You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Human Rights’ category.

The good “Reverend” just never ceases to amaze me with the hypocrisy that spews out of his mouth.

April 29, 2008 —

Barack Obama made a call for nonviolence in the aftermath of the Sean Bell verdict – infuriating the Rev. Al Sharpton, who accused the presidential candidate of trying to “grandstand in front of white people,” sources told The Post.

During what a source described as a “heated” phone call yesterday, Sharpton told Obama he was disappointed with the Illinois senator’s words on Friday, when Obama said “resorting to violence to express displeasure” was “completely unacceptable and counterproductive.”

“[Obama] issues this statement and not a single rock had been thrown,” said a source. “How does the candidate of change ask people to accept a verdict that is unjust?”

The source said Sharpton had hoped Obama would “side with the Bell family” and not use it as an “opportunity to grandstand in front of white people.”

An Obama spokesman described the conversation as a chance to “hear [Sharpton’s] views and to get his perspective.”

Grandstanding in front of white people? Really?!? So saying that violent protest is not in the best interest of either the law enforcement or the black community is not only siding against the family of Mr. Bell but is also a slap in the face of black Americans and selling out to white voters? As a “typical white person” I think I can answer emphatically that Baracks comments didnt appeal to me, but came across as standard political double speak. He managed to remain completely neutral in admonishing any side in this matter, while allowing that some form of protest could be acceptable as long as it was nonviolent. Well, kudos to him for not endorsing violence anyway. 

 Even more amazing is the fact that even if  the allegations were true, “Reverend” Al would accuse anyone of grandstanding. I guess that grandstanding only becomes grandstanding when its done for white people.  Just another day of life in the US of KKKA.

Not shut it down… shut it up!

The amazing 4 page response to the “Reverend” Al Sharpton via the New York Post.

Most impressive!

April 26, 2008 — JUSTICE has been served in the Sean Bell case.

However horrific Bell’s slaying by police gunfire, Judge Arthur Cooperman yesterday resisted pressure to make the verdict an alleged test of civil rights – a test which, according to the city’s race agitators, had only one proper and predetermined outcome – and instead decided the case on the facts before him.

The New York Police Department has already begun scouring its training to try to drive down even further the chance that such a blood-curdling tragedy is repeated. Now it falls on Mayor Bloomberg to explain to the city how rare such tragedies are and to lay out the case that the NYPD is the greatest protector of civil rights in New York – given that the No. 1 civil right is freedom from fear and violence.

THE prosecution’s case began falling apart almost from the start. As Judge Cooperman noted, its witnesses contradicted their own prior statements and made claims on the stand that ballistics evidence clearly disproved.

In addition, many of the prosecutions’ witnesses corroborated the officers’ narrative of that night’s events:

* They confirmed that there’d been a tense exchange outside the Club Kalua (a crime-ridden strip joint in Queens) between an apparently armed man and Sean Bell and his companions (who had been celebrating Bell’s wedding the next day with a bachelor party at the club).

* Several acknowledged that Bell and his friends had referred to getting a gun.

* Some prosecution witnesses also verified what forensics evidence unambiguously demonstrated: that Sean Bell’s car had sped twice into Detective Gerald Isnora and an unmarked police van as Detective Isnora was trying to signal the car to stop.

Please read the full article in the link to the post above but the final page tells the real story that the race hustlers don’t want you to hear.

ANTI-COP agitators and politicians are fond of claiming that the police are a threat to black lives. In fact, no single private or public agency has saved more minority lives than the NYPD.

Had murders stayed at their early 1990s levels, before the NYPD got smart about policing, 13,000-plus more New Yorkers – the overwhelming majority of them black and Hispanic – would be dead today.

In fact, even as the NYPD brought down homicide a remarkable 70 percent, it was driving down its own use of force. In 1973, there were 1.82 fatal police shootings per 1,000 New York officers; in 2006, there were .36 such shootings per 1,000 officers. And the vast majority of those police shootings are against criminals who are threatening the officer with force.

The department is one of the more restrained big-city police outfits in the country. Its fatal shooting rate is a tenth those of the Phoenix and Philadelphia departments, for example. While every mistaken shooting of an unarmed innocent civilian is an unmitigated disaster, the number of such NYPD shootings over the last two decades can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

ABOVE all else, remember this: The risk posed to New Yorkers by the police is negligible compared to the risk posed by criminals – and NYPD New York officers work their hearts out every day to try to protect law-abiding residents from crime.

If Al Sharpton and Charles Barron really cared as much about law-abiding minorities as they say they do, they would join the police in that mission -they’d stigmatize criminals, not the cops. They’d protest outside the jail cells of rapists and robbers who terrorize the elderly and frail; they’d call on crime witnesses to cooperate with investigators.

The sad fact is, had Sean Bell been killed by a fellow club-goer, Al Sharpton and Charles Barron wouldn’t have taken the slightest interest in him. The world knows about him only because he was killed by police officers.

Need proof? A week after Bell’s death, another groom-to-be was fatally gunned down by some robbers in Brooklyn who had just pistol-whipped three other victims.

His name was Earl Williams – and no one ever protested his death. But New York’s police force worked to find his killer – and continue today to risk their own lives to safeguard ours.

Some people never learn the lessons that have cost us so dearly. In yet another example of Democrats efforts for peace at any price, Jimmy Carter has decided to meet with Hamas in Syria.

NEW YORK CITY —  Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”

Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The State Department has designated Hamas a “foreign terrorist organization,” and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, “That’s not something that we could possibly conceive of.”

Some Carter critics called the latest reports typical of the ex-president.

“It’s about par for the course from President Carter, demonstrating a lack of judgment typical of what he does,” said John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. “To go to Syria to visit Hamas at this point is just an ill-timed, ill-advised decision on his part.”

“I’m not surprised that Carter would do this, as he has been supporting Palestinian extremism for many years,” said Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a watchdog group.

Carter would be the first Western leader of his stature to meet with the Hamas chief. Though Meshal met with Clinton officials in the 1990s, the Bush administration has sought to isolate Hamas, enforcing rigid sanctions on its government in Gaza and refusing to meet with its leaders unless it recognizes Israel and abandons terror.

“I think this [visit] undermines the U.S. policy of isolating Hamas,” said Emerson. “I think this encourages Europeans to further dilute their sanctions against the Hamas government.”

“When you put the prestige of a former president of the United States in a meeting with one of its terrorist leaders, you’re giving it a legitimacy and currency it never had,” said Bolton.

But Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a non-profit advocacy group, said Carter’s efforts demonstrate he’s a true partner in peace.

“I think if true, this report would indicate that President Carter is willing to travel any road in search of peace,” he said. “I think President Carter would only undertake such a mission if he believed that something could be achieved in terms of peace and reconciliation in the region.”

Hooper added that because of Carter’s reputation among Palestinians he might be able to bring some pressure to bear.

“Obviously President Carter has a great amount of credibility in the region because of his past efforts seeking peace internationally,” Hooper said.

The Al-Hayat report stated that Carter would be traveling in his capacity as head of the Carter Center, and not in his capacity as a former president.

“That’s a distinction that’s absurd,” said Emerson.

“Maybe he’ll give up his pension, but he’s always a former president,” said Bolton.

Unfortunately, this is just the latest in the trend of diplomatic efforts by Democratic party leaders.  Nancy Pelosi, Jim McDermont, both had smashingly successful talks in the middle east (yes thats called sarcasm). Even leading presidential candidate Barack H. Obama wants to start a new dialog with Iran. Maybe Jimmy is on to something here though. No matter that the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, removal of infidels from muslim lands and even states that peace conferences are “ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Muslims as arbitraters.” Yes no matter how useless and wasteful negotiating with this group is Mr. Peanut may one day yet be able to say we again have “Peace for our time.”

Kudos to Walter Williams for speaking the truth.

Obama’s success is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we’ve come in resolving matters of race. I’m 72 years old. For almost all of my life, a black having a real chance at becoming the president of the United States was at best a pipe dream. Obama has convincingly won primaries in states with insignificant black populations. As such, it further confirms what I’ve often said: The civil rights struggle in America is over and it’s won. At one time black Americans did not have the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by white Americans; now we do. The fact that the civil rights struggle is over and won does not mean that there are not major problems confronting many members of the black community but they are not civil rights problems and have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination.

From LiveLeak’s statement regarding their withdrawl of Fitna:

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what the last seven years have been about, and the 225 before that. We fight an ideological enemy that transcends state-bounds; and this enemy strikes at the heart of the underpinnings of liberal society: freedom of speech, free of the press, and freedom of religious exercise. For the whole of our existance, the US has stood against totalitarianism. Those arguing that Iraq is about oil or American empire have so fixated on leftist self-flagellation that they fail to see the blatant danger posed by these aggressive, new forms of despotism that seek, as Communism did, to control not only the body, but the heart and mind of its victims.

Dictatorship and junta contented to run their courses inside state-bounds are one thing. Ideological tyranny whose core principles dictate expansion and subjugation of others are another. The US has a responsibility to herself and the Free World (a term that fell into disuse after the collapse of the USSR but may well merit resurrection given our current struggle with a new despotism) she protects to rollback this threat to every free man, woman, and child on the planet.

I honestly thought, even at my young age, I would never face the day when an organization in Britain would concede that for discussing ideas the coin paid in physical danger would simply be too great.

If we cannot see the catastrophic threat posed by societies hellbent on expansion, who enslave and mutilate women, savagely execute men, teach their children to detonate themselves for a “god,” and wage unceasing war on any and all who oppose them, then we are truly lost.

May we never rest until those who plot our demise, justifying through their holy books malevolent machinations aimed at our most basic of human rights, are vanquished from this globe, adding yet another black page to history’s tome of failed, despotic ideologies which sought the the desecration of reason and the doom of mankind’s most precious liberties.

In another manifestation of Islam’s peaceful nature, Muslims have threatened the website that hosted Geert Wilders’ Fitna, a movie linking fundamentalist Muslims to violence. Nothing says “we object to being called violent” quite like threatening to harm those who call you violent. And it would appear those threats have done their job. LiveLeak, in a video occupying Fitna’s former address, says it had to choose between freedom of speech and the safety of its employees. The internet organization pulled the film after fewer than forty-eight hours.

A statement on LiveLeak’s site says:

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support.

They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers [sic] culture.


We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

The Watchmen, however, will continue to push this film, and this author in particular would welcome the opportunity to face these faith-fueled fiends. In the spirit of freedom of speech, we repost here the youtube clips. In the post just above this one, you will also find instructions for legally downloading your own copy of Fitna. Wilders has released the film into the public, so downloading will not be a legal concern for anyone.

Resolutely,

Custos


Another shocker here

The UN came out officially today against the film Fitna and its creator Geert Wilders.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday condemned as “offensively anti-Islamic” a Dutch lawmaker’s film that accuses the Koran of inciting violence.

Ban acknowledged efforts by the government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of the film, which was launched by Islam critic Geert Wilders over the Internet, and appealed for calm to those “understandably offended by it.”

I wonder if  Ban will also understand it when the offended start the protest, rioting, looting, and murder spree’s always accompanying any legitimate criticism of Islam?

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The short film, titled “Fitna,” an Arabic term sometimes translated as “strife,” intersperses images of the September 11 attacks on the United States and Islamist bombings with quotations from the Koran.

The film urges Muslims to tear out “hate-filled” verses from the Koran and starts and finishes with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb under his turban, accompanied by the sound of ticking.

Several Muslim countries, including Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia, have also condemned the film.

“Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility,” Ban said.

So once again, making a film to discuss the obvious failing of militant islamists is irresponcible but not acknowledging the trail of destruction of these militants is? Thanks again United Nations! To qoute Dumb and Dumber “Just when I think you couldn’t possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this…and totally redeem yourself!”

“We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict,” Ban said.

Your getting warmer there  Ban. Yes, not all Islam is the problem, just the militant fundamentalists variety. Unfortunately, they seem to make up the majority of the practitioners in the middle east. The countries of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Palestinian territories teach these principles to their people. And no Ban, pretending like this is not how things are is not helping.

Directly below are both parts of Geert Wilders’ long-anticipated, short film, Fitna which links Qur’anic passages to Wahabistic violence (original video here–be patient, they are getting a lot of traffic). The film has caused no shortage of controversy and buzz, culminating so far in a crisis meeting of Holland’s cabinet and the formation of a police cordon around the Dutch Parliament building. According to the Hollywood Reporter,

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Thursday night that the Department of Justice will investigate whether Wilders has broken Dutch law with his attack on the Quran. Balkenende condemned the film as “out to hurt” the Dutch people.

Welcome, dear friends, to life in paradisaical, post-Kantian Europe, where politicians and the enlightened excoriate those documenting murderous fanatics’ religiously motivated atrocities. That such documentation should result in muzzling the masses both viscerally and intellectually offends our undeniable desire for liberty.

We have already seen moral equivalence arguments being used as defenses for Islamist actions. But many a documentary and history has been made concerning the Crusades and the Inquisition. Vatican inspired violence doesn’t pour into the streets to greet these publications, though the Church may express its dismay or disagreement over the subject’s treatment. But when Dutch Cartoonists published works of satire; Islamists lauded murder, burned buildings, and stormed embassies. And now we see another reactionary storm on the horizon as Geert Wilders, a member of Holland’s House of Representatives, releases a film publicizing Islamist racism and violence along with some Qur’anic verses (or ayats) extolling murder and death. Intrinsically dishonest as moral equivalence arguments are, situations such as this demonstrate their utter uselessness and the complete intellectual dishonesty of those who deploy them.

Also bearing mention is the fact that Network Solutions refused to host the film online. This is certainly acceptable given Network Solutions’ status as a private firm. What disgusts is the fact that Network Solutions, while refusing to host what is actually a documentary exploration of those who would just as soon kill NS’ CEO as change turbans, contentedly hosts vile pornography (articles here and here). Somehow in the world of Network Solutions, objectifying and degrading women equates to protected speech while exploring Wahabism’s link to the Qur’an may violate the company’s own “guidelines on hate language.” The world is truly turned on its head.


… into forced marriages. Morrissey has the scoop.

Good to know this whole thing is just a fantastical story concocted by crazy Islamophobes the world over and that it is all a mirage though, right?

Quote of the Week

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Thomas Jefferson