Sometimes, Fox News Channel brings to the surface powerful stuff that you would never see on "60 Minutes." FNC is promoting Sunday night's edition of "Hannity's America" featuring exclusive interviews with some of the passengers who were on the plane with the Flying Imams when they got kicked off the plane in the Twin Cities last November. FNC promises they tell quite a different story about what happened than the Imams and the folks at CAIR. The passengers are so scared about CAIR's lawsuit and harm coming to their families that they would only speak to Hannity's people anonymously.
The show airs Sunday nights at 9 PM and midnight, Eastern time.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I hope this report will sho
March 31, 2007 - 18:12 ET by radiofitz34I hope this report will show that CAIR is not what the average American thinks it is. CAIR is about Islamic civil rights just the same as the ACLU is to "civil" rights in this country. In other words, knock down the big gorilla.
The antics by the Immans are
March 31, 2007 - 18:29 ET by soosanThe antics by the Immans are troubling - am not sure I'd have gotten on that plane. A bigger issue is what is the CAIR strategy in MN? Add the Elison Koran incident (and his radical history - poor Dennis P), the Islamic cab drivers refusing fares at the airport because of duty free booze and/or seeing eye dogs, Moslem Mnpls Target store employees refusing to sell pork products when working the cash registers, and now a lawsuit by the Immans.....Hmmmm.
Why should the left be the source of all the conspiracy theories, I'm working on my own.
it's not a conspiracy, soosan
March 31, 2007 - 18:45 ET by RJsoosan, you don't have to be thinking "conspiracy." It's the clear intent of the activists in the islamic community to establish Sharia Law wherever they can. Part of their plan is to constantly push boundaries, i.e. the flying imams, in the direction of their objective. Along the way, an ancillary goal is to beat down objections to their behavior.
Hey RJ, Thanks for the contex
March 31, 2007 - 19:02 ET by soosanHey RJ, Thanks for the context - I think. Is there any point at which someone in traditional journalism will honestly look at this phenomenon and maybe help us citizens prepare for something that could get pretty ugly...?
Unfortunately, no, soosan
March 31, 2007 - 19:16 ET by RJUnfortunately, no, soosan. IMO, the media is trapped in a two way bind. First, as liberals, they have to support groups that challenge America or Christianity. Second, and this can't be understated, they fear the reaction of islamic radicals to any kind of honest reporting.
Of course, they can't admit to any of that. ;^>
there will come a day...
March 31, 2007 - 19:26 ET by Pragmatic-ManThere will come a day when the MSM realizes that the Christians were the deterrent that kept them from Sharia Law. It was true during the crusades and it is true today. Let us not make any bones about this. The crusades were a reaction to militant islamist hostilities, just as the terror war today. AND, the apologist MSM will be the first to go when the Quran begins to dominate our laws. We only need to study the fall of the Byzantine empire, and the current conquest of Europe to see the oppression that awaits us. Wake up, wake up, wake up!
Part of their plan is to
March 31, 2007 - 20:05 ET by motherbeltPart of their plan is to constantly push boundaries, i.e. the flying imams, in the direction of their objective. - RJ
That's right, RJ, and we are helping them to do it, with our idiotic political correctness and multiculturalism. It's funny, but when Americans go to Muslim countries, we're supposed to conform to their culture (Our soldiers had to go onto a ship to celebrate Thanksgiving, and they cannot wear crosses or crucifixes, so as not to offend Saudi Arabia, for heaven's sake!)
And when Muslims come here to America, well, we're supposed to conform to their culture.
They won't have to conquer us to put us under Sharia law. We will end up doing it ourselves by abdication.
France is the template
March 31, 2007 - 20:13 ET by RJ"They won't have to conquer us to put us under Sharia Law. We will end up doing it ourselves by abdication"
And France is the template...with England not far behind.
Last week Hannity had an expo
April 1, 2007 - 03:32 ET by BW222Last week Hannity had an expose on Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney with the vendetta against law enforcement officers (who alonng with Alberto Gonzales and George Bush) is a tool (fool?) of the Mexican government.
If Hannity would only can the "Two-on-Two" or move it to the end of the show. FNC seems to have an obcession with advancing the careers of liberal women.
Labrador Airways
March 31, 2007 - 19:17 ET by Pragmatic-ManIdea: someone needs to start up an airline carrier that serves only booze and baloney sandwiches, and every plane has its own yellow lab that insists everyone pet him (complete with slobbering tongue and clumsy tail). Now that would be an airline I would not be afraid to fly with!
You hit it right on the hea
March 31, 2007 - 20:46 ET by radiofitz34You hit it right on the head motherbelt when you mentioned politcal correctness. This PC stuff has done nothing more than make us wimpy.
It's just downright silly how people react anymore. Remember at Sea-Tac airport when they took Christmas trees down? Then put them back up after the Jewish delegation complained that this was not the answer.
This PC crap is just rampant in the school systems today. No dodge ball? I'd like to know who or what decided this political correctness. It has no leader. It has no formal "constitution" yet it continues like an albatross. Ruining people's lives. Folks getting fired for PC reasons.
These Imams know how to feed off this riduculous PC stuff.
Here's the roll call vote
March 31, 2007 - 20:48 ET by pagarRoll Call on HR 200. Take a look at the 121 Democrats who voted to allow C.A.I.R.
to sue basicly anyone
http://clerk.house.g...
People who care about America might want to ask these Democrats why they want to allow such lawsuits.
Man, the socialists, er, Cong
April 1, 2007 - 11:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberMan, the socialists, er, Congressional Progressive Caucus better get their poop together. Eight of theirs broke rank and voted for this bill.
Cohen(TEN), Defazio(CT), Hall(NY), Jones(OH), Lantos(CA), Solis(CA), Thompson(MS), and even nutjob Henry Waxman weren't dumb enough to vote against it.
While I am not a big fan of
April 1, 2007 - 14:36 ET by dahliatraversWhile I am not a big fan of Congress' practice of tacking unrelated items onto bills, sponsors of this bill need to publicize the list of those who voted against it under the heading: "Look who's supports hijacking!"
Airlines
April 1, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Emma GrumpWhere can I buy a ticket???
Socks, Scissors, Paper
March 31, 2007 - 23:12 ET by acumenLooking forward to Hannity's show. Meanwhile speaking of FOX and national security stories:
Tonight's FOX News Special Report, "Socks, Scissors, Paper - the Sandy Berger Caper was extremely informative and put together quite well. So well, I finally figured out why some Republicans appear to be so weak-spined on too many occasions (it takes me a while longer than most).
In tonights Fox Special the Bush's Justice Department had Clinton's national SECURITY advisor nailed for stealing classified documents. As a side note, Clinton's explanation in the show was (paraphraing); If you saw Sandy's office, you would understand how Sandy could mix up a few documents. What? President Clinton is telling us the person he selected to provide security for all Americans , Clinton's choice for national SECURITY advisor, is an incompetent slob? Back to the story.
Like probably many others, I wondered at the end of the show why Bush's Justice let Berger off with merely a slap on the wrist for stealing, destroying classified documents and ultimately covering up his felony crimes for doing all the above?
Then I played out the likely scenario in my mind if Justice had to decided to really pursue Berger. Beger gets perp-walked. Close friends in media are outraged. What to make of this? VRWC politics of personal destruction. Could not possibly be anything more - why, I've had coctails with Berger, yada, yada.
Clinton political machine goes to defom 5 - Threat level High. Clinton and trusted devotees stumble over each other to find demediacrats to get message out. Insert your own Bush-is-dictator-Berger-is-hapless-victim media blitzkreig here. The scandal now becomes the Bush Administration and Justice trying to blame 911 on the Clinton administration. Berger gets lost in the shuffle.
Then it occurred - isn't this always the case? If Justice goes after ANY Democrat, the Demediacrats (MSM) turn it into a Republican scandal (think William Jefferson).
Ah-ha! No wonder Republicans are hesitant to stir the bee hive. Don't poke the sleeping Jack-ass. What we observe as spinelessness by Republicans is in fact prudence. Prudence that appears to be applied in most similar circumstance to ward off the Dem media activists Russert, Matthews and too many others to mention. But you know who you are.
In the Berger case, the only thing probably stolen was 'we blew it' or 'we sure lucked out in the mellinium plot' papers. Perhaps something more sinister. It wouldn't surprise me if Clinton didn't tell Bush what it was and Bush decided it wasn't significant enough to affect national security.
I ultimately decided Bush instructed Justice that a time of war was no time to be pointing fingers at former Administrations. We were at war with terrorists and should remain united. Soon after 911 was not the time for a national scandal involving a former national SECURITY advisor. Questionable but noble gesture.
But more importantly, it wasn't significant enough to warrant another full assault by the Clinton war machine and an eager accomplice press as played out in the earlier scenario. The last thing Bush wanted at that critical time was the heat to be transferred through the media from Berger to himself.
Now that we have diagnosed the supposedly Republican-missing-spine ailmant properly as media allergy we need to find the cure. NB is a fine treatment, but not a cure. We need to take them back, one institution at a time. Pssst, rich billionaires......I hear the Tribune Co is looking for a buyer.
Would it be possible to bring
April 1, 2007 - 13:40 ET by James2306Would it be possible to bring him up on related charges now. There are so many laws on the books that he must have broken a bunch of them with that one action this would not be double jeapordy if he was charged under a seperate code for the same act prosecuters have done this many times in the recent past just look at the officers charged in the Rodney King case aquittal then fresh charges on civil rights violations for the same actions.
The hottest places in hell are oft reserved for those who in times of moral crisis remain neutral
It always sits in the back of
April 1, 2007 - 15:32 ET by midnight cowboyIt always sits in the back of my mind, remember team Clinton downloading raw FBI files on republicans, files which inlclude any speck of dirt that might be in a person's background? This is about the same time when republicans started turning into jellyfish.
turning the tables
April 1, 2007 - 07:00 ET by DontabThe Imans are suing the passengers who turned them in, why don't all the other passengers start a class action suit against the Imans willful disruption of a airflight. Its time we went on the offensive and fought back hard and often.
defense for the air passengers being attacked by the imams
April 1, 2007 - 08:22 ET by RJGood news regarding the air passengers being attacked by the imams: It's my understanding that several groups have offered free legal defense to the airline passengers.
Maybe they'll take the next step and counter-sue the bastards.
Imans
April 1, 2007 - 08:23 ET by canuckActually the action needed is a federal RICO action vs the imans and CAIR and their attorneys. Their activities need to be criminalized with a message sent to all those who attempt this BS.
Likewise, we need an addendum on a naturalization bill that allows us to remove citizenship from various bad actors who have arrived here to find they aren't running the place.
Deportation procedures to follow.
Regarding the Flying Imams.
April 1, 2007 - 14:21 ET by dahliatraversRegarding the Flying Imams.
I'm the first to become indignant about discrimination, etc. But this incident is in a different realm completely. It's clear from descriptions of what the Imams did before and during that flight that they were attempting to either be provocative or to make everyone on the flight think that they were about to hijack the plane. This business of praying in the concourse right before the flight, for example. The requirement of Muslims to pray five times daily is suspended when a Muslim travels. So they were not praying out of a religious requirement.
It is grotesque that the Imams are suing the airline and their fellow passengers. THEY BEHAVED LIKE HIJACKERS. You don't get to sue someone for speaking the truth or ensuring security.
When this incident was first reported, I couldn't understand why we didn't arrest them on the spot. There were and are ample grounds on which to charge them. The statute of limitations is not up. If a federal prosecutor agrees with Canuck that RICO might be another charge, by all means, issue that warrant.
(One item missing from this otherwise excellent description of the Imams' conduct is that they insisted on switching their seats to those at or near the emergency exits of the plane.)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/30/150541.shtml
getting sick of islam
April 1, 2007 - 14:32 ET by Pragmatic-ManEvery day I wake up, islam is in the news... Iraq, Afghanistan, CAIR, imams, Indonesia, Australian clerics, London madrassas, train bombings, Hamas, French muslim riots, Canadian sharia law appeasers, Burqas in drivers license photos, Darfur, Somalia, Iran, Pelosi in Syria, Chechen rebels. It is almost a relief to hear a news story about Chavez, for being a nutcase socialist, at least he is not chanting allah akbar and waving an AK-47.
So let me be the first to say that I am getting sick of islam. Yes, it will get to a point when the public is ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
prag Our country is under attack on four fronts---
April 1, 2007 - 14:54 ET by misterbillOur country is under attack on four fronts---
1. Anti Bush MSM
2. Illegal immigrants (esp Mexico)burdening our budget-planning for Aztlan
3. Islamic extremists - testing the water for future attacks, also penetrating the American fabric with Fifth columnists
4.The ACLU -destroying the Judeo-Christian foundation of our Republic
And the majority of our Congressmen and Senators are sitting on their hands and sometimes abetting. I live in Ga and I think most of our elected officails are waging the good fight. We still have many who support the problems that will destroy our Republic. I am not trying to be partisan, but when I check the votes and the records, Democrats are the worst offenders.
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
dontab===
April 1, 2007 - 13:58 ET by misterbillThat is exactly what needs to be done. Also someone needs to bring suit against the ACLU for some of their efforts. Things they pursue in the name of liberty seem to support breaking laws e.g. NAMBLA. Disgusting animals!!!
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
What if........
April 1, 2007 - 08:30 ET by OldSailor88What if this were part of a bigger picture? The Imams were put on the plane and intentionally acted "suspicious". This way they find out what the tolerance level of the passengers and the airline may be. Once the tolerance level is discovered, they begin a class action suit for "discrimination" that will use our own judicial system to lower the bar on the tolerance level. Thus, it will be easier in the future for Islamic radicals to board and successfully fly in an aircraft in the U.S.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm..........
oldswabbie88
April 1, 2007 - 14:02 ET by misterbillYou have a problem (LOL) you think like I do. The whole thing smells of the next airplane takeover to me. With the current security in the airline industry, it will take a much larger, better armed (canes, crutches) group to take over a plane.
Hey, F*** everyone's supposed "civil rights". I want to fly and stay alive. Now there will be 8 zillion a$$ho$$ libs aying "OOOH you are giving tp your freedom and your rights!". To which , I reply---yawwwn!
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
where is a good conspiracist when you really need him
April 1, 2007 - 14:13 ET by Pragmatic-ManConcerning the imams, where is a good conspiracist when you really need them?! I wish the moonbat truthers would climb up on this one and jab it with their conspiracy theories. But they won't, it does not serve their "hate my own country-hate myself" agenda.
he'd be here but the imams we
April 1, 2007 - 14:21 ET by botghe'd be here but the imams were'nt of mexican descent
misterbill, oldsalior88
April 1, 2007 - 14:20 ET by bassndudeI see this also, seems to me it was a test, and only a test. Call me a hardnose or whatever, but the way I see it is, if everyone, that is US citizens, that got on an airplane, was required to be armed with one or more firearms, there would be no more hijackings. And also fewer hijackers. Are we not going about securing flights backwards?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude
April 1, 2007 - 14:35 ET by misterbillI have no problem with that requirement (should it be a requirement.)
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
misterbill, think I will writ
April 1, 2007 - 14:40 ET by bassndudemisterbill, think I will write Sen. Tom Cole and propose this. He might see my reasoning....lol
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass---check this out---
April 1, 2007 - 14:43 ET by misterbillBass check this out---------------
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott
Perhaps start a group of re
April 2, 2007 - 09:54 ET by steviep831Perhaps start a group of reguar travelers who also have concealed gun licenses and let them travel armed. The traveler must be a natural born citizen and/or must go through extensive background checks, etc. I think Americans would be jumping for an opportunity to serve and protect their fellow travelers in this manner. Sign me up.
special treatment
April 1, 2007 - 14:38 ET by misterbillIf a Jewish cabbie were to refuse someone a ride because the person was a Christian nun or minister, he would be hung out to dry. His shield would be removed. His livelihood would be in jeopardy. But a Muslim?? What the hell is happening?? Is it OK for one group to practice religious discrimination and not another?
Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?
Sir Walter Scott