Ayaan Hirsi Ali is in the U.S promoting her new book, "Infidel." The Liberals at Newsweek are already laying into Hirsi Ali and her book; it seems that the poor woman can't catch a break. I haven't read her book yet, but it is definitely on my list, so I am already recommending it. Newsweek writer Lorraine Ali wrote a scathing review of Hirsi Ali and “Infidel,” but I don’t really care about Newsweek’s opinion since the MSM is far more concerned about “Christian Jihad” than Islamic Jihad. But I digress. Lorraine Ali wrote that

    “…Hirsi Ali's memoir is as much about her political agenda as it is her life, and in between tales of her youth she wedges harsh and uncompromising declarations: "True Islam," she writes at one point, "leads to cruelty." If her coming-of-age story—and the saga of her nomadic family, who moved from prewar Somalia to Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia and finally Kenya—were allowed to breathe on its own, "Infidel" would prove an eye-opening look into the plight of African Muslim women.”

    Let’s look at one commonality here. All the women are MUSLIM!! But of course we are not allowed to look at the little fact or judge a religion based on their respect for human life. To support this point, I am going to list three new books, all written by women; all women grew up in the Middle East, all women suffered at the hands of Islam. Brigette Gabriel, Lebanese Christian who grew up during the Lebanese Civil War, wrote “Because They Hate.” Nonie Darwish, grew up in Palestine and Egypt and emigrated to the U.S. in 1978, wrote “Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.” I have reproduced the book description below:

    “One woman’s story of why she left the culture of Islamic Jihad to support American liberty and tolerance. Why are so many Muslims embracing jihad and cheering for al-Qaeda and Hamas? Why are even the modern, secularized Arab states such as Egypt producing a generation of angry young extremists? Nonie Darwish knows why. When she was eight, her father died while leading Fedayeen raids into Israel. Her family moved from Gaza back to Cairo, where they were honored as survivors of a “shahid”—a martyr for jihad. She grew up learning the same lessons as millions of Muslim children: to hate Jews, destroy Israel, oppose America, and submit to dictatorship. But Darwish became increasingly appalled by the anger and hatred in her culture, and in 1978 she emigrated to America. Since 9/11 she has been lecturing and writing on behalf of moderate Arabs and Arab-Americans. Extremists have denounced her as an infidel and threatened her life. In this fascinating book, she speaks out against the dark side of her native culture—women abused by Islamic traditions; the poor and uneducated mistreated by the elites; bribery and corruption as a way of life. Her former friends and neighbors blamed all their troubles on Jews and Americans, but Darwish rejects their bigotry and calls for the Arab world to make peace with the West. The only hope for the future, she writes, is for America to continue waging its War on Terror, seeding the Middle East with the values of democracy, respect for women, and tolerance for all religions.”

    Last but not least, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, which I have already listed. Are we sensing a trend? These women fled their native lands out of fear of abuse, subjugation, and death to live in freedom in America. But the liberals don’t want us to know that. They choose not to publish images like these, which demonstrate how life has changed for Muslim women in countries which the U.S. has chosen to intervene in. People like Lorraine Ali, writer for Newsweek, writes that Hirsi Ali is a “…more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women…It's ironic that this would-be "infidel" often sounds as single-minded and reactionary as the zealots she's worked so hard to oppose.” Talk about a slap in the face to someone who has endured so much pain and hardship. But this is a common tactic of The Left; if you can’t counter their arguments with facts, just insult them and yell over them. The Left ignores articles like this one (they just sweep it under the rug) and completely doesn’t comprehend the complete and total state of warfare we are in and how dedicated Islamic Jihadists are. Even Bill Maher gets it (how sad is that?!). If you want even more proof of this Islamic Jihad, check out this PDF published by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch; also check out this Terrorism Map PDF (up to 9/11) documenting major terrorist attacks.

Mike Grant

    Although I added this blog to my blog roll a while ago, I never wrote about it, but I am taking the time to do that today. Jihad Watch is a blog run by Robert Spencer; Mr. Spencer states the purpose of Jihad Watch and the definition and origins of Jihad on his site, which I have reproduced below:

    "JIHAD IS A CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur'an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the "Verse of the Sword": "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful" (Sura 9:5). Establishing "regular worship" and paying the "poor-due" (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim.

    Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: "Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah's Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr)."

    Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that "in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force." In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with "power politics," because Islam is "under obligation to gain power over other nations."

    Violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. The passages quoted above and many others like them form a major element of the motivation of jihad warriors worldwide today. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers‚ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life.

    Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology play in the modern world and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. By shedding as much light as possible on these matters, we hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict."

    Scary, isn’t it? I’ve linked Spencer’s bio here, and as you can see, the man gets plenty of grief for pointing facts that others would prefer stay buried. Its kind of funny how that’s a recurring theme in life, where if you don’t like the facts you can just bury your head in the sand. Jihad Watch also has an email alert that you can subscribe to, which I have already done. Again, this is a site you should definitely check out.

Mike Grant

    Normally I don't agree with Cynthia Tucker. At all. Ever. But today is different. Tucker’s op-ed entitled "Black History Month trivializes black history" was one of the best pieces on Black History Month that I have read in a while. Tucker makes the case that Black History Month has been trivialized by the fact that it gets a media blitz for one month a year. She writes that, 

    "Black History Month does so much to suggest that the contributions, struggles, and individual sagas of black Americans belong outside the main body of American history: Give elementary school kids a month to digest the Underground Railroad, the civil rights movement and the accomplishments of Condoleezza Rice, and they've learned all they need to know. Nothing could be more wrongheaded or shortsighted. There is no American history without black history. We were here from the beginning. In 1619, dark-skinned men and women, kidnapped from Africa, arrived at Jamestown - established in 1607 as the first permanent English settlement in North America. 

    I think that Cynthia Tucker really hit the nail on the head with this one. Our history is one and our past, present, and future are intertwined, not separate entities from each other. That is why all history is taught under the title of American History; instead of White-American History, Asian-American History, Hispanic-American History, etc. At the end of the day, regardless of ethnicity, skin color, or religious creed, we are all Americans and that is what should be taught in schools. Instead, people are split up into different categories. Jim is a white kid "who acts white", Deion is black kid who "acts black", etc. People, though mostly blacks are ostracized for not being faithful to their race or ethnicity; i.e. Deion is made fun of and criticized for "acting white". What happened to the "melting pot of assimilation" and to quote the great Dr. King, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It seems ironic to me that the very people who we would think would be champions of a "color blind society" (which I fully support), where people are judged by their character not their skin color, actually do a good deal of damage to that dream. See Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.

Mike Grant

    However, Liberals need something to justify the blatant power grabs that they practice. Since their ideology revolves around the State being “god” it is easier for them to justify their mission. Now matter how unjust their actions (all in the name of Fairness and Equality) become they virtually say, “God wills it!” to justify it. Knowing human nature, if you believe that God is on you side, you are more likely to act. This reasoning also justifies (in their mind) the suppression of political dissent and persecution of those dissenters. Beyond the simple reason of maintaining the power of the State, Liberals view anything that threatens their ideology as wrong and evil and something that must be suppressed. I have read that the Soviet Union collapsed only after the Soviet leaders stopped believing in the ideology of Communism. The same thing happens with Liberals (or anyone else for that matter), when they stop believing in their ideology; the neat and tidy universe that they have constructed comes crashing down around them and they feel that their life and beliefs have been nothing more than a sham. And since no one likes feeling like that, they ignore other people’s opinions which threaten their ideology.

    None of what I wrote above applies only to Liberals. The same basic principles that I have outlined can also apply to religious fanatics (another group at which my ire is directed) of all faiths and denominations. The idea of “blind faith” in any institution, whether governmental, religious, or even blind faith in one’s own personal opinion will certainly lead to any nations (however great it is) downfall. The key to survival as a nation and as a people, in my opinion, lies in the people’s ability to think for themselves and use logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion; and then evaluate the conclusion based on a solid moral code. Unfortunately, sometimes we are presented with two unsavory choices and must choose the lesser of two evils, but that is reality. And I would much rather have leaders who respect the rights of an individual to think and choose for himself rather than leaders who believe that they have all the answers and bring this country down the drain with them.

Mike Grant

    If anyone thinks that I am writing a lot about China lately, it’s because I am. I am finally taking the time to sit down and gather my thought on the danger that Communist China poses to the world. This story from the Washington Post only continues to show that China is not moving toward a free capitalist society. Apparently Communist China's "cure" for "internet addicts" is electroshock therapy. Even more shocking (no pun intended) is that the entire tone of the Post article is NOT one of condemnation and evil that is, but it debates if "internet addiction" is an actual affliction!! It has a picture of a 12 year old boy receiving electroshock therapy. But lets not dwell on that, because the article also mentions how "successful" China has been in combating drug use and alcoholism, saying that is received accolades, but also been criticized for its "harsh techniques." Of course the Post does not elaborate on these harsh techniques. The article goes on to say that a group of psychologists in the global community believe "internet addiction" is real and should be deemed a "mental disorder." FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!I believe these so-called experts are insane and should spend some time in their own hospitals. 

    Even better, the online Post poll asks the responders "Is there such a thing as internet addiction?" Not Communist China is going too far and is this simply an expansion of their Communist ways! And the best is yet to come. These "hospitals" are run by the military and are prisons more than anything else; Prisons for people who haven't done anything wrong, other than spending time online and informing themselves (as much as they can) about world events. Also, the idea that this is nothing more than more control by the Communist government gets ONE PARAGRAPH, which I have reproduced below:

    "But no country has gone quite as far as China in embracing the theory and mounting a public crusade against Internet addiction. To skeptics, the campaign dovetails a bit too nicely with China's broader effort to control what its citizens can see on the Internet. The Communist government runs a massive program that limits Web access, censors sites and seeks to control online political dissent. Internet companies like Google have come under heavy criticism abroad for going along with China's demands."

    And then the article moves on to more cheerful and PC topics about the dangers of "internet addiction" and the "in-patient rehab clinics" that will fix the "addiction" and "grave social ill." The cost of these clinics is $1300 a month. Then the article describes the tactics used by the military doctors at the clinic, saying, 

    "Led by Tao Ran, a military researcher who built his career by treating heroin addicts, the clinic uses a tough-love approach that includes counseling, military discipline, drugs, hypnosis and mild electric shocks." 

    The "clinic" is located on a military training base and has padlocks on every door and bars on every window. The Post mentions how Yu Bo, age 21, and Li Yanjiang, 15, "used to spend four to five hours a week online." That isn't even an hour a day for crying out loud! And then their PARENTS ship them off to this "internet rehab clinic" to "cure them!" Their parents (and the government) don't want them online at all! The article also mentions a 20 year old and a 17 year old who played online games. The 20 year old grades suffered so he was grabbed and the 17 year old played 15 hours "nonstop" according to him. Personally I would never do that, but it is THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE, not the governments!!! But I doubt that Liberals understand that concept. But never mind that, since Sun Jiting is now "cured" and has a life plan till he's 84. This plan was formulated with the help of a "counselor," who probably just locked his life up to the government. These "counselors" and "planners" do nothing more than brainwash people so they don't grow up to be revolutionaries and challenge the Communist government.

    Then there are the "serious cases." See below:

    "No one is comfortable talking about the third floor of the clinic, where serious cases -- usually two or three at a time -- are housed. Most have been addicted to the Internet for five or more years; Tao said, are severely depressed and refuse counseling. One sliced his wrists but survived. These teens are under 24-hour supervision."

    Maybe these poor teenagers commit or try to commit suicide because they are imprisoned without just cause, "cured" with electroshock therapy, and are brainwashed. That just might have something to do with it. Again the Post did NOTHING to condemn this, which makes them nothing more than stooges for the Communist Chinese government. In conclusion, there are people like those running the "rehab clinics" here. Sooner or later we will have "trans-fat" clinics or "smoking rehab" clinics. This could happen here so constant vigilance is the key.

Mike Grant

    As you all know, Airline Company JetBlue has been getting some grief about their planes during the Valentine’s Day storm. But I think the criticism and government response is now getting way out of hand. Take for example this Baltimore Sun Editorial, entitled "Liberate Stranded Passengers." (Now I have never flown, I am 17, so take what I say with a grain of salt.) The editorial, from the Sun editorial board, starts off with listing some of the issues and annoyances that flyers have had to put up with, and I can respect that. My critique of this editorial starts in the second paragraph, where the writer simply loses me, ends in the last paragraph. I shall take each paragraph one at a time for clarity purposes.

Second Paragraph:
"But holding passengers hostage (emphasis mine) aboard planes stranded on tarmacs for as long as 10 hours - as though they were just so much cargo - exposed a level of insensitivity to human needs that cannot be excused.

My Response:
Note the use of the words "hostage," "insensitivity", and "human needs". I highly doubt that anyone who has been involved in a situation as a true "hostage" (terrorist, criminal, etc.) would call the flyers hostages. Then Jet Blue is attacked with the typical charges of "insensitivity to human needs" that always surface in these incidents. People were stuck on an airplane for 10 hours, and as I will get to later, that was probably the best solution. Now again, just for the record, I have not flown and I now nothing about running an airline company, so if you disagree with me let know. For now, I will move forward.

Third Paragraph:
"Penitent airlines are promising to make amends, but that's not good enough. A drive under way in Congress to outlaw such treatment is welcome and long overdue."

My Response:
Why can't the airlines have a shot at reforming themselves? If they continue to fail, people will simply stop patronizing the business, and the company will fail. Why do the American people need government to solve (and most often fail) every problem which may not may not occur in everyday life. Liberal's believe that the state is the supreme power and the "golden bullet" which solve all society's ills; they refuse to learn that government often makes things worse when it passes unnecessary legislation, such as the Airline Passengers Bill of Rights. To refute their belief of "golden bullet government" would undermine their power, "accomplishments", and justification for their power grabs. In short, it would help destroy liberalism.

Fourth Paragraph:
"For many people, being trapped indefinitely in a small space, close to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cranky strangers without adequate food, water and toilet facilities is the definition of hell. And there is no justification for it. Even if an airplane has pulled away from its loading gate and there is no gate free to return passengers to the airport, they can be unloaded on the tarmac using portable stairs and shuttle buses."

My Response:
First, I guess my version of hell is a heck of lot different that some peoples. I imagine hell with the devil, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other thugs, criminals, etc. who have committed heinous crimes against humanity. Second, if an airplane had pulled away from the gate and another aircraft had pulled in behind it, you would have to move two airplanes. The icy conditions and poor visibility most likely made this very unsafe, which could have led to planes crashing into each other and injuring people. Third, the icy, windy, and snowy conditions combined with the poor visibility would have made it vary difficult to offload passengers and their cargo onto buses. And I highly doubt that the passengers would have enjoyed carrying their luggage down portable stairs, across the tarmac, and back into the airport. Not to beat dead horse, but remember the weather conditions along with the factors of salt spreaders and snow plows clearing the tarmac and the fire hoses being uses to keep the planes clean.

Fifth Paragraph:
"JetBlue Airways, the popular carrier that went through a management meltdown last week, stranding hundreds of passengers for six hours or more on the tarmac at John F. Kennedy International Airport, now says it will pay penalties for such delays, according to the length of the wait. After five hours on the tarmac, passengers would be returned to the terminal and given free round-trip tickets of equal value to their missed flight."

My Response:
None, but this sets up my response to the sixth paragraph.

Sixth Paragraph:
"Five Hours?!! Legislation introduced in Congress to create a "passengers bill of rights" would prevent travelers from being stuck on a grounded plane for longer than three hours, and during that time they must be provided food, water, and sanitary facilities."

My Response:
This is the kind of righteous indignation that liberals love. They get all pumped up about the issue and pass legislation that doesn't do anything to solve or address the problem, but they still get to feel good about themselves. I don't see how the above legislation will do anything to address the weather issues that I raised. Airline passengers already are provided with food, water, and sanitary facilities. That is unless Congress wants hot dog vendors and port-a-johns to set up shop on the tarmac. I am sure that that would work really, really, well.

Seventh Paragraph:
"A good case might be made that an hour or two should be enough for airline personnel to determine when a flight is likely to be cleared for takeoff and to give passengers the option of waiting it out in the plane or returning to the terminal."

My Response:
The thing about weather is that it is very fickle and vary difficult to predict (something liberals hate to admit). The pilot may very well judge that the weather will be good enough in an hour but be mistaken and decide to wait longer. If he starts to taxi off the tarmac and the weather suddenly clears, he just made his passengers wait even longer.

Eighth Paragraph:
"Air travelers have often indicated that cost and convenience rank higher in their concerns than comfort, and airlines aren't exactly running a huge profit margin. Even so, a minimum level of customer service is not too much to expect."

My Response:
How do you define a minimum level of customer service? Who does the defining, the industry or government? And then they admit that airlines are not running a huge profit margin as it is.

Ninth Paragraph:
"This issue last surfaced on Capitol Hill in 1999, after Northwest Airline passengers were kept on a grounded plane for seven hours during a snowstorm. Airlines fended off legislation by pledging to police themselves. They shouldn't be trusted again (emphasis mine)."

My Response:
I love this last paragraph. Congress wants to pass legislation to fix a problem which was last an issue eight years ago! This demonstrates the naive liberal mindset that nothing will go wrong ever, and how dare you not control every little thing that can go wrong. Even if that thing that goes wrong is the weather, which is uncontrollable by man. I love the idiocy.

Mike Grant

P.S. - Apparently "liberating" airline passengers is a Congress approved activity. But liberating innocent people from evil dictators is not. Also, the airlines should consider putting a TV in the plane so the passengers can be entertained. I would suggest "An Inconvenient Truth. That way passengers can learn about global warming (while on a plane in the middle of a snowstorm) and how it will destroy the globe.