Saturday, 14 February 2009
A TASTE OF THE OLD SOD, SHARI'A STYLE
Isn't it lovely when people come to the USA from other countries but bring
elements of their culture to our shores?
Well, maybe not all the time.
Read this story from the New York Daily News and you'll see what I mean:
Afghan diplomat Mohammed Fagirad charged in
all-day wife beating
Saturday, February 14th 2009,
An Afghan diplomat was charged Friday with beating
his wife "like a dog" for more than 15 hours in their Queens home, prosecutors
Mohammed Fagirad, 30, a vice consul
at the Afghanistan Consulate, brutalized his wife inside their Flushing home from about 8:30 a.m.
Wednesday until nearly midnight, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.
During the attack, Fagirad bit, slapped, choked
and beat the 22-year-old woman with a belt, pushed her down a flight of stairs
and sat on her chest, prosecutors said.
At one point, prosecutors said, Fagirad threw his
wife up against a wall, held her there by the neck and then let her drop to the
floor, where he beat her with a belt.
Fagirad told police his "wife was a dog and he was
going to treat her like a dog," prosecutors said.
When Fagirad left the home, his wife fled and went
to the 109th Precinct stationhouse, where she filed a domestic violence report,
prosecutors said. She then returned home.
When Fagirad returned, he demanded his wife's cell
phone and called police to file a counterclaim, prosecutors said.
The woman, who was not named, was hospitalized for
bruises and scratches to her neck and back.
Prosecutors said Fagirad's limited diplomatic
immunity only covers work-related infractions.
He was awaiting arraignment last night in
Queens Criminal Court.
This, of course, comes hot on the
heels of Muzzammil Hassan, that fine gentleman from
Buffalo, NY, beheading his wife Aasiya. Mr. Hassan, you may recall, is the founder of Bridges
TV, a venue dedicated to casting Muslims in a more positive light.
Maybe beheading your wife, or beating her "like a dog"
for 15 hours casts Muslims in a more positive light in Yemen, or the taliban areas of Pakistan (are
there any other?), or among al qaeda enthusiasts. But not here.
Not yet, anyway.
MICHAEL RATNER: A LAMB AT WORK
Some call them left wing lunatics. Some call them moonbats. I
call them LAMBs - i.e., members of the Lunatic-Left And Mega-moonbat
Want to see one at work?
Here is a commentary by Michael Ratner, President of the
hardest-of-hard-left "Center for
Constitutional Rights" (click on the name to see for yourself), gleefully
assuring us that the country wants Bush, Cheney, etc. to pay for being
Sleepless Nights For The Torture
Team: Gallup Poll Says To Obama Go Get Em February 14th, 2009
If I were one of the
torture team, and by torture team I mean Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo and others,
I would not be sleeping well. According to a recent Gallup poll two-thirds of
Americans want to see former administration officials investigated for torture
and wiretapping and forty percent want prosecutions. That is an astounding
percentage in a country where press and pundits have led us to believe that
Americans dont care, or worse, supported torture and the wiretapping of our
phones. I am sure it made the torture team run to their shredders and their
lawyers. It should have.
The torture team openly
and publicly broke two of the most important criminal laws on our books: the
anti-torture and war crimes statutes. It could be jail for life and even the
death penalty for the perpetrators. Lets take a look at just one example of the
hundreds available. Cheney bragged that he approved the use of waterboarding,
the medieval drowning technique, condemned in the past as torture by our own
courts. He even boasted he would authorize it again. Eric Holder, our new
Attorney General stated at his confirmation hearing that waterboarding was
torture. So there you have the case: an open, public confession of criminality
by Cheney and a statement that such conduct is criminal by the highest law
official in our land.
So whats the problem? Why has not Holder
initiated a prosecution? Why has Obama been mealy mouthed about investigation
and prosecution of criminal activities that he is obligated to investigate by
our solemn treaty commitments under the Convention Against Torture. That treaty
makes it absolute: if someone suspected of engaging in torture is in your
country you must investigate. Obama is in violation of the law.
Here is his lame excuse: Obama says he wants to
look forward and not backwards, and that the U.S. will not engage in torture
going forward (lets hope that is true). Obama is smart enough to know better;
its a facile statement that appeals to those who just want to hear it without
examining its meaning. Prosecuting the torturers is about the future it is
about deterring torture going forward. A failure to prosecute is the equivalent
of granting impunity, an impunity that will embolden this administration or the
next one to again violate human beings and break the law. The image that says it
all is the one of Obama the day after his inauguration signing an executive
order to end torture. A great day in America, assuming it really does that. But
it is also one of the scariest images in American history. For what Obama did
with a pen, the next President can just as easily undo with a pen. The absolute
right to be free from torture should not depend on the vagaries of elections.
Justice against torturers should be sure and swift. It is the only way this
penultimate crime can be prevented and we can have a future free from
And here are the data this commentary is based on:
The problem here? All the poll says is
that a majority of people want an investigation into what the question
defines as possible use of torture on terrorism suspects.
It doesn't suggest that the people accept this premise, only that, if it
is a possibility, most would want it looked into.
Compare that to Ratner's comments, which tell us in so many words that Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, etc. are torturers. Is this based on anything other
than being a LAMB who hates these guys? You tell me, because I don't see
Oh, and by the way, he points out they could go to jail for life or be
executed. Is this a LAMB, or what?
And here's the topper: this genius is outraged that the Obama
administration appears less than taken with the idea of going after Bush,
Cheney, etc. for this "torture" that Ratner knows took place. He can't
understand why Obama would be this way.
Maybe, Mr. Ratner, it's because they didn't torture anyone - that includes
the three instances of waterboarding - and if Obama spends time and money trying
to prosecute the previous administration for aggressively trying to get
information from terrorists who want us all dead - even you, Mr. Ratner - he
will look like a prize idiot - just the way you do, Mr. Ratner.
Like I said at the beginning of this blog, some people give them different
names. But (a little Shakespearean touch here): What's in
a name? That which we call a LAMB by any other name would smell
P.S. For whatever it's worth, Michael Ratner is the brother of is the brother
of another LAMB, hard-left talk show host Ellen Ratner, and the brother of
fabulously wealthy Bruce Ratner, who owns, among other things, the New Jersey
THE DEMOCRATIC 'STEALFROMUS' PACKAGE
The steafromus package has passed through congress. And it is owned in
its entirety by the Democratic Party. It is theirs and no one elses.
It must be owned by Democrats. It passed the house with 246
Democrats voting in favor versus 7 against. It passed the senate with 57
Democrats voting in favor and none voting against. By contrast every house
Republican and 38 of the 41 Republicans senators voted against it.
This monstrosity, this raping of the US taxpayer, belongs to the
Democrats. It is the triumph of Obama/Pelosi/Reidism. Their great
Incidentally, does it worry you that, over the past week, the claim that it
would "create four million jobs", magically changed to "create or
save four million jobs"?
Bravo! Great move. Now, no matter what happens, Democrats can
tell the sheeple they've done what they said. If no jobs are gained, they
can claim they saved four million. How can you disprove it? Hell,
even if another million jobs are lost they can claim they saved five
million. Mission accomplished.
And not a word about this presto-change-o from our wonderful "neutral"
media. I guess when you abet the election of Saint Barack, anything he
says, and anything he revises, is perfectly okey dokey.
I hope this works, and that it isn't a catastrophe for the United
States. But I don't see how it does, or how it won't be.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFINITION OF "WARNING"
Want to see a "warning" that isn't a warning?
All you have to do is look at
the Associated Press article describing Hillary Clinton's speech about North Korea. Here
is the excerpt which shows what I'm talking about:
Clinton warns N. Korea: No
She outlines priorities for Asia
trip, including crucial issues in China, Japan
U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton, speaking at the Asia Society in New York on Friday,
outlined the priorities for U.S. interests in Asia.
NEW YORK -
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, making her first major policy speech,
urged North Korea Friday not to take any "provocative" actions that could
undermine peace efforts.
Amid press reports that North
Korea might be preparing a long-range missile test, Clinton pledged to hold the
communist regime to its commitments to give up its nuclear programs in return
for international aid and political concessions.
"We will need to work together
to address the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia: North
Korea's nuclear program," she said.
to New York's Asia Society on the eve of a trip to visit China, Indonesia, Japan
and South Korea her first as secretary of state and noted that their major
economies and huge populations will be critical to turning around the global
She declared that President
Barack Obama's administration is "ready to work with leaders in Asia to resolve
the economic crisis that threatens the Pacific as much as any other region,
ready to strengthen our historic partnerships and alliances while developing
deeper bonds with all nations."
She also sought to reassure
Japan, the top U.S. ally in the region, on one of its top concerns, promising to
meet with the families of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the
1970s and 1980s.
"I will assure our allies in
Japan that we have not forgotten the families of Japanese citizens abducted by
North Korea and I will meet with some of those families in Tokyo next week," she
Environment also a
Climate change will be another
diplomatic priority, Clinton said, especially because of China's fast-growing
industries. "Climate change is not just an environmental nor an energy issue,
but also has implications for our health, our economies and our security," she
On North Korea, Clinton said
the Obama administration is committed to working with the reclusive country
through the framework of six-nation talks that produced the nuclear
"We believe we have an
opportunity to move these discussions forward," she said. "But it is incumbent
on North Korea to avoid any provocative action and unhelpful rhetoric toward
The United States is willing
to "normalize" relations with North Korea, Clinton said, but only if the regime
in Pyongyang agrees to abandon its nuclear weapons programs and accept a program
She suggested the United
States could provide energy and economic aid and sign a peace treaty to formally
end the Korean War. The 1950-53 conflict ended with a truce, and the two Koreas
face each other across one of the world's most heavily armed borders.
"If North Korea is genuinely
prepared to completely and verifiably eliminate their nuclear weapons program,
the Obama administration will be willing to normalize bilateral relations,
replace the peninsula's long-standing armistice agreements with a permanent
peace treaty, and assist in meeting the energy and other economic needs of the
North Korean people," Clinton said.
What is with the Associated Press? Is it determined to irreparably
damage its reputation by doing this stuff?
For someone who reads only the headline, Hillary Clinton
has tough-talked North Korea. But in the very first paragraph, we find out
that she hasn't "warned" North Korea about a thing. She has "urged" them. And then,
further down, we find out that if they do what she
is "urging" them to, the United States will give them things.
So it isn't a warning at all. It isn't even an urging. It is a
bribe. Nice work AP. That'll do wonders for what's left of your
By the way, isn't this the same thing hubby Bill did after jimmy carter
promised nuclear capability to North Korea in the early 1990's, provided it
was used for peaceful purposes? Isn't it how we wound up essentially building
North Korea's nuclear capacity for them - after which they laughed at
that "for peace only" promise?
If this is "change", it is only in the sense that the more things "change"
the more they stay the same.
One other thing: Is it just me, or does the accompanying picture looks like
Ms. Clinton is describing, in highly exaggerated terms, what she
found out about Bill on their wedding night?
THE HENRIETTA HUGHES SCAM
Remember that pathetic, crying, indigent woman, Henrietta Hughes, who sobbed to a
visibly touched Barack Obama that she and her son live in a car, and she needs
her own kitchen and bathroom? Remember how he pledged his help, to enthusiastic
cheering by the crowd? Remember how a politician and his wife
(Nick and Chene Thompson) just happened to be there with a spare house to let her live
At the time, I blogged that it was an obvious set-up, and about as
spontaneous as a professional wrestling match.
But I didn't know the half of it.
Read this report from Nick Spinetto, writing for WINK TV in South Florida, and
learn the real story:
Henrietta Hughes says she's not milking the system
By Nick Spinetto, WINK
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - A woman
making national headlines after a tearful moment with President Obama has a new
Thursday morning, Chene Thompson handed Henrietta Hughes the keys
to her home in Hendry County. Thompson is the wife of State Representative Nick
Thompson (R-District 73). Hughes and her son will live at the home rent
At President Obama's town hall meeting in Fort Myers on Tuesday,
Henrietta Hughes stood up and told the President she has been homeless since
2003 and can't find a job.
She also says she's reach a dead end with
government assistance and none of the local charity agencies will
However, a local organization is coming forward saying
Hughes isn't being honest about how much help she's had in the past.
director of We Care Outreach Ministry, Tanya Johnson, says just last month she
offered Henrietta Hughes permanent housing and a place to stay free for three
months, but Hughes refused.
"We would have allowed her to stay for the
first 90 days, no income. You know free," said Tanya Johnson.
Outreach Ministry is a faith based organization in Fort Myers.
says she also gave Henrietta and her son Corey, money, food and offered Corey
job training courses, but it was refused.
"We have extended a lot of her
services to her," Johnson said.
But Henrietta Hughes says these
services weren't free and the apartment in East Fort Myers came with a price
Hughes says Tanya Johnson wanted $400 a month
The disability check Hughes gets is a little more than $800
Hughes owes money on a loan, has her car insurance payment, a
monthly storage bill and says she couldn't afford the rent.
"Where was I
going to get $400 a month to give her if I got these expenses," Hughes told WINK
WINK News Reporter Nick Spinetto went back to talk to Tanya
She stands by her story.
Henrietta Hughes says she's
never taken advantage of the system and doesn't choose to be homeless. Like
other programs she's tried to get help from,she says We Care couldn't meet her
State Representative Nick Thompson and his wife Chene are standing
by the Henrietta and her son, Corey. They spoke out against the allegations
Henrietta is milking the system, even when confronted with the fact WINK News
found out the Hughes' sold property, back in 2005. This is after Henrietta and
her son lost thier home in 2003 and started living in their car. Henrietta and
her son sold the land for $47,000 dollars. But Chene Thompson says that was all
the money they had for several years and it's gone.
"They have nothing
today. They need help today. They didn't need help in 2005. They need help
today. So whether they had $47,000 or $147,000 in 2005, it doesn't matter. They
don't have any money today," she said.
The Thompson's say they are sad
Henrietta has to defend herself against these allegations and they will continue
to help her. They also hope it doesn't deter other people from
Now you might look at this and think that Henrietta
Hughes still has a case, however thin. But wait, there is more. This comes to us from
the redoubtable Steve Gilbert at www,sweetness-light.com:
The Property Records Of Henrietta
According to Lee County, Florida property
6/18/01 Property (Lot 19, Block 35, Unit 9, Sec.
20, Twnshp 44S, Range 27, Lehigh Acres Subdivision) purchased by Henrietta and
10/10/03 - $124,400.00 lien release due to payment
in full to Henrietta and Corey Hughes.
8/9/06 - Quit claim deed signed by Henrietta
Hughes granting full ownership to Corey Hughes.
No transactions since for either
Henrietta Hughes or Corey Hughes which means that Corey Hughes still owns the
property. Taxes current (paid) on 1/1/09.
There are a number of mortgage lien holder
transfers between 2001 and when it was paid off in 2003. This is normal as liens
are often sold (think one mortgage holder buying out another). What is
interesting is how this lien for $124,400.00 was paid off in less than 28
To access the records:
Enter last name first, first name last.
Has this property been sold in 2005, a transfer
would have been recorded since the county records not only purchases but sales
as well. Also, why would someone sell a property they paid at least $124,000.00
for in June, 2001 for $47,000.00 in 2005 when market prices were still
The fact is this scam artist did not
sell her property that was jointly owned with her son, Corey Lamont, from day
one. What she did do was sign a quit claim deed in 2006, giving TOTAL ownership
to her son Corey Lamont. I would guess this is because the value of the property
would affect SSDI benefits along with Medicare/Medicaid. It would also affect
any welfare she might be eligible for under SSDI. My guess is she
applied for SSDI and was told that she could only have so much worth. Yet, the
2004 Rochester, NY article states she is already receiving
It is also interesting that in 2004, Corey Lamont
Hughes sought, and received, free medical treatment in Rochester, NY while he
and his mother were still owners of property in Florida
Retire05 also added this:
Here is the history (remember to keep the lot
numbers separate as that is important):
6/18/01 - Henrietta and Corey Hughes purchases
Lot 18 and 19, Block 35 of Lehigh Acres
8/17/01 - Henrietta and Corey Hughes purchases
Lot 22, Block 35 of Lehigh Acres
10/29/01 - Henrietta and Corey Hughes receives
building permit for Lot 19, Block 35 of Lehigh Acres. The builder is Holiday
Builders of Cape Coral, Florida
10/29/01 - (same day) Henrietta and Corey Hughes
secures mortgage financing from Riverside Bank of The Gulf Coast, Cape Coral,
Florida (this would be for the building of the structure constructed by
Holiday Builders) in the amount of $124,400.00
7/15/03 - Forclosure filed by Riverside Bank of
the Gulf Coast on Lot 19, Block 35 Lehigh Acres in an amount of slightly over
$123,600.00 (meaning she paid about $800 of the mortgage in 21
10/16/2003 - Mortgage satisfaction filed
by Riverside Bank granting ownership to Henrietta and Corey Hughes for Lot 19,
Block 35 of Lehigh Acres for $124,400.00
6/30/05 - Lot 22, Block 35 of
Lehigh Acres sold to Homeland, LLC.
8/9/06 - Quit claim deed signed by Henrietta
Hughes to Corey Hughes for Lot 18, Block 35 of Lehigh Acres.
She originally owned 3 lots, #18, #19
and #22. Number #22 was sold in 2005 (when she claims she lost her home) to
Homeland, LLC in June, 2005 and #18 was transferred to her son, Corey Lamont,
on 8/9/06 (signing a quit claim deed gave him total ownership of #18 which
they had bought jointly).
I can find no record of any subsequent sales of
the home build on Lot 19.
At the very least it would seem that Mrs. Hughes
circumstances are not quite the way they have been represented in the
It's bad enough that the Henrietta Hughes routine was an
obvious set-up by the Obama people; a grotesque update of "Queen For A Day"
to give the warm fuzzies to as many suckers as possible. But now we find
out that Hughes' home ownership is very, very different than the destitution and
indigency she sobbed out to President Obama and everyone in televisionland.
Does the word "FRAUD" come to mind?
So, are you going to wait for mainstream media to go to town on this story....even
do some investigative work on how Henrietta Hughes managed to cop a front
row seat at an Obama rally and get that microphone in her hand?
If so, get ready; this is going to be a very long wait. Maybe
Note: A commenter, "free", whom I know from an
internet chat room (good guy, by the way), has pointed out that Nick Thompson is a
Republican. I have therefore changed the blog to reflect this. Sorry about
the error....and, I assume, the Thompsons' offer of a house was not a
set-up because I doubt Barack Obama is helping Republicans these
MEDIA BIAS - THE LATEST IN A SERIES
As regular readers know, I have shown blog after blog demonstrating that when
a disgraced public figure is a Democrat, his/her party affiliation is magically
exorcised from mainstream media's covera. I have also shown time and time
again that, when it is a Republican, these same media cannot wait to tell us
Here, from Tom Blumer of www.newsbusters.org, is the latest example
of this ongoing double standard:
AP's 'Name That Party' Twist:
Disgraced PA Judges' Dem Party ID Disappears After Initial Inclusion
This "Name That Party" situation has many of the usual elements.
There are several stories about two Democratic judges involved in criminal
behavior in Pennsylvania, and, with one exception, they "somehow" don't get
around to identifying their party.
But this saga is different for two
- The crimes to which the judges have pleaded
guilty involve "thousands" of juveniles.
- In one lonely exception, the Associated Press's
coverage prominently identified the judges' party. But in what was apparently
a subsequent longer revision, their party identification disappeared.
What follows is a side-by-side picture of the
first four paragraphs of a February 11 AP story carried at topix.com
(also saved at my host for
future reference, and of the five paragraphs of the story as it now appears
at MSNBC (also saved at host; red
and green boxes are mine; portions of the Topix link were moved from their
original locations on the page for demonstration purposes; MSNBC graphic is of
the printer-friendly version):
Looking at the green boxes, you can see that at
the bottom left, MSNBC is the site to which Topix linked when it posted the
story. The nine-digit page ID number at Topix is the same as the ID at the top
of the MSNBC page on the right.
But my oh my, how the MSNBC page has
- The "Both are Democrats" sentence is gone.
- The quote from the Juvenile Law Center attorney
has been added.
- (not visible in the picture) There are no other
differences between the first eight paragraphs excerpted at Topix and the
first nine paragraphs at MSNBC.
- The full 856-word article at MSNBC does not
identify the party of either of the two judges involved.
It is virtually inconceivable that Topix would
have gratuitously added "Both are Democrats" on its own. Those words were almost
definitely present at MSNBC when Topix did its excerpt.
Topix is the one and only place I was able to find
the "Both are Democrats" sentence. Just a few of the other sites where the party
affiliation-free AP story mirrors what is at MSNBC include NJherald.com,
Google, Yahoo! News,
Fox News, the Salt
Lake Tribune, and AOL.com. Even
attempts to find cached versions of the story that might have been published
earlier with the party affiliation failed (some examples are here, here, here, and here).
I contacted the Luzerne County Courts on Friday
afternoon, and confirmed that Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan are indeed
Subsequent stories about the two judges have also
failed to identify their party. A few examples are:
In a Google Web Search on ["both are Democrats"
Pennsylvania] (typed as indicated within the brackets), the Topix article came
back as the only result
related to the judges. A Google News search on the same string came back with nothing.
It would appear that the person or persons at AP
who released the earlier unbylined story picked up at Topix actually paid
attention to the wire service's Stylebook (from 2000), which says
party affiliation Let relevance be
the guide in determining whether to include a political figures party
affiliation in a story. Party affiliation is pointless in some stories, such
as an account of a governor accepting a button from a poster child. It will
occur naturally in many political stories. For stories between these extremes,
include party affiliation if readers need it for understanding or are likely
to be curious about what it is.
Since this is clearly a national story involving a
horrible, orchestrated, large-scale betrayal of the public trust, there is
little doubt that the rest of the nation is quite "likely to be curious" about
Ciavarella's and Conahan's party membership. But the AP's Michael Rubinkam and
MaryClaire Dale, who are bylined here
in the party-purged version of the story carried at DCexaminer.com, apparently
didn't think readers were entitled to know.
Short of an open admission, the pulled
party-affiliation sentence following a brief appearance is probably as
convincing a piece of evidence as we'll ever see that the press is deliberately
playing "Don't Name That Democrat" whenever it can.
Do we even need to ask what would have been
reported if Ciavarella and Conahan had been Republicans?
Amazing, isn't it? Just like clockwork. Time and time again.
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them