CNN's Latest Putz: Jane Velez Mitchell And Her "War On Women" Issue

You know, I've never been one to advocate any form of violence against women. Period. I find it appalling. It's pathetic. And I personally think those posing to be men, who exert force against women should receive the same treatment they inflicted on women, as part of their own punishment. But I will say this. This new Femi-Nazi that CNN gave airtime to, in place of Glenn Beck, needs to go. Jane Valez Mitchell truly does have ISSUES, but it appears to only be mental issues she needs to cope with. And I seriously doubt anything less than some overt act of violence will do the trick at putting her head on straight. Yes, it's sad to think of it that way. But the incompetent fervor that Mitchell injects into her hour long rant-o-vision broadcasts, is nothing less than an embarrassment to all journalists. She either needs to get her a$$ squared away, or be shipped out. Perhaps she can go back to covering local news somewhere, like in the Himalayas. It would be nice if the change could be brought upon without something horrible happening. But the odds are against it, especially when dealing with the liberal mentality she exudes.

Take for instance, her latest femi-rage she's been on. The "War Against Women." As she describes it so un-eloquently, all men are scum. All men are monsters of one form or another. And they are all out to do harm, specifically to women. This is wroooong, in just so many ways I shan't bother to even list them. One particular item she's been stuck on in this particular realm, is the case of missing New York girl, Laura Garza. Garza went missing a couple weeks ago, and the prime suspect is a complete loser, Level-1 sex offender, Michael Mele. If you get a chance to see a pic of Garza, she is a pretty cute girl. I'm sorry to hear she's still missing. I'm sure she was a real sweetheart, and I actually mean that. But most likely, she is dead. I hope not, but it's probably true. Mitchell ranted and raved about how despicable this guy Mele was, and has had plenty of guests on to echo her sentiments. But yet, right before going off about this missing girl Garza, she was all up in arms about how we need MORE gun control! More gun control. We've got to disarm the populace, (namely men) because guns and men automatically equal violence against women.

Sigh....

Does anyone else here see a problem?

Let's review, Jane, before you manage to somehow, make yourself look worse than you already do. You sit there, spewing your standardized, teleprompted liberal mantra about more gun control, which we all know doesn't work for crap. And then you jump into the fire, head first, about a New York City woman going missing, most likely by this Mele guy. Hellllooooooooo Jane! New York City just happens to have the same BullS#!t no gun, Washington D.C. style restrictions. Now, had Garza possibly had the appropriate tool for the situation, also known as a GUN, would Garza still be missing? Possibly, but not as likely. And don't even try to feed the world that crap about 'the gun would just get used against her, and she'd end up dead.' Hey you bleeding heart idiot! She's ALREADY freaking missing! If Garza would have had immediate access to a firearm, she would have had at least a 50-50 chance of fighting back, possibly emptying a magazine into the tard that sent her missing (likely Mele), or going missing anyways. Give her a fighting chance you femi-stooge! Odds are, Garza would not be missing right now, and there most likely wouldn't be a trial required for this sex-prior loser Mele, as he would probably be dead.

Well, look at that will you. The girl comes out safe (possibly) in the end, and the bad guy is dead. And even better, the state doesn't have to dig deeper into the taxpayers pocket to pay for his decades long storage and upkeep. Just a hole in the ground.

In retrospect, get Mitchell off the air CNN, before she manages to say something even more inane than she has spouted thus far. YOUR reputation is depending on it.

David Spade Donates $100K To Phoenix PD For AR-15's

Here's one of those slightly off track articles I occasionally do. But this was just amazing! Amazingly amazing! Amazingly amazingly amazing! Life truly does exist amongst Hollywood personages. I never would have guessed it. But I now have a new found respect for one of those personages in Hollywood. And that is for the star of "Just Shoot Me," actor David Spade. Just for what Mr. Spade has done, I think I'll go out and buy a couple DVDs of his work. Perhaps a season of Just Shoot Me, or the movie Bench Warmers. Anything really. If an actor can bring himself to make a donation of this magnitude, and for such a cause, they deserve my admiration.

But, back to the story. Actor David Spade, originally a Scottsdale Saguaro High School graduate, as well as graduated from Arizona State University, donated $100K to the Phoenix Police Department to help pay for new Bushmaster AR-15 rifles. Spade said he was motivated to do so, after having seen a TV news report about Phoenix officers having to buy their own rifles. Spades publicist had given a statement from Spade saying, "These guys need to be able to do their jobs and I am just happy I could help."

And help it will. In light of the city's ongoing budget problems, the $100K gift could mean as many as 300 officers could soon be trained and equipped with Bushmaster AR-15's within the next six months. The $100K could purchase upwards of 50 Rifles and the training needed to operate them. Whilst SWAT/ERT Officers are normally the ones trained to use assault weapons, it's the Patrol Officer that bears the initial encounters. Does the North Hollywood engagement ring any bells?

Also, something I did not know until today about actor Spade, was that this was NOT his first donation in regards to the Phoenix Police Department. As found on the Arizona Republic site, "Spade also donated $25,000 last year after the line of duty death of Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle, an incident where tactical officers used an AR-15 to fatally shoot at the man suspected in his slaying, who was holding a hostage at gunpoint." Police Chief Jack Harris had said, "I'm thankful someone like David Spade would remember his hometown and help increase the safety of officers on the street."

So, I guess Holly"weird" is not a total loss after all.

My thanks to you Mr. Spade. I like to hope that your actions will be contagious, and catch on like an epidemic amongst the rest of the actors/actresses around you.

Don't You Dare Help Me Or I Will Sue!

You have got to be kidding me. Where else but the smiling, sunny, warm and welcoming state of California, could something so incredibly stupid as this occur. Come to think of it, it really doesn't surprise me any more when I read about stuff like this. Especially here in California. You can bet, if something stupid is under way, it's got to be happening in California. The term of endearment description, of California being the 'Land of Fruits and Nuts' rings true on a daily basis it would appear.

We seem to have an over abundance of the mentally criminal out here on the West coast, as felony-stupidity is running rampant as of late.

But here's the deal on our latest blast of numptiness. In California, a good Samaritan can now be SUED, for rendering any assistance other than strictly medical aid. Case in point; a woman was aiding a coworker out of a wrecked vehicle after a Halloween party traffic accident. The supposed 'rag-doll' like removal of the accident victim is being blamed for the damage to the victims spine, now rendering her a paraplegic. Not that it wasn't completely possible that this injury had already been received from the car wreck itself. None the less, the 'rescuer' in this case, can be sued according to the California Supreme Court.

I'll give ya a couple blasts from the LATimes article on this: The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

At least a few of the judges had some sense about them; But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help. The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."

And of course, we have the standardized lawyer/professor input here; Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC. Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with "reasonable care," as the law requires. Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."

I'd like to know where people like this live, so I can sit on their street corner, watch them get into a car wreck while texting away, so I can walk over to them and say, "I'd love to help you get out of the car before it explodes but, well, no, I really don't want to help," and just walk away and let them die. Cruel? Perhaps. But how much more vile was it for them to make this decision in the first place?

I foresee a lot of people being left for dead on the side of the road now.

Egyptian College Student Gets 15 Years For YouTube Video

It really takes a special kind of stupid, to do something like what this guy did. I mean, not your average, ordinary, run of the mill quality of stupid. This kinda stupid needs outside assistance to attain this level of mental shortsightedness. Most likely, it was influence from when he was in college. Lotsa Lib's there. Which explains why many that enter colleges/universities smart, come out dumber than when they went in. (For examples: see Berkeley, Columbia or our recent elections.) So I suppose it would kind of account for at least some of the stupid factor he was suffering from in this incident.

But holy geez! Was this guy ever stupid!

Important tip: If you want to aid your little jihadi buddies by teaching them how to make a bomb detonator out of a cheapo Wal-Mart remote control toy, DON'T put it on YouTube you freaking idiot! Have you not seen the numerous little wanna-be gangsta hoodlums being arrested because they flaunted their AK's and other weapons in YouTube vids? And you went forward with posting a bomb making video on YouTube anyways?

Like I said, a special kind of stupid.

This numpty deserved to be jailed for the 15 years he got. And I mean it from the bottom of my compassionate heart. Not so much for the safety of those around him, but for his own good. When a person is this mentally deficient, as to make a bomb constructing video, and actually post it for the world to see, they need more than just 'counseling.' They need drool bibs and a plastic helmet with an I.D. tag on it, like;

"My Name Jihadi-boy. If I lost, pleez call #1-800-ImA-Tard."

Eh, perhaps not, as that would be a slight to those who are actually mentally challenged. And they don't deserve to be slighted.

And I haven't even gone into the issue of his doing this intentionally to "teach 'martyrdoms' and 'suiciders' how to save themselves so they can continue to fight invaders, including U.S. soldiers. "Instead of the brethren going to, to carry out martyrdom operations, no, may God bless him, he can use the explosion tools from a distance and preserve his life ... for the real battles," he says, according to a translation in the plea agreement."

Well, enjoy your jail time a$$wipe. I hope they get some of your 'finer prison moments' you'll be having on video. So we can see that on YouTube...

Want To Know WHY Bankruptcy Is Better Than A Bailout?

"Okay, so why is the avenue of bankruptcy better for the auto industry, rather than a bailout? Enlighten me oh Hoopy one. Yes, bless me with the knowledge that only you seem to have." For those that haven't figured it out, that was written from the perspective of just one of the many lib-tards I must deal with on a daily basis. And it would appear our own President has been affected by this disease, commonly referred to as Liberalism.

But, as requested, here it is. The primary reason why the auto industry needs to go bankrupt, rather than get a taxpayer funded handout, as provided by GetLiberty.org.

This is 22 pounds of pure, unadulterated and documented stupidity. Also known as Ford’s 2,215 page 2007 master contract with the UAW. GM and Chrysler's contracts fair little better.

Think I'm kidding you? Okay, than how about you go look them up YOURSELF. Yeah, I have the links right here "bail-out'ers," thanks to J. Justin Wilson of LaborPains.org.

Ford’s 2007 Contract:

Volume 1: Agreements

Volume 2: Retirement Plan and Insurance Program

Volume 3: Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Agreement and Plan, Profit Sharing Agreement and Plan (ha!), Tax-Efficient Savings Agreement and Plan, and UAW-Ford Legal Services Plan

Volume 4: Letters of Understanding

Volume 5: Skilled Trades Book

"Well, that's just Ford. GM and Chrysler aren't that bad," so says the libby's. Interesting you should bring that up. If Ford's is this bad, then WHY is Ford fairing better than Chrysler and GM with their 'not that bad' contracts? Just to quell those reason for a bail-out delusions your having, here's their contracts too;

GM’s 2003 and 2007 contracts:

GM’s 2003 contract (71 megs)

Changes to GM’s 2007 contract (HT: Factory Rats; full contract not available) They won't even allow their new contracts out.

Chrysler’s 2003 and 2007 contracts:

Chrysler’s 2003 contract (21 megs)

Changes to Chrysler’s 2007 contract (HT: Factory Rats; full contract not available) Ditto here. I'm willing to bet, that given another round of 'negotiations,' Ford's would be unavailable as well.

'nuff said? I think so. No, no, please. No need to start bowing and praising. Just doing what comes naturally here.

More Cultural Jihad Crap: Georgia Judge Jails Muslim Woman Over Hijab

And of course, the judicial system, after exercising the appropriate response to the problem, backpedals all over itself once Holyland Foundation Co-Conspirator, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) got it's beyond tainted fingers in the legal party-dip. This kinda stuff happens all the time, and of course, never makes it to the media elites broadcasts. Heavens no! Wouldn't want to upset those poor, persecuted, muslims now, would we?

Take for example, the state of Alabama having to scrap it's requirements for Drivers Licences. All because some muslim woman didn't want to remove her hajib. And of course, guess who was at the forefront of this 'supposed' civil rights tragedy? You guessed it... CAIR.

Tolerance and Diversity. The two biggest scams in the history of mankind. Well, right behind Socialism and Global Whining. The standard mantra of those 'professing' equality in situations such as this; "If you don't totally agree with what we're doing to your country, then you are a bigot, a hater," etc, etc, etc." I've got a much better, and in this case, much more appropriate word for this kind of subservience.

Dhimmitude.

It's not really a humanistic way to live. I guess it could probably be better described as about the least civil lifestyle a person could try to survive under. If you manage to survive the original onslaught at all.

And yet, this is exactly what we are being pushed into. Just as Douglasville, Georgia has discovered. ATLANTA – A judge ordered the arrest of a Muslim woman who refused to take off her head scarf at a court security checkpoint. According to the AP report, Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people (Not only muslim women you'll notice) from wearing any headgear in court. Valentine's husband, Omar Hall, said his wife was accompanying her nephew to a traffic citation hearing when officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf, known as a hijab. Hall said Valentine, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms (this court? or just courts) before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge. The judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

And of course, the waterworks of a BS cause followed, kinda like those two stupid teen tarts going for their 15 minutes of fame for saying they were thrown off the airline for, and I quote, "being to pretty." Their words, not mine. "I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights," Valentine told The Associated Press on Wednesday from her home, after she said she was unexpectedly released once CAIR got involved. Jail officials declined to say why she was freed.

I'll tell you why... for the same candy-assed reasoning that the LAPD scrapped it's plans to locate terrorists with the assistance of the muslim community itself.

Religion of Peace, my ass.

AIG's Response To Concerns About Sharia Complaint Financing

A few days back, I pointed you to an article by Jeffery Immon who had brought to our attention, that AIG was now offering a Sharia Compliant product here in the U.S. There was even a petition to sign regarding the issue. Since we're all now technically part 'owners' of AIG, via our taxpayer dollars, it was well within our right to make some noise over the issue.

And, as the American Congress for Truth has noted, the customary computer generated politically correct response has been issued on the topic. This response was sent to one of the many people who contacted AIG over the Sharia issue;

“We received your email expressing your concern over our announcement that we would begin marketing Takaful insurance products in the United States.

AIG operates around the world and endeavors to provide products that meet the diverse needs of its 74 million customers living in 130 countries and jurisdictions.

Marketing to specific ethnic constituencies is not new or unique to AIG. For instance, AIG businesses have tailored programs for a range of religious organizations, including Methodist churches and synagogues. The concept of Takaful is similar the concept of reciprocal exchange, or mutual insurance. What makes the structure somewhat different is that premiums are held in non-interest-bearing accounts, and any excess profit is distributed back to the policyholders or given to charity. While the Takaful structure is desirable to those whose religious convictions preclude them from engaging in traditional interest-bearing structures, Takaful is also increasingly popular among non-Muslims who feel that the excess charitable aspect is a socially responsible mechanism for the purchase of insurance. In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations. These policies are standard homeowners’ policies and are guided by U.S. law. The funds for these policies are held in Shariah-compliant, non-interest bearing accounts at HSBC. We hope this addresses your concerns.”

As you can see, standard BS to try and keep their 'sensitive appendages' out of the wringer.

Sorry, but not buying it. And for some of the same reasons ACT brings up; They usually compare shariah-compliant products to special products offered to other religious groups, and they almost always characterize the shariah-compliant product as “socially responsible.” Note AIG’s comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” and the phrase “socially responsible mechanism.”

Ah heck, ACT says it all better than I do, so I'll just cut/paste the remainder of their analysis on the subject. It'll read a bit better as well.

There are at least three problems with AIG’s response.

1.) The comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” is faulty. Methodist churches and synagogues do not require financial products that advance religious law that oppresses women and has at its core the call to jihad, as shariah-compliant products do. “Shariah-compliant” is just that – in compliance with Shariah law. The tenets of Shariah Islamic law include permission for forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient women, death sentences for Muslims who chose to convert away from Shariah Islam, and the obligation to wage offensive military Jihad against non-Muslims. By offering shariah-compliant products AIG, whether knowingly or unwittingly, is legitimizing and, by extension, endorsing shariah law. Think of it this way. Would AIG offer a product that was “apartheid compliant”? Of course not, because AIG would know that doing so would legitimize apartheid. To argue that a company can offer a product that is “compliant” with shariah law, but is not legitimizing shariah law, is disingenuous. So we repeat, AIG is either knowingly or unwittingly legitimizing a religious law system that oppresses women and is animated by jihad.

2.) The advisory board for AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance includes Muhammed Imran Usmani, the son and disciple of Muhammed Taki Usmani. The elder Usmani is a “who’s who” in the Islamist world and an outspoken proponent of aggressive jihad. For example, he has issued numerous fatwas (religious rulings) that provide material support for terrorism. What “socially responsible mechanism” does AIG provide to “Methodist churches and synagogues” that has an advisory board which includes the disciple of an internationally-known advocate for terrorism? Let’s use the apartheid example again. Would AIG offer a product that had an advisory board which included the son and disciple of an internationally-known advocate for apartheid? Of course not.

3.) Note this statement in AIG’s response: “In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations.” Shariah-compliant finance requires such charitable giving to go to Muslim charities. Who directs where the money goes? The Shariah-compliant advisory board, which in this case includes the son and disciple of an internationally-renowned advocate of terrorism. But that’s only one problem. Currently over two dozen Muslim charities have been identified by the U.S. government as having links to terrorist organizations. How many other Muslim charities have links to terrorist organizations and have not yet been identified? The recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial illustrate the complex web that some Muslim charities have created to funnel charitable contributions to terrorist organizations. What AIG is thus doing is offering a financial instrument that may very well wind up as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations. Even if that never occurred, why would a company want to put itself in such a position? Why would a company want to entangle itself with the son and disciple of an advocate for terrorism? Why would a company even take the chance that a financial product it offers could end up serving as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations? How is this “socially responsible”? What’s more, doesn’t AIG recognize that, if funds from its shariah-compliant product did end up going to terrorist organizations, it could be facing, at best, a public relations nightmare, and at worst, lawsuits alleging negligence, and even criminal investigations?

This is no mere hypothesis. David Yerushalmi, a legal expert on the issue of shariah law, has written a lengthy legal article spelling out the potential civil and criminal liabilities for companies that engage in shariah-compliant finance. (To read the article click here).

Like I said, reads better than I could have spelled it out.

Thanks to the American Congress for Truth for providing this info.