In part 1 of “Mending Walls: Faith” I very, very briefly discussed the faith (fides) covenant meme so lacking in today’s society. In part 2, I even more briefly outlined how this lack has affected the three realms of legitimate governance in society, civil government, marriage & family and, for Christians at least, the church.
In this last installment, I’ll once again very briefly mention some examples that illustrate how the current culture of faithlessness affects everyday life and how the moribund state of the faith covenant in civil government, marriage & family and in churches affects everyday life.
Keep in mind: I will NOT explore this topic in depth, although this will still be a tad long as compared to most blogposts. It’d take a full length book for each of these three parts to cover the topic seriously. That being said, and knowing it’ll be a tad longer than the majority of blogposts you may read today, either page on off or CLICk to read more at the link.
Said mnmus @ 12:45 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
I knew this wouldn’t take long! The ACLU are breaking out the champaign glasses and popping the cork! It is celebration time for the left, as Al Qaeda terrorists now have ‘protections’ via the Geneva Conventions thanks to the US Supreme Court.
In a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, the United States Supreme Court today ruled 5-3 that the military commissions system established by President Bush to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay is unfair and illegal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, applauded the decision. “Today’s decision is a victory for the rule of law in the United States,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the executive branch does not have a blank check in the war on terror and may not run roughshod over the nation’s legal system. This decision moves us one step closer to stopping the abuse of power that has become the hallmark of this White House. Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decision, the president should make good on his promise and close Guantánamo.”
See my post below for the blogosphere’s reactions. Hot Air has a great roundup too. Wizbang as well! Update: Webloggin provides us with Justice Scalia’s dissent.
Moreover, the President’s determination that the present conflict dates at least to 1996 is supported by overwhelming evidence. According to the State Department, al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as August 1996. See Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998); Dept. of State Fact Sheet: The Charges against International Terrorist Usama Bin Laden (Dec. 20, 2000); cf. Prize Cases, 2 Black, at 668 (recognizing that a state of war exists even if “the declaration of it be unilateral” (emphasis in original)). In February 1998, al Qaeda leadership issued another statement ordering the indiscriminate—and, even under the laws of war as applied to legitimate nation-states, plainly illegal—killing of American civilians and military personnel alike. See Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement 2 (Feb. 23, 1998), in Y. Alexander & M. Swetnam, Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist Network, App. 1B (2001) (“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”). This was not mere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. See id., at 1. In response to these incidents, the United States “attack[ed] facilities belonging to Usama bin Ladin’s network” as early as 1998. Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998). Based on the foregoing, the President’s judgment—that the present conflict substantially predates the AUMF, extending at least as far back as al Qaeda’s 1996 declaration of war on our Nation, and that the theater of war extends at least as far as the localities of al Qaeda’s principal bases of operations—is beyond judicial reproach. And the plurality’s unsupportable contrary determination merely confirms that “‘the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility’” for making military or foreign affairs judgments.
I think he nailed it. Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Said Jay777 @ 10:33 am Comments (1) | Permalink
I know I am a day late but I thought I had this set to post on a certain date at a certain time and but it did not work.
All I ask is that you read Frank’s Bio and his stance on the Issues in the above link. Furthermore, if you are in the States go to Barnes & Nobel and pick up his just released book Roughneck 91 and read about the man for yourself.
This is the man we need in Congress. Frank is not only the most politically savvy man I know, but also the most articulate, tenacious and persuasive political speaker that I have ever heard. Most of all, Frank is NOT a politician–he is a patriot. He does not mince words, and always says what needs to be said regardless of backlash. Frank says the things most people want to say but out of fear or political correctness hold their tongues.
Frank is the proud nephew of a WWII Medal of Honor recipient, and he once told me that whenever he has doubts about how hard he should fight for something he asks himself, “What would Uncle Gino Do?” Frank does not ever let that challenge stand unanswered. You will not find anyone who will fight harder for the military. Yes, he is running for a district in Arizona and that might not be your home state, but regardless of where you live he will be a voice for all former, current and future military members.
Frank is a win for the Republican Party and the US Military. If elected to Congress he will surely end up on the Armed Services Committee. We will never find a more qualified spokesman on military issues, nor a more credible and tireless champion for the men and women on the ground. Furthermore, I am tired of listening to the inane and out-of-touch comments spewed by the likes of Murtha and then hear, well you cant question him, he is a war hero. Well guess what? So is Frank, and he can stand toe-to-toe with anyone the Democrats try to prop up. He will do that with the credibility and first hand experience lacking is so many of our speakers.
There is a donate link on his site. Frank will not, and IS NOT getting the political campaign donations from the people with the big money. That money will surely go to the special interest candidates, those that will hold their tongues, do what they are told and follow the flock. As former service members we owe it to those still serving to put someone in Washington who will fight for and secure our military\’s future. We are the little people with small wallets, but we are many and our donations can add up.
We talk all the time about what we should or would do if we were in charge. Well here is OUR chance. Help elect Frank to Congress and you will see those should\’ve and would\’ve statements and wishes manifested. I know Frank well, he is us–the grunt on the ground, the man in the foxhole, the guy with the 100 pound plus ruck on his back. Let’s put Frank, let’s put ourselves, in Congress.
Frank is a win for the Republican Party and the US Military. If elected to Congress he will surely end up on the Armed Services Committee. We will never find a more qualified spokesman on military issues, nor a more credible and tireless champion for the men and women on the ground. Furthermore, I am tired of listening to the inane and out-of-touch comments spewed by the likes of Murtha and then hear, well you can’t question him, he is a war hero. Well guess what? So is Frank, and he can stand toe-to-toe with anyone the Democrats try to prop up. He will do that with the credibility and first hand experience lacking is so many of our speakers.
There is a donate link on his site. Frank will not, and IS NOT getting the political campaign donations from the people with the big money. That money will surely go to the special interest candidates, those that will hold their tongues, do what they are told and follow the flock. As former service members we owe it to those still serving to put someone in Washington who will fight for and secure our military’s future. We are the little people with small wallets, but we are many and our donations can add up.
We talk all the time about what we should or would do if we were in charge. Well here is OUR chance. Help elect Frank to Congress and you will see those should’ve and would’ve statements and wishes manifested. I know Frank well, he is us–the grunt on the ground, the man in the foxhole, the guy with the 100 pound plus ruck on his back. Let’s put Frank, let’s put ourselves, in Congress.
Said Richard Nixon @ 2:00 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
It would seem that the Senate is close to passing an amendment to prohibit desecration of Old Glory. In my humble opinion, this is good news. Certain things shouldn’t be open to desecration. Symbols of our country, such as the flag, should be respected. I wear a flag on my uniform every day. It is the only thing on my ACU’s that’s in full-color, and there’s a good reason for that.
Is this what we want?
The people who are in favor of burning the flag insist that it is a free speech issue. I respectfully disagree. The flag of the United States represents our nation, and all that we stand for. Would the Founders have approved this? I doubt it. I doubt also that they would have approved of burning the British flag. The flag is a symbol of all that is America, for good or ill. I think some protesters within our borders would want to do this simply for the “shock value”. Do they think that burning the flag would lend creedence to their arguement? That people would stand up and listen to what they had to say? I don’t think so. If this is their case, it only cheapens whatever point they wish to convey. When I think of flag burning, I think of Islamofascists and their ilk.
The flag represents freedom, democracy, and hope through out the world. When you think of the American flag, what do you think of? Do you think that any other flag in the world conveys the same message?
Flag day was on the 14th of June. I don’t think I’ll see a “Flag Burning Day” on the calendar anytime soon.
Said Bat Guano @ 12:20 pm Comments (14) | Permalink
KMGH 7, the ABC affiliate in Denver is reporting that CU is ready to fire the outspoken professor, who has often made irrational and irresponsible statements that I can in no way, ever support. But being the proponent of free speech that am, I will not criticize him based on the utterly ridiculous claims, he has made.
He, like many other I criticize, has the right to say whatever he wants, even if it’s dead wrong. But I, in no way, would accept academic fraud at any level. And that folks is precisely what he is being canned for. In all arguments, realize that one thing and all other arguments become null and void. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, you cannot defend it. It goes against all rules of scholarship, academics, and performance. It is wrong. There are no, yes he was wrong, buts, here. There are NO excuses accepted. None, nada, nil, zilch, zippola, zero, cero, etc……
Besides that, he will be fine. He will get a book deal.
Cross-posted at Political Yen/Yang
Said LASunsett @ 6:48 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
The DNC should do a quick gut check. They are in danger of becoming a footnote of American history. Howard Dean leads the way this week with his radio address.
Read the transcript of this liar and his really delusional point of view: DNC Chairman Howard Dean Delivers the Democratic Radio Address
First and foremost, the use of the Vietnam memorial to score political points in a calculated and prepared speech is outrageous.
Funny how he failed to mention the mass murder of tens of thousands that occurred in Vietnam and Cambodia after our politicians pulled the plug and bugged out. (D)s, I assume, are not interested in the historical truths behind their actions nor the consequences of them. Our withdrawal from Vietnam was not our military’s fault, but the fault of spineless politicians who were unwilling to fight the war to win as it should have been fought.
Howard Dean could not carry the soiled undergarments of the men and women who served in Vietnam but yet he evokes their sacrifice as some far-Left-field comparison to what is going on in Iraq.
Somehow, 58,000 military deaths in Vietnam equals the 2,500 from Iraq in DNC speak.
Somehow, Dean thinks that using a sacred monument to men and women who gave their lives for this country is to be used for political gain.
I do not share that belief. I actually find it repulsive and it angers me.
Additionally, Dean somehow believes the White House did not listen to our military leaders as they conducted the war. Anyone with a speck of intellectual honesty knows this is untrue. The complaints of a few retired generals do not make a case for what Dean states. In my opinion Howard Dean is mentally unstable and dangerous for America.
Of course, as long as plans of retreat without finishing the job are voted down in embarrassing fashion in the Senate for (D)s and Dean opening his pie-hole lays out the detachment his party has with the rest of America, these idiots will only help the (R) party retain its dominion in our government. Thank you Dean, Kerry, Murtha, Feingold, Reed, Pelosi, and Levin for putting on the record where you stand and where the (D) party stands on completing the mission.
You are all against it. You are in the same place as you were in Vietnam. Dean and friends do not believe in finishing the mission and want to forget the people we would leave behind - plain and simple.
Why do the (D)s ignore history in such a manner?
Do the (D)s really want another outcome like Vietnam?
Do they really want to turn their backs on the Iraqi people?
Do the (D)s even care about the Iraqi people?
Do the (D)s care about our troops enough not to hand them another politician-led retreat and defeat?
Their actions tell me they do not care about Iraq nor our troops but only for their own political fortunes.
If Dean were not so good for (R)s I would back the calls for him to step down.
Said jcrue @ 10:34 am Comments (10) | Permalink
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Via The Rutherford Institute
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany’s constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law. “This is yet another example of a politically correct culture silencing Christians in order to not offend those of other beliefs,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “Brittany McComb worked hard to earn the right to address her classmates as valedictorian and she has a constitutional right-like any other student-to freely speak about the factors that contributed to her success, whether they be a supportive family, friends or her faith in Jesus Christ.”
Isn’t it ironic that it was probably the fear of a lawsuit that prompted the school to censor Brittany’s speech in the first place? It is sad that our culture, including many Christians, have bought into the politically correct culture and allow this censorship to go on. It has gotten to the point that our First Amendment has been turned on its head by activist lawyers like the ACLU. This should be a clear cut case of violating the First Amendment, yet our culture has accepted the insane secularist theories that the First Amendment means the opposite of what it was intended to mean. The old cliche that it is “freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion” are appropiate words of wisdom in our day and age.
Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to file suit in federal district court in defense of Brittany’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
We wish Brittany and the Rutherford Institute the best of luck with this case. You can support the Rutherford Institute here. See the video of Brittany McCombs on Hannity and Colmes here.
Said Jay777 @ 4:06 pm Comments (1) | Permalink
For those who don’t know, and that might be almost everyone reading, I have been a county jailer in the past. I worked for a pretty large county, but I was still a county jailer in Texas. Well, someone close to me is currently serving in a small(ish) county jail. He is, for the most part, in “good spirits” (or as good as can be expected in this situation. He is currently awaiting transfer to a state run rehab facility, but it seems that the transfer will not come. He is a trustee, so that at least lets him out of the cell to work, and plenty of people write letters to him, and visit when possible. However, a few things have come to light in recent weeks that make me wonder if I might have a case to sue this county on his behalf because.
Situation one - while working as a kitchen trustee, his job was to spray off the trays before being loaded up to go back to the contractor to be washed, and used again. While using high power water to do this, he attempted to shield his eyes with his hair net to avoid getting food in them, but had the CONTRACTOR (not an officer) YELL at him that “he does not have the right to eye protection”, while also berating him and using plenty of “colorful adjectives” to describe his current situation.
Situation two - After surrendering to the county to await transfer, he knew he would need to meet with a probations officer first to coordinate what will happen after his time with the state. After nearly a month, this had not happened, so a call was made, and finally he was scheduled. The officer, a female, conducted the interview in a closed office, with no one but herself and the inmate present, and no audio and/or video recorder. Having supervised females, I know that this is a HUGE no-no. All she has to do is say he did something “inappropriate” and he is charged with more offenses, and has no real defense. Conversely, if the inmate were to charge that she told him that he must “do something for her” to avoid negative “things” while under her supervision, she could lose her job, or worse!
Situation three - Last week (June 17th), while I was visiting him, he was noticably ill, and told me that he was having chest pain, a bad cough (and I could hear liquid in his lungs), a bad headache, I could tell he was at least mildly feverish from his skin tone, and he said he wasn’t eating as most of the foods made him feel sick. He told the officer at the pod, who called the infermery. The person there proceeded to ask questions of the guard, who asked the inmate, who would answer, the guard would then relay back the “nurse”. After this exchange, it was “determined” not to be a “medical emergency” (despite chest pain, difficulty breathing, fluid in his lungs, and refusing meals), so he could not even be allowed to see the medical staff. After a phone call from his family, they did bring him some Tylenol and Benedryl. I don’t really know what happened after that, but I also visited him today, and he did have a better color to his skin, so he is eating. He told me that he was able to finally cough up stuff, so he is finally expelling the foreign crud, and he told me his head ache and chest pains are all but gone. The question though, is who has the final say as to who is “really sick” and sees the med staff, and who is just “being a baby” and has to tough it out? I’ve worked in a jail, and I was told POINT BLANK to call the nurse (RN not LVN, not CNA, she is an RN) to come talk to the inmate FACE TO FACE to then tell the MD what she thought, and if the MD thought it was bad, either the inmate was moved to sick bay or the hospital, or the MD came out to see him.
The last issue I have is a lesser one, but still rubs me the wrong way. After being booked in, all inmates have all property not approved for possession in general population placed in storage. Normally they are allowed to keep medical needs (glasses, dentures, ect…), under garments, religious supplies (Bible, ect…), but all other stuff is either sold via comissary, or provided by the jail (razor, tooth brush, soap, ect…). It seems that this county has chosen to mandate that ALL undergarments must be ALL WHITE, not even the little red thread on socks is allowed! Families are not allowed to bring clothing to the inmate, so if they are not wearing “county approved underwear” when they are booked it, IT IS TAKEN FROM THEM and they are made to PURCHASE underwear from comissary at over FIVE DOLLARS A PAIR! Could this be extortion?
Well, as I said above, the inmate in question is someone close to me, so naturally, I am a bit angrier than most, but still, everything about this just seems a bit wrong, what do YOU think?
Said The Smoke Eater @ 12:52 pm Comments (4) | Permalink
Do you remember the announcement he put out at the anniversary of 9/11 in 2004?
“The American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a question of time, God willing,” said Zawahiri.
“In the two countries, the Americans are between two fires: if they remain there they will bleed to death, and if they withdraw they will have lost everything.”
Give me a break. IF WE STAY AND STEEL OUR RESOLVE WE WILL WIN. With every murder like those of Menchaca and Tucker, they are helping us steel our resolve and helping us realize exactly what kind of enemy it is we’re facing. With the loony left and journalists using their deaths as political fodder, we’re also realizing the enemy within.
The morale of the troops is high; that’s why they redeploy and go BACK after they come home. The guys who’ve faced the enemy up close and personal have a definite idea of the danger we’re facing and it’s not simply a ‘war for oil’, or a case of ‘Bush lied men died’. When you’re facing an enemy who wants to kill you down to your infant sons and daughters–just for being you–not for something you said, not for taking a political view–but simply because you were born American in a free country that is not ruled by sharia law–there is a definite problem.
Some think of this as the beginning of WWIII.
Zawahiri and his band of jackals are spreading more propaganda, and journalists and politicians are helping them.
Here are some observations about journalists and politicans helping them from Michael Reagan:
How many relatives, for example, did NBC News have to canvass before they found a kin of Pfc. Menchaca who would take the occasion of his relative’s murder to express his anti-administration views? NBC’s Today Show found Ken MacKenzie, Menchaca’s uncle, who obligingly told NBC, “Because the U.S. government did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid for it with his life.” He added that the government should have offered a $100 million reward and offered to exchange mujahideen detainees for the soldiers’ lives. It seized enough money from Saddam Hussein to afford it, he said.
He had nothing to say about the brutes who murdered his nephew, and expressed no anger at them.
The Democrats all but jumped for joy over the sleazy opportunity they saw to exploit the soldiers’ deaths for their political purposes. Listen to Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin’s comment that the discovery of the two mutilated soldiers’ bodies is a “grim reminder of the price we’re paying for a failed policy in Iraq.”
Like McKenzie, he didn’t bother to direct his anger at the fiends who committed the atrocity.
Nor did he or any of his anti-war Democrat colleagues bother to note that the so-called “failed policy” in Iraq has produced 5 million Iraqi children inoculated since the U.S went into Iraq, or how many schools and hospitals have been built, the 32,000 teachers trained, that 20 million Iraqis now have clean water – all the positive things they or the media studiously ignore.
Now instead of the rage they should feel, these white-flag-waving Democrats are demanding that the U.S. set some sort of timetable for withdrawal, ignoring the fact that such an act would be a signal to the al-Qaeda butchers to be patient and hang in there and wait for the U.S. to cut and run.
Have they no shame?
No, they don’t. They parade their victims in front of us so that we can’t respond to them, although I think Coulter blew a hole in that strategy with her fantastic book “Godless”. Young men who sacrificed their lives for what we’re doing in Iraq have been victimized again by the press; and you can depend on leftists to find a relative (like Gold Star Families for Peace or the Jersey Girls) to blame it on the Bush Administration instead of the people who actually perpetrated the crime and focusing in on what we’re really facing. This makes the case for us to get an army of psyschologists together because it appears to me as though they’re transferring blame, much like people in alcoholic homes do from the alcoholic. This is very sick behavior.
And then you have an interview with an Al Qaeda Cameraman… which is another example of how the journalists are all-too happy to interview terrorists, terrorists’ relatives, and democrats; all belonging to the same hate American crowd.
Associated Press correspondent Kathy Gannon conducted a range of interviews, including one with a cameraman for al-Qaeda, for a rare look at how the terror group makes and distributes its videos.
Oh yes, we want to UNDERSTAND what it is they’re doing, pat them on the back, look at them sympathetically, and in the process, score political points on the backs of soldiers who got their legs blown off, slain tortured mutiliated soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
But mum’s the word on Saddam’s victims, oh no, you can’t talk about “Father Saddam’s” atrocities, just like the pictures of Abu Ghraib are acceptable (because it’s a reflection on the quagmire of Iraq which indicts the Bush administration), but pictures of people jumping out of the towers are not; you can’t exhume the bodies of the family members from the Haditha incident to get forensic evidence that might clear the marines (who haven’t been charged but they’ve been convicted in the media) citing the religious rites of Islam as the deterrent, but apparently in some cases, such as the extensive exhumations of bodies in Saddam’s mass graves, it’s perfectly acceptable.
I don’t see any consistency here. It would seem as though if you could exhume bodies that were buried in mass graves, you most certainly could exhume bodies in Haditha if it’s a matter of life and death…and it certainly is for those marines; they could be facing the death penalty if convicted.
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda’s second-in-command vowed vengeance against the United States for the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq killed in a U.S. air strike two weeks ago.
“Yes (George W.) Bush, there isn’t a single person who’ll be killed that we won’t get vengeance for, God willing,” Ayman al-Zawahri said in comments addressed to the U.S. president on a videotape aired by al Jazeera television late on Friday.
“Do you remember, Bush, the mujahid Osama bin Laden’s vow that America will not dream of security until we experience it in Palestine? … So try uselessly to dream of peace,” said Zawahri, bespectacled and wearing a black turban.
God willing (and that’s the Lord our God not Allah [the two are not the same]), there won’t be a single one of our mutilated soldiers, Iraqi or Afghan soldiers or civilians whose deaths won’t be avenged if I have anything to say about it; and I’m certain there are others who feel the same way; particular the boys in the field who’ve seen these things up close and personal.
That little dig about Palestine is curious. Interesting how the Palestinians after getting their piece of land haven’t given up on their jihad. They’re not happy with the little they’ve been given because they don’t think Israel has the right to exist and their goal is to drive the jews into the sea. They will continue their reign of terror until that entire region is packed with Islamists and more christians and jews have died.
Desperate to counter speculation that Al Q has suffered significant losses which they’ll have difficulty recovering from, Al Qaeda has been very busy this past week putting messages out to ease fears within the ranks of the mujahideen and their journalist supporters that Zarqawi’s death will not effect their jihad against the infidels. The video by Ayman al-Zawahri was posted on a jihadi discussion board within the same week as the audiotape by Osama bin Laden and a video by the head of al-Qaida’s branch in Iraq — a volley of messages by the group’s most prominent figures.
This is just a part of al-Qaida’s ongoing propaganda blitz to prove that they’re relevant and it makes me laugh. Time Magazine has been playing along with this blitz since at least February or March, with their ridiculous propagation of disinformation about the civilian ‘murders’ in Haditha. I’d like to know what Time Magazine and others get from Al Qaeda for helping them with their propaganda campaign and attempting to weaken our ability to fight the war on terror. The NYT has done their part to hinder the war on terror with their public expose of the SWIFT program.
Now, I am not a supporter of Karzai because of his releasing terrorists from Pulacharke while assisting the State Department and the DOJ in keeping Jack Idema and Brent Bennett from being released in spite of the Afghan courts declaring them ‘innocent’ in a second trial. But I found this little blurb actually made some sense, although from a politician, you can never tell what he actually means; actions speak louder than words in that world.
Just hours after the latest al Qaeda video and its exhortations were posted on an Islamic web site, Afghan Hamid Karzai fired back in the war of words, blaming al Qaeda deputy al-Zawahri for Afghanistan’s massive suffering before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.
“He is first the enemy of the Afghan people, and then the enemy of the rest of the world,” said Karzai. “He killed Afghans for years - thousands - and then he went to America and destroyed the twin towers… We in Afghanistan want him arrested and put before justice.”
Karzai went on to urge the international community to reassess its approach to the war on terror Thursday, saying the deaths of hundreds of Afghans in fighting with U.S.-led forces was “not acceptable.”
A clearly frustrated Karzai said the approach being taken by coalition forces to hunt down militants does not focus on the roots of terrorism itself.
“I strongly believe … that we must engage strategically in disarming terrorism by stopping their sources of supply of money, training, equipment and motivation,” said Karzai.
And how would you stop the sources of supply of money, training, equipment and motivation? One might be…oh…the SWIFT program, which the NYT exposed in spite of US Government warnings as to the risk to national security and American lives.
Said Cao @ 9:58 am Comments (0) | Permalink
Yesterday evening the City Attorney in San Diego along with Mayor Jerry Sanders decided to take the Mt. Soledad case to the Supreme Court of the United States. I have already assembled one of our Supreme Court teams to file briefs on behalf of the Members of Congress that we represent, as well as ACLJ Members across the country in this important case. It appears at this time that the City will be asking for both a stay of the Ninth Circuit decision as well as a petition for writ of certiorari. The stay of the decision will allow the monument to remain while the litigation is pending at the Supreme Court. The petition for certiorari will ask the Court to grant plenary review of the Ninth Circuit decision. Generally, under Supreme Court practice, the Circuit Justice in charge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the authority to grant the stay. In this case, the Circuit Justice is Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy can either grant the stay, deny the stay, or refer the stay to the entire Supreme Court for determination. It takes five votes to obtain a stay. In order for the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court on the merits, it only takes four votes.
Read more about the background on this, and sign the petition asking President Bush to take the land under the federal government’s powers of eminent domain.
Said Jay777 @ 10:12 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons
Said jcrue @ 4:10 pm Comments (0) | Permalink
Apparently, there’s no room in the world of modern journalism for common sense. Instead, we find ourselves bombarded by stories about programs and methods we shouldn’t know about, for the sake of national security. If you can’t tell, I’m talking about the New York Slime and the Liberal Media which only serves as a tool for the anti-war Left in today’s media age.
Let me relinquish my normal role of speaking for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy for a moment, and let me speak instead for common sense. We have a determined and brutal enemy, willing to attack us using any method that will kill and cause chaos. Our enemy is intelligent, using a loosely-formed network of cells and individual attackers to cause mayhem across the globe. Our enemy will exploit any weakness that is revealed to them, and will use any hole in our security to destroy us. We learned these painful truths on one fateful morning in September.
So, given that information, you’d be bound to believe that the media and even the Leftist hate groups in this nation would give pause to their usual anti-Republican propaganda campaign and instead push for a unified and secure America. Unfortunately, the zeal of which they oppose this current administration matches the very zeal our enemies have in opposing freedom. The media is now willing to give our enemies vital information; information which can be easily used to exploit security holes and plan future attacks, just to turn the tide of public opinion against this Presidency.
I’m sorry, but even as a believer in free speech, I believe there are some moments when the Left-Wing Media should shut up, keep to themselves, and think about the security of their fellow Americans. God knows we will not be able to blame the media when future attacks occur in this nation, and it’s quite possible that the media tyrants will be blaming the very administration they are targeting. Their efforts are diminishing our capability of preventing future terrorist attacks, yet we all know who’ll they’ll blame when we’re struck. For the sake of security, let’s tell the media to shut the hell up.
Said RealTeen @ 3:51 pm Comments (8) | Permalink
I have stated in the past that no one can successfully run a business using liberal ideology, policies, and practices. If you look at any successful business today, even those run BY liberals, the policies and practices followed are conservative principles.
The success of any business depends on the supply and demand of the product and the correct pricing strategy of that product. The goal of any business is to make a profit. Profit allows a business to grow and expand.
Let’s look at the product of liberal talk radio. Over the years, liberal talk radio has come and gone, failed. The supply was presented to the public, but there was little to no demand for the product, at least not enough demand to create a profit. The latest attempt has been Air America Radio. With little to no demand for the product, Air America actually paid radio stations to air their programs. This would be like McDonalds paying people to eat Big Macs. Although Big Macs may be consumed, there would not be enough profit to sustain the business; it would be unsuccessful. This is exactly what is happening with Air America; without an inflow of investor capital, this liberal radio business would fail.
The Air America situation has obviously not prohibited the liberals from practicing the same failed policies on a macro scale. I am talking about the Democratic agenda for America from a business perspective. Liberalism/socialism/communism as a philosophical and political ideology has failed the Democratic Party since the 1990’s. Yet, it has not deterred the Dems from, not only pursuing this ideology, but moving ever closer to the communism side.
Recently, the Dems revealed their agenda to takeover America. Some of the ideas including raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, lowering drug costs (subsidies?), and free (socialized) health care. From a business perspective, let’s take a look at these “products” offered from the liberals from which they will try and create a demand.
What do all these products have in common? All include a cost that far outweighs the value most consumers would normally find. Raising minimum wage will increase the cost to the business owner though the value of the labor remains the same. Raising taxes will increase the cost to the productive wage earner. Lowering or mandating lower drug prices will lower profits to the pharmaceutical companies, or it will increase the cost of health insurance to the consumer, or if subsidized by the government, will increase the tax rate to the productive wage earner. Finally, “free” or socialized health care will also cost the consumer a raise in tax rates or higher insurance costs.
The point is that all these “products” from the liberals will cost the consumers, the productive wage earners some amount of their money. The Democratic agenda is basically an income redistribution agenda. They propose taking money from the productive wage earner to pay for goods and services utilized and enjoyed by someone else. It is McDonalds paying people to eat Big Macs simply to entice them to come to McDonalds. In the liberal case, it is the liberals buying votes, enticing voters with the promise of a valuable product paid for by someone else.
It appears the business and marketing plan for the Democratic agenda is to redistribute income and buy votes, a very socialistic/communistic ideology. The Dems have not created a real demand for their products, other than presenting a superficial payment to the voters in exchange for their votes. Would McDonalds be successful if it had to pay consumers to eat their food? Of course not, it would fail quickly. So how is the Dems product different? Democratic success must depend on more people with their hands out at the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth than on the productive end, the wage earners. Is this a successful strategy? It is ethical? Is it even American?
Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of the Democratic agenda is behavior modification. Work ethic is a learned behavior, and any behavior can be modified. If a child exhibits bad behavior, the parents will punish that behavior until the child no longer exhibits that bad behavior. Conversely, good behavior is rewarded to re-enforce that behavior, so it will continue.
Under the Democratic agenda of income redistribution, the behavior of creating wealth is punished by increasing the tax rate. Eventually, higher taxation can deter the behavior of wealth creation. On the other hand, the non-productive are rewarded for their behavior by increasing social goods and services, increasing the amount of wealth one received from the government. This will foster the behavior of being non-productive and will increase said behavior. This simple example shows why socialism and communism can not work, will never work, and has never worked. As the wealth creation behavior diminishes due to increased taxation, and the non-productive behavior flourishes due to rewards, wealth will decrease, eventually leading to an economic collapse.
Is this really the road we want to travel?
Said cracker @ 3:52 pm Comments (4) | Permalink
The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge to stop the Miami-Dade County school district from removing a series of children’s books from its libraries, including a volume about Cuba which depicts smiling kids in communist uniforms. The ACLU and the Miami-Dade County Student Government Association argued in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Miami on Wednesday that the school board should add materials with alternate viewpoints rather than remove books that could be offensive. Last week, the board voted 6-3 to remove “Vamos a Cuba” and its English-language version, “A Visit to Cuba” from 33 schools, stating the books were inappropriate for young readers because of inaccuracies and omissions about life in the communist nation. The book, by Alta Schreier, targets students ages 5 to 7 and contains images of smiling children wearing uniforms of Cuba’s communist youth group and a carnival celebrating the 1959 Cuban revolution. The district owns 49 copies of the book in Spanish and English.
To the ACLU it doesn’t seem to matter that the books are misleading, inaccurate, and inappropriate for this age group. It doesn’t matter to the ACLU that the book is pure propaganda. To the ACLU it is a book ban. It just so happens that the message portrayed in the book seems to go along with their founder’s beliefs.
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
~ Roger Baldwin-founder of the ACLU~ Here is another one from Mr. Baldwin.
“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.”-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota.
I’m sure the ACLU’s founder would be proud of the ACLU’s move to protect the propaganda of his ideology. The ACLU’s main point of argument is that banning one point of view is the wrong way to deal with the situation is lost when it is five year olds potentially being exposed to this crap. To the ACLU this is nothing more than a book ban, and they are asking the school to include more alternative views instead of banning unpopular ones. No one has to ask if they would fight this hard to keep a Bible in the school library, or whether their strength would be focused on getting rid of it. Take this however you want, but the ACLU has never strayed very far from its founding principles. This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board. Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Said Jay777 @ 6:36 pm Comments (2) | Permalink
It’s been a while since Britain’s arch- race-hustler, Trevor Phillips, had anything to crow about, but he’s back in the headlines this week, and endorsing a policy that smacks of nothing if not outright racism:
Britain’s race laws need updating to help in the battle against terrorism, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has said.
Trevor Phillips has called for a debate on positive discrimination in favour of Muslims applying to join the police.
Of course, it goes without saying that the ‘positive’ descriptor only applies when used by certain people. For any infidels unlucky enough to approach a British Police College, the nature of the proposed discrimination is likely to be quite, quite negative. You know, in the sense of finding oneself denied employment solely on the grounds of religion.Still, this kind of not-so-positive discrimination is the holy grail of many race-hustlers — In the vindictive and paranoid reality inhabited by such people, the idea of doing unto others what they (mostly incorrectly) believe is being done unto them has always held a particular appeal. So, no, it isn’t that Phillips has suddenly decided on this radical course of action. Rather, the problem has always been an uncertainty as to how the rest of us might be sold on the idea of living in an apartheid state — Most particularly since the people wishing to set it up are bankrolled through the taxes of those they’re hankering to disenfranchise. Here’s Phillips’ solution to this problem:
Mr Phillips will emphasise that it is not just a matter of fairness and equality, but an issue of national security.
[…]
“But I do know that we have to debate such measures if we are going to avoid the spectre of a mainly white security and justice apparatus policing increasingly aggrieved and hostile black and Asian communities
Now think about this. If we don’t want to deal with ‘aggrieved and hostile’ Muslims who hate the police simply because of their religion, we should give them warrant cards and trust they’ll uphold our rule of law in a fair and even way. Question: can Muslims actually be relied on to do that? Or will those ‘aggrieved and hostile’ tendencies spill over into their treatment of any kaffirs unfortunate enough to cross their path?We’re asking because, on the strength of this report (ignored by the useful idiots at the BBC, obviously), the Muslim cops we already have aren’t exactly doing a bang-up job:
A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become corrupt than white officers because of their cultural and family backgrounds.
[…]
The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and written by an Asian detective chief inspector, stated: “Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family … and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality.”
No news, though, on whether these ‘pressures’ might lead Phillips’ ‘aggrieved and hostile’ young headchoppers to turn a blind eye to the very terrorism they’re supposed to be investigating.And none on whether police recruiters will pause in their headlong rush to stuff bearded crazies into uniforms in order to ensure they don’t attend mosques like this one:
BRIGHTON, England - June 18, 2006 (UPI) — A militant British Muslim imam says both Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George Bush are “legitimate targets” for terrorist attacks. Abubaker Deghayes made the remarks to an undercover reporter in Brighton for The Times of London, which reported the conversation Sunday.
Really, though, when you consider that Phillips’ starting point is that we kaffirs should be treated as second-class citizens, perhaps the issue of how he feels about Islamic corruption, fanaticism and violence is already settled. After all, the notion that employers should pass over qualified infidels in order to hire the (less-qualified) faithful is straight out of the same Sharia handbook used by Islamopaths to justify their fascism in the first place.Swallow that camel, as Phillips seems to have done, and maybe police corruption and a blind-eye turned to terrorism really do begin to look like gnat-sized problems.
(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)
Said RottyPup @ 6:04 am Comments (3) | Permalink
