Archive for February 20th, 2007

Female Pakistani Minister Shot Dead for Refusing to Wear Veil

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

The poster child religion of peace and tolerance, aka islam, has once again shown it true colors by doing what they do best, killing and destroying. What hideous crime did Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province, commit??
She refused to wear a veil. This supposed “insult” to the so-called honor of the supposed most peaceful and tolerant religion of islam was enough to get Ms. Usman shot and killed.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this. Islam continues to show it’s real colors as the apologist and the main stream media contort themselves into impossible positions in order to keep from ever stating this obvious connection.

A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist was shot dead Tuesday by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.

Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said.

Usman, 35, was wearing the shalwar kameez worn by many professional women in Pakistan, but did not cover her head.

The attack happened in Gujranwala, 120 miles southeast of Islamabad, where the minister’s office is based. As Usman, 35, stepped out of her car – where she was greeted by her co-workers throwing rose petals – the attacker pulled out a pistol and fired a single shot at close range, hitting her in the head. She was airlifted to hospital in the provincial capital Lahore, but died soon afterwards.

Original Link.

Baby Born At 22 Weeks Leaves Hospital

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

Here’s a lesson for all of you who say that an unborn fetus is not a baby. The pro-choice crowd would have us all believe that life does not begin at conception, but this pretty much shows the ignorance in that argument.

MIAMI (AP) — A premature baby that doctors say spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant is to be released from a Florida hospital Tuesday.
Amillia Sonja Taylor was just 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born Oct. 24. She was delivered 21 weeks and six days after conception. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.

“We weren’t too optimistic,” Dr. William Smalling said Monday. “But she proved us all wrong.”

Neonatologists who cared for Amillia say she is the first baby known to survive after a gestation period of fewer than 23 weeks. A database run by the University of Iowa’s Department of Pediatrics lists seven babies born at 23 weeks between 1994 and 2003.

Amillia has experienced respiratory problems, a very mild brain hemorrhage and some digestive problems, but none of the health concerns are expected to pose long-term problems, her doctors said.

“We can deal with lungs and things like that but, of course, the brain is the most important,” Dr. Paul Fassbach said Monday. “But her prognosis is excellent.”

Amillia has been in an incubator since birth and has been receiving oxygen. She will continue getting a small amount of oxygen, and her breathing will be monitored once she leaves Baptist Children’s Hospital. She now is between 25 and 26 inches long and weighs 4 1/2 pounds.

“She’s going to be in a normal crib, she’s going to have normal feedings, she’s taking all her feedings from a bottle,” Smalling said.

Original Link

The Generation of ‘Damaged’ Girls

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

A generation of very young girls is being psychologically damaged by inappropriate “sexy” clothing, toys and images in the media that are corrupting childhood, leading psychologists warn today.

I would go even further and say that it is a generation of children, boy and girls that are being damaged in this way.
We cannot turn on the TV, listen to the radio or pick up a magazine without having sex thrown at us. Our children cannot escape this environment of “if it feels good, do it” and “everyone is going to do it anyway, so we might as well help them”.
We are destroying our children. We will reap what we sow.

They say marketing takes unfair advantage of children’s desire for affection and the need to conform, leading to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.

Their report echoes a warning by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and follows a United Nations study last week saying that British children were the unhappiest and unhealthiest in the developed world.

The American Psychological Association’s report says inappropriate marketing is leading to the sexualisation of children by a consumer society.

Apart from clothing for five- and six-year-olds, with old-fashioned frilly frocks replaced by mini skirts, plunging necklines and sequined crop tops, the report specifically criticises “Bratz dolls”.

These outsell Barbie dolls in Britain by two to one and come dressed in miniskirts, fishnet stockings and feather boas.

Disney’s Little Mermaid or Pocahontas “which have more cleavage, fewer clothes and are depicted as sexier than characters of yesteryear” are also picked out.

“The consequences of the sexualisation of girls in media today are very real and are likely to be a negative influence on girls’ healthy development,” said Eileen Zurbriggen, the APA’s task force chairman. “As a society, we need to replace all these sexualised images with ones showing girls in positive settings. The goal should be to deliver messages to all adolescents — boys and girls — that lead to healthy sexual development.”

Her comments were endorsed by Dr Jean Kilbourne, the co-author of a forthcoming book So Sexy, So Soon: The Sexualisation Of Childhood, who said clothing, toys and adverts were shaping a child’s gender identity and values in the wrong way.

She saw a direct link between what was happening and the rise in under-age sex.

Dr Kilbourne told The Daily Telegraph: “You see these clothes everywhere, tight T-shirts for little girls saying ‘so many boys, so little time’, that sort of thing.

“Parents think it is clever but they cease to think that when their child becomes sexually active at 12. There is huge pressure on girls to look sexy and dress provocatively at a younger and younger age and boys are getting graphic sexualised messages. But parents can say ‘no’ and refuse to buy this stuff.”

Recently Asda was condemned for marketing black lacy underwear to nine-year-old girls.

Last night Sue Palmer, the education consultant and author of Toxic Childhood, said: “The same mothers that dress their daughters up like tarts are probably the mothers going on demos against paedophiles. They don’t make the connection between how they are dressing children and what they are so frightened of — paedophilia.” A Bratz spokesman said its dolls were bought by over-eights. “The Bratz brand, which has remained number one in the UK market for 23 consecutive months focuses core values on friendship, hair play and a ‘passion for fashion’.”

The spokesman quoted Dr Bryan Young, a psychologist at Exeter University, as saying “parents may feel awkward but I don’t think children see the dolls as sexy. They just think they’re pretty”. (typical pysco-babel. -ed)

Original Link.

We Told You So…

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

I’m not gloating, really. No, really, I’m not. I shouldn’t say we told you so, but, well, we told ya so…

WASHINGTON – District residents have been the guinea pigs in a failed 30-year-old experiment in social engineering. Three decades of strict gun control laws have not made the capital city’s streets safer. On the contrary, since 1976, D.C.’s murder rate has increased 32 percent, and violent crimes committed during the first few weeks of 2007 by gun-wielding thugs are up a staggering 50 percent over the same period last year.

None other than former Mayor Marion Barry, now representing Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, is waving the white flag of surrender by introducing legislation to provide potential victims a limited window of opportunity to arm themselves in self defense. “We are in the midst of a gun-violence epidemic,” Barry said. Everybody but the criminals are abiding by the city’s gun control laws [which] have long been among the toughest in the nation. Not only are District residents forbidden from owning firearms not registered before 1977, they must also keep legal rifles and shotguns at home, unloaded, disassembled and useless against an armed intruder.

Barry deserves credit for stating the obvious, considering that most city officials shrink from accounting for the 2,656 illegal firearms recovered last year by the Metropolitan Police Department — weapons current gun control laws were supposed to keep out of the city.

Gun rights groups are mostly suspicious of Barry’s proposal, which would allow D.C. residents with no prior criminal history three months to register handguns before the current ban is reinstated and higher penalties for unregistered weapons kick in. Citing a 2003 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found no convincing evidence that gun control laws reduce violence anywhere, they’d prefer the District repeal its gun ban altogether.

Original Link.

Is Representative Murtha For Real?

Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

Check this out:

He (Murtha) would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said.

You’ve got to be kidding me. He really said this? Yup, he really said this.
Once again, the dems are counting on Americans to be to preoccupied, uniformed, and yes, even downright stupid to catch on to this type of thing.
Is Murtha just mouthing off about this? Nope. Check out what Pelosi said:

When asked about Mr. Murtha’s remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support.

And how Cox and Forkum see it:

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) has a message for anyone who spent the week following the House of Representatives’ marathon debate on Iraq: You’ve been distracted by a sideshow. “We have to be careful that people don’t think this is the vote,” the 74-year-old congressman said of the House’s 246-182 decision in favor of a resolution disapproving of President Bush’s troop surge. “The real vote will come on the legislation we’re putting together.” That would be Mr. Murtha’s plan to “stop the surge” and “force a redeployment” of U.S. forces from Iraq while ducking the responsibility that should come with such a radical step.

Read the rest of the article here.