Thursday, April 21, 2016
Another disgusting Muslim
A New Jersey woman who was molested while she slept by a male passenger on a 13-hour flight testified Monday in court about the shocking incident where she woke up to find that her body and private parts were covered with hand lotion.
The 25-year-old victim recounted the horrifying incident that took place on an Emirates flight from Dubai to Kennedy Airport last October.
The woman, who is only known to the jury by her first name, Stephanie, had to identify the dress and the thong underwear she had been wearing as well as the bottle of Nivea lotion during court on Monday, The New York Daily News reported.
Nadeem Memhood Quraishi has been charged with sexual contact without consent and could be deported back to Pakistan if he is convicted.
Stephanie, who had taken an anti-anxiety medication after boarding the plane and fell asleep, said that Quraishi sat in the seat next to her on her right side.
She testified that 'I love you, you're pretty' was whispered in her ear before she woke up. He also asked her if she had 'slept well.'
'My entire body felt sticky. I could smell the lotion,' she testified in Brooklyn Federal Court according to the Daily News. 'I was shocked. My heart dropped into my stomach.'
She immediately got up and went to the bathroom on the plane, where she noticed that her thong had been pushed aside as lotion covered her shoulders, breasts, arms, inner thighs, calves and vagina.
In addition, she said that her 'vaginal area was sore', according to court filings.
When she returned to her seat, the woman asked Quraishi where her lotion was. When the man handed her to bottle, she alerted the crew that something happened to her while she slept.
The court documents stated that when flight attendants asked Quraishi about what happened, he allegedly admitted to rubbing lotion on his fellow passenger’s 'arms, shoulders, and legs, and used the lotion in her vaginal area.'
The 42-year-old Staten Island man, who reportedly manages a Subway eatery, allegedly told the cabin crew he thought the woman 'needed it' and 'enjoyed it.'
'The defendant also told the flight attendants that he liked it and that it happened to him as a child,' the complaint read.
During the court session, his defense lawyer Mark Macron questioned Stephanie about the medication she had taken on the flight and how it was possible for his client to rub lotion on her body while she wore a belted dress, was covered by a blanket and had her seat belt on.
However, Gunjon Mangia, a flight attendant working during the flight, testified on the stand that Quraishi admitted that he applied the lotion on the victim's body, the Daily News reported.
'When I asked him why he did such a thing, he said, 'Well, I thought she needed it and she didn't offer any resistance so I thought she enjoyed it,'' Mangia said in court.
James Woods: 'The World is Fighting Islamic Terrorism... Democrats are Fighting for Men to Pee in Ladies' Rooms'
Actor James Woods thinks that while there are global issues of terrorism, starvation and disease to address, "democrats are fighting for men to pee in ladies' rooms."
On April 17 Woods tweeted:
The world is fighting Islamic terrorism, starvation, and disease, but democrats are fighting for men to pee in the ladies' room. #insanity
In recent weeks there has been a debate in several states about "bathroom bills" that would require a person to use the restroom that corresponds with their biological gender. Critics have characterized the bills as hostile to transgender people, while defenders argue that the bills are necessary to keep people safe from predators.
The Washington Post recently reported that when lawmakers in North Carolina passed such a bill, "incensed state Senate Democrats walked out of the vote in protest." On March 31, the International Transgender Day of Visibility, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) released a statement:
As we celebrate the International Transgender Day of Visibility, we need to recommit ourselves to fighting against the discriminatory laws that Republican-controlled legislatures have passed or are trying to pass. Our nation has worked too hard to distance ourselves from the ugliest chapters in our history when discrimination was codified by our laws. We cannot move forward as a people or as a nation if we design laws that seek to diminish or demean people because of who they are or who they love.
Gov't Admits Violating Little Sisters' Religious Freedom
The Little Sisters of the Poor scored a significant point before the Supreme Court when the Obama administration essentially admitted that it could have respected the nuns' religious liberty and not required the group to buy an insurance plan that also funded contraception. It took the government long enough. As Heritage Foundation’s Sarah Torre notes, the plight of the Little Sisters — which has the potential to give the government the ability to decide just how someone can practice their faith — has cost the group five years of legal battles in the face of a state that will not relent. But after the two sides made oral arguments, the justices made a request that they haven’t made since 1953: They asked the two sides to propose compromises.
In the brief it submitted in April, the government beat around the bush and finally admitted that yes, it probably violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by threatening millions of dollars in fines if Little Sisters didn’t cave into Big Brother’s demands. The Supreme Court is probably looking for a solution to the case to avoid a 4-4 decision, according to Stanford University law professor Michael McConnell. The professor writes that an initial compromise could have been very simple: Allow Little Sisters and any other organization who hold religious objections to contraception coverage to purchase contraception-free plans. If one of their employees wants that feature with their health care coverage, they shop on the ObamaCare exchange.
The government’s arguments before the highest court in the land don’t look good — especially because it was Little Sisters who the government pressured. As another petitioner in this case pointed out, large companies like Chevron, Exxon, Pepsi and Visa received exemptions from the government to exempt abortifacients from their health care coverage. Why not a group of nuns?
Leftist misrepresentation of slavery support
Walter E. Williams
During Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign visit to Liberty University, he told the students that our nation was created on racist principles. Students at a Christian-based university, such as Liberty, do not often hear the founders-as-racists argument. But it is featured at many other universities, as well as primary and secondary schools. Most often, the hate-America teachings are centered on the fact that slavery is a part of our history. What is left untaught is: Slavery was a routine part of human history. Blacks were the last people to be enslaved. Plus, our Founding Fathers struggled mightily over the issue of slavery. Let us look at some of that struggle.
George Washington said, "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others were highly critical of slavery, describing it as a "disease of ignorance," "an inconsistency not to be excused" and a "lamentable evil." George Mason said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind." James Madison, in a speech at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, declared, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." Benjamin Rush said: "Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. … It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father."
In their effort to create a union, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had to negotiate many contentious, deal-breaking issues. Slavery was chief among them. Southern states made clear that they would not vote to ratify a constitution that abolished slavery or ended the slave trade. Northern delegates wanted to end slave trading and did not want slaves counted at all for congressional apportionment. Southern delegates wanted slaves counted as whole people. That would have given the South greater political power in the House of Representatives.
Convention delegate James Wilson offered a compromise whereby each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining the number of representatives a state would have in the House. This rule applied only to slaves. Freemen, whether black or white, would be counted as whole people. Another compromise was to set 1808 as the year to abolish the slave trade.
Contrary to what academic hustlers teach, the Three-Fifths Compromise was not a statement about human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the pro-slavery representation in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in congressional calculations, Southern states were actually being denied a greater number of representatives in Congress and hence electoral votes for selecting a president.
There’s little question that slavery is an abomination and a gross violation of human rights, but the founders had to decide whether there would be a union or not. Had morality been their sole guide, they might have taken a hardened, nonnegotiable stand against slavery, but then the Constitution would have never been ratified and a union would not have been formed.
A question that we might ask those academic hustlers who use slavery to attack and criticize the legitimacy of our founding is: Would black Americans, yesteryear and today, have been better off if the Constitution had not been ratified — with the Northern states having gone their way and the Southern states having gone theirs — and, as a consequence, no union had been created? I think not.
Ignorance of our history, coupled with an inability to think critically, has provided considerable ammunition for those who want to divide us in pursuit of their agenda. Their agenda is to undermine the legitimacy of our Constitution in order to gain greater control over our lives. Their main targets are the nation’s youths. The teaching establishment, at our public schools and colleges, is being used to undermine American values.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.