Four Girls Murdered In Honor Killing: Muslim Community "Offended" by Arrest, Police Chief Apologizes
If they can't deal with our ways, then DON'T COME HERE. Why the hell did the police chief apologize? Don't come here. We live under our just rule of law, not sharia law. We pat down. Deal or leave.
I get patted down every third time I travel. I hate it. I get patted down because of jihadis in our midst. I am offended by it. No one apologizes to me. Either I get patted down or I don't travel. I can't go into a building in NYC without being screened. If I don't like it, too bad.
That's how it is. Who the hell died and made Muslims the ruling class? No special rights for special classes. This is an outrage.
Here is the link to the "honor" murder of four girls in Canada: Honor Killings of Four Muslim Girls in Canada: "The girls were not allowed to go out alone, for example, neither to the cinema nor to meet friends and they were not able to dress freely".
Police chief apologizes for patting down of Muslim woman National Post
Windsor's police chief has made a public apology to the local Muslim community for the "embarrassment" caused by his tactical officers when they conducted an arrest operation. But the head of the city's police union is unrepentant.
"In my belief, this isn't a cultural issue," said Constable Ed Parent, president of the Windsor Police Association. "These officers had a warrant to arrest someone. They went in, and they arrested this person."
The controversy stems from arrests made by the Windsor police tactical team last month.
On Oct. 31, the team acted on a request by the RCMP and FBI to arrest Windsor residents Mohammad Al-Sahli, 33, and Yassir Ali Khan, 30, in connection with a radical Islamic group based in Detroit.
According to Patrick Ducharme, the lawyer for the two accused, the officers "patted down" a Muslim woman --Mr. Khan's wife -- who was not a part of the arrest warrant.
"It was never the intention for Windsor police officers to offend or embarrass the families of our Islamic community," wrote Police Chief Gary Smith yesterday. "The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs. I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community."
This coward should be fired. He is afraid of a seventh century barbaric system of nonsense?
Justice Dept: Blacks MUST Have Democrat Label to Know How to Vote
Comments
Comment by AmericanPatriot
Excuse me? Are there any black people with brains in that sleepy little "backwater", and if there are, is there any sort of outrage that their government thinks they are stupid? What about elections for Judges....here in Oregon, those are always labeled as non-partisan even though we (even our blacks) are intelligent enough to know these people have definite political "leanings". Are blacks in Oregon superior to blacks in the Carolinas? They certainly must be as the justice department has not seen fit to come running here to chastise our local elections.
What an incredible load of garbage!!
Comment by MrT
Minorities don't realize how badly they are manipulated and this is one of the very glaring demonstrations of how they are viewed by those who want diversity..they want affirmative action because you can't be blind to the color of one's skin...no you have to make your decisions with that in mind-what BS has been handed to all of us on this level. Affirmative action means only good enough with a push.....don't even get me started on how the minorities are being genocided with abortion a/k/a the "right to choose" all wrapped up in nice paper so it will be palatable. Pelosi made the statement not so long ago about how abortion will keep down the costs to cities...this is all behind doors and done strictly to keep people of color in the dark for a longer period of time. When they wake up and see what bull they have been fed for so long, they will be stunned. Give those who are less fortunate a hand, not a hand out because surely pride and accomplishment drive more people to success than a free ride.
Comment by jktthree@yahoo.com
Woa! Wake up people. The new administration is going to do things like this. I know this is an insult to us all but hey! we voted for change---now we are getting it. Are we pleased yet?
Comment by deeman73
Just another example of Czar Obamas' attempt to destroy America as we know it.
Comment by alraden
I don't know why this should surprise anyone. If people were paying attention during the election season, they would have known that Obama is blatently racist. I lived through the same thing in the early 60's, when Detroit elected its first black mayor. Encouraged by the 'black leaders', the city government became much more racist than it had ever been.
Anyone who didn't see this divisiveness coming had blinders on.
Comment by scotpond
The blacks don't need this to identify who they will vote for. They suffer from voter apathy and usually, it's the white minority that determines the winners. It's the white voters who Justice sees voting along party lines who wont vote for blacks if they aren't identified as DEMs.
"Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination."
In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change's "effect will be strictly racial... Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,"
Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."
Comment by onewildman
The only minorities in this story are the whites. Out numbered about two to one. The majority voted for a non partisan local electorate. I see no reason to change the vote. It was a fair election a majority of voters turned out and voted. The only reason that I can see to change this is because in my opinion is the person making the decision Mrs. King is a raciest and employs racism to make decisions. Weather or not you like the whites are the minority here.
Comment by onewildman
One more thing this woman needs to be removed. Make a stink call your Rep. Ask why a racist is allowed to work in the justice department!
Comment by scotpond
PLEASE! Go to the Washington Post article and read more of what Mrs King said about the reasoning behind the decision before posting comments that are based on the belief that black voters will only vote for a black person and (are so stupid) they wont know who to vote for without the D or R label. The Justice's focus is on the way WHITES vote in this town. That some will vote for a BLACK person ONLY if they are Democrats!
Comment by BalledEagle
I wouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING Yo Momma does! Remember what Van Jones said? There are some things that might normally take 20-30 years, but with Obama it could be done in a much shorter time! Could it be that he REALLY DOES want to eliminate political boundaries so it is harder for EVERYONE to tell what the candidates stand for? Don't be so proud as to think you, or I, could see past the lies of a candidate who doesn't stand on a political platform! Once Obama gets everyone in an uproar about giving up political parties, he can look like the hero in getting what he REALLY wants, getting rid of political parties, another AMERICAN institution!
Add Bobby as a Friend on Facebook
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow TeamGOPUSA on Twitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ShareThis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send to a Friend
Posted by Bobby Eberle
There have been some crazy actions to come from Obama and his advisors regarding race. Remember when, not knowing ANY of the facts regarding an incident between a white police officer and a black professor, Obama said on national television that the officer acted "stupidly?" Or how about Obama's 20-year affiliation with a pastor who blasts America and advocates racial division?
Well, now I think I've seen it all. Obama's Justice Department has ruled against the actions of the town of Kinston, North Carolina. What did this town do that was so terrible? The residents voted overwhelmingly to eliminate partisan elections for mayor and city council members. The Justice Department stepped in and said, "Whoa! Wait just a second!" According to the Justice Department, blacks in Kinston must have the Democrat Party in order to elect their "candidate of choice." How insulting! Basically, what Obama's team is saying is that blacks will only vote for Democrats, and without the party label, blacks can't figure out for themselves which candidate will get their vote. This is not only a slap in the face of the voters, but it continues Obama's efforts to divide people along racial lines rather than bring them together.
The Washington Times has an excellent accounting of what is happening in this small North Carolina city. Following a city vote to do away with partisan elections for city offices, the Justice Department blocked the action:
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
Candidate of choice? Basically they are saying that blacks will ONLY vote for Democrats, and if there is no party label, they won't know what to do. Obama's team also continues to take steps backward in race relations. Saying that whites will only vote for a black if there is a party label attached smacks of blatant bigotry. Furthermore, to say that blacks can't figure out who their "candidate of choice" is without a party label, Justice Department officials are making a huge assumption about the intelligence of black voters.
First of all, if a person is running for office, and that person is the "candidate of choice" for a voter or group of voters, it doesn't matter if that candidate has a party label attached or not. Shouldn't the electoral process by a process where voters actually pay attention to issues, do a little research, and then make an informed decision? What the Obama folks are saying is, "Forget all that! We just want them to vote for the Democrat."
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor. "The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said. Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."
Keep in mind that according to the news story, this city votes Democrat overwhelmingly... both blacks and whites. Kinston "voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city."
The news story gets ridiculous when one reads the quotes from Loretta King, "who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division."
"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," she said.
Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.
Through King's efforts, the charges against all but one of the Black Panthers were dropped.
The Justice Department's actions are not only racial, but overtly political. As noted by Hans A. von Spakovsky at National Review Online:
The attorneys in the Voting Section also increasingly use the Voting Rights Act as primarily a political bludgeon to protect and enhance the electoral successes of the Democratic Party. Thus, in the Kinston objection letter, the Department stated that “it is the partisan makeup of the general electorate” that allows the winner of the Democratic primary to win in the general election. But of course, the VRA is supposed to protect voters, not majority parties. The fact that blacks are a controlling majority in the city is essentially deemed irrelevant.
This is yet another example of Obama's advisors showing that they are not ready for their duty to represent the entire country. They are partisans, and they are ideological radicals.
Black voter, confused by the "butterfly ballot" (designed by democrat )
Comment by Michigan Righty
For this not to elicit rage from that particular block of voters perhaps legitimizes the claim that they wouldn't know whom to vote for without the lables.
How incredibly sad that the party that originally freed slaves and has done more for minorities are viewed as bigots and racists and the party that simply uses minorities to get re-elected time and again are viewed as saviors.
Comment by TO MUCH
Does this mean the white population of Kinston will be consider racist if they fail to vote for a black Democrat? WAKE UP! The door of individualism and independent thinking is being closed in faces of all Americans. AGAIN WAKE UP!
Comment by kenmarx
First of all, we take it for granted that the Justice Department has a right to control local elections. This is a law that needs to be eliminated.
Second, the assumption continues to be made that Black people are stupid. They are not! Their biggest handicap may be that they were "educated" in government run schools controlled by liberal democrats. But stupid they aren't.
This situation will be allowed to go on only as long as we let it. People, rise up!
Comment by Steve
The untold truth that seems to escape most Americans is that Blacks taken as a whole are less intelligent than other ethnic groups, and government Elitists know this. Yes, Blacks could very well be disenfranchised if they don’t see a “Democrat” label on a ballot. Is this is a racist statement? Go look at the National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov) and do the math for yourself. Blacks consistently rank lowest in standard assessments of math, reading and science. Government Elitists wanting to keep their power need the consistent Black vote that goes 85 – 95% Democrat. Even though Blacks are intelligent enough to pick a “Democrat” without the label, it must be seen by the Obama administration as being too risky. If Blacks (or anyone else who traditionally votes Democrat) had to read what the candidate stands for before casting a vote, there is a chance that might not pick the unlabeled Democrat. There is simply too much risk of potentially loosing that big number of voters without the “Democrat” label.
It is sad that Blacks continue to be exploited by government Elitists, and somehow think these Elitists are looking out for them. No ethnic group has been catered to more than Blacks since 1964, yet taken as a whole they are the least intelligent ethnic group in America today (among Black, White, Hispanic, Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander). Are Blacks less intelligent because of biological factors? The most credible answer is No. So why then are Blacks ranking as the least intelligent ethnic group in America? Is it because of broken families? Blacks rank highest in illegitimate birthrate thanks to governmental policies of the 60’s. Where’s the Black father? Some of the most admirable families in America are led by Black men, but too many families now live in a generational trap of receiving governmental support for children born out of wedlock. It is the law of unintended consequences at work. A social safety net is great for those who, out of no fault of their own, need it. But the unintended consequence is that the safety net is abused by the least intelligent people in our country.
How do broken families, government policies and low intellect of the Black population relate? It is a simple fact that in a free market, capitalistic society, the best educated get the best paying jobs. People can chase red-herring arguments about the “good ol’ boy network” all they want. That network has an insignificant impact on our society as a whole. I have been in the workplace for over 25 years and the simple fact is that the cream rises to the top. You either consistently produce the necessary results demanded by the position or you are moved down, or you are moved out. Broken families do not create the cream that rises to the top. Does America have the stomach to demand more from its citizens? Can it change the policies that have decimated Blacks? This is real hope for real change.
Comment by valuevoter
I usually agree with Bobby Eberle's take on current events, but after reading the article in the Washington Times (not the Post) I must agree with scotpond that the decision was based on the belief that WHITE voters will only vote for a black if the Democratic label is applied. Read (or re-read) the original article!
The whole controversy is certainly a sad commentary on the state of voting, no matter which side is right. The apparent apathy of black voters and the racism on both sides are signs that something is very wrong here. NONE of us should be voting a straight party ticket, and NONE of us should be voting for a candidate based strictly on color or gender or religion or sexual orientation or whatever. Apparently I'm naive, because I was taught that one should vote based on the candidate's QUALIFICATIONS for the job, and his/her stand on ISSUES of importance to me. Citizenship in this great country implies a responsibility to cast a vote informed by facts, not the laziness of voting based only on race or party. Too many patriots have died for this right for us to demean it in this way.
Comment by voxoreason
Anyone reminded of one black voter, confused by the "butterfly ballot" (designed by democrats), who complained that he was confused as he had intended to vote for "number 2," as he had obviously been instructed? Hilarious! Who needs political parties when you can vote by the numbers?
Comment by rearl
Actually, if the elections are non-partisan, blacks can always check with what the Rev. Jesse Jackson says. Doesn't he speak for all black people?
(Please read this with all the sarcasm that it was written with.)
Comment by ONTIME
Recently on FOX Juan Williams a lib black commentator and a black guest also a lib were in conflict as to the Limbaugh offer to participate in a purchase of a team in the NFL, the conversation deteriorated after the guest told Williams because of his defense of Limbaugh, he Williams should just sit on the porch. This was secret black talk for derogatory name calling refering to Unca Tom to insult Williams, a bit mindless but the other guy couldn't defend himself and resorted to slurring instead, how typical of a lib.
Now Williams has come around in the last few years, I think the folks at FOX have been even handed and he realizes this, so common sense is now more a part of his thought pattern and this is a compliment. His defense of Rush was strong and well said even though Rush and he are not in agreement. This indicates that being black doesn't mean you are a member of the Jackass party but if you are you can still show respect and use a just argument even in defense of one whose ideas are not in your purview....I tell you folks, there is hope out there just keep on pushing that conservative framework of logic and relevant thought, some lib will get it, there is proof.
Comment by downdraft
Obama believes his breathren are ignorant and need him...his narcissism commands him to believe he has become the savior of the black...and more importantly, the savior of the World...which he sees himself as being called to rule...
He must make it easy for them to vote...and insult to all of us, especially the Black.
He was hand picked by those who rule him, and they feed his narcissism which they know needs feeding so they can get him to do as they plan...yes he is intelligent, but he is also burdened with this belief in his self importance and greatness...and his entire existence depends on protecting this self image...He really believes he is the most diserving of us all to rule...
This is extremely dangerous when left unchallenged...and challenges are a real threat to him so he must "defend" himself from these attackers, and often do so with brutality...justifying it as an attack by those who "just don't understand his greatness"!
There is no evil in making a profit only and only is an entity brakes the law. The act of profit making is good it provides Jobs!
So one doesn't need to have one's hand out, fool!"
There is a problem with making money/profits when doing so is to the detriment of others. Christians believe that greed is evil and one of the seven deadly sins.
There are many examples of how making profits is legal but not fair, hurt others or are simply unreasonable. So the answer to your question is, "It depends."
There was a time when loans made were at unreasonable rates, to the detriment of the borrower, for the purpose of boosting profits. The reaction was to produce usury laws.
There was a time when child labor was legal. Children were used as labor in order to boost profits. While it was perfectly legal, is child labor right? Child labor laws were created in order to protect children.
Those that allow lobbyist of privatized industry corrupt our our elected representatives are choosing to give up their control. They give up control to make laws that would protect them, laws that put the welfare of citizen's above the interests of privatized industries focussed and dedicated to making profits, they give up making laws that would provide clean air and water, safe food sources, and liberty. They give up this control to privatized industry.
Description The life of African American leader and death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal is in new danger, with a pending U.S Supreme court ruling on a case in Ohio, which could set the stage for the reinstatement of Mumia's death sentence. Philadelphia prosecutors are also independently seeking to have his death sentence reinstated.
In Mumia's trial, flagrant violations - false police testimony, coercion of witnesses, judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, exculsion of Black jurors, inadequate defense and pervasive racism - led to his wrongful conviction and death sentence. Please join us for an urgent discussion of the Mumia case, and what you can do to save his life.
PLUS:
Capitalism is a system of mass destruction
The capitalist economic crisis is deepening by the day. Millions of workers have lost their homes, pensions, health care and other necessities of life. The crisis is global. Not everyone is suffering, of course. The current economic crisis, as all earlier depressions and recessions, has one root cause: capitalist overproduction. Hear about the overproduction crisis from a Marxist perspective and discuss the socialist alternative.
Here are 6 bullet points simply to try and inspire you to go to my web site to both read about my vision and watch the videos that I talk about it in, followed by the link to my web site:
(1) IF YOU LOVE HUMANITY PLEASE HELP GET THIS WORLDWIDE DISCUSSION GOING
(2) BALTIMORE WILL BE AT THE CENTER OF A MOVEMENT TO END POVERTY WORLDWIDE
(3) WE CAN TEACH HUMANITY HOW TO COME TOGETHER TO END POVERTY WORLDWIDE
(4) A WORLDWIDE DISCUSSION PROPHETS & SAGES WOULD WANT HUMANITY TO BEGIN
(5) INVITE ME TO SPEAK ABOUT MY 28-YEAR VISION TO END WORLDWIDE POVERTY!
(6) A GROUP OF PEOPLE NEED TO COME TOGETHER TO BUILD AN IMPORTANT MOVEMENT
There are many reasons for this. As a group, poor and middle class , their total income compared to the rich, as group, is actually higher.
What classifies a person a being rich? To you it would be someone with more income? Double your income? The rich have good tax preparers and attorneys the poor don't.
Ask a politician to show you the statistics from the IRS they won't! To say the democrats will tax the Rich is a political statement for votes only it's not a real source of total income for the
government. The statistics being total taxes from from the group "poor and middle class" compared to the "rich" you would see what I'm talking about. When any politician says they are going to increase taxes on the rich it's a joke! They laugh all the way to their next term in office, it's a con.
What are taxes to a business? A tax is an expense. When taxes are increased product price must go up. Or decrease other expenses such as reducing employees.
As an individual one has less money in ones pocket to spend in the economy. Rich or poor. In the rich group when taxes are decreased that additional money isn't spent on food it is
invested into the economy through investments. For the lower income brackets the additional money is spent on living, on food. "Into the economy"
Research capital gains taxes and see how many people there are that actually pay them. The politician passed laws so people with money can move the money out of the country
and not pay any taxes on the money. I'm sure you can find that info on the Internet.
Is it wrong for someone to have more money than you? If they do the government should tax it away from them? For what, to make them equal to you?
Plain and simple less taxes better economy. Decrease taxes, government revenue increases, why? ! There is no benefit to tax away money from the people so an incompetent government can blow on stimulus that doesn't work. By the way the democrats knew the stimulus wouldn't work. They want you sitting home with your hand out asking for help. The dems have done nothing to improve the economy, nothing! They are a bunch of clowns just like Roosevelt during the great depression! When WW II started his game was up because the war created so many jobs and pulled the country out of the depression. Roosevelt did nothing to improve the economy. nothing.
Taxes are not for revenue taxes have one purpose and that is for social change and economic control, evil. Most taxes are not necessary to run the government.
You are fooled. All of the information concerning capital gains is on the Internet. Check to see what the total collected taxes from capital gains are.
Tax cuts on income have been made for higher tax brackets. The rich are in higher tax brackets so get a greater benefit out of the cut. Further, the people in the lower brackets pay a larger percentage of their income on living expenses, so with an income tax break the rich are able to save/invest more of the break. To go on, income tax breaks or made on percentages, so a 2% break for a guy making 40k a year is less dollars in his pocket than the guy who gets the 2% break on 250k a year.
]]>