A World Gone Mad

4 Disney Workers Accused Of Gang-Raping Woman

POSTED: 5:38 pm EST February 27, 2006

A police investigation was launched Monday after a Disney worker claimed she was gang-raped by four co-workers at a nearby apartment complex, according to a Local 6 News report.

The woman, who is part of the Disney College Program, told police that she was walking home to her apartment in Orange County, Fla., when four men confronted her and then grabbed her. She said the men then forced her into a Commons apartment unit and took turns raping her and forced her to perform sex acts. The woman told officers that she repeatedly told her attackers to stop, according to the report.

"The report is very explicit as to what occurred," Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said. "For all practical purposes, it essentially was a gang rape."
All four men accused work for Walt Disney World, Local 6 News reported. "They are here on some sort of employment exchange program," Solomons said. "The four folks who have been implicated in this incident, it is my understanding that they are being very cooperative and forthcoming." Investigators said the alleged attackers have been identified but no charges have been filed in the case. The four men are also part of the Disney College Program, according to Local 6 News. Disney officials did not comment on the case Monday night.

Police are continuing to investigate the incident.


When asked for comment, Goofy replied; “Bitch had it comin’ to her! Da’heel, da’heel.”

What's The Difference Between Gulag and Guantanamo? Plenty!

(For the liberally/mentally challenged.)

Speakout: Guantanamo a far cry from the gulag

By Anil Adyanthaya
February 24, 2006

In his Rocky Mountain News column of Feb. 21, "The shame of Guantanamo," Paul Campos wrote that "\[T]he only difference between the gulag and Guantanamo is the scale of the crime." Campos is correct that the Soviet gulag and Guantanamo involved different numbers of persons. Writer Anne Applebaum, the author of The gulag: A History estimates that 18 million persons were imprisoned in gulag camps. Today, there are about 500 inmates imprisoned at Guantanamo.
But, and unfortunately for Campos' argument, that is not the only difference between the Soviet gulag and Guantanamo. Here are some other differences of which Campos was apparently unaware:

• The gulag, which derived its name from an acronym for the Russian term for Main Camp Administration, was the system of slave labor camps in the Soviet Union. The purpose of the gulag was twofold: to provide the Soviet Union with cheap labor and to punish dissent. The purpose of Guantanamo is the imprisonment and interrogation of enemy combatants captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not forced to labor. In fact, they have access to books and may play checkers and chess, not to mention soccer.

• A significant cause of death in the gulag was starvation. Food was strictly rationed - a full ration according some estimates was around 1,200 calories. And if enough work was not done, an even smaller ration would result. At Guantanamo, the prisoners are given three meals per day. The meals, which meet Islamic dietary restrictions, are varied over a 14-day cycle and include such fare as pancakes, scrambled eggs and honey ginger chicken.

• Another leading cause of death in the gulag was exposure, which resulted from the lethal combination of rationed clothing and the harsh Russian winters. At Guantanamo, prisoners have fans and are given adequate clothing and shoes. Their beds have mattresses and sheets.

• Starvation and cold were not the only fates for prisoners in the gulag. Conservative estimates put the total number of executions at close to a million. The number of executions at Guantanamo: zero.

• The prisoners in the gulag included those imprisoned because of their belief in God. At Guantanamo, the prisoners are given prayer beads, prayer rugs, copies of the Quran and are told where to turn to face Mecca.

• Medical care in the gulag, to the extent it even existed, was intended solely to keep the prisoner working. The prisoners at Guantanamo have access to medical and dental care equivalent to that provided U.S. servicemen.

Prisoners receive immunizations and amputees there have even been fitted with prosthetic limbs. Prisoners at Guantanamo also receive individual visits with representatives of the International Red Cross.

Campos undoubtedly feels passionate about the plight of the men imprisoned at Guantanamo. And the above comparison was not intended to present Guantanamo as a happy place. It most certainly is not. But ludicrous and morally indefensible comparisons such as the one he makes between the Soviet gulag and Guantanamo do little to help his cause. What is worse is that the prevalence of such outlandish parallels in today's political debate makes real horrors more likely.

Most people when confronted with hyperbole like Campos' tune it out. If every prisoner of war camp is a gulag and every harsh interrogation is torture, how will we ever recognize a true gulag or real torture when we see them?

Anil Adyanthaya is a lawyer and writer. He is a resident of Brookline, Mass.

Bush Was Right?

Issues & Insights
'Bush Was Right'
Posted 2/21/2006

WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides. So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?

Funny thing about dictators and tyrants: Very often they are meticulous record keepers. The fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq all produced treasure troves of information. In Iraq's case, there were so many documents and records that even now only a small fraction have been translated and analyzed.

Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers. They reveal, among other things, how Iraq was working on an advanced method of enriching uranium, how Iraq was conspiring to deceive U.N. inspectors regarding weapons of mass destruction and how these weapons might be used against the U.S.

The tapes were officially presented Sunday by former FBI translator Bill Tierney to a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts in Arlington, Va. Tierney is an Arabic speaker who worked in the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the agency responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament.

On one of the tapes, made in 2000, two years after Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, two Iraqi scientists can be heard briefing Hussein on their progress in enriching uranium using plasma separation. If successful, their work would have given Saddam the fissile material he needed to make a nuclear bomb.

The plasma process got a brief mention in the 2004 final report of CIA arms inspector Charles Duefer, but only as a legacy program the Iraqis allegedly abandoned in the 1980s. "This not only shows the capabilities the Iraqis had, but also the weakness of international arms inspection," Tierney believes.

Some highlights from the tapes were played last Wednesday night on ABC's "Nightline." The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pete Hoekstra, has listened to some of the tapes and said they were "authentic."

In one exchange taped in April or May 1995, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil al-Majid, briefed Saddam and his aides on his success at concealing Iraq's WMD from inspectors. "We did not reveal all that we have," he said. "They didn't know the extent of our work on missiles."

Of the information turned over to U.N. inspectors, Hussein Kamil told Saddam: "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of materials we imported, not the volume of production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They didn't know any of this."

Skeptics will no doubt claim that this is merely a case of a sycophant massaging Saddam's ego, telling him of programs that didn't exist and progress that was never made. But many of these were programs and weapons the U.N. documented after Desert Storm and of which the U.N. itself demanded a full accounting in Resolution 1441.

So what happened to them? Both Israeli and U.S. intelligence observed large truck convoys leaving Iraq and entering Syria in the weeks and months before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told the conference that former Russian intelligence boss Yevgeny Primakov went to Iraq in December 2002 to supervise WMD transfers into Syria.

According to Georges Sada, Saddam's No. 2 Air Force officer, two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets were converted to cargo planes and moved the WMD to Syria in a total of 56 flights six weeks before the war. The flights were disguised as part of a relief effort after a Syrian dam collapsed in 2002.

So what is on the media's mind? Not Saddam's secrets, but those of Vice President Dick Cheney — as evidenced by his failure to notify the Washington press corps immediately after his hunting accident. That subject graced the covers of both Time and Newsweek and preoccupied the weekend talk shows.

A better cover story would be Saddam's tapes, and a better headline was uttered by Tierney on "Fox & Friends" Monday morning: "President Bush was right."

© Investor's Business Daily, Inc. 2000-2006


-----------------------


I wonder where the MSM coverage of this story is? I guess they are still consumed with the "great quail hunting cover-up".

Once again libs will be on the wrong side of history. And just in time for the 2006 elections. Can anyone say "October Surprise"?!!!!

Old Europe Grows A Backbone While U.S. Cowers?

Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism

Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 7, 2006

The key issue at stake in the battle over the twelve Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise; Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.

More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy an immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones; are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?

Germany’s Die Welt newspaper hinted at this issue in an editorial: “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” Nor, by the way, have imams protested the stomping on the Christian cross embedded in the Danish flag.

The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who published the cartoons, explains that if Muslims insist “that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, … they're asking for my submission.”

Precisely. Robert Spencer rightly calls on the free world to stand “resolutely with Denmark.” The informative Brussels Journal asserts, “We are all Danes now.”

Some governments get it:

· Norway: “we will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers print,” commented Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

· Germany: “Why should the German government apologize [for German papers publishing the cartoons]? This is an expression of press freedom,” said Interior Minister Wolfgang Schauble.

· France: “Political cartoons are by nature excessive. And I prefer an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship,” commented Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy.

Other governments wrongly apologized:

· Poland: “the bounds of properly conceived freedom of expression have been overstepped,” stated Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz.

· United Kingdom: “the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong,” said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

· New Zealand: “gratuitously offensive,” Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton called the cartoons.

· United States: “"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,” said State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus.

Strangely, as “Old Europe” finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the U.S. government reaction, it actually won the endorsement of the country’s leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially; and on two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.

In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realism novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist’s life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both “offensive.” Secretary of State James A. Baker III termed the edict merely “regrettable.”

Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the U.S. government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question “either sick or … evil” and stated that “She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam.” The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst; as I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I “found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic.”

Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).

Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.

_______________________

How can the U.S. be so right on Iraq and so wrong on this?? There will be NO negotiations with Islam. We will either have to conform (convert) to their tenets or, according to the "prophet" Muhammad and the Quran, they are supposed to "kill the infidels"! Europe is beggining to understand this since it is so close to home. Of course the stayed out of the Iraq conflict since all of them were so monitarily tied to Saddam.

Do you think Islam preaches tolerance? Let's go to the Quran:


ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah...And the Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say Christ is the son of God; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah's curse be on them; how they are turned away!" (Koran 9:29-30)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)

And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM (8:71)

FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. (9:73)

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:123)


And this just scratches the surface. There is a global conflict coming. Muslims know no other way! Now is the time for all decent, free people and their nations to stand against this CULT!!!!