....Brought to you by (Permalink is at Limerick Savant: Poetic license revoked ).
Read all about it there @ the Permalink URL above.
Demand Journalism WITHOUT A Corporate Agenda
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
FBI: Muslims Detained At Stadium Weren't Profiled (Sssssuuuurrrreeeee!!!!!)
Former Presidents George Bush Sr. & Bill Clinton decide to go to a football game.
The end result - Five Muslims Detained at Giants Stadium
Today's Real Deal is plain and simple.
The FBI told CNN that they weren't profiling them.
Really?
Well if that was the case, then why were they detained?
This is yet yet another way our government is spying on us. The Right Wing will be quick to remind us of the war against terror. But it's quite obvious that some people need to be reminded that there are some GOOD HONEST HARD WORKING WORKING MUSLIMS WHO HAVE JOBS & NO INTEREST OR DESIRE TO BRING HARM TO AMERICANS.
That is what these muslims are. THEY MEAN NO HARM
In the article, it says that "Some of the Muslims said they did not know they were in a sensitive area, and they complained that they were subjected to racial profiling while they were praying, as their faith requires five times a day."
Does the FBI not respect religion?
Here are some other interesting points (paraquoted from the CNN article)
At a news conference Wednesday, Sami Shaban, a 27-year-old Seton Hall Law School student who lives in Piscataway, said he and four friends had just gotten to the September 19 New York Giants-New Orleans Saints game when they left their seats to pray. Around halftime, 10 security officers and three state troopers approached the men and told them to come with them, Shaban said.
He also said that they were questioned and not allowed to return to their seats, but were assigned seats in another section.
Gee....If they posed such a security threat, WHY LET THEM BACK IN AT ALL???
The FBI told CNN that they aroused suspicion because "they were congregating near the main air intake duct" and that Bush Sr. was in the stadium that night as part of the Hurricane Katrina fundraising campaign along with former President Bill Clinton.
"You had 80,000 people there, Bush 41 was there, and you had a group of gentlemen gathering in an area not normally used by the public right near the main air intake duct for the stadium, and a food preparation facility," Siegel said. "It was where they were, not what they were doing."
Okay....Lemme get this straight. If I were to be seen hovering near an air intake duct at Invesco Field here in Denver, I can expect to be detained for questioning. Am I right? Look at my picture to the left. Do I look Muslim to you? Is that what they're telling us? If so, I don't buy it.
Racial profiling is a part of law enforcement regardless of geographical location or level of government . It is second nature to them. This may sound "ultra-liberal" (if not downright paranoid), but I believe there are less-intrusinve methods of enforcing the law and ensuring Homeland Security than violating someone's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to FREEDOM OF RELIGION (or any other rights for that matter).
The objective now is to find terrorists via those methods. And the sooner the better.
And that's Today's Real Deal.
The end result - Five Muslims Detained at Giants Stadium
Today's Real Deal is plain and simple.
The FBI told CNN that they weren't profiling them.
Really?
Well if that was the case, then why were they detained?
This is yet yet another way our government is spying on us. The Right Wing will be quick to remind us of the war against terror. But it's quite obvious that some people need to be reminded that there are some GOOD HONEST HARD WORKING WORKING MUSLIMS WHO HAVE JOBS & NO INTEREST OR DESIRE TO BRING HARM TO AMERICANS.
That is what these muslims are. THEY MEAN NO HARM
In the article, it says that "Some of the Muslims said they did not know they were in a sensitive area, and they complained that they were subjected to racial profiling while they were praying, as their faith requires five times a day."
Does the FBI not respect religion?
Here are some other interesting points (paraquoted from the CNN article)
At a news conference Wednesday, Sami Shaban, a 27-year-old Seton Hall Law School student who lives in Piscataway, said he and four friends had just gotten to the September 19 New York Giants-New Orleans Saints game when they left their seats to pray. Around halftime, 10 security officers and three state troopers approached the men and told them to come with them, Shaban said.
He also said that they were questioned and not allowed to return to their seats, but were assigned seats in another section.
Gee....If they posed such a security threat, WHY LET THEM BACK IN AT ALL???
The FBI told CNN that they aroused suspicion because "they were congregating near the main air intake duct" and that Bush Sr. was in the stadium that night as part of the Hurricane Katrina fundraising campaign along with former President Bill Clinton.
"You had 80,000 people there, Bush 41 was there, and you had a group of gentlemen gathering in an area not normally used by the public right near the main air intake duct for the stadium, and a food preparation facility," Siegel said. "It was where they were, not what they were doing."
Okay....Lemme get this straight. If I were to be seen hovering near an air intake duct at Invesco Field here in Denver, I can expect to be detained for questioning. Am I right? Look at my picture to the left. Do I look Muslim to you? Is that what they're telling us? If so, I don't buy it.
Racial profiling is a part of law enforcement regardless of geographical location or level of government . It is second nature to them. This may sound "ultra-liberal" (if not downright paranoid), but I believe there are less-intrusinve methods of enforcing the law and ensuring Homeland Security than violating someone's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to FREEDOM OF RELIGION (or any other rights for that matter).
The objective now is to find terrorists via those methods. And the sooner the better.
And that's Today's Real Deal.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Libby Indicted, Rove Cleared (For Now)
Those of who regularly read or at least check my blog know that I'm a reasonably objective guy, right? Well, that will change somewhat as I've now found someone I can have a debate via with here in the blogosphere.
Everyone - Meet Shelley The Republican. The latest addition to our Conservative Bloggers list (and our latest political adversary).
The reason is the focus of Today's Real Deal....
In what many Republicans including this one are calling a `witch hunt', "Scooter" Libby was indicted for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA Operative whom we now know as being Valerie Plame.
I ask how is this a 'witch hunt'? Is it because the Special Prosecutor was a Democrat as opposed to a Republican that this came into being? Help me out here.
Shelley (and all you other die-hard Conservatives out there), you know darned well that had the White House been under a Democratic Presidential Administration such as Al Gore's, hyou would've been calling for noNOT ONLY the resignation of the advisor of Gore's VP, but you'd also be looking for a way to impeach Gore as well. You know that as well as I do.
Furthermore, my newly-found "friend" (if you call blogging and/or podcasting a form of "friendship") and political adversary Shelley the Republican was also quick to spew forth this piece of crap (FYI...the quoted portion is in bold text for easy reference).
Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in which this all surrounds, was more harmed by her husband than by Libby, Rove or anyone else. Her husband had an axe to grind and the administration's only mistake was allowing that man to keep his job as long as he did. What is particularly bothersome is the lack of ethics Plame used in hiring her husband to help the Democratic party.
What the hell prompted you to make THAT statement Shelley? What were you smoking or drinking? Are you sure you weren't at some bar hangin' out with the boys when you typed that?
Talk about UNAMERICAN *FROWN*
And then my newly-found political adversary had the nerve to spew forth THIS piece of crap....
The reality is that Valerie Plame had a desk job in Washington that she had for a while. She had new baby twins, which she was taking care of and she and her husband were making contributions to the Democratic Party. How is a woman behind a desk, running around as a Washington socialite, and sending her husband on CIA gigs claim she was ousted?
Umm...Tell us Shelley, what evidence do you have (or that is available online) that indicates that she was (as you put it) "running around as a Washington socialite" and "sending her husband on CIA gigs". Every news account I've heard including those aired on the obviously Conservatively-biased FOX News Channel have all indicated that Valerie's husband was asked by the CIA itself. NOT BY HER!!!!
Furthermore, what does this have to do with Hilary Clinton? (In noticed the comments she posted before the quoted text immediately above)
Getting back to the topic at hand, wasn't one of the big reasons (if not THE BIGGEST reason) why WE THE PEOPLE (notice my objectivity?) put Bush in office was to restore "Honesty & Integrety" back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I seemingly recall that being the case.
Kinda hard to do that when you've got corrupt politicians giving *cough* *cough* "advice" to the two highest ranking politicians (That being President & Vice President) in America, now isn't it?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is Today's Real Deal....
Additional Comment In Original Post
Everyone - Meet Shelley The Republican. The latest addition to our Conservative Bloggers list (and our latest political adversary).
The reason is the focus of Today's Real Deal....
In what many Republicans including this one are calling a `witch hunt', "Scooter" Libby was indicted for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA Operative whom we now know as being Valerie Plame.
I ask how is this a 'witch hunt'? Is it because the Special Prosecutor was a Democrat as opposed to a Republican that this came into being? Help me out here.
Shelley (and all you other die-hard Conservatives out there), you know darned well that had the White House been under a Democratic Presidential Administration such as Al Gore's, hyou would've been calling for noNOT ONLY the resignation of the advisor of Gore's VP, but you'd also be looking for a way to impeach Gore as well. You know that as well as I do.
Furthermore, my newly-found "friend" (if you call blogging and/or podcasting a form of "friendship") and political adversary Shelley the Republican was also quick to spew forth this piece of crap (FYI...the quoted portion is in bold text for easy reference).
Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in which this all surrounds, was more harmed by her husband than by Libby, Rove or anyone else. Her husband had an axe to grind and the administration's only mistake was allowing that man to keep his job as long as he did. What is particularly bothersome is the lack of ethics Plame used in hiring her husband to help the Democratic party.
What the hell prompted you to make THAT statement Shelley? What were you smoking or drinking? Are you sure you weren't at some bar hangin' out with the boys when you typed that?
Talk about UNAMERICAN *FROWN*
And then my newly-found political adversary had the nerve to spew forth THIS piece of crap....
The reality is that Valerie Plame had a desk job in Washington that she had for a while. She had new baby twins, which she was taking care of and she and her husband were making contributions to the Democratic Party. How is a woman behind a desk, running around as a Washington socialite, and sending her husband on CIA gigs claim she was ousted?
Umm...Tell us Shelley, what evidence do you have (or that is available online) that indicates that she was (as you put it) "running around as a Washington socialite" and "sending her husband on CIA gigs". Every news account I've heard including those aired on the obviously Conservatively-biased FOX News Channel have all indicated that Valerie's husband was asked by the CIA itself. NOT BY HER!!!!
Furthermore, what does this have to do with Hilary Clinton? (In noticed the comments she posted before the quoted text immediately above)
Getting back to the topic at hand, wasn't one of the big reasons (if not THE BIGGEST reason) why WE THE PEOPLE (notice my objectivity?) put Bush in office was to restore "Honesty & Integrety" back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I seemingly recall that being the case.
Kinda hard to do that when you've got corrupt politicians giving *cough* *cough* "advice" to the two highest ranking politicians (That being President & Vice President) in America, now isn't it?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is Today's Real Deal....
Additional Comment In Original Post
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Thursday, July 7, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
Why The Flag Burning Ban Initiative Is A BAD Idea
Far be it for me to take sides on an issue such as this, but the idea, as outlined in many of these articles would, in my opinion, would do more harm than good.
That is the subject of todays' Real Deal.
While on the surface and personally can't argue with the idea, there are those who will want to do it as a means of Free Speech.
Personally, I think flag burning is disgusting if not downright unamerican. But then too, I think pretty much the same way about those who smoke in public places, yet we a society have accepted the fact there are rights to do both (at least so far anyway).
Admittedly while comparing The Right To Free Speech to the rights of smokers is like comparing an apple to a jalapeno pepper, they are in many ways paralell to each other. I suppose The Right To Bear Arms would be a better analogy, but I digress. *sigh*
But why anyone would want to put a ban on something like burning the flag is almost beyond me. I mean, I thought we lived in a democracy here.
Or do we now live in a "democracy" only when it suits the fuckin' morons in Washington??
In other words, why not just simply ignore who choose to engage in this kind of activity. If it ain't your cup of tea, then don't even watch. It's that simple. If people wanna burn the flag as a means of Free Speech, I say let 'em burn it. Our founding forefathers and those who died serving this country fought to preserve one's right to do so. And those who are serving this country in the Middle East as I type this continue that fight.
In a world where there are countries that will actually kill people who engage in this kind of behavior, the last thing we need to have is to have The United States of America say to its citizens that they cannot burn the flag either.
It is because of this and the fact that this proposed U.S. Constitutional Ammendment does not exclude the right to Free Speech, that I hope it fails.
While I won't be terribly upset if this thing actually goes before the people, unlike many other "LINOs" (that's Liberals In Name Only for the clueless idiots out there) out there in cyberspace and the blogosphere, who will no doubt aggressively fight this tooth and nail, I on the other hand, being the somewhat usual moderate that I am, don't believe it will.
However, we must ensure that it doesn't by continuing to pur pressure on the idiots in Washington who (tragically) consist of the very government that's supposed to represent us and the interests of the people who elected them by sending letters and emails and by blogging on the issue. No doubt it will be a controversial issue. But it is one which I, the surviving son of a U.S. Veteran believe must be preserved no matter how disgusting it may look.
And that is today's Real Deal
Additional Comment In Original Post
That is the subject of todays' Real Deal.
While on the surface and personally can't argue with the idea, there are those who will want to do it as a means of Free Speech.
Personally, I think flag burning is disgusting if not downright unamerican. But then too, I think pretty much the same way about those who smoke in public places, yet we a society have accepted the fact there are rights to do both (at least so far anyway).
Admittedly while comparing The Right To Free Speech to the rights of smokers is like comparing an apple to a jalapeno pepper, they are in many ways paralell to each other. I suppose The Right To Bear Arms would be a better analogy, but I digress. *sigh*
But why anyone would want to put a ban on something like burning the flag is almost beyond me. I mean, I thought we lived in a democracy here.
Or do we now live in a "democracy" only when it suits the fuckin' morons in Washington??
In other words, why not just simply ignore who choose to engage in this kind of activity. If it ain't your cup of tea, then don't even watch. It's that simple. If people wanna burn the flag as a means of Free Speech, I say let 'em burn it. Our founding forefathers and those who died serving this country fought to preserve one's right to do so. And those who are serving this country in the Middle East as I type this continue that fight.
In a world where there are countries that will actually kill people who engage in this kind of behavior, the last thing we need to have is to have The United States of America say to its citizens that they cannot burn the flag either.
It is because of this and the fact that this proposed U.S. Constitutional Ammendment does not exclude the right to Free Speech, that I hope it fails.
While I won't be terribly upset if this thing actually goes before the people, unlike many other "LINOs" (that's Liberals In Name Only for the clueless idiots out there) out there in cyberspace and the blogosphere, who will no doubt aggressively fight this tooth and nail, I on the other hand, being the somewhat usual moderate that I am, don't believe it will.
However, we must ensure that it doesn't by continuing to pur pressure on the idiots in Washington who (tragically) consist of the very government that's supposed to represent us and the interests of the people who elected them by sending letters and emails and by blogging on the issue. No doubt it will be a controversial issue. But it is one which I, the surviving son of a U.S. Veteran believe must be preserved no matter how disgusting it may look.
And that is today's Real Deal
Additional Comment In Original Post
Friday, June 17, 2005
Wacko Jacko WALKS
All the ghastly details here
NOTE: This is a podcast, which means you will need Podcatching Software or an RSS Reader capable of handling podcasts.
NOTE: This is a podcast, which means you will need Podcatching Software or an RSS Reader capable of handling podcasts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)