Sma' Talk Wi' T

Current world events, politics, news, history, culture, trivia, religion, and the quirky

Archive for November 2006

UPDATE: Silvestre Reyes To Head Up Intelligence Committee

with 3 comments

UPDATE: We were right on who would get the position on the House Intelligence committee. Congressman Silvestre Reyes, (D – Tex) five year veteran on the Intelligence committee has been selected by Pelosi. He voted for the Patriot Act but against the Border Control Act.

Pelosi calls Hastings with the bad news.

“I am obviously disappointed with this decision,” Hastings, D-Fla., said in a statement thanking his supporters. “I will be seeking better and bigger opportunities in a Democratic Congress.”
He learned his bid for the chairmanship was unsuccessful during a closed-door meeting with Pelosi on Tuesday.

In a statement, Pelosi, D-Calif., said Hastings has made national security his highest priority. “He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so,” she said.

In a sign of the bitterness that has surrounded the debate, Hastings closed his statement by saying: “Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet.”

L doesn’t stand for Liberal here. It stands for LOSER.
What a loser.

Who is up for the leadership position on the House Intelligence committee? Congressman Silvestre Reyes, (D – Tex) five year veteran on the Intelligence committee. He voted for the Patriot Act but against the Border Control Act.

UPDATE: Michelle is perking my spirits today saying Pelosi may be cutting ties with Hastings. Keep your fingers crossed.

Michelle Malkin’s post on Alcee Hastings (D -FL) highlights the hypocrisy of Democrats elected to office after being found guilty of crimes.

Last week, disgraced and disgraceful Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) fired off an unhinged rant to fellow House Democrats denying he was corrupt and attacking “Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools” who have cited his House impeachment and Senate conviction on bribery and perjury charges.

Hastings complains that there’s “a whole lot of information that is not being discussed at all” about his impeachment and his career. By all means, let’s discuss. I’ve compiled a handy bunch of links and dug up some helpful nuggets to ensure that help ensure that Alcee fools no one.

Senator Durenberger. . . . As you sit here this morning, whether you slept well or not, what are your feelings about the general fairness of the process of the last three-and-a-half weeks, particularly as you reflect on the people on this side of the table?

Judge Hastings. I feel very good about it, Senator, and it gives me an opportunity to thank you all for your attention. I think through my lawyers and myself I expressed my feelings with reference to the impeachment process, and I think we have reached another plateau that I did not think that we would reach. And I still think it’s a mistake to have reached this plateau, but not as it pertains to the members of this committee. You are doing what I believe you believe is the proper thing.’ * * * * *
[Page: S13795]
Senator Pryor. . . . I think this proceeding has been extremely fair. And I hope and we hope that you feel it has been fair.

Judge Hastings . I do, Senator Pryor.’

Linda Ronstadt sings for all liberals in her song:

Poor poor pitiful me
Poor poor pitiful me
Oh these boys won’t let me be
Lord have mercy on me
Woe woe is me.

Poor poor poor me
Poor poor pitiful me
Poor poor poor me
Poor poor pitiful me
Poor poor poor me
Poor poor pitiful me.

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 30, 2006 at 7:30 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Saving Face

with 2 comments

How wonderful that a surgery to restore a woman’s face that was destroyed by her pet Labrador has successfully survived the first year anniversary of the reconstruction.

As British and American doctors work on plans for a first full-face transplant, the medical team at the hospital in Amiens in northern France issued a new photo and a statement Monday, exactly a year after they transplanted the lips, nose and chin of a brain-dead woman onto Isabelle Dinoire.

Dinoire’s immune system nearly rejected the transplant twice, the doctors’ statement said, but she was given immuno-depressants that helped overcome the threat.

“The tolerance of the transplant is excellent,” they said. The team has “confirmed the anatomical and functional success of this first partial face transplant.”

“Progress, in terms of sensitivity as much as mobility, is being noted month after month,” the doctors said.

Dinoire said she initially had trouble speaking, but now “I am understood wherever I go,” according to an interview published Monday in the British daily The Sun.

“It’s been a very strange year, but I don’t regret anything,” she said. “I can feel just about everything as I did before. It may be someone else’s face, but when I look in the mirror I see me.”

The Sun also reported that Dinoire has a new dog, Max, to replace the one that attacked her and was later put to death.

What a brave soul! Facing the world with a totally different outlook and getting a new pet dog.

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 30, 2006 at 7:25 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

One Out Of Every 32 People

with one comment

Drudge is reporting that the Federal government will announce on Thursday that one in every 32 adults is in jail, prison, on probation or on parole.

Start counting heads folks…

I wonder how many of these adults are illegals?

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 30, 2006 at 12:11 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Legal Pluralism, Sharia Law Spreading Through UK

with 2 comments

What’s more conservative than Sharia law? With liberal judges, compassionate socialists, and waning authority of courts against criminals, Sharia law is being welcomed in Britain as a way to curb crime.

Sharia’s great strength was the effectiveness of its penalties, he said. Those who appeared before religious courts would avoid re-offending so as not to bring shame on their families.

Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as “legal pluralism”.

Dr. Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals “could be more effective than the formal legal system”.

In his book Islam in Britain, Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, says there is an “alternative parallel unofficial legal system” that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis.

“Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their traditions,” he says. These are based on sharia councils, set up in Britain to help Muslims solve family and personal problems.

Sharia councils may grant divorces under religious law to a woman whose husband refuses to complete a civil divorce by declaring his marriage over. There is evidence that these councils are evolving into courts of arbitration.

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. “It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it’s less awesome an environment than the English courts,” he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

“I was speaking to a police officer who said we no longer have the bobby on the beat who will give somebody a slap on the wrist.

“So I think there is a case to be made under which the elders sit together and reprimand people, trying to get them to change.”

Slither into the communities as academics, leaders, benefactors, voices of reason, take charge, control the hoodlums, and you make naive people malleable to Islam.

The world is losing the war against terrorism, one silent, confused person at a time.
Would You Keep Quiet?
Why Should We Have To Change Our Traditions?
Losing The Enlightment

Just imagine in our present year, 2006: plan an opera in today’s Germany, and then shut it down. Again, this surrender was not done last month by the Nazis, the Communists, or kings, but by the producers themselves in simple fear of Islamic fanatics who objected to purported bad taste. Or write a novel deemed unflattering to the Prophet Mohammed. That is what did Salman Rushdie did, and for his daring, he faced years of solitude, ostracism, and death threats–and in the heart of Europe no less. Or compose a documentary film, as did the often obnoxious Theo Van Gogh, and you may well have your throat cut in “liberal” Holland. Or better yet, sketch a simple cartoon in postmodern Denmark of legendary easy tolerance, and then go into hiding to save yourself from the gruesome fate of a Van Gogh. Or quote an ancient treatise, as did Pope Benedict, and then learn that all of Christendom may come under assault, and even the magnificent stones of the Vatican may offer no refuge–although their costumed Swiss Guard would prove a better bulwark than the European police. Or write a book critical of Islam, and then go into hiding in fear of your life, as did French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker.

Can you accept the possibility that Europe may be lost to Islam? Spain is surely doomed … and nobody anywhere else seems willing to take a stand. Look at your children, and wonder just what type of world they’re going to grow up in. We in America spend more time condemning ourselves than we do looking at the threat from abroad. A certain recipe for disaster.

The End of England
What Is Your Child Learning About Islam?
Simulating Jihad In High School – Michelle Malkin reports that…

A simulation exercise in which Year 11 students played Arabs and Israelis has been dropped by NSW schools after parents complained it was creating racial tension and painted terrorists in a sympathetic light.

An inquiry by a senior Education Department officer found the simulation exercise, devised by Macquarie University’s centre for Middle Eastern studies, risked creating disharmony in schools and the community and that there was a “significant risk” of harm to the “welfare and well-being of students from particular minorities”.

Documents given to The Australian show the inquiry was prompted by complaints from parents that background notes presented to the students gave positive descriptions of groups such as Hamas’s Qassam Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Students were not told the groups are listed terrorist organisations and support for them is an offence under Australian law.

The profile of Hezbollah accurately said that its long-term aims were to rid Palestine of the Jewish population and create an Arab state but no mention was made of its terrorist activities, only philanthropic ones.

A profile of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was presented without mention of his sponsorship of international terrorism.
Rather, his goal was listed as trying “to bring the internet to Syria”.

The schools simulation is being run by Andrew Vincent, who runs the Macquarie University centre for Middle Eastern studies and was recently criticised in federal parliament for alleged anti-Israel bias. Mr Vincent said he devised the program to help students “work out the passions” of the Arab-Israeli conflict…

According to the board, the material provided by Mr Vincent was not only biased but “riddled with grammatical, syntactical and spelling errors”.

Ironic Surrealism links to Sma’ Talk.

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 29, 2006 at 10:19 am

Would You Keep Quiet?

with 2 comments

Ben Shapiro writes an article titled “Would You Let Your Child Fly?” that tackles the uncomfortable political correctness of noticing Middle Eastern passengers and wondering if they are terrorists.

You are sitting in the concourse of an airport, preparing for your flight, when out of the corner of your eye, you spot six Arab men praying loudly in Arabic.

“Okay,” you say to yourself, “that’s a bit disquieting. But praying isn’t terrorism.”

You glance at your watch. It’s time to board the plane. Sure enough, there’s the boarding announcement. Suddenly, you hear the six Arab men chanting loudly. “Allah! Allah! Allah!”

“Okay,” you say to yourself, “maybe they’re still praying.”

You board the flight and take your seat. You notice that two of the Arab men sit at the back of the airplane, two more sit in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle, and two sit at the front of the airplane.

“Okay,” you say to yourself, “perhaps they couldn’t get seats together.”

A few seconds later, you hear a stewardess explain to another passenger that the six Arab men moved from their assigned seats to the new seating arrangement. And it seems that the two Arab men up front are now asking for seat-belt extensions.

“Okay,” you say to yourself, “they don’t look overweight. But perhaps they have indigestion.”

Except that the two Arab men quickly tuck the seat-belt extensions underneath their seats. Then they begin speaking in both English and Arabic about President Bush, the war in Iraq, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

You spot another passenger signaling a stewardess. Minutes later, the six Arab men are escorted from the airplane.

Secretly, you’re breathing easier. You make it to your destination without further incident. But when you turn on the television that evening, you see the six Arab men telling the media that their removal from the flight was a reflection of American xenophobia and ignorance. “I never felt bad in my life like yesterday,” says one, apparently the leader of the group. “It was the worst moment in my life when I see six imams, six leaders in this community, humiliated. . . . In America we have no freedom to practice our faith, to do our faith.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is telling the media that the incident will be investigated. A Democratic congresswoman from Texas is explaining that the terrorist attacks of September 11 “cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslims and Arab Americans.”

“Okay,” you say to yourself, “maybe my perception was skewed by my fears.”

Months pass. The ACLU steps into the fray. They sue the airline on behalf of the six Arab men. The airline quickly settles the case for a few million dollars. The head of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation declares victory. “This will send a message to the airline industry,” he jubilates.It’s been a year since the incident. You are sitting in a concourse of an airport. You look up from your newspaper and see six Arab men praying loudly. As you board the flight, you hear them shouting: “Allah! Allah! Allah!” After stowing your carry-ons, you notice that the six Arab men have split into three groups of two: two at the front, two in the middle, two at the rear. The two in front are asking for seat-belt extensions. They are not overweight.

“Stewardess?” the man next to you calls. “Stewardess, I’m afraid that there are six Arab-looking men on the plane who are acting suspiciously.” He describes their behavior.

“Oh, yes,” the stewardess says. “Don’t worry about them.” The man turns back to his magazine.

The woman across the aisle prods him. “Frankly, sir, I’m a bit surprised at your close-mindedness,” she says.

The cabin doors are closed. The plane taxis. Take-off is smooth.

And about half an hour after take-off, the two Muslim men at the front of the plane strangle the stewardesses to death.

The two at the back of the plane pull out knives they have smuggled through security.

And you realize that we no longer live in a safe world where the ACLU and Muslim sensitivities should be a first concern. You realize that your first priority should have been getting off that plane. And you realize that intentionally or unintentionally, the six Arab men who were pulled off the plane a year ago aided and abetted the six Arab terrorists who are taking over your plane today. They preyed on your liberal sensibilities, your fears of being called a “racist.”

Then you hear the woman across the aisle. “Okay,” she says to herself, “maybe they’re just getting up to use the restrooms.”

What would you do? Would you keep quiet? I’ve had the experience myself in an airport. Getting into a tram with a Middle Eastern family with grandmother, parents, and children. I felt uncomfortable and then horribly guilty about not being able to look them in the eye and looking at their clothing wondering if they were hiding bombs. I felt terrible.

Until I saw the grandmother blow herself up in Israel.

Because of our country’s moral values, good will, and integrity, these six imams deliberately set up the airlines, the passengers, and our court system to manipulate us into doubting our better judgement, good sense, our gut instincts.

Terrorists will, with the help of naive persons, compassionate liberal organizations, and ACLU lawyers, silence our country into being taken over. Remember Islam doesn’t mean peace, it means submission.

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 29, 2006 at 9:46 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Honour Among Thieves

leave a comment »

John Gibson brings us a My Word story that shows that even with thieves there are some things respectable criminals just won’t tolerate. Or is it a case of someone spilling the beans on a pervert?

Finally, proof beyond any question that Canadians are different than us.

This story comes out of Red Deer, Alberta, up Canada way. A burglar broke into the home of a guy named William Mitchell and stole his video camera. The cops soon got an anonymous call from someone — evidently the burglar — giving instructions on where they could recover a stolen video camera. There was also a tip that the cops should turn the camera on and take a look at what was recorded.

When the cops retrieved the camera and followed instructions, they found images of a computer screen which was in the house where the camera was stolen. What was on the computer screen was child porn.

The burglar also left the address of the home he had burglarized where he took pictures of the computer screen. So the cops went there, seized the computer and found 13,000 pornographic images, presumably many of children.

Mitchell was arrested and pleaded guilty. He’ll be sentenced this week. Nobody has any idea who the burglar is, or where he is.

So what evidently happened was the burglar was going to take the computer but turned it on first. Then he found the camera, recorded the images and set the wheels of justice in motion.

Or… or… this was never a real burglar in the first place, but instead someone who knew Mitchell had a computer full of child porn.

I prefer to think it was a civic-minded burglar doing the larger right thing, while committing a lesser wrong thing. I can’t imagine an American burglar would do that, but maybe I’m selling my country short. I’m sure I’ll soon hear from some of or own burglars claiming they would do exactly the same thing, but I kind of doubt it.

Seems to me burglars — as well as regular folks — are just a bit different up there.

And that’s John Gibson’s Word.
Maybe the justice system will put this disgusting slimeball in prison with a den of thieves. I’m sure they will serve him right.

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 29, 2006 at 1:11 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Terrorists Organizations’ Best Friend: Judge Collins

leave a comment »

Another Humanitarian organization on the side of Islamo-fascists. The terrorists have a friend in California: Judge Audrey Collins. Michelle Malkin’s post fills us in.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins seems to have just shredded the president’s authority to designate terrorist groups: (hat tip: John Stephenson)

A federal judge struck down President Bush’s authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.

The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush’s order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as “specially designated global terrorists” after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

“This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists,” said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. “It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era.”

The case centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins enjoined the government from blocking the assets of the two groups…

…A White House spokeswoman declined to immediately comment. At the time of his order creating the list, Bush declared that the “grave acts of terrorism” and the “continuing and immediate threat of future attacks” constituted a national emergency.

The judge’s 45-page ruling was a reversal of her own tentative findings last July in which she indicated she would uphold wide powers asserted by Bush under an anti-terror financing law. She delayed her ruling then to allow more legal briefs to be filed.

She also struck down the provision in which Bush had authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who “assists, sponsors or provides services to” or is “otherwise associated with” a designated group.

However, she let stand sections of the order that penalize those who provide “services” to designated terrorist groups. She said such services would include the humanitarian aid and rights training proposed by the plaintiffs.

Huh?

This same judge ruled parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional that barred giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations in 2004. The same plaintiff and lawyer–David Cole and the Humanitarian Law Project representing the Liberation Tigers and the PKK–were involved in that case as in the present one. Michael Radu had a thorough analysis of the 2004 ruling and the plaintiffs here.

His conclusion then holds now:

One can only hope that Judge Collins will be overruled, if not by her colleagues on the Ninth Circuit (yes, miracles do happen), then by the Supreme Court. But regardless of what happens, we can draw valuable observations from these developments.

The War on Terror has numerous fronts, many of them, unfortunately, within America itself, where sympathetic lawyers, “human rights” militants and inane judges can be the most dedicated enemies to national security.

The news media lawyers will be all over this today so I’ll update as it becomes available from Michelle’s site or Power Line.

So terrorists, paedophiles, racists, all have friends in judge positions. And Bush wants to name another Democrat liberal judge?

Written by smalltalkwitht

November 29, 2006 at 12:40 am

Posted in Uncategorized