About Me

Name:The Dutchmeister
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Project 21 Press Release, 30-NOV-2007

Where is the Feminist Outrage Over Jailing of British Woman in Sudan?
 
 
For Release: November 30, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org
 
 
Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning the jailing and likely deportation of a female British teacher in Sudan because she allowed the children in her class to name a teddy bear "Muhammed."  Borelli is also critical of American feminists for their uncharacteristic silence on this issue.
 
Gillian Gibbons was arrested and tried in Khartoum, Sudan this week after a secretary at the Unity High School where Gibbons taught reported her to Sudanese authorities. Gibbons was arrested for allowing the seven-year-old students in her class to name a stuffed bear with the same name as the Muslim prophet.  The bear was being used as a learning aid to teach the children about animals and their habitats.
 
Charged with violating Article 125 of the Sudanese constitution, which prohibits insulting religion and inciting hatred, Gibbons faced maximum sentences of 40 lashes, a fine and up to a year in jail.  She was sentenced to 15 days in jail and is expected to be deported upon her release.
 
"It's shocking that the Sudanese government considers the mere naming of a stuffed animal as a violation of its constitution and a punishable offense," said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli.  "The overreaction by the Sudanese government should not go unchallenged by the U.S.  This is especially true when our tax dollars in foreign aid are effectively used to support these extreme actions."
 
When queried by Fox News about their reaction to the Gibbons arrest on November 28, a spokesman for the National Organization for Women (NOW) said the group was monitoring the situation but would not be issuing a statement or taking an official position on the matter.  This is contrary to past international activism by the group in countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan, the support of a United Nations treaty on women's rights and cosponsorship of an International Women's Day delegation to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela last year.
 
Speaking on the condition of women in Sudan in 2004, NOW president Kim Gandy said: "The U.S. government must demonstrate its commitment to the freedom and safety of women by demanding that the U.N. do more to put an end to the atrocities in Darfur [Sudan].  And we must speak out [on] behalf of all the women and girls affected by violence around the globe."
 
Tammy Bruce, a former NOW official in Los Angeles, told Fox News: "The supposed feminist establishment is refusing to take a position in this regard [on the Gibbons arrest] because they have no sensibility of what is right anymore. They're afraid of offending people.  They are bound by political correctness."
 
"I'm amazed by the silence of the so-called women's rights groups like NOW," added Project 21's Borelli.  "This is an example of their selective feminist outrage.  When it fits their liberal agenda and bias, they are extremely vocal.  When it doesn't, their silence is deafening."
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at
http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CNN/YouTube GOP Debate: The Democrat Fix Was In From Day One

Michelle Malkin discusses the recent GOP Presidential Debate hosted by CNN and YouTube, detailing how there were so many people planted in the audience and YouTube posing questions to the candidates, who were firmly in the pocket of the Democratic Party, and how CNN either failed or simply didn't bother to pick up on the subterfuge beforehand. (David Limbaugh discusses some of the loaded questions in his new column, as well.)

Malkin:  

Alternative media platforms - talk radio, the Internet and this op-ed page - have spread these facts like kudzu. But the persistent media double standard is obvious to everyone but the manure spreaders at CNN: Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century’s worst media sinners.

Whether through, as one blogger put, “constructive incompetence” or “convenient ineptitude,” CNN has committed journalistic malpractice under the guise of “citizen” participation.


Me thinks she's on the something.  What say y'all?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Article by Michael Reagan

Brings backs some rather painful memories, yet brutally honest and true nonetheless.

Child Abuse Worsens as Families Change
by Michael Reagan
Wedneday, November 28, 2007

Child abuse is growing out of control here in America, and there’s a good reason why: the traditional family is coming apart at the seams.

According to reports made to state agencies, there were 900,000 incidents of child abuse in 2005 alone. These raw numbers give no clue just how much child abuse correlates with parents’ marital status or the make-up of the victim’s household, although these are vitally important factors in child abuse cases. The proof is in the news far too often.

Nothing is more important to child welfare than living within the bosom of a stable family, and nothing is more destructive to their well-being than being forced to live in a fatherless household where dad is replaced by the live-in boyfriend, or as is often the case, by a series of live-in boyfriends.

In almost all cases of horrific child abuse that is exactly the situation of the victim. Nobody is more at risk today than children living in fatherless homes where the mother’s boyfriend is sharing her bed while avoiding the commitment of marriage, or a new husband views her children as unwanted consequences of the new marriage.

You have young women who for one reason or another have not gotten the love of their child’s father, their former husband, who confuse sex with love, and give no thought to the consequences of bringing a man who has no emotional ties with their children into their homes and expect them to act as substitute dads.

In pursuit of maintaining their so-called relationship, many allow these men to beat their children, often as punishment for having disturbed the boyfriend in some way, such as crying or soiling their diapers.

It never occurs to them that in most cases the boyfriend views their child as an inconvenience to be put up with as a price for getting sex without commitment. Yet they do not hesitate to put their child in his care, especially if she is the breadwinner in the household while the often-jobless boyfriend stays home with their son or daughter and lives on her income.

We read about the deadly consequences children pay for being forced to live in these circumstances where they find themselves in a home where their real father is no longer present and a stranger is taking his place.

A tragic case in point involved two-year-old Riley Ann Sawyers whose body was found in Galveston Bay, in a plastic box, on Oct. 29. Riley’s mom and real dad were not married and had split up and gone their separate ways.

Her mother, 19-year-old Kimberly Dawn Trenor met Royce Clyde Zeigler II a couple of years ago while playing an online game, World of Warcraft, according to the Associated Press, which reports that she moved with her daughter from Ohio to Spring Texas and married Zeigler.

In a statement to police, first reported by Houston television station KTRK, Trenor said that she and Zeigler, 24, killed her daughter last July 24.

She said that the little girl was beaten with leather belts, had her head held underwater in a bathtub and then was thrown across a room, her head slamming into a tile floor, and added that they kept the body in a storage shed for one to two months before they put it in a plastic bin and dumped it into Galveston Bay.

Sadly, we read about this kind of outrage all the time. We are appalled that it happens but we are unwilling to look at the causes. Americans have said that they are willing to accept all these distortions of family life and they do not dare to define marriage as a lasting arrangement between a man and a woman. Nowadays, marriage is whatever aberration we say it is.

We don’t want to offend anybody, and while we are avoiding offending single mothers living with their current boyfriends, or men and women who treat their marriage vows as temporary arrangements without regard to the damaging effect divorce has on the kids, children are being beaten and children are dying.

And in the face of all of this, Massachusetts is worried about spanking.

Michael Reagan, the eldest son of Ronald Reagan, is heard daily by over 5 million listeners via his nationally syndicated talk radio program, “The Michael Reagan Show.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Tragic Death of NFL Star Sean Taylor

A colleague of mine showed me this article by Foxsports.com writer Jason Whitlock.  In light of the tragic recent murder of NFL star Sean Taylor, Whitlock's words serve as a painful wake-up call to Black America.

Taylor's death a grim reminder for us all
Jason Whitlock

There's a reason I call them the Black KKK. The pain, the fear and the destruction are all the same.

Someone who loved Sean Taylor is crying right now. The life they knew has been destroyed, an 18-month-old baby lost her father, and, if you're a black man living in America, you've been reminded once again that your life is in constant jeopardy of violent death.

The Black KKK claimed another victim, a high-profile professional football player with a checkered past this time.

No, we don't know for certain the circumstances surrounding Taylor's death. I could very well be proven wrong for engaging in this sort of aggressive speculation. But it's no different than if you saw a fat man fall to the ground clutching his chest. You'd assume a heart attack, and you'd know, no matter the cause, the man needed to lose weight.

Well, when shots are fired and a black man hits the pavement, there's every statistical reason to believe another black man pulled the trigger. That's not some negative, unfair stereotype. It's a reality we've been living with, tolerating and rationalizing for far too long.

When the traditional, white KKK lynched, terrorized and intimidated black folks at a slower rate than its modern-day dark-skinned replacement, at least we had the good sense to be outraged and in no mood to contemplate rationalizations or be fooled by distractions.

Our new millennium strategy is to pray the Black KKK goes away or ignores us. How's that working?

About as well as the attempt to shift attention away from this uniquely African-American crisis by focusing on an "injustice" the white media allegedly perpetrated against Sean Taylor.

Within hours of his death, there was a story circulating that members of the black press were complaining that news outlets were disrespecting Taylor's victimhood by reporting on his troubled past

No disrespect to Taylor, but he controlled the way he would be remembered by the way he lived. His immature, undisciplined behavior with his employer, his run-ins with law enforcement, which included allegedly threatening a man with a loaded gun, and the fact a vehicle he owned was once sprayed with bullets are all pertinent details when you've been murdered.

Marcellus Wiley, a former NFL player, made the radio circuit Wednesday, singing the tune that athletes are targets. That was his explanation for the murders of Taylor and Broncos cornerback Darrent Williams and the armed robberies of NBA players Antoine Walker and Eddy Curry.

Really?

Let's cut through the bull(manure) and deal with reality. Black men are targets of black men. Period. Go check the coroner's office and talk with a police detective. These bullets aren't checking W-2s.

Rather than whine about white folks' insensitivity or reserve a special place of sorrow for rich athletes, we'd be better served mustering the kind of outrage and courage it took in the 1950s and 1960s to stop the white KKK from hanging black men from trees.

But we don't want to deal with ourselves. We take great joy in prescribing medicine to cure the hate in other people's hearts. Meanwhile, our self-hatred, on full display for the world to see, remains untreated, undiagnosed and unrepentant.

Our self-hatred has been set to music and reinforced by a pervasive culture that promotes a crab-in-barrel mentality.


Click here to read the rest of this very thought-provoking article.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Have the Saudis Lost Their Minds? (CORRECTION)

It's bad enough that the Saudis want to punish a woman who was gang raped to six months in prison and 200 lashes.  Let me say it again:  The Justice System of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wants to throw a woman - who was gang raped by seven men - in jail and whip her 200 times, saying she was convicted of "adultery." 

Now, as reported by Foxnews.com and the New York Sun, the Saudi government recently released 1,500 Al Qaida members from prison - because they all supposedly promised not to wage jihad on the Arabian Peninsula.  Thus, the Saudi royal family declared the terrorists "reformed," and had the Interior Ministry let them go.

In an interview with Al Watan, Muhammad al-Nujaimi, a member of the special committee to reform jihadists, said the Al Qaeda terrorists have pledged to end their campaign to rid the Arabian Peninsula of infidels.

"After several graded sessions with the committee, and having been convinced of their misguided vision, they renounced their erroneous ideologies, including the concept of driving out all infidels from the Arabian Peninsula," al-Nujaimi said, according to The Sun.

The 1,500 had been rounded up in crackdowns that began in 2003.


How do you say "pinky promise" in Arabic? 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mike Adams Speaks Ebonics

Mike Adams' new article is hilarious.   Check out this quote:

To Whom It May Concern (sswadm@usc.edu):

I was searching for scholarships at USC and found the following information on a "Black Alumni Association/Ebonics Support GroupScholarship" at The University of Southern California. In order to be eligible, one must be a "currently enrolled USC African-American." You also note that "undergraduate and graduate students are eligible" for the award of $500 to $3,000.

This is distressing because I am white but I am, nonetheless, fluent in ebonics. Would you consider making an exception?

Mike Adams


Priceless.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Single Mothers By Choice Behaving Badly

As one person responded from reading Glenn Sacks' blog on this subject:

What wonderful role models for society's daughters.

Scamming sperm-trappers taking what they want from men -- sperm, cash, or whatever they need.

Society's various governmental institutions stand ever-ready to "protect" the poor victim women -- by looting the men they victimized, by depriving "their" children of fathers -- whatever they need really.

Does anyone believe that our Western governments -- dominated by completely mediocre individuals who are working in government or as "family" lawyers because legitimate employers in the private sector really found no use for them -- will ever stop underwriting this madness on their own? How can they given all the different ways they derive power and income from this badly misguided enterprise?


Another reader really hit the nail on the  head:

We guys sometimes only have ourselves to blame. If we would only "keep it in our pants" and not spread our sperm around so freely, then possibly you would see fewer men being "tricked" into producing a child out of wedlock. Whatever happened to good ole fashioned marriage as a vehicle to conceive a child? Maybe if we wouldn't lay down with every woman that came along shaking her [backside] at us men's contribution to conceiving a child would be of higher value. Maybe fathers and fatherhood would be viewed with more respect. As it is, because of many men's promiscuity, men are simply viewed as sperm donors to these types of women. We men need to take our role in producing a child more seriously, and stop having women manipulating us into producing a "fatherless" child.


Here's a quote from Part II of this blog:

A few weeks ago I debated the issue of "Single Motherhood by Choice" on the BBC. The producer emailed the guests the 2006 London Times article Focus: Going solo (6/4/06), and among those I was debating was Viki Matten, who is discussed in the piece as an early pioneer in the "Single Motherhood by Choice" movement. A poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. Reading this article, I can believe it.

What say y'all?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

She Killed His Son but He Must Pay Her Alimony

Unbelievable.  Absolutely unbelievable.

From Glenn Sacks' Blog:

Examples of decent, loving dads being manhandled by the anti-father family law system are legion, but this one has to make the Top 10. A recent New Jersey appeals court reaffirmed a decision mandating that a man must pay alimony to his ex-wife--who killed their son. From Legal tussle: Should killer get alimony? (Bergen Record, 11/22/07):

"A state appeals court on Wednesday refused to automatically bar alimony from spouses who kill a child...The decision was issued in the case of Linda Calbi, who is serving a three-year prison term after pleading guilty to beating her son, Matt, on Aug. 17, 2003, during a violent argument at their home. He died hours later from internal bleeding and cardiac arrest...

"Linda Calbi was originally charged with murder, but the charges were later downgraded to aggravated assault, based on expert reports that medical error contributed significantly to the boy's death. She was sentenced last year to three years in prison and won't be eligible for parole until November 2008.

"The Calbis were divorced in 2001 after 15 years of marriage. A few months after Matt's death, Chris Calbi fell behind on his alimony payments and filed papers in court seeking a reduction or termination of his payment obligations.

"'She took the life of her oldest son, scarred her younger son for the rest of his life, and tore the fabric of my soul from me,' Chris Calbi wrote in papers filed in Superior Court in Hackensack. 'To reward this evil and violent woman by allowing her ... to derive a financial benefit from the family she destroyed ... can only be described as a perversion of our justice system.'"

Chris Calbi had been paying Linda $3,183 a month until her incarceration, and may be saddled with that amount when Linda is paroled. Chris is pictured with his deceased son Matthew and his surviving son Dean above. A few comments:

1) Chris Calbi claimed that Linda abused and assaulted him during their marriage, at times employing a kitchen knife and a hammer. The death of the son is discussed in Typical teen meets a tragic end (Bergen Record, 8/20/03), and Linda Calbi sounds like a real sweetheart:

"As [Christopher Calbi's] company - Robert Christopher Sales - grew, [Christopher] was increasingly away in Europe on business, Linda Calbi said in divorce papers. Though they shared fine dinners, and Christopher Calbi showered his wife with gifts, a physical and emotional distance developed between Matthew's parents, her papers say.

"Linda Calbi said in the papers that she felt like 'a highly paid slave.'

"Christopher Calbi countered that his wife subjected him to 'profanity-laced tirades and ridicule.'"

2) From the same article:

"The couple split in 1999 and - after 15 years of marriage - divorced in July 2001.

"Meanwhile, Matthew was having problems at school, said a woman who worked in the River Vale school system.

"When Matthew was in the special education program at Holdrum Middle School, he regularly came to class with bruises, said the woman, who declined to be identified. The teen always had an excuse for the marks - he was playing with his younger brother, or he fell, the woman said.

"But in April 2002, the woman noticed a strange bruise on Matthew's wrist, one she thought looked like a defensive wound. She asked Matt to explain, but he couldn't, she said, so she called DYFS to report the mark.

"As part of the special education program, Linda Calbi met routinely with educators to review her son's performance.

"But when Calbi showed up, she often smelled of booze, the woman said. 'You could light the air on fire, she smelled so badly,' the woman said.

"Linda could not understand why her son wasn't more successful in school.

"'She was very forceful when she spoke. Nothing was ever her fault, and of course she was at her wit's end,' the woman said."

3) The father now has to raise the surviving son, Dean, age 12, on his own. Is Linda being asked to pay child support? Isn't Chris' ability to provide for Dean negatively impacted by having to pay alimony to the noncustodial parent?

4) Chris also needs to save his money--Linda may be out of prison in less than a year and will be fighting for visitation rights to Dean. In July, 2006, a judge ordered a supervised visitation between Dean and his mother, contingent on the boy's acceptance.

5) Linda apparently received a lesser charge and sentence for her crime because supposedly there was medical bungling by the hospital after she assaulted her son which contributed to Matthew's death. How much of her light sentence is due to the alleged medical bungling and how much is just the standard female sentencing discount is unclear.

6) It's amazing some of the things that an attorney will say. Linda's attorney, Ian Hirsch, said:

"'Mr. Calbi is using his son's death to take away any obligations he has,' Hirsch said. 'I think he's trying to take advantage of a tragedy and turn it around to his economic benefit.'"

Yup--dad not wanting to pay money to the woman who killed his son is "taking advantage of a tragedy and turning it around to his economic benefit." Bad dad--how could he be so rotten?

7) Can you imagine a judge ordering a woman to pay alimony to the ex-husband who murdered her child? In fact, California has a recent law which created a presumption that a victim of domestic violence should not be required to pay support to a violent spouse.

8) Once again we see the link between family violence and substance abuse. Misguided feminists often downplay this link because it contradicts the feminist Duluth/"domestic violence is a function of the patriarchy" family violence model.

The new court decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey's Appellate Division can be seen here.

A recent CNN report on the case can be viewed here.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attractive Women Dating So-So Guys?

I just came across an interesting article in the personal section of Yahoo! News.  Dating columnist Julia Allison discusses seeing couples where the lady is hot, while the guy is..., well..., so-so.  

I look around New York, and everywhere I see gorgeous women with only moderately attractive -- or even downright unattractive -- men. Even celebrity culture has these couples: Kate Hudson and (now ex) Chris Robinson, Billy Joel and any of his wives, the Barkers on MTV (although he seems sweet), Marilyn Manson and Dita Von Tesse.
The only couple in which the guy is arguably more attractive than the woman was Jennifer and Brad or maybe Tom and Katie (that's debatable) and ... well, I think we can see that's not a pattern to emulate.

She goes on to say:

No, if anything, the real world is filled with Couples Who Don't Make Sense. Of course, polite people don't actually say anything about it, because that's rude. Physical appearance can be a sensitive subject on a good day ... But we're thinking it. And no, it's not shallow -- it's biology!

... Do women even care about having man arm-candy? Most would say it's a plus, for sure. But there's a lot of competition, and not enough metrosexuals to go around. We prefer to look for a great personality, charm, a certain worldliness and let's not forget (we're in New York, after all), a prosperous career.
So maybe we women are just shallow in a different way ...

I'm not gonna lie:  My wife is absolutely gorgeous, and sometimes I still ask myself what she saw in me that caused her to fall in love with me.  (Granted, I'm no underwear model, but I'm no mut, either.)  And yes, I get a nice twinge of enjoyment whenever strangers (especially men, though some women as well) comment on how beautiful my wife is.  That little voice in the back of my head always reminds me "You did good, boy.  I don't know how you did it, but you did good, boy."

I'd be interested in getting reader's thoughts on this.  Do guys have an easier or harder time in the dating department as Allison says?  What about attractive women?  What say you?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

High Court to Hear Case of DC Gun Ban

Bang! Bang!

La Shawn's gun


As has been reported, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear of the case of the District of Columbia's thirty-one-year-old ban on handguns, and their decision will have far-reaching implications regarding the gun ownership and the Second Amendment.  Let's hope the High Court does the right thing and rules, as the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled, that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional.

La Shawn Barber says it best:

Back in 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia thought it would be a good idea to ban the sale of handguns and require shotgun and rifle owners to keep these firearms disassembled. The council thought the ban would cut violent crime rates.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact, violent crime, particularly murder, went up. The ban deprived law-abiding citizens of the constitutional right to bear arms and to protect themselves, while thugs ran free and killed without conscience.

Last March, a three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared DC’s ban on handguns unconstitutional and refused to rehear the case in May. The city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and today the court has decided to hear the cases.

I am hopeful that sometime in 2008, I will be the owner of several (legal) firearms.

Does owning a gun go far enough? How about concealed carry? I dig that.


As far as I'm concerned, the new crime initiative announced by DC Mayor Adrian Fenty Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier with a bunch of community activists surrounding them yesterday, is just the same old liberal schlock: More cops on the streets, more jobs, job training, community services, blah, blah, blah.  In other words, "Let's try to give the local street thug a reason not to jack a defenseless old lady on the street." 

By striking down this ban, the High Court will make it possible for law-abiding DC residents to legally apply for, carry and protect themselves with handguns.  That  - not a bunch of wasteful community "programs" that have a long track record of doing absolutely nothing to deter crime - would provide old Thuggybear a great incentive against trying to jack the old lady; she might be (legally) packing heat.  In other words, allowing citizens to legally carry concealed weapons will greatly reduce crime.  Numerous studied by scholars such as John R. Lott have shown this to be the case.

To reiterate: Let's hope the High Court does the right thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Husband Hides Lottery Winnings From His Own Wife

I agree with the woman's attorney: That's pretty darn low.



From Foxnews.com and the Miami Herald:

After discovering her husband hid his lottery winnings from her, a Florida woman demanded he fork over her share of the lottery jackpot.

Donna Campbell became suspicious of her husband, Arnim Ramdass, when he started to keep the television turned off and disconnected the phone line. Her suspicions rose when she found a postcard about a new home purchase.

But Campbell was unaware that her husband was hiding a $10.2 million secret from her until she Googled her husband's name and lottery number. She found a Florida lottery press release that named 17 airline mechanics who won the jackpot, her husband was one of them.

''Here's a guy who for years has spent marital money on the lottery and at casinos, and he's always lost,'' said Bruce Baldwin, Campbell's attorney. ``And now he finally wins, and he's trying to keep it from his wife. That's pretty low.''

According to Campbell, when she confronted her husband, he said he bought the ticket for his daughter from another marriage.

'I said, `Do you have any news you want to share with me?' '' Campbell recalled. 'He said, `No. What are you talking about?' I said, 'The lottery.' ''

Ramdass and his co-workers pooled money for twice-weekly Lotto drawings every Wednesday and Friday. On June 20, they collected $220 and hit the jackpot.

The group of mechanics opted for the lump-sum payment of $10.2 million, meaning each of the 17 winners would receive about $600,000 before taxes.

Since the winning, Ramdass took a leave of absence from work, according to his co-workers. He hasn't shown up at the couple's home and servers can't find him to hand him the lawsuit papers.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arab Woman Fakes Marriages to Gain High Level Intelligence Access

This case should shock every American - and I mean everyone! - who cares about terrorists infiltrating our law enforcement and national security agencies.

Michelle Malkin and Debbie Schlussel have written extensively on the case of this woman, Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese-born woman who faked her first marriage in order to obtain American citizenship and secure jobs with the FBI and CIA, where she obtained top-secret security clearances

nadanadimprouty.jpg

From Foxnews.com:

A former agent for the FBI and CIA pleaded guilty Tuesday to faking a marriage to win U.S. citizenship, clearing the way to being hired and given security clearances by the two intelligence agencies.

Nada Nadim Prouty, 37, emigrated to the United States from Lebanon in 1989. She was given U.S. citizenship five years later and began working as a special agent at the FBI's field office in Washington in 1999, according to a criminal information sheet filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

While working as a special agent, Prouty improperly searched an FBI computer database for information about her relatives and links they might have to the Hezbollah terrorist organization, the criminal sheet showed. She joined the CIA in 2003 and resigned as part of her guilty plea Tuesday, officials said.

There's no evidence that Prouty was working as a spy on Hezbollah's behalf, two government officials said. FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak in Washington said the investigation was ongoing.

The case raises questions about hiring practices and background checks by two of the nation's most security-sensitive and secretive agencies.

"This case highlights the importance of conducting stringent and thorough background investigations," Stephen J. Murphy, the U.S. attorney in Detroit, said in a statement. "It's hard to imagine a greater threat than the situation where a foreign national uses fraud to attain citizenship and then, based on that fraud, insinuates herself into a sensitive position in the U.S. government."

Prouty passed a lie-detector test before she was hired by the FBI, which conducted numerous interviews with her relatives and other associates in Beirut and the United States as part of her security background check, Kodak said. But she was not subjected to the more rigorous security screening that the FBI adopted after its 2001 arrest of turncoat Robert Hanssen, who spied for the Soviet Union and Russia over a 20-year period.

"She had a complete, full investigation," Kodak said, referring to the FBI's background check on Prouty before she was hired. He added: "Obviously we have changed certain ways that we do our security clearances."

The CIA largely relied on the FBI's security checks when they hired Prouty, according to a government official familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

"The CIA may have been a little too trusting of the FBI's ability to do a background check, as the bureau's own pre-employment investigation of Prouty would have covered her first years in country," the official said. "That won't happen again."

Standing before U.S. District Court Judge Avern Cohn on Tuesday afternoon, Prouty said she understood and agreed to the details of the plea agreement. She pleaded guilty to conspiracy, unauthorized computer access and naturalization fraud and was released on a $10,000 bond. No sentencing date was set.

She left the court building without speaking with reporters. Her lawyer, Thomas Cranmer, declined to comment.


Think about this folks: An Arab national was able to obtain U.S. citizenship via a sham marriage (and, as Schlussel writes, she never even paid the guy whom she tricked into marrying her like she promised!); is hired by the two most clandestine and security-conscious agencies of the United States government, and is busted for going through the FBI's database looking for information regarding her family's involvement with one of the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations!

The Foxnews.com article continues:

According to the court documents, Prouty entered the U.S. on a one-year, nonimmigrant visa. She lived in Taylor, Mich., with her sister when her visa ran out in 1990. That summer, she paid off an unemployed U.S. citizen, identified in court records as Chris Michael Deladurantaye, to marry her in a civil ceremony in Detroit. But the two never lived together and the marriage was never consummated sexually, according to the documents.

The Associated Press was unable Tuesday evening to contact Deladurantaye. There were no phone listings in the Detroit area, and a search of public records databases did not turn up a current address for Deladurantaye.

Over the next four years, Prouty claimed she was legally married and living with him as part of her application for U.S. citizenship. She was naturalized in 1994 and filed for divorce in 1995. In 1999, she was hired as a special agent in the FBI's field office in Washington, where she investigated crimes committed against U.S. residents while overseas. She was not part of investigations into Hezbollah, the Lebanese guerrilla group that the U.S. government has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

Prouty was not authorized to search the FBI database, in 2002, for her name and that of her sister and brother-in law. Her relatives were linked to Hezbollah two years later when they joined a senior Hezbollah official at a fundraiser in Lebanon, the documents show.

She joined the CIA in 2003. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield described Prouty as a "midlevel employee" who violated immigration laws long before she was hired by the government.

The CIA is cooperating with the investigation, Mansfield said.

Prouty faces six to nine months in prison as part of the plea, U.S. Attorney's office spokeswoman Gina Balaya said. Her citizenship has been revoked as part of her plea and she could be ordered to leave the U.S., according to court documents.


If this isn't bad enough, according to Debbie Schlussel, Prouty is the sister-in-law of Talal Khalil Chahine, a major Hezbollah financier.

And get this: The FBI and U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy (and before him, U.S. Attorneys Craig Morford and Jeffrey Collins) knew Prouty was a spy for Hezbollah back in 2003, but they allowed her to work for the FBI and CIA for over FOUR Years! They did not remove her from the job until the end of this past September--1.5 years after her brother-in-law was indicted for financing Hezbollah!!!!!!

And I was right on another thing. She will do no or almost no jail time. Read the plea agreement, ... As reader Tim points out:

Nada Nadim Prouty is facing less than 12 months of jail time, or no jailtime at all, and three years of supervised probation and a fine totaling $2,225 under the plea agreement.

For infiltrating the FBI and CIA and spying for Hezbollah.

I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised with today's prosecution of Nada Nadim Prouty, an American Arab FBI agent and CIA analyst, for spying for Hezbollah and passing information on to the terrorist group. Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and other Islamic terrorist groups have long said they'd infiltrate the FBI and other American law enforcement organizations and they did.

That's no surprise. In fact, what is surprising is that this woman is among the first they've caught. She's a drop in the bucket. As long as we continue to hire Muslims to be translators and analysts, as long as we continue to give money to Arabic and Muslim schools to teach their kids Arabic instead of non-Muslim, non-Arab Americans, as long as the FBI (and ICE) continues to turn down Sephardic Jews and Maronite Lebanese Christians who speak Arabic and who've applied for jobs in favor of extremist Muslims, that's the result we will get. Spies, spies, and more spies.


Unbelievable.

Here's a CBS TV Video report on Prouty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

American Education Needs a Come to Jesus

Isn't it interesting (and depressing) how, in stead of teaching the basics (reading, writing & 'rithmetic) and trying to close the academic achievement gap between white/asian and black/latino students, school districts like Seattle, Wah-Wah are wasting valuable time and tax-payer money on teaching black and brown kids to feel good about themselves, and whites to feel bad about themselves. 

It's the same at our nation's "top" colleges and universities.  Instead of teaching students about basica American history, civics, etc., kids (whose parents spend ton$ to send them there) learn how to basically HATE their own country, HATE Western civilization, and basically be little ungratefuly, radical-leftist knuckleheads!  Most college students at places like Harvard, Princeton and Columbia can't tell you the names of our nation's founding fathers, but they sure as heck know how to embrace America-hating third-world dictators,  put condoms on cucumbers, and disrupt speeches given by organizations trying to protect our boarders from illegal infiltration.

Check out the following aricle on the Seattle Public School District.   The entire American educational system, from top to bottom, needs a Come to Jesus.

District definition: Racists are 'whites'
Webpage later changed after 'concerns voiced' over agenda



The Seattle School District has backtracked on a statement that racists are "whites" after "numerous concerns" were expressed over the description, according to the district's website.

A cached webpage of the Seattle District's page regarding "Equity & Race," had defined racism as: "The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society."

However, the change noted, "In response to the numerous concerns voiced regarding definitions posted on the Equity & Race website, we have decided to revise our website in a way that will hopefully provide more context to readers around the work that Seattle Public Schools is doing to address institutional racism. The intended purpose of our work in the area of race and social justice is to bring communities together through open dialogue and honest reflection around what is meant by racism and the impact is (sic) has on our society and more specifically, our students. Our intention is not to put up additional barriers or develop an 'us against them' mindset…" 

The website also said it no longer is effective, or its desire "to hold onto unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality."

The department is the same that issued a letter to staff members recently reminding them that Thanksgiving is a time of mourning for "Natives," and suggesting an exploration of an outside website for ways to "deconstruct" the holiday.

It also recalls a now-discontinued program at the University of Delaware that taught residents of campus housing facilities that "all whites are racists."

Click here to read the rest.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hollywood Stars Mum on Donations to GOP

From Today's Washington Times:

Republican presidential candidates have been drawing support — and cash — from Hollywood celebrities, but few of the stars in super-liberal Tinseltown want to be publicly linked with the Grand Old Party.

One high-profile celebrity, when asked about her political views, even had her lawyers declare "our client's rights of privacy and other legally protectable intangible rights" and warn that she should not be labeled a Republican.

So far, just a handful of actors have come forward to support Republican hopefuls. Adam Sandler, who cast former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in a cameo role in his 2003 movie "Anger Management," has contributed $2,100 to Mr. Giuliani's campaign. The two met recently on Mr. Sandler's movie set in New York.

Former "Frasier" star Kelsey Grammar and his wife also have tossed in $6,900 for the mayor.

But neither would comment about their support. In fact, not a single one of the dozen actors contacted for this story who have been identified as conservative leaning would comment publicly.

"Bo isn't available ... sorry," said Bo Derek's handler. "Mr. Costner is not available to be interviewed," said Kevin Costner's publicists. "I'm sorry, but unfortunately Mel is unavailable to contribute," said Mel Gibson's people.

While Democrats enjoy very public support from Hollywood's top actors and musicians, who often hold lavish events for their favorite candidates, Republican supporters in Hollywood try hard to keep their political views quiet.

"They learn very quickly, if they know what's good for them, to donate to the Democratic Party," said Andrew Breitbart, co-author of "Hollywood, Interrupted." "If they were to donate to the Republican Party, they would be exposed to career-ending ridicule, period...." 

Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated conservative talk-show host and movie critic, said actors are skittish for good reason.

"People who might be a little bit insecure about their status in Hollywood anyway wouldn't want to amplify that insecurity by taking outspoken conservative positions," he said.


Click here to read the rest of this article.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hypocrisy Rooted in Sense of Moral Superiority

This article, and the research it cites, should be required reading for all liberals.

Oddly, Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals 

Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.

Stop us if this sounds familiar.

When asked to describe themselves, most people typically will rattle off a list of physical features and activities (for example, "I do yoga" or "I'm a paralegal"). But some people have what scientists call a moral identity, in which the answer to the question would include phrases like "I am honest" and "I am a caring person."

Past research has suggested that people who describe themselves with words such as honest and generous are also more likely to engage in volunteer work and other socially responsible acts.

But often in life, the line between right and wrong becomes blurry, particularly when it comes to cheating on a test or in the workplace. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people.

In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.

The results recall the seeming disconnect between the words and actions of folks like televangelist and fraud convict Jim Bakker or admitted meth-buyer Ted Haggard, former president of the National Evangelical Association, an umbrella group representing some 45,000 churches.

"The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme," said researcher Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington Business School in Seattle. "So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites."

Why cheat? Why not?

Why would a person who thinks of himself as honest cheat? The researchers suggest an "ethical person" could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end.

As Reynolds put it: "If I cheat, then I'll get into graduate school, and if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor and think about all the people I'm going to help when I'm a doctor."

A competitive playing field, whether at a university or business, can also motivate cheating behaviors.

"Cheating is a way to get ahead in a competitive environment where there are rewards for winning or getting ahead of others," said Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the current study. "It seems like there is an increasing desire and expectation in our society to 'be the best.'"

Even if a person doesn't justify his unethical behaviors, "cheating can save lots of time and energy and take advantage of the knowledge and reasoning of others who are more adept, but could be disastrous if one is caught," Kruger said. He added, "I am not surprised that some of the extreme examples of cheating—ripping the relevant pages out of library books so other students cannot see them—happen in intensely competitive environments, law school in this example [of ripping out book pages]."

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »