Friday, May 11, 2007

Those "family values"

Father of Fort Dix suspects arrested on immigration charges
The father of three men charged in the foiled Fort Dix terror plot was arrested this week on immigration violations and is in federal custody, two law enforcement sources said today.

Federal investigators have found no evidence linking the parents to the alleged plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix. But, the source said of the parents, "You can't ignore the fact that they are here illegally."

Nobody in the family was ever given legal residency status, the sources said. It was unclear why the Duka's had not been charged with immigration violations earlier.

I just can't imagine why he hadn't been charged with immigration violations earlier. It just boggles the mind...

Some good news

33 comments:

David Anfinrud said...

Well INS for decades have their hands tied. Now the PC crowd is screaming that if you deport a Muslim family it is racist and discrimination. But with the son's arrest they can then deport the family for violating the law. Found as a fact after the arrest. Can not be called racist or discriminating against Muslim's. CAIR will do all it can to support illegals by tying the hands of INS even more. Be happy we can deport even one family.

laughing out loud said...

The Fort Dix “terrorist plot” lays bare a fundamental contradiction in American conservatism politics: Central to it is a strong, genuine suspicion of what the government says and does.

There is also a pretense put forth of unwavering honesty, the idea that you get “straight talk” from conservatives. A recent example: Andrew Klaven’s laughably na├»ve statement in his essay, “The Big White Lie,“ currently touted by Lars Larson, that: “The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie.”

Contrast all that with the Bush administration’s staggering record of lying, dishonesty and disingenuousness.

You guys, claiming to be true conservatives, lap it up like dehydrated dogs. You get plenty of mileage out of beating up on the “mainstream” press, and yet every time the “mainstream” media uncritically “reports” on one of these things, you breathlessly post their articles and wave the latest video as if it’s the unvarnished truth.

Have any of you taken the time to actually read the indictment against these clowns? Does nothing about it strike you as suspicious? What does it have in common with other “terrorist plots” revealed by the administration? Have you sought out any information beyond what is being reported by FOXNews, right-wing radio and other “mainstream” sources?

Or are you basically just believing everything the government says about it?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone else noticed that whenever a new "terrorist plot" is "discovered", that the media reports something like "well, those last ones that were discovered turned out not to be much, but THIS one is the real deal."

Except that happens EACH TIME.

Haven't any conservatives read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

Scottiebill said...

Laughing and Anon 8:35 are apparently wanting to apologists for the Ft. Dix wanna-be terrorists. Makes me wonder if they aren't paid up, card-carrying members of the American-In-Name-Only Civil Liberties Union.

Anonymous said...

State v. Miglavs (Washington) (A111137) En Banc.
Linder, J., majority; Haselton, J., concurring;
Edmonds, J., dissenting; Armstrong, J., dissenting.
Criminal Law, Evidence, Firearms
In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges
four convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm,
ORS 166.250. He assigns error to the trial court's
denial of his motion to suppress a handgun seized by
police in an officer safety search, and to the trial
court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized
during a later warranted search, because the affidavit
supporting the warrant relied in part on information
discovered in the earlier officer safety search. Held:
The trial court did not err in denying defendant's
motions to suppress. The police officers' concern for
their safety in the initial search was reasonable, and
therefore justified a search of defendant for weapons.
At the time of the search, defendant and his
companion were dressed in the manner of a local gang
known by the officers to carry weapons, including
guns, and defendant's clothing was baggy and could
conceal a weapon. In addition, the officer who searched
defendant had removed a concealed gun from a member
of the same gang in the same area just previously to
his encounter with defendant, the encounter occurred
after midnight, in a darkened area, and defendant
remained near one of the officers while she was citing
his companion, when defendant was free to leave.
Because the officer safety search was reasonable,
defendant's challenge to the later warranted search also
fails. Affirmed.
Web:
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A111137.htm

Anonymous said...

Don Hamilton Says:
If your here illegally, go home. one more thing: That laugh out loud guy, makes me want to laugh out loud. liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

Anonymous said...

Our solid American citizen awakens in a bed built on a pattern which originated in the Near East but which was modified in Northern Europe before it was transmitted to America. He throws back his covers made of cotton (domesticated in India), linen (domesticated in the Near East) or silk (discovered in China). All of these materials have been spun and woven by processes invented in the Near East. He puts on his slippers (adapted from moccasins invented by Indians in the Eastern woodlands) and goes to his bathroom, whose fixtures are a mixture of European and American inventions, both of recent date. He takes off his pajamas (a garment invented in India) and washes with soap (invented by the ancient Gauls).

He puts on garments whose form was derived originally from the skin clothing of the nomads of the Asiatic steppes. His shoes are made from skins tanned by a process invented in ancient Egypt and cut into a pattern derived from classical civilizations of the Mediterranean. He ties a strip of brightly colored cloth around his neck, which is a survival from the shoulder shawls worn by 17th-century Croatians. Before going out to breakfast, he glances through his window (made of glass invented in Egypt). If it is raining, he puts on overshoes (made of rubber discovered by the Central American Indians) and takes an umbrella (invented in southeastern Asia). On his head, he puts a hat made of felt (a material invented in the Asiatic steppes).

On his way to breakfast, he stops to buy a paper, paying for it with coins (an ancient Lydian invention). At the restaurant, a whole new series of borrowed elements confronts him. His plate is made from a type of pottery invented in China. His knife is of steel (an alloy first made in southern India). His fork is a medieval Italian invention, and his spoon is a derivative of a Roman original. He begins his breakfast with an orange (originally from the eastern Mediterranean), a cantaloupe (from Persia), or perhaps a piece of African watermelon. With this, he has coffee (from an Abyssinian plant) with cream and sugar. (Both the domestication of cows and the idea of milking them originated in the Near East, while sugar was first made in India.) After his fruit and first coffee, he goes on to waffles (cakes made by a Scandinavian technique from wheat domesticated first in Asia Minor). Over these he pours maple syrup (invented by Indians of the eastern woodlands). As a side dish, he may have an egg (from a species of bird first domesticated in Indo-China) or thin strips of bacon (flesh of an animal domesticated in Eastern Asia which has been salted and smoked by a process developed in Northern Europe).

When our friend has finished eating, he settles back to smoke (an American Indian habit). Tobacco was domesticated in Brazil. Indians from Virginia smoked it in a pipe, while the cigarette was derived from Mexico. The cigar was transmitted to us from the Antilles by way of Spain. While smoking, he reads the news of the day (printed in characters invented by ancient Semites on material invented in China by a process invented in Germany). As he absorbs the accounts of foreign troubles, he will (if he is a good conservative citizen) thank a Hebrew deity in an Indo-European language that he is "100% American."

Laughing out loud said...

Scottie and Anon 11:35 -- There is absolutely nothing that I said that is a defense in ANY way of terrorism, terrorists, or even liberalism. Go back and READ what I wrote, and THINK about it. I am merely pointing out the massive disconnect between what conservatism purports to stand for, what it used to stand for and what it ought to stand for AND the lap-dog, blind-following-the-blind tendencies of Miglavs and his groupies.

Anonymous said...

"You can't ignore the fact that they are here illegally."

Apparently they did for many years.

laughing out loud: Please get your prescription refilled.

laughing out loud said...

My "prescription" is for careful reading and critical thought that is independent of any political party. What's yours for?

BEAR said...

Hey, laughing, how about simply agreeing that illegals are criminals, and should leave voluntarily, or be deported? Changing the subject makes you look like an apologist for lawbreakers, and foolish. Make your choice.

laughing out loud said...

Bear: It is you who is changing the subject and ignoring the observation I've made about American conservatives.

For the sake of argument in the manner you've framed it, fine: I will concede the point: People living in the United States illegally are criminals, and they should leave voluntarily, or they should be deported.

That position is not incompatible with the argument I've made in my previous posts. I am raising a contradiction that no one here has addressed in a serious way. So long as you don't, it's you who looks foolish, not me.

Make your choice.

Polish Immigrant said...

LOL, so what is your point again?

Anonymous said...

O.K., so Laughing out Loud doesn't believe the Government when it uncovers a "So Called Terror Plot" (Laughing Out Louds words, not mine)....and his rant leads one to believe that the Administration is "Crying Wolf" every time a plott is uncovered.

But I'll bet that this Laughing out Loud Clown would be the first in line asking "How Come The Gov't Didn't Inform the Public About This" if indeed a terror plot is successfully carried out again in the U.S.

I for one am openly advocating for the Liberal Community to be the ones to take charge in the War on Terror. They should all get together, travel to Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or wherever....and volunteer to meet with the hard Corps Islamists groups like Al Queda, Ansar al Islam, Abu Sayef, and the like, and politely ask them to stop plotting and carrying out acts of terrorism.

Once we see the video of them posted on the internet (blindfolded and kneeling before a sword), then the conservatives will not only tell them "I told you so", but we will set aside any political differences, and send the troops in to either rescue you, or avenge you.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Let's put this into perspective for the benefit of Laughing out Loud and a couple of Anon posters.

Here are a few statistics for you morons, and any other liberal nitwits who don't think the terror threat is a viable or real threat.

Weekly Jihad Report
(5/05 - 5/11)
Jihad Attacks: 66
Dead Bodies: 511
Critically Injured: 489


Monthly Jihad Report
(April, 2007)
Jihad Attacks: 276
Dead Bodies: 2081
Critically Injured: 2396


More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years

Now....get the picture? These folks are determined, willing, and as we have seen, definately able.

They want you dead simply for no other reason than you are a Kaffer (look it up).

The Ft. Dix plotters who came here illegally should be a wake up call to all. Close the borders, arrest illegals, enforce the existing employment laws, and start securing your friends, family, and loved ones whom the jihadists would love to see headless and bleeding on the ground.

Yes, not EVERY illegal immigrant is a bad person....so what. Ted Bundy was a well liked and respectable guy until that whole "Serial Killer" thing reared its ugly head.

laughing out loud said...

Polish Immigrant, I made my point at 7:29 a.m. If you don't understand it by now, you're not going to.

Polish Immigrant said...

So LOL's point is that because conservatives don't trust government we should be suspicious of what government says in the case of the Fort Dix six. It's a valid point. This is why we didn't trust Clinton when he bombed places randomly. The difference now is that we do trust Bush because he never lied to us. He may be doing things we don't like but at least he doesn't lie. Conservatives for the most part do what's right for the country; liberals do what's right for them, which unfortunately, is rarely good for the country,

no illegal aliens said...

More people died in a jihad attack in a month than troops did in 3 years of this war.

Kaelri said...

"I for one am openly advocating for the Liberal Community to be the ones to take charge in the War on Terror. They should all get together, travel to Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or wherever....and volunteer to meet with the hard Corps Islamists groups like Al Queda, Ansar al Islam, Abu Sayef, and the like, and politely ask them to stop plotting and carrying out acts of terrorism." - Anon 7:05

It's a sad reflection on the true nature of this philosophy - I don't know if it's "conservatism" or something totally unrelated - that the very idea of diplomacy is what turns that suggestion into a joke.

The answer to the accusation that Bear and others are tempted to spit at me now is 'no, I am not saying we should ask Osama bin Laden to play nice.' I think everyone here can agree that a person who is so brainwashed into jihadism that they'll happily fly a plane into a building is probably not someone who can be talked down. But there are others - hundreds of millions of others - in fact, try wrapping your heads around 'the majority of the population of the Middle East' - who don't want war any more than we do. People who want nothing more than to put food on their tables and give their children a better life. They will fight against whoever appears to be threatening themselves, ther families, and their communities. And right now, it's us.

Suicidal terrorism cannot sustain itself on ideology alone. It is nourished on poverty, trauma, economic exploitation, radical changes in a people's way of life - the things that crush people's hope and leaves them looking for a compass. Al Qaeda's recruitment has nothing to do with a mandate of holy war from Allah; the Quran condemns their actions on roughly the same points as the Bible does, and that's because the fundamental components of human morality are universal. Al Qaeda is about telling hopeless people who their enemy is and giving them the weapons to fight back. But they aren't responsible for their recruits' initial need to fight.

What is? A lot of things. We can't control most of them. But one of them is us - our foreign policy for the last seventy years, whatever else it's done, has played a big role in screwing things up in the Islamic world.

Those of you who have been coming to this blog for a while know that this is where the locals lke to jump on me (and on liberals, which they seem to define as "anyone who isn't a conservative") for having a "blame America first" philosophy. I don't. First of all, I did acknowledge that we are not the only cause, or even necessarily the primary cause; there are other pieces in the puzzle. Second, the words and actions that have been coming home to roost for the past century can be changed by a forward-thinking president and an open-minded Congress. This historical avalanche can start to have its course reversed in the space of one term. And that is the President I look forward to; I do not want another administration that tries to convince the American people that we are in an apocalyptic struggle for civilization and that the only way to defeat our enemies - who were once good people, and can one day be our allies again - is to kill them all.

"The difference now is that we do trust Bush because he never lied to us. He may be doing things we don't like but at least he doesn't lie."

...would anyone else like to take this one?

laughing out loud said...

Kaelri -- I was tempted last night. But then I figured, why bother? Wilfull ignorance like that is at a level I don't even know how to get my head around, I don't know how to respond. I could take the next 30 minutes, an hour or two hours, or all goddamned morning for that matter, and document some of the more glaring examples of dishonesty, but the most serious response I could hope for is to be called a "communist" or an "America-hater." Bear might pop in and call me a "lib," which, in fact, doesn't describe my politics.

Like I said, why bother? It's not worth the time or mental energy.

Regarding Anthony's post, I am curious about where he's getting those figures. But regardless of the source, I think it begs the question: How many of those deaths happened before the American invasion of Iraq, and how many have happened since?

[And yes, I'm fully aware of how many people died on September 11. I mean in addition to that, outside of the United States.]

Anthony DeLucca said...

LOL.....I'm getting those figures by careful study of past and present news reports.

As for the "Pre / Post" invasion question, I don't know....but what does that really have to do with the fact that Muslims are killing other Muslims? As a matter of fact, while a lot of Jihad attacks have occured in Iraq since 2003, there have been additional attacks, a LOT of additional attacks, in places like:

Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Russia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Bosnia, The Philippines, Thailand, Somalia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, the United States, England, Norway, and a host of others.

The figures that I quoted are accurate. I can also tell you this: More Civilian Iraqis die from Islamic terrorism than from U.S. bullets or bombs.

Islamic Fundamentalism has been alive and on the rampage for centuries. Over the last thirty years, the Western Nations and it's culture and values are the target. The United States has been a target since the first attack against us in 1983, and it hasn't let up since.

Anonymous said...

So basically, you're saying that the source of this information is ... you.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Anon 2:19
No the source of the information is NOT me.....as I stated in the post (you can READ can't you?) I gathered the information from news reports, both past and present. I do a little thing call "RESEARCH" wherupon I actually go out of my way to find facts, (numbers and such) so that I can report them in a knowledgable manner without looking like an ass. I can then form my own opinion regarding the matter being researched.

Additionally, if several reports on the same incident contradict one another as far as casuality numbers, I either discount it entirely, or take an average.

Also, there are several very well maintained and well researched CT and islamic terrorism related sites online administered by Our Govt., Foreign Govts., Humanitarian organizations, and non-profits that I glean information from as well. To include sites that are operated by the jihadists themselves.

So unless you have a contradictory stance that is based upon fact, (and if you do I would sincerely be interested in hearing it) I would suggest that you do your OWN research in order to formulate your own opinion of the topic (or any other topic for thet matter).

2:19 said...

I am not disputing the fact that Islamic terrorists are killing innocents in large numbers; I'm not even necessarily disputing the figures you've cited. I am asking you to cite specific sources of information, and all I've heard is a vague reference to "research" that you've done using "news reports" and "sites" maintained by "the government" and "non-profits." If that's how you cited sources in a term paper or thesis, you'd get an "F," accompanied by laughter from the instructor grading it. If you don't want to take the time to elaborate with some detail on where you "glean information," fine. Say so. I asked because I was genuinely curious.

Scottiebill said...

What is it with Anon 11:15? Whenever this guy has nothing of substance to post, then he brings out his old and shop-worn and exceedingly tiresome rants against Daniel and his indiscretions many years ago. Anon 11:15, you really should get a life.

And Anon 12:19; You are showing all of us your typical liberal leanings; i.e., never let facts get in the way of your opinions.

Bush Lies said...

The difference now is that we do trust Bush because he never lied to us.

Wow!

Gee, how about "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

How about the State Department report that terrorism had decreased under the Bush administration, later retracted because, in fact, terrorism had increased.

Go to http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm for lots of examples of Bush lying.

bear's anti said...

"And Anon 12:19; You are showing all of us your typical liberal leanings; i.e., never let facts get in the way of your opinions."

Actually, that sounds like the conservative thought process to me.

Kaelri said...

"And Anon 12:19; You are showing all of us your typical liberal leanings; i.e., never let facts get in the way of your opinions." -Scottiebill

How do you interpret 2:19's explicit request for Delucca to "cite specific sources of information" as avoidance of fact?

Anonymous said...

It's a classic Orwellian ploy, Kaelri -- the dude asked for more facts, thus, he is avoiding the facts. Don't you see?

Scottiebill said...

To bear's anti: You did get this one right. It is conservative thought process.

And Anon 9:43; Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

9:43 said...

Well, Scottie, I appreciate that! Too bad, however, that you obviously don't have a clue what I meant, because my satirical comment was intended to be at your expense, not on your behalf.

Thanks for the laugh, though.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting, and telling, that conservatives have been silent over the Bush administration's handling of the case of Luis Posada, a convicted terrorist who it now appears will go free.

Of course, conservatives don't seem to mind when the victims of terrorism are innocent people living in leftist countries--they don't mind Posada's involvement in the downing of a Cuban airliner, just as they celebrated the Contras' terrorism against civilians in Sandinista-run Nicaragua.

In fact, I'd bet money that at least one response to this post will be to say how bad Castro and the Ortegas are.

Anonymous said...

I've seen this all before, living in the Bay Area during the 60's. The govt (FBI) used the same horrible tactics of getting some paid scum who usually has some case or other against them, to infiltrate some group that has no intention of performing ANY illegal activity. Then they agitate and secretly record the results of the agitation, carefully leaving out the things they said to get the 'suspects' to say what they said. So many of these were thrown out on appeal, that the Attny General of California asked the FBI to stop operations in California as it was costing to much for these failed prosecutions. The FBI saw the SLA and the Black Panthers under every rock in the Bay Area. It was a joke. Spending the time and money to create these cases out of whole cloth, prevented REAL investigation for REAL extremist groups. So, the end result is that we are LESS safe as a result of these type of investigations.