida to burn copies of the Quran on 9-11. The debate got even hotter when General David Petraeus chimed in, saying that burning these Qurans would endanger our troops in Afghanistan. Considering my husband is currently in Afghanistan, I don’t take that threat too lightly.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Tuesday a Florida church’s threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.

“Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence ,” Gen. David Petraeus said. “Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.”

His comments followed a protest Monday by hundreds of Afghans over the plans by Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center — a small, evangelical Christian church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy — to burn copies of the Koran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Petraeus warned images of burning Korans could be used to incite anti-American sentiment similar to the pictures of prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Graib prison.

“I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible (Koran) burning. Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday,” Petraeus said.

… “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community,” he said in a statement provided to Fox News.

To the idiots at this retarded church: whose side are you on, exactly?? I can understand the desire to burn the Qurans and piss the perpetually-offended Muslims off. I really do. But wouldn’t the Christian thing to do be to, I don’t know, not be hateful? It doesn’t sound like they are trying to be very Christ-like.

That aside, what Petraeus is saying makes perfect sense. Part of what we are doing in Afghanistan is trying to convince Afghans that we are the good guys. We are trying to earn their respect, and show them that we are better than the Taliban. But, as Petraeus pointed out, burning these Qurans plays right into the hands of the Taliban. The Taliban will use images of Americans burning Qurans against us. They will use the images to convince Muslims that Americans can’t be trusted and that we don’t respect them. It’s an easy way to push Afghans off of the bench and into the game. It’s easy propaganda for extremists to use to convince other Muslims to join in the jihad.

All of this is really not that difficult to figure out. So, again, exactly whose side is this church on? They’re not on the side of America. They’re certainly not doing the Christian thing.

Frankly, they sound more like Muslim extremists than Christians to me.

“We are using this act to warn about the teaching and ideology of Islam, which we do hate as it is hateful. We do not hate any people, however. We love, as God loves, all the people in the world and we want them to come to a knowledge of the truth,” the blog reads.

If they don’t hate anyone, then why are they going out of their way to piss a bunch of people off? They aren’t going to get any Muslims to convert to Christianity by offending them. If anything, they’ll just make them more entrenched in Islam and more anti-Christian than they were before. This is quite possibly the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Permalink

A few days ago, Marco Rubio posted on Facebook that he was going to be unable to debate Kendrick Meek because his father had taken a turn for the worse. Sadly, his father his father passed away last night, surrounded by family and friends.

Surrounded by family and loved ones, Marco Rubio’s father, Mario Rubio, passed away tonight at Baptist Hospital in Miami. He was 83 years old. Mario Rubio suffered from a long bout with emphysema and lung cancer.

In his final moments, Mario was accompanied by his loving wife of 61 years, Oria, his children Mario, Barbara, Marco and Veronica, and his extended family.

On the passing of his father, Marco Rubio issued the following statement:

“My father knew hard work and struggle from very early in his life. His mother died when he was only 9 years old. The day after his mother was buried he went to work with his father and did not stop working until he was 78 years old.

“He was by far the most unselfish person I have ever known, always focused on others, and never on his own well being. He was especially determined to provide his children opportunities he himself never had.

“My dad worked as a street vendor, security guard, apartment building manager and crossing guard. But for most of his life he was a bartender, and by all accounts a great one. But his greatest success came from the two most important jobs he ever had: husband and father.

“He was very proud of my public service. And over the last 18 months he became an expert channel surfer, constantly searching for my next television interview.

“I was blessed to be raised by a world class father. And I thank God for allowing my father to live long and healthy enough to see that the sacrifices he made for us were not in vain.”

For the entire Rubio family, as well as our campaign, politics will now be placed on temporary hold. We will resume our full schedule some time in the coming days. During this time, we respectfully ask for privacy for Marco and his family so they may mourn their loss in peace.

In lieu of flowers, the Rubio family requests honoring Mario Rubio’s memory by supporting the League Against Cancer/Liga Contra El Cancer http://ligacontraelcancer.org.

Please keep the Rubio family in your thoughts and prayers over the next few days.

Meanwhile, for all the differences on the issues there might be, Kendrick Meek showed that he is actually a real class act.

Meanwhile, Charlie Crist is a douchebag as usual.

Even though Congressman Meek and Rubio greatly differ on the issues, Meek showed that he is truly a respectable and honorable person, not to mention a formidable candidate for the U.S. Senate seat that these two men are vying for. Former Republican Governor Charlie Crist, now an Independent, was also in attendance and I asked him what he thought of the elder Rubio’s illness, to which he responded, ” Yeah, I heard about that.”

Yeah. Real nice, Charlie. Real classy.

(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

There is no limit to the amount of control that feminazis want to have over our lives. If women do not adhere to the unbelievably strict rules set down for us by the fascist feminist Left, then they are labeled anti-feminist and anti-woman. The latest example of the femisogynist litmus test is Taylor Swift, denounced as unfeminist… for writing about true love and having a wholesome image. The nerve!

Taylor Swift isn’t even 21 yet, and she’s already a force to be reckoned with. She became a superstar in 2006 at the age of sixteen, and today she’s sold over 10 million albums and appeared in several major motion pictures. She’s written her own music and said that most of her songs are autobiographical. She not only sings, but she also plays guitar and has produced much of her own music. Does any of this matter? Nope! Her latest song, Mine, has the femisogynists up in arms.

This song is rife with freaky-deaky, weirdo language that frames Swift as someone perpetually under the ownership, or at least care, of a male authority. The lyrics describe her as not a woman, but as a “careless man’s careful daughter” that her new boyfriend has “made a rebel of.” This is problematic to me, in the sense that it implies a transfer of her ownership from one man to another. I think it’s weird in this song that she doesn’t seem to have any sense of her own identity away from the love interest, or her father. I do, however, give her props for the use of the line “we got bills to pay.” Though grammatically incorrect, it implies that Taylor will be helping to pay the bills though some means of gainful employment. Let’s go back in time 50 years so that I can congratulate her on being progressive!

The other thing I found noteworthy was how Taylor was dealing with the transition from teen star to general entertainer. As much as she infantilizes herself, Swift is distinctly more adult here as compared to her previous videos. She’s got bills to pay! She has children! Usually when you see “teen” stars (she’s 20) make the transition from adolescence, they do it via the sexy route, à la Britney, LiLo, and Miley. This video is unique in the sense that Taylor Swift appears to be trying to age herself into a more matronly, albeit still conventionally attractive, role. It’s not often that we are encouraged to make an association between young pop starlets and motherhood….

Aside from completely misconstruing the lyrics, why does it matter what Taylor Swift writes about? Here is a self-made woman, someone who has built a career for herself, and done it in a classy, age-appropriate manner. For most rational, normal people, Taylor Swift is considered a role model. But it’s not good enough for the feminazis. Heaven forbid someone writes songs about their own feelings without consulting the fascist feminists about whether or not it’s considered Feminist Approved.

Feministing also jumped on the anti-Taylor Swift bandwagon, because Taylor Swift — a woman — is somehow “sexist.” And the reason that she is sexist is because a few femisogynists decided that the message of her music is somehow bad. Traditional love and romance is considered the most sexist thing ever when it comes to these enlightened beings. (After all, why should a woman be in a traditional, loving, respectful relationship?) When you consider that, as stated before, most of Swift’s songs are autobiographical, as in, based on her own experiences in relationships, it’s even more ridiculous. The feminazis claim that the issue is that music should speak to people, but obviously her music does speak to people, or she wouldn’t be selling millions and millions of albums. The issue here isn’t that women and girls don’t empathize with Taylor Swift’s lyrics, it’s that the feminazis want to decide what kind of relationships are sexist and not sexist.

The issue here is not about Taylor Swift. It’s about the monster that these feminazis have turned feminism into. Equality has gone completely out the window. It’s just like how pro-abortion advocates call themselves “pro-choice”. It isn’t about women deciding what choices to make for themselves. Taylor Swift, for example, is a successful, independent, wealthy woman who has accomplished so much at an incredibly young age. But because certain women who have hijacked the term feminist don’t like what she sings about, she’s automatically labeled as sexist and anti-feminist. Wouldn’t equality mean that a woman could choose to write whatever kind of music she wanted to write about… and that women could choose to listen to whatever kind of music they like? Feminism is not about a litmus test for how a woman lives her life, and it isn’t a list of rules. Feminism is about equality… something that the women who claim to be fighting for women’s right threw out the window a long time ago.

(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Bad news for Levi Johnston’s mayoral ambitions: pretty much everyone in Alaska — and probably the entire world — hates him. PPP polled Alaskans, and guess who is now the most unpopular person they have ever polled in any state? It’s Mr. Ricky Hollywood, himself.

John Edwards, move over. There’s a new standard bearer for the most unpopular person PPP has polled in any state: Levi Johnston in Alaska.

Edwards’ 15/72 favorability on our January North Carolina poll had set the initial record for futility but Johnston matches the 72% unfavorable number while only 6% of Alaskans see him in a positive light. Those poll numbers probably don’t bode too well for his Wasilla Mayoral candidacy.

Johnston is reviled pretty universally across the board but he’s a little more popular with Democrats (15/61) than he is with Republicans (4/76) or independents (4/74).

It’s hard to muster a favorability rating lower than 6%- that’s about where the average person off the street we polled on a lark would be- so Johnson may hold this dubious distinction for a long time. Who besides like Hitler or Osama Bid Laden do you think we could poll who would be less popular in some particular state?

Indeed, that is a bad sign if he wants to be mayor. Maybe if he stopped lying every time he opens his mouth and tones down the douchey-ness, he wouldn’t be universally hated around the country. I don’t know what is sadder… that there is actually someone that the public hates more than Nancy Pelosi… or that 6% of Alaskans actually like Levi Johnston.

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Obama is set to speak about the end of combat operations in Iraq at 8:00 pm ET, and I’m sure it will be… interesting. The big question is, will Obama be graceful, do the right thing, and acknowledge George Bush’s role in the success of Iraq? George Bush made a bold move with the troop surge, one that Barack Obama — and most Democrats — fought every step of the way. Sarah Palin lays out the facts:

Iraq in 2010 is indeed a very long way from Iraq in 2006, when violence and sectarian conflict threatened complete chaos. But then-candidate Obama did not support the course that brought us here as his press secretary now claims. On January 10, 2007, when President Bush announced the surge, Senator Obama insisted that the surge would actually increase sectarian violence: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Barack Obama was clearly in opposition to the surge strategy.

Had we followed the course advocated by then-candidates Obama and Biden, the Iraq war would be remembered now as a crushing defeat for the United States and our allies. Al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian supported extremists would have claimed victory over America – with grave implications for us throughout the region and the world. Iraq would have descended into full-scale civil war. Iraq’s neighbor would have likely been drawn into the conflict. Parts of Iraq would have been made a safe haven for terrorists to train and plan for attacks far beyond Iraqi borders.

Fortunately for all of us, these events did not occur. They did not occur because America changed strategy in Iraq. President Bush decided to increase our forces in Iraq and pursue a counterinsurgency strategy – a course long advocated by Republicans in Washington. This “surge” policy in 2007 was opposed by many – most notably and adamantly by Senators Obama and Biden. In October 2006, as the violence was spiraling out of control, Senator Obama actually advocated reducing our troop presence: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

In response to President Bush’s State of the Union address on January 23, 2007, Senator Obama said: “I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work…My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.”

Senator Joe Biden, just before the surge was formally announced, actually declared: “If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake.”

In May 2007, Senator Obama voted against funding our troops in Iraq. Reporters have insinuated that I haven’t been telling the truth on this fact, but consider the fact: he did not support additional troop funding. Had his position prevailed, our troops would have been forced to leave Iraq precipitously and chaos would have ensued. Goodness, even Senator Biden voted for the funding and had to admit this about Senator Obama and others who opposed it: “My colleagues voted against the funding to make a political point. There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anyone’s life.” As the mother of a soldier who spent his year in Iraq recently, I have to agree with Biden on that point.

As it became clear in the summer of 2007 that the surge strategy was working, Senator Obama was still stubbornly in denial about the success our American troops were having, saying: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” What willful blindness he showed with that assessment.
And even in November 2007, when everyone could see the success of the surge in reducing violence and increasing political space in Iraq, Senator Obama said: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”

We do owe President Obama credit, though. While he did oppose the surge, he ultimately did the right thing in Iraq. And despite all of his blathering, he’s done it again in Afghanistan (although he certainly didn’t send enough troops, just the bare minimum). He also put General Petraeus in charge in Afghanistan, also a very good move. The question is, will he be humble enough to give Bush the credit he deserves?

Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.

YouTube will be streaming the speech live, so you can watch online there. I’ll update as the speech goes live.

I’d suggest you keep a barf bucket nearby.

UPDATE: Well, here is Obama’s weak Bush acknowledgement.

As we do, I am mindful that the Iraq War has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it is time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq’s future.

How about, I was wrong and Bush was right?

(5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Stacy McCain has been covering the election results on location in Anchorage, Alaska.

The good news? Miller is still in the lead. The bad news? Murkowski has narrowed that lead. The results are being published here, and Miller is leading by less than 1,300 votes. Most of the absentee ballots counted today came from Murkowski strongholds, however; as Stacy pointed out, absentee ballots in the Miller area, the Mat-Su Valley, will not be counted until Wednesday.

I’ll keep updating as results come in.

UPDATE: CNN is reporting that Murkowski might concede. Interesting turn of events, huh?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski could concede the GOP Senate primary as early as Tuesday night after election officials in Alaska finish counting the day’s absentee ballots.

In an interview with CNN, Murkowski campaign spokesman Steve Wackowski was emphatic that the vote could still swing their way. “We’re being hopeful, we want to make sure that all the votes are counted,” he said.

But Wackowski also addressed the harsh reality that Murkowski might fall to the once lesser known, Tea Party Express-endorsed Joe Miller.

“I think we should know … by our calculus, we should know by tonight,” Wackowski said.

Wackowski was asked if Murkowski might concede the race to Miller once Tuesday’s ballot counting ends. “Unfortunately we’ve got all our options are on the table,” he lamented.

Officials with Alaska’s Division of Elections spent Tuesday counting thousands of absentee ballots and looking over others that might present potential challenges. Currently, Miller leads the vote tally by just under 1,300 votes, a lead that has shrunk, slightly, since counting began in the morning.

Big Government is reporting that the trend has swung that Murkowski cannot overtake Miller. Interesting news indeed. Will she concede to move on to something she sees as something bigger and better, or does she simply know that she’s been defeated and doesn’t want to pull an Al Franken? Stay tuned…

UPDATE: Murkowski will be holding a press conference within fifteen minutes. Conceding to Miller? ADN is reporting the the latest absentee ballots counted increased Miller’s lead. It’s not looking good for her… will she bow out? Stay tuned…

It’s looking bad for Lisa Murkowski.

The latest count of absentees increased Miller’s lead to 1,469 votes. That’s about 200 more votes for him than the last count. Fairbanks probably helped Miller, although the votes were also from Southeast and the Kenai Peninsula.

The Murkowski campaign was really counting on a big boost from Southeast.

That didn’t happen. The latest batch was a count of 2,760 votes. It brings the total counted today to about 15,700 votes. Most were Republican primary votes that impact the Miller Murkowski race. The rest were Democratic and Libertarian votes. Still awaiting some more Kenai absentee votes and that will be all that is counted today.

UPDATE: Stacy McCain had the news first — Murkowski concedes, and Joe Miller is victorious in Alaska’s GOP primary!

(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is narrowly trailing Palin-endorsed Joe Miller. She was flirting with the idea of a third-party run, and the Libertarian Party was her only chance. Unfortunately (for her), the libertarians don’t want her.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) will not be on the AK Libertarian Party ballot line this fall, according to the secretary of the party.

Murkowski, who is trailing GOP primary to challenger Joe Miller by 1,688 votes with about 23K ballots still to be counted, has reportedly been seeking another way onto the ballot this fall. The Libertarian Party was considered her best option.

Rob Clift, the state Libertarian Party’s secretary, told Hotline On Call that the executive committee of the party met over the weekend. When asked if the decision to keep Murkowski off the ballot line was final, Clift said: “That’s correct.”

Eric Dondero has the scoop on how it all went down:

On Sunday morning, over coffee and donuts, the ExComm voted unanimously, 5 to 0 to deny the Senator the ballot line. There was no malice intended. ALP Chair Kohlhaas has repeatedly stated that she is a nice lady, and the ALP was flattered by the offer.

The meeting was contentious at first. Two board members who were clearly on the Tea Party friendly Joe Miller side were combative before they realized that the other three board members agreed with them on the essentials. At a number of points the meeting even digressed into name-calling. The ‘F’ bomb was even tossed around a number of times. One board member was hellbent on holding an immediate statewide meeting open to full membership or registered Libertarians to decide the matter. That idea was shot down 4 to 1.

The vote on Murkowski was taken at about halfway through the meeting which lasted a total of 3 hours. After the result was clear, tempers calmed down, and the 5 member board moved forward with plans on how to announce the results to the media.

This is bad news for Murkowski, but the death knell hasn’t sounded yet. There are still 25,000 ballots to be counted, after all. Still, it doesn’t look good for her.

In other news, the NRSC got the message that they shouldn’t repeat their Florida disaster with Charlie Crist, and they’re pulling out of Alaska. They’ve pledged neutrality in the race from here on out.

The question is, will Murkowski indeed pull an Al Franken and demand a full recount if she ends up trailing Joe Miller? Stay tuned for more updates…

(4 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

The media narrative is focused completely on the people who oppose the Ground Zero mosque. The mosque’s opposition has focused almost exclusively on Imam Rauf. But what about the actual developer of the mosque? Sharif Al-Gamal is its developer, and he doesn’t seem like such a trustworthy guy. On top of having been arrested seven times, it turns out that Al-Gamal is also a tax cheat.

The New York Post reported that Al-Gamal owes over $200,000 in back property taxes on the proposed mosque site.

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel.

We’ve established a lot of troubling information about the people behind this Ground Zero mosque. You’ve got Imam Rauf, an advocate for sharia in America. Now it appears that the developer has a long record of multiple arrests and is a tax cheat. Yet somehow, Al-Gamal is getting the money to pay millions of dollars for this and other New York City properties over the last year.

Why isn’t anyone investigating this? We’ve got some very suspect Muslims wanting to build a mosque at the spot where Islamic terrorists have left a lifetime imprint of jihad in America. These two men aren’t exactly coming across as trustworthy, moderate Muslims, yet New York bureaucrats are falling all over themselves to ensure that this mosque is built. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi even said she wanted to investigate the people who opposed the mosque, and not the developers of the mosque itself!

Where is the mosque developer getting the money for this project? Why are they so set on building a mosque at Ground Zero? How do we know that Imam Rauf or Sharif Al-Gamal don’t have ties to Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East? We have the answers to none of these questions, yet lefty politicians are ready to go full-speed ahead with this mosque. It’s a disgrace. These are questions that we need to know the answers to, and we need them before this mosque is allowed to be built.

9-11, one of the darkest days in American history, happened less than ten years ago. Part of the reason why it happened was because we as a country were blissfully unaware of the dangers of Islamic terrorism. Have we really learned so little since then?

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

A Muslim Disneyland Resort hotel employee, Imane Boudlal, has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over Disney’s refusal to let her wear a hijab in front of customers. Now, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is involved, and they’re crying religious discrimination. But is it? Unfortunately for CAIR and Boudlal, the case isn’t quite so cut and dried. This seems to be yet another case of Muslim bullying, this time at the happiest place on Earth.

Boudlal, and her extremist friends at CAIR, are busily spinning the truth about her employment with Disney to try to bully the company into accommodating sharia. The truth is that Disney has tried to work with Boudlal, and every time, she refused.

A Muslim employee is refusing to wear a hat and bonnet that Disney provided in place of a head scarf, which she wants to leave on at work for religious reasons.

Imane Boudlal, a restaurant hostess at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel, last week in a press conference accused Disney of religious discrimination for refusing to let her wear a hijab, a head scarf, in public view.

On Monday, Disney offered Boudlal a bonnet with a hat to wear at work in public.

Boudlal rejected the new headwear and went home for a seventh time, according to the hotel workers’ union, Unite Here Local 11. Disney has offered to let her work behind the scenes with the head scarf, but Boudlal has refused.

“The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me,” Boudlal said in a prepared statement. “It’s unacceptable.”

Suzi Brown, a Disneyland Resort spokeswoman, said managers are still trying to meet Boudlal’s request after providing options, including alternative costumes. The company also offered her four different jobs that would allow her to wear her own head scarf.

“We provided Ms. Boudlal with several options, including a modified costume that includes a blouse with a higher neckline and a newly designed head covering that meets our costuming guidelines and which we believe provides a reasonable accommodation of Ms. Boudal’s religious beliefs,” Brown said in a prepared statement.

Boudlal could not immediately be reached for further comment. Her attorney also could not be reached.

So Disney does everything they can to work with Boudlal, to keep her as an employee without making her compromise her religious values. They gave her alternate costuming, they offered her a job backstage, and yet everything they offered, she refused. Now she’s suing Disney and filing a complaint against them. And we’re supposed to find Boudlal at the victim here?

It used to be the case that in America, a business could be run however the owner saw fit. In today’s politically correct world, that’s apparently no longer the case. Let’s take the obvious example: Disney. Disney looks at their entire operation as a “show”, and as such, their employees aren’t even called employees. They’re called cast members, and cast members sign a contract upon employment agreeing to adhere to Disney’s incredibly strict dress code. Believe it or not, the dress code has been loosened in recent years; it used to be even stricter than it is now. Until recently, men couldn’t have moustaches and women had to wear pantyhose if they wore shorts or a skirt (imagine that during summertime in Orlando at DisneyWorld). Women can also now have bare arms while at work. Disney even has a dress code for visitors — for paying customers! This is all because there is an image that Disney is trying to uphold of a clean-cut, family-oriented place. It’s also to keep up with the various Disney themes throughout the parks (in Liberty Square at Disney World, for example, cast members wear full colonial costumes, including bonnets, dresses, and petticoats for women). Cast members are not given uniforms, they’re given costumes, and they are required to wear these costumes to keep the Disney look uniform. This would seem to make sense to reasonable people, especially when a cast member works in front of the public. When an employee is hired, they are made aware of the stringent dress code and are expected to comply.

And for two years, Boudlal worked at Disney with no complaint. Then suddenly, she became an American citizen and decided she wanted to start wearing a hijab. What made her change her mind and why was it suddenly so important to her? This obviously goes against the Disney dress code and yet, Disney still tried to accommodate her. There’s a long paper trail of proof of all the different ways Disney tried to make her happy, but she refused every one of them. And now she’s trying to cash in. This isn’t religious discrimination; it’s nothing more than a case of a greedy woman and a scheming organization trying to bully a multi-million dollar company.

(11 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)

 Loading ...

On a September day in 2001, our country was ripped apart by the unspeakable horrors of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 Americans. For many of us, the attack came out of nowhere. Many Americans couldn’t understand why we had been attacked. We didn’t even realize we were at war. But Islamic jihadists had been trying for decades to kill us, and there was a warning of what was to come on October 12, 2000. On that day, a terrorist blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring many more.

Abd al-Rahim Al-Nashiri is the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing. Before his capture in 2002, he headed Al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf. In 2009, the Obama administration dropped charges against al-Nashiri, and now, they’ve shelved the prosecution altogether.

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that “no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future.”

… Military officials said a team of prosecutors in the Nashiri case has been ready go to trial for some time. And several months ago, military officials seemed confident that Nashiri would be arraigned this summer.

“It’s politics at this point,” said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.

Interestingly, the only two cases being prosecuted out of Guantanamo Bay are two cases that were set in motion during the Bush administration. In January 2009, though, Defense Secretary Gates had the brilliant idea to stop referring cases for trial. Over a year later, that order still stands. Is it all just politics? It certainly seems like it. What practical reason does the Obama administration actually have to not prosecute al-Nashiri? This is the man who allegedly took the lives of 17 men who were serving their country, 17 men who deserve justice. But hey, it’ll bring up that whole argument of whether or not we should be prosecuting terrorists in civilian trials or in military commissions, and it’s right around election time. Can’t have that, can we?

What message does it send to the families of the men whose lives were taken that day? It’s been almost ten years, and now the Obama administration is basically telling these families that they don’t care. It’s outrageous, and a huge slap in the face. 17 men serving our country killed, and all the Obama administration can think about is how not to infringe on the “rights” of the terrorist. It’s despicable.

Never forget the USS Cole, and always remember the heroes who gave their lives that day.

Electronics Technician 1st Class Richard Costelow
Mess Management Specialist Lakina Francis
Information Systems Technician Tim Guana
Signalman Seaman Recruit Cherone Gunn
Seaman James McDaniels
Engineman 2nd Class Mark Nieto
Electronics Warfare Technician 3rd Class Ronald Owens
Seaman Recruit Lakiba Parker
Engineman Fireman Joshua Parlett
Fireman Apprentice Patrick Roy
Electronics Warfare Technician Kevin Rux
Petty Officer 3rd Class Ron Santiago
Operations Special 2nd Class Timothy Sanders
Fireman Gary Swenchonis Jr
Ensign Andrew Triplett
Seaman Apprentice Craig Wibberly
Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class Kenneth Clodfelter.

(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...