Archive for October 31st, 2008

“Plundering the Plumber’s Records” by Michelle Malkin

Friday, October 31st, 2008

If Joe the Plumber were Jawad the Suspected Terrorist, civil liberties activists would stampede the halls of Congress on his behalf. Liberal columnists would hyperventilate over the outrageous invasions of his privacy by Ohio state and local employees. The ACLU would demand the Big Brother snoopers’ heads. And Democratic leaders would convene immediate hearings and parade him around the Beltway as the new poster boy/victim of unlawful domestic spying.

But because peaceful American citizen Joe Wurzelbacher is an outspoken enemy of socialism, rather than an enemy of America, the defenders of privacy have responded to his plight with an impenetrable cone of silence.

After the last presidential debate, during which John McCain invoked Joe the Plumber’s anti-socialism shot heard ’round the world, several taxpayer-subsidized employees in Ohio immediately rifled through government databases in search of damning information. The Columbus Dispatch identified Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, as one of the dirt-diggers. She also happens to support Barack Obama and contributed the maximum amount to his presidential campaign.

On Wednesday, Jones-Kelley admitted that the records checks on Wurzelbacher that she approved were far more extensive than she first acknowledged. In addition to pawing through his child-support papers, the agency “also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes.”

Jones-Kelley argued that plumbing the plumber’s information was no big deal because the agency always checks up on citizens who come into public light. Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland quickly pooh-poohed the civil liberties infringements and denied any nefarious political motives.

If that doesn’t send a chill up your spine, you don’t have a spine.

In addition to Jones-Kelley, investigators have uncovered at least three additional suspicious uses of state computer systems to access Wurzelbacher’s data. Toledo police records clerk Julie McConnell has been charged with gross misconduct for accessing the Law Enforcement Automated Data System to retrieve Wurzelbacher’s address. She reportedly did it as a favor to a reporter. Authorities also say the Cuyahoga County social services office was compromised and an outside contractor with access to the state attorney general’s test account similarly searched Wurzelbacher’s data. Moreover, his driver’s-license and vehicle-registration information were obtained from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

I contacted the ACLU twice this week for comment about this rampant plundering of Joe the Plumber’s records. Like the Genesis song goes: No reply at all. (That was the same reply the ACLU gave me two months ago when I asked if they had any reaction to the Chicago gangland tactics of a MoveOn spin-off group that announced it was trolling campaign finance databases and targeting conservative donors with warning letters in a thuggish attempt to depress Republican fundraising.)

For the last seven years, these left-wing privacy champs have lobbied on behalf of foreign enemy combatants. The ACLU fought unsuccessfully to kill the Bush administration’s post-9/11 effort to monitor terrorist communications in the United States. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and USA Today went ballistic over the government’s bank surveillance program to trace terrorist financing.

Those same papers fumed earlier this year when State Department contractors illegally sifted through the passport files of Obama (and Hillary Clinton and John McCain). Obama mouthpiece Bill Burton intoned after the passport scandal: “Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes.”

But when freelance members of the Obama Goon Squad take it upon themselves to do opposition research on The One’s citizen critics and rummage through government databases, where are all the privocrats? And how safe will your state tax and IRS records be if Dear Leader is elected?

Original Link.

Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 3

Friday, October 31st, 2008

Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, continues to share her thoughts about her great-nieces’ “honor killing”, despite death threats and threats of litigation.

Said Sisters

See the previous posts:

  • Honor Killing in Dallas
  • “The Story is Bigger Than an Honor Murder in Dallas or What Happens in Dallas Stays in Dallas; Who Knew?” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Human Sacrifice in Dallas: No One Saved These Girls” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Raging Muslim Taxi Drivers in North American Cities” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Murderous Mothers. The Hidden Female Face of Honor Killing” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • “Still Dead in Dallas. An Update on the Double Honor Murders” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler
  • FBI Calls Dallas Murder Case an ‘Honor Killing,’ Upsetting Muslim Group
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 1.
  • Gail Gartrell, Great-Aunt to Sarah and Amina Said, Speaks About The “Honor Killing” Part 2.
  • Amina and Sarah

    Over the past months, I have learned so much about these two very brave and strong young women! These girls loved one another and if you look at their pictures, you can see this love between them, it is obvious they shared more than just sisterhood. They shared terror, they shared beatings and they shared death!

    Both of these girls were very athletic. Sarah loved tennis, soccer and I have heard that she put everything into her sports! The same is said concerning Amina as she too, loved soccer and other sports as well. They superseded many of their aspirations as it was important for these girls to be the best at everything. Now, I can understand why.

    Sarah and Amina were over achievers as I feel, this was a form of escapism for them. They knew making high grades would give them a better chance at reaching freedom; however, they did not realize Yaser would never allow them to have the freedom they both sought. I do not understand this mindset but, I can see why they had to try! Especially, Amina as she so desired to have a normal American life. This, along with her outspokenness got Amina on the bad side of her dad, early on in her life! Sarah, seemed to be more quiet and accepted her dad’s mandates with silence. Even so, these girls paid the highest price for seeking freedom, thinking for themselves and of course, the American boyfriends which were held secretively from Yaser.

    In fact, I have no clue as to how Yaser found out about Amina’s boyfriend. I do have an idea and I wish I could say I am wrong but, I feel it was my own niece who told! I am just not sure! I have heard that Yaser went through Amina’s cell phone bill and that is how he found out. I no longer believe this at all! I think my niece told him as it appears she did as he said…no matter the outcome! Yes, I am saying that I believe my niece had a hand in this. She made decisions which kept these girls in a horrible situation and in fear of their own dad! Why? I have begged Tissy to tell the truth for the sake of her girls. She has promised me over and over to do so. She has not and will not speak out against Yaser as she told me Yaser was a good dad and NEVER abused her girls! WOW! I could not believe what I was hearing! Never abused them….what about the sexual abuse? What about the multiple reports of these girls coming to school with welts on them? What about all the accounts of people who saw Amina’s braces embedded into her lips from Yasser kicking her? What about the times he went into the bedroom and threatened them with gun in hand? What about the threats to take Amina to Egypt where he could kill her legally? What about Sarah’s message to her friend, “My dad came into my room today and said not to get used to Mina being around because she is not going to be with us much longer?” All of this and still, my niece protects her murderous husband and threatened to sue me if I did not shut up about “honor killings.” So, sue me! I cannot, in good conscience, keep silent when two girls paid the ultimate price for simple freedoms we take for granted!

    I will continue writing thier story as I speak with those who loved them…outside their Arabic relatives. It appears that on that side of the family, Yaser is now a hero! Islam, praises his dad for killing his own two sisters! He has said repeatedly, “the girls deserved what Yaser did and he did a da– good job too.” I have heard that the brothers of Yaser, the girls Egyptian uncles, have made the statement that the girls asked for what they got! This, from my niece who went straight back to Yasser’s family the day after the girls were buried! This told me that she was either scared and went back to keep more blood from being shed or, she was in agreement with what Yaser did and what the Said’s were saying. At this time, I have no clue where she stands as she is now with a new Muslim man and living across the country from any of her blood relatives. So as we have offered to get her help and and so have the police! She has turned away from her blood family and embraces the ways which helped place her babies in the ground! Even so, they are all free tonight while Amina and Sarah’s life ended almost a year ago! May God continue to shed light into this very dark world in which these girls were forced to live.

    Gail

    Apple Undercuts Proposition 8

    Friday, October 31st, 2008

    Christians, it might be time to reconsider purchasing a Mac or any other Apple product.

    Apple Inc. is trying to defeat California’s Proposition 8, which would protect one of society’s core traditional institutions — heterosexual marriage.

    Google was one of the first, announcing publicly last month its opposition to Prop. 8. Now Apple has donated $100,000 to kill the measure that is designed to overturn the California Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual “marriage.”

    In a statement posted on its website, the company notes it was among the first companies in the Golden State to offer same-sex partner benefits to its employees. “[W]e strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation,” says Apple.

    Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com is not surprised by the computer maker’s decision.

    “Apple Computer’s [co-founder] Steve Jobs was on the vanguard of promoting homosexuality voluntarily within his company years ago,” says Thomasson. “He really sees his spirituality out of India where he traveled. He sold his first computer with Steve Wozniak in 1976 for the price of $666.66.”

    Since Apple is promoting the idea of homosexual marriage by trying to defeat Prop. 8, Thomasson believes people ought to react in what he considers to be a perfectly normal way.

    Original Link

    IRS Targets Church

    Friday, October 31st, 2008

    I dont believe this pastor was telling people who to vote for, he was telling them which candidates support abortion and which do not support abortion. What is wrong with that? Everyone knows that the church is opposed to abortion, so why should this church lose their tax-exempt status over this?

    Another church has been reported to the Internal Revenue Service for endorsing candidates. It’s located in the tiny New Mexico town of Espanola.
    Mike Naranjo pastors Rock Christian Fellowship, which uses a marquee outside of the church building to display messages to passersby. This being an election year, Naranjo put two large pictures on the sign, one of an aborted baby and the second of a healthy baby. He then put three pro-abortion candidates’ names under the picture of the aborted baby and three pro-life candidates’ names under the picture of the healthy baby.

    “We put the last names of the candidates — Obama — that are pro-choice. And then on the other side we put the picture of a healthy baby and the last names of McCain and the other candidates that are pro-life,” he explains.

    Naranjo contends it did not take long for Espanola residents and the media to react. “I mean, it stirred up,” he says. “It was like agitating an ants’ nest.”

    Before the dust settled, Naranjo received a surprise in the mail. “And next I had heard, we were being reported by the Americans [United] for Separation of Church and State to the IRS,” he adds.

    Naranjo suggests he was trying to provide a voter guide similar to those distributed by the American Family Association, but his church was focusing on one issue. “Now, the problem with this is the law,” he concludes. “In my opinion, it’s stifling the church, the very moral conscience of America.”

    So far the church has no legal representation, although the Alliance Defense Fund has offered to do so. Americans United for Separation of Church and State reports that Naranjo told them he would “rather lose [his] 501(c)(3) than [his] soul.”

    Original Link

    Supreme Court Asked To Halt Tuesday’s Vote

    Friday, October 31st, 2008

    Why has this election been allowed to proceed without America knowing the truth about Obama’s eligibility? Only in America are people so blind that they refuse to acknowledge Obama’s attempts to hide important facts about his past.

    The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to help the nation avoid a constitutional crisis by halting Tuesday’s election until Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama documents his eligibility to run for the top office in the nation.

    Democratic attorney Philip Berg had filed a lawsuit alleging Obama is ineligible to be president because of possible birth in Kenya, but as WND reported, a federal judge dismissed the complaint claiming Berg lacks standing to bring the action.

    The 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order from Judge R. Barclay Surrick concluded ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

    Instead, Surrick said Congress could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

    “Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

    Original Link