Teddy 'SPLASH' Kennedy and his Thugs Silence Student
Freedom of Speech, but only if you are a shill for the left .....
Self-described liberal hollers phrase as Kennedy begins on-campus speech
A community college student in Massachusetts faces possible disciplinary action for shouting "Remember Chappaquiddick!" during an on-campus speech by Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy.
Paul Trost, 20, a student at Massasoit Community College in Brockton, Mass., says he was upset by an introduction of Kennedy given by Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., in which the congressman noted how the long-time senator overcame hardship in life on his way to success.
"Lynch said Kennedy had overcome such adversity to get to the place he was, and that's a bunch of bull," Trost said of the introduction, which occurred in the school's student center Tuesday morning.
Just as Kennedy began speaking, Trost was walking out of the room when he shouted, "Remember Chappaquiddick!"
The student says a campus police officer went outside and stopped him. He also saw some state troopers go outside, the type who accompany Kennedy around the state to provide security.
"One of my teachers called me ignorant and told me this was an embarrassment to the school," Trost told WND. "She said to me, 'Can't you forgive him after all these years?' And I said, 'No, he killed somebody.'
"If it had been me or any other person, we'd be in jail," Trost says he told his instructor.
Referring to his two-word shout, Trost said, "I did it because I know about Kennedy's past. I know what happened at Chappaquiddick.
"I wanted to send a message to him that my generation still knows about it. We haven't forgotten about it."
Trost said he was satisfied to know that students on campus were talking about the Chappaquiddick incident later in the day – some of whom, in fact, were not familiar with it.
In 1969, Kennedy was driving a car that went off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, Mass. His passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned after the car landed upside down in the water. From World Net Daily
"Senator Kennedy killed that girl the same as if he put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger" - George Killen ~ State Police Detective - Lieutenant on the scene
"Big Powers" Get in the way of Rape and Pillaging
Developing states counter US on peacekeeping forum Reuters
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton on Wednesday chairs the first of two sessions on financial and sex scandals in U.N. peacekeeping operations, prompting a slew of criticism from developing nations against big powers.
How dare the "big powers" get in the way of the developing nations' need to rape women and children, steal, pillage, and commit other acts of brutality?
How dare they indeed?
John Bolton, beware the kryptonite......
In other UN news, Swastikas Found at United Nations Cause Uproar Among Israelis, I can only hope it caused an uproar in other circles as well. G-d knows, the Atlas sphere is in an uproar over it. What kind of an organization is that cesspool anyway? BASTA!
Danish Muhammad Cartoons: Stop the Insanity
Amman, Jordan -- In a direct challenge to the international uproar over cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad, the Jordanian journalist Jihad Momani wrote: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?"
In Yemen, an editor named Muhammad al-Assadi wrote an editorial condemning the cartoons but also lamenting the way many Muslims reacted. "Muslims had an opportunity to educate the world about the merits of the prophet Muhammad and the peacefulness of the religion he had come with," Assadi wrote. He added: "Muslims know how to lose, better than how to use, opportunities."
To illustrate their points, both editors published selections of the drawings -- and for that they were arrested and threatened with lengthy prison terms.
This is just the beginning of the fight within Islm, we must support the moderate Muslims when they stand up to terror.
Momani and Assadi are among 11 journalists in five countries facing prosecution for their decision to publish some of the cartoons. Their cases illustrate another side of this conflict, the intra-Muslim side, in what has typically been defined as a struggle between Islam and the West.
The flareup over the cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper, has magnified a fault line running through the Middle East, between those who want to engage their communities in a direct, introspective dialogue and those who focus on outside enemies.
But it has also underscored a political struggle involving emerging Islamic political movements, like Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Arab governments unsure of how to contain them.
Left's Latest Straw Man:Port Security
This is rich, really rich.
Sen. Charles Schumer, who's been a leading critic of the Bush administration's decision to approve a takeover of U.S. ports by a company based in the United Arab Emirates, said Monday that he'd rather give Hallibuton the contract.
"I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now," Schumer told Fox News Channel's John Gibson.
The New York Democrat endorsed a Halliburton port takeover - an idea first floated by radio host Rush Limbaugh - even though his party has spent years vilifying the company because of its ties to Vice President Dick Cheney.
In a word HA!. Schumer pushing Halliburton? The left does not know which way to twist into the wind. They are tied up in knots. Now they want racial profiling. Wow, I never thought I'd live to see the day.
Kahn, lib hawk writes: [...]but does anyone else see the irony in the left's criticizing Bush for supporting the deal that allows the U.A.E. company to manage major eastern seabord ports? These are the same people who get outraged at the notion that security screeners at airports or police at subway stations might scrutinize Muslims or Arabs a bit more closely than, say, 80-year-old grandmothers. But they are happy to abandon such high mindedness for an opportunity to criticize Bush and denounce a deal solely because it involves an Arab corporation.
or as Jay points out;
Yup, I know how the Dems are now OK with “profiling” on this one despite their record:
-It was Dems who tried to block Bush administration efforts to impose citizenship requirements on airport security workers in the after the 9/11 attacks.
-It was Dems who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations; temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.
-It was Dems who secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System -- the Justice Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country.
-And a week ago, Gore who was in Saudi Arabia attacking the Bush administration's profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal aliens from terror-friendly countries as "terrible abuses." -Will the UAE be hiring Gore to condemn the "abusive" practices now being championed by his Dem colleagues?
Sorry guys I am not with the opposition on this one [re:Dubai takeover]. This is a knee jerk reaction and a bad one. There are the moderates in the MUslim world working with us and we can't fight the global war on terror without them.
We need to build our relationships with moderate Muslim states, and frankly we are not talking about the security of the ports here. The United Arab Emirates-owned company would be taking control of port operations, NOT SECURITY.
P&O hires the terminal work force and ensures that cargo is delivered or shipped at ports. Port operators “just make sure every ship and every truck is unloaded,” said Mike Bowden, president of International Longshoremen’s Association Local 1459 in Mobile, Ala. Some of the work involves scheduling trains or trucks to pick up and deliver shipments. The operator also allocates storage space for cargo at the ports.
“Security” is still handled by the Coast Guard and other government entities. But, port operations companies handle facilities, scheduling, storage, and more. To me, the legislators are right in seeking a “go slow” approach to the changing ownership over this critical hub of American commerce and security vulnerability. So take the 45 day review and assuage all.
Fighting the war on terror requires allies in that part of the world. We need to go after the terrorists. The left cries about abuses against terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay, that we ought to close Gitmo. Those guys are killers and would take up arms immediately upon release. But the left wants to reward them yet punish those Arabs working with us?
The left will screw this country at any cost, just to get back into power. I don't see the harm in Dubai taking over from a different foreign country - the English - a country that has a huge radical Islamic population here(recently voting to live under Shariah -- 40%!) . C'mon get real.
President Bush said yesterday that he would veto any legislative effort to derail the transfer of operations to Dubai Ports World. President Bush added:
The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.
My friend Irwin shares my thinking on this here;
Bush has proven his bona fides on national security. Harry Reid, who boasted, "We killed the Patriot Act," has not. It's a no-brainer. If Bush says the UAE arrangement is no big deal, I believe him.
What are the Dems (and some opportunistic Republicans) implying -- that any organization or nation with "Arab" in the name can't be trusted? Perish the thought.
On matters of NS, today's left has turned me into a reactionary. If they're against it, I'm for it. The Dems have become what someone termed the "Opposite Party." The truth is inversely proportional to what they (with a few exceptions) allege
This is a straw man. We must prioritize in the War on Terror. All of our efforts must be go after the savages and kill them, not drop a ton of pork$ on first responders as Hillary would have us do..........that is after the fact. That is after we have been attacked. I say we must be proactive not reactive. Offensive not defensive. Get the barbarians before they attack.The left will never get it.
There is now way I would punish an Arab state working with us on the War on Terror. It would do tremendous harm to our efforts to recruit moderate Muslims in our war on terror.
It's a straw man Foreign companies have been doing this kind of work for us for yearsThe workers are American.
Rich Galen, publisher of Mullings hits the nail on the head by stating;
This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public’s mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don’t come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light.
Reader Shawn writes with a fabi idea;
A.P. Moller-Maersk (a Danish company) is a port handling company. Let's let them do it.Ha! But have they boycotted Israel? Do the homework.
President George W. Bush did not know about a deal to hand over operations at major U.S. ports to an Arab company until after his administration approved it, the White House said on Wednesday.
Nor do we recall any protest from Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Schumer or Ms. Boxer when President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced in May 1998 that America was selling 80 F-16 fighters to the UAE. Nor did these politicians protest back in December 1996, when the Clinton administration's assistant state secretary, Robert Pelletreau, went on UAE television to announce: "On the international stage, the UAE is universally respected for its generosity and commitment to regional security and fair-dealing. These qualities reflect the exceptional character of Shaykh Zayid, who is truly the father of his country, and a respected statesman." Mr. Pelletreau went on, "We were pleased that the U.S. could offer His Highness Shaykh Zayid medical treatment earlier this year while he was here. President Clinton telephoned him to welcome him and placed the White House at his disposal to make his stay comfortable and productive."
So what, one wonders, accounts for the sudden turnabout and interest of all these politicians in the UAE as a potential terrorist threat? The answer got a lot clearer yesterday afternoon when the International Longshoremen's Association, the AFL-CIO-affiliated union that represents workers at the six ports that would be affected by the Dubai deal, issued a statement praising the politicians complaining about the deal. The union's statement expressed "great concern" about the transaction. From there, it's easy to just follow the money - documented by The New York Sun's examination of Federal Election Commission records - from the political action committee of the International Longshoremen's Association into the pockets of the protesting politicians.
Mr. Schumer, the first to raise the alarm about the deal? He's collected $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen's political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign. It turns out that nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse.
Senator Clinton's campaign took $4,500. Senator Dodd, $2,500. Congressman Fossella, $9,500. Senator Boxer, $6,000. Senator Lautenberg, $9,000. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000. Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen's political action committee. It puts a different spin on the statement yesterday from the president of the International Longshoremen's Association, John Bowers, who said, "We echo United States Senator Robert Menendez who correctly notes that our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism." It raises the question, for example, of whether the Longshoremen are echoing Mr. Menendez, or whether Mr. Menendez is echoing Mr. Bowers, who has been so generous to his campaign.
Iran/Syria/Hamas: Terror "Axis of Evil" Will Lead to World War
Bush said it after 9/11. Axis of evil.
This tsunami of global jihad didn't happen overnight. It took decades and it may very well take decades to take it down but Lord knows the American left better take the gun out of our mouths and join the fight. The fight of and for our way of life. And the fight for our very lives;
Iran-Syria-Hamas axis will lead to world war
A new terror "axis of evil" has formed, running between Tehran, Damascus and Hamas, Israel Radio quoted the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman as saying Tuesday night.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
I would amend that quote to "World War IV". I consider the decades long struggle between the evil empire of the Soviet Union and the free nation of the United States to have been World War III.
The similarities between the Axis of Powers in the world struggle of World War II and today's Axis of Evil are unmistakable.
World War II (1939–1945)
Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) versus Allies (U.S., Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia). More here
"Like the Nazis in the 1930s and the Soviet communists in the Cold War, the Islamofascists are emboldened by appeasement and submissiveness. Give the rampagers and book-burners a veto over artistic and editorial decisions, and you end up not with heightened sensitivity and cultural respect, but with more rampages and more books burned. You betray ideals that generations of Americans have died to defend." —Jeff Jacoby
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." --Einstein, Albert
hat tip Iran press news
Jew Hate by any other Name is Jew Hate in Churches, Schools, Foreign Policy
Terror comes to Georgetown, Frontpagemag.com
The Palestine Solidarity Movement's (PSM) much anticipated 5th annual conference at Georgetown University on Feb 17-19th seemed more subdued than its predecessors. Maybe PSM had learned its lesson. Past conferences had created firestorms of controversy because of their extremist rhetoric and anti-Semitic chants and their open defense of terrorism. But no one should be fooled. The crowd may have been smaller than in the past—only 200 or so students and community activists—and the volume turned down, but the message and agenda were decidedly more radical. PSM wants the “ethno-religious” Jewish State eliminated.
The largely Arab-American, kaffiya-clad students received a weekend of training in how to promote "divest from Israel" campaigns, how to influence the media and deceive church groups, how to frame campaigns to demonize Israel and Zionism and to prove that Israel is worse than apartheid South Africa.
The people under the PSM umbrella were not there to find out how to build peace-directed coalitions through promoting dialogue with pro-Israel advocates around the world. Nor were they there to learn how to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians by building hospitals and schools. Real Palestinians seemed almost irrelevant. When an audience member asked whether Palestinians should be consulted about the boycotts, University of Wisconsin Al Awda and Boycott leader Mohammed Abed answered that “Human rights issues are too important. A human rights group doesn’t wait for a nod [of approval] even from Palestinian civil society.”
The assault on the Jews extends far beyond American academia. The sphere of Jew Hate is multi- pronged, with the World Council of Churches taking a leading role;
The World Council of Churches Assembly, on the other side, is a wide-ranging, global gathering of Christian leaders which took place in Brazil, is the biggest and most diverse Christian gathering in nearly a decade.
See the anti-Israel bias on the EAPPI -
Note, Cuba has also two booths -Hat tip and photos: Brazilian Infidel.
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - A wide-ranging, global gathering of Christian leaders has become a forum for a question that one delegate calls a religious minefield: Should churches use their investment portfolios to protest Israeli policies toward Palestinians? The debate cuts across ethics, interfaith ties and Holy Land politics - and has taken on an even sharper edge since the Church of England approved a motion for "morally responsible investment" earlier this month. It could lead the church to eventually reshuffle its $1.53 billion in stocks away from companies it considers aiding or profiting from Israeli control of Palestinian territories.
Supporters of pro-Palestinian divestment are now seeking more momentum at the biggest and most diverse Christian gathering in nearly a decade: the World Council of Churches assembly of mainline Protestants, Anglicans and Orthodox churches that together represent more than 500 million followers - and billions of dollars in stock holdings. The amount the churches hold in companies targeted by the divestment campaign is just a fraction, so any possible action would be mostly symbolic. But organizers hope to raise the movement's profile by carrying it from college campuses to mainstream churches - nearly all Protestant - as a way to pressure Israel into concessions. Powerful critics stand in the way. Jewish groups are riled by echoes of the anti-apartheid campaign of the 1980s.
They call it a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and complain it smacks of anti-Semitism. Most evangelical Protestants, meanwhile, sympathize with Israeli policies and some believe that biblical prophecy demands Jewish sovereignty over the entire Holy Land.
"The (Church of England) has chosen to take a stand on the politics of the Middle East over which it has no influence, knowing that it will have the most adverse repercussions on a situation over which it has enormous influence, namely Jewish-Christian relations in Britain," wrote the chief rabbi of Britain, Sir Jonathan Sacks, in an article for Friday's edition of the Jewish Chronicle. Even mainline churches that overwhelmingly condemned Israel's security barrier are divided over whether a stand for divestment is worth poisoning relations with Jews and others
Lord Carey, the former spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, told The Jerusalem Post he was "ashamed to be an Anglican" after the vote by the Church of England, the communion's historic cradle. "We are calling on churches to move from statements to action," said the Rev. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian Anglican who heads the Jerusalem-based group Sabeel, one of the most active pro-divestment groups. "But we know this is a religious minefield. We are asking churches - pleading with them - to have the moral courage to do the right thing." His pitch to the WCC gathering was to a friendly crowd. Last year, the central committee of the WCC-backed "economic pressure" as an acceptable policy tool for its more than 350 member denominations. But its members are still a long way from turning sympathy for Palestinians into any significant economic leverage on Israel.
Most churches studying divestment calls prefer to move cautiously, by starting talks with companies whose products are used in Israeli security operations and other roles, such as Caterpillar Inc., Motorola Inc. and ITT Industries Inc. Divestment - if it occurs at all - is widely seen as the last option. Many church views on divestment were further clouded by last month's landslide election victory of the Palestinian militant groups Hamas, which calls for Israel's destruction.
Even pro-divestment Christian leaders take pains to support Israel's right to exist and reject calls for blanket boycotts on Israeli products. Many churches have property holdings in Israel. "No one said this would be an easy campaign," Ateek said. "But economic muscle is really our own true weapon. I hope to see the snowball getting bigger this year."
The coming months could offer some clues. The Church of England will examine whether to sell Caterpillar stock, valued at roughly $4.4 million. Pro-divestment campaigners allege its construction equipment is used to demolish Palestinians homes. Caterpillar says it adheres to all "local, U.S. and international laws and policies" where it sells products. In May, the Church of Scotland is expected to study possible divestment at its general assembly.
The head of the church, the Rev. David Lacy, called the Israeli security barrier an "oppressive sign of distrust and hatred in the birthplace of the son of God" following a trip in November. The Presbyterian Church (USA) in June plans to review its 2004 declaration to support eventual "phased, selective divestment" of the church's $8 billion portfolio. Some regional Presbyterian groups have urged the church modify or revoke the policy. "I hope that since churches are taking this so seriously" it has "in some small way - contributed to a decision (by Israeli leadership) that this model of occupation won't work," said the church's top executive, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick. He is taking part in the WCC conference, which ends on Thursday.
Other churches, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the U.S. Episcopal Church, favor policies that stress investment in Palestinian development and other measures. The Roman Catholic Church, which is not a member of the World Council of Churches, also does not support divestment appeals. "This should tell the advocates of divestment that the movement is backtracking," said Rabbi David Rosen, the international director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. But it still remains a force being closely watched by Jewish organizations and the Israeli leadership.
It's more a battle over impressions than investments, said professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel. "When you talk about the word `divestment' it's associated with South Africa and the fight against apartheid," said Steinberg, who studies Jewish-Christian relations. "For Israel, it's strictly about casting Israel as a state without legitimacy. They feel some churches are trying to delegitimize Israel as a state." More here