By Robert Farrow

Last week Iran began enriching uranium in a second network of centrifuges. Just as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dropped nearly all pretenses about his intention to achieve nuclear weapons, so too he makes it clear daily that he intends to use such weapons to annihilate Israel.

The world’s reaction to Iran’s behavior is depressingly instructive. Russia tells us that we are being paranoid and continues to build the Bushehr nuclear plant. The Europeans cluck disapprovingly and threaten to pass a weak, “reversible” sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council whose main target is American security hawks. For his part, US President George W. Bush continues to adhere to the call for sanctions.

And so we have Israel. With Iran speeding up its program, Israel may have as little as six months to launch a strike on its nuclear facilities before they can start churning out atomic bombs.

Unfortunately, at this critical moment in Israel’s history, we are led by Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Tzipi Livni. Although Olmert claims that he is taking every step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, through his government’s actions in recent months, he has steadily undercut the IDF’s ability to take decisive action against Iran.

Over the past two and a half months, the Olmert government has deliberately and willingly enabled Israel’s encirclement by hostile forces.

Deployed along Israel’s northern and southern borders, these forces constrict Israel’s ability to maneuver, and prevent the IDF from taking preventative actions against Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza thus increasing the risks that Israel will face in the event that action is taken against Iran’s nuclear facilities and constraining Israel’s ability to stealthily launch any attack.

Nearly 10,000 French-commanded UNIFIL troops today protect Hizbullah in south Lebanon. And increasingly, they do so while provoking Israel. Last week two incidents took place between German naval forces and the IAF. Last Tuesday and Thursday IAF jets were scrambled when a German naval helicopter entered Israeli airspace after taking off from a German naval ship off Rosh Hanikra without permission or prior coordination.

What is most remarkable about the story is its repetition. Last Tuesday the German helicopter elicited a strong Israeli response. Rather than desist from provoking the IAF, the Germans repeated their action on Thursday. So what could have been viewed as a regrettable incident was transformed into a provocation.

Germany’s hostile behavior is par for the course with UNIFIL. Two weeks ago French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie called the IAF’s overflights of Lebanese airspace “extremely dangerous,” and threatened that France’s forces in Lebanon were liable to fire on the IAF flights “because they may be felt as hostile by forces of the coalition.” By word and deed, UNIFIL forces are making clear that they view the IDF, not Hizbullah as their enemy. As they increase their provocations against Israel, UNIFIL forces turn a blind eye to weapons being smuggled daily to Hizbullah from Syria. Were Israel to attempt to take action against Hizbullah or Syria to prevent them from attacking in anticipation of an Israeli strike on Iran, there can be little doubt how UNIFIL would respond.
Read the whole article at the Jerusalem Post

LGF reports that Hizbollah has stepped up the rebuilding of its military infrastructure in southern Lebanon despite the deployment in recent weeks of thousands of Lebanese troops and international peacekeepers to limit the Islamic militant group’s activities.

Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised interview aired Tuesday on Al-Manar TV that the United Nations Forces in Lebanon would not be able to disarm the guerilla group.

“The assembly of UNIFIL forces does not hint to anything that should inspire fear. This is not an ensemble with a goal of disarming us, nor would they be able to do so,” he said, in his first appearance since speaking at “victory” rally in south Beirut last month.

but that is not the end of it……

And then there is Egypt.

Over the weekend, Egypt announced that it was deploying 5,000 troops (or “police” forces) along its border with the Gaza Strip in northern Sinai. The deployment was necessary, Egypt announced, to prevent Israel mounting a serious operation against the massive weapons smuggling that is quickly providing Palestinian terrorists with the means to transform Gaza into south Lebanon.

The fact that Egypt wishes to prevent Israel from stemming the flow of weapons to Gaza – which Egypt itself is supposed to be cutting off – should tell us all we need to know about Egypt’s intentions. But apparently the government and Southern Command weren’t listening. Sunday, Defense Minister Amir Peretz denied that Egyptian forces had been deployed along the border. An IDF commander in the Southern Command strangely expressed satisfaction at Egypt’s move arguing that with the larger force Egypt would finally take action to prevent the arms transfers. The Foreign Ministry assured the public that the peace treaty with Egypt allows Cairo to deploy an unlimited number of “policemen” in the Sinai.

It is hard to decide which is more frightening, Egypt’s move or Israel’s response to it.

As MK Yuval Steinitz, former chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee explains, Egypt’s sudden decision to deploy a massive force along the border is a strategic threat of the first order to Israel. “Egypt,” he explains, “is taking advantage of the weakness and incompetence of the government.”

Over the past decade, Egypt has been assiduously preparing its military for war against Israel. From the ideological indoctrination of its forces, to its massive armament programs, to the relocation of its military installations, units and logistical bases to both sides of the Suez Canal, to the training of its troops to fight “an unnamed country on Egypt’s northern border,” Steinitz warns that Egypt has done more than Iran to ready its forces for war against Israel.

Rather than protest Egypt’s actions, successive Israeli governments have swallowed whole Egypt’s strategic deception. Egypt protests friendship and pretends to combat terrorism and prevent weapons smuggling into the Sinai.

Yet under this friendly guise, Egypt has legitimized Palestinian terrorists and stood behind the massive weapons smuggling operations. As Steinitz puts it, “Egypt is to Palestinian terrorism what Syria is to Hizbullah.

So who cares what happens to Israel……Well, genocidal agressors don’t stop with one victim or country…Hitler did not stop…. the only reason Stalin did was because America and her European allies showed they were willing to go to war to stop him. Sadly, Europe today shows no such backbone and in fact is working with the agressors.

And Israel ‘s encirclement also is an example of just how dangerous relying on the UN and leftist strategies have become……..

Since 1993, Israel’s leftist governments have consistently followed a strategy of transferring responsibility for our national security to our enemies. First it was Yasser Arafat who was supposed to fight Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Now it is his deputy Mahmoud Abbas, UNIFIL and Mubarak who are all supposed to fight Israel’s enemies. Far from learning from our bloody experience that our enemies have no interest in protecting us, in recent months, the Olmert government has expanded tenfold our reliance on our enemies.

As if having hostile Europeans guarding genocidal Iranian proxies in the north, and hostile Egyptians guarding and arming genocidal Palestinians in the south weren’t enough, Sunday it was reported that the Olmert government is considering allowing thousands of armed PLO terrorists from the Badr Brigade in Jordan to relocate to Gaza.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Although barring a major Hizbullah provocation, it isn’t clear what Israel can do against the UNIFIL forces now enabling Hizbullah to rearm, Israel can still prevent the Egyptian deployment. If the government loudly protested the move and publicly requested the Bush administration order Egypt to remove its forces, Mubarak would do so. But in light of the Olmert government’s mishandling of every military challenge Israel has faced since it came to power just six month ago, it is hard to imagine it will act responsibly.

Israel’s security matters. America’s enemies will no doubt be greatly motivated if their dream of destroying the zionist entity is ever realized, and then will turn their attention to the Great Satan. (us)

Israel’s fate today is America’s fate tomorrow.

by Curt at Flopping Aces

So the big news over the past day has been John Kerry’s admission about how he really feels about our hero’s. He said the following at a Pasadena College rally yesterday:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

I don’t know how I missed this last night, guess I’m losing it…usually right on top of these kind of things.

Be that it may, all I can say is:

Rove, you magnificant bastard! Getting Kerry to display how he really feels about the troops is genius….genius I tell you!

Sigh….

This is the man who came so close to leading this country. Can you imagine? Someone who feels only the dumb and ignorant serve this country. He has shown disdain for our military even before he spent his few months on Vietnam. He is a pathetic excuse for an American, a pathetic excuse for a politician, and a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Why don’t you let us take a look at your WHOLE military record Mr. Kerry? What are you afraid of? That the world would see what a real coward you were, running from a fight, asking for medals for a splinter, leaving your fellow comrades in Vietnam while you went home to trash our country?

Instead of us being allowed to see your whole service record we have you telling a crowd of college kids that only the dumb and ignorant will find their way to Iraq. So you better get an education kids!

The last day of October and John effin Kerry has giving us the October surprise.

Thanks you liberal elitist loser.

Go ahead and look down your nose at our hero’s while you enjoy all your homes:

Because you were so smart, so manipulative, you got yourself out of Vietnam for some scratches while the real heroes bled and died for our country. You then came back and trashed them. All to get yourself into politics.

Your a selfish disgusting human being and I feel nothing but disdain for you.

take a look at what John McCain had to say about Kerry:

Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country’s call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn’t live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered, and uninformed remarks.

Indeed.

And how does John Kerry respond:

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

Oh really? Care to say that to Mr. McCain.

I guess this sums up the fact that money can’t buy you Courage, can’t buy you intelligence nor dignity nor loyalty. It can buy you a bunch of houses and votes tho.

UPDATE

John Kerry just had a press conference where he blames it all on the Republicans and said it was a dig at President Bush….

Sure thing.

And now he just said Bush has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan! WTF! This guy is just nuts. And he demands an apology from Bush for his ignorant statement.

What a loon.

How in the hell can he even allege that this statement:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

Has anything to do with Bush. He hasn’t served in Iraq and he received better grades then Kerry in school.

UPDATE II

Patterico called Kerry’s response last night, good call:

I’ll play Devil’s Advocate: Kerry is talking about Bush and not the troops.

At least that’s what his spokesman will say tomorrow.

UPDATE x2 BY PATTERICO: But then, how will Kerry’s spokesman keep a straight face while making that explanation, in light of the fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry?

Also, Tony Snow has called on him to apologize, which he obviously will not do.

What Senator Kerry ought to do first is apologize to the troops. The clear implication here is if you flunk out, if you don’t study hard, if you don’t do your homework, if you don’t make an effort to be smart and you don’t do well, you “get stuck in Iraq.” But an extraordinary thing has happened since September 11th, which is a lot of people — America’s finest — have willingly agreed to volunteer their services in a mission that they know is dangerous, but is also important. And Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who have given their lives in this.

UPDATE III

President Bush today:

….I cannot tell you how proud I am to be the Commander-in-Chief of such incredibly brave men and women who have volunteered to wear the uniform of the United States. And even in the midst of a heated campaign season, there are still some things we should all be able to agree on – and one of the most important is that every one of our troops deserves our gratitude – and respect. Yesterday Democrat Senator John Kerry was speaking to a group of young people in California, and gave them this advice, quote: “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

The Senator’s suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful. Our troops did not enlist because they did not study hard in school or do their homework. The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer Armed Forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots – and Senator Kerry owes them an apology.

Whatever party you belong to, whatever you think about the war in Iraq, we should all agree that our troops deserve our unwavering support. And when it comes to supporting our men and women in uniform, I don’t have any doubt where Mac Collins is going to land. He is a strong supporter of the military. And he knows what I know: Any time you have American troops in harm’s way, they have the right to expect the full support of the American government.

And here is Frist:

Senator Kerry clearly owes an apology to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines serving in Iraq. But Mr. Kerry has refused to do so. Instead, he’s claiming that Republicans are “desperately distorting” his comments. Watch the video yourself … it is perfectly clear what Mr. Kerry said … what’s unclear is whether Mr. Kerry ever means what he says. Perhaps he was against his comments before he actually made them.

And Senator Kerry is falsely claiming that Republicans “love to attack those who did [serve in war].” The truth is that Senator Kerry served honorably in Vietnam over 35 years ago, but he’s not immune from criticism today. Republicans aren’t “questioning his patriotism,” but we are calling him on his slur of our troops in the field.

And Rick Moran points out that Kerry’s response to all this, his “indignation” and bolivating, was designed to impress the dummies at DummiesU and KOSland:

Those are extremely personal attacks. Rarely does a politician immerse himself so thoroughly in excremental politics by debasing the motives, the honesty, and the honor of his opponents as Kerry did in that short statement. No doubt, the ignoramuses on the left are cheering Kerry on. This, the man who consorted with the enemy during the Viet Nam War, who met with representatives of the Viet Cong and agreed to carry their propaganda water for them here in the United States while that very same enemy was shooting and killing men in uniform that Kerry now pretends to respect.

Kerry is as cold and calculating a politician as there has been on the American scene since Nixon. Whether he knew his remarks would generate the firestorm of controversy that they have is beside the point. Given the opportunity to give the finger to his opponents while catering to the powerful netnuts and their ability to mobilize money, resources, and political support, the Senator designed his response to appeal to the far left as a way to separate himself from other potential Democratic presidential hopefuls. He has become angry and spiteful – just like them. In this, the Kos Kids and others on the far left see Kerry as a kindred spirit, someone who “speaks their language.” How well this personae will play in 2008 remains to be seen. For the moment, it allows him to bask in the glow of their admiration and affection.

UPDATE V 1400hrs PST

Thanks to Wordsmith for pointing me to this insane explanation from Taylor Marsh at The Huffington Post:

Below is what Kerry actually meant to say, which I got straight from the Kerry team, which Kerry uses all the time.

“I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.” – Senator John Kerry

He screwed it up. Period. Hey, but the wingnuts don’t care. And now it’s on tape!

Oooook then. No revising history here huh? His prior statements about our soldiers acting like terrorists in Iraq, his lies and distortions about abuse in Vietnam, and his flip flopping about pretty much every issue makes me think that maybe….just maybe, the Kerry team is telling a fib when they try to explain this statement away.

Today Clarence W. Bell , Jr. , the Republican candidate for County Executive , reported to Baltimore County Police that his web site www.VoteBell.org had been hacked by an unknown person.

Bell received an email from a school age supporter that was voting for Bell ’s web site. The supporter stated:

“there are hackers that are very mean. We are having a school election and we r voting for u. Your website has been controlled by hackers. I hope you win the election because you are doing the right thing.”

Bell immediately contacted his webmaster and confirmed the hack, then notified Baltimore County Police who are conducting an investigation.

“I regret this type of mean spirited attack has been made upon my website. I have asked the Baltimore County Police to conduct an investigation and prosecute those responsible.” Bell said.

by Larwyn

Patrick Fitzgerald filed a Motion In Limine yesterday to preclude Libby from presenting any evidence, making any comment or argument respecting the government’s decision not to charge Richard Armitage, who did disclose Plame’s name and position to at least two reporters (Robert Novak and Bob Woodward).

Those of us who’ve been watching this case know that from the moment Fitzgerald was named special prosecutor, he and Secretary of State Colin Powell, the general counsel of the Department of State as well as key officials in the Department of Justice and the FBI all knew that the source of that information was Richard Armitage. And yet he proceeded with a broad based investigation and the prosecution of Libby.

Fitzgerald wants the Court to prevent the jury from knowing that.

In his pleading, Fitzgerald argues that this information is not relevant. I’ll not try to do the work of Libby’s lawyers who need no assistance, but it does seem relevant to me, for if Armitage, who deliberately revealed this information to at least two reporters, was not charged with unlawfully revealing classified information, there was likely no law violated in the disclosure of this information. And if there was none-and I am sure of that-what motive did Libby have to lie? If there was no motive to lie, surely the slight testimonial variances between Libby’s recollections of three short inconsequential conversations and those of the reporters involved seems certain to have been the normal, expected variances in recollections of such trivia.

Fitzgerald then goes further, and says that even if the evidence is relevant , it should be kept from the jury because the “jury might impute to the government certain beliefs and opinions based on the decision not to charge certain crimes, and improperly draw inferences regarding the government’s view of the conduct”—i.e., that the defendant’s disclosure was proper.He makes clear that he fears if these facts were known by the jury it “would have an undue tendency to suggest jury nullification.”

I translate these two arguments as follows. If the jury knew what we know they’d conclude:

(1) Armitage was far more culpable than Libby and if he wasn’t charged , why is it Libby who’s in the dock?

(2) Something is fishy about this prosecution and we aren’t going to be a party to it.

In my reading of the pleading, I do not see a cited case directly on point. But since I know these facts and think there is something very wrong with the prosecution of Libby and that the case should never have been brought, I can understand why Fitzgerald is so desperate to keep the jury in the dark. Perhaps if he hadn’t implied so much in his press conference announcing the indictment-including the false charge that Libby was the first to disclose this information-he wouldn’t look so foolish now.

But foolish and desperate he is.

And we’re just at the threshold.
by the American Thinker

Seems they will go to any lengths to grab power and to hide truth.

Is this a voice of the future of Islam?

(Edited for length)

In an effort to look past the frantic response of the fuming extremists and their haste to kill and destroy, we ought to consider the rules and basics of coexistence and interfaith dialogue. We should see how it can be applied in today’s globalized world in order to leave behind the old resentments and past tragedies.

In my opinion, there are sound rules that should govern this dialogue. All parties should follow them with no exception. The Muslims, in particular, are invited to abide by those rules, as their extremists choose to impose a deviant law of violence and terror of their own making, instead of the rules of rational debate and honest, constructive dialogue. The basic rules can be summarized as follows:

Rejection of Violence

Throughout history, a myriad of crimes, wars, and horrible tragedies have been committed in the name of religion. Unsubstantial religious justifications have been frequently used to validate and even “sanctify” violence. Holy violence and religious hostilities were most prominent among the three Abrahamaic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. History also keeps a tragic record of wars that have raged among the followers of each religion for political or sectarian reasons.

However the Renaissance movement brought about enlightenment, progress and rationalism. Thus Western civilization was effectively purged of holy violence and of the perceived justifications found in Judaism and Christianity. Judaism, which had a strong connection to Western Civilization, completely severed its ties with the old texts that called for violence that were used in the early history of Judaism. Jews are no longer bound by those texts, and have not been for hundred of years now. These violent texts are considered a part of their early history that no longer dictates their behavior. Christianity made a clear distinction between political violence and religious (or holy) violence. Henceforth, the West engaged in political wars (i.e. wars that are launched by political states and not by religious entities, and for purely political reasons).

That leaves the Muslim extremists as the only ones who continue to sing the praises of holy violence today, hence the paradox of demanding an apology while they continue to practice that same violence profusely. We have yet to see a single Muslim organization renounce or counter the “sword verses”. To this day we are still waiting for a credible Muslim organization to issue even a single fatwa against vicious terrorists such as Al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden, Al-Zarqawi, and others.

I even dare say that in most cases when wars are fought in the Muslim world the national motives pale against the principal motives that are used to mobilize the masses: the speeches about victory, martyrdom and the lure of after-life rewards which mostly consist of sensual pleasures. These are among the driving factors behind the escalation of violence and the phenomena of international terrorism.

Holy violence features clearly in Islamic thinking, as a necessary undertaking, whether it is defensive or offensive. The reasons given to justify the use of violence are unsound; and not only used in a context of self-defense but also to validate acts of pure aggression. Muslim societies usually adopt that twisted and unacceptable logic in their dealings with the outside world. They have heaped insults upon insults on Pope Benedict XVI, as if he were the author of holy violence, while Muslim societies are actually witnessing acts of holy violence on a daily basis.

To set a foundation for a constructive dialogue, the prominent Muslim organizations would first of all have to reject violence publicly, counteract the violent texts in the Quran and Sunna as Judaism previously did, and make it perfectly clear that they condemn all acts of terror, terrorists, and champions of holy violence.

The on-going Muslim violence, expressed in words and deeds, makes the possibility of an open and genuine dialogue highly unlikely. I believe that this was the real message that the Pope of Rome wanted to send to the Muslim world, but he chose an inappropriate means and failed to communicate his real intent. The Vatican Foreign Affairs minister stated on 16 September 2006 that the Pope meant to confirm that violence in the name of faith is never acceptable in any religion. German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed the same sentiment saying that the Pope placed a definite emphasis on the absolute rejection of any form of violence in the name of religion.

2. Mutual Apology

In the beginning of the third millennium, the late Pope John Paul II decided to make a trip to the Middle East that he referred to as a “last pilgrimage” to visit the Holy Lands. Before the trip, while he was celebrating mass on 12 March 2000, the Pope offered a public apology for the errors made by the Roman Catholic Church.

He asked for the Jews’ forgiveness because of the church’s failure to take action during the Nazi holocaust.

He apologized to the Eastern Orthodox Church that has suffered oppression at the hands of the Catholic Church which eventually led to the collapse of the Byzantine Empire.

He apologized to the Russians. He asked forgiveness for the horror of the Spanish inquisition, the “indulgences”, and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals. However, he offered no apology for the crusades. The Muslim world was in fury, and demanded an apology, but the Pope did not respond to this demand because he believed that the crusades represented one episode in a series of mutual transgressions between Muslims and Christians, and as such, both parties are required to exchange apologies.

I addressed this issue in an article that was published in the newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi on 4 April 2000, under the title: “Can We Hope For An Apology From Sheikh Al-Azhar For The Faults Committed By Muslims?” I surmised that if we seek to close the files of past transgressions, and get rid of a heritage of resentment and bitterness, then both Muslims and Christians would have to exchange apologies and ask for mutual pardon. I asked Sheikh Al-Azhar to reciprocate by apologizing for the following:

To apologize for the fact that no religions – other then Islam – have been tolerated or practiced in the Arab Peninsula since Islam first emerged.
To apologize for the excessive violence that was used to spread the new religion in what is known as the Islamic conquests.
To apologize for forcing the non-Muslims – Jews and Christians – to submit to the Dhimmi system, and live in a status of semi-slavery for more then 12 centuries, until it was finally cancelled in 1855.
To apologize for the barbaric acts committed by the Turks during the reign of the Ottoman Caliphate.
To apologize for countless hostile fatwas against non-Muslims, for putting their lives and properties in danger, and for targeting their young daughters in an on-going cycle of oppression that takes place in most Muslim countries.
The link to the full article is: www.alquds.co.uk:8080/archives/pdf/2000/04Apr/04%20Apr%20Tue/Quds19.pdf.

I believed then, and still do now, that a mutual apology is in order. Christians are ready for that, so what about Muslims? While we can assert that the great majority of Christians condemn the crusades, the “indulgences”, and the persecution of scientists and intellectuals through the inquisition, the same cannot be said about the Muslims’ attitude towards the Islamic conquests, as only a small number of Muslims seem to express disapproval of the conquests.

Pope John Paul II was right when he refused to apologize for the crusades, and the Muslim world should not make demands for an apology as long as it lacks the courage to acknowledge its past and current faults.

3. Reciprocity

Ansarullah Mawlavezada,the Afghan trial judge in the case of Abdul Rahman – a 41 years old Afghan man who has converted from Islam to Christianity – has made the following comment to the BBC: “The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back,” adding that “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him.”

Religious freedom, as a concept and a practice, is sorely missing from Islamic history, ever since the early days of the Prophet and to our present time, with no exception. Sadly, what intellectuals such as Said Al-Ashmawi, Gamal Al-Bana and Ahmed Sobhi Mansour say about a Muslim’s right to freely renounce his or her religion lacks a solid foundation and a historical ground. Quranic verses such as “there shall be no coercion in religion,” and “Let him who pleases believe, and let him who pleases disbelieve,” have never been applied throughout the history of Islam.

The world has reached a point where it can no longer tolerate the twisted logic and the double standards policy of the Muslim countries. They have full freedom to build worship places and mosques in the West while they deny or obstruct the building process of churches in their countries. They freely promote Islam in the West and forbid proselytizing in their countries and ruthlessly persecute those who convert from Islam. They rudely attack other religions and go berserk if any one in the West dares to touch on their religion. They enjoy full citizenship rights in the West, and deny the persecuted aboriginal Christians in the Middle East and other Muslim states those same rights. This has gotten to the point where many Muslim countries are imposing strict laws to prevent the Muslims from renouncing Islam, treating their citizens as if they were hostages locked in iron cages.

However, following the events of September 11, 2001, many in the West in general, and the Vatican in particular, started to speak out against those double standards. In 2003, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran made the following remark: “seeing that the Muslims have the ability to build worship places and mosques anywhere in the world, the same should be possible for the followers of other faiths in the Muslim Countries.”

In February 2006, Pope Benedict XVI pointed to the importance of having and showing “respect for the convictions and religious practices of others so that, in a reciprocal manner, the exercise of freely-chosen religion is truly assured to all in all societies.” In May 2006, he once more confirmed that “Christians should have an open and loving attitude towards the Muslim emigrants and the Muslims should reciprocate by treating the Christians who live among them kindly and fairly.” The Vatican’s secretary of state commented on the killing and destruction spree that was triggered by the Danish cartoons by saying: “if we tell our people that they have no right to offend, then we should tell the others that they have no right to destroy us.” The Vatican foreign minister pointed out that “We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries.”

Reciprocity, also known as “The Golden Rule”, is a fundamental moral principle, and a basic requirement to develop fair relationships, whether personal or international – will Muslims accept the rules of logic, justice and equality or are they intent on following another type of logic?

4. Respecting Differences between Religions

Muslim extremists show no consideration for the differences between religions and that creates one of the major problems between non-Muslims and extremists. The Muslims are adamant that Christians and Jews should accept the Muslim beliefs – which goes a lot further then just respecting Islam – i.e. to recognize and give credit to Muslim convictions. Yet, the diversity of religions means that there are radical differences between the different beliefs. Human values and the individual’s right to follow a faith of his or her own choice is considered the common base shared by all of humanity, and a guideline for human interactions.

The Muslim Agenda for a Western-Muslim conference would typically include these two points: the acknowledgment of Islam as a heavenly religion, and the never-ending complaint about the life conditions of the Muslims in the West.

Christians do not ask Muslims to acknowledge the deity of Christ, the crucifixion or resurrection, and I fail to understand how Muslims could want them to recognize a faith that denies all of those beliefs. Is it reasonable to ask others to acknowledge the particulars of a certain faith that contradicts their own?

Al-Azhar brought up this issue once more in the last interfaith dialogue and the Vatican refused its demand to recognize Islam as a heavenly religion. Al-Qaradawi asked the same of Pope Shenouda in “Al-Duha” conference with the same result. Recently, during the crisis triggered by the Pope’s speech, the demands for an apology were expanded to include an acknowledgment of Islam. Sheikh Al-Azhar asked the Pope to confirm that: “Islam is a religion that spread through persuasion and the Prophet brought only good to mankind and absolutely no evil.” In an interview with Al-Jazeera channel on 16 September 2006, Mohammed Habib, the deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide asked the Pope to issue a clear apology adding that he should also admit that “Islam is a heavenly religion, a religion of love, peace and mercy that did not spread by the sword.” The only thing left would be for Mr. Habib to ask the Pope to utter the Shahada!! (declaration of faith in Islam).

Once more the double-standard strategy rears its ugly head: Muslims do not acknowledge other faiths, and Christians do not expect them to acknowledge the fundamentals of Christian faith, such as the deity of Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection, so why should Muslims be adamant that others acknowledge their faith?

Sadiq Al-Mahdi wrote an article that was published in Asharq-Alawsat on 9 April 2005, where he summed the situation up by saying that there is “a fierce competition between Islam and Christianity”, and in that context “the major failing of Christianity is that it does not acknowledge Islam as a heavenly religion.”

In response, I wrote an article on 19 April 2005 that was published in the same newspaper, urging him to respect the differences between religions, and to acknowledge what I termed as the “human charter” which reflects the universal values, the particularity of different cultures and faiths, and the unity of human conscience, an acknowledgment of this charter is a sort of prerequisite for anyone who wishes to join the wide open human club. The link to the full article: www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=294433&issue=9639.

To sum up, one of the main bases for co-existence is to acknowledge the particularity of each religion, an area that should not be open for debate. The debate, or the dialogue, should only revolve around shared human values as a means to reduce conflicts, foster fraternity and goodwill towards men.

It is no wonder then that there are constant disagreements between the international community and the Muslim countries, particularly in regards to four major areas addressed by the human rights charters: religious freedoms, women status, the rights of non-Muslim minorities and the punishments prohibited for human reasons or what is known as the Islamic penalties Hudud.

The dialogue between Christians and Muslims should break out of the bounds of ceremonial protocol and tackle the major issues and basics mentioned in this article. In the past we had a semblance of dialogue that was devoid of a meaningful substance, and that failed to make a real difference. The current Pope of Rome refuses to settle for this empty shell of a dialogue and is determined to address the real issues.

Well, reasonable men should be able to grasp the basics that govern an honest and serious dialogue. The ball is now in the Muslims’ court, and it is up to them if they wish to appeal to reason, logic and international rules.

Magdi Khalil is a political analyst, researcher, author and Executive Editor of the Egyptian weekly Watani International.
the link is here.

As for me: Co-Existence is possible if :

1) Islamic countries recognize the right of Israel to exist.

2) Islamic countries give women equal rights.

3) And Islamic countries recognize religious freedom, freedom of speech, and Democracy.

But I am very skeptical if this will ever be the case, and wonder if Islam and western values can ever be compatable.

…….and liberals are more threatened by Christianity.

by Curt at Flopping Aces

It’s kinda strange that Pakistan attacks a Taliban supported terrorist training camp when they have been bending over backwards to support the Taliban over Waziristan. They have signed agreements with the Taliban giving them control over their own territory but all of a sudden they take out a whole camp:

Pakistani army helicopters killed around 80 suspected militants on Monday in a dawn attack on a religious school run by a pro-Taliban commander wanted for harboring al Qeda fighters, a military spokesman said.

The army said the religious school or madrasa in Chenagai, 10 km (six miles) north of Khar, the main town in the Bajaur tribal region bordering Afghanistan, was being used as a militant training camp.

The strike killed almost everyone present in the madrasa, although at least three wounded were taken to hospital in Khar.

“The compound has been destroyed,” Major-General Shaukat Sultan told Reuters.

“According to our local sources, up to 80 deaths have been confirmed,” he said. No ground troops were sent in to mop up.

Residents said they had seen three or four army helicopters flying over Chenagai at around 5 a.m.

Bill Roggio from The Fourth Rail believes this may have been a US led operation:

While the Pakistanis are taking credit for this strike, the question arises as to whether this may have been conducted by Task Force 145, the U.S. special operations terrorist hunter-killer teams. Task Force 145 was responsible for the April raid in Danda Saidgai on the al-Qaeda’s training camp for Osama bin Laden’s Black Guard, his elite praetorian guard. Pakistan initially took credit for the Danda Saidgai strikes, but the Washington Post later revealed this was indeed a U.S. mission. Dawn notes the raid occurred “at around 5:00 am,” which means it was conducted in the dark. Pakistani helicopter pilots would need night training in flight and targeting.

This attack comes on the heels of Pakistan releasing 9 Al-Qaeda terrorists:

Pakistani authorities have released nine tribesmen held for more than a year on suspicion of links with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, a tribal elder and residents said yesterday.

The men, who included relatives of fugitive militant leader Faqir Mohammed, were captured by Pakistani security agencies in May 2005 in the northwestern Bajur tribal region and were accused by the government of sheltering foreign militants.

The men were freed Saturday “as a gesture of good will” following a meeting between government officials and elders from Bajur, the head of a council of tribal elders, Malik Abul Aziz, said.

Which caused the Taliban in Pakistan to hail Osama as a hero:

Describing as Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as “heroes of the Islamic world”, a meeting of pro-Taleban tribal militants and elders in Pakistan have vowed to fight the “enemies of peace” in Bajaur Agency.

A ‘jirga’ (tribal council) of the Mamoond tribe and local pro-Taleban militants in the Umree area of Mamoond tehsil of Khar district announced that tribal people would protect Pakistan’s borders.

The announcement comes days after the political administration of Bajaur Agency released nine suspected Al Qaeda militants, triggering rumours that a North Waziristan-like peace accord was also likely in Bajaur, which overlooks Afghanistan’s Kunar province where Bin Laden and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are suspected to be hiding.

So what the hell is going on? Is Pakistan ceding more territory over to the Taliban or are they now attacking them?

Did the US attack this camp, as well they should have, and now Pakistan is taking credit for it to make up for their nonsensical appeasement of a terrorist supporting group?

UPDATE 10/30/06 1110hrs PST

ABC news has learned that it was indeed a US strike and they had a specific target, Ayman al Zawahiri:

Ayman al Zawahiri was the target of a Predator missile attack this morning on a religious school in Pakistan, according to Pakistani intelligence sources.

ABC News has learned the raid was launched after U.S. intelligence received tips and examined Predator reconnaissance indicating that al Qaeda’s No. 2 man may have been staying at the school, which is located in the Bajaur region near the village that is thought to be al Qaeda’s winter headquarters.

Despite earlier reports that the missiles had been launched by Pakistani military helicopters, Pakistani intelligence sources now tell ABC News that the missiles were fired from a U.S. Predator drone plane.

Between two and five senior al Qaeda militants were killed in the attack, including the mastermind of the airliners plot in the U.K., according to Pakistani intelligence sources.

No word yet on whether or not Zawahiri was killed in the raid, but one Pakistani intelligence source did express doubt that Zawahiri would have been staying in a madrassa, which is an obvious target for strikes against militants. That source, however, did express confidence that Pakistani intelligence is closing in on Zawahiri’s location.

One of the clerics who is believed to have been killed today, Maulana Liaquat, was one of the two main local leaders believed to be protecting Zawahiri.

Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News they believe they have “boxed” Zawahiri in a 40-square-mile area between the Khalozai Valley in Bajaur and the village of Pashat in Kunar, Afghanistan. They hope to capture or kill him in the next few months.

Now this is some good news. Hopefully Zawahiri is 6 feet under right now, but even if not, the fact that we are getting closer is just awesome news.

But I have a question. Why isn’t the headline:

Mastermind of U.K. Airliners Plot Killed by U.S. Predator Missile

being broadcast all over the world?

Care to take a guess?

Instead ABC makes a point to report that it was a school. You know, the evil US bombed a school…..of course Religous school = terrorist hide out….but why report the facts.

So, what is Cindy Sheehan’s friend doing now?

Venezuela has ceased issuing tourist visas to Israelis, its embassy in Israel said Monday, accenting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s harsh criticism of Israel.

However, a Venezuelan official said the halt was technical in nature.

from the J Post

and what has this lead too?

Venezuela’s Jews Fear Anti-Semitism

Caracas, Venezuela: Rebecca, a 44-year-old Jew born and raised here, says she and her husband “increasingly talk about whether we should stay in Venezuela.”
While her cousin and aunt have spent the past month in a bomb shelter in Haifa, Rebecca, who refuses to give her last name because her family does some work with the Venezuelan government, says she also feels “increasingly fearful” — not because of war but simply for being Jewish in Venezuela.

This is largely because of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s vehement criticism of Israel during its monthlong war with Hezbollah. Chavez has described Israel’s actions in Lebanon as a “new Holocaust,” and said that “Israel is doing what Hitler did to the Jews.”

Chavez’s supporters have followed his lead: Graffiti featuring swastikas and slogans such as “Judios asesinos” — or “Jewish assassins” — is on the rise. Many Jews here think Chavez’s heated rhetoric is fanning the flames of anti-Semitism — an ongoing theme during the Chavez administration, they say.

At a recent demonstration, protesters burned an Israeli flag outside the Israeli Embassy in “a campaign orchestrated by the government,” according to Paulina Gambus, who in 1970 founded the human-rights office in the Confederation of Israelite Associations of Venezuela, known by its Spanish acronym CAIV. In addition, the capital’s largest synagogue, Tiferet Israel, has been vandalized in recent months with slogans including “Judios Afuera,” or “Jews out.”

Gambus and others contend that the recent anti-Semitic behavior isn’t typical for Venezuela. Gambus’ parents, a Syrian Jew and a Greek Jew, arrived here in 1929; she was born in 1937.

Attending public school, Gambus — along with the children of Communist parents — was able to opt out of a daily Catholic studies class. “There was never a stigma” for doing so, she says. In terms of religious tolerance, she says, she “never felt rejection” in Venezuela. Gambus won election to the Caracas City Council, the national legislature — where she served for 16 years — and the national senate in 1999, never hiding her Judaism.

Unlike Argentina or Chile, Venezuela has no history of providing refuge for Nazi fugitives or excluding Jewish immigration.

Daniel Benaim, 46, a Caracas native and leading television producer, says he has “never needed to downplay his faith” in his career. But he’s increasingly concerned about the government’s incendiary comments about Israel and Jews.

Beyond the rhetoric, Chavez is pursuing closer strategic relations with Arab countries and Iran, and is emerging as a key supporter of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who repeatedly has called for Israel’s destruction.

Analysts say it’s not unusual for Venezuela and Iran, two founding members of OPEC, to maintain friendly relations. But Carlos Romero, a political scientist at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, says that “since the foundation of Israel, Venezuela has maintained equilibrium between its interests in Israel and Arab countries. Chavez has broken this.”

“This is very dangerous,” Romero added. “Chavez is going into a black tunnel.” The Venezuelan Jewish community acknowledges that Israeli foreign policy sometimes warrants criticism. “I didn’t agree with what happened” in Lebanon, Benaim says.

But he and others say Chavez and his supporters have crossed the line that separates healthy criticism from hateful speech and potential incitement to violence — and examples predate the Lebanon war.

For example, Venezuelan filmmaker Jonathan Jakubowicz appeared last January on the popular “La Hojilla” program on state-run television. The pro-Chavez show often assesses international and local private media coverage of Venezuela.

The hosts criticized Jakubowicz’s film, “Sequestro Express,” as unfair toward the government. But they went on to identify Jakubowicz as a Jew and claim that Miramax Studios financed the film only because the studio was run by two Jews.

In addition, Norberto Ceresole, an Argentine who was a key adviser to Chavez, has blamed the 1994 AMIA terrorist attack in Buenos Aires, which killed 86 people and wounded more than 300, on a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, evidence points to the involvement of Hezbollah and Iran.

Sergio Widder, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Latin American representative, said that the center found on the Internet a group known as “Hezbollah Venezuela,” which calls for “Jihad in Latin America.”

To be sure, the Venezuelan Jewish community is not unanimously convinced that it faces an increasing threat.

Natan Quiaro, 30, has worked for Chavez since 1998, currently as an assessor in the Education Ministry. He feels a strong connection to Israel, where his father lived for 10 years, and he has attended Caracas’ Tiferet Israel synagogue since he was 8 years old.

Quiaro says he never has experienced discrimination or anti-Semitism from colleagues in government, even now.

He thinks Chavez’s criticism of Israel has been appropriate — but admits his opinion isn’t shared by most of the Jewish community.

Quiaro questions whether domestic politics have influenced the community’s fear. Members of the community mostly are middle- or upper-middle class, a socioeconomic group that includes few supporters of Chavez, a populist who purports to be the voice of the poor.

Quiaro contends that the Venezuelan Jewish community is “selective” in its criticism of those who invoke Hitler: For example, when U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld earlier this year compared Chavez to Hitler, CAIV issued no denunciation.

Chavez met with CAIV earlier in the year over a Christmas eve speech that the Wiesenthal Center deemed anti-Semitic. CAIV later told the Forward that Chavez was not an anti-Semite, and accused the Wiesenthal Center of interfering in Venezuela’s affairs.

However, several Venezuelan Jews told JTA that CAIV’s statements were made without consulting the community. Since then, they contend, Chavez and his supporters’ true sentiments have become abundantly clear.
from Front Page Magazine

And as Fausta’s Blog pointed out the next time you read about Hugo being a-charismatic-leader-helping-the-poor-offering-free-health-care-education-adult-literacy-and-job-training-initiatives-that-help-millions-of-Venezuelanstm, bear in mind that he’s lying about the drop in illiteracy rates:

by Haider Ajina

‘The Sunni Aljuhaishat tribe helped protected men from the Alkufaifan Shiite tribe after armed fighting broke out between the Alkufaifan and an armed group. Men from the Aljuhaishat tribe answered a call for help from Alkufaifan even though there were light clashes between these two tribes just a few days ago. As soon as Aljuhaishat answered the call of the Shiite Alkufaifan tribe it became evident that the attackers were not from a local Sunni tribe. The attacker were creating strife between the tow tribes by attacking the Shiite tribe and making it seem as if the local Sunni tribe Aljuhaishat was attacking the Shiite Alkufaifan tribe. After all day fighting the Shiite Alkufaifan with the support of the Sunni Aljuhaishat tribe, seven of the attackers were killed and three were captured. It became evident that the attackers were member of a murder and robbery gang or militia. Later men from both tribes praised and thanked each other for helping ending the attackers and help the truth come out. This incident proves the national unity of most Iraqis while turning a blind eye to their sect or origin’.

My comments,

The cooperation and comradeship amongst Sunni & Shiite displayed here is very similar to the Iraq I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s before Saddam came to power.

Incidences such as these (Sunni & Shiite helping each other) happen frequently in Iraq. They go unreported in western media. It is mostly the former Baathists and Alqida and some Shiite militia who are creating the sectarian strife in Iraq. The foreign influences of Iran and Syria especially fund and aid the strife. Criminal gangs or militia, who can be Sunni or Shiite, are trying to ignite fighting amongst Tribes in Iraq. I could not find further details about these criminals who tried to get Aljuhaishat and Alkufaifan to fight each other. Gladly, cooler heads prevailed and the truth came out.

By Robert Farrow

European Birth Rate Declines

The natural increase in Europe’s population is slowing and may start a steep decline within a few decades, researchers say.

Researchers writing in the journal Science said European population growth reached a turning point in the year 2000 when the number of children dropped to a level that statistically assured there will be fewer parents in the next generation than there are in the current generation.

In effect, the authors say, the momentum for population growth in the 15-nation European Union has flipped from positive to negative and the trend could strongly influence population numbers throughout the 21st century.

“If the current fertility rate of around 1.5 births per woman persists until 2020, negative momentum will result in 88 million fewer people in 2100, if one assumes constant mortality and no net migration,” the researchers say. The EU population in 2000 was about 375 million.
from CBS News

Worried European governments are crafting natalist policies to nudge couples to have more children, from offering better child care to monthly stipends keyed to family size. But why are these policies necessary in the first place? I used to date a liberal feminist who demeaned her sister who chose to be a stay at home mom and once wished her mom had not “wasted her life” raising her. And to repeat what I said in Sacrificing Society on an Alter of Choice, how can a philosophy that celebrates abortion rather then motherhood not be destructive? On an alter of choice more babies have been aborted since Roe then all the deaths in the Civil War, World War I, and WWII combined.

But what about the other criteria of survivability, the ability to defend yourself? As a case in point, Traditional France lost a quarter millions soldiers in one battle, (Verdun) but secular France lost 9 men in one battle (Afghanistan) and pulled their troops. Secularlism simply cannot defend itself adequately. For another example, let’s take a look and the dismal record of liberal Jimmy Carter’s joke of a foreign policy.

Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” Regarding North Korea’s dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him “vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country,” adding “I don’t see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”

He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceaucescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”

Almost all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” was “overly simplistic and counterproductive.”
from Vcrisis

Carter was shocked when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Bill Clinton was attacked by Al-Qaeda repeatedly and did nothing until the Lewinski scandal. An now it is the likes of Dean and Murtha that follow along in this proud tradition. A culture that demonizes and handicaps it’s own military and views it’s enemies higher their own country is not only weak, but suicidal. Simply, how can you defeat the enemy when you cannot even recognize the enemy or even name the enemy? The lying media won’t even call some terrorists what they are, terrorists.

Names are everything. A good name makes good ideas sound bad and bad ideas sound good. Take the ACLU. The ACLU was founded by Communists and is not dedicated to destroying Christian values in this country. But they cannot call themselves the Anti Christian Communists Union, because then they will not get as much money. Liberals are called Liberals because they have standing armies to protect them. Without a standing army, liberals would have another name or two, namely the enslaved or dead. (by the way, how many liberals choose to serve their country and serve in the military?) Sadly, because of the defects in human nature, there will always be war. And those that believe that this will change, and that you can stop evil be being nice to it also goes by the name of liberal, but in another time they were called the stupid, or simple, or delusional. But it does not matter if one has a bad idea if you can make it sound good and demonize those that do not agree with you. For those that control names control words, and thus thoughts and society. And that is the danger.

Here’s a recent idiotorial from the Chronically San Franciscan by a Professor Robert Jensen,

Men Being Men is a Bad deal: Guys Should Evolve Beyond Masculinity:

“Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women, but for us. We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It’s time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.”

Amazingly, in Jenson’s bizarro world, our worst social problems are not caused by an absence of real men, but by their very presence: “masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control ‘their’ women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery.”
Leftist that he is, Jensen is confusing the horizontal category of mere biological maleness and the vertical psycho-spiritual achievement of true manhood. And naturally, “if we are going to jettison masculinity, we have to scrap femininity along with it. We “have to stop assuming” that masculinity and femininity even matter anymore.
from OneCosmos

The idea that getting rid of masculinity should be absurd to most anyone, but it is not to some that teach our young adults and influence their values. The thought that a demasculinized society will roll over in the face of an aggressor should seem obvious, but it is not to the permanently simple. Like with any species, what determines the survivability of a nation is it’s ability to defend itself and ability to procreate. Secular Liberalism fails in both categories. Culture does matter, and now even more as we are in the mist of a cultural war as we struggle to win a very real world war. This, more then any other factor is why I changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Social Darwinism is real and will determine if the west will survive at all. For in the end, either the west will defeat secularism and survive or the west will stay secular and fall.

by Curt at Flopping Aces

ABC News had an interview with Michael J. Fox this morning, with the usual questions. But there is one small segment of the video that is interesting. It’s at the point that Michael admits he never read the initiative that he campaigned for, in a secondhand way.

Now this initiative has come into focus because of the recent dustup over Rush Limbaugh’s remarks on Michael’s ad where Rush said he may have been acting or off his meds when he sat down for the political ad.

It’s sad that Michael’s disease has progressed to this point, but he admits that he was overmedicated for the spot. This, to me, sounds like he wanted to shock people into voting for a candidate who has made Amendment 2 a cornerstone of her campaign.

Democrat Claire McCaskill has made support for Amendment 2 a key part of her campaign to unseat U.S Senator Jim Talent. The Republican incumbent opposes Amendment 2.

Here it is reported he supports McCaskill largely due to her support of the Amendment he never read:

The new ad comes days after the airing of a controversial commercial featuring actor Michael J. Fox in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race. In the commercial, Fox endorses Democrat Claire McCaskill, largely because of her support for Amendment 2.

And Amendment 2 is all about human cloning:

The official summary’s next item, and by far its most deceptive, only complicates things further. It tells voters the initiative would “ban human cloning or attempted cloning.” But in fact, the ballot initiative would create a new state constitutional right to human cloning.

Human cloning, sometimes known by its technical name “somatic-cell nuclear transfer” or SCNT, involves creating a new human being that is genetically identical to an existing human being. It could be done by removing the contents of a woman’s egg cell, and filling it with the contents of an adult cell (for instance, a skin cell) taken from the body of a donor. The result would be a developing human embryo with the genetic identity of the donor of the adult cell — an embryo like any other, but with only one genetic parent rather than two. This is how Dolly the sheep was created, and many other mammals since, though no one seems to have mastered the technique in humans just yet.

Once created, this cloned human embryo would be in the same situation as any other embryo produced in the lab, and one of two things could be done with it: It could be implanted in a woman to grow to term and be born, or it could be destroyed so that its stem cells could be removed for research. SCNT therefore means either bringing a cloned child into the world, or creating human embryos solely to destroy them for science. Huge majorities of the public agree that cloned children should not be produced, and even the ballot initiative itself seems to disapprove of creating a human life solely to destroy it for research. Therefore, since creating a cloned embryo by SCNT would allow only for two unethical options, the ethical option is to prohibit the practice altogether, and avoid that impossible choice. President Bush has called for such a ban, and the House of Representatives (though not the Senate) has voted for it. Even the U.N. General Assembly last year adopted a declaration calling on member states to “prohibit all forms of human cloning.”

On their face, the Missouri initiative and the campaign supporting it imply that is what the proposed constitutional amendment would do. But further down, tucked away in its definition section, we find that when it speaks of human cloning the initiative refers only to efforts “to implant in a uterus” the embryo produced by SCNT in an attempt to initiate a pregnancy.

The act of implanting an embryo in a woman’s womb, performed with IVF embryos many times every day, is not what makes human cloning different. What is different is the act of cloning — somatic-cell nuclear transfer — by which the embryo is originally created. Cloning to produce an embryo to be developed to birth and cloning to produce an embryo to be destroyed for research are both human cloning, carried out identically. As James Battey, chair of the NIH Stem Cell Task Force, told a congressional committee in March, “The first step, the cloning step, is the same, but the intended result is different” (emphasis added). But the initiative, by redefining cloning, protects the practice while pretending to prohibit it.

Moreover, the combination of the first and second sections of the initiative would mean that the Missouri constitution would first privilege and protect the creation of cloned human embryos for research (as long as federal law did not prohibit it) and then would mandate the destruction of these embryos.

So basically Michael made an ad, in which he was purposely overmedicated, to support McCaskill because of her stand on this initiative. An initiative he never read nor understood.

Now my question is, in this interview he states:

Stephanopoulos: You mentioned the Steele campaign. Both the Steele campaign and the Talent campaign have said you’re not being fair to them, because they want to expand stem cell research, too, they say, but it’s adult stem cell research.

Fox: Right, and I agree with them on adult stem cell research. I mean, let’s talk about what we agree on. I agree that stem cell research is fantastic; we should pursue it. I agree that we should have no human cloning. We’re against that. We’re against egg farming, that notion. We agree on all of that.

So if he became better informed about what this initiative REALLY does…will he now film an ad for Talent?

UPDATE

Take a look at this other quote from Michael:

Transcript:

Fox: But, yeah, no, I’m not a shill for the Democratic Party. I approached them. I sat down to find out what candidates are pro-stem cell in races where they’re opposed by anti-stem cell candidates. And I had no predisposition toward Democrats or Republicans. It’d be fine with me either way.

In fact, a Republican candidate who’s pro-stem cell would be someone I’d really like to talk to.

Oh really? Then how do you explain filming this ad for Ben Cardin:

WPvideo 1.02
00:29
Who opposed a Stem Cell research bill:

Michael Steele said, “There is only one candidate in this race who voted against stem cell research and it’s Congressman Ben Cardin. Ben Cardin had a chance to support stem cell research that would not destroy human embryos, and he voted against it – not because of his beliefs on the issue, but as a transparent political stunt. Both Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes voted for this legislation. Ben Cardin wanted to politicize the issue instead of getting something done, so he voted against it. Marylanders deserve better than Congressman Cardin’s continued Washington double-talk, mistruths and sheer political gamesmanship on an issue as important as stem cell research.”

On September 6, 2006, the Frederick News Post reported: “[Cardin] opposes suggestions that stem cell research is acceptable if the embryo isn’t destroyed. (Liam Farrell, “Pursuing Change,” Frederick News Post, September 2, 2006)

Michael Steele added, “I am an enthusiastic supporter of cord blood, adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research that does not destroy the embryo, and I fully support expanding innovations in technology that make it possible to treat and prevent disease without the willful destruction of human embryos.”

Cardin Voted AGAINST Expanded Research On Stem Cells That Do Not Destroy Embryos.

* Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. “Barton, R-Texas, motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, with priority for research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill’s enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #380: Motion rejected. July 18, 2006, Cardin voted Nay)

The Senate Voted Unanimously To Pass the Same Bill that Cardin voted AGAINST. Both Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes Voted In Favor Of The Bill.

* Alternate Stem Cell Research Methods – Passage. Passage of the bill that would require the National Institutes of Health to conduct and support research to develop techniques for the isolation, derivation and production of pluripotent stem cells that do not destroy human embryos. It would require the Health and Human Services secretary to issue final guidelines for additional stem cell research, including a prioritization of research with the greatest potential to yield benefits in the near future, within 90 days of the bill’s enactment.” (S. 2754, CQ Vote #205: July 18, 2006, Sarbanes voted Yea; Mikulski voted Yea)

When he could have supported a REPUBLICAN candidate who did support this research?

Me thinks I smell a Democratic shill.

by Blair Lee

‘‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

— Lord Acton, 1881

No one’s ever going to accuse Bob Ehrlich of being a great governor. He came to the job without one minute’s executive experience having spent his entire career as a lawmaker, not a manager.

His four years of on-the-job training have witnessed many flubs and miscues; declaring legislative victories only to come up short on votes, questionable staff hires and some boneheaded rhetoric (opposing bilingualism is one thing, but calling it ‘‘crap” and ‘‘bunk” is simply ungubernatorial).

And some of his wounds have been self-inflicted: plugging the budget gap by raising the state property tax 5 cents without making Dems share the blame, or cutting $7 million of medical assistance to pregnant immigrants?

Would Martin O’Malley be any better? Well, he looks and sounds the part but the more we learn, the less we like. Most disturbing is the mayor’s willingness — no, compulsion — to exaggerate, distort and deliberately mislead us.

So far he’s been nailed fudging his city’s crime statistics, job creation numbers, high school graduation rates and minority contract progress. He calls the very limited improvement in the city schools ‘‘one of the biggest turnarounds of any urban system in the nation” and claims ‘‘people are moving back to the city” when Baltimore’s net population loss is 300 residents per month.

Sometimes it’s little falsehoods like declaring, with great fanfare, that he’s ceased singing in his band because of his job demands and then continuing to play. And sometimes it’s larger falsehoods like claiming that Governor Ehrlich’s flush tax is ‘‘a handout to developers” when, in fact, it was heralded by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation as ‘‘the most significant environmental advance in Maryland in nearly 20 years.”

And then there’s the mayor’s maddening attempt to have it both ways. He’s promised billions in new state spending without identifying a funding source and he’s flip-flopped on slots leading the Washington Post to conclude, ‘‘When it comes to slots, Mr. O’Malley seems to believe in nothing at all.”

And, finally, there’s the demagoguery. When an Arab-owned company wanted to take over Baltimore port operations the mayor played the race card. ‘‘Not so long as I’m mayor and not so long as I have breath in my body,” a stance the Baltimore Sun called ‘‘a victory for mindless prejudice stoked by political fear mongering.”

At least Bob Ehrlich believes in something bigger than himself. Son of a car salesman, Ehrlich is a blue collar Republican with firmly held middle-class beliefs: the less taxes and government, the better; business, not government, makes the economy; America is the land of opportunity if you are willing to work.

And he has the courage of his convictions. In 1996, during his first term in Congress, Baltimore’s officials decided to reduce the city’s poor population by demolishing high-rise public housing projects and sending the excess poor to suburbia with housing vouchers. Among the state’s top politicians only Ehrlich went to bat for the besieged white and black suburban neighborhoods in this misguided bit of social engineering. The Baltimore Sun labeled him a racist but his constituents hailed him as a working class hero.

In 2002, he had the nerve to take on Kathleen Kennedy Townsend when everyone else considered her unbeatable. He was pilloried by the media and the liberal special interests but the voters responded to his gamble. Then, as governor, he took on an arrogant, run-away General Assembly and even challenged the Baltimore Sun when he thought they were out of line.

So far this year’s campaign has amounted to O’Malley hanging President Bush around Ehrlich’s neck and Ehrlich hanging Baltimore’s schools and crime around O’Malley’s neck. But that’s not what this election is all about. After 40 years of unchecked one-party rule, Marylanders must now decide whether to continue their fledgling experiment with two-party government and rule of law, or not.

Just as Lord Acton warned, 40 years of one-party power has created an Annapolis culture that considers itself above the law. In 2002, the Democrats wrote a legislative redistricting map so blatantly corrupt that, for the first time in history, Maryland’s highest court threw it out and replaced it with its own. And despite clear warnings, the legislature enacted (over Ehrlich’s veto) a series of laws — the Wal-Mart Bill, early elections and provisional ballots, firing the Public Service Commission — all of which violated the state constitution or federal law.

During the past four years in Annapolis Bob Ehrlich has seemed more like a sheriff than a governor, trying to curb a Democratic legislature insistent on continuing its reckless, lawless ways.

Now, state Senate President Mike Miller is asking voters to bury the Republicans, and two-party government, ‘‘face-up, six feet deep, so they won’t come up for 20 years.” He doesn’t want any competing views or voices in the State House.

If you think that’s in the best public interest, vote for O’Malley. But if you think Annapolis needs a sheriff, vote for Ehrlich. Democratic voters, who will decide this crossroads election, must soon choose between their party and their state. And if they want to send George Bush a message, call Western Union.

Blair Lee is CEO of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring and a regular commentator for WBAL radio.

by Haider Ajina

After Friday prayers in the Fatima Mosque in Nejaf , Imam Sadir Aldien Alqabanchi delivered a sermon titled ‘Iraq is a piece of the Arabic fabric’.

‘He said in his sermon, ‘since the dictatorship was brought down in Iraq, some have said Iraq has left the Arabic fabric because of the following reasons;

1- A free political and governmental system. Which is quite different from the rest of the Arab world, thus they consider it different from the Arabic fabric.

2- The Shiite majority forming a unity government and attaining their proportional rights through elections. They said this is a second reason.

3- Minorities in Iraq have their rights protected. The Kurdish minority have finally received their deserved rights under the unity government. They said this is was the third reason.

‘The imam then added, ‘Today the Arab world has been influenced by these statements and there are forces at work to return Iraq to the Arab fabric by destabilizing or annulling the current government and maybe even brining Saddam back. These reasons are why the Arab world has turned its back on Iraq and created false rumors of division and suspicion of what they call the Shiite crescent etc.. Iraqis reaffirmed that Iraq is a piece of the Arab fabric and will not leave it. No Iraqi wants to leave the Arab world we want Iraq to be an effective member of the Arab world. Iraqis did this by their free vote for the constitution which affirmed this. He added, ‘we must have a policy of mutual openness between us and the other Arabic countries. Iraqis chose the road of freedom from dictatorship and other Arabs thought that to be a step backward, they are wrong. Yes we have our problems but we have the resolve to cure the problems with patience, wisdom and courage. Talk about dividing Iraq is false and no one in Iraq wishes to divide the country. The USA under the leadership of James Baker is studying choices and options about the Iraqi situation. We Iraqis have three immovable matters,

1- No to the return of the Baathists or dictatorship.
2- No to violence or terrorism.
3- No to foreign interference in Iraqi leadership.
Other than these three immovable points they (the Baker commission) can study any other options they wish.

‘Alqabanchi then called on the government to take responsibility towards the residence of Balad and save them form the terrorists. He added, ‘we believe that all of Iraq’s province must move towards rebuilding and development and avoid internal strife. We hope that the provinces experiencing turmoil will resolve their problems fairly and in brotherly spirit’.

My comment,
The Imam of one of Nejaf’s (oldest and most influential city and center of Shiisim) most prominent mosques ‘Fatima Mosque’ gave this sermon today after Friday prayer at the end of Ramadan, after Eid Al-fitr (breaking of Ramadan fast) and after a tough month. This sermon sets the tone for most Shiite mosques in Iraq. The tone and resolve of this sermon is unmistakable. Iraqis solving their problems through ‘patience, wisdom and courage’ is a clear and concise statement by religious leaders rallying Iraqis towards a strong democracy and freedom. If any one in the west had any though that the majority of Iraqis want to ever go back to dictatorship or will put up with their neighbors meddling in Iraqi security, or want Iraq divided, these thoughts, I am sure have been erased. Iraqis also know they have no friend in Iran. Iran is supporting Shiite and Sunni subversive groups. They want Iraq unstable to keep the focus off Iran. They also fear democracy.

Iran has forbidden Iranian Arabs living in Ahwas (an Iranian province on the Persian Golf. Arabs are a minority in Iran) from practicing their Muslim celebrations for Eid Al-Fitr. Here we have a Muslim country, run by A (supposed) Muslim government forbidding Muslims in their own province from practicing Muslim celebrations (these celebrations did not include self flagellation, since that is forbidden by Islam). I am a Muslim living in the USA and no one has ever forbidden me from practicing any portion of my religion or religious ceremonies. Muslims in the USA practice their religion freer than Muslims do in Iran……The significances of this is tremendous.…..

Iraqis also know they have no friend in Syria. Syria is supporting former Baathist and their ilk. Saudi Arabia is also no big fan of democracy at it boarders. Saddam’s no. 2 man Izzat Ibrahime Al-Duri most wanted man in Iraq is directing Baathist terrorist activity from within Saudi Arabia. He is funding activities from the millions of dollars the Baathists stole from the Iraqi people.

Iraqis have tasted freedom, the rule of law, democracy and rights of the individual; they will never go back to pre spring 2003.

by Frederick Meekins

The Department of Homeland Security has opened an office referred to as the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives which will be part of the Preparedness Directorate responsible for channeling relief funds. Secularists such as those at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are critical of the program for fear that churches and religious ministries will withhold federal aide from disaster victims until they’ve had a chance to catechize a captive audience. However, the groups themselves likely to seemingly benefit from such apparent largesse should also be leery of the tempting apple set before them.

It has been said that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Thus, anytime funds are distributed, those handing them out are going to say how they are going to be dished out even if what they are now handing out wasn’t originally theirs to begin with.

Before churches rush out and sign up to be the government’s stooge, they would do well to reflect upon the plight of Sheriff Bill McGee of Forrest County, Mississippi. McGee is facing charges such as interfering with, intimidating, and impeding a federal officer for commandeering an idling FEMA relief truck transporting ice.

The proponents of Marxist-style class warfare enamored with the unbridled pillaging that transpired after Katrina hit New Orleans ask, “What makes the Sheriff any different than any of the other looters?” Well, for starters, he did not help himself to gold chains and plasma screen TV’s. Furthermore, such a comparison fails to take into account ultimate ownership of the items under consideration.

The items “liberated” by the marauders (especially consumer goods of no nutritional value) taken from merchants and homeowners did not belong to those procuring them without the benefit of legitimate economic exchange. The ice commandeered by the sheriff, on the other hand, already belonged to the American people and was intended for those the sheriff delivered it to.

One might say that the only criminals in this incident were the FEMA administrators. For it was not like government ice was diverted from others that needed it.

According to an Ohio National Guardsmen detached to a food and water distribution checkpoint during Katrina relief operations quoted in a 4/6/06 HattiesburgAmerican.com story , in all likelihood the ice would have gone to waste as bureaucrats sat around with their thumbs up their backsides not knowing what to do. The distribution of supplies to those on the verge of death had to be held up for the more important issues of sensitivity training as relief volunteers are required to undergo two weeks worth of training in essential disaster relief skills and knowledge such as the collected speeches of Marcus Garvey, the Bhaghavad Gita, and lesbian and gay awareness according to a NationalReview.com story entitled “FEMA To The Rescue: The Essential Prep Work by John Derbyshire.

If anything, Sheriff McGee is a real life Jack Bauer in that he did not allow bureaucratic pettiness to endanger additional lives but rather took decisive action for the well being of his countrymen. And like the superpatriot of the hit drama “24”, this valiant American will likely not be rewarded like a hero as he should be but instead be forced to suffer as the scapegoat for the incompetence and stupidity of others at a higher paygrade.

Though himself a local government official, Sheriff McGee’s plight should serve as an example of almost Biblical proportions of what can happen when religious charities get entangled with the government.

The thing that makes religious organizations and charities so successful in responding to disasters is the rapidity with which they are free to do so. Unencumbered by multiple levels of bureaucracy to the same extent as characterizing government agencies, religious organizations are more capable of quickly directing resources to those that need them as they are not distracted by weightier matters such as getting out the word that Heather has two mommies.

However, should religious groups be seduced by the dark side of government money, it won’t be long before their noted efficiency in crisis situations will disappear faster than fried chicken at a revival picnic since they will be shackled with the same regulations and oversight that plague government agencies. Yet, once these churches and charities make their pact with the devil, it won’t be long until government officials dictate doctrinal content and hand down homiletical directives as well.

Since government aide cannot be distributed in a manner appearing to be partial to the beliefs of those distributing it, FEMA officials will insist that at no time whatsoever may a religious institution receiving government aide espouse a doctrine perceived to be “exclusivistic” in nature (in other words, no religion will be permitted under threat of penalty of law to enunciate a position that its system of belief is superior to any other way to God).

It has been reported, most fully in a May 24, 2006 PrisonPlanet.com article titled “Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastor As Pacifier In Preparation For Martial Law, that FEMA officials held meetings with pastors informing the clergy of the role they were to play in implementing various martial law decrees. The pastors were told they were to fulfill this directive by emphasizing the need to submit to the government as outlined in Romans 13.

It was elaborated upon in the FEMA directive that failure to comply with quarantine efforts (now euphemistically referred to as “social distancing”), forced relocation into prison camps (now called “community centers”), and the confiscation of property and firearms (something no law enforcement official has a right to do to those in their own homes having committed no crime) will constitute a “cowboy mentality” that will not be tolerated.

Though they would hardly consider themselves FEMA minions, even among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists more conservative in nature, I have noticed as of late a disturbing disparagement of America’s frontier values. For example, one ministry Anabaptist and close to conservative Mennonite in its theological orientation from the Pennsylvania Dutch Country posted an article on its website how true Christians would not adorn themselves in what it classified as “Western apparel” because of the reputation of cowboys to carouse, to resort to violence to solve their problems, and most importantly to rely upon themselves rather than subordinate themselves to the collective will of the group.

For starters, not all cowboys (either realistic or literary) had a reputation for carousing. In fact, a number such as the Lone Ranger and the Cartwrights of Bonanza usually lived by a code of morality that, quite frankly, more Americans should emulate as these frontiersmen were usually quick to standup to evildoers yet possessed of a humility that did not laud their noble deeds over the heads of others. And though the formulaic Western is derided as “racist” or “imperialistic”, a number of these protagonists were quite magnanimous towards nonhostile members of other ethnic groups. Rather I suppose their shortcoming was dealing with individuals first and foremost rather than approaching the group as the foremost arbiter of ethical value and for failing to get onboard the bandwagon castigating the White race as the bane and boogeyman of all of history.

Even Christian broadcaster Chuck Crismier murmured against the American cowboy on the July 26, 2006 edition of his program Viewpoint in an episode titled “There Is No ‘I’ In Church” (itself a lingo-supremacist comment for those believers making cultural sensitivity a foremost concern of the church these days since church in other languages does indeed have an “I” in it such as “kirk”, “iglesia”, and “ecclesia”) when he disparaged the image of John Wayne riding off into the sunset. Rather I suppose Wayne is not suppose to be riding off anywhere by himself without the permission of the pastor or better yet surrender the horse for the use of the church and instead “rely on Jesus” to take him wherever the Lord’s will might be (usually “Evangelese” that someone has no idea whatsover what to do next).

I wonder what these Christian leaders calling for docility and group conformity have to say about the Black Regiment of the American Revolution consisting of pastors with Bibles in one hand and muskets in the other. Mark my words, it won’t be long before so-called Evangelicals begin denouncing independence all together and begin urging reunification with Britain and ultimately subjugation to the European Union since, as the radical ecumenicalists have harped the past few decades, unity is the highest priority above all others.

It has been said there is no such thing as a free lunch. Churches and other religious institutions should stop and think of the price they might be forced to pay before they start clamoring for the privilege of distributing meals as the government’s serving wench.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

If Gov. Jon Corzine wished to make himself a hero to Middle America, the opportunity is at hand. All he need do is inform the New Jersey Supreme Court he will neither submit nor sign the law it has ordered enacted — to put homosexual unions on a par with marriage.

At root, what that 4-3 decision, ordering the legislature to enact a new law sanctioning civil unions or gay marriage, is about is: Who governs New Jersey? It is about who decides what law shall be — elected legislators or judges appointed for life.

Ed Mather of Morristown, N.J. hands out ‘Marriage Equality’ signs to people who gathered at a rally in Montclair, N.J. on Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006. New Jersey’s Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions. (AP Photo/Tim Larsen)
Related Audio:
A Look at the New Jersey Supreme Court Decision
In our War of Independence, in which New Jersey was overrun repeatedly by British troops, at issue was whether George III and a Parliament sitting in London, in which Americans had no voice, would govern us, or whether we would rule ourselves. From April 1775 to Yorktown in 1781, Americans fought and died to end that rule of kings — only to have their meek and timid heirs submit to a rule of judges.

Let us go back to the era of Earl Warren that began in 1954, and consider what, in the span of a half-century, U.S. judges and Supreme Court justices, abetted by state jurists, have done to America.

God, Bible study, prayer and the Ten Commandments have been ordered out of all public schools and the public square of a nation that once proudly boasted of itself as God’s country. Pornography has been declared protected by the First Amendment. Cities have been ripped apart, as judges have ordered students, based on color alone, bussed across crime-ridden cities to achieve an artificial racial balance. Abortion, homosexual sodomy and naked dancing in public bars have been declared to be new constitutional rights.

Of all these outrages and idiocies, one thing may be said: No legislature, no executive at the state or federal level would have survived imposing such measures upon us. They would have been hurled from office at the next election. When homosexual marriage was put on the ballot in 13 states in 2004, it was routed in every one by landslides as great as six to one. America rejects it.

Upon what ground, then, does the New Jersey Supreme Court stand to order an elected legislature to enact a law the people do not want? Answer: The court said that to deny homosexuals the same rights as married couples is to treat them unequally, and this violates the Constitution of New Jersey: “Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution.”

The operative words here are “no longer be tolerated.” What the court is saying is that, though there is no right to same-sex marriage in New Jersey, and the state has never voted the rights and benefits to homosexuals it has for married couples, we, the judges in our wisdom, declare this to be intolerable.

Therefore, you, the legislators of New Jersey, and you, Gov. Corzine, are ordered to change the laws of New Jersey to conform to our idea of equality. A tiny minority of judges in America now dictates to the Great Silent Majority.
Read the rest at TownHall.com

If these activist Judges want some legitimacy, make it a proposition and let the people vote on it. Otherwise, it is a minority dictating terms to the majority,. But when did liberals really let the Constitution stand in the way of achieving their goals?

Please read In Defence of Marriage in the essay section on why I agree with Mr Buchanan.

By the way: Bush approved the 700 miles of fence on the border.

…about time!

…and when will the rest be put up?

by Curt at Flopping Aces

A couple good editorials today in the Times and the WaPo. One by a hack who spent a few minutes with Osama years ago and now thinks he knows more then our military when it comes to waging war. While Peter Bergen is indeed a hack, some of the below editorial makes sense. Namely, failure is not an option:

THE French saying, often attributed to Talleyrand, that “this is worse than a crime, it’s a blunder,” could easily describe America’s invasion of Iraq. But for the United States to pull entirely out of that country right now, as is being demanded by a growing chorus of critics, would be to snatch an unqualified disaster from the jaws of an enormous blunder.

To understand why, look to history. Vietnam often looms large in the debate over Iraq, but the better analogy is what happened in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion. During the 1980’s, Washington poured billions of dollars into the Afghan resistance. Around the time of Moscow’s withdrawal in 1989, however, the United States shut its embassy in Kabul and largely ignored the ensuing civil war and the rise of the Taliban and its Qaeda allies. We can’t make the same mistake again in Iraq.

A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner,” Al Qaeda’s most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. “Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land,” he wrote. “Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing.” Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West.

[…]Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden’s master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton’s decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies.

He goes on to detail what he believes the best strategy would be. Namely, pulling out a significant amount of troops and sending the rest to the western part of Iraq. These would mostly be composed of special forces types who would hunt the remaining Al-Qaeda as they pop up.

I agree with him that pulling out of Iraq would be the worst strategy, but to pull out troops and just use special forces without ensuring the Iraqi government is strong enough to withstand any kind of large conflict on its own is foolish, and dangerous.
On the other hand Michael Scheuer wrote this piece in the WaPo and this one made a ton of sense from beginning to end, except of course his disdain for how the war in Iraq has been conducted….but I will forgive him for this small ignorance when the rest of his piece is just so right on the mark:

Bin Laden, his lieutenants and their allies are no doubt pleased by the destruction of the Spanish and Thai governments and the exhilarating message it sends to the worldwide Islamist movement: The infidels are weak, politically divided, terrified of using full military power and think we can be appeased. In short, war works; keep at it.

Even so, bin Laden, et. al, know the biggest prize looms just ahead — the chance that the Republican Party will be ousted from one or both houses of Congress. There are many factors contributing to this possibility: the Foley abomination, other corruption cases, the trumped?up “crisis” over First Amendment rights and the administration’s ill-informed and ham-fisted handling of the Iraq and Afghan wars. If the Republicans are ousted, pundits on both sides of the aisle will find the causes strictly in America’s navel.

But what will bin Laden and his Islamist allies think? Well, if Republican defeat comes to pass, they will first thank the Almighty — “Allahu Akhbar!” or “God is the greatest!” — for tangible proof of approaching victory. In Spain, Thailand, and Britain — where Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered the fate of Messrs. Aznar and Thaksin for the same reason, but is leaving gracefully — al Qaeda and its allies see politicians winning power who argue: “The military option has been tried and it has failed. We must seek other-than-martial means to defuse the Islamists’ appeal and power.” As in Europe and Thailand, this has been the refrain of Sens. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jane Harman, and a swath of Republicans who value their seats more than U.S. security.

If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice. What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam. With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims. If Osama approved of music, he would be whistling “Happy Days Are Here Again!”

What the enemy thinks is not the sole reason on which to base a vote. I will vote for Republicans, as I always do, because some know unborn babies are human beings who should not be murdered with the Democrats’ joyful zeal. Enemy perceptions are worth remembering, however, because if Americans elect Democrats believing them likely to defeat al Qaedaism, history suggests they will be wrong.

The combination of Democratic rhetoric and the indelible fact of the Clinton administration’s relentless refusal to try to kill bin Laden — preferring to protect its Arab, arms-buying buddies at the cost of American corpses — ensures that voters will receive what Clinton-era Democrats are best at giving: barely disguised pacifism that has and will continue to allow al-Qaeda and its allies to steadily destroy U.S. security.

So on one hand we have a Bush hater coming to same conclusion as someone who actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to Al-Qaeda….we cannot abandon Iraq as we did Vietnam.

Will the voters listen come Nov 7th?

The tone on the Maryland Senate floor has been pretty intense and pretty partisan in the session’s opening days, so Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer decided today to inject a little humor — at his own expense.

Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County) reminded colleagues of a Washington Post story last fall that detailed Wal-Mart’s hiring of a dozen Annapolis lobbyists in an attempt to kill a bill that could force the retailing giant to spend more on employee health care. Among the lobbyists was Kasemeyer’s wife, Pam.

The report really hit home for Kasemeyer, he said, when he settled down that night with a ham sandwich to watch one of his favorite television shows, CNBC’s “Mad Money” with Jim Cramer.

Kasemeyer, who supported the bill himself, said Cramer held up the Post story and pointed to the company’s hiring of Kasemeyer’s wife. “Has Wal-Mart no shame?” Cramer screamed.

Grow­ing ev­i­dence, pa­le­on­tol­o­gists say, shows that the di­no­saurs and their con­tem­po­rar­ies were not wiped out by one me­te­or im­pact, as is com­mon­ly as­sumed.

Rather, mul­ti­ple im­pacts, mas­sive vol­can­ism in In­dia and cli­mate changes con­s­pired to fin­ish off the great rep­tiles, ac­cor­d­ing to Ger­ta Kel­ler of Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in Prince­ton, N.J., and col­leagues.

Paint­ing of an un­der­wa­ter scene from the Cre­ta­ceous pe­ri­od, the late era of the di­nosaurs, fea­tur­ing a long-necked ple­si­o­saur. Ple­si­o­saurs and mo­sa­saurs were the main pre­da­tors of the Cre­ta­ceous seas. A shark is al­so shown. Ple­si­o­saurs were not di­no­saurs but went ex­tinct along with them. (Paint­ing by Vlad­i­mir Krb, cour­te­sy North Da­ko­ta Ge­o­log­i­cal Sur­vey)

Many sci­en­tists have linked the die­off to a me­te­or-in­duced cra­t­er on Mex­i­co’s Yu­ca­tan Pen­in­su­la, called the Chic­x­u­lub cra­ter.

In fact that crash may have been the les­s­er, and ear­li­er, of a se­ries of events that pound­ed Earth for more than 500,000 years, ac­cord­ing to Kel­ler’s team.

A fi­nal, much larg­er and still un­i­den­ti­fied im­pact 65.5 mil­lion years ago seems to have been the last straw, Kel­ler said, ex­ter­mi­nat­ing two-thirds of all spe­cies in one of Earth’s worst mass ex­tinc­tions.

It’s that im­pact—not Chicx­u­lub—that left a fa­mous lay­er of the el­e­ment iri­d­i­um, found in rocks world­wide and thought come from space, Kel­ler ar­gued.

“The Chicx­u­lub im­pact alone could not have caused the mass ex­tinc­tion,” said Kel­ler, because the im­pact oc­curred 300,000 years before the die­off.

The sto­ry that seems to be tak­ing shape, ac­cord­ing to Kel­ler, is that Chicx­u­lub, though vi­o­lent, ac­tu­al­ly con­spired with pro­longed, huge erup­tions of the Dec­can Flood Basalts in In­di­a to nudge spe­cies to­wards the brink. A sec­ond huge me­te­or crash fi­nal­ly pushed them over.

The Dec­can vol­can­ism re­leased copious green­house gas­es that fueled glo­bal warm­ing, she ad­ded, so that by the time of Chicx­u­lub, the oceans were 3 to 4 de­grees warm­er at the bot­tom. “On land it must have been 7-8 degrees warmer.”

But where is the second crat­er? “I wish I knew,” said Kel­ler, who pre­sented the find­ings this week at the an­nu­al meet­ing of the Ge­o­log­i­cal So­ci­e­ty of Amer­i­ca in Phil­a­del­phia.
from World Science

And do we have any technology that can stop a similar killer meteor? Not yet……but we are working on it…..

…..hopefully soon. The last time we were hit was 1918..

That’s a little too close for comfort for me….

yeah, it’s long, but worth the time to read…..

This morning, after greeting me “in the usual way,” Petey observed that, “the really hideous thing about the left is that it is composed of men without chests and women without breasts.”

But also as usual, he left it to me to elaborate and to try to explain what it has to do with yesterday’s post on the nature of human destiny.

Well, let’s see. Even–or especially–if you are a moonbat who hates the classical liberalism embodied in the conservative movement, you will no doubt agree that it espouses scary masculine virtues such as competition, maintaining the rule of law, standards over compassion (i.e., not changing the rules for members of designated liberal victim groups), delayed gratification, and respect for the ways of the father–that is, conserving what has been handed down by previous generations of fathers, and not just assuming in our adolescent hubris that we know better than they.

Contemporary left-liberalism, on the other hand, has come to represent the realm of maternal nurturance–compassion over standards (i.e., racial quotas), idealization of the impulses (just as a mother is delighted in the instinctual play of her child), mercy over judgment (reduced prison sentences, criminal rights, etc.), cradle-to-grave welfare, a belief that we can seduce our enemies in a feminine way and not have to defeat them with manly violence, and the notion that meaning, truth and values are all arbitrary and subject to change (which is true of the fluid world of emotions in general).

Now, I am not one of those modern space age a go-go people who imagine that gender is irrelevant to our destiny. But nor do I think that our destiny can be reduced to gender. Rather, our destiny is influenced by several archetypal factors that go into our “blueprint” and inform who we are: sex (for each sex emphasizes different divine qualities), age (i.e., season of life), intellect (not its content, but its height, depth and breadth), temperament (e.g., Jung’s useful system), caste (e.g., priest, warrior, menial/intellectual laborer, merchant, etc.), and even zodiacal type (in the archetypal sense, not the debased “predictive” variety found in newspapers and most books on the topic).

Now the feminist movement of the 1960’s and 70’s had very little to do with comprehending, much less honoring, divine femininity, but generally degraded and devalued it. In the long run, it represented nothing more or less than the flight from a temporary or at best “pseudo problem” in exchange for a real and abiding one. It largely became a vehicle for the expression of female envy, giving existentially angry and maladjusted women license to imitate the men they envied. After all, few women are less feminine than the typical NOW activist.

Nor are they masculine, however. A woman cannot actually become a man, but can only become a monstrous blending of male and female. They become “women without breasts,” except perhaps for plastic ones. (If you ever want to hear the archetypal voice of a woman without breasts, try listening for a few moments to Randi Rhodes on Air America. If you have ears to hear, you will know in an instant what Petey is talking about. Woe to her luckless child and, one assumes, luckily ex husband. Only a man with no chest at all could have survived in such a shrill atmosphere.)

(Importantly, this is not to even remotely suggest that a woman cannot develop her masculine side or a man his feminine side. What we are talking about is a complete nullification of sexual polarity, a kind of magical, self-imposed blindness, so that these critical differences are effaced.)

Because they have disassociated their own devalued femininity, these women without breasts will try to locate them elsewhere. In the deepest layers of the unconscious explored by psychoanalysis, the breast is associated with the source of life and of being itself. How could it not be? The infantile mind does not separate breast, milk, love, life, being, or mother into separate existential categories. Rather, these categories will only gradually emerge from the harmoniously mixed-up intersubjective diad of mother-baby. But not always. The primordial edenic memories of the perfect breast-paradise remain.

For some, these dreams of a non-friction life with unlimited abundance are transferred onto an inanimate object called the government, which becomes the great existential teat for all of us. It will heal us when we are sick, rescue us from hurricanes, take care of us when we’re old, educate us, and generally shield us from the vicissitudes of fate.

That giant suckling sound you hear off in the distance is the sound of Democrats on the morning of November 8th. However, Petey informs me that there are still several alternative futures implicated in present moment, so our fate is by no means sealed. He says “watch Rove work. I regard him as a quasi-mage who can read the Signs of the Times and respond accordingly.”

I hope this is not too esoteric, but the brave new world offered to us by the left represents a reversion from our uniquely human trimorphism of mother-father-baby, to the primordial biological diad of mouth-nipple through which mammals first enter the world. These nipple-dragging leftists keep us fixated on the most primitive object of our desires, which ultimately prevents the critical evolution from static twoness to dynamic threeness.

I know, I know, but look again at what happened to the black family as a result of all the liberal meddling. Government replaced the category of fatherhood, which eventually resulted in 70% of black children being born without benefit of marriage. And for these boys without fathers to emulate and show them how to be men, another aspect of government fulfills that role: prison. For prison is none other than a belated (and now greatly exaggerated) can of whoop-ass from the missing father. The percentage of fatherless murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals is just staggering.

Or look at socialist Europe, which is populated by Men Without Chests and Women Without Breasts. No wonder they can’t reproduce.

It was C.S. Lewis who coined the phrase “men without chests.” In an article entitled Wimps and Barbarians, Terrence Moore notes that while “barbarians suffer from a misdirected manliness, wimps suffer from a want of manly spirit altogether. They lack what the ancient Greeks called thumos, the part of the soul that contains the assertive passions: pugnacity, enterprise, ambition, anger. Thumos compels a man to defend proximate goods: himself, his honor, his lady, his country; as well as universal goods: truth, beauty, goodness, justice. Without thumotic men to combat the cruel, the malevolent, and the unjust, goodness and honor hardly have a chance in our precarious world.”

Naturally, “Wimps make worthless watchdogs. But their failure as watchdogs or guardians has nothing to do with size or physique…. Many of today’s young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue damsels in distress from the barbarians. Furthermore, wimps vote. As Aristotle pointed out, to the cowardly, bravery will seem more like rashness and foolhardiness than what it really is. Hence political and social issues that require bravery for their solution elicit only hand-wringing and half-measures from the wimps. Wimps are always looking for the easy way out.”

Moore ties the phenomenon of wimps and barbarians directly to the culture of divorce and the absence of male role models in boys’ lives. “Half of American boys growing up do not live with their natural fathers. The sons of single mothers lack strong men to usher them into the world of responsible, adult manhood. Divorce, whether in reality or in the acrimonious rhetoric of the mother [probably without breasts--ed.], impresses upon the boy an image of the father, and therefore of all men, as being irresponsible, deceitful, immature, and often hateful or abusive towards women. For sons, the divided loyalties occasioned by divorce actually create profound doubts about their own masculinity. As the boy approaches manhood, he is plagued by subconscious questions which have no immediate resolution: ‘Will I be like Dad?’ ‘Do I want to be like Dad?’ ‘What is a man supposed to do?’”

The answers for the leftist Man Without a Chest are no, no, and “act like a woman.”

Oh really? You think that bombastic Bob and polemical Pete are engaging in hyperbole?

Here’s a recent idiotorial from the Chronically San Franciscan by a Professor Robert Jensen, Men Being Men is a Bad deal: Guys Should Evolve Beyond Masculinity:

“Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women, but for us. We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It’s time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.”

Amazingly, in Jenson’s bizarro world, our worst social problems are not caused by an absence of real men, but by their very presence: “masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control ‘their’ women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery.”

Leftist that he is, Jensen is confusing the horizontal category of mere biological maleness and the vertical psycho-spiritual achievement of true manhood. And naturally, “if we are going to jettison masculinity, we have to scrap femininity along with it. We “have to stop assuming” that masculinity and femininity even matter anymore.

So there you have it. A man with no chest has climbed out of the sissypool of the left to speak out on behalf of his sisters without breasts. Let’s give these lowbrid humans the country on November 7th!
from One Cosmos

Liberals will be quick to dismiss this as Republican hatred and phobia. Funny how everytime we do not agree with a particular value, it is because we fear it, as opposed to just not thinking it is a good idea.

These gender roles have been around forever. To want to change these just goes to show you how both arrogant and stupid the liberals are.

Some really want to do this, and really want to overturn all of out traditional values.

They changed the definition of a family, to the detriment of urban society. They want to change the definiton of marriage now and will want to change the definion of the sexes.

These jerks will utterly destroy our society and make you afraid to protest it by calling you a racist if you speak out.

Well, to hell with that…call me a racist, but I will fight for the values that have served us well since the stone age.

Why are the values that made this country great all of a sudden bad?

by Phil Brennan

If the polls are to be believed, the Republicans who control the White House and Congress are in trouble.

Their problem?

People vote their pocketbooks, or wallets, the old adage goes.

But the economy is booming. Even gasoline prices have plummeted. Unemployment, the bogeyman of politicians, has shrunken to a record low point.

As for the security matter, since 9/11, the worst attack on American soil since the Civil War, the United States has been free of any significant terrorist attack. None. Zippo. Zilch.

If Americans do vote the GOP out of either House of Congress, many of these accomplishments are threatened.

Should Democrats get control of the House of Representatives, they have already promised that one of the Republican initiatives that made all these things possible will be rolled back.

Higher taxes — and with it, economic recession and more unemployment.

Story Continues Below

The Democrats will also signal the terrorists a “victory” for their side with a push for a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Remember, the Congress, not the president, funds our troops abroad. A Democratic Congress will most assuredly withhold funding unless Bush relents.

The list of Republican accomplishments is both long and real, and provides the platform upon which even greater results will be built under a Republican Congress and White House.

For sure, the GOP has had its share of shortcomings. The economy could be doing better. The deficit could be smaller. The postwar plans in Iraq could have been better implemented.

If anything, the Republicans are facing a message deficit. The liberal media establishment is just not letting them tell their story to the American people.

Here are 10 good reasons why you should vote Republican come election day. You won’t hear about them on ABCCBSNBC News.

Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.

Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.

Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers’ average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month — a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.

Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.

How To Defeat A Violent Attacker Twice Your Size
Can Pheromones Fix Your Relationship?
New Stock Market Report – Limited Time Offer!
POWs’ Lawsuit Could Force Kerry to Come Clean

Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration’s monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds — both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.

Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.

Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program.

Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices.

Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president’s 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working.

In contrast to this stunning record of real achievement, the Democrats offer no real plans for the way they want to improve America or make us safer.

Instead, issues like the Mark Foley scandal have been used to smokescreen their own lack of ideas in a public debate.

The choice voters will make is whether they want higher taxes and less security by surrendering the tools used to combat terrorism or lower taxes and the continued use of tools like the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, terrorist interrogations and missile defense.

Consider what leading Democrats are promising if they gain control of Congress.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., who would lead the House tax-writing committee if Democrats win in November, said he “cannot think of one” tax cut he would renew. That agenda would result in $2.4 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years.

If Democrats take majorities in the House and Senate, the average family of four can expect to pay an average of $2,000 more in taxes.

The leader of House Democrats and the woman who would be speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after 9/11 that she “doesn’t really consider ourselves at war … we’re in a struggle against terrorism.”

By opposing the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance missile defense and even interrogating the most dangerous terrorists captured on the battlefield, Democrats are in direct opposition to the vital tools we use to fight terrorism.

Many Democrats, including the prospective House Ways and Means chairman, favor cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.

Democratic leaders have made it clear that they see investigations and impeachment as viable options should they take control of Congress. They are therefore promising to tie the hands of the president and his administration in the middle of a war.

Democrats want to reverse the president’s economic policies that have led to a historically strong economy.

Enough said.

from NewsMax

To go into more details for #9, The Democrats are completely in the pocket of liberals, who want nothing better then to overturn all of the values of our country.

As I said in the above article, for those who really don’t care if the defintion of marriage or any other definition, for that matter is changed, look how changing the definition of the family has destroyed urban society.

If these 10 reasons are not enough for you, then I don’t know what would be….

by Curt at Flopping Aces

Another important Saddam Document has been translated by Jveritas at Free Republic. This one shows that Saddam was asked to restart the “Degussa Vacuum furnaces”.

These furnaces were used by Saddam in his Nuclear program. The NYT’s, and ironically the authors Judith Miller and James Risen, wrote an article in 1998 describing the program and the furnaces while discussing an Iraqi defector named Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza:

Hamza said he found it surprisingly easy to negotiate nuclear cooperation agreements with the former Soviet Union, India, Brazil, France and others to buy nuclear technology that could be used for bombs under peaceful cover. “If you go with the money and some brains, it’s easy to acquire the stuff,” he said.

Among other things, Iraq bought a French reactor and an Italian fuel reprocessing facility, an IBM mainframe computer from the United States, and machine tools to make centrifuge components from the Swiss. In 1987 it almost bought for between $110 million and $120 million a complete foundry to forge uranium and other bomb-related components from Leybold and Degussa, two West German companies.

Hamza, who monitored the negotiations in Germany from a room next to the meeting room, said the companies had offered to supply not only the foundry but, for $200 million, a complete installation that they promised could be built within months.

He said Saddam rejected the tempting offer mainly because he feared that such a large deal involving highly sensitive equipment would have tipped off Western intelligence that Iraq was transferring its bomb effort to a new site, known as Al Atheer.

“But we were astonished to see that the companies were actually helping us find cover stories for some of the equipment we needed,” Hamza recalled.

Dr. Jorg Streitferdt, in-house counsel for Degussa, AG, based in Frankfurt, Germany, which owned Leybold at the time, said the companies did sell some equipment that ended up in Iraq’s nuclear program, and were later subjected to a series of investigations, including a criminal inquiry by Germany.

He noted that Degussa was exonerated on the charges of selling vacuum furnaces to Iraq, largely because West Germany did not require export licenses at that time for such sales. Though Degussa executives suspected that Iraq might use the equipment for military purposes given the ongoing Iran-Iraq war, he added, they did not know that Iraq wanted it for a nuclear program.

“DeGussa and Leybold did not know what the equipment was for,” Streitferdt said. “The whole world did not know what Iraq was about to do. We have learned our lesson and now have very tough internal controls on our exports.”

Years before Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait turned the country into an international pariah, many of its nuclear-related purchases were made with the blessing of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. atomic energy monitors. The agency assumed that Iraq was amassing the technical know-how for a peaceful power program, and did little to investigate. The inspectors, Hamza said, never asked even basic questions, “like why an oil-rich country like ours wanted nuclear power?”

The IAEA later forbid the use of those furnaces after Desert Storm, but in these two memo’s Saddam is asked to restart those furnaces:

The translation will include memos. The first one is from Senior Deputy Minister of Iraq Military Industrialization Committee to the Chairman of Iraq Atomic Energy Organization asking him to allocate the Degussa Vacuum furnaces, the second memo a reply from Iraq Atomic Energy Organization saying that they will do so and that they got the approval of Saddam Hussein to re-use these equipments.

Beginning of the translation of memo 1 of CMPC-2003-012331.pdf

In the Name of God the Most Merciful the Most Compassionate

The Republic of Iraq, The Presidency of the Republic, The Military Industrialization Committee

Number 2/4/83

Date: 25/1/2001

Secret and Confidential

To: The Atomic Energy Organization- The Office of the Chairman

Subject: Allocation of Degussa Vacuum Furnaces

Please approve the allocation of the mentioned furnaces and quantity (2) with its accessories because of our dire need for it to implement the works and projects tasked to our committee. And we empower engineer Samir Ibrahim for follow up and receiving.

With regards

Signature

Air General

Marahem Sa’aab Al Hassan

Senior Deputy Minister for Military Industrialization

25/1/2001

End of translation of memo 1

Beginning of translation of memo 2 of CMPC-2003-012331.pdf

Mr. Respected General Director

Subject: Allocation of Vacuum Furnaces

Regarding the letter of the Senior Deputy Minister of the Military Industrialization numbered 2/4/83 on 25/1/2001 I would like to clarify the following:

1. We do not have primaries about the subject.

2. There was a communication with the Energy Organization about the furnaces and it was revealed that the furnaces were delivered to the Physics Department in the Atomic Energy Organization upon the instruction of Mr. Chairman of the Energy Organization to take advantage of these equipments ( During the meeting with the President The Leader God protect and shepherd him and the Organization Staff asked his Excellency to take advantage of these equipments) and these equipments were received two months ago by the Physics Department.

The furnaces do not have the seal of the Agency but it was among the equipments of the previous program that were included in the list prepared by the agency.

Signature

29/1

Shaker Hamed.

End of translation of memo 2

As Jveritas notes, this proves Presidents Bush statement in 2002 that Saddam met with his nuclear scientists often to discuss restarting the Nuclear program:

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

But hey, according the lefties, Saddam would never had been a threat to anyone (except his own people of course) if just left alone.