I am getting sick and tired of hearing from politicians, pundits, and the media how Islam is a religion of peace. That is a bunch of garbage. Here we have the latest episode in this trilogy as reported by the Associated Press.
A Sudanese court convicted a British teacher Thursday of insulting Islam for letting her students name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced her to 15 days in prison. avoiding a heavier punishment of 40 lashes. The teacher wept in court, insisting she never meant to offend.
The defense said the case was sparked by a school secretary with a grudge. But it escalated as Muslim clerics sought to drum up public outrage against what it called a Western plot to insult Islam's Prophet Muhammad and demanding Gibbons (the teacher) be punished.
So how did this incredible attack on this so called "religion of peace" get started?
It began with a classroom project on animals in September at the private school, which has 750 students from elementary to the high school level.
The teacher had one of her 7-year-old students bring in a teddy bear, then asked the class to name it and they chose the name Muhammad.
Each student then took the teddy bear home to write a diary entry about it, and the entries were compiled into a book with the bear's picture on the cover, titled "My Name is Muhammad".
But an office assistant at the school, Sara Khawad, complained to the Ministry of Education that Gibbons had insulted the prophet. Khawad testified at Thursday's trial, chief defense lawyer Kamal Djizouri said.
They now have had to close the school because of all these hard line, false Profit following idiots who were wanting a much harsher sentence. The sentence they wanted; 40 lashes, 6 months in jail and a fine.
All for naming a teddy bear Muhammad.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
And the hits just keep on coming!!!!
I pretty much give up. Every day it is becoming clearer and clearer of the main street media bias to the American people. Although still fervently denied by the liberal media, polls show that the public now accepts the bias as SOP. You would think that they would now at least attempt to hide this bias, but they don't.
Go to the CNN Republican YouTube debate last night and you see it front and center. Out of 1000's (according to CNN) video questions submitted, CNN manages to find liberals either working directly for Democrats, or backing them in the next election, as the video questions to be used during the debate.
1. The abortion questioner is an Edwards supporter.
2. The Log Cabin Republican questioner backs Obama.
3. The lead paint on toys from China questioner is a Union activist actively backing Edwards.
These morons at CNN are now defending their choices. Although they agree that one questioner turns out to be a looney liberal backer, they say his question is still relevant. These debates are for the primary voters and not for the general public. Once a nominee has been chosen from each party, then let the games begin. Untill that time comes we as republicans, independants and conservatives want questions that are relevant to us.
Questions on gays in the military, lead paint on toys and whether or not to criminalise abortion is not on the top of our list. It goes back to one of the main differences between liberals and normal people: To a liberal, it is ALWAYS about emotion.
Another side bar to the debate is this sudden love affair the media has toward Mike Huckabee. This man has not seen a tax increase he hasn't liked, or an illegal immigrant he wanted to send back to Mexico. Yes he is a Christian, other than that ??????????????????
What stood out to me was that the only 3 candidates who are conservative today, yesterday and hopefully tomorrow are former Senator Fred Thompson, Representative Tom Tancredo and Representative Duncan Hunter!!!!!PERIOD!!!!
Go to the CNN Republican YouTube debate last night and you see it front and center. Out of 1000's (according to CNN) video questions submitted, CNN manages to find liberals either working directly for Democrats, or backing them in the next election, as the video questions to be used during the debate.
1. The abortion questioner is an Edwards supporter.
2. The Log Cabin Republican questioner backs Obama.
3. The lead paint on toys from China questioner is a Union activist actively backing Edwards.
These morons at CNN are now defending their choices. Although they agree that one questioner turns out to be a looney liberal backer, they say his question is still relevant. These debates are for the primary voters and not for the general public. Once a nominee has been chosen from each party, then let the games begin. Untill that time comes we as republicans, independants and conservatives want questions that are relevant to us.
Questions on gays in the military, lead paint on toys and whether or not to criminalise abortion is not on the top of our list. It goes back to one of the main differences between liberals and normal people: To a liberal, it is ALWAYS about emotion.
Another side bar to the debate is this sudden love affair the media has toward Mike Huckabee. This man has not seen a tax increase he hasn't liked, or an illegal immigrant he wanted to send back to Mexico. Yes he is a Christian, other than that ??????????????????
What stood out to me was that the only 3 candidates who are conservative today, yesterday and hopefully tomorrow are former Senator Fred Thompson, Representative Tom Tancredo and Representative Duncan Hunter!!!!!PERIOD!!!!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
More bad news for Liberals
You have got to love the media. After 10,000 negative reports about the war in Iraq, along with about 10 good reports, the public is starting to figure out just how well it is going over there. The following report is from the associated press (an organization that hates all things Republican and conservative) describing the most recent poll by the pew research center. http://people-press.org/
It still shows that the looney left in this country are holding out hope that the President somehow loose this war, but facts are starting to outweigh the rhetoric of the left.
The public increasingly believes the U.S. is making military progress in Iraq but still wants President Bush to remove American troops from the country as quickly as possible, a poll showed Tuesday.
People are evenly split over how well the military effort in Iraq is going, with 48 percent saying it is going well and the same number saying it isn't, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. In February, shortly after Bush announced he would send additional troops to the country, only 30 percent said things were going well.
Stark partisan divisions remain (DO YOU THINK?), though even growing numbers of Democrats cite gains. While 16 percent of Democrats said in February that things were going well, that figure has grown to 33 percent — less than half the 74 percent of Republicans who felt that way.
Overall, 43 percent said the U.S. is making gains against the insurgents, up 13 percentage points from February. The percentage of people seeing progress reducing civilian casualties has more than doubled to 43 percent, while the number seeing results in preventing civil war is 32 percent, almost double the February level.
There have been smaller increases in the number of people citing progress in preventing terrorist bases, rebuilding Iraqi public works and establishing democracy.
Even so, 54 percent say they favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, virtually the same number as in February.
The public remains split over whether the U.S. will succeed or fail in Iraq, just as in February. A small majority feels the U.S. is losing ground in getting Iraqi leaders to work together.
The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,399 adults from Nov. 20-26. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Looking at the poll tells me a little more than the AP mentions, like the true number who realize the successes occurring in Iraq. I know too many liberals who hate our president so much that while responding to these phone polls, they will lie just to effect the numbers. That tells me that even the looney left realize that if they continue to ignore facts it will come back to haunt them in the next election. They are afraid that we will see them as they really are; Part of the Anti-American, blame America first crowd!!!!!!!!
It still shows that the looney left in this country are holding out hope that the President somehow loose this war, but facts are starting to outweigh the rhetoric of the left.
The public increasingly believes the U.S. is making military progress in Iraq but still wants President Bush to remove American troops from the country as quickly as possible, a poll showed Tuesday.
People are evenly split over how well the military effort in Iraq is going, with 48 percent saying it is going well and the same number saying it isn't, according to a survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. In February, shortly after Bush announced he would send additional troops to the country, only 30 percent said things were going well.
Stark partisan divisions remain (DO YOU THINK?), though even growing numbers of Democrats cite gains. While 16 percent of Democrats said in February that things were going well, that figure has grown to 33 percent — less than half the 74 percent of Republicans who felt that way.
Overall, 43 percent said the U.S. is making gains against the insurgents, up 13 percentage points from February. The percentage of people seeing progress reducing civilian casualties has more than doubled to 43 percent, while the number seeing results in preventing civil war is 32 percent, almost double the February level.
There have been smaller increases in the number of people citing progress in preventing terrorist bases, rebuilding Iraqi public works and establishing democracy.
Even so, 54 percent say they favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible, virtually the same number as in February.
The public remains split over whether the U.S. will succeed or fail in Iraq, just as in February. A small majority feels the U.S. is losing ground in getting Iraqi leaders to work together.
The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,399 adults from Nov. 20-26. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Looking at the poll tells me a little more than the AP mentions, like the true number who realize the successes occurring in Iraq. I know too many liberals who hate our president so much that while responding to these phone polls, they will lie just to effect the numbers. That tells me that even the looney left realize that if they continue to ignore facts it will come back to haunt them in the next election. They are afraid that we will see them as they really are; Part of the Anti-American, blame America first crowd!!!!!!!!
Friday, November 16, 2007
Liberal Education at its' best
The liberals' are at it again. They have already managed to take the most admired education model in the world and turn it into a second rate one. In the US the Department of Education and the very incompetent yet strong, liberal Teachers Union continues to beat our kids down even further. It is bad enough that they believe conflict resolution and teaching 11 year old kids how to have sex, is more important than the three R's. Now it seems that the school district in Boulder, Colorado has decided to do away with recognizing their top students at the end of the year. They believe it would be better to recognize groups over individuals. How pathetic is that?
Here is some of what they are saying from articles printed on the Front Range
by Amy Bounds, Boulder Daily Camera
"...The race for valedictorian will end, starting with the Boulder Valley School District's class of 2010.
A district committee studying the issue agreed to mirror colleges by recognizing groups of high-achieving seniors with summa, magna and cum laude honors instead of crowning a single valedictorian. The change is the result of a previous Boulder Valley decision to no longer calculate class rank.
'This honors more kids for academic achievement,' said Fairview High School Principal Don Stensrud, who co-chaired the committee. 'It gives kids something to strive for.'
"The action in Boulder not only is a swipe at competition, which makes our economy go 'round, but also at academic excellence," said Sen. Josh Penry, R- Fruita, who is sponsoring the graduation-standards proposal with the GOP's Rep. Rob Witwer, of Genessee.
"It sends out a message to students across Colorado that academic performance doesn't matter all that much," Penry said. "That is precisely the opposite of what we should be telling our kids so they can compete in the 21st century economy."
Added Penry, "China and India are raising their standards while Boulder is dumbing down."
So there you have it. What is one reason they give for the change? Because it isn't fair. Another example of liberalism and emotion.
Read Full Story:http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/
Liberals never fail to amaze me.
Here is some of what they are saying from articles printed on the Front Range
by Amy Bounds, Boulder Daily Camera
"...The race for valedictorian will end, starting with the Boulder Valley School District's class of 2010.
A district committee studying the issue agreed to mirror colleges by recognizing groups of high-achieving seniors with summa, magna and cum laude honors instead of crowning a single valedictorian. The change is the result of a previous Boulder Valley decision to no longer calculate class rank.
'This honors more kids for academic achievement,' said Fairview High School Principal Don Stensrud, who co-chaired the committee. 'It gives kids something to strive for.'
"The action in Boulder not only is a swipe at competition, which makes our economy go 'round, but also at academic excellence," said Sen. Josh Penry, R- Fruita, who is sponsoring the graduation-standards proposal with the GOP's Rep. Rob Witwer, of Genessee.
"It sends out a message to students across Colorado that academic performance doesn't matter all that much," Penry said. "That is precisely the opposite of what we should be telling our kids so they can compete in the 21st century economy."
Added Penry, "China and India are raising their standards while Boulder is dumbing down."
So there you have it. What is one reason they give for the change? Because it isn't fair. Another example of liberalism and emotion.
Read Full Story:http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/
Liberals never fail to amaze me.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mrs. Clinton continues to self destruct!
It does not look good for Mrs. Clinton, the leader of the Democrat party. After running for President since college, she has finally been forced to answer a direct question. I now can see why she she doesn't want to answer questions of any importance. 999 out of 1000 liberals have ZERO core values. As such, they refuse (at least attempt to) give direct answers to direct questions. She knows that by the next day she will have to take a new position on the subject. Of course for her, she actually changed positions twice in one debate. At least she came out the next morning with a firm position backing Spitzer and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Oh wait a minute; a few days later she changed again. I can't keep up with her. I am sure her positions, or more accurately described as a lack of positions, makes perfect sense to a liberal. But for me, I am just confused.
10 years ago liberals got away with taking no positions. With the media in their back pocket nobody ever questioned what was said, no matter how many different positions they would take with each issue. That doesn't work today. So what does she do to keep from getting (tricked) into having to take a stand on a position? She just plants questions in her campaign appearances. What scares me is that I hear pundit after pundit trying to dismiss her actions as no big deal.
I can only ask this of those who are planning to vote for her; Please explain to me where she stands on ANY issue????
10 years ago liberals got away with taking no positions. With the media in their back pocket nobody ever questioned what was said, no matter how many different positions they would take with each issue. That doesn't work today. So what does she do to keep from getting (tricked) into having to take a stand on a position? She just plants questions in her campaign appearances. What scares me is that I hear pundit after pundit trying to dismiss her actions as no big deal.
I can only ask this of those who are planning to vote for her; Please explain to me where she stands on ANY issue????
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Liberalism is a disease
Year after year as I become older and hopefully wiser, it becomes clear to me that a great portion of our society (according to polls, 50%) is inflicted with a thought process disease.
A liberals' entire existence is based on emotion. THAT IS THE DISEASE. Facts, history, logic, common sense, all get in line behind emotion in the life of a liberal. There is truly something fundamentally wrong with that thought process.
Granted there are some who are just easily manipulated by things they hear and read. They get their news, albeit very little, from news sources that are the most readily available. They form their opinions from headlines in the newspapers, top of the hour news on the radio, nightly evening news programs on television, and of course, those they spend their most time with.
Is there anything wrong with getting your news that way? I would say no; to a degree. If all you are getting is one side of an issue, and you are not willing to seek other sources, then this form of information gathering is wrong.
A liberals' entire existence is based on emotion. THAT IS THE DISEASE. Facts, history, logic, common sense, all get in line behind emotion in the life of a liberal. There is truly something fundamentally wrong with that thought process.
Granted there are some who are just easily manipulated by things they hear and read. They get their news, albeit very little, from news sources that are the most readily available. They form their opinions from headlines in the newspapers, top of the hour news on the radio, nightly evening news programs on television, and of course, those they spend their most time with.
Is there anything wrong with getting your news that way? I would say no; to a degree. If all you are getting is one side of an issue, and you are not willing to seek other sources, then this form of information gathering is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)