HairpinandArrow_blog: July 2005

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Duty Against Agression

"What would happen if all these neutral nations...were with one spontaneous impulse to do their duty...and were to stand together...against aggression and wrong? At present their plight is lamentable; and it will become much worse. They bow humbly and in fear to...threats of violence. ... Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear...the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely. It will spread to the South; it will spread to the North. There is no chance of a speedy end except through united action." --Sir Winston Churchill

Note: Sir Winston was wise and awe inspiring. His quotes, visual, timeless and always poignant.
***
It is impossible to fight a war without heroism. Yet, can you name a single American military hero acclaimed by the media for an act of courage in combat? Such courage is systematically ignored by most of the media. If American troops kill 100 terrorist in battle and lose 10 of their own men doing it, the only headline will be: "Ten more Americans Killed in Iraq Today."Thomas Sowell, 1950's USMC
***
"There are those who believe that men in uniform are somehow associated with starting wars. That's like saying policemen cause crime. ... Keeping the peace is the most important problem we face. And I believe that because young men...are willing to put on the uniform and endure the rigors of military life, peace is more secure." --Ronald Reagan
***

Source: Sgt Grit, July 30, 2005

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Second Chance For You To Learn About Hamas and Yale's Avalon Project, But You Won't


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

Copy and paste the above address into your URL address bar. Read the document. The covenant ("binding agreement by two or more parties") you will read is not an example of freedom of expression by a US citizen. It is an inflammatory, seditious and terroristic document written--or at least circulated--in OUR COUNTRY by enemies of our country on a web site sponsored by Yale University, an institution of higher learning in the good old US of A.

I've written about this before to little or no outrage or even response. No one seems irate about the fact that one of our venerable universities allows this type of "project." Good God! Let's not even attempt to thwart an evil murdererous organization from bolstering its very numbers from amongst our university student population. Look at the Timeline below. Could Yale have hampered the recruiting effort by not allowing this project?

If Hamas militarized in 1987, published this covenant in 1988 and bombed its first bus in Jerusalem in 1995, does anyone at Yale feel any responsibility? Well, we didn't stop them, we didn't disapprove of their covenant, we probably paid for their education (including housing), and after all this time, HAMAS is still a thriving murdering terrorist organization. A terrorist organization that has had its success assisted by some perfect idiots at Yale University School of Law.
photo credit: Rotten.com
***
Some Statistics For The Profilers To Consider
47% of the suicide bombers have an academic education and an additional 29% have at least a high school education.
83% of the suicide bombers are single.
64% of the suicide bombers are between the ages 18-23; most of the rest are under 30.
68% of the suicide bombers have come from the Gaza Strip.
According to Islamic Tradition "he who gives his life for an Islamic cause will have his sins forgiven and a place reserved in paradise."
Source: www.terroranalysis.com/story/39122.html
***
Timeline to April, 2004
1987 Hamas militarizes during the first Intifada.

18 Aug 1988 Yale Avalon Project Covenant published on Yale Law School's Website

21 Aug 1995 Bus bombed in Jerusalem, kills six, injures 100. Hamas claims responsibility.

5 Jan 1996 In Gaza, Israeli intelligence agents blow off the head of terrorist Yahya Ayyash, The Engineer, with a remote control cellphone bomb using plastic explosives. Ayyash purportedly ran the Hamas military wing, and was a proficient bomb maker; 100,000 people attended his funeral.

20 Jan 1996 Hamas boycotts the Palestinian elections that install Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestinian Authority, which it also rejects.

4 Mar 1996 Bombing at Tel Aviv shopping mall kills 20, injures 75. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.

25 Sep 1997 Hamas official Khaled Mashaal survives an assassination attempt in Amman, Jordan, after agents of the Israeli Mossad injected him with an unidentified chemical. Jordanian King Hussein intervened on his behalf, citing a 1994 peace treaty, and Israel was forced to supply the antidote for Mashaal and release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin from prison in exchange for the liberation of the two Israeli assassins.

4 Mar 2001 Suicide bomber kills three and injures 65 in Netanya, Israel. Hamas claims responsibility.

9 Aug 2001 Bombing at Jerusalem restaurant kills 15, injures 90. Hamas claims responsibility.

11 Sept 2001 Multiple plane hijack attacks kill thousands in New York, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania.

Dec 2001 U.S. freezes assets of U.S. Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation. Claims funds were being diverted to Hamas, among others.

2 Dec 2001 Suicide bombing of Israeli bus kills 15, injures 40. Hamas claims responsibility.

27 Mar 2002 Suicide bombing at Netanya restaurant kills 22, injures 140. Hamas claims responsibility.

21 Nov 2002 Suicide bombing in Jerusalem kills 11, injures 50. Hamas claims responsibility.

21 Nov 2002 Two suicide bombing kill a total of 13 people, injure 55. Hamas claims responsibility.

10 Sep 2003 Chief Hamas press spokesman Mahmood al-Zahar survives an Israeli assassination attempt. Israeli F-16s dropped a several-ton bomb on his house in Rimal, in Gaza City, killing his son Khaled and his bodyguard and injuring him, his wife, and one of their daughters.

21 Mar 2004 Israeli gunships assassinate Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin during a daybreak attack in Gaza City.

17 Apr 2004 Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi is killed by an Israeli missle strike as he rode in his car in Gaza City. His son and his bodyguard were also killed in the car, along with several pedestrians.

More to follow
Source: Rotten.com, except for inclusion of Yale Avalon Project date


***
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last." --Winston Churchill

Saturday, July 23, 2005

What If We Reap What We've Sown... Or What Happens When We Decide Children Don't Need Dads?

What if we, with all good intentions, sent our society into a downward spiral the day we decided that women and their children could get along just fine without a husband and/or father in the household? What if we began this to elevate the self images of our girls and women, but in the process demoted our men and boys to the status of irritating, unnecessary evils?

What if women began to treat men like "boy toys" while trying to attain sexual equality? Or better yet, what would happen if women decided to marry other women because men have become unnecessary and irrelevant? What if the women were the only ones to influence their male children's self-identity in their formative years?

What if the messages that our male and female children received were solely nuturing or abandonment messages for an entire generation? What if we exhibited only disdain for bumbling, stupid, absent, men-do-leave dads?

What if the absence of "hunters" in our children's lives left them without the tools necessary for self-protection? What if we outlawed guns--real and toy--and our children became the only adults in the world to be afraid to kill rather than be killed in a war? Would a nation of only "gatherers" be able to survive?

What kind of self-respect would a young man have if he could no longer be the primary bread winner, protect his family, be loved by those he loves for his innate, natural qualities of strength and power? Where would we be headed if we ignored the qualities each member of the family has naturally been given and didn't honor them for those qualities?

What would happen to a man who grew up trained only to defer to the women (after all they were the power figures) in his life?

Would we see men devalued? Would we see selfish "lifetime students" raising, but not really, their children to feel less important than ___________ to the two people who brought them into the world. (You fill in the blank with career, higher education, service to others, an affair with another man or women, nights out with friends, drugs, or whatever.) Would we reap just what we have so self-centeredly sown?

Would we raise a nation of cowards? Would we raise nation afraid but incapable of caring for itself? Would we raise a nation doomed to failure without the necessary balance we owed our children the day we conceived them? Would we?

Friday, July 22, 2005

London Mayor Attacks Western Policies

It must be major guilt for my quoting in a favorable light London's Mayor "Red" Ken Livingstone in an earlier post. It's clear that I must try to right my wrong and post his latest public statement. It shows him to be the epitome of the type of reasoning that got us to this God-awful place: world wide terrorists living (and murdering indescriminately) among the civilized, the liberals amongst us attacking the victims of terrorists: those who just can't stand that the rest of the world has moved on from the 7th Century. Our punishment for progressing past ancient times? Well, from the Islmofacists, death to anyone and everyone who will not live as this insane sect wishes the world to live. The liberals aren't that different. They aid the enemy with every word they say and every hateful, and seditious action they take.

Make no mistake. Islamofacists want us all dead. The sooner, the better. But they will wait. They do not want to get along with the Western world, and they will not be appeased until all signs of Western life are gone forever. That means conservative life, liberal life, labour party life. All non-islamo extremist life. Gone. All non islamofacist jihadists. Dead. That is their wish and that is their plan.

This, as I've said before, is World War III. It started without your knowledge and is progressing without your consent. And if our countries do not begin defending themselves without worrying about offending our enemy, we will surely perish. This month, London was attacked twice. Now Eqypt's had another horrific attack: 36 dead and hundreds injured today. Their crime? Sending an ambassador to Iraq. Supporting the new democratic Iraqi government was a crime deserving death and injury of innocent Egyptians, by murderous Islmofacist standards.

Read the words of Red Ken Livingstone. But remember this which I believe is from former Supreme Court Justice Jackson, "The Constitution does not have a suicide clause."
***
London Mayor Attacks Israeli, Western Policies
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
July 21, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Less than two weeks after Muslim terrorists killed more than 50 people in London, the city's left-wing mayor has caused a storm by blaming terrorism on decades of Western Mideast policies, and he appeared to express an understanding for Palestinian suicide bombers.

If Britons had shared Palestinians' experiences, they too might have resorted to suicide attacks, Ken Livingstone told BBC radio.

"If you have been under foreign occupation, and denied the right to vote, denied the right to run your own affairs, often denied the right to work, for three generations, I suspect if it had happened here in England, we would have produced a lot of suicide bombers ourselves," he said.

Livingstone also stated: "I do not support any suicide bombing. I don't actually ever recall supporting an act of violence."

"I don't just denounce the suicide bombers. I denounce those governments that use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy - as we've occasionally seen with the Israeli government bombing areas from which a terrorist group will have come."

A maverick member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party and an opponent of the Iraq war, the mayor was critical of Guantanamo Bay and what he called Western "double standards."

And he argued that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was a creation of the Americans.

Asked what he blamed for the rise of Islamist radicalism and terrorism, Livingstone replied: "I think we have just had 80 years of Western intervention in predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil. We have propped up unsavory governments, we have overthrown ones that we didn't consider sympathetic.

"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs and sent him off to kill the Russians in Afghanistan and they didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that, he might turn on his creators."

At an earlier London press conference, Livingstone also appeared to voice understanding for Palestinian suicide terrorists.

He accused Israel of "horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity," saying it had "indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades."

"Given that the Palestinians don't have jet planes, don't have tanks, they only have their bodies to use as weapons," he was quoted as saying. In that unfair balance, that is what people use."

Livingstone also said he did not distinguish between members of the Likud - one of Israel's two largest political parties - and the Hamas terrorist group.

"The Likud and Hamas members are two sides of the same coin," he charged. "They need each other in order to attract support.""

Livingstone called the press conference amid reports that a controversial Egyptian cleric, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, would be visiting Britain next month at his invitation.

Livingstone, who has backed Qaradawi in the past, again defended the cleric, describing him as a "leading progressive Muslim" who had condemned the London bombings.

Qaradawi has voiced support for Palestinian suicide bombings, calling them justifiable "martyrdom operations." The British government is currently looking at ways to deport, or block entry to, clerics who preach violence.

Britain's main Islamic umbrella body, the Muslim Council of Britain, accused conservative media of trying to smear the reputation of figures like Qaradawi and Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan, in a bid to prevent them from visiting the country.

Both men have been prevented in the past from entering the United States.

Livingstone's comments drew strong and widespread reactions, and at least one Conservative politician, Ann Widdecombe, called for his resignation.

"It is outrageous that the same mayor who rightfully condemned the suicide bombing in London as 'perverted faith,' defends those who, under the same extremist banner, kill Israelis," Israel's ambassador to Britain Zvi Heifetz said in a statement.

"To equate a mainstream political party in a democratic state, Israel, with a group that has been labeled terrorist by the European Union, and which advocates the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic state, is simply beyond comprehension," said American Jewish Committee executive director David Harris.

He said Livingstone seemed "incapable of removing his ideological blinders and seeing things as they are, not as he fancies them to be."

Blair's spokesman said at a Downing Street press briefing that the prime minister and the mayor "have different views of the world and that remains the case.

Religion of Peace One Month Before London Murders

ONE MONTH BEFORE MURDER The London bombers Shehzad Tanweer, 22, circled front, and Mohammed Sidique Khan, 30, circled making a V sign, are photographed on a team-building exercise in Wales on June 4, a month before their suicide attacks. Also in the raft is Naveed Fiaz, 29, who is being questioned by bombing investigators, and a 32-year-old volunteer at an Islamic bookshop in Leeds
(Photo Credit: MIRRORPIX)

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Get The Bible And Swear Him In, Please!

Here's just what I needed to hear from John G Roberts in order to support him as a candidate for our Supreme Court. His statement below and satisfactory results from the requisite background check is all I need to know. Swear him in, please!
***
When asked about his judicial philosophy by Chuck Schumer, Roberts responded:

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.

When asked about "judicial activism" Roberts responded:

to refer to a judge who has transgressed the limited role assigned to the judicial branch under the Constitution, and has either undertaken to exercise the legislative function by imposing his own personal policy preferences under the guise of legal interpretation, or has arrogated to himself the executive function by imposing his policy views on how the law should be administered.

Photo Credit: UP/Charles Dharapak, www.SFGate.com, July 20, 2005

Interview: John Gibson Hating America

This is taken word for word from an interview on Fox News Channel's website. I'm becoming a real John Gibson fan. I just like to keep things I think are important to remember here in the blog sometimes. Gibson's recently written a really good My Word piece about the Wilson/Plame/Rove political battering ram that the liberals are using for summer fun this year. Some of their convoluted efforts to become irate over things that are completely false are actually amusing. If you don't have your humor, living is a lot less fun!

You might think this interview should be in archives somewhere. I agree with John. You have to remember the details of what happened when to understand what's going on in the present. We might be getting a tiny bit of a PR break after the London bombings, but we still are hated around the globe for the reasons Gibson reports here. Hope you mull this over for days to come.

***
Hating America: The New World Sport

FOXFan.com: What sparked the idea for this book?
Gibson: The very first thing I read right after 9/11 — I carried the news clipping around in my wallet for a year — was a French intellectual who thought that most Europeans would be startled to learn that Americans would not regard the 9/11 attacks as a parenthesis, as something that happened set aside from everything else; that the Americans were going to take this very seriously and they were going to react and it was going to be ugly. That the Europeans a) wouldn’t expect that, and b) wouldn’t accept it, I thought was shocking. That stuck in the back of my mind, and I carried the thing around and I wrote some “My Word’s” about it. In the run-up to the war in the summer of ‘02, I started watching the foreign papers much more closely. I saw that it was not only the venom about Americans that was shocking, but how little most of these commentators understood about America. They claim to understand us because they’ve been here, but they don’t at all. They especially don’t know anything about that big chunk of land between New York and L.A., so they’re completely misinformed.

FOXFan.com: Do you see any justification for this anti-Americanism?
Gibson: There are very good reasons it’s happening. The first one is, and I quote this guy who is a German newspaper editor (and I don’t know if this is his idea or he borrowed it from somebody else), “the first rule of alliances is they fall apart when they succeed.” So the Western alliance, which was Western Europe, the United States, and large parts of the Arab world, was an alliance against the Soviet Union. Once there was no Soviet Union there was no reason for these countries to be quite so closely allied with the United States. At the same time, Western Europe in particular began to fear the United States more because here’s this huge monster military power (that was built up to protect them) that is now looking around for something to do. That’s their attitude. So jealousy, envy, and fear come into play, and also the simple equation that Germany can engage in anti-Americanism because they don’t need Americans to protect them from the Russians anymore. And they view this as a period where they can shake off World War II.

FOXFan.com: You lay out the case the late FBI counterterror leader John O’Neill made that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected. If this was more widely publicized, would the foreign press understand American policy better?
Gibson: I think you saw recently in the testimony of Richard Clarke why nobody is paying attention to what John O’Neill had to say. John O’Neill was essentially run out of the FBI and run out of the counterterrorism community mainly because he believed there was an Iraq – Al Qaeda connection. This was not the dominant thinking of the people in charge. Richard Clarke demonstrated this in his testimony. He said going after Iraq was a distraction. The people who were saying the things that John O’Neill said, which I repeat in this book, were clearly in the minority in the intelligence community. They were being shut down. Their careers were on the line for believing these sorts of things. The people who create the intelligence community opinion have made it a matter of dogma. In other words, either you believe that Iraq and Al Qaeda aren’t connected, or you get out. And I think this is worth looking at again. When it comes to the security of Americans, the president has an obligation to look at things that are possible — things that are probable. He’s obliged to make a case against a potential enemy based on a lower standard of proof, not a higher one. So when you look at Iraq, you don’t say "we have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt." You say, "if it’s even possible that this stuff is true, we have to act." Too many American lives are at stake.

FOXFan.com: You spend a lot of time describing Ground Zero. Do you think what happened there is too difficult for people to comprehend?
Gibson: It recedes from memory for people. If you aren’t reminded of it everyday like I am, people wonder why we are going to war. People are talking about this war as if 9/11 was not a cause. I think it was. People act as if we just picked Iraq, like it was an elective course in college. I’m trying to make the case that no, they are connected, at least there is a reasonable reason to think they are connected. If you are the President, you are obligated to do something about it. You are obligated to act for the safety of the American people.

FOXFan.com: How dangerous is what is being printed about America?
Gibson: The fact of the matter is that we are going through a rough time and it might last a while. The world still has the same fears about us. Nobody on the planet, except guerrillas, can act militarily except the United States. So everybody is worried about us. They are feeling pretty good right now because Americans are getting a bloody nose in Iraq. But there is still long-term worry. There is nobody to challenge the United States. The basic resentment and hatred of the United States comes from that fact. We are a virtually unstoppable force on the planet and they hate that. Look, nobody ever puts it in these terms, but if the U.S. military wanted to take Paris tomorrow, they’d take Paris. We don’t want it. We’re not going to do that, but there’s nobody to stop us. When the European elites and the intellectual class and policy planners look at that, it worries them. The Europeans in particular have spent all their money on their comfort society — full employment, medical plans. They don’t have militaries. They don’t spend their money on that. At the point where we were debating the war, for a moment Europe thought, "if we had airlift capability we could at least get in on the debate." But they had nothing, so nobody was going to pay any attention to what they had to say. And if they weren’t going to be paid attention to, their position had to be to oppose it.

Looking at this stuff is useful to help make you understand why we’re getting grief from these people who are supposed to be our friends. The answer is, they’re not our friends. When John Kerry says we have to get our allies involved in Iraq, I’m not really sure he believes that. Because in order to get them to help us, you’d have to make concessions that constrain us. I think America has to be free to act in its own defense. If you have the French constraining you, then you are defeating the purpose of acting to defend yourself. I think its dangerous to want friends in this regard. They are only going to constrain how you can act in order to suit their own interests.
***
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116991,00.html. FNC, MY Word, by John Gibson. John Gibson hosts "The Big Story With John Gibson," a one-hour program that provides in-depth coverage and analysis of the day's top stories

Friday, July 15, 2005

Sorry State of Islam


Armstrong Williams wrote a terrific piece today about the real source of the current sad state of Islam. He's got some very interesting points about the reasons for the likely self-destruction of the religion. Of course his article is more comprehensive than what I've used, so go to www.Newsmax.com, look for the archived article The Sorry State of Islam by Armstrong Williams and read the whole thing.

"Over the past 200 years, the Muslim world has fallen far behind the Western world in terms of military power, science and economic prosperity. In a very real way, the Muslim world has had to confront the reality of having lost a war – of having witnessed the slow recession of its culture.

Of course the root cause of the Muslim world's erosion over the past 200 years is not Western culture. The Muslim world's tendency toward a monolithic, totalitarian model of leadership has stifled economic development, thrusting much of the Muslim world into poverty.

What's particularly disgusting and disgraceful is the way that Muslim leaders repudiate America and Europe, but cannot bring themselves to find fault in the Muslim dictatorships that are responsible for so much of Muslims' poverty and death. Instead, the spokesmen for Islamic extremism refer to their terror attacks as part of a holy war. This rhetoric gives young people the feeling that they are liberating their homelands (they are not).
"
***
Source: Newsmax.com, The Sorry State of Islam by Armstrong Williams 7/15/05.

Hooray For Scotland Yard

Ok. Scotland Yard has arrested in Egypt the ringleader of the terrorist gang responsible for the 7-7 attacks on London. It's been 8 days and they know - and have announced - "who done it" and how it was done. Magdy el-Nashar, an Egyptian, naturally a one-time organic-chemistry student at NC State in Raleigh, USA, has been arrested by Scotland Yard, not in London, but in Cairo!

Now, I ask you: did the Londoners him-and-haw and appoint a commission to see if they themselves were to blame in any way for the attack on their own country? It took a mere 8 days to name the culprits and to go get the ringleader abroad.

How does this compare with our public self-flagelation, sympathy for the terrorist bombers, or the inept non-capture of the ringleaders of the attack on our countrymen four years ago? There's no excuse for us not being as effective as Scotland Yard. Ask yourself, why? Are our own policies getting in the way of progress? Are our national politics defeating our efforts to win the war against terror? Do we not have the intestinal fortitude to say what we mean and mean what we say? Do we share too much information TOO SOON with the media? Do we tip off the perpetrators of evil deeds, in effect, telling them, "We're going to look for you in Egypt or whereever in plenty of time for the perp to buy a ticket to Saudi Arabia instead? The only people who seem to not be tipped off are our related federal defense agencies.

Our troops deserve a pure unadulterated effort from us at home--our police, our elected officials, our citizens including members of the media, our government agencies--to eliminate the terrorists who create terror wherever they go. That's JOB ONE. Our President and his cabinet need to get onto the same page and say so. JOB ONE is the capture the ringleaders of our terrorist enemies. No crapola about maybe hurting their feelings. Our troops have their lives on the line and if we aren't even willing to risk our public image of being less than politically correct by giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt ahead of everyone else, do we deserve their precious sacrifices?

ALL US CITIZENS are in this TOGETHER! How can we possibly offer to protect anyone else if we REFUSE TO DO BETTER protecting ourselves on our own land? Shooting yourself in the foot has never been a really good offensive tactic.

Hey, here's an idea. If you see something suspicious, why not report it to Scotland Yard? You can click through to them at the link below or in the Links and Essentials column at the right.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

UK Muslim Leader Barred From US

Dr Zaki Badawi joined other faith leaders in condemning the London bombings

British Muslim leader Sheikh Dr Zaki Badawi has said he has been refused entry to the US without explanation. The head of the Muslim College said he flew from London to New York to give a lecture at the Chautauqua Institution in New York but was turned back.

Dr Badawi said he was detained for six hours on Wednesday and that immigration staff were "very embarrassed". US Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had information indicating Dr Badawi was "inadmissible". Spokeswoman Janet Rapaport said that when problems arose at JFK airport, Dr Badawi voluntarily withdrew his application to enter the country and returned home. "We cannot disclose the information which led to the application being inadmissible because of privacy rules," she added.

Religion lecture
Dr Badawi, who is also a leader of the Council of Mosques and Imams, had been due to give a talk entitled The Law and Religion in Society. Mike Sullivan, of the Chautauqua Institution, said all he knew was that Dr Badawi was back in London.
"We have no explanation as to why this happened," he said.

Dr Badawi appeared with fellow British faith leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Sunday to deliver a joint statement condemning last week's "evil terrorist" attacks on London. He most recently visited the US in 2003 - in the same year he was a guest of the Queen at a state banquet for US President George Bush.

Anything They Say In English Doesn't Count

"Anything they say in English doesn't count," said a caller to Michael Savage's Savage Nation last evening. At first thought, it seemed a quip--too offhanded. But I remembered instances where I have heard the polite English first and then, when the language turned to Iraqi, or Arabic, or Pakistani, or whatever...then...the real conversation began. Animated, passionate, and collusive conversation took place. The caller continued by saying that, in English, Muslims lie. But when speaking to other Muslims in their native languages, they speak freely about any and everything. They do not believe Infidels understand them--it's a safe "code language."
***
Walking around the local park the other day for our daily constitutional, we passed familiar and unfamiliar faces, as usual. Some going the same direction as we, some coming from the other way. We rounded the curve at the waterfall at the end of the oval park and happened upon two Muslims--a suited man and a burkah-clad woman. They were standing closely, heads together, obviously not exercising, as were the rest of us at 9:30 AM on a weekday morning. They were speaking more or less quietly in an Middle Eastern language I wouldn't recognize. I looked at them and then away. Didn't want to stare--but they were so much out of context, they stood out like proverbial sore thumbs. We continued on our way, as did everyone else, but I made a mental note of them.

Here's what I do know about them by simple deductive reasoning. 1, 2, & 3) They were not at the park to exercise, enjoy the view (they weren't looking), or feed the mallards. 4) They were engrossed in a serious conversation and were exchanging information, mostly from her to him. 5) They were not there to meet on a romantic rendezvous. 6)They were unconcerned about the people who were passing them by. 7) I had never seen them there before in the 6 years I've been covering that path. 8) They were both of similar ethnic backgrounds. 9) They were not wearing wedding rings. 10) They appeared to be discussing plans or arrangements.

I don't know whether this meeting was an activity I should have reported to authorities or not. I didn't report it because I didn't want to think I was being prejudicial against them. I held back. Didn't want to over react. They didn't do anything illegal that I could see, so I did nothing. I could think of a thousand scenerios, but had no reason to do anything about any of them. I do know that the behavior of these two was what was most suspicious. Their ethnicity and dress only made me not act. If they had been dressed in western clothing, I might have done things differently.

I do know the following day there was a horrific series of bombings in London. My mind went back to the two in the park the day before. I wondered how I would have felt if the bombings had been in our area instead of London. I also wondered if there was someone in London who, for the same reason, hadn't reported two people behaving just as suspiciously as the two in our local park. Could any lives have been saved?

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

So Tell Me, Why Do Your Reps NOT Want Your Plan?

There ought to be a law!



Source: Cartoon Credit, Bob Lang. Originally run on CNN.com.

Monday, July 11, 2005

Are Moderate Muslims Terrorists Too?

Fundamentals of Fundamentalist Islam.
"The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11th"... London on July 7th, Madrid on March 11th, Beslan (Chechnya) Sept 1-3...has raised many questions about Islam. Media commentators, "assert that true Islam is basically a peace loving religion".... Yet, some blame, "every Muslim for the horrific deeds in question as if all Islam is a terrorizing Islam. But, what's the truth? Is Islam a violent, terrorizing religion  . . . or not? The answer is not as simple as some have made it seem.... There are several interpretations of what constitutes true Islam in the Islamic world... " (Source 1)

***
Ever wonder if you are being unfair to the followers of Islam by generalizing too much about their beliefs and their culture? I did a little research and came up with lots of "soft"-on-Muslim pieces written by blatantly apologetic writers. (Can't, just can't, call them journalists. And, don't look at me, they shall continue to remain nameless here.) I also came up with what looks to me to be a pretty understandable, statistical piece about the state of Islam in the world in this decade.

It divides Muslims into 3 groups: Fundamentalist, Liberal, and Moderate and gives the reader an idea of how each might differ and where in the world each group is concentrated. The piece was updated last in 2002. I think if you can wrap your brain around the huge numbers involved, you might find the stats interesting. I know it's hard to compare the difference between 180 million and 360 million--after 1 million the mind sort of gets bogged down. But do the best you can with it. I also have some comments in a postscript at the end.

Disclaimer: This is my valiant attempt at balance. I must have eaten oysters or something yesterday and now my sense of indignation has lost its punch. Don't worry, it'll wear off before lunch. I already feel rising ire for including the piece in the blog and am sending myself for a "time out" to think over how the Muslims already have too many cheerleaders in the press... Not that there's anything wrong with that.
***

Fundamentals of Fundamentalist Islam.
"THE TRUTH IS that a significant constituency of  Muslims interpret Islam in a way that absolutely demands the kind of brutal violence we witnessed...in the name of fidelity to Islam and its Holy Places. We'll call this FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM. Fundamentalist Islam is very similar to the kind of Islam practiced from A.D. 622 to c. 1500."

"America, known to the Islamic world as a Christian nation, supports Israel 's occupation of the third holiest place in Islam (Jerusalem). America stands in the way of recovering other Islamic lands as well. And America is an obstacle to worldwide Islamic expansion. Therefore American people, military and civilians alike, are the enemy of Islam and may be killed as long as they stand in the way of Islam. This kind of Islam is not a fringe movement as it has often been described. The number of Muslims in this camp may be as many as 300 million.* Fundamentalist Muslims may be found in significant numbers in many Islamic countries.  The most notorious leaders of Fundamentalist Islam include Ayatollah Khomeini from Iran (deceased) and Osama bin Laden from Saudi Arabia."

"THE TRUTH IS that there is also a constituency of the Islamic world that absolutely rejects Fundamentalist Islam in favor of a kind of Islam influenced more by Western sensibilities about religious toleration. We'll call this LIBERAL ISLAM. A majority of American Muslims and European Muslims fall in this camp. They would never consent to the killing of civilians in order to advance Islam, and they would only rarely consent to violence for the indirect defense of Islamic interests. The size of this constituency is probably significantly smaller than Fundamentalist Islam. The number of Muslims that embrace Liberal Islam is probably less than 100 million worldwide."

"THE TRUTH IS that the largest constituency of the Islamic world has a  very complicated view of the use of violence to defend and advance Islam that permits warlike activity in some cases but not in others. We'll call this MODERATE ISLAM. Moderate Islam is probably split about the justness of the violent action perpetrated on America by Fundamentalist Islam in"... London, Madrid, "New York and Washington. Moderate Islam navigates between early Islam practiced by Mohammed and the Caliphs from A.D. 622 to the late middle ages and Liberal Islam influenced heavily by the ideas of Western modernity. There may be as many as 600 million Muslims in the camp of Moderate Islam."

"THEREFORE THE SUMMARY TRUTH IS...
1) A very large number of Fundamentalist Muslims in the world supports the kind of terrorism advanced upon..." the USA, London, Madrid and other countries.
2) Liberal Islam on the other hand abhors the attacks... in the name of Islam. Liberal Islam is composed mostly of American and European Muslims.
3) Between the above two extreme positions lies Moderate Islam, which represents the vast majority of Islam. Moderate Muslims are conflicted about the attack on America. Some Moderate Islamic teachings can be interpreted to support the attack and some Moderate Islamic teachings can be interpreted to reject the attack. Moderate Islam often finds itself in the position of tacitly approving the violent conduct of Fundamentalist Islam by failing to stand against it because it is Islam.
4) American expressions of Islam are probably composed of an equal number of Liberal Muslims and Moderate Muslims together with a very small number of Fundamentalist Muslims.
5) If only 5% of  Muslims in the world are Fundamentalist Muslims which support the... terrorist acts..., then America has 60 million Muslim enemies in the world.
6) If only 5% of Muslims in America are Fundamentalist Muslims which support the... terrorist acts..., then America has 300 thousand Muslim enemies living within its borders.
***
*The populations of the three groups of Muslims presented in this essay are not hard statistical numbers. They are very rough estimates designed to communicate two big ideas: the large numbers of Fundamentalist Muslims and the numbers of each group in relation to each other.

Update: In February 2002, however, Gallup Poll released the results of polling data that may yield a more scientific estimation of the size of Islamic Fundamentalism. About 10,000 adult Muslims in nine Islamic countries were polled. 15% of those polled said that the September 11th attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were morally justified. If this percentage is found to be representative of the entire Muslim worldwide population, then it could be argued that there is statistical evidence to support the claim that there may be as many as 180 million adult Fundamentalist Muslims who believe that the September 11th attacks were morally justified. If an equal number of Muslim children agree with their adult counterparts, then it could also be argued that there may be as many as 360 million Fundamentalist Muslims who believe that the September 11th attacks were morally justified."

***
Post Script: We're talking about a lot of folks here--an educated estimate of between 180 MILLION and 360 MILLION--who believe on some level that the attacks on September 11 were justified. And, probably more than 600 thousand Fundamentalists are living within our borders right now! I don't know about you, but these overwhelming statistics don't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about trusting the the future to any of the members of Islam.

The Liberal Muslims seem to be to only ones who do not like what the terrorists are doing. They are the smallest component of the group, and they are pretty quiet about their feelings. OK, so they wouldn't personally harm Infidels and they don't like that other Muslims do. In spite of that, they certainly have no motivation to rebuke the terrorists' acts at this point. What good can come to them and their families for speaking out against their majority? There are plenty of vivid examples of how the Fundamentalists "thank" those who do not honor them and their actions.

Ok. I feel better now. The oysters have certainly worn off and I'm not feeling guilty for overdoing the balance thing at all. Carry on.
***

Source 1: Essay By Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (Sep 24, 2001, rev.2-27-02) See link below.
Source 2: Total population of Muslims in the United States seems to be a hard number to pin down. For purposes of argument, the number 6 million was used for calculations in #6 above. Frequently estimates fluctuate between 5 and 8 million. Muslims seem to inflate the numbers so as to have greater political clout, according to all references Googled by me. I'm also citing 8,790,000 because I feel the need to justify the numbers above with a second and a muslim source. They say they are not overestimating but no one is actually sure. Estimates in the post, therefore, are very conservative. I did not quote Source 2 in the post--just used the data to validate the stats. Here's the location you can find source 2: http://www.iiie.net/Intl/PopStats.html

Saturday, July 09, 2005

For Without Victory, There Is No Survival

Victory in Spite of All Terror. It's not popular today to think of ourselves in terms of Victory over an enemy. We've gotten fat and lazy and we've become complacent about our freedoms. Brave men and women have given their lives throughout the generations so that our ideology--freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all--could prevail for the citizens of this and other democratic countries.

Today, freedom is interpreted to mean, "I'm able to say or do whatever I want and no one can stop me. If you try to stop me, you are restricting my constitutional rights of speech or expression."

The very idea that one can think in this manner is not possible in the culture of our enemies. Surprisingly, the spoiled, self-involved half of our population, would be the most surprised and the least capable of coping with the loss of freedom of speech and expression.

Imagine our women wearing burkahs (the dress of those living in slavery to the men in the fundamentalist Muslim culture)! More even than the spoiled little well-to-do USA "Barbies," I can't imagine a self-respecting black woman living in a free society today electing to voluntarily wear this dress--anymore than I can imagine them choosing to wear chains and shackles.

A disclaimer is called for at this point. I understand that Muslim women around the world elect to wear burkahs voluntarily. I also understand that there are Muslims who are not islamofacists in this country and around the world. The problem is that the islamofacist culture is the one demanding everyone's attention these days with bombings of innocents and with its relentless and insidious network that clearly tells the world that it desires to penetrate Westerrn culture and annihilate it. If non-violent Muslims do not distance themselves from these terrorists, and if they appear to live along side of terrorists without rebuking them, behaving and dressing in the same manner as the terrorists, they cannot expect the world to be able to tell them apart from the terrorists.

If this idea pushes your buttons, rein in your emotions for a minute and imagine a life without any choice! You will not select your husband yourself. You will not select your own religion. You do not have the choice of WHAT to study in school. You would not even have the opportunity to decide what to read, or when to wake and when to sleep. You would have no say in whether you had children or not and you will have no say in how they would be raised if you had them.

When you see pictures or video of Iraq, how many women are on the streets? The little boys are there at their fathers' side learning how to be islamofacists. But, the women and the little girls are invisible. Fundamentalist Muslim women do not disagree with their men. They do not vote. They do not go to school. They are sexually mutilated by their men and they are slaves to them. They do not pursue careers. They certainly do not go to work and have affairs with good-looking co-workers. And they couldn't live and dress more differently than the Desperate Housewives young women have the freedom to enjoy emulating today.

I can hardly imagine a young woman in Western culture who could adapt to this kind of bleak, masked life. Sympathetic women! Wake up! What's wrong with you? Islamofacist men who kill and behead those who disagree with them are not to be humored.

We have everything to lose if that culture takes root in Europe and the Americas. You need to think long and hard about the type of choices your daughters and sons would not be able to make in an islamofacist world. And then you'd better take Sir Winston Churchill's advice and adopt a position that will guarantee, "victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

***
"You ask, What is our policy? I will say; It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us. . . . That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory--victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
--Winston Churchill, first speech as prime minister to the House of Commons
May 13, 1940
***
I never cease to be amazed at the wisdom of those who have gone before. This Churchill quote is as meaningful today as it was in 1940. Its message is clear and true. The full Bill Kristol article is accessible via the link below. You know, the commentators and the bloggers all seem to have one thing in common with each other--and with Sir Winston as well. We are all resolute, deadly sober but resolute about what the future holds. We know where we have to go and we don't like it. We wish there were an alternative, but we know there's not.

***
Source: From the July 18, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard: The resoluteness of the Blair government and the British people could well mean that July 7 will turn out to be a setback for al Qaeda. by William Kristol
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41

Friday, July 08, 2005

PBS Has Its Pants In A Bunch

Click the link below to see how CommonDreams. org is all worked up over the big mahoff personnel changes that are going to take place at PBS. The President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, a Republican, has decided to give a less liberal bias to his PBS Network by adding some high profile Republicans to top jobs. Sounds like a great idea to me, but everyone seems to be afraid of the coming of the new conservatives. (Or afraid of fair and balanced broadcasting.)

Bill Moyers is particularly miffed and is throwing a male diva hissy fit. Bill O'Reilly (Fox News O'Reilly Factor for those of you living abroad forever) wrote a column about it today. The position changes have been covered by the NYT (check link below). (That's how you KNOW it's an important issue.) There's even an Action Box on the linked web page. It tells all who hate that pesky balance thing the tips they'll need so they can complain to the proper parties. (Everybody's an activist these days. I'm getting all nostaglic for the 60s.) I'm sure the PBSers are irate. They won't like the new stuff. Nobody likes change. Nobody likes to give up a piece of their "control" pie--or their comfort zone for that matter. Listen, can't you just hear the whining, "I Want My PBS."

Wait! This is a GOOD thing. Now maybe there will be a reason for the rest of us to check out PBS when there's nothing on TV. I'd almost written off a chance to recoup some entertainment in exchange for my tax dollars that have been supporting this liberal bastion. Options! We're gonna get options, too! For a hoot, check out O'Reilly's ideas for programming in his article.
***
Source 1: CommonDreams.org (link below)
Source 2: http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
Article Follows because it will be archived soon and you will need to be a premium member of Bill's website to access it. So here's the whole thing FYI.

The New PBS
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jul 07, 2005
Because I am a simple man, I have but one simple question: If PBS is politically balanced as Bill Moyers says it is, why, then, are only liberal Americans objecting to impending changes at the network? I mean, every far-left crank in town is in a frenzy over a couple of Republicans moving into management positions. After decades of liberal leadership, isn't it fair to give some conservatives a shot? After all, the tax dollars of right-wing Americans also pour into the Public Broadcasting trough. So, hey, let's be fair about things.

Of course, there is a chance that the conservatives will not be fair, and will turn Elmo into a contributor to Tom DeLay's travel fund. That would be tragic and should be prevented at all costs. So I have come up with some new PBS programming designed to heal all partisan wounds. Here is what the upcoming fall PBS lineup should look like.

"Tax the Rich" is a news analysis program hosted by Congressman Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont. Each week Sanders and his panel of regular folks from Cambridge, Berkeley and Seattle, will select one wealthy American and take all his stuff. The panel will then decide which other Americans should get said stuff and why. This program would also be broadcast from Havana on special occasions.

"Santorum's Sanitarium" will be hosted by Rick Santorum, the conservative Senator from Pennsylvania. It will focus mainly on the latest word from God about American policy. The Deity will weigh in each week with solutions to complex problems and communicate through the Senator who will occasionally speak in tongues.

"The Gay Newlywed Game" will star Congressman Barney Frank and be broadcast from Provincetown, Massachusetts. Each week, the editors of "The New York Times" will select a panel of lucky homosexual or lesbian or bisexual or transgender couples from the hundreds of articles the Times has done on these alternative lifestyles over the past few years. Barney will ask the couples questions about each other but try to avoid the double entendres that made the straight Newlywed Game so tacky. After all, this is PBS.

"Savage Behavior" is a confrontational hour where radio talk show host Michael Savage plans the nuclear destruction of America's enemies. Each week, another annoying nation is vaporized using the latest high-tech computer graphics and simulated skin meltdowns. This one is a ratings lock. Provocative talk, awesome destruction and unlimited savagery make the program a can't miss hour of TV viewing.

"The Streisand Factor" features the singer/political scientist making a rare television appearance. Babs will fill us in on her latest "war on terror" strategies, macro-economic suggestions and secular-progressive fantasies. There's high power star wattage here as Barbra brings us out leftwing pals like Whoopi Goldberg and Robert Redford to dish national security and massive entitlement spending. She'll also make reference to her friendship with Bill Clinton but avoid the touchy Hillary "issue."

And finally "The Conundrum with Moyers and Liddy" features those zany ideologues Bill Moyers and G. Gordon Liddy debating the latest issues and zinging each other with good-humored barbs. Moyers hammers home his philosophy that President Bush is the anti-Christ and also demands the Chief Executive actually undergo an Exorcism even if that does violate separation of Church and State. Liddy will do the program armed and, at least once during the hour, will burn his hand in an open flame without flinching. He may also, on occasion, call Moyers "fey."

So there you have it, the new PBS where all Americans can be equally offended. Can't wait to see it.

##

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Egyptian Iraqi Ambassador Murdered Today


Thursday, July 07, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq claimed Thursday it had killed Egypt's top envoy who was abducted by gunmen last weekend and warned it would go after "as many ambassadors as we can" to punish countries that support Iraq's U.S.-backed leadership.

Iraq's chief government spokesman said the killing and Thursday's bombings in London show that terrorism "is not only targeting Iraqis, but everyone." An Egyptian official in Cairo said Egypt would temporarily close its mission here and has recalled its staff.


***
Second news story of the day. Couldn't skip it, can't stand it. We've heard hideous news today. People really do need to be hit over the head before they, "Get it." They can be watching a terrorist event in real time on television, hear about Al Qaeda's brutal killing of the brand new ambassador to Iraq (and its plan to kill as many as ambassadors as it can) and they can still turn a blind eye to what's happening day by day, bit by bit, to their world--all around the world. I sound like a broken record, but I have to say it again. It's going to be too late one of these days.

Get Colonel David Hunt's book, They Just Don't Get It, and read it cover to cover. You NEED to read the articles in my Links. You just NEED to. You cannot afford to be uninformed. Life as you know it is slipping away. You have been infiltrated already. Pay attention!

Here's the quote they ran on Al Jazeera today: "We announce in the name of Al Qaeda in Iraq that the verdict of God against the ambassador of the infidels, the ambassador of Egypt, has been carried out. Thank God," a written statement in posting said, adding "Iraq is no longer safe for the infidels."

***
And now a tribute to the brave, true, spirit of our Country.

The American Fighting Man By James L. Wattenbarger

I fought the British red coats; Served Washington with pride. I Marched with Grant, and yes, with Lee. I fell at Custer's side. I made the charge up San Juan hill. I "held" at the Alamo. A threat to peace-- The first world war, And I was called to go.

I shed my blood throughout War II, on sand and jungle tree; They pulled me from the flaming wrecks; They buried me at sea. At Korea's thirty eighth parallel I soldiered amid the sham. I left my loved ones, took up arms, And died in Vietnam.

On every conceivable battlefield, Desert sand to jungle marsh, I suffer the agonies, the mortal wounds, In conditions most brutal and harsh. I've viewed the bombed out cities And grieved for all that's lost; I ponder, in my saddest hour. . . What could warrant such human cost?

The answer, of course, is freedom! Freedom defines the job I do. I volunteer, I'm called, I serve, On freedom's maintenance crew. Yes, career or citizen soldier, I serve the higher plan, Of honor, God, and country-- I'm the American fighting man!

Photo Credit: AP
Source: News quote from Fox News Online. Click link for complete article.
Source: The American Fighting Man By James L. Wattenbarger, www.Bennettmornings.com 7/7/05

"Rejoice Islamic nation, Rejoice Arab world..."


July 7, 2005. "Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan," said the statement, which was translated by The Associated Press in Cairo. "The heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west."

A previously unknown group, "Secret Group of Al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe," claimed responsibility in the name of Al Qaeda for today's blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The group claimed the attack in a Web site posting and warned Italy and Denmark to withdraw troops from those two countries. Arabic satellite station Al Jazeera also reported that it had received a phone call from the group claiming responsibility. The claim could not be verified.

This statement from the group was published on a Web site popular with Islamic militants.
***
Woke up to newscasts about the multiple bombings in London. As news unfolded, it became obvious that, we were under attack again. More than 1,000 injured and a dozen murdered* in separate but elaborately timed explosions throughout London's transportation systems during morning rush hour. It was clear: evil jihadist terrorists, the evil Islamofacists, were randomly murdering and maiming innocents again. Tony Blair left hosting duties at the G8 Summit in Scotland to return to his country in its time of need. He made an emotional but clearly sober statement about today's events, linking them, as he should, to the now worldwide war against terrorism. Here's part of what he said.

It is not an attack on one nation...It's an attack on all nations....It's important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people and a desire to impose extremism on the world," an emotional Blair told the world.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilizations in the world."--Tony Blair


I'm currently searching--unsuccessfully so far--on the web for the script of a wonderful statement made shortly after Blair's by London's Mayor "Red" Ken Livingston. His speech's essence:

The terrorist enemy may not care about human life, but the thing they do care about, success of their campaign to prevail through fear over civilization, will not be successful.

(Update 9:34 AM) Here's his actual quote found on Laura Ingraham's site. You can find her link at the right.

"Finally, I wish to speak directly to those who came to London today to take life. I know that you personally do not fear giving up your own life in order to take others - that is why you are so dangerous. But I know you fear that you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society and I can show you why you will fail.

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfill their dreams and achieve their potential.

They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.
-- Ken Livingston, mayor of London.

8:50 AM is the time of the first blast today. 8:50 AM was also the time of the first plane hitting the first tower in NYC on 9-11-01. I don't get the significance, but I'm certain there is one.

These are evil, evil, barbarous people. I've cautioned you in past posts to get your head out of the sand. You're going to have to keep digging deeper and deeper to hide from the truth if you don't. We and our loved ones are at great risk--and we'd better unite against these forces. The seriousness of this war against us and free people around the world is not to be underestimated or understated.

If you have a couple of minutes, go right now to Resa LaRu Kirkland's link at the right (in the Links section) and hear the cautions a real live Muslim has for you. Then copy and paste the following URL address to read the covenant islamofacists published as the Avalon Project at our prestigious Yale Law School back in 1988: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm. The fact that it was written then does NOT mean it's outdated. It does mean they've been planning for a long time and they have perserverence and dedication. PM Blair said we have more determination than they. Well, I hope he's right. I dare you, click the links and read them both now!

***
*Update 11:30 am: 300 injured and 40 murdered.
*Update 1:30 PM: 700 injured and more than 37 murdered.
*Update 8:30 AM, 7/8/05, 700 injured (22 critically) and more than 50 murdered.
*Update 7/9/05, Now there are three different islamofacist groups claiming credit for this terrorist act.
*Update 7/13/05, 700 injured (22 critically) and at least 52 murdered.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Twenty Commandments Divided By Two

Twenty commandments, two cases, two opposite results. Interestingly, according to the Supreme Court's recent decisions, the Ten Commandments were not considered unconstitutional in Texas when placed next to other documents and monuments at the State House, yet were found unconstitutional by a similar public display in a Kentucky court house. There they go-- picking away at our hearts and souls again. The very idea that the public appearance ANYWHERE in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA of any historic piece of art (The Ten Commandments in both of these cases) is unacceptable! Yes to one, no to the other. In the, "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!"

That we will allow ourselves be influenced by the oppressive "world-view-first" leftists among us to deny our own history and evidence of it is mind-boggling. We should know, from history, again, that once that has happened across the board, we will be doomed to repeat history and all of its mistakes. Once we hide our historical documents and they are no longer readily available to the public, it will be only a matter of time before no one will remember the articles we've taken down or the reasons we put them up in the first place.

Further, that we would want to deny our past, and the lessons we've learned from it, in this way should gravely concern us. If we want to become more vulnerable to our enemies, we need only to continue along this path. We will have no one but ourselves to blame for the future that would befall us if we became this even more ignorant citizenry and governance. There will be those who planted the destructive ideas, and those who were too weak to stop them, but it's only ourselves who we will have to blame. We chose our path voluntarily, and we allowed the illogical to lead us.

There is the old saw, "Either you stand for something, or you'll fall for everything." If you choose to fall for everything, will you be protected from evil? Will your children? If you fall for everything, will you have informed opinions? And who do you think will protect your legal interests? Your property rights? Your personal safety? Will you look to the countries that share your world-first-view? And who, if not the USA, will protect them from harm? (I'm not seeing them able to protect their borders even now.) Will any Country be willing and able?

Let's see, can I invoke just a few more cliches today? How about, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If we are the world's largest democracy, the largest world power, ask yourself, why, when we have enemies targeting our countrymen abroad and at home, our monetary icons (World Trade Center, Twin Towers) and our lifestyle (a Christian-based freedom OF religion democracy), would we pick that particular time to change our methods of operating? Well, if wanted to maintain our dominance so we could further democracy around the world, we wouldn't. If you were a corporation, would you change everything while you were the undisputed international leader? Of course, not! Hell, let's take down all our historic documents (religous and otherwise) and become multi-cultural first, ignore our history, ignore our ideals of the past, ignore our achievements, our positions, our alliances, our responsibilities to others, and our future. That insanity, unbelievably, makes sense to almost half of us.

If you want to know who's behind this madness, do what we capitalists always do, "Follow the money." Take a moment on this historic date, to think about what forces are behind the changes currently espoused through media opinion polls. Who wins if the unspeakable happens and the USA loses World power? Who in this Country wins? Who abroad? What short-sighted factions with what personal, social and political agenda? These are rhetorical questions, however, the answers should be easy and telling. Within our borders: its the insidious minority, those easily manipulated by various emotional appeals. And, it's: the self-loathing minority. The I-hate-that-the-US-always-dominates minority. They don't realize that there's no prize in successfully underminig ourselves--nothing to gain from destroying their own country's spirit or power worldwide. Can they be so blind that they believe there is a future for Americans--including them--in a World where our enemies and their views dominate? Outside our borders, who wins? Instead of jumping in a knee-jerk jack flash to "talking points," look with fresh eyes and listen with open ears. Just simply think about who ultimately wins if we change our basic precepts?

To preserve our future, we must honor our proud history by rededicating ourselves to the wisdom of our forefathers and the serious job of governing ourselves and our people. More than ever we need to legally challenge the courts when they permit violations of our laws or legislate from the bench. More than ever, we need to elect democracy-loving local, state, and federal officials who take constitutional principles seriously. More than ever, we need a citizenry that accepts the duties and responsibilities of the honor of being called a US Citizen.


The inspiration for this post came from the following. Source: The Clermont Institute, Ken Masugi and John C Eastman. The article is archived and accessible by clicking the link following the post.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

When Did Independence Day Become Official? Hint: Answer is not in first paragraphs.


I just found this, didn't write anything much. Heard this question on a TV show this morning as a trivia question. Maybe you would be as surprised as I to hear that none of the callers knew the answer! Bet they know all the actors and actresses on Desperate Housewives by name. (I've seen Jay Walking on Jay Leno's Tonight Show and it always astounds me.) Also note John Adams' reference to God Almighty.

History from Wikipedia (online encyclopedia)
In the United States, Independence Day, also called the Fourth of July, is a federal holiday celebrating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

It is commonly associated with parades, barbecues, picnics, baseball games, and various other public celebratory events. Fireworks have been associated with the Fourth of July since 1777.

Why the 4th?
Though the Fourth of July is almost iconic to Americans, some claim the date itself is somewhat arbitrary. New Englanders had been fighting Britain since April 1775. The first motion in the Continental Congress for independence was made on June 8. After hard debate, the Congress voted unanimously (12-0), but secretly, for independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain on July 2. The Congress reworked the text of the Declaration until a little after eleven o'clock, July 4th, when twelve colonies voted for adoption and released an unsigned copy to the printers. (New York abstained from both votes.) Philadelphia celebrated the Declaration with public readings and bonfires on July 8. Not until August 2 would a fair printing be signed by the members of the Congress, but even that was kept secret to protect the members from British reprisal.

John Adams, credited by Thomas Jefferson as the unofficial, tireless whip of the independence-minded, wrote his wife Abigail on July 3: "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore."

Adams was off by two days, however. Certainly, the vote on July 2 was the decisive act. But July 4 is the date on the Declaration itself. Jefferson's stirring prose, as edited by the Congress, was first adopted by the vote of the 4th. It was also the first day Philadelphians heard the official news of independence from the Continental Congress, as opposed to rumors in the street about secret votes.

Photo credit: Photo by R. Kennedy � 1999 by Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation.
Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_%28United_States%29) copy and paste this into your browser to find this page.

***
Independence Day--July 4
"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof. "
--words written on the Liberty Bell

By the middle of the 1700s, the 13 colonies that made up part of England's empire in the New World were finding it difficult to be ruled by a king 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean. They were tired of the taxes imposed upon them. But independence was a gradual and painful process. The colonists could not forget that they were British citizens and that they owed allegiance to King George III.

A "tea party" and a "Massacre" were two events that hurried destiny. Along with general unrest these events united the colonists. In 1767 a tea company in India, owned by England, was losing money. To save the company, England levied a tax on tea sold in the colonies in 1773. Partly as a joke, Samuel Adams and other Bostonians dressed up as Indians and dumped a cargo of the India Company Tea into the Massachusetts Bay. King George III did not think it was funny, nor did he lift the tax on tea. In the Boston harbor, British soldiers were jeered and stoned by colonists who thought the soldiers had been sent to watch them. The soldiers fired into the crowd and killed a few citizens. The colonists exaggerated the number killed and called it a massacre.

Virginia took the first step toward independence by voting to set up a committee to represent the colonies. This First Continental Congress met in September of 1774. They drew up a list of grievances against the crown which became the first draft of a document that would formally separate the colonies from England. George Washington took command of the Continental Army and began fighting the British in Massachusetts. For the next eight years, colonists fought fervently in the Revolutionary War.

In the meantime, a war of words was being waged in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress presented & debated a second draft of the list of grievances, and John Hancock, the president of the Second Continental Congress, was the first to sign. The document, called the Declaration of Independence, was treasonous against the crown and the fifty-six men who signed it were in danger of being executed.

Independence Day is celebrated on July 4 because that is the day when the Continental Congress adopted the final draft of the Declaration of Independence*. From July 8, 1776, until the next month, the document was read publicly and people celebrated whenever they heard it. The next year, in Philadelphia, bells rang and ships fired guns, candles and firecrackers were lighted. But the War of Independence dragged on until 1783, and in that year, Independence Day was made an official holiday. 1941 Congress declared 4th of July a federal holiday.
*Except for the U.S. Virgin Islands where celebrations are held a week prior to the climax on 4th of July.

John Adams, a lawyer, the first Vice President and the Second President of the United States, was one of the members of the Second Continental Congress who signed the Declaration of Independence. He wrote to his wife, "I believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival... it ought to be celebrated by pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other..."

John Adams may have predicted the later Independence Day celebrations or perhaps he started traditions with his words. Every July fourth, Americans have a holiday from work. Communities have day-long picnics with favorite foods like hot dogs, hamburgers, potato salad, baked beans and all the fixings. The afternoon activities would not be complete without lively music, a friendly baseball game, three-legged races and a pie-eating or watermelon-eating contests. Some cities have parades with people dressed as the original founding fathers who march in parades to the music of high school bands. At dusk, people in towns and cities gather to watch the fireworks display. Wherever Americans are around the globe, they will get together for a traditional 4th of July celebration!

The Declaration of Independence was first read in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Today, at the Freedom Festival at Independence Hall, costumed Americans re-enact historical scenes and read the Declaration of Independence for the crowd. In Flagstaff, Arizona, American Indians hold a three-day pow-wow around the Fourth of July, with a rodeo and dancing. In Lititz, Pennsylvania, hundreds of candles that were made during the year are lighted in the park at night and floated in the water while a "Queen of Candles" is chosen. The ship U.S.S. John F. Kennedy comes in full sail to Boston Harbor in Massachusetts on the Fourth of July, and the Boston Pops Orchestra plays a musical concert of patriotic songs as more than 150,000 people watch fireworks burst over the water.

The Fireworks Family
New Castle, Pennsylvania, is home to the Vitale Fireworks Display Company, responsible for more than one thousand fireworks shows every year. In 1922 Constantino Vitale brought his expertise at making fireworks from Italy to the United States. He passed his secrets on to his four sons, and since then the company has been making Americans exclaim "ooohhh" and "aaahhhh" at the lighted colors in the sky on July 4 and other occasions. "It's like putting on a ballet show except that the dancers were above, painting the sky," says Vitale's granddaughter. "Seeing that spectacular display in the sky made me really love the country."

The sight and sound of a ringing bell represents freedom to most Americans because of the Liberty Bell that rang in Philadelphia when the new country was born.

In 1752 the new bell arrived safely from England, but at the first blow from a hammer to test it, it cracked. Not wanting to delay by returning the bell to England, the officials ordered bell founders in Philadelphia to remedy the fault. Two times it was recast before it was finally ready.

On July 8, 1776, the bell rang to mark the occasion of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. On April 16, 1783 it proudly announced the proclamation of peace and the newly won independence of the United States of America.

At every event of national importance, the Liberty Bell joined its harmonious tones to the general acclaim: in 1789, the election of George Washington; in 1797, the election of John Adams; in 1799, the death of Washington; and in 1801, the election of Thomas Jefferson. On July 4, 1826, the bell was nearly three quarters of a century old, and the nation whose birth it had helped to announce was now a lusty youngster of 50. Joyous indeed was the bell's sound on that occasion. Then, on July 8, 1835, while tolling for the funeral procession of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the great bell cracked.

Fearing that the crack would eventually destroy the historic bell, officials ordered it taken down from the tower. It was after this that the Liberty Bell received its name. Since then, the bell has been on display but has never rung. In fact, no one living knows the voice of the Liberty Bell, for it has never spoken since 1835. The crack which appeared on that occasion is prevented from widening by a mechanical device, called a spider, installed inside the bell.

A few years ago the bell foundry in London that originally cast the great bell made a friendly proposal - to ship the bell back to England, melt it, and recast it at no cost to the United States. The keepers of the bell considered the offer very seriously before giving an answer. Then they decided that the cracked liberty bell is a cherished symbol of America's struggle for freedom. Just as a man's facial lines and creases are a visible sign of the stress and strain he has survived, so the crack in the Liberty Bell serves to remind Americans that their forefathers did not win liberty for their country and its people without strain and stress - and even extensive fractures. Therefore, on behalf of the American people, the officials thanked the London foundry for its generous offer, but refused, adding: "We like the bell as it is, crack and all. It is an important part of our heritage."

Yankee Doodle
Strangely, this patriotic song has derogatory origins. The music and words go back to 15th century Holland, as a harvesting song that began, "Yanker dudel doodle down." In England, the tune was used for a nursery rhyme, and later a song making fun of Puritan church leader Oliver Cromwell, because "Yankee" might be a mispronunciation of the word "English," and "doodle" refers to a dumb person. But it was a British surgeon, Richard Schuckburgh, who wrote the words which ridiculed the ragtag colonists fighting in the French and Indian War. Soon after, the British troops used the song to make fun of the colonists in the Revolutionary War. Yet it became the colonists' rallying anthem for that war.

America, The Beautiful
Every so often a movement is started to make "America the Beautiful" the national anthem instead of "The Star-Spangled Banner," largely because it was not written as a result of a war. The tune is easier to sing and the whole country is praised, not only the flag. Katherine Lee Bates, an English professor at Wellesley College, rode in a horse-drawn wagon up Pike's Peak, a mountaintop-in Colorado in 1893. She saw a view of the mountains that few people saw in those days and was inspired by her glimpse the "spacious skies" and "purple mountains" to write a poem, which became the first verse of the song. The public loved the poem, and Miss Bates was encouraged to set it to music She chose the music of a hymn by Samuel Ward. The words and music travelled around the world, and today Mexico, Canada and Australia sing it with their own countries' names instead of "America."

Source: Embassy of the United States of America
Link connects you directly to website.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Happy 4th Of July--Independence Day 2005!

It's the Friday before the 2005 Independence Day Celebration around the country. I just cut the grass (and beat out a thunderstorm in the process). Live Aid (I'm protesting the misnomer Live 8) is coming to Philadelphia--names, names, names. Looks like a really big day! The Jersey shore will be mobbed. Shore town streets will be in gridlock. People are anxious to get out there (everywhere) and have fun with family and friends. Patriotic parades will take place in almost every town, and there will be delicious food at gatherings around not only our area, but across our entire Nation.

Thinking back, I have the best memories of the 4th celebrations when I was a kid in small town NJ. There were pie eating contests, turtle races, three-legged races, games galore. We decorated our bicycles for the parade and contest for the "Best." It never mattered if you won. It was just so much fun creating your own masterpiece! After dark, we'd gather at the Cricket Field for fireworks, holding our ears and murmuring, "ooh...aah... ooh...aah....!" as the fireworks exploded overhead. We'd go with our parents, but meet up with friends and share the exciting events of the day. We really did live in the, "The Wonder Years."

They were innocent times compared to those our children have become accustomed to. Every generation says the same, of course. Although, we really could play outdoors for hours without fear, and we did ride bikes anywhere within certain limits, and our parents didn't always know exactly where we were. Nor did they need to. The rule was to be home when the whistle blew at 6 pm for dinner. If you didn't make that deadline, THEN you were in real trouble!

As the 4th approaches this year, I find I'm more sober than usual--this is a time of celebration during wartime. This time the holiday makes me think about the future and what we hope for those we love and for those protecting us abroad. I know that one of the things I wish most for our children, grandchildren, and all citizens of this great Nation, is the feeling of being filled with gratitude and pride for the precious freedom they are fortunate enough to have.

I'd like them to know how it feels to me each time the flag is raised and people cover their hearts with their hands, or hats, as the National Anthem is sung in unison. Pride for the sacrifices of those brave souls who came before and who are protecting us now--and pure devotion to them for their sacrifices--spills out of my heart and down my face every time I hear it.

Can you believe your good fortune of having been born into a time and place where freedom reigns! Well, sometimes, I just can't imagine that out of all of history, how I became lucky enough to live during this period. This holiday, why not make the time to say, "thank you," if you see a soldier, sailor, or marine, past or present, while you are enjoying your day?" You know they give everything, expect nothing, and ask for little. You could really make their day by showing your appreciation! Even better, click the link on the right side of this page entitled Soldiers' Angel and "adopt" a soldier fighting for freedom RIGHT NOW! It's a terrific way to show your gratitude.

As for you, I'm passing along a 4th of July card! It arrived in my email box today--the perfect time and day to share! I hope you enjoy it! Click the Link just below and have a Happy Independence Day!

The greatest danger....

The greatest danger for those of us who dislike George Bush is that our instincts may tip over into a desire to see his foreign policy objectives fail. No reasonable person can oppose the president's commitment to Islamic democracy.

Source: The Guardian, Max Hastings, May 4, 2005. Click the Link for for full article.