Do you remember?

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
           a. Superman
           b. Jay Lenno
           c. Harry Potter
           d. Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
            a. Olga Corbett
            b. Sitting Bull
            c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
           a. Lost Norwegians
           b. Elvis
           c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
           d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

During the 1980's, a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
            a. John Dillinger
           b. The King of Sweden
           c. The Boy Scouts
           d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
           a. A pizza delivery boy
           b. Pee Wee Herman
           c. Geraldo Rivera
           d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
            a. The Smurfs
            b. Davy Jones
            c. The Little Mermaid
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying
to rescue passengers was murdered by:
            a. Captain Kidd
            b. Charles Lindberg
            c. Mother Teresa
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
            a. Scooby Doo
            b. The Tooth Fairy
            c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
            a. Richard Simmons 
            b. Grandma Moses
            c. Michael Jordan
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
            a. Mr. Rogers
            b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill' s
               women problems
            c. The World Wrestling Federation
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take
out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the
US Pentagon, and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
            a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
            b. The Supreme Court of Florida
            c. Mr. Bean
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
            a. Enron
            b. The Lutheran Church
            c. The NFL
            d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
             a. Bonnie and Clyde
             b. Captain Kangaroo
             c. Billy Graham
             d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2004, Spain railway bombings:
             a. Chicanos
             b. Chiquita Banana
             c. Horacio Equizel
             d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 2005, 2005 London Railway bombings:
     a. The Beatles
             b. The Luftwaffe
             c. Youth groups
             d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope ... I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, Medal of Honor winners, and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone because of profiling.


Prince Charles hails PIRATES for an ’explosion’ in marine life due to scared fisherman

PRINCE CHARLES has praised ocean pirates for scaring off fishermen that has led to a “fantastic explosion for bigger and better fish”.


PUBLISHED: 01:42, Fri, Oct 6, 2017

Speaking at an ocean conservation conference in Malta, the Prince of Wales stirred up controversy by praising Somalian pirates for scaring off trawler crews to create a greater wealth of marine life.

The Royal said: “As a result, there hasn’t been any fishing there for the last ten or 15 years. And from that, there has been a fantastic explosion of bigger and bigger fish.”

Since delivering his contentious comments, two former military members have lashed out at the Prince for his apparent endorsement of Somalian gangs.

Ex-SAS trooper and anti-piracy expert Phil Campion and ex-soldier Stephen Beardsley have both called the Royal out for his unethical endorsement.

Mr Campion stated: “These are nasty gangs doing extreme harm, not worrying about life.

“There’s a few extra fish. Compare that to people’s lives lost, it’s insensitive. If Charles thought about it he’d have a change of heart.”

Mr Beardsley echoed the statement by the former SAS trooper: “They aren’t friendly, never mind environmentally friendly.”

Five Britons have been captured by Somalian pirates who have launched 103 attacks on ships since 2012.

Maritime stats state that 1,753 people have been taken hostage by pirates worldwide with 12 being killed.

These statements are not the only echoes of controversy the Prince has left in his wake, the Royal announced yesterday that both he and the Duchess of Cornwall have abandoned plans to visit Burma when they travel to Singapore, Malaysia and India later this year.

The Daily Express last month revealed that the heir to the throne and his wife would visit the south-east Asian country during their traditional autumn tour, despite turmoil in parts of the nation.

Burma has faced widespread condemnation from the international community after more than half a million Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh to escape a Burmese military operation condemned as ethnic cleansing.

The crackdown was in response to a series of deadly attacks on security posts by Muslim insurgents.

Clarence House announced that the Prince and Duchess will make an 11-day trip starting in Singapore on October 30 before moving on to Malaysia and ending in India.


By John Leo Sun Jul 31, 8:10 PM ET

In the wake of the London bombings, New York City is now searching the bags of subway riders. As you might expect, this is provoking the usual cluster of perverse reactions. Someone on Air America, the liberal talk-radio network, suggested that riders carry many bags to confuse and irritate the cops.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, normally a sane fellow, has ordered that the searches be entirely random, to avoid singling out any one ethnic or religious group. So if someone fits the suicide bomber profile -- young Muslim male, short hair, recently shaved beard or mustache, smelling of flower water (a preparation for entering paradise) -- the police must look away and search the nun or the Boy Scout behind him. What's the point of stopping a terrorist if you have to trample political correctness to do it?

Besides, the New York Civil Liberties Union opposes all bag searches. No surprise there. The national American Civil Liberties Union still opposes passenger screening at airports. In a speech at the Brookings Institution, historian Fred Siegel said that the Democrats, pegged as the party of criminals' rights, are in danger of becoming the party of terrorists' rights.

From the first moments after the attacks of 9/11, we had indicators that the left would not be able to take terrorism seriously. Instead of resolve, we got concern about emotional closure and "root causes," warnings about the allegedly great danger of a backlash against Muslim Americans, arguments that violence directed at America is our own fault, and suggestions that we must not use force, because violence never solves anything. "We can't bomb our way to justice," said Ralph Nader.

The denial of the peril facing America remains a staple of the left. We still hear that terrorism is a scattered and minor threat that should be dealt with as a criminal justice matter. In Britain last October, the BBC, a perennial leader in foolish leftism, delivered a three-part TV series arguing that terrorism is vastly exaggerated. Al-Qaeda barely exists at all, the series argued, except as an idea that uses religious violence to achieve its ends. Besides, the series said, a dirty bomb would not kill many people and may not even kill anyone.

This ho-hum approach isn't rare. Though evidence shows that the terrorists are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons to use against our cities, a learned writer for The New York Review of Books insists that the real weapons of mass destruction are world poverty and environmental abuse. Of course, world poverty is rarely mentioned by terrorists, and those known to be involved have almost all been well-fed and are well-to-do.

The "our fault" argument seems permanently entrenched. After the London bombings, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester wrote in The Guardian that the root causes and blame-Blair outbursts were "spreading like an infestation across the pages of this newspaper ... there are, among us, apologists for what the killers do." That has been the case on both sides of the Atlantic.

After 9/11, Michael Walzer, one of the most powerful voices on the left, warned about "the politics of ideological apology" for terrorism. In the June 2005 issue of The American Prospect, he returned to the theme.

"Is anybody still excusing terrorism?" he asked. "The answer is yes: Secret sympathy, even fascination with violence among men and women who think of themselves as 'militants,' is a disease, and recovery is slow." Though the argument has shifted somewhat, he wrote, the problem is "how to make people feel that the liberal left is interested in their security and capable of acting effectively. We won't win an election until we address this."

Walzer's analysis is a strong one. The Bush administration has botched many things, but large numbers of Americans go along with the president because he displays what the left apparently cannot: moral clarity and seriousness about what must be done. When the ideas of the left come into view, the themes often include the closing of Guantanamo, attacks on the Patriot Act, opposition to military recruitment on campuses, casual mockery of patriotism (a whole art exhibit in Baltimore was devoted to the theme), and a failure to admit that defeating terrorism will require some trade-offs between security and civil liberties. Is this a serious program?

Real security, Walzer says, will depend on hunting down terrorist cells, cutting off the flow of money, and improving surveillance at key sites. He writes: "The burden is on us -- nobody else -- to make the case that these things can be done effectively by liberals and leftists who will also, in contrast to today's Republicans, defend the civil liberties of American citizens." Good argument. How will the left respond?


Local Muslims outraged by Homeland official's comments

(Original Publication: November 8, 2005)

Local Muslims yesterday reacted with sadness and outrage to a Department of Homeland Security official's recent urging that they and Arab-Americans register with the federal government before flying, to reduce the chance their names are flagged as security risks.

Daniel Sutherland, the department's head of civil rights, made the comments at an Oct. 20 seminar on Homeland Security sponsored by the University of Maryland's Knight Center for Specialized Journalism.

Sutherland was responding to a question posed by a reporter who wanted to know what options were available to Muslims and Arab-Americans who frequently were targets of additional scrutiny at airports, Valerie Smith, a spokeswoman for the department, said yesterday.

"Mr. Sutherland was stating that any individual who has concerns about secondary screenings has this option available to them, but we do not recommend that all Americans or particular groups of Americans register in this program, only those individuals who have concerns about secondary screening could consider this an option," Smith said.

Sutherland's suggestion was that Muslim and Arab-American travelers complete a form on the Web page of the Transportation Security Administration, a division of Homeland Security responsible for protecting mass transit systems, including airports.

But Gilbert Gordon, president of the Jerrahi Mosque in Chestnut Ridge, said any such program aimed at one specific group could be viewed as "an invasion of their privacy and an invasion of their civil liberty."

Rather than achieve greater security and improved relations, having Muslims register would do nothing more than foster "distrust and animosity between the American government and Muslims," said Gordon, who lives in Chestnut Ridge.

Dobbs Ferry resident Salem Mikdadi, a board member of the Center for Jewish-Christian-Muslim Understanding in Irvington, took offense to the suggestion.

"I don't want to be singled out as someone different. I am an American like everybody else and my faith is strictly personal," said Mikdadi, a Muslim who came to the United States from the Palestinian territories 34 years ago. "Singling out individuals or groups of people and suggesting it's a matter for their convenience to register, a lot of people might take offense.

"I never dreamt in my life that a day would come where it would be suggested that I disclose my personal data to the government to facilitate my travel in a free country," he said. "As much as I value my safety, there are certain individual freedoms that need to be respected."

Still, Mikdadi acknowledged that instances of airport workers confusing Muslims' names with those on the anti-terror lists was an increasing problem, but he attributed it to poor staff training.

Arsalan Iftikhar, national legal director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, called Sutherland's comments "counterproductive to DHS's desire to bridge the gap between the Muslim community and the federal government.

"We think that this will only serve to further alienate the community and profile lawful Americans," Iftikhar said. He added that all Americans should be concerned by any action that would allow the government to archive an individual's personal information.

The two-page Passenger Identity Verification Form asks for personal information, including height, eye and hair color and copies of at least three official forms of identification.

The form has been in use since the TSA was created, Smith said. Homeland Security shares the information with airlines, who then compare it against security lists that might otherwise red-flag a passenger.

Sutherland acknowledged that filling out the form would not completely eliminate the chance that a Muslim traveler would be singled out for closer scrutiny before or after flying.

"This is repugnant, objectionable and humiliating. These are Gestapo tactics," said Dr. Shafi Bezar, chairman of the Westchester Muslim Center in Mount Vernon. "I would like to be safe when I travel, but not to this extent. This is insulting to target a particular group or particular religion."


Islam: Can We Trust $20M Gift To Harvard?
by J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Dec 14, 2005

I wager that when the Islamic studies are upped at Harvard and Georgetown Universities they will be biased for liberal take.

I dare the curricula committee to really tell the truth about Islam to those academic communities' students.

Twenty million is given to Harvard and Georgetown Universities' powers-that-be to set up courses to enhance Islamic studies in America. So it is that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, a Saudi businessman and member of the Saudi royal family, handed over the gifts.

He is said to be a liberal Muslim. I assume that means that he would not enter into an "honor killing." I presume he would not endorse sleeper cells in the US that are out to implode our republic.

The Prince says that he has friends who are Christians, Muslims and Jews. In other words, he has a cosmopolitan mind when it comes to intellectual matters and friendship ties. All well and good—supposedly.

But when his money translates to these liberal campuses, what kind of course studies will result? Again, I wager that the classes will give forth with such fanciful studies that they in no way compare to the awful facts of real-life real-time Islam.

In the history of Islam, will there be a chapter regarding Saddam Hussein's atrocities in the name of Allah? Will it inform readers about Muslim men taking their women into Hussein's soccer stadiums, shooting their heads off because the females some way brought dishonor to the clan? Will Islam killing passages from the Koran be included in the textbooks? Will professors tell of present-tense degradation of women afforded women Muslim societies? Will there be a chapter detailing course studies in terrorism schools where instructors teach boys and girls how to hate and murder?

The Prince said to media that he hopes that cordial bridges will be built between Christianity and Islam. That cannot be. There is no way cordiality can exist between those two conceptualizations. The one is a religion. The other is a killing cult.

Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. He told His disciples that the highest good is to love God with the whole being and love one's neighbor as one loves himself. He gave His own personal example of humility by washing His disciples' feet. He offered the story of the Good Samaritan to teach His followers how to be kind and caring.

Then Jesus Christ climbed upon a cross, letting Himself be murdered in order to provide the sinless sacrifice as a substitutionary offering to heaven's justice. When persons then sincerely repent of their sins to Christ, they are forgiven. They receive His gift of salvation and the hope of heaven upon death. They are promised His indwelling Holy Spirit as they obey His counsel.

Radical Islam has no such likeness. There is no caring, no love, and no kindness. There is only blood and mayhem, murder and slaughter. Where there are masking passages in the Koran that appear somewhat civil, they are but fronts for the killing sections. Muslims are commissioned by Allah to kill non-Muslims. Cowardly Muslims who don't do that are to be killed. Islam must become world rule. There can be no coexistence with Islam and any other world religion, especially Christianity.

Jews are called "Jew-pigs" and descendants of monkeys. Christians are anathema; therefore, they must be laid low. Jesus is regarded as a prophet of sorts but not deity. The Koran in no way regards the Bible as divine revelation. There is no holy heaven for Islamics. There is only an eternal orgy for males who commit suicide for Allah's cause. There is no Good Samaritan parable, Love Chapter of I Corinthians 13, no sinless sacrifice for mortals' sins in Islam.

How naive is the Prince. How greedy are the two universities receiving his gift. Both universities realize that they must provide the politically correct courses in order to keep his money. And so on with the game called Academic Deceit in the Name of Receiving Gifts from a Rich Muslim.