Will a new driver's license stop jihad terrorism? Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in FrontPage:
Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has introduced legislation that will require states to make sure they’re providing driver’s licenses only to American citizens and legal residents. It’s an anti-terror measure: the laxity of license-issuing offices, says Sensenbrenner, is “a magnet for foreign terrorists, criminals, home grown identity thieves and illegal aliens.” His bill is supported by the Bush Administration and has already passed the House; but does it really solve the problem it is intended to solve?Would it, for example, have stopped Roberto Aburto, his wife Azalia Gaona, Miriam Palestina and Rutilio Marquez of Port Isabel, Texas? They were arrested last week for selling fake Social Security cards and green cards to three Iranian men trying to enter the United States. If the Iranians had been terrorists and the scheme had not been uncovered, they would have been able to get around the new legislation with their forged cards.
Last week Lamont Ranson and Cedric Carpenter of New Orleans were also arrested. They told members of the Filipino jihadist group Abu Sayyaf, according to U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, that they “could obtain Mississippi drivers licenses, false documents that could be used by terrorists to enter the country, remain in the country, travel in the country.” According to AP, Ranson and Carpenter were “charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to defraud the United States and an attempt to provide material support to terrorists.”
Sensenbrenner’s new legislation is unlikely to have put either of these groups of capitalists, busy selling their enemies the rope with which they will be hanged, out of business. Industrious entrepreneurs will find a way to counterfeit any printed verification that may become necessary. What’s more, Sensenbrenner’s bill will do nothing to stop jihad terrorists who are American citizens or legal residents of the United States. Maher Hawash, the Intel video technology wizard who pled guilty in August 2003 to conspiring to aid the Taliban, was a naturalized American citizen.
Another American citizen, former Council on American Islamic Relations communications specialist Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer, is now serving twenty years in prison for his role in the “Virginia jihad network.” Royer, a St. Louis native and convert to Islam, stockpiled arms and, according to his indictment, planned “to prepare for and engage in violent jihad on behalf of Muslims in Kashmir, Chechnya, the Philippines and other countries and territories, against countries, governments, military forces and peoples that the defendants and their conspirators believed to be enemies of Islam.”Sahim Alwan is also an American citizen. A leader of the Yemeni community in Lackawanna, New York and onetime president of the mosque there, he has the distinction of being the first American to attend an Al Qaeda training camp. Why did he go? He was convinced to do so by Kamal Derwish, an Al Qaeda recruiter. Alwan explained that Derwish taught him that the Qur’an “says you have to learn how to prepare. Like, you gotta be prepared just in case you do have to go to war. If there is war, then you would have to be called for jihad. And that was the aspect of the camp itself, for going and learn how to use weapons, and stuff like that.”
Besides American citizenship, Hawash, Royer, Alwan and other jihadists in America have another thing in common: their move toward violent jihad came as they became more religious and serious about Islam. Alwan puts his finger on the real problem: jihad recruiters like Kamal Derwish have moved unimpeded among American Muslims and used the Qur’an and Islamic tradition to recruit terrorists. What is needed to meet this problem is not a new driver’s license, but a realistic acknowledgement by law enforcement officials of the fact that what happened to Alwan could happen anywhere in America today. Because of Islam’s religious character, officials (as well as the media) have been profoundly reluctant to admit this — and their reluctance has left us all that much more vulnerable to attacks on American soil of the kind that Hawash, Royer, and Alwan wanted to carry out elsewhere.
It is now over five years since the Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified at a State Department Open Forum that Muslims holding an “extremist ideology” had taken over “more than 80 percent of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US.” What serious investigation has been mounted to determine whether or not he was correct? Corroborating evidence came just last month from Freedom House, which released a report revealing the extent to which American mosques are filled with jihadist material. One high school textbook — used by Muslim students in the U. S. — declares: “To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way….Until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.”
But why are such textbooks still used in American Muslim schools over five years after Kabbani’s testimony?
What we need to fight terrorism effectively, Congressman Sensenbrenner, are intelligence and law enforcement agencies that are aware of such teachings, and respond accordingly — not a better driver’s license.
Sorry to go off-topic but here is another extremely important Frontpage story about Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's courageous legal battle to expose the Saudi "Golden Chain" of terrorist funding.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17215
Years from now, when the story of the rise and fall of Islamic fascism is told, we will know the truth behind the Bush Administration's kid-glove handling of the Saudis. It will be a fascinating read.
Wow.
Great article.
Industrious entrepreneurs will find a way to counterfeit any printed verification that may become necessary
Its a fundamental law of economics - 'Where there's Demand, there has to be Supply'(whether leagl or not, moral or not, genuine or not is another matter).
What is needed to meet this problem is not a new driver’s license, but a realistic acknowledgement by law enforcement officials of the fact that what happened to Alwan could happen anywhere in America today. Because of Islam’s religious character, officials (as well as the media) have been profoundly reluctant to admit this — and their reluctance has left us all that much more vulnerable to attacks on American soil of the kind that Hawash, Royer, and Alwan wanted to carry out elsewhere.
Easier said than done. I can already see the howls of civil rights and human rights and terrorist rights protests that will rage on ifanything remotely sensible is proposed. Mentat's point on pilots with guns is a good example.
Sure, There ought to be safeguards for any such sweeping power handed down to the executive, but we at least shouldn't question the basis of and the need for such powers!
The whole question of naturalization has to be re-examined in the light of the ideology of Islam. Both the theory and practice of Islam show that the problem is not that of "dual loyalty" (the standard bugbear used by nativists) but rather of a clear "single loyalty" -- a loyalty, that is, to the umma al-islamiyya. To the extent that one takes one's Muslim faith seriously, and is truly observant, to that extent one will find it impossible to be loyal to the Infidel nation-state. And swearing allegiance to the Constitution, which in every major respect flatly contradicts the principles of Islam and of the Shari'a, cannot possibly be underaken without that famous "mental reservation" (kitman) that is explicitly prohibited by the very terms of the Oath of Allegiance.
Listed as sixth in the requirements for being eligible for naturalization is the following:
6) ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Applicants must demonstrate attachment or loyalty to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.
Successful naturalization applicants must take an oath of allegiance. The oath is administered by a federal court, where applicants swear to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S., renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title, and to bear arms for the Armed Forces perform services for the government when required.
There may be a limited waiver for persons who, because of religious beliefs, cannot swear to carry arms for the U.S.
And here is the Oath of Allegiance:
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
The words of the last sentence expressly prohibit kitman; there is to be "no mental reservation or purpose of evasion"; were there to be such, the Oath would be a perjured one, and invalid.
Furthermore, the Oath of Allegiance contains this:
"I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."
"Allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentat, state or sovereignty...." -- obviously this phrase was written for a different age, and different worries. It needs to have a clause added, for it needs to explicitly prohibit "allegance and fidelity" to the ideology of Islam, which for Muslims is supposed not merely to be higher than any other allegiance, but to be the sole allegiance. To the extent that a believing Muslim is unaware of, or ignores, both tenets, and the entire spirit, of Islam (which divides the world between Believers and Infidels), that is, to the extent that such a Believer is willing to ignore the claim on his undivided loyalty that Islam demands, to that extent he may be willing to serve in the American armed forces in Iraq. But, though the participation of Muslims in the armed forces is negligible, and the attitude of many quite worrisome for fellow non-Muslim soldiers (and the murder of fellow soldiers by a Muslim in Kuwait, the Muslim sailor who was in apparent contact with terrorists to whom he was willing to reveal secrets of his ship's security, and the double-desertion of that "Semper-Fi"-spouting Marine now back in Lebanon (and one wonders if he was allowed to flee, so as deliberately to avoid the unpleasant question of Muslim loyalties being raised at a military tribunal, or elsewhere in public),
Even Iraq is not a real test of Muslim loyalty, for there are plenty of Iraqi Muslims, in the United States and in Iraq, who obviously support the American effort, and want it to continue (this is not the same thing as gratitude -- of that, only small and begrudging amounts, to Infidels, can be expected, no matter what the American sacrifices or continued absurd generosity). A real test would be a war, not to "save" a country, but to defeat and disarm a Muslim enemy, precisely because as a Muslim country it was a threat, period.
This whole business of the umma al-islamiyya and where loyalties lie is not being openly discussed, as if everyone is terrified of raising the matter. Why? Why should one not examine what Islam teaches its Believers, why should one not ask the members of CAIR, when next they howl, about where they think the loyalties of Muslims should lie, and whether they think it reasonable for Infidels to worry about the loyalty of Muslims to the Constitution, and to the Infidel nation-state? This is not now, and not in the future, a theoretical problem. One has a right to disucss the possibility, or impossibility, of loyalty to the Shari'a, and loyalty to the American Constitution. Are they compatible? Can one believe in the Shari'a, for example, and still be able to become a citizen? A policeman? A lawyer? Shouldn't the minimum requirement be that of full-throated acceptance and support of the principles of the Bill of Rights? If someone claims he "supports the Bill of Rights" he should be asked follow-up questions. Does he support it as the "permanent" basis for American law, or would he like ultimately for the Constitution, if he could have any say in the matter, for something else -- i.e., the Shari'a? And if he supports the guarantees of indiviudal freedom, does he support those guarantees universally, or only here in America because he has to, in order to protect his own position?
Someone who, for example, does not believe in the right of Freedom of Conscience, and who thinks it fine to punish people for apostasy, is not someone who can be said to owe his allegiance to the American Constitution.
This circle can't be squared. Why this circle can't be squared should be a matter for congressional geometers, and others in public life whose duty it is to discuss such matters to -- discuss.
We are eager to hear the undiscussable begin to be discussed. We are all ears.
Hey Robert, Hugh, Ibn:
Check this out!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050302/FACTS02/TPComment/Features
Let's not shake on it
Some would call a refusal to shake hands downright rude. Others see it another way.
By MUHAMMAD ATHAR LILA
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Updated at 11:34 AM EST
Imagine, for a moment, that you're on your way to the most important job interview of your life. You've spent the previous two weeks preparing for it, anticipating the questions, memorizing the answers, and figuring out ways to impress your prospective employer.
You're escorted into an empty room and told to wait until the boss arrives.
After a few minutes, the door opens. In walks a tall, welcoming, attractive woman. Your knees starting to wobble. She smiles, approaches you, sticks out her hand, and says: "Hi, nice to finally meet you."
You stand there, frozen, staring at her outstretched hand. The lump in your throat is starting to grow. She's confused, as though she's done something wrong. After a few awkward moments, you finally muster the courage to respond the only way you know how.
"Uhhhh, sorry, I don't shake hands with women."
Offensive? Absurd? Chauvinistic? Welcome to the dilemma that is my life.
As a Muslim, I try to practice my religion to the best of my ability. For me, that includes not shaking hands with women other than those with whom I have a blood relationship. And I'm not alone. Thousands of Canadian Muslims face the same problem. In our schools, community centres, hospitals, places of work -- you name it -- we face the same challenge everyday: To shake or not to shake?
It's not an easy decision. Let's face it, in the West, handshakes have become more than just a formality. An outstretched hand is a cry for attention: "Validate me." "Greet me." "Respect me."
As a journalist, it's particularly difficult to not shake hands. We journos meet new people every day. Shaking hands is a matter of routine. If I don't shake hands with a new contact, for example, they could bear a grudge that would make it difficult to get information from them in the future. It also makes interviewing news sources extremely awkward.
I can already hear you thinking: "This guy's pretty extreme. It's just a handshake. Is he a Wahhabi or something?"
No, I'm not an extremist. And no, I'm not some Saudi-sponsored preacher trying to promote a narrow-minded view of religion. I think women should vote, be elected to office, run large corporations, solve the world's problems, and challenge our male-dominated culture to reclaim their rightful status as an equal half of creation. I think I'm about as laid back as they come.
And yet, I don't shake hands with non-related women. For me, the decision goes back to how I interpret my faith's teachings. That's right, not all "orthodox" Muslims -- you know, the ones with the big, scraggly beards and funny skull caps -- are blind followers. Some of us, maybe even most of us, have thought it through for ourselves. It's one of the advantages of living in the West: In an open-marketplace of ideologies, you don't have time to be a blind follower. You've got to think things through for yourself.
So how does a Canadian Muslim -- born and raised with fully modern, western sensibilities -- arrive at such a seemingly rigid interpretation? It comes down to this: During his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims look to as a perfect role model, never shook hands with women he was not related to. He also discouraged his followers from physically touching people they were not related to. So, because the Prophet's life, or sunnah, is a source of legislation in Islam, shaking hands is considered inappropriate.
Now, it would be easy to dismiss the prohibition as out-dated and, as some would argue, in need of reform -- hey, especially when it means you'll get that new job you've always wanted. And yet, as more and more Canadian Muslims begin to re-define their faith, many are choosing to stop shaking hands. They've concluded that being a believer means not picking and choosing which rules to follow.
But the problem is: How do you refuse to shake someone's hand without offending them? And what's more important, following your religion or not offending a stranger? Think about all the times you've had job interviews, met a new client, or were introduced to someone at a party. What would have happened if you didn't shake their hand? Disappointment? Confrontation? Rejection?
Or, as I've come to learn, would it have led to curiosity on the part of the person whose hand you've refused to shake? Would the person want to know more about your religion and ask why you wouldn't shake their hand? And might that, in turn, give you the chance to explain your religion to them, thereby strengthening your own belief? I can't think of a better introduction than that.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to meet Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites. He also happens to be democratic; a pluralist and moderate who belongs to the "quietist" school of thought, which says clerics should shun political life.
Our delegation consisted of handful of pilgrims, mostly women. As we sat in the small, undecorated room in his house used for meetings with visitors, I wondered how he would make his entrance. When he arrived, he made a point of greeting all the women one by one, and to my amazement, stuck out his hand for the women to shake. But before they could reach it, he would cover it with his abba -- a tattered, see-through cloak that was thinner than pantyhose.
One by one, he shook their hands through his abba. As I look back on the experience, I think he was making a deliberate point: It's okay to enjoy western ideals, just don't go too far. I think it was his way of bridging the gap between Islam and the West.
Muhammad Athar Lila lives in Toronto where he is a producer at iChannel.
© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Mentat (et al):
Did you see all the negative letters to the editor in this morning's G & M printed in response?
Keeping in mind that Islam is a political entity, perhaps the term "sovereignty" would be applicable here (?).
OT:
Many excellent articles at FrontPage and MEMRI today.
OT-
MUST READ:
"Tablighi Jamaat: Jihad's Stealthy Legions"
by Alex Alexiev
Middle East Quarterly
http://www.meforum.org/article/686
Excerpt:
"...Tablighi Jamaat has always adopted an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam, but in the past two decades, it has radicalized to the point where it is now a driving force of Islamic extremism and a major recruiting agency for terrorist causes worldwide. For a majority of young Muslim extremists, joining Tablighi Jamaat is the first step on the road to extremism. Perhaps 80 percent of the Islamist extremists in France come from Tablighi ranks, prompting French intelligence officers to call Tablighi Jamaat the "antechamber of fundamentalism." U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly adopting the same attitude. "We have a significant presence of Tablighi Jamaat in the United States," the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section said in 2003, "and we have found that Al-Qaeda used them for recruiting now and in the past."
While I don't think that it's a complete answer, or even close to a partial answer to the challenges we face, it is a good start to at least attempt to verify the identity of those trying to get US identification, and I'm glad to see it being implemented.
FYI Ismail Royer made two posts on this free speech forum, but since his departure to federal prison he has been replaced by hundreds of muslims and ignorant dhimmi's of left and right (mostly right in as much as they are homophobic, misogynistic, mostly Christian, "family values" types)
Hugh the problem of double citizenship is vexing, but it was a problem caused initially by Jews who demanded the right to hold both Israeli and American citizenship. Just like other laws, such as the Canadian and European " inciting racial hatred", used recently to indict Ernst Zundel a holocaust denier, like the "Hate Speech Laws of England" initially enacted to protect the Jews, they have all been turned around to protect the Muslims, in whose breast lies a hatred for Jews that makes the worst neo NAZI look like a Judeophile.
Unintended adverse consequences, the Jews get the governments to enact laws to afford them protection from hate, yet those who hate Jews the most (the Muslims) then use the same laws to protect their right to destroy the society that shelters,feeds and nurtures them.
Not much intelligent life on earth.
In a related vein, according to Deutshe Well TV, a British appeals court through out a lower courts ruling that a private school had the right to prohibit a Bangladesh girls wearing of the Jeljab, saying that though they had a right to enforce clothing rules they failed to take into consideration "cultural sensitivities".
Well I guess if it is OK to wear a yarmulka, it is OK to wear a hijab, can't have double standards, but it is yet another case of unintended adverse consequences since Jew hating Muslims outnumber Jews, and at the rate of reproduction within two generations all of Europe will be bowing to Mecca five times a day, or suffer as Bat Ye'or predicts dhimmitude in Eurasia.
Denmark is already in trouble, within two generations it's native population will be replaced.
A scarey documentary on that subject Home Sweet Home
So sadly thought the sublimals equated Pym Fortuyn of Holland to Le Pen of France and Haider of Austria, and the only thing they have in common is their knowledge of the Islamic threat and their opposition to immigration.
The problem in Europe (and America) is top down globalization, the elites,the corporate and ruling elite who have and control the wealth of their continents are pushing unrestricted immigration, even as their native born populations are unable to obtain employment and feed their families.
Immigrants work for less,and thus increase profits and stockholder value.
Our Non Muslim free trading capitalist elites are indeed selling the Muslims the rope by which they will be hung.
"The problem in Europe (and America) is top down globalization, the elites,the corporate and ruling elite who have and control the wealth of their continents are pushing unrestricted immigration, even as their native born populations are unable to obtain employment and feed their families."
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
Well put, Comrade Giaour!! Can you hook me up with a Che Guevera t-shirt?
I am not sure any measures based on IDs will be effective. When I was in college, only three years ago now, I knew at least two people who would take five bucks and a small picture and come back with an ID saying you were at least twenty-one years old, from any state you cared to hail from. They were laminated and everything, and looked quite real.
College students generally just want to drink, but when more nefarious purposes are in the offing, I think it is right to be a lot more careful about the nature of our ID system. Thanks for drawing attention to that fact.
In the past, America has always defended itself by visiting massive, redundant destruction upon its enemies. Secure ID cards, were they reality, would not end this war. They would simply inconvenience the enemy and ourselves.
It is that massive destruction that sobers an enemy -- the survivors, anyway. It is the sine qua non of victory.
Before the massive destruction, we will need to identify the enemy - the target. I don't believe the enemy is islamofascism or islamists. I believe that people using these terms are unable to face reality.
The enemy's name is, "islam".
This past monday the CBC ran a special about 5 Muslim men and their experiences in Canada while having the name Osama in a post-911 era.
What a farce,it was a propanganda film for recruiting Jihadists,anicdotal claims of "Racism" that were so trivial it became a comedy or errors and paradoxical irony. One
of the Osmama's asserted that Canada and the world woundn't see peace until all people accept ALLAH as the truth God and Muhammed as the messenger for Allah,in others words,all the non-Muslims are the problem so convert to Islam or
live with violence and murder.
The "Mock-u-mentary" was a long time coming and didn't cover he recent "Islamic" murders in Iraq and the wave of democracy being demanded by middle east citizens after seeing their brothers
risk death to vote in the Iraq election. The producer did a "Michael Moore" style cut-n-paste method to create the context he want to be accepted by viewers,there were clips from Israel,Palestine and the usual "Rent-A-Mob"
Pro-Arab University thugs that attack the police and then claim they were victim of Police brutality.
For the record,CBC is our "State" news outlet
for the Governments agenda and a Concordia Professor helped in the making of it and
Concordia was where the Pro-Palestinian/Arab
students rioted and damaged public property
while the CBC portrayed the foreign Muslims students as "Victims" of the Zionist controled
western media and Governments.
As long as our gutless leaders cater to Islamists and treat Muslims as victims there will be no change for groups like CAIR that exploit suffering by hijacking the misery
to use it for Islam and Muslims in America.
Couple of years back a Hindu temple was burned down from a fire late at night,while under some renovations the insurance wasn't valid until the upgrade was done so when local non-Hindu tradesmen heard of this they worked in mass for free to rebuild it far better than it would have been and the City waved the permit rule to allow for instance contruction work without filing
the blueprints and safety standards.
CAIR was so angry at this community support that showed unity amoung all citizens that they had the nerve to produce a press release that focused on "Racism" and claimed the "Arson" thought it was a Mosque and the attack was an act of Islamophobia in the post-911 era.
MO ISLAM - NO WAR
Why give them anything at all? they come here, steal American jobs, steal our resources, SELL DOPE and commite all kinds of crime - WHAT GOOD ARE THEY?
Deportation is definitely in order - but why waste all this money on AIR FARE?
Why not just DUMP the Arabs about 100 miles out in the ocean and TELL THEM TO SWIM HOME?
Americanjihad
Giaour,
What about the left-wing socialists who need to import more and poor people from the Third World to the West for votes, now that most of the Western working class is relatively affluent and not all that interested in waving the Red Flag anymore? (See: Tony Blair, George Galloway, any number of California legislators, etc.)
God, you are as transparent as glass.
The Driver's License will produce another obstacle and in that sense I see the logic and do not have a problem with it. The Licenses could be produced using the kind of printing that’s utilized on modern currency with 3D codes etc and maybe should not be laminated. This would make counterfeiting very difficult and if it catches even a few it’s worth it. Just don’t try to rip us off when we buy it.
Democrats must be hurting after losing this past November. They must be thinking of all the money they are missing out on because of this terrorism threat. Thinking of all the ways they could gouge us under the guise of ”protection”. Take this license idea for example, they would love to tax this up about $20 per license. The list of things they could charge and tax is endless and would be so inefficient as to be virtually useless. Their little greedy brains are constantly thinking up ways to get into Americans back pockets. Don’t let them get away with anymore BS.
Speaking of BS,
That Grrr never stops with the floorshow and really brightens up the day with blinding rays of optimism.
If I just read that post and none before, I would conclude that it was written by a gay card carrying union organizer who can’t wait to go after Wal-Mart. Which, come to think of it may be your niche.
Fact: 36% of the employees of Uncle Sam are Union.
Fact: 8% of private sector workers are Union.
(Source, US News & World Report March 7, 2005)
At least you would be doing something constructive for people instead of being a bitter old hag bitching about the Government and “family values”. On second thought forget about Wal-Mart, too many families work and shop there, the very people you hold the most contempt for. Best let them struggle to get by without any Union benefits, besides the Caribou in Alaska are more important anyway.
The Canadian and European laws you mentioned were brought about by who? No doubt liberals. You want to embrace everyone don’t you? Isn’t that the liberal egalitarian message? No exclusions, no discrimination, guess your type didn’t think about Islam back then huh?
Since you keep saying conservatives are ________phobic, dig this. Most if not all the people here do not have anything against gay people, who cares? However, liberals and the ACLU etc are not going to tell America that homosexuality is normal and deserves the same legal status as traditional marriages. Come on, isn’t it enough to just not be discriminated against? I repeat, no one cares about gays, get off the homophobe BS.
Take about phobic, jeez you foam at the mouth more than Kujo. To name a few, Conservaphobic, Businessaphobic, Christianaphobic, FamilyaPhobic, Gunaphobic.
Come to think of it I don’t see how you contribute or benefit society in any way.
Have you booked that flight to France yet?
PS: Che Guevera was probably gay and lived in the closet so I guess we will never know.
Viva la Gayvolution!
Off topic, but an important contrast between the recent murder of judge Lefkow's family and the Armanious case.
Take a look at this latest story from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/03/schuster.column/index.html
There is no problem discussing 'hate' sites on the Web that gloat over these murders; and no problem introducing the speculation that white supremicist groups are behind this horrible crime.
Why can't the same thing happen in the Armanious case? Why the obvious double standard? Why can't the media and the investigators say, 'Muslim extremists might be behind this'? Why?
America's best hope for defeating the metastization of Islamic terrorists and their lethal activities here is to outlaw the practice Islam in the United States and send them away for good. While this may seem unfair to the many Muslims (and others) who believe (erroneously) Islam can be practiced without violence, the truth is that Islam constitutes conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit genocide--whether most Muslims are able to come to terms with this reality or not. Wherever there is Islam there is terrorism and/or connections to terrorism. That cannot be changed despite what is in the hearts of even the most compassionate Muslims. Islamic ideology as written in the Qur'an prohibits such change.
After the US has outlawed Islam on the basis of this legal reality, it will prove necessary to ensure that no one who wishes to practice Islam is deported and never allowed on American soil again.
And that is how we will be able to eliminate terrorism on US soil.
As the Hindu blogs state Islam=terrorism!
JTF,
Why??
Do you want the red pill, or the blue one??
===============
The Beltway Sniper
by Robert L. Kocher
"America and other places now have a new political right, the right of people to feel good about themselves. This applies only to selected protected groups. The more irrational and/or degenerate a group is, the more it is to be protected and made to feel good about itself. If non-protected groups are required to sacrifice their personal integrity, their sense of reality, any or all personal rights, and their mental health to make those protected groups feel good about themselves, it is not to be viewed as a serious matter — and more likely to be viewed as justifiable retribution and/or compensation or punishment for past insensitivity and past denial of people's right to unreasonable unconditional acceptance and self esteem."...
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/sniper.htm
I suppose literal interpretation of rhetorical questions might require one of each.
Well, somebody else might choose the blue pill.
Or was it the red one? No it could'nt be.
Well, somebody else might choose the blue pill.
Or was it the red one? No it could'nt be.
New Law to standardize:
Drivers License
Social Security
Birth Certificates
See Link
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32722.pdf