Party of Choice for Terrorists

Well, they're Islamic Fascists after all, but terrorism is their political tactic of choice. Anyway, in analyzing the huge increase in violence and the casualty count for our troops in Iraq, the message is clear. The enemy understands enough about our political situation in America, and our history ( can you say Tet Offensive?) to pull out all the stops in October. Using carnage and flag-draped coffins to push the electorate to a Democrat controlled House and Senate will effectively shackle Bush's policy as it pertains to Iraq, even to the point of setting up timetables for withdrawal. They're telling you and me who they want in control. So, who you votin' for?

Here's the whole Reuters scandal in living color!

Hat tip to Brother Ed:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Exactly...any questions?

I think Lamont is getting the hang of it... Brilliant!

Looking at the transcript from Foxnews Sunday, here's (part of) what I got:

WALLACE: You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act. Now that we've had word of the terror plots — and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't — would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?

LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law.

Typical flak, but lets continue:

WALLACE: You've also been critical of the Patriot Act. Are there some elements of that that you wish had not been passed?

LAMONT: Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance we have to have there.

Didn't address any of the elements Wallace asked about, but invokes giving our intel guys all the tools they need. As long as its Libs doing the giving.

Brilliant!

Add in some Mom and Apple Pie. But lets continue...

WALLACE: Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that's in there now that you would like to see taken out?

LAMONT: Well, certainly, there's been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians...

That's it? BTW, all you terrorist guys, take the 1000's of tracphones you got and go to the libraries...they won't follow you there.

Brilliant!

WALLACE: Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July."

Lamont goes on for some time describing how bad things are there as the impetus for getting out and ends with this:

LAMONT: So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.

WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?

Oh yeah...Chris Wallace is dealing with the 'pretend' Senator Lamont in this instance.

LAMONT: We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief.

"We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief." Now this is the most telling of all. Somehow, Mr. Lamont in his role as U.S. Senator will keep Iran and Syria out of Iraq by well, dropping back.

Brilliant!

Besides that, I thought he wanted Iraq to stand up on its own. Why be there at all if our presence actually messing things up? Can't have it three or four ways, can you?

WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.

LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever.

Well Mr. Lamont, I think I'd make up my mind about when, so the Islamic Fascists (who use terror as a tactic) can mark their calendars.

The interview goes on to the idea that the war in Iraq caused the most recent situation with Hezbollah. I would agree with Mr. Lamont, but not as to cause and effect. Iran is getting closed in on by world opinion and diplomacy, and client organizations like Hezbollah prove well suited to keep the rest of the world focused away from them and their nuke program.

I love it when I engage the Left ( bad language alert)

This little exchange over at a liberal blog I hang around. It related to the prosecution of policy in Iraq, and the exchange between Hillary and Rummy during hearings yesterday.

I said:

It does beg the question: "Well Ms. Clinton, given the 20/20 hindsight you enjoy, why should I believe that you could have done better with the same info the current administration had to work with?"

The response I got back:

'Ran, the answer to your question is simple: A fucking lemur could have done a better job blindfolded than Bush. So shut the fuck up already, MmmmmmmmmmmmmmK?

Lovely

I can't be making this up, can I???

This article, from Fox News talks about a nine year-old girl being abused horribly by the egg donor and her 'roommate'. If there was any argument against the post-modernist, situationally ethical, moral relativist junk being touted as mainstream culture and society ( and by definition, acceptable), this would go near the top of the list. Pay close attention to the end of the article related to the boyfriend involved. You'll get the gist...

Headlines...

One of the lefty blogs I visit posted this headline with the commensurate condemnation of corporate greed and ill gotten gains of oil companies.

AP
ConocoPhillips 2Q Profit ClimbsWednesday
July 26, 2:43 pm ET
By Kristen Hays, AP Business Writer

ConocoPhillips Reports $5.1 Billion Profit for 2Q, Shares Rise 3 Percent

So there's your headline. But what does is really mean? Lets look closer...

"ConocoPhillips closed its $33.9 billion acquisition of Burlington Resources in the first quarter, expanding its gas reserves and boosting its North American natural gas production."

So, last year they spent 34 billion dollars. Even at the current income levels, it would take nearly 2 years to pay off that acquisition.

"ConocoPhillips' chairman and chief executive officer Jim Mulva said Burlington Resources' assets contributed $385 million to the exploration and production segment's $3.3 billion in net income..."

At the rate the acquisition is contributing to the bottom line, it would take over 7 years to break even on what it cost them.

"Mulva said changes in tax laws in Canada and Texas added $363 million to the company's second-quarter profit."

Those dang Canadians! You'd think they'd have a better handle on taxing greedy companies than this. Tsk...

"The company produced slightly more than 1 million barrels of crude oil per day in the second quarter, up from 932,000 barrels a day a year earlier. Its natural gas output totaled 5.5 billion cubic feet a day, up from 3.2 billion cubic feet a day a year earlier."

Ohhh, and they actually worked harder this year than last, to make more money. Well, that just tears it for me!

All about greed and oil? You bet it is. That's why 20% of my retirement money is in that sector. Please don't consider that advice or a recommendation, BTW.

You want to pay less for gas? Slow down. Drive less. That's what i do. If everyone did, the demand, and price, would go down.

Didja' hear that?

All those other Arab countries coming to Hezbollah's rescue? Its 1967 all over again, right? Oh wait, things have changed since then. When the USA and Israel actually get fed up and start taking out countries like Afghanistan, decimating terrorists organizations like Al Qaida and Hezbollah, everybody else in the region (keeping in mind Iran is actually Persian and not Arab) shuts up and sits down. There's hope yet...

Lincoln and Coolidge Said it!

This from Abraham Lincoln's speech of July 10, 1858, responding to Steven Douglas's speech of the 9th. Douglas had this take on what the Founding Fathers had meant:


"I am free to say to you," Douglas said, "that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."

His also was perhaps the first call for tolerance of diversity, that is to say, half slave and half free.

Mr. Lincoln answered:

Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it?

And this from Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of 1776

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

Happy Independence Day

Ironically, this from the NYT as well.

KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.

“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.

Cooperation?

The British already knew, didn't they?

Well, it wasn't my Photoshop job as I snagged it from Powerline, so don't consider me that clever. But, it makes a great point on the eve of Independence Day.

And lets teach 'em here at home, too!

The article was posted from Investor's Business Daily's website
Here for your perusal.

Some of the things California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK for kids in PUBLIC SCHOOL in California to do:

Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."

Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."

Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.

Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."

Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Now, when it comes taking "In God We Trust" off everything, or getting rid of the Pledge of Allegiance, no problem.

Getting liberal judges to recognize the 14th Amendment? No way.

Teach your children well...

Nope, it ain't Crosby, Stills, and Nash I'm talking about. Its an article by Nina Shea in the Washington Post. After 9/11, the Saudis were supposed to tone down the 'anti-everyone else' in their Wahhabi school system. No such luck. Here's the breakdown of what they're teaching currently. Remember: The Saudis are our friends.

FIRST GRADE

" Every religion other than Islam is false."
"Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________."

FOURTH GRADE

"True belief means . . . that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly."

FIFTH GRADE

"Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives."
"It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
"A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy in religion."

SIXTH GRADE

"Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power."

EIGHTH GRADE

"As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."

"God told His Prophet, Muhammad, about the Jews, who learned from parts of God's book [the Torah and the Gospels] that God alone is worthy of worship. Despite this, they espouse falsehood through idol-worship, soothsaying, and sorcery. In doing so, they obey the devil. They prefer the people of falsehood to the people of the truth out of envy and hostility. This earns them condemnation and is a warning to us not to do as they did."

"They are the Jews, whom God has cursed and with whom He is so angry that He will never again be satisfied [with them]."

"Some of the people of the Sabbath were punished by being turned into apes and swine. Some of them were made to worship the devil, and not God, through consecration, sacrifice, prayer, appeals for help, and other types of worship. Some of the Jews worship the devil. Likewise, some members of this nation worship the devil, and not God."

"Activity: The student writes a composition on the danger of imitating the infidels."

NINTH GRADE

"The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills."

"It is part of God's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment]."

"Muslims will triumph because they are right. He who is right is always victorious, even if most people are against him."

TENTH GRADET

The 10th-grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims (as well as women, and, by implication, slaves) is worth a fraction of that of a "free Muslim male." Blood money is retribution paid to the victim or the victim's heirs for murder or injury:

"Blood money for a free infidel. [Its quantity] is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, whether or not he is 'of the book' or not 'of the book' (such as a pagan, Zoroastrian, etc.).

"Blood money for a woman: Half of the blood money for a man, in accordance with his religion. The blood money for a Muslim woman is half of the blood money for a male Muslim, and the blood money for an infidel woman is half of the blood money for a male infidel."

ELEVENTH GRADE

"The greeting 'Peace be upon you' is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others."

"If one comes to a place where there is a mixture of Muslims and infidels, one should offer a greeting intended for the Muslims."

"Do not yield to them [Christians and Jews] on a narrow road out of honor and respect."

TWELFTH GRADE

"Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God."

Nina Shea is director of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House.

Its not like I actually have an answer to Immigration...but

What to do, what to do?

1. Seal the border. For those of you who say it can't be done, I say you can bring it down to a trickle. A trickle is easier to deal with than a flood.

2. Make it hurt in the right places. Companies want labor at the lowest cost. If hiring illegal aliens cost too much in fines or imprisonment or both, companies will go to the next cheapest alternative. I'll let them figure what that alternative needs to be.

3. Make it hurt in other places. Require all illegal aliens to do what the rest of us do when we break laws that actually don't kill or maim someone. Fine them. Use the IRS to something good for once, and garner their wages, $10,000 each. Hey, if companies think illegal labor is so vital, let them pay the fine for their employees. Give them a drop-dead date to register and comply. People that want to stay will work out a payment plan. That will help offset the burden on our social and educational systems they've created. Those that want to cheat will be deported, and fined.

4. While we're at it, tax the money going back to Mexico. Consider it the price of working here, until you get legal.

We just need to reason with these people, right?

Mohammed Taheri-azar's most recent quote:

"The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of and the torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead."

But I don't want the Gov't to sell public lands...

Recently, I got into a debate about the Feds selling about 300,000 acres of forested land to private entities. Part of the gov't's rationale was that the parcels weren't contiguous, so it made enconomic sense to get rid of it. Oh, selling it was such a bad idea. Those private developers were going take those chunks and rape and pillage at will.

Well, how about just giving it away instead? This from Dr. Ronald Utt, the 'privatization czar' under Reagan, that has a pretty good handle on how government wastes money. This scheme here is an especially insidious type of 'earmark' that cheats the taxpayer by giving away land, rather than selling it.

According to Utt:

"Despite near consistent opposition to land sale proposals that would benefit the broad public, Congress sometimes votes to give valuable parcels away to politically influential developers or to communities in their state or district that, in turn, sell or transfer the land to for-profit developers. Although federal spending remains unaffected by these transfers, the government loses valuable assets and the opportunity to raise more revenues for programs, tax relief and/or deficit reduction."

Tsk.

Thoughts at large, or small

This probably should be filed under "moral equivalency".

We get from news reports over the last few days that a peace activist, Tom Fox was not only executed by terrorists in Iraq, it appears that he was tortured before he died. Obstensibly, Mr. Fox was part of a Christian organization trying to help the Iraqi people. From what I could gather, the organization was against the US invasion of Iraq, etc. The Fox News article alluded to numerous foreigners being kidnapped, and so many of them being killed. The article also mentioned other killings and kidnappings within Iraq.

With all the hullaballoo over Gitmo and Abu Grahib, where is the morally equivalent outrage?

"We're America. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard", is the usual answer.

Well, how about holding everone to a higher standard, like NOT TORTURING PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP OTHERS, GIVING THEM TWO SHOTS IN THE HEAD AND CHEST, AND DUMPING THEM BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS LIKE DISEASED CATTLE?

Well, at least some of the story got corrected...

But, Heaven forbid they use Dr. Maxwell's terminology of topping. It had to be 'overrunning'

WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

The AP is at it again

This latest video on Pre-Katrina meetings that included the President is another smear job.

The way they present it, Bush was told the levees would likely fail and disaster would surely follow. Then they put up footage of Bush saying that no one had anticipated the breach of the levees. Makes it sound like he's an idiot/liar/corrupt/clueless...sigh.

The expert they highlighted was Dr. Max Mayfield. Dr. Mayfield is a hurricane expert, not a structural engineer. When alluded dangers concerning the levees, it was from a 'topping' standpoint.

Topping? Yeah, as in water going over the top of the levees because they weren't high enough to hold back Lake Pontchartrain.

Well, as the reportage came in with the hurricane, they felt like N.O. had dodged a bullet in that the levees weren't topped. They were in fact 'high enough' to hold back the water.

Then, they broke. No one had anticipated that. Just like Bush had said.

Even IF the breach had been discussed on the 28th, what could anyone have done to stop it? Guess he could have invaded Louisiana with a gaggle of engineers and tried to shore up the levees AS THE HURRICANE WAS COMING ASHORE.

Brilliant! But a little late in the game for that.

I can only assume the AP thinks we're all idiots with wholesale short-term memory loss issues, and won't pay attention to the facts.

Arrggh...

You know you're in trouble when...

...Jimmy Carter and George Bush agree on Dubai Ports World handling the most vulnerable of our homeland security defenses.

A great point...now why hadn't I thought of it?

This from a post in Captain's Quarters....

Despite having a deathgrip on the black vote for four decades, the party has almost no leaders of African descent and have fielded almost no such candidates in national elections. Carol Mosely-Braun is the only black woman ever elected to the Senate; the Democrats, in their monopoly of that demographic, could never bother to find and support another? How many blacks have won mainstream Democratic support in races for governor or senator?

Up to now, it has been enough for the Democratic party to use the African-American community as a vote bank, and they have exploited it as such while giving few of them high-profile positions of power. It has been one of the least-rewarded dynamics of loyalty for any constituency in politics. In contrast, the Republicans have offered real leadership positions to those who support the GOP despite the embarrassingly small penetration the GOP gets in the African-American community. Newsweek should ask why Democrats apparently felt that blacks could not represent them in leadership instead.

More wading in the Liberal cesspool...

Part of an exchange I had with a liberal blog:

My initial point was concerning liberals continuing to say they support the troops but not the war...

Supporting the troops but not the war they're fighting...let's try an analogous situation between a ditch digger and a liberal:

Liberal: "Hey there, ditch digger. Just wanted to let you know that I support you, but not that ditch that you're digging."

Ditch Digger: "But its what I do. It's what I chose to do. I'm proud of the ditch I'm digging. It looks like I'm making some progress here."

Lib: "But its the wrong kind of ditch. Your boss is a bad man and shouldn't have made you dig a ditch there."

DD: "Well, I still have this ditch here to dig. I joined up to do it, and promised to finish digging it. How in the world can you say you support me as a ditch digger and be against the ditch I'm digging at the same time?

Lib: "Well, I understand your frustration, but you don't understand. I support you as a ditch digger, and I know that the ditch has to finished now that you've started it, but I'm against the ditch just the same. I still support you.

DD: "But I'm still confused. You say you understand the necessity of finishing the ditch, but you're against it anyway? How about cheering me on to finish the ditch as quickly as possible and maybe helping my family out at home until I get finished here digging the ditch? That would feel more like you're supporting me than saying bad things about the ditch I'm digging, right as I'm in the middle of digging it, doncha' think?"

Lib: "What, and give up my right to criticize the ditch and the head ditch digger? What kind of ditch digger are you? Look, I'm doing the best I can to support you. I say that I do, all the time. What more do you want?

What more, indeed...

The response?

"nice try, guitanguran. but ditch diggers aren't threatened with court martial, loss of lifetime benefits and even jail if they refuse to dig a ditch which they consider to be immoral.

and not too many ditches kill over 100,000 iraqi civilians either.

metaphor much, do ya?"

My response:

As I alluded to in my analogy ( as opposed to a simple metaphor), my ditch digger joined up voluntarily, knowing what restrictions he had as a ditch digger. He wasn't forced to join. In my business, I'm restricted as to things that I can say in public and in private, by my company and the Feds. I knew that going in. I was required to stay at least two years with the company as a condition of my hiring. My choice was to abide by all that, or refuse to take the job.

100,000 civilians? Now you know there is no credible documentation of any number even remotely close to that figure.

Lastly, you offer nothing in specific rebuttal to my position that you can't support the troops and oppose what they're doing at the same time. You zip off on a tangential argument that has nothing to do with the point I raised...nice try yourself...:-)

OK. Let me explain about "budget cuts"...

There's been some bloviating going on about the President's budget concerning "budget cuts" on some domestic programs. Democrats are accusing Bush of taking money from seniors, children, and probably my dog to pay for guns and to give big businesses tax breaks. Arrggh...

When our guys in Washington announce a budget cut for any program, its not a cut.

Huh? Wuzzat? That's right, its not a cut after all.

Back in 1974, Congress set forth a baseline regarding any budget calculations. All budget calculations run off this baseline. Well, any government program will have a built in increase in its budget from year to year, based on the 1974 baseline. They don't have to pass a bill to increase the budget on a given program. It gets bigger all on its own. When they say they're cutting the program, they're simply reducing the amount that program is growing.

Did you hear that? The programs aren't staying the same, or getting smaller. They're simply growing at a slower pace. When Republicans announce they're cutting programs, it sounds like we're spending less money this year than last. Wrong. When Democrats accuse Republicans (or vice versa) of cutting programs, its sounds like gramma is out on the street. Wrong again.

Tsk...

Just an observation

So, when we have an artistic type putting an image of Christ in urine, we uh don't set fire to buildings. Certainly, we have no one from the Baptist General Convention encouraging their folks to burn down museums. If someone makes a political statement through a cartoon about Mohammed, embassies burn. Imams encourage their folks to riot, wreak havoc, and commit acts of violence. I think most Christians go right on being believers about the things they believe in, irrespective of any artist. Makes me wonder whyIslamic leaders and followers of Islam feel so compelled to burn buildings...

Life or Death, Part II

As you may know there was the 33rd Anniversary Walk for Life held in Washington DC and elsewhere as a response to the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade. A pictoral essay showing what happened in San Francisco can be seen HERE. Two things I found notable concerning the City by the Bay. Look at the huge numbers of Pro-Life, and look at the 'other side' as well. The pictures truly speak for themselves. Speaking of which... Here's a solution to the abortion issue I hadn' t thought of...

Life or Death...which side are we on?

I have written on this subject before, but recent events have brought this issue much closer to where I live. I've always been a fan of Michelle Malkin, and her story here about a little girl named Haliegh is a great example of how quickly we write off people ahead of God's schedule in doing a work in their lives.

Another would be my 84 year-old mom. Her home caught on fire a couple of weeks ago. She wasn't breathing when the firefighters pulled her out. Her Carbon monoxide levels were at about 50% when they wheeled her into the emergency room. After about ten days in ICU, the doctors were not optimistic about her chances of recovery. They actually requested that we have a "DNR" order on file in case her heart or breathing stopped, as they could get no cognitive response from her. At the risk of starting a tent meeting here on this blog, my wife and I always had peace about my mom's situation, up or down, through the Lord Jesus. We weren't going write her life off with a signature on a piece of paper. It was on the same day that we went down to the hospital. Mom had lost the hearing aids and the glasses in the fire. I got down by her ear and essentially yelled at her to wake up and show these people that the lights were on, and somebody was at home. She did. Doctors are amazed, she's in rehab, and we're thankful.

No Comment...(mostly)

As an 'infidel', I continue to be curious about Islamic rituals and how they may compare to the things we do. I'm not sure if we have any that compare. Certainly, I would hope any ritual wouldn't be quite as dangerous as this appears to be... Items in bold are of particular interest to me, but as I said, no comment.

Saudi Government Says 345 Killed in Hajj Stampede
Thursday, January 12, 2006

MINA, Saudi Arabia — Thousands of Muslim pilgrims rushing to complete a symbolic stoning ritual during the hajj tripped over luggage Thursday, causing a crush in which at least 345 people were killed, the Interior Ministry said.

The stampede occurred as tens of thousands of pilgrims headed toward al-Jamarat, a series of three pillars representing the devil that the faithful pelt with stones to purge themselves of sin.

A ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki, said the stampede happened as pilgrims were rushing to complete the last of three days of the stoning ritual before sunset. Some of the pilgrims began to trip over dropped luggage, causing a large pileup, al-Turki said.

Ambulances and police cars streamed into the area, and security forces tried to move pilgrims away from part of the site, though thousands continued with the ritual.

Saudi authorities replaced the small round pillars with short walls to allow more people to throw their stones without jostling for position. They also recently widened the bridge, built extra ramps and increased the time pilgrims can carry out the rite — which on the second and final days traditionally takes place from midday until sunset.

Shiite Muslim clerics have issued religious edicts allowing pilgrims to start the ritual in the morning, and many Shiites from Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, Lebanon and Pakistan took advantage to go early in the day.

"This is much better. We are now done with the stoning before the crowd gets larger," an Iranian pilgrim, Azghar Meshadi, said hours before the stampede.

But Saudi Arabia's Sunni Muslim clerics, who follow the fundamentalist Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, encouraged pilgrims to stick to the midday rule.

The stoning ritual is one of the last events of the hajj pilgrimage to Islam's holiest sites, which able-bodied Muslims with the financial means are required by their faith to do at least once.

Many pilgrims had already finished the stoning ritual Thursday and had gone back to Mecca to carry out a farewell circuit around the Kaaba, the black stone cube that Muslims face when they do their daily prayers.

One of the NSA 'leakers'?

Found this interview with Russell Tice, a former NSA/DIA guy that was fired in May of '05 thru Michelle Malkin, and "Democracy Now", with Amy Goodman doing the interview. If you haven't watched it on cable, Democracy Now thinks CNN is part of a GOP/corporate conspiracy. This is not the transcript in its entirety, but I lifted out some interesting comments. I'm not sure what to make of Mr. Tice. I'm not sure he does either...

He basically agrees that the NSA is supposed to be doing the things its doing and as Bush said, that it was a 'good thing to know if Al-Qaeda is dialing your number'. He was never asked to spy on Americans and doesn't know anyone that did. He got fired and doesn't indicate why.

Transcript(my edits) here...

AMY GOODMAN:… can you just describe for us what is the National Security Agency? How does it monitor these communications?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, the National Security Agency is an agency that deals with monitoring communications for the defense of the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, you have worked for the National Security Agency. Can you talk about your response to the revelations that the Times…the revelation of the wiretapping of American citizens?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, as far as an intelligence officer, especially a SIGINT (Signals Intelligence, rw) officer at N.S.A., we're taught from very early on in our careers that you just do not do this…Ultimately, so do the leaders of N.S.A., and apparently the leaders of N.S.A. have decided that they were just going to go against the tenets of something that’s a gospel to a SIGINT officer.

AMY GOODMAN: We talk to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency, worked with the N.S.A. up until May 2005. Russell Tice, what happened then? What happened in May 2005?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, basically I was given my walking papers and told I was no longer a federal employee. So –

AMY GOODMAN: What would you say to those who say you are speaking out now simply because you are disgruntled?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, I guess that’s a valid argument. You know, I was fired.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Justice Department launching an investigation into the leak, who leaked the fact that President Bush was spying on American citizens?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, I think this is an attempt to make sure that no intelligence officer ever considers doing this.

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of the news that the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without a court order and foreign nationals is now sharing this information with other agencies like, well, the other agency you worked for, the Defense Intelligence Agency?

RUSSELL TICE: …So it’s not unusual for the intelligence community to share information. But when we’re talking about information on the American public, which is a violation of the FISA law, then I think it's even something more to be concerned about.

AMY GOODMAN: Were you ever asked to engage in this?

RUSSELL TICE: No, no...

AMY GOODMAN: What about the telecoms, the telecommunications corporations working with the Bush administration to open up a back door to eavesdropping, to wiretapping?

RUSSELL TICE: If that was done and, you know, I use a big “if” here…

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Russell Tice, former intelligence agent with the National Security Agency, worked at the N.S.A. up until May of 2005. What is data mining?

RUSSELL TICE: Data mining is a means by which you -- you have information, and you go searching for all associated elements of that information in whatever sort of data banks or databases that you put together with information. So if you have a phone number and you want to associate it with, say, a terrorist or something, and you want to associate it with, you know, ‘Who is this terrorist talking to?’ you start doing data on what sort of information or what sort of numbers does that person call or the frequency of time, that sort of thing. And you start basically putting together a bubble chart of, you know, where everybody is.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you expect you are being monitored, surveilled, wiretapped right now?

RUSSELL TICE: Yes, I do.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. Russell Tice, you’re with the National Security Agency, or you were until May 2005. If al-Qaeda's calling, the U.S. government wants to know. Your response?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, that's probably a good thing to know.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you support the President, Russell Tice? Did you vote for President Bush?

RUSSELL TICE: I am a Republican. I voted for President Bush both in the last election and the first election where he was up for …it’s not like, you know -- I think you’re going to find a lot of folks that are in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community are apt to be on the conservative side of the fence.

AMY GOODMAN: Russell Tice, did you know anyone within the N.S.A. who refused to spy on Americans, who refused to follow orders?

RUSSELL TICE: No. No, I do not. As far as -- of course, I'm not witting of anyone that was told they will spy on an American...