Saturday, November 7, 2009
There are numerous reports that Muslims are afraid that, because one of their faith has committed mass-murder again, there will be protests, and even attacks against people and Mosques. Well, sorry folks, but that is to be expected.
What is wrong with Muslims; with the Imams? Why are the not out PREACHING TO THEIR PEOPLE OPENLY ABOUT PEACE INSTEAD OF VIOLENCE? If they would open madrasahs that teach peace instead of hate in all parts of the world then maybe the suicide bombers, and other killers like Hasan, would be not be so easily pulled into acts like what we saw this week at Ft. Hood, TX.
Muslims, you need to face the truth that if YOU won't teach peace, others in your faith will be free to teach hate. It is much the same in Christian "churches" that teach "white supremacy" and other forms of "we are better, we are right, and death to those who don't follow us". The madrasahs that we hear about are supported by "donations" from Saudi Arabia, and are being built in all parts of the world for the express purpose of breeding several generations of willing pawns for use in a war both to promote their version, the hate version, and to eradicate all other forms of religion. This includes other versions of the Muslim faith! [as you have Shia vs Sunni vs others].
We in Judaeo-Christian religion have gone through this in the form of the Crusades nearly a thousand years ago, plus several other incarnations, like The Inquisition, Salem Witch hunts, etc. And as pointed out, it still lingers in "white hate groups" like the Aryans and KKK, along with other fascists [note to right-wing Republicans -- the dictionary describes 'fascist' as "extreme-right-wing"; I hope you folks realize what you are becoming, and change]. But today we are focused on Muslims, because for all of your ultra-devout ways [pray 5 times/day, don't allow pictures of Mohammad, though you do seem fine with 'worshiping' of 'idols' of your other religious leaders -- hmmm, another contradiction in religion, go figure], you still do nothing about these "pawn" schools.
Maybe I am really starting to like pointing this out -- the ONLY religious teaching you need is what I follow -- the Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". With that "faith", you would not cheat, steal, hit, murder, steal a wife, or any other 'crime', because if you do, it is saying that you want it to happen to you, and since none of us want that, you would not do it to others. And though I don't subscribe to it, this 'religion' would even allow a belief in God, heaven, and all the other "explanations" for why bad things happen, where Mommy goes when she dies, etc.
So do like several other faiths --send people out to the world to teach your faith, but let it be one of peace!
Friday, November 6, 2009
FIRST -- AS SOON AS WE GET ANY INFORMATION WE CAN FROM THIS GUY ABOUT POSSIBLE TIES TO OTHERS, AND FEEL HE HAS NOTHING MORE TO TELL US, HE SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF A FIRING SQUAD.
Until then, we should try to figure out, if the government is telling us they were suspicious about him for 6 months, why had they not arrested him already, or at a minimum tossed him out of the military? As much as Hasan has to explain, the government also has a lot too, because if early news reports are right and he was elated by attacks on our military, he should have been arrested for being an "enemy sympathizer" and then investigated thoroughly for any inclinations of being more than "support by mouth" [which is simply 'free speech', but enough to get him tossed from the Army, then placed under surveillance to see if he was, or would become, part of a larger terror cell].
I just read what I think the news is using in comments "he wrote about suicide bombing", and using it to say he believed in it.
As I read it, he is against suicide, including suicide bombing. But he does point out that attacking an enemy thinking you may survive is OK -- if you die, martyr; if you don't you fought a good battle anyway.
It was difficult to read (I tried to pass over the religious crap -- had to force myself through it to try to get the complete meaning) partly because he uses convoluted [arab-style?] sentences; and kind of like many in our 'respected news people' community like George Will who like to state things in a way to prove themselves very smart because the rest of us can't figure out what they meant to say.
Anyway -- try reading it. See what you think --
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Today Reuters reports that an SEC Commissioner is worried about "naked access", where a trader can "rent" a brokerage license. This will give the trader access to trades and prices before any other trader - maybe only hunderdths or thousandths of a second ahead, but if he has the computers set to "trade on condition" then he can do dozens of transactions before anyone else.
Now I wrote already about abuses in SEC, SPE’s and SIV's - How Wall Street is constructed to take from YOU which was about things happening several years ago. And even though we have just gone through a massive bunch of fraud on Wall Street, and many on TV and in print have said that special deals for the RICH are very wrong, we STILL have the SEC simply "worried", and not taking any REAL ACTION to stop abuses by "special interests".
CRAP like this is why we need to clean out BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS and demand that they stop putting crooks in positions of power (like the Treasury Secretary, a tax cheat).
A woman reported her baby missing in a Florida town, FIVE days later the baby was found hidden under a bed in the baby sitter's house and the police are charging both with several crimes (noted in the story as not released yet -- the sitter's husband is also to be charged). All this is bad enough, but look at what was found out about the sitter:
From an AP story found on Yahoo.com on 11/5/09--
Susan Elizabeth Baker convicted of assault in South Carolina in 1987, and questioned but not indicted in 2000 for a 3-year-old child's disappearance, also in 1987.
-------(a few paragraphs later).....
Susan Baker had told authorities Paul Leonard Baker disappeared from the family's Beaufort, S.C., home on March 5, 1987, while she was napping. But a massive manhunt in the swampy area around the Bakers' home turned up nothing, and Susan Baker was never indicted. Authorities could not immediately say Thursday what became of the charge against James Baker.
.........(a few paragraphs later, about her OTHER child)......
Susan Baker was charged with causing the girl's injuries, including sores on her back and broken hands, and charged with assault and battery with intent to kill. After being convicted, she was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The sentence was suspended to 80 days.
NOW WHY WAS THE SENTENCE REDUCED? The woman didn't just spank her child a few times too hard, or caused some other injury that was "questionable"; she had repeatedly abused her own children. She should have been locked up for the full ten years. It is now clear that she probably killed her own child and disposed of the body. Of course, at the time they could not prove it, though the beating the second child sustained should have (maybe did) made the police suspicious.
It is just luck that police found this one. Baker was under suspicion at least one other time; I hope they 're-visit' that case, and that they do a search in any other places she has lived to see if she might be responsible for other missing children.
Again we see that people voted in or appointed as "Judges" are of questionable morals themselves, and clearly have very poor judgment when it comes to sentences for egregious crimes. While the woman would have been out of jail by now anyway, and so this crime might never have been averted, she might have realized that the punishment for any further abuse of children would be too much to risk. It is these "judges" that we promote to the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
THE SUPREME COURT of the United States, today (11/4/09) heard arguments about two prosecutors from Pottawattamie County, Iowa, whom fabricated evidence and coerced false testimony to convict two men ["Justices weigh lawsuits against prosecutors" as reported in USA Today] of a 1977 murder. These men might have been put to death; as it is they spent more than 20 years in a state prison facility, and the "prosecutors" knew they not only fabricated evidence but also withheld evidence that could have proven them innocent.
Now this case is not being brought because the men where wrongly jailed by a system attempting to do the right thing, but because they were jailed by prosecutors breaking multiple laws. But the "Supreme Court" is making noises about other prosecutors who "would 'flinch'" from doing their jobs because if they don't convict someone, even of based on all solid, good, and valid evidence, they would fear later law suits.
Now this is a COMPLETE bunch of crap - any ruling could easily state that if a prosecution fails to convict based on good evidence that there is no basis for law suits, but only if "evidence" clearly falsified by "the state" or "the government" [in federal cases] would prosecutors or police be open to retaliatory law suits.
Don't get me wrong - police can lie (maybe should lie) to a suspect in order to get to the truth about their involvement in a crime. But the line MUST be drawn when in court, where OATHS are taken to NOT LIE (Gee, has no one even considered THIS?? That the entire trial was false??)
As I responded to the USA Today story:
There IS protection in the 4th Amendment, and maybe Amendment XV Section 1 (their race was certainly a factor). Any person presenting this case in the Supreme Court should use these issues. And if the S.C. does not let them sue, it will just be another example of ITS' dereliction of duty and law, as was its allowance of taking land and re-selling to anyone willing to pay more in taxes for it.
IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES NOT SCREAM THAT THIS IS WRONG THEN THEY HAVE DECIDED THAT NO ONE IS SAFE FROM BEING FRAMED -- ANYONE CAN BE PULLED OFF THE STREET TO CLOSE ANY CASE AT ANY TIME.
Monday, November 2, 2009
I recently got an email, forwarded from another person, I'm sure which was intended JUST to make people mad at OBAMA. (He has certainly pissed me off with things he HAS DONE - I do not need LIES to push me too). I don't blame the sender; I'm sure she thought the person she got it from thought it was legitimate.
The email contained a bunch of pictures of what claimed to be a new COOK COUNTY JAIL, which was supposed to have been pushed through by then Sen. Obama. Some of this seems to be pushed by the comments HERE -
When it is really THIS -
A Jail in LEOBEN, AUSTRIA --- NOT the USA !
(I don't take all the honors for finding this TRUTH; I also followed others' trail of facts)
It is STUPID stuff like this clogging up our email boxes that can perpetuate lies and hate. Remember the emails circulated 10 years ago touting a free vacation at Disney World if you forwarded the email and then after several 10's or 100's of thousands it would automatically notify Microsoft and ALL the people would get tickets? I had a friend (former colleague whom should have known better) send that to me, saying "it couldn't hurt" to try it. I differ - I think spreading crap like this hurts because so many are not able to THINK clearly enough to figure out what is true and false.
I urge people to USE the INTERNET to VERIFY stuff before you pass it along. You will stop spreading lies and hate. And maybe start thinking for yourself.