FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE

Thursday

CNN...at it again

I love how people on the left continually scream that Bush only went to war for oil, money, corporate greed, etc, and that our soldiers are dying for nothing more than lining the pockets of the Bush administration.

Yet, the leftists at CNN market a terrorist propaganda film of Islamic fascists killing American soldiers, and not a word is said. It’s true. After CNN gave the terrorist propaganda and recruitment film a prime-time spot, they figured that they could squeeze out a few more bucks by making the footage available for purchase On-Demand:


(Photo courtesy of Darth Dilbert)


This is as cut-and-dry as it gets. CNN is lining their pockets with the blood of our soldiers.

They go out in-search of terrorist propaganda. They are given a recruitment film by an Islamic terrorist organization. They air it repeatedly just before the midterm elections. And, they put it up for sale. Effectively, they turned those soldiers deaths into capital gain. And, they used terrorist propoganda to do it.


Despicable.

Friday

Burying a Scandal...Media Style

Imagine if you will, Condoleezza Rice, the United States National Security Advisor to President Bush, is getting ready to testify before the 9-11 commission. She will be asked about many top secret issues and programs, and have lots of evidence about her handlings (or mishandlings) presented to the public. Secret documents, official White House memos, audio recordings…all of these things are dug up from the National Archives building and used to confront Ms. Rice.

Now imagine that a couple of days before she testifies before the Commission, Condoleezza Rice goes into the National Archives building in Washington D.C. and begins to steal documents from the archives. She begins showing secret papers inside her coat, down her pants, in her shoes, and she even hides some underneath a trailer outside, so she can recover them later. There are witnesses to all of these actions, and eventually Ms. Rice confesses to the whole thing.

How long do you think it would be before the Media crucified her on every news cast known to man? How long do you think it would be before they started a band new channel specifically devoted to the “National Archives Scandal?” The media would demand answers, and her head on a silver platter. This story would be in every single headline in every single newspaper for a year.

Well, this has happened. But, I’m sure that you haven’t heard about it. Because, it wasn’t Condoleezza Rice who did it. It was Sandy Berger, the United States National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

Yes, just a few days before the former advisor was to testify before the Commission, Berger went into the National Archives building and stole secret Government documents. And, yes…He even stuffed some of them down his pants.

This story broke in 2004 across the blogosphere. Mainstream media outlets refused to touch the story. After all, they couldn’t shine a bad light on Clinton’s legacy. They were too busy forging documents about Bush’s National Guard service.

The few times that the media did mention the story (only briefly, mind you), how did they present it?

“This was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger, and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence.”
- Dan Rather, CBS Evening News

“Democrats claim the story was leaked just in time to distract from the 9/11 report.”
- Andrea Mitchell, NBC Nightly News



But, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge and went on his way, with hardly a word from the press.

Now it is two years later, and facts about his caper are still coming out. In a new report issued to the Associated Press on Wednesday of this week, it has been discovered that Berger hid some documents underneath a trailer so he could recover them later. He recovered them, and the documents are still missing.

There are still documents missing! We have no idea what might be in them. Berger certainly thought they were important enough to risk jail time to smuggle out. And, he never turned them over per his plea agreement. They are still out there, and Berger knows where they are!

With this new damning evidence, what did the media have to say? Let’s take a look at the subject matter from Thursday night’s primetime news for ABC, CBS, and NBC:

1. Winter snow? Check.
2. Haditha? Check. Check. Check.
3. Teen drug use? Check.
4. Some story about a long-extinct dinosaur? Check.
5. Burning off calories from Gingerbread cookies? Check.

Nope, not one mention of Sandy “Pants” Berger. But, at least the morning shows had something to say about it. CNN’s "American Morning" dedicated a total of 24 seconds to the story, while ABC’s "Good Morning America" coverage totaled 23 seconds. The CBS and NBC morning shows completely ignored it.

You think I’m making that up, don’t you? Read this.

ABC
[7:08 AM]


Kate Snow: "There are new cloak-and-dagger details about the theft of classified documents by a Clinton administration official. A government report now says former national security advisor Sandy Berger took the documents from the National Archives in 2003, hid them under a construction trailer and later destroyed some of them. Berger pleaded guilty and paid a $50,000 fine, but he never served any jail time."

CNN
[6:08 AM]


Soledad O’Brien: "In Washington, D.C., new details from a national archives watchdog group on how Sandy Berger stole classified documents back in 2003. He was supposed to get a report about U.S. terror threats during the Clinton administration to the 9/11 Commission. Instead, they say, he stuffed copies in his suit pockets and hit him at a construction site and then went back for more. Sandy Berger's already paid a fine and served public service for the theft."


The coverage ends there. No investigations. No questions about the content of the missing papers. No questions about Clinton’s culpability in fraudulently protecting his own legacy. Just the Left-Wing media at its finest.

I wonder. Would Ms. Rice get the same treatment?

Thursday

Just Another Day for Government Schools

Do you remember the days when Kindergarten boys would go up to a girl on the playground and give her a kiss, because he had a crush on her? It was, basically, the equivalent of Kindergarten flirting.

Under the Kindergarten category of flirting are chasing a girl around the playground, shoving a frog in front of her face just to hear her squeal, and pushing other boys out of the way to sit beside her during story time.

These were innocent actions, and they were received as such by the girls, and the teachers who witnessed them. They were chalked up to youthful innocence.

THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS!

I’ve already told you about the 4-year-old who was suspended for hugging his teacher. Now, we have a new one out of Maryland. A 5-year-old has been charged by school administrators with Sexual Harassment. So, what did he do? He pinched a girl’s butt.

If he were 15, and did something like that, it would be a different story. Hell, if he were at the age that he could even pronounce “Sexual Harassment,” it would be a different story. But, we are talking about a 5-year-old!

Granted, that type of behavior should not be encouraged. The teacher should have told the parents what happened, and let them handle it. But, the very fact that the school administration took it upon themselves to charge the kid with sexual harassment, and make a formal charge in his school record, is the reason that Government schools are ABOMINATIONS.

There is a distinct reason that these administrators work for the Government. That type of intelligence (or lack thereof) and hyper-sensitivity would get them booted out of a private-sector job in a heartbeat. They couldn’t hack it.

This quote sums up the ridiculous policies of Government schools:

“It's important to understand a child may not realize that what he or she is doing may be considered sexual harassment, but if it fits under the definition, then it is, under the state's guidelines


This is the essence of a ridiculous “Zero-Tolerance” policy. The only people who rely so heavily on “Zero-Tolerance” policies are people who refuse to use their brain for two seconds to actually look at an individual situation. They refuse to consider the facts of the situation (such as a child being too young to even be able to commit Sexual Harassment). Instead, they default to automatic punishment.

But, it does appear that this school has a method for reviewing an individual situation:

“School officials consider a student's age and the specific action when determining what administrative action to take”


I’m thinking that their process of “consideration” went something like this:

1. Has he, at least, reached single-digits in his age? Yes.
2. Did he, in any way, make physical contact with another person’s butt? Yes.
3. Good enough for us! That’s sexual harassment.

The bottom-line is that these school administrators are morons. There is NO reason to believe that this child was trying to commit an act of Sexual Harassment. There is NO reason to believe that any child at the age of 5 is old enough to understand what Sexual Harassment is.

But, leave it to a Government institution to label a 5-year-old as a sexual predator.

The truly infuriating part of this story comes at the end of the article:

“During the 2005-06 school year, 28 kindergarten students in Maryland were suspended for sex offenses, including sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual activity, according to state data. Fifteen of those suspensions were for sexual harassment.”

This isn’t the first. And, it definitely won’t be the last.

Tuesday

We hold these truths...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These are great words penned by great men. Men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin helped establish a country based on one main principle. Freedom is not a privilege granted by Government. It is a right given to us by our Creator. And, no mortal man can take it away.

All around the world, Governments suppress people’s ability to exercise their God-given right. Nevertheless, they still possess that right by virtue of the fact that they exist.

It seems that a professor at Harvard disagrees with that principle. Orlando Patterson, a Harvard sociologist, has written an article for the New York Times. In his piece, titled “God’s Gift?”, Patterson argues a sentiment that could only be expressed by someone who’s agenda is at odds freedom.

Patterson believes that Freedom is not an unalienable right. In fact, it is:


“a distinctive product of Western civilization.”


He also claims that it is an erroneous assumption . . . that freedom is a natural part of the human condition.”

The Professor’s conclusion says it all:


"Those of us who cherish liberty hold as part of the rhetoric that it is 'written in our heart,' an essential part of our humanity. It is among the first civic lessons that we teach our children. But such legitimizing rhetoric should not blind us to the fact that freedom is neither instinctive nor universally desired, and that most of the world’s peoples have found so little need to express it that their indigenous languages did not even have a word for it before Western contact. It is, instead, a distinctive product of Western civilization, crafted through the centuries from its contingent social and political struggles and secular reflections, as well as its religious doctrines and conflicts."

There you have it. Freedom is not unalienable from the human spirit. It’s simply an invention of Western society. People around the world (specifically in the Middle East) do not desire freedom because it is not a part of their soul. They do not have a right to it by virtue of their existence.

And, this guy would know. After all, he’s from the Ivy League.

Pompous, Anti-American Jackass.

Monday

Head-Scratching Moment of the Day

I’m guessing that the term “Journalist” comes from the Latin word “jurnalis” which means “making it up as you go along.”

In an Associated Press article about the very short-lived cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, writer Karin Laub describes the on-going violence in the region. Rifles, grenade launchers, the burning down of offices and businesses…this cease-fire agreement, like all of the others, has been ignored. The violence continues.

But, that fact did not sit well with Karin Laub. So, she penned, arguably, the dumbest sentence I have ever read:

"Despite the violence — including multiple kidnappings — both sides said they would honor the cease-fire."


Uhh…what?

Thursday

It's all a Conspiracy

I wanted to save my comments on the Tim Johnson situation for a few days. The guy is still in the hospital. This is no time to play politics with his condition. But, the media, moronic liberal talk show hosts, and left-wing bloggers are just making it too hard for me to remain quiet.

In case you haven’t heard, Tim Johnson, a Senator from South Dakota, has undergone brain surgery. He has been listed in critical condition. He has not even had time to recover from the surgery, when the media began the firestorm over the political ramifications of his resignation from the Senate.

You see, Johnson is a Democrat. And, unless you have been living under a rock for a month, you know that the Democrats recently took control of both houses of Congress. They have a 51-49 majority in the Senate. If Johnson left the Senate, the Republican Governor of South Dakota would name his replacement. Most likely that replacement would be a Republican, swinging the control of the Senate away from the Democrats. As you can see, this is tying the liberal media in knots.

And, it didn’t take Nostradamus to figure out what was going to happen next.

That’s right. The left-wing bloggers and many liberal talking heads are wondering if the Senator’s condition…was caused by Republicans. Check this out:


Interesting, on the eve of the Democrats taking control of Washington a Senator from a very red state with a Republican Governor getting to choose his successor for the remaining years of Bush's term all of a sudden is thrown into death's throws.
-AllexxisF1, DemocraticUnderground (Thu Dec-14-06 08:16 AM)



I am not a conspiracy nut, but this is just too much. Carnahan, Wellstone and now Johnson.
-itcfish, DemocraticUnderground (Thu Dec-14-06 09:09 AM)


Did they check for Polonium???? Cons are that desperate.
-who2know2, Yahoo! News (12/14/06 01:40 pm)



BUSH TRIED TO KILL SEN. JOHNSON. Even the con who usually in the strongest of denial over their corrupt leader know it to be true.
-jimbodat, Yahoo! News (12/14/06 01:39 pm)



Ok, Ok. These people are probably all 30 year old nut-jobs sitting in front of the computer in their parent’s basement just cooking up conspiracy theories. I have no doubt that many of them do fall into that category. But, some of the conspiracy kooks are mainstream personaities

Take a look at this quote:


“Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him? I know what that party is capable of.”

Yeah, this little gem came from Joy Behar on The View this morning. I don’t have to tell you how stupid this conspiracy is. But, this is the level that they have sunk to. Everything negative that happens was orchestrated by Republicans to solidify their power and feed their greed. Things don’t just happen. It’s all a conspiracy.

2000 Elections? Republican conspiracy.
9/11? Republican conspiracy.
Iraq War? Republican conspiracy.
Abu Ghraib? Republican conspiracy.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Republican conspiracy.
Cheney's hunting accident? Republican conspiracy.
Cory Lidle's plane? Republican conspiracy.
The entire War on Terror? Republican conspiracy.

Liberals have gone off the deep end with their hatred of the Bush administration.

So, what kind of reaction did Joy's comment get? Applause from the audience. Apparently, The View’s audience is as brain-dead as the hosts. Incredible.



I do want to add that I hope Johnson makes a full recovery. I pray for nothing but the best for him and his family as they deal with this tough situation.

Get well soon, Senator.

Tuesday

Guide to the Middle East

Confused about the whole “War on Terror” thing? Can’t tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?

Never fear. Here’s a little cheat sheet for you. It’s broken down into a Q and A format. Consider it a "Guide to the Middle East for Dummies."

I’m sure that Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) could benefit from reading this. After all, it would be helpful if the new head of the Senate Intelligence Committee could pass a simple quiz on the Middle East.

Saturday

At a loss for words

Do you want to know what happens when you let morons take over the educational system? Wait…Government schools answer that question every day.

But, seriously. What would happen if hyper-sensitive, politically-correct obsessed, devoid-of-all-logical-reasoning Neanderthals were put in charge of a school system? I guess this would happen:

“A four-year-old hugged his teachers aide and was put into in-school suspension, according to the father. But La Vega school administrators have a different story.

Damarcus Blackwell's four-year-old son was lining-up to get on the bus after school last month, when he was accused of rubbing his face in the chest of a female employee.

The principal of La Vega Primary School sent a letter to the Blackwells that said the pre-kindergartener demonstrated “inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment.’”


This story is out of Waco, Texas. You read it correctly. A teacher is accusing a 4 YEAR OLD of sexual harassment. Now, at this point, what the administration should have done is laugh in the teacher’s face and fire her on the spot for being a complete imbecilic jackass (Honestly, is that too much to ask for?).

But, nooooo. The administrators, like the wonderfully idiotic Government employees that they are, took the accusation seriously and suspended the student.

What the hell is going on in Government schools? Preschoolers are being accused of sexual harassment by their idiotic, hyper-sensitive teachers?!

I…I…I am at a loss for words.

Thursday

A Purely Scientific Poll

What exactly does MSNBC think about the Iraq Study Group’s report? Well, if they were truly objective, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE AN OPINION. But, since MSNBC and most of the other mainstream media outlets waived bye-bye to objectivity long ago, they made their opinions well-known in an absurdly biased poll on their website.

I’m sure this is a completely “scientific” poll, which isn’t based on loaded, leading multiple choice options:

Click Here to see the poll.



Do you believe the Iraq Study Group report will make any difference?

1. Yes. With its recommendations and proposals, it gives the United States the opportunity for a 'graceful exit.'

2. No. The Bush administration will ignore most, if not all, of the recommendations.

3. Maybe. If the Democrat-controlled Congress puts pressure on the administration.



Not one of those options actually questions the validity or the correctness of the report. MSNBC considers the findings to be gospel. If only we would enact them, we would succeed. The only thing standing in the way of their effectiveness is George Bush.

Here we have a report that is the answer to all of our problems, and we refuse to questions its legitimacy. If only George Bush would listen.

Bias? What media bias?

Wednesday

Two VERY related stories

Not that this type of rhetoric is outside of the norm for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But, today, Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, said the following:


“These oppressive countries are angry with us ... a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power.”

They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth.”

Basically, the esteemed President is telling America, "Convert to Islam or die." He has made these types of comments all too many times before.


“With the support and power of God, we will soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today's world.”
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


“If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future... recognize the Iranian nation's greatness. And bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept, the Iranian nation will later force you to surrender and bow down.”
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

I could go on. But, I think my point is made. The guy is unhinged. He is unhinged and in power of a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. A dangerous combination.

Plus, his funding and arming of terrorist groups in Iraq has recently been proven.


“According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. ‘There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,’ says a senior official.”



And, in a VERY related story, the newly released report from the Iraq Study Group proposes that with engage in “diplomacy” with Iran. Good idea, fellas.

But, let me ask. How do you negotiate with someone whose demands are “Convert or Die”?

Wealth envy is alive and well

This blog is going to be short, because the article in question does not deserve more than a few sentences of commentary from me. The writer is a socialist moron, the study is flawed, and his article is geared toward the sole purpose of exacerbating wealth envy.

Chris Giles, the Economics Editor for the Financial Times has written an article titled, “Richest 2% hold half the world’s assets.” The title alone is bait for wealth envy. And, it is wrong. Mind you, Chris’s study never, ever, takes into account the assets that world Governments seize and control. These assets are completely ignored in the research parameters. So, the study is flawed.

But the first sentence in the article sums it all up:

“Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.”


Do you see that? Chris tells us in the first four words of the article that “Personal wealth is distributed.”

Uh…excuse me? I guess Chris wasn’t counting the United States in his “research,” because, here, personal wealth is not distributed. It is earned.

Within the first four words of his article, Chris has shown his true socialist colors, and lost all credibility.

Tuesday

Protecting the Flag

I have stated before my opposition to any Government ban on the burning of an American flag. It is my contention that such an action is a matter of political protest and free speech, both being protected by the First Amendment.

I do find the burning of the American flag disgraceful, outrageous, and completely abhorrent. But, because I believe in freedom, I am against any Government sanctions prohibiting such an act.

Apparently, an Associated Students group at an illustrious American College feels differently. The crazy thing is that this Associated Students group happens to be located in a hotbed for liberal activism…San Francisco, CA!

Associated Students, Inc. of San Francisco State College has unanimously passed a resolution condemning and prohibiting any desecration of a flag.

Oh…Did you think I was talking about the American flag? No, no, no. They are prohibiting the desecration of Terrorist flags.

That’s right. The students group passed the resolution after a group of College Republicans held a protest, at which they stomped on homemade flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. Muslim students who attended the rally became enraged because the flags consisted of an Arabic symbol for Allah. A shouting match ensued, and formal complaints were filed.

So, what was the thought process behind this gross infringement on Free Speech? Here is what Kimberly Castillo, a board member and chair of University Affairs, had to say:

“They (Muslim Students) were voicing their concerns that this event was even allowed. They were offended. We felt it our duty to respond.”

You’re right Kimberly. It was your duty to respond. Here is what you should have said:

“Unless you have forgotten, this is America. We have a Constitution which is the framework for our system of Government. That Constitution protects our rights as individuals to speak our minds without fear of retribution from a Government institution.

It does not protect you from being OFFENDED.

Grow up.”


But, the association felt it their duty to protect the “offended” Muslims, by infringing on the Free Speech rights of the College Republicans. The resolution may even be used to suspend the College Republican’s funding. Ok. The next time a group of Liberal students gets together to protest the war, call George Bush a Nazi, ridicule Christians, or participate in any other action that could be considered “offensive” to a Conservative, I expect a similar ruling. I expect you to once again infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students to protect those who are “offended.”

Don’t worry. I’m not holding my breath.

Monday

Senators practice Stalinism

You remember Joseph Stalin don’t you? He was the Russian Communist Dictator who controlled Russian businesses through his use of force, propaganda, and fear. He, like many other dictators, used the force of Government to silence opposing viewpoints. To allow such view points to exist in the arena of public debate would undermine his propaganda machine and, ultimately, his power.

Well, two Senators have participated in an anti-capitalist, anti-free thought campaign which reflects many of the controlling policies of Stalinism. The issue that these Senators were spearheading was the popular myth of Global Warming.

In October, John Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) sent a letter to the new CEO of Exxon-Mobil, Rex Tillerson. In this letter, the Senators made a “request” of Exxon-Mobil…“Stop Denying Global Warming.”

The Senators were clever, in that, they never made a threatening statement of retribution if Exxon-Mobil did not comply with their request. But, since Congress controls the tax status of America’s corporations, the threat is implied.

They claim that the scientific proof behind Global Warming is “undeniable,” and that funding global warming “deniers” hurts America’s standing in the world. In their own words:

“We are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the ‘deniers.’”


To Rockefeller and Snowe, anyone who has scientific evidence that rejects the idea of global warming, and engages in intellectual debate is only hurting America by going against the “consensus.”

I think this is my favorite paragraph:

“Climate change denial has been so effective because the “denial community” has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty. Mainstream media outlets, attacked for being biased, help lend credence to skeptics’ views, regardless of their scientific integrity, by giving them relatively equal standing with legitimate scientists. ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this bogus scientific “debate” and the demand for what the deniers cynically refer to as ‘sound science.’”


So, if a credible scientist publishes a report which debunks the myth of global warming (and several credible scientists have done just that), Rockefeller and Snowe want to see them banned from any media attention, and lended no credence by interested parties, such as ExxonMobil. They want them silenced.

The only truth to Rockefeller and Snowe is THEIR truth. All debate on the issue of Global Warming must come to a halt, because they demand it. To them, the issue has been proven to their satisfaction, and no more discussion on the matter must be allowed. Also, anyone who sides with, or gives aid to such deniers, must publicly repent of their sins and change their evil ways. You think I’m making that last part up, don’t you?

“We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it.

Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history.

Finally, we believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world’s largest carbon emitters headquartered here devoted at least some of the money it has invested in climate change denial pseudo-science to global remediation efforts.”


They “recommend” that Exxon-Mobil public acknowledge the “undeniable truth” that we are destroying the world (i.e. publicly repent of their sins) and devote its finances to curbing the “well-documented” causes of global warming (i.e. change their evil ways).

It is absolutely amazing that these two Senators would use their position as Government officials to silence a scientific debate and force policy changes on a PRIVATE business. And what is the basis for their decision?

“The scientific consensus on climate change”

You might be interested to know that within the scientific community, there is NO consensus on global warming. Many climate experts do believe that man is causing global warming through its increased use of fossil fuels and addition of green house gases to the atmosphere.

However, there are many other climate experts who believe that any warming of the planet (which adds up to an average of 1 degree during the 20th century), can be attributed to fluctuations in the heat emitted by the Sun. This evidence can account for warmer global temperatures during Medieval times as well as melting ice caps on Mars.

The truth is that there are scientists on both sides with strong evidence to support their beliefs. Yet, Rockefeller and Snowe write off those who disagree with them as “deniers” and pushers of “pseudo-science.” They believe in silencing those who want to continue the debate, and controlling the policies of American businesses who defy them.

Is this the role of Government?



P.S. You might also be interested to know that the same scientists warning us of Global Warming are the same ones who were warning us back in the 1970s of Global Cooling.

Friday

My own conspiracy theory

I have restrained myself from commenting on the news last week that 6 Islamic imams were escorted off of a US Airways flight in handcuffs. I restrained myself because I wanted more facts of the case to come out before I formed any opinions.

Initially, the only reports coming out were that the men were taken off the plane because they were praying. Obviously, this did not make any rational sense. Even though there is a heightened sense of alertness to odd behavior from Islamic passengers, the simple act of prayer doesn’t seem to be enough to warrant their removal from a plane.

As details of the case have come forward, I have been justified in my assumption. These 6 imams gave the passengers and flight crew plenty of reason to be suspicious of them. Before boarding the plane, they were indeed praying. But, they were also repeatedly shouting “Allah!” After they boarded the plane, their odd behavior continued. They seated themselves in a pattern associated with the September 11 attacks. Two sat in the front first-class section, two sat in the middle section of the plane on the exit aisle, and two sat in the rear of the plane, also near the exits. From their seats, they could control all of the entrances and exits on the plane.

Furthermore, they asked for seat-belt extenders, even though they were not oversized, and did not require them. After the crew gave them the extenders, the men placed them on the cabin floor. Witnesses on the plane also told investigators that the men were speaking in Arabic and English, criticizing the Iraq War, President Bush, and discussing al Qaeda and bin Laden.

All of the factors added together equaled suspicion on the part of the flight crew. It was their discretion to remove them, and they did so. I believe they were completely justified in their actions.

But, here is the point I am trying to make. I have a theory about this entire situation. Please understand, this has never been stated as a fact of the case. And, to my knowledge, none of the investigators are proposing this theory.

I repeat, I am not stating this as fact. I am merely suggesting it as a theory. Now, stick with me. This might be confusing.

It may be possible that these men were trying to influence our future terrorist security measures. These men gave the flight crew every reason to be alarmed. Their behavior warranted suspicion. On top of their behavior, they were of the same religious and ethnic background of the 9/11 terrorists.

I believe that the imams planned to get arrested. They planned to have their behavior, religion, and ethnicity profiled. In doing so, they make the practice of terrorist profiling look ineffective and socially unacceptable. Because they were not armed with any sort of weapon, and apparently had no plans of hijacking the flight, they were cleared of any wrong-doing.

Based on this, people will begin to question,
“If our system of terrorist profiling could label them a flight risk based on their odd behavior and their religious and ethnic background, yet be so wrong about their guilt, is our system actually reliable?”


Once people begin questioning the reliability of the system, we will stop utilizing it. The next time a Muslim gives a flight crew reason to be suspicious, the crew may be hesitant to act due to the fear of being wrong or being labeled a racist.

If these imams had ties to terrorist organizations, and if they were, in fact, trying to help terrorists carry out future attacks, their crippling of our terrorist profiling system would benefit this agenda.

So, the question becomes, “Did they have ties to terrorism?” Omar Shahin, one of the imams involved in this controversy, used to be a representative for the organization KindHearts. The US Treasury Department has frozen the assets of KindHearts due to its ties to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization. According to the Treasury Department, KindHearts
"coordinated with Hamas leaders and made contributions to Hamas-affiliated organizations."

I’m not suggesting that this is smoking-gun evidence. Granted, Shanin left the organization after the Treasury Department began investigating them. I am simply saying that it looks very suspicious. At least one of them (that we know of) has a link to a terrorist organization. They send out more than enough signals to make the crew suspicious. They appear to be obvious flight risks. Yet, we cannot prove that they are terrorists.

Now, leftist activists everywhere are screaming discrimination and racism. The next time something like this takes place, the flight crew may not act. The next time, the threat may be real. And, the imams helped make it all possible.

I know, it sounds like a conspiracy theory. I could be wrong about all of this. But, it warrants my suspicion.

What do UGA students care about?

On November 30, the Red and Black ran two letters in the "Mailbox" section of the Opinions page. One of those was a sharp criticism of Joe T., UGA's quarterback. You know, he’s the guy that plays a game on the weekends.

The other was a very harsh criticism of the American soldiers. You know, they are the ones who are sacrificing their lives to protect us from the Islamic terrorists.

This letter was written by Caitlin Smith. Ms. Smith leveled a very vile charge against our troops. Yet, sadly, it is one I have heard before from other anti-military, peace-at-any-price individuals. Ms. Smith questioned why we call our soldiers "heroes." She implies that our soldiers, as a standard, are indiscriminately murdering innocent civilians, with the "full consent and even support by his or her country."

This is vicious slander against our troops, not to mention a complete fallacy.

Apparently, Caitlin has never heard of a court-martial. This is the military tribunal we use to judge soldiers who act outside of the rules of engagement. We take war crimes, such as the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians, very seriously. And, we hold those responsible accountable. But, to Caitlin, we don’t condemn these actions, we encourage them. Soldiers are simply mass-murders in camouflage who commit hideous crimes, as the United States cheers them on.

The truly sad part of all this happened the next day. How many rebuttal letters to the editor do you think were printed in the Red and Black? Not one. Not one single letter was printed standing up for the troops, exposing this anti-military agenda.

What were the students concerned with? A letter criticizing Joe T., the quarterback.

Nine letters were printed in defense of Joe T.'s ability to play a game.

Simply shameful.