Wanted by the FBI

Adnan G. El Shukrijumah
Adnan G. El Shukri Jumah, Abu Arif, Ja'far Al-Tayar, Jaffar Al-Tayyar, Jafar Tayar, Jaafar Al-Tayyar

Terrorist Threats against U.S.
If you have any information,

Worthy Causes!

100% owned by Hugo Chavez

UN or US

Write your reps!

Fed up with Congress, or politicians in general? Write your Representative and - or Senator and tell them so They serve us, folks!

Click the links below to write yours. 

  • Recommended Blogs

  • Recommended Reading

IRS in trouble?

Posted on July 27, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

In a decision that could have wide ranging consequences for the IRS, WorldNet Daily has an article you should know about. It seems a lawyer indicted for failure to pay income taxes won his case before a trial by jury, who found there is no Constitutional authority for the IRS to exist - let alone act as a confiscatory agency of the federal government. A short piece of the column before the link …

“I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever,” lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.”

Read the entire story

War on Police?

Posted on July 27, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Heather Mac Donald - writing in ‘The City Journal ( a local NY screed) writes an OpEd piece that is near to my heart. I understand the link is down, so I’ll paste it in here. Every word she writes is absolutely true. Been there - done that. As an aside - I arrested Bostic’s older brother for Robbery back in the late 80’s. Crime seems to run in the family. Duh!

“New York police officers have yet to hold a “no justice, no peace” rally in Brooklyn, where three black thugs in a stolen BMW fatally gunned down Officer Russel Timoshenko on July 9. Nor have New York’s Finest stopped patrolling Brownsville (my last command, btw), Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Central Harlem, where they put their lives at risk every day to protect residents from violent crime.

Yet under the race-baiting precedents established by Al Sharpton, New York City Councilman (and former Black Panther) Charles Barron, and New York Times columnists and editors, the police have more than enough grounds for racial complaint. Blacks are blowing away police officers at rates far exceeding their own numbers. Nationally, blacks made up 40 percent of all cop killers from 1994 to 2005, even though they are only 13.4 percent of the American population.

That fact is not allowed in polite company, however, because race-baiting is tolerated in only one direction. Any time an officer shoots a black civilian, he runs a risk of igniting protest in the African-American “community.” (Even if the officer is black, he will be treated as an honorary white for purposes of denouncing cop racism, as the shooting of Sean Bell last November demonstrated.) The media will turn out in force for all such anti-cop demonstrations, lovingly documenting every gesture of black rage. But justified police shootings constitute only a minute fraction—and unjustified police shootings, an almost imperceptible fraction—of homicides of blacks, virtually all of which are committed by other blacks. New York police killed nine civilians in 2005, for example, all of whom had attacked the officers first, compared with hundreds upon hundreds of black-on-black killings. But blacks can shoot whites—police officer and civilian alike—without anyone’s organizing a street demonstration about it, much less daring to point out the pattern. Perhaps such incidents are just dog-bites-man stories, too much part of the normal order of things to be considered noteworthy.

Indeed, Police Officer Timoshenko’s assailants and the circumstances of the killing will be all too familiar to anyone remotely familiar with today’s violent criminals. Officers Timoshenko and Herman Yan pulled over a BMW sport utility vehicle at 2:30 am in Brooklyn on July 9 after noticing that the license plate did not match the vehicle. As the officers approached the stolen SUV on foot, its occupants opened fire, shooting Timoshenko in the face and throat and Yan in the arm and torso. Timoshenko was instantly brain-damaged and paralyzed from the neck down; after five days in a coma, he died. Yan lost so much blood that he required surgery.

These cold-blooded acts were just the latest atrocities committed by two lifelong criminals, at least one of whom should have been locked up for good years ago. Dexter Bostic, who shot Timoshenko, was arrested for rape, assault, and robbery at age 16; after spending nine years behind bars, he was convicted again for an armed robbery committed less than a year after his release from prison. Yet he was back on the street in 2004 after a mere three years in jail, and he has apparently been continuing his crime spree. Robert Ellis, who shot Tan, was convicted as a teenager of rape and sodomy. The driver of the stolen SUV, Lee Woods, also began his criminal career as a teen, serving time for possession of a loaded gun and assault on an officer. He continued his violence in jail against prison guards and other inmates.

It is precisely the risk of coming unawares upon such demons that makes car stops so dangerous. Timoshenko and Tan had no idea who was in the SUV when they approached it. They probably didn’t even know that the occupants were black. But if they did, their street experience would have told them that they were at a far higher risk of encountering felons than if the occupants were white. Any given violent crime in New York City is 13 times more likely to have a black than a white perpetrator. Blacks committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city in 2006, according to victims and witnesses, even though they are only 24 percent of New York City’s population. Whites, who make up 34.5 percent of New Yorkers, committed 5.3 percent of violent crimes. Yet despite these elevated risks, police officers continue to give their all to minority neighborhoods, cherishing the belief that the good people in those communities support and need them.

Whites are hardly immune from socially destructive mayhem, of course. Last year in Greenwich Village, David Garvin killed two auxiliary police officers, Nicholas Pekearo and Yevgeniy Marshalik, after shooting a pizzeria worker. Such atrocities are every bit as disgusting as black-inflicted violence, but statistically, they are much, much rarer. Pointing this out is a major breach of racial etiquette.

The Timoshenko tragedy came at the end of a particularly egregious period in the New York Times’s policing coverage. In late May, residents and elected officials in Bushwick, Brooklyn, had urgently warned the 81st Precinct that the Pretty Boy Family gang (PBF) would use the funeral of a member as an opportunity to wreak vengeance against the Linden Street Bloods (LSB), who had murdered him. The retaliation had already begun with the stomping and beating of several LSB members. On the day of the funeral, one mother told local police that she was frightened that her son, an LSB member, would be killed. As PBF members, sporting gang bandannas, congregated for the funeral, the 81st Precinct’s black executive officer observed them making gang signals. Then the group took over the street, some of its members walking on top of cars. The commander ordered 32 of the marchers arrested for unlawful assembly and disorderly conduct, netting several warrant absconders in the process.

The Times’s editors and its columnist Bob Herbert fit this episode of sound preventive policing into the usual story line about racist officers preying on innocent minority youth. In article after article, they portrayed the gang members as law-abiding paragons, taking their description of the events as unimpeachable and even giving them a large photo spread, suitable for framing.

Then it was on to the next alleged police atrocity. Herbert generated a series of columns from a New York Civil Liberties Union report claiming that police officers assigned to city schools routinely abused students and arrested them for innocuous high-jinks. No reporting, of course, on the 192 robberies, 5 rapes, 247 felony assaults, 138 burglaries, and 580 grand larcenies that students committed in school in 2006–07—a fearsome total, but 26 percent smaller than six years ago, thanks in part to the NYPD. The Times’s writers cribbed an editorial off Herbert’s columns, repeating his charges and calling for the New York City Council—that esteemed body of public-safety experts—to scrutinize all student arrests and convictions for misuse of police power.

Some portion of the teens whom the NYPD is picking up in its anti-gang and school enforcement activities will make up the next generation of career criminals like Dexter Bostic and Robert Ellis. Perhaps if the rest of the criminal-justice system performed its duties as diligently as the NYPD does, there would be fewer of them to terrorize communities and, on occasion, take officers’ lives.

Indifferent to charges of hypocrisy, Bob Herbert has now taken up the theme of how America supposedly ignores young minority homicide victims. Writing about a spate of Chicago gang killings, he recently intoned:

“This should be a major national story, of course, and it would be if the slain children had come from more privileged backgrounds. But these are the kids that most of America cares nothing about—black, Latin and poor.”

It never occurs to Herbert that the police are the one group who most definitely cannot be accused of caring nothing about “black, Latin and poor” kids; but for their efforts in inner-city neighborhoods, hundreds more minority youngsters in New York would have died over the last decade. If Herbert wants to make a similar contribution, he might try patrolling every night in drug-ridden housing projects, working to get guns out of the hands of reckless adolescents.

The Times’s latest misinformed writing almost certainly played no role in Timoshenko’s murder. But it is not so easy to rule out influence from the general atmosphere of anticop animus to which the Times and other elite organs contribute. With so many voices—from gangsta rappers to politicians to members of the press—dehumanizing officers and portraying them as predators on black people, Bostic and Ellis may well have felt that they were taking out their racial enemies when they opened fire. Those members of the Pretty Boy Family gang whom the Times turned into poster boys for police victimization will likely go through life feeling righteous about their loathing for the police. Sit in on any support group for juvenile parolees and probationers, and the cop-hatred that you hear will chill you.

The police are not going to demonstrate against black criminals who endanger their lives—nor should they. But it would be nice if, for once, so-called minority leaders could bestir themselves to demonstrate in favor of fallen officers. Would it have killed Al Sharpton or Charles Barron to have sent a group of their regulars to the indictments of Bostic, Ellis, and Jones, to protest the taking of officers’ lives? Could they at least pretend to acknowledge the sacrifices that the police make for their “community”? Bob Herbert or the New York Times editorialists might have written a column thanking the families of Timoshenko and Han for their service and calling for the killing to stop. Right now, young gangbangers and their associates can pretend to be racial-justice crusaders when they assault police officers, interfere with police chases of criminals, and refuse to cooperate with investigations—and that attitude can have deadly real-world consequences, as Russel Timoshenko’s family has learned.

A book review…

Posted on July 25, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...


You are either a fan of Ann Coulter’s or you’re not. I’m a fan. Conservatives and right thinking people love her - liberal lefties hate her. Well - “hate” may not be a strong enough adjective, actually, but you get the drift. Ann tells it like it is, no bullshit, political correctness be damned - a b big reason I love her as much as I do. This is just my latest addition to my Coulter Collection and likely as not won’t be my last.In this book, Ann (as usual) tears the liberals a new one, taking them to task on virtually every follow (and there are many!) they have foisted on a public by and large a product of the American “public educational system” - meaning not very intelligent, or at least as intelligent as they THINK they are or would have you believe. The N.E.A., by the way, is just one of Ann’s targets in the book, along with liberal judges, politicians (of course), radical feminists, “pro choice”/ers, etc.

Depending on your outlook - although I hasten to add I’d doubt Ann’s detractors would be reading it anyway - you will either be variously laughing or shaking your head in disgust, or pulling your hair out in frustration.

Pick it up and read it. If you read my blog here, you probably will enjoy it …. before it pisses you off.

Other than politics …

Posted on July 25, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Yes - I DO have interests other than politics. In fact if I didn’t I’d probably have another heart attack from aggravation!

One of my primary “releases” from the frustrations of daily life in this hell hole known as New York has always been music. My taste in music is somewhat eclectic, but herewith are two CD’s I am currently listening too.

The first is a fairly new and great album by a favorite - Mick Hucknall (Simply Red) - titled “Stay”. Highly recommended.

Long time Scottish favorite Alex Beaton’s album titled “Songs of Praise - Pipes of Peace”, contains some great classic Celtic hymns for those times I need to get my head straight or I’m feeling down physically. Inspirational and beautiful.

Simply RedAlex Beaton

Too true!

Posted on July 24, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Oh what the hell …

Posted on July 24, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

The despicable POS John “ABSCAM” Murtha is still at it. Still sticking his hand into the till to feed his private interests. This time it’s a $100 million dollar handout to a company nobody can confirm even exists - or if it in reality is going into Murtha’s pockets. Amazingly - the POS didn’t even appear on the Senate floor to argue for the handout personally, but had a party crony present the earmark for him. Real tough guy, this POS. Politico has the story .

In an addendum to their post, Politico adds the following…

“I failed to report last night that a certificate filed with the requested funds says the money is actually earmarked to Concurrent Technologies Corporation, a nonprofit technological consulting firm. A brief search of campaign finance records shows CTC President and CEO Daniel R. DeVos, of alternately Central City and Johnstown, Pa. has contributed $7,000 to Murtha’s reelection campaign since April 2002.”

Isn’t that interesting? A huge earmark to a company his own party rep cannot confirm exists. Typical. This, folks, is the party that swore to be the most “open” and “honest” ever. The party that said earmarks should be an open book and be of benefit to the country - not a pet project of some politician. Short memory. Perhaps that’s why Zogby and other recent polls are saying this Congress has the lowest public approval rating EVER for a sitting Congress at just 14% saying they are doing a good job.

And we wonder why the public tires of politicians and their double-speak?

Well - if you want to keep an eye on what these cretins who somehow got elected to office are really up too behind closed doors, take a good look around the website run by the Sunlight Foundation. You will find links to all sorts of really interesting watchdogs. It’s all there in black and white, if you care to know what is really going on. Check it out

Closing this entry is a little something to think about when the lefties start their election year scare tactics directed at the senior citizens…

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1. That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary…

2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program…

3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year…

4. That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, wouldonly be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program…

5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away” — you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: W hich Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

Short and sweet!

Posted on July 19, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Maybe more later, but for now …

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
Mark Twain

…and …

Why in Hell should *I* have to Press 1 for English?

Is there any purpose?

Posted on July 14, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Sadly, I am getting rather tired of the whole blogging thing. Actually I’m getting rather tired or politics in general, and stupid people specifically.

“Meaning what?”  you say?

I have spent an inordinate amount of time checking out other blogs the last few weeks. I have come to the sad conclusion that it doesn’t really matter which side of the aisle we hear from - both have more than their share of nitwits, bigots, and outright crazies. In fact - a few of the so-called “conservative leaning” blogs I have been on scare me as much as the lefty blogs like Daily Kos.

I’m a Christian, not that it matters. Baptized in a Dutch Reformed church, brought up in the Presbyterian church, married in same, my son baptized and my marriage vows renewed in a Presbyterian church. That’s pretty much the extent of my religiousness. I don’t attend church on a regular - even semi regular basis. People can differ on whether or not that makes me a Christian in their eyes. Fact is I have yet to find a church that truly represents to me what religion really is - the worship of God, teaching His word, living a good and decent life.

Christianity to me doesn’t mean a blind allegiance to a narrow interpretation of the Bible in any of its forms. There are, despite what some believe, more than one version and interpretation of the Bible.

As in other religions, the Bible is nothing more than someones version of Gods word in the person of Jesus Christ. Neither Jesus nor his Father our God wrote the words that make up the Bible - they were only stories that were passed down from generation to generation until they were written by someone else - and even that is an interpretation of His words.

It is therefore - in my opinion - impossible to state without equivocation exactly what Gods words are in relation to various topics. All the various Christian denominations do is interpret His word to fit their view of the word. In some cases this is a very narrow view - such as that of one Fred Phelps - an alleged Christian pastor who regularly shows up at military funerals with his merry band of “Christian” followers with signs denigrating the service of these brave men and women who gave their lives so people like him could spew their brand of filth disguised as “Christianity”.

It turns my stomach that as a Christian in the broadest sense (being that I profess a belief in God and Jesus Christ as His Son on Earth) I am in any way connected to people like this, or others who while professing their belief in God spew bigotry and distort his words for their evil purposes. And I’m sick of it. All of it.

Someone please tell me why - in virtually any discussion of politics or life in general - these people need to insert the topic of Christianity. Can they not have an opinion in which their idea of religion does not intrude? Is their only basis on which to vote or not vote for someone the fact that they are or are not a Christian - or rather their idea of a Christian?

I am not supporting Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination as President - that much should be obvious by my links to the Fred Thompson campaign. That does not mean that Mitt Romney is not a good man, nor that my support or lack off is based on his being a Mormon - which incidently is a Christian based denomination. I also happen to like and sometimes support Joe Lieberman - a Jew - because although he is predominantly a liberal, he also stands alone in his party as a strong supporter of our military and defending our country against terrorism.

Yet some of these alleged Conservatives state they would never vote for Romney only because he is not - in their narrow minds - a Christian. Their kind of Christian. Others say they would never vote for someone who doesn’t agree with their position on abortion, or as they prefer to say it, “Right to Life”. That right does not, apparently, extend to the mother who might be at risk of death if she is forced to bring a baby to term, or the right of that child to have a mother and a father to nurture them after birth.

These people believe only in what they call the “black or white” in life. No gray areas - it either IS, or it ISN’T. Is or isn’t what has not been fully explained to me, and I hesitate to even inquire.

Life is not black or white. There are gray areas in everything. These people need to re-read their Bibles and face the fact that one day they will look at the face of God and be called upon to explain themselves. Calling yourself a Christian does not guarantee admittance to everlasting life in Heaven.

ACTING like a Christian will carry more weight in His eyes.

I’m not yet sure if I will continue this blog. I will give it more thought and see.