sunset from behind the wire

sunset from behind the wire

Monday, October 26, 2009

Is this the "Justice System"?

Three years ago, six Islamic freaks sued US Airways and the Minneapolis Airport Police for discrimination and false arrest after they were bounced from a Phoenix-bound flight for behaving much like the 9/11 hijackers.

What do these mass murderers all have in
common besides being the 9/11 hijackers?

Facts Not In Dispute:

The six Islamic 'activists' chanted,  "Allah, Allah, Allah," and changed their seats while asking for seat belt extensions they never used. Though situated throughout the cabin, the six men appeared to be acting in concert. Witnesses also said they loudly cursed the U.S. Half of them had no checked baggage and what appeared to be one-way tickets.

If you were the one who made the decision to allow them to fly or not, what would you have decided? The police decided they would not fly. I personally agree with that decision. Not so, Federal Judge Ann Montgomery, who felt that the Islamic Activists were the victims of DISCRIMINATION. Her opinion strongly favored the Islamic Radicals who sued and WON.

I'm putting it in writing here on the blog so the government can use it against me later: If six scroungy looking rag heads get on an airplane where I am a passenger, start screaming and chanting Allah-u-Akhbar and acting freaky, the police can arrest me and take the flying Imams to the frigging hospital. Then they can sue me for kicking their Islamic asses. I am one man - but still I am one man. Take a look at the photo to the left and recall for one moment how you felt on that day. I feel the same way TODAY as I did then!

Judge Montgomery, you are a disgrace to the Federal Bench. The Islamic radicals are gloating today with their cash settlement. If you (Judge Montgomery) had made that decision on 9/12/2001, the public would have HUNG YOU BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD from the nearest light pole.
The imams' attorney — a board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which financed the case — says the deal involves an undisclosed amount paid to his clients by airport police. Details are sealed. The airport authority issued a statement saying insurance limits its liability to $50,000.
"The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. - Investors' Business Daily

Before the settlement, Awad tried to equate the case with a landmark civil-rights case. "If we win in this case," he intoned, "this will go down in history, like Rosa Parks did 50 years ago." But CAIR's agenda goes far beyond civil rights. The FBI says CAIR is a Hamas front and has cut off formal ties to it. The Justice Department has blacklisted the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in U.S. history - IBD

And you politicians wonder why we protest and scratch your heads at the Tea Party Movement. It's not only about taxes. We see insane behavior by the government, we see foolishness in the courts and we want this pandering to ENEMIES of America to stop. 

Abortion and Murder

For my purposes here I'll rely on California Law and the California Penal Code. Other states may have slightly different law, however I have no intent to cover the nation with this blog posting.


CPC 187 - Murder Defined
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. 
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. 
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Under California State Law, a fetus is separated from the definition of a human being - presumably because it is not 'independently viable'. However the punishment for murder is identical - unless the life is taken by a mother or a physician.

So should you kill a pregnant mother, you could be/would be charged with a double murder. If the mother of the child solicits you to aid or abet in the murder of her unborn child, it's legal.


Am I the only one who doesn't understand why it's MURDER in one case and somehow socially acceptable in another? If you presume that an unborn child is somehow less than human - how could you call its death under any circumstances a MURDER? It simply doesn't make sense.

The Democrats really hated Sarah Palin because of her stand on this issue. 

Where do you stand?