Friday, March 31, 2006

The Logic of Islam in A Democratic Society

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books --

After reading the article attached to the above link, I was reminded of the thought that propelled me to begin this blog in the first place: "If the flames are killing you and you can't or shouldn't run away, then for God's sake, put them out!"

"...his view of the Koran is not eccentric among Muslims ... Such an effort should not be seen as optional or incidental; without it, the very commitment of these self-proclaimed moderates to the United States and its Constitution can and should be called into question....The real problem here is that anyone anywhere at any time can read the Koran and come to the same conclusion that he did. If American officials were really serious about preventing a future attack, they would address that. If American Muslim advocacy groups were really serious about being loyal, patriotic Americans, they would address that." [Emphasis by TIMe]

The Perfect Gift

I'm sure almost everyone can think of dozens of people who might benefit from this brilliantly innovative device. What a wonderful way to say "I care!" The only problem that I can forsee might be that some people would get more than they could use in a lifetime.

Hey, why are you looking at me that way?

New Scientist Technology - Device warns you if you're boring or irritating

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

German Death Camps Were As Legal As America's Abortion Clinics.

Apparently, Americans -or at least Christian Americans - would have made no more difference then, had they been living during WWII in Nazi Germany, to end the death camps there than they have made here in America today, to stop the limitless killing of America's children. Those camps were as legal then as our abortion clinics are here today and the same legal protections were in place then to guard the German solution as are in place, here in America, to protect the American solution. So even if we had all been there with all of our moral outrage to stop the horror of it all, nothing really would have been any different, since we have proven ourselves ineffective to end the same horror here on American soil.

Or so it would appear.

Honestly, I can't recall the last time I heard from any clergy at any service on any Sunday a recollection, let alone a condemnation, of the ongoing wholesale murder in our midst. If our collective relative silence on the matter is any indication, we are as accepting of the Death Camps here as the German people were of their own little nightmare, despite the lip service.

I guess I'm left asking myself, what would we have done differently then and there that we're not doing here and now? Would we have made a difference then if we can't seem to have ended this by now?

God forgive us for, though we do know what we do, we lack what it takes, whatever that may be, to stop it.

...Participants in a Washington conference have been warned that America deserves God's judgment for abortion and the decline of marriage. On the final day of the conference titled "The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006," Rev. Laurence White condemned decades of abortion, calling it an American "Holocaust" that the church has done too little to stop. White, who heads the Greater Houston Area Pastors Roundtable, also said marriage is under assault -- as much from Christians who divorce as from activists demanding same-sex "marriage." Unless Christians act to stop what he calls America's "unrighteousness, evil, corruption, perversion and death," White says "God will -- and God should -- judge America." [AP]

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

U.S. population will climb to more than 450 million by 2050.

...A Washington, DC-based immigration reform organization has completed a study that projects the U.S. population could reach the half-billion mark by 2050 if Congress moves forward with plans for a guest worker amnesty program for illegal immigrants. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) conducted the study. Co-author Jack Martin says without significant reductions in overall levels of immigration, the U.S. population will climb to more than 450 million by 2050. And the increase will be even greater, he says, if Congress moves forward with a guest worker amnesty program. "Between now and 2050, the U.S. population will grow by about 200 million people," says Martin. "That's from about 300 million now to about half a billion people. And if we are looking even further ahead, we will be on a projection that will take the U.S. population to about a billion people by the end of the century." Today (March 27) is the deadline imposed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for a proposed immigration reform bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Martin admits he has some concerns. "[The Senate] is considering a possible amnesty or guest worker system as well as increased immigration that could run anywhere from to 600,000 additional immigrant visas a year up to perhaps a million more," he says. "If that type of an increase goes through, between now and 2050, the U.S. population will grow by about 200 million people." Martin alleges that the massive population growth resulting from current or proposed immigration policies will dramatically alter every aspect of life in the United States. [Chad Groening] From the Agape Press

Monday, March 27, 2006

Recipe for Cooked Goose, Hold The Golden Eggs

Groundswell of Protests Back Illegal Immigrants - New York Times:

Of course, the issue is divisive. The issue pits compassion against law and order. It pits helping the unfortunate against the means by which to do so.

Surely, any compassionate person would be willing and eager to help the less fortunate, yet if he were to give all that he had in the process, he’d have nothing left with which to help anyone, let alone himself, thereby becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Hence, the fable that warns against cooking the Goose that laid the Golden Egg.

Of course, the issue is immigration. Not just all immigration but rather the breaking of American Immigration law without consequence, mocking those who do respect our laws and keep them. It is about breaking American law at the expense of the American taxpayer to benefit the lawbreaker. This seems to me to be a classic case of cooked goose. Any politician seeking elected office knows he or she would benefit from pronouncing for the public good, a feasible reduction in taxes, the present administration not withstanding. Yet, as in the past, when these promises are made, only to lead to economic burden because of bills beyond the budget, then we recognize that there is a problem which demands correction and we take the measures necessary to correct it. Usually, in the next election we scrutinize closely such claims to reduce costs while increasing benefits and vote accordingly.

Looking objectively at people entering this country by means that thwart the will of the American people, breaking the laws which we enacted through a just and legal process to control the flow of aliens across our borders, we see several questions posed:

Should we have laws which govern the flow at our borders?

Should we enforce the laws of the land governing our borders?

Should we even have borders?

If so, are those borders supposed to control who comes in and out of our country?


Are they for determining which occupants of this country pay taxes to get education and health care and which need not do so?

Surely, we are all aware of the great blessings that we enjoy in this country. Many of us are also aware of the hardships suffered by those in other countries, in particular in Mexico. Many of us give charitably to ease that suffering. Some of us fight for policies and legislation to help us serve as good neighbors to the benefit of those less fortunate. For example, thanks to NAFTA, strawberries are available throughout the year, the winter crop coming from Mexico. They are delicious and welcome reminders of summer's bounty while we wait through winter chill; they are also a bit expensive. The profit from this is expected to go to the Mexican people, though there’s no accounting for the corruption which poses as government in that country. Our ability to pay for them is supposed to be derived from the balance of our economy. Though I am not an expert in economics, logic would suggest that if I have to pay for my expensive health coverage, my school and property taxes as well as pay for those same things for illegal aliens who do not equally contribute, then it is likely I will soon be unable to pay for those delicious winter strawberries from Mexico. Now, do I eat the goose or the egg?

Considering that many, if not most, who have entered this country illegally, have come here with the intention of sending a portion of their earnings back to their home country through money transfers, we recognize that, by so doing, not only are they not maintaining a balance in the economy by paying taxes on the income, but also as we all know, the taxes paid in spending that income as well, are also nullified since those dollars will not be spent here. If each illegal alien sent home to his native country, only one dollar for each day that he was here, $3.3 billion dollars would leave this country annually, on which no tax would ever be collected. (And the left thinks that the wealthy Americans have all the tax breaks!) This of course is not good economics but the faint aroma of cooked goose sure smells good

In an effort that we might gain a better grasp of the situation, it would be to our benefit if there were an obvious notation as we foot the bill. For example, here in Seattle, we pay an outrageous tax to fund the stadiums, owned and built by billionaires that ran into multi-million dollar cost overruns –no, they do not belong to the city! - that serve to accommodate the teams of millionaires that use them to make more millions for themselves. Essentially, millionaires subsidizing the means to make more millions by taxing millions from those who sit in the traffic which events at these stadiums are known to produce, unable to fix the roads on which they sit due to budgetary impairment.

Outrageous, to be sure. But, at least we knew it going in. We voted for it (I say that figuratively, since I didn’t!), we got it and we live with it. Even still, as we pay nearly 10% in sales tax because of it, we are fully aware that our ridiculously high taxes are due to our need/desire/willingness to have these teams of multi-millionaires living at our expense. Every time I make a purchase, pay that tax and cringe, I know why I’m cringing and have no one to blame but myself as a taxpayer for having allowed it to happen.

So to keep ourselves fully aware of what’s really happening, and to protect our politicians from undue fiscal criticism, we should, if we choose to honor those who do not contribute towards carrying the burden, do much the same as we do here in Seattle: impose a tax earmarked to subsidize the hospitals, schools and jails. A special sales tax, set aside to cover the cost of non-citizen patrons who simply don’t pay their own way. Like a secondary welfare system. To qualify you simply need to prove that you don’t qualify. Then you’re covered. Taxpaying American citizens need not apply. By doing this we will always be realistically aware of the financial costs of ignoring the laws we enacted to protect us from, among many things, unaccountable and increasingly unmanageable financial burdens on our health and educational systems. What better way than to impose a financial burden that’s obvious, replacing the hidden one with which we now live. Without going into all the detailed data regarding costs, in many states, these costs are in the billions and growing. And though often times the burden is felt most on the local level, the Tax For Illegal Entry should be shared nationally as it is nationally that we will ultimately pay for it down the road. All of our already unwieldy health care costs are artificially inflated to cover these costs anyway. If we make the cost obvious through a tax that we will experience almost daily, we will never get confused as to why the budgets won’t balance. Dutch treat that covers five for dinner, when only three pay, will ruin the taste of even the most deliciously cooked goose. With or without eggs.

And when we see how well this works we might just decide to establish new taxes to cover the hidden costs of many other crimes, allowing them to be broken to ease the lives of those who break them. That list is much too long for this blog, though another hundred million of our citizens would likely sign up tomorrow for that plank in the campaign platform. You can bet on it.
Hey! There’s one group right there! Illegal gamblers! Wow! I think I’m onto something! (Prostitution, insider trading, pornography, illegal liquor sales…hmmmm…. They’d pay billions to avoid prosecution and be allowed to continue. Think of all the good we could do with that additional revenue! “A stolen car in every garage and a cooked goose in every pot!”
Hey! Pot! That’s right!
Let’s not leave out the drug trade!!
Oh, that’s right…they’re already in on this Mexico thing.

Now I’ve had misgivings on the matter rooted in what I think is my sense of compassion for those who don’t have all that I do (don’t laugh, I do have a few things) and gratitude for all that I do have, the most precious of which is far more than things. It calls me to share what I have with the less fortunate. Surely, my heart says to do so as I try to quell any feelings of guilt that might be misplaced. However, my heart doesn’t have to pay the bills. My pragmatic head does. And my head says that there is a better way to allow for the success of the dictates of my heart.

Housing is expensive, especially for those of us who have not been fortunate enough to own their own. Homelessness is often rooted in this high cost (as well as from Eminent Domain rulings from the lunatic bench). Raising taxes to subsidize those who do not pay taxes only leads to more people in need. We often hear this complaint coming from the left regarding the wealthy in this country, yet never have I heard it used about the resource-draining criminals who enter this country illegally. As the citizens who carry the financial burden of running this country are eventually crushed under the burden of those who don’t, those who are not citizens (those who, by virtue of their citizenship, carry the cost of this great country) are demanding - and getting- all the benefits as if they were. Think an activist bench is bad? Try legislating from the street!

So now comes the question of the morality of bearing the weight of the less fortunate with the resources with which we have been blessed. The question arises, “What is the Christian thing to do?” In response, the first thought that comes to mind is Jesus’ admonition to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God, that which is God’s. I am by no means a biblical scholar, yet if I am a logical man, I can only deduce that this was guidance to obey the just laws of the country in which you happen to find yourself, even if, in the case at the time, an occupation force, as was Rome. One can only conclude then that if our laws are just they should be obeyed. This does not preclude being a good Christian. However, if they are not just then we should abandon them for better. If our present system of charitable giving and economic support of Mexico through free trade is insufficient to help the people of Mexico, then we need to create taxes, which compensate for the cost of 12 million people who use costly resources, which they don’t replenish through taxation. Forget waiting for the Mexican government to become just, fair, and supportive of its own people. You can’t keep a goose in the oven indefinitely!

Being logical, we must conclude that the math bears out one thing for sure: since those that come here illegally tend to reproduce at almost twice the rate of legal American citizens, it won’t be long before they represent the majority of the work force. Logic also would allow that the majority of anything usually calls the shots. Therefore, we could fix the problem now by instituting new laws or keeping and enforcing those which we already have, succumbing to the pressures of demanding, furiously protesting crowds or we can simply let the problem fix itself through attrition. One day, the majority will have to pick up the tab or end up living in the same poverty from they are fleeing today. If the “furious” demonstrations of this past weekend are any indication, plenty seem to think they have the solutions we need.

Then of course, I must look at the claim that we need illegal Mexicans here to supply our work force with the manual labor that natural born American citizens refuse to do. Well, we might consider this to be Christian charity until we stop to consider that what we are offering is a job, lifestyle and income level that we consider unacceptable. We might offer them our garbage while we’re at it. And the tragedy is that, due to the unbridled corruption in their own country, they have come here willing to accept just that: our garbage. In fact, this principle has been the backbone of Hindu society in India for hundreds of years. A caste system which reserves for the “untouchables” that which the self-respecting would never do. Is this really Christian or merely guilt-assuaging, self-satisfying contrivance to justify greed. When we willingly invite Mexican criminals (that’s what people are who break the law) to reside within our communities as next-door neighbors, then we will know that we are willing to live up to the standards that we preach. But facts will reveal that those who enter our country illegally live in conclaves that detect and warn of law enforcement so as to avoid deportation, in housing that few of us would consider livable. But landlords collect rent on them and the contractors employ them so that we can bargain down the price of everything that we buy here at home, demanding that American companies compete with companies in the countries from which these criminals are fleeing and to which we outsource. Only greed, not Christian charity, can cause such blindness.

Concurrent with the political methods which have served the left for so long, we see a clamor of condemnation of America as an evil giant who crushes the poor man (ignoring the fact that he was never invited and essentially broke in) and demand through implication of guilt of some kind, that our government change its rules to nullify their illegality. This is equivalent to the maid that cleans the toilets in your home, a job you don’t care to do, breaking into your home, using your checkbook to cover her medical and educational expenses, then demanding “furiously” that you ignore the rules that say your home is your sovereign domain and change them to allow for this criminal act to become acceptable. It’s preposterous and outrageous and no one in his or her right mind would consider it. Yet we consider the very same logic from demonstrating crowds and the churches that back them.

According to this then I need to believe, as a Christian, that the instruction we were given 2000 years ago was to take from Caesar that which is Caesar’s and demand that he grant us the privilege of doing so because it is our right, even though we're not citizens and, therefore, within that country have no rights.

And the meek shall inherit the earth. Somehow I never saw this as meaning that the meek would storm the governments of the countries which they invaded and demand control. Live and learn.

Surely that Goose is cooked by now! Let’s eat! (Who needed silly golden eggs anyway?)

Monday, March 20, 2006

"They wonder what I see that they don't."

OK. The story is about Iraq. The angle is the President's effort to quell unrest and instill confidence among Americans and Iraqis. The line that catches my eye is the headline above, "They wonder what I see that they don't".

Then I see the picture [AP, thanks!] of a Muslim man slicing his head with a sword. I think to myself, "Now here's an unusual twist! His own head, not someone else's. Imagine that!"

Then I'm stopped in my tracks as I ponder, "What do I see that they don't?"; how many Americans think that Islam is just another religion. Then, I think of all the Muslims throughout Europe and the rest of the world. Societies with an appreciable percentage of Muslims in the population, stressed to the breaking point. France and Australia come readily to mind, though Germany and Denmark are not too distant. Likewise, the Netherlands is in chaos with Muslim disruption. And I ask myself (because no one else is listening, thank goodness!) "If Europe is collapsing as Muslims won't assimilate, but rather want to live as Muslims, apart from the rest of western civilization, while living amongst those who are civilized acording to western traditions, how can a Muslim ever become part of a western society at all?"

"In America, almost everyone has at the outset, the right to run for public office. The truly wise avoid it, I think, yet it is to a large extent a measure of being an American. The ability to run for office and be part of the governing process is a measure of being part of a country where the people are governed by the people in the form of an elected government."

"How on earth can anyone think that a true, traditionalist Muslim can be a true American, running for office while slicing his head open when the polls deliver bad news? Slicing his head open when he gets defeated in a televised debate? Slicing his head open when Hilary criticizes one of his initiatives? How can any rational person consider, however momentarily, that a true, Allah fearing, traditional Muslim can be part of anything that we consider civilization, while slicing his head open in public as a form of grief expression?"
This is what I say to myself. Remember? no one else is listening.

This only stands to confirm what John Quincy Adams said on the subject: Islam is not religion, this is just evil which brings out the worst in humankind.

Family Values in California

News from Agape Press

After reading the above linked article, I had an overwhelming inspration that I think is the answer we have all been looking for and simply couldn't find the forest for the trees. No, this is not a proposal to cut down any trees. It's just a point of encouragement to look between them to find the answers that have eluded us all for so long. And that's probably because we haven't read enough of George Clooney's writing and other intellectual pursuits. We're all to busy with trying to stay in touch with the mainstream.

I think that in the interest of being open minded and all –inclusive, we must realize that to identify by gender is to automatically exclude those who are not of the same gender, at least in the definition of gender itself. That is to say that as I identify male, I must automatically exclude that I do no think of myself as female. Likewise, if I identify you as female, I would automatically exclude you as being male and therefore would relate to you differently as a female than I would to you if you were a male.

That being said, I think it is counterproductive to the societal goals of California to have our children raised to think of themselves as any one gender as it is too exclusive of those of other genders and prevents them from an early age from relating generically and fairly with other children. This of course prevents them from developing as adults who value a community based on equality and fairness of choice. How can a boy, raised to think of himself as male, relate equally and on a level playing field with someone who views themselves as female or somewhere in the middle to any of the myriad possibilities of choices.

For there to be any hope for a future for the State of California, where men and women see themselves as equals they must be raised from their earliest years to see them selves as genderless. To achieve this goal we should begin by removing the idea of gender from their daily lives. The best place to start would be the root of all meaning to words, which would be the dictionary. It would be best if the State of California reprinted the Standard American Dictionary with the words “gender”, “male” “female” “him” “his” “her” “hers”, “manly”, “feminine”, and any other word that denotes gender or gender characteristics. In this way our children can be reared in the concept of total equality and eliminate forever the idea that people can be maligned in any way based on their gender, whether it is a result of natural selection or personal choice.

Marriage should no longer be a goal for a young man and a young woman but rather be the chosen engagement of any two living beings, regardless of gender, apparent or assumed. To further this aim, fashion designers should be expressly prohibited from distinguishing details in clothing that call attention to any features that might make it obvious that the wearer is of any particular gender. All clothing should be uniformly equal and should not separate by design any particular gender. Further, since income and status are often used to delineate between groups of people, no particular fashion should be more expensive than another. All clothing should be gender neutral and of equal value. This way our children can be raised to view each other as gender and social equals, thereby ensuring that society progresses to fair and balanced equilibrium that precludes anything that denotes class, gender or superiority.

Since superiority is also determined by educational accomplishments, along with gender and fashion, educational achievement should be standardized as well. As long as a student feels that his intellect is superior to another’s there will always be an air of tension between the “haves and have-nots”, intellectually speaking. The true purpose of an education is to learn the material, not to brandish a certification of any kind. Therefore, though our children should continue to be educated, it would be counterproductive for them to have to meet any particular requirement in order to be considered accomplished. Each will learn according to their own capacity and that capacity should never be used to differentiate between each other. Neither teacher nor student should view each other as different in any sense and certainly not because of any intellectual capacity which, ultimately, has nothing to do with neutrality of being. Until all society views its members as neutral in every way and in every sense of the word, there will be hindrance in achieving our goals of neutrality. Therefore, student should not be graded on their work at the risk of damaging their view of themselves as being on par with everyone else and as validly entitled to all the same things in life regardless of applicability or appropriateness.

I therefore propose that all reference to gender, income and intellect be removed from our schools, libraries, movies, books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, search engines, documents, legal proceedings fashion design and language. The sooner we recognize, as a society, that all are created equal, we will never achieve the desired goal of being equal that we so desire to be, which is equal in society, free from all sense of inequality based on gender or intellect or income, regardless of anyone’s gender or intellect or income.

And no smoking.

Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places - Yahoo! News

Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places - Yahoo! News: "No more smoking in the park. Lighting up on the sidewalk could bring a fine. Dining on the restaurant patio? Don't bother asking for matches."

But a pill designed to kill an unborn child, which can also kill the mother is not only legal, but the law requires pharmacies to sell it.
With reasoning like this we can truly understand why George Clooney and friends claim to be glad to be so "out of touch" with the rest of the world. In a sane, world they'd be stigmatized. But in California, they're mainstream: Certifiably nuts.

Friday, March 17, 2006

A Judge Who Doesn't Want to Have To Change Her Name and Address

Moussaoui judge allows some aviation witnesses: "
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge in the sentencing trial of September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui on Friday refused to reconsider her decision barring witnesses who were improperly contacted by a government lawyer but said new witnesses may …

Two more deaths reported after abortion pill

Sometimes I think maybe we're just a little too clever for our own good. Or the good of our children, for that matter. It would really be wise to be cautious about taking advice from anyone who profits whether or not you lose. And I pity these women who trusted their doctors to help them do what neither wanted done to themselves: to be aborted.
Is this nature defending itself?

Two more deaths reported after abortion pill: "
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two new deaths have been reported after women took the abortion pill known as RU-486 but officials do not know if the fatalities are connected to the drug, U.S. regulators said on Friday.

Divine Providence is Proof of God's Existence

Nothing other than Divine Providence has kept our airways safe from hijack and assault. If that's not proof of God's existence (like He needs us to validate Him) then little else would suffice.

Airline screeners fail government bomb tests - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit -

Liberal Bias on Campus…No

Maybe, if everytime professors strayed from the assigned subject material for which the student paid they got sued for a refund on the grounds of false advertizing, the quality of education would improve.
I said "Maybe".

From an article in Human Events Online:
Friday, March 17, 2006 No Bias in N.Y.
By: Christopher Flickinger

The independent student newspaper at the University of Maryland reports on liberal bias. "Some say political influence creeps into the classroom," writes the Diamondback Online.

Conservatives note the pervasiveness of liberal bias on campus. Kelly Zavala, a sophomore government and politics major, tells the paper she was appalled by the anti-Bush sentiments that became part of the curriculum. "'Students would literally cheer [the teacher] on,' Zavala said. She noted one of her teacher's slide shows included a slide showing Bush as the equivalent of a monkey."

Brandon Payne, president of the College Republicans, tells the Diamondback that Republicans are often the butt of jokes within the classroom. "I think there's an intimidation factor where you don't want to announce that you are a conservative."

Michael Carroll, a senior logistics major, said, "You go to class to learn the material, not to hear the professor's views." He went on to say "there is usually nobody who can counter them because students are nervous and not as well-educated," according to the article.

But, the student newspaper also writes of professor Geoff Layman who says "if he were to criticize the Bush administration, he'd be examining their decisions as a political scientist, not a liberal."


Professor Layman's job is to teach his subject, not preach his ideology. He’s welcome to exam the Bush administration as a "political scientist" outside the classroom, but while he's on the clock, he just needs to stick to the material.

The article goes on to quote Lee Fang, president of the College Democrats, who tells the paper "this criticism is not intended to make Republican students feel uncomfortable…"

Fang said, "If they're attacking Bush, it's because of certain policy. It's not because he's a Republican, it's because he's a bad executive."

Missing the point!

Education shouldn't be partisan. Professors need to leave their personal politics at the door. Those teachers who bring political agendas into the classroom are impeding every students' educational experience. Students are not paying thousands of dollars for liberal indoctrination (well, I take that back -- currently, they are, but they shouldn't be). They're paying for a well-rounded education, and they deserve to get it.

Until academic excellence and intellectual integrity is restored throughout higher education, Human Events U and the Network of College Conservatives will continue to expose liberal bias on campus. It's up to parents and students to decide which educational institutions they'll financially reward.

Posted 03/16/06 12:41 PM

What is to be gained by pretending that it isn’t happening?

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books --

"We need to stop deceiving ourselves and allowing ourselves to be deceived."..."Eventually the Dutch Ministry of Integration and other administrative bodies in the Western world are going to have to come to grips with the implications of facts about Islamic jihad that so far they have preferred to pretend did not exist.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

A Very Evil and Wicked Religion

News from Agape Press: "...Rev. Franklin Graham says he hasn't changed his mind about Islam. Graham outraged Muslims in 2001 when he called it 'a very evil and wicked religion.' Graham is the successor to his father as head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and told ABC's 'Nightline' that Muslim groups have not succeeded in altering his mind about Islam. The younger Graham says people who think Islam is a wonderful religion should 'just go to Saudi Arabia' and see if they could make it their home. Billy Graham has avoided such comments about Islam, and President Bush has consistently depicted mainstream Islam as a religion of peace. [AP]"

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

As Goes Europe, So Goes America. Eventually.

News from Agape Press

Jihad Watch notes there are already vast areas surrounding major European cities like Paris that have been completely taken over by Muslims. Spencer, ... describes this as a "very dangerous situation"

Friday, March 10, 2006

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Decision Approving Anti-Catholic Display to Stand

After reading this article regarding the placement, at public expense, of a statue that belittles another’s religion, I wonder if the administration of the school and the Supreme Court would take a similar position if the statue had been an inflammatory reference to the dean of the college or a mockery of the schools faculty. I wonder if the president of the school would insist that a statue be left on public display that showed how the head of the school is a pervert or drunkard or reprobate gambler or simply a dull-witted Doctor of Blather standing by his Hypocritical Oaf.

I wonder if the school would remove it in exchange for a multi-million dollar grant to, let’s say, study the negative effects of insulting the religious beliefs of others. It really would be an experiment in itself to observe the sheer consternation on the part of the administration trying to decide whether to satisfy their greed or their hatred. The entire process from their reaction to the delivery of the notice to the final decision (maybe Regis Philbin could moderate?) could be filmed and shown in theaters nationally (or make a reality show for TV! Yeah, that's it!), thereby generating even further financial advancement for the school. All in the name of intellectual integrity, of course.

Or, I wonder if, in the interest of science and the furthering and broadening of the students' intellects, the statue might be used as the target of a laser experiment. Not to simply destroy it, though this would be the likely outcome, heavens no. But rather to demonstrate how committed to the edification of the student body the school and the artist really are in allowing this tax-funded ugliness (I’ve seen it and it isn’t pleasant to look at and really conveys nothing in the form of a message other than contempt. The image is ugly, the message is ugly and the will to present it is the ugliest of all. I am sure the students of Washburn would not mind seeing this eyesore washed away as it burned to vapor, giving the name of their school yet another notable and memorable connection.) to be used for the broadening of the student awareness and collective experience, as they watch hatred and ugliness removed forever from the planet (ok... from their campus) in a symbolic gesture.

I wonder if the school’s administrators are all that dedicated to truth and education, don’t you?

Ann Arbor, MI— This week the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal involving a constitutional challenge to an anti-Catholic statue depicting a Roman Catholic bishop with a grotesque facial expression wearing a miter that resembles a phallus. The statue was entitled “Holier than Thou” and included a plaque with a denigrating and derisive statement about the sacrament of penance.

It was placed at one of the busiest locations on the campus of Washburn University, a tax supported public university located in Kansas. Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who handled this case, commented, “Incredibly, during the course of this litigation, university officials admitted that they would never permit an anti-Jewish, anti-black, or anti-gay/lesbian statue on campus. Discrimination against the Catholic faith apparently promotes the educational mission of Washburn University. And while the federal judiciary may have turned a blind eye to this outrage, many Catholics did not.” Many prominent Catholics criticized the statue as anti-Catholic as soon as the university began the display on September 20, 2003. Catholic Archbishop James Keleher of the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas wrote an open letter to the University President strongly urging the university to remove this symbol of anti-Catholicism. He wrote, “I am extremely disappointed at this present situation that is an affront to me, to many Catholics and to others who value decency and respect. I am particularly concerned for your many Catholic students
who see their faith ridiculed and they themselves embarrassed.” Other prominent Catholic leaders and organizations, such as William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the Kansas State Knights of Columbus, the president of the Archdiocesan Conference of Catholic Women, and the Catholic Campus Center at Washburn University expressed similar concerns about the offensive display.

Nonetheless, the University’s President defended the display as art that has the purpose of engaging the community intellectually and emotionally, and refused to remove it. As a result of the refusal, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Thomas O’Connor and Andrew Strobl. Dr. O’Connor, a professor of 39 years at Washburn, and Strobl, a senior at Washburn at the time of the filing of the case, are both devout Catholics. The lawsuit alleged that Washburn’s display of this anti-Catholic symbol conveyed the impermissible state-sponsored message of hostility toward the Catholic faith in violation of the Establishment Clause. The case was dismissed by the federal district judge who ruled that Washburn had a secular purpose for displaying this sculpture because “[i]t
functions to aesthetically enhance Washburn’s campus[,] broaden the educational experiences [and] increase the intellectual capacities of Washburn’s students.”

The judge concluded that the presence of “Holier than Thou” on “Washburn’s campus would [not] cause a reasonable observer to believe that [Washburn] endorsed hostility towards the Catholic religion.” In July 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, affirmed the
lower court’s ruling that Washburn University did not violate the constitution even though it prominently displayed a statue supported with public funds that mocks the Catholic faith. The Thomas More Law Center asked the Supreme Court to revisit its confusing and inconsistent Establishment Clause jurisprudence and noted that this “hostility to religion” case would be a case of first impression. The Law Center argued that an evenhanded application of its present muddled jurisprudence compelled the Court to find that this display was unconstitutional. Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is disappointing, and it reaffirms the double standard and hypocrisy spawned by the current Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Despite giving lip service to the concept of neutrality towards religion, many federal court decisions have in fact bristled with hostility to all things religious, especially those that are Christian.

This double standard is also applied by our nation’s public
universities, which have refused to allow school newspapers to show the recent controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed because it was insulting to Muslims.”

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Birth Rate Paints Picture of Future America

News from Agape Press: "...A nationally syndicated columnist and author who has extensively researched declining birth rates on the continent of Europe believes the current trend suggests Europeans may become the newest endangered species. Maggie Gallagher is president for the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. She says she thought the United States was on the verge of a 'fertility crisis' with a birth rate of just over two children per woman. However, she says America's birthrate is high compared to Europe's rate of less than 1.5 children per mother. 'You need a little more than two children to replace the population,' Gallagher notes, 'and no country in Europe is anywhere close to that, with the possible exception of Ireland ... and most countries are just not producing enough children.' Also the columnist contends, Europeans' declining fertility has necessitated a large influx of Muslims onto the continent. 'They weren't having children, so they needed to have some workers in the next generation. If you have a healthy population, you can take a certain amount of immigration and you assimilate. But if people aren't having children, there's not a lot of people for the next generation of Muslim immigrants to assimilate with.' Europeans' low fertility rate is a growing problem, Gallagher warns; and if Americans are not careful, she says the U.S. could wind up facing the same crisis. [Chad Groening]"

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Oil-producing Muslims Keep American Christians in Check

Ever since Christian men penned the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of The United States, America has been guided by the principles and teachings of Christianity. Without the guidance outlined in the Bible this country would be more secular than Europe and more set upon its own downfall, despite itself.

If you were to remove from our system of justice and ethics the precepts of Christianity, there is little if any justification for the United States to have ever entered a war to the defense of another. Nor would there be any justification for the United States to give any money at all, let alone the billions that we do, to lesser nations.

Yet, the very balance of our economy is in the hands of Muslims in that the United States has made itself almost entirely dependant on oil, the price of which determines the health of our economy. When oil goes up, business slows and inflation rises.

Every dollar that we Americans spend on foreign oil enriches nations whose Islamic teachings would have us destroyed as infidels. Only those Muslims willing to betray the Qur'an and defy the teachings of Muhammad and the revealed will of Allah will tolerate the notion of peace with non-Muslims, otherwise called "infidels" by Muslims.

In this context, all nations that view themselves as Christian nations or as nations founded on the principles of Christianity, even if they have since rejected those roots, have in fact already been overcome by Muslims. As long as we allow for our well-being, economically speaking, to be tethered like a dog to the will of OPEC then we will never really be free. Global economy not withstanding, we are not the masters of our own destiny if we are slaves to oil. It's just that simple.

Those elements of our economy that depend on oil directly or indirectly are beholding to the will of every Muslim overlord who decides what we will have or not have. It would seem that the decisions that are made by the Muslim oil producers regarding prices are simply the tuning process of the American economy: "How much can we get from them before they revolt and throw us overboard? We must be careful to build their tolerance of our prices gradually so as not to shock them too much. They may just go off and develop a new energy technology and where will that leave us? In the desert, will a lot of sand and oil which has no value. We will then be only 7th century beggars again in a world that will have left us literally in the dust. That can't happen; the will of Allah must be met."

Somehow, whenever I buy gasoline at the pumps I see the dissipation of America's strength to the satisfaction of intolerant Muslims or America-hating dictators like Chavez. It really has curbed my consumption and strengthened my will to do without that we might slip out from under the control of foreign nations. America needs to invest in an energy alternative. We need to do it yesterday. If we could, in less than ten years, take our species to the moon and back, then we can delete oil from our list of necessities.

I remember as a child of nine or ten being taken by my father to the labs at General Electric's Space Center in Valley Forge, PA where I marveled to see a computer that filled a large, temperature-controlled room. I stood there, awed by this massive technology that could do hundreds of calculations per minute. I am now writing this bit using a computer, which does millions of calculations per minute; it sits on my floor in a case the size of my gym bag. In addition, I could not tell you what temperature it is in there because it is just not critical anymore. All of that was made possible by the American will to do more than we had done before. In this case, it was to go to the moon, which demanded the miniaturization of our computers; and a whole new trillion-dollar economy arose from it. Before that, it was the automobile. And before that, the railroad.

All along the way, Americans have distinguished themselves by refusing to accept limitations and each time we succeed, we grow new economies. We need to throw off the warm fuzzy blanket of immediate gratification and self-indulgence and reach once more for our own future, our own destiny.

If nothing else, it will lend credibility to our charity as just that: charity. As long as we see the need to give to other nations only to keep them "in line" and their people "in check", then it is hardly charity. It is merely maintenance, much like the oil producing Muslims keep the American Christians in check: by the nose.

So Much For Religious Tolerance from Muslims

...In Egypt, a clash between Muslims and Christians has left at least eleven people wounded. Residents of a village south of Cairo say the violence erupted as Christians were building an events hall, which angered some Muslims who thought it was a church. Before police could restore order, witnesses say at least seven Muslims and four Christians were injured as they fought with stones and sticks. Last month, an attempt to turn a guest house into an informal church in southern Egypt provoked clashes among Christians, Muslims and police in which one person was killed and at least eleven wounded. [AP]

Islam, the Religion of Peace. Don't forget it.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Improved Knowledge Better Identifies Ignorance

From one of my favorite thinkers, speakers and authors:

"We have improved our knowledge enormously and better identified the limits of our ignorance, but it seems that, for human intelligence, it has become too difficult to realize that the sign of the Creator is seen when contemplating nature.

"In reality, whoever loves truth should perceive that research on such profound topics makes it possible for us to see and almost touch the hand of God."

"Beyond the limits of the experimental methods, at the confines of the area that some call meta-analysis, where sensorial perception and scientific tests are neither enough or even possible, that is where the adventure of transcendence begins, the commitment to 'go beyond.'"

With the clearest understanding we would do well to accept that, when we experiment:

We admit ignorance.
Admitting ignorance, we lack authority.

Lacking authority, we should be cautious when making declarations as fact.

When contemplating if abortion is the termination of a human being's life, only 16% of Americans think it isn't.

(What is it, now...? 14% of America is functionally illiterate? Something like that)

The overwhelming majority of Americans think abortion is wrong but seem to lack the moral fortitude and strength of character to end it through compassionate caring and honest education. And little by little, in the name of freedom for women, we relinquish to the courts the freedom of all Americans.

As we become crushed under the intolerance of Political Correctness, we lose our own identities and surrender to the will of the minority our own personal dignity. It's an outrage that thrives on the evil of murder and greed, power and domination and if we fail to end it, the logistics are obvious that it will end us. - Deadly blasts in Iraq shatter curfew calm - Mar 4, 2006 - Deadly blasts in Iraq shatter curfew calm - Mar 4, 2006

You know, we hear so often about how awful and terrible is the United States for all the mayhem and bombing and killing of innocents in what it claims was necessary for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Yet, even though the US has stopped the bombing and mayhem and killing of innocent civilians, it continues. Would it not seem that some Iraqis just need and want this type of thing going on? It would almost appear as if they enjoy it somehow.


Maybe those who think that what the US did was so terrible were actually wrong in their assesment of the situation. Perhaps they need to take another look. There was murder and mayhem before we got there and there will continue to be the murder of innocents simply because the people who are doing the complaining are the same people who doing all the killing.

ABC News: 'I Made a Terrible Mistake'

ABC News: 'I Made a Terrible Mistake'

"Inside the canvas duffel, he found rocks — and a dead baby boy with a stab wound and a head injury, his umbilical cord tied off with a barrette."

"The body of the nearly full-term baby shook the small Ohio community of Columbia Station so deeply they gave it a real funeral, a grave and with a headstone bearing the name: Baby Boy Hope. The community vowed not to rest until they knew who among them could do such a thing."

"Lorraine County Sheriff's Detective Karl Yost became consumed by the mystery, developing a picture of the killer in his mind."

For goodness sakes, all the sherriff had to do was to go to any Planned Parenthood clinic or NARAL-supported doctor who thinks that partial birth abortion is the thing to do and he'd have a photographable image of what such a (profiatable) person looks like. Every abortionist and abortion supporter does willingly what this mother admittedly did by a tragic mistake. To the abortionist, the real tragedy here is that no one got paid.

So the question then becomes, which is more horrible:

"By the death of this innocent baby I made a terrible mistake!"


"By the death of this innocent babyI made a wonderful profit!" News - International - US forced to reveal list of Guantanamo prisoner IDs News - International - US forced to reveal list of Guantanamo prisoner IDs

Reading this article in a Scottish newspaper, I thought from the tone of it, that it was a US paper I was reading. From the headline and throughout the story there is a tone of "Gotcha!"

Perhaps it was the word "forced" that caught my eye. But then as I read further it becomes clear the we were forced by our own rules. I suppose in a way you, too, are forced to do what you want. What name could one give to this "force"? Agreement? Co-operation? Cohesiveness? Freedom? Democracy? I wonder. One could readily understand from the slant of the article that there were two Americas: The People and the Government that rules them. (A bit like the plot of The Lord of The Rings, don't you think?) Sounds like a bit of "Of the People and By The People" jealousy to me.

I also wonder, does such a force exist anywhere else on earth. Is there a "force" in Scotland or England or elsewhere in the world that will disclose to the public the "secrets kept hidden by the Shroud of Secrecy" of their own governments (makes me think of the infamous SS. Shroud of Secrecy... SS...get it? Oh, nevermind.) or does this force of law, written by Americans for the good of Americans exist in other lands as well? Can a Scotsman handily take his government to court and have revealed to him documents that his government otherwise wished to be held secret? Or does this "force" only twist the arm of the American government, the greatest force for good on this planet?

I wonder.

Friday, March 03, 2006

"Just Act Like Nothing Happened..."

"...and maybe no one will notice." Several times throughout my life I've both received and given this advice. And probably, in either instance, because it actually holds a measure of truth. I once witnessed a shoplifter in a high-end store just up and walk out the exit as if all was well with the world; all the while, his arms full of unpaid merchandise raised overhead to avoid setting off the security screens at the doors. Apparently, no one noticed but me. At least no one reacted but me. In response, the clerk told me "security in the mall will probably get him". Somehow, I'm not sure that actually happened. I could see him leave the mall and enter the parking field unhindered so I suspect the clerk's assurance was more like wishful thinking. Or maybe, and more likely, it was just standard rhetoric to discourage copy cats. Besides, to try to stop him would probably be more costly than to let him go. Between the expected lawsuit and high risk of injury at the end of a weapon, no one person could carry enough stuff to make it worth getting it back. Or so it seemed. Sometimes it appears to me it happens just like this in our daily lives. For example, this clip from a news story about the new Nebraska law that just might kick start the juggernaut of overturning of Roe v. Wade:

“The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision established a woman's right to abortion".

As I read the line, it was just slipping past my focus as just another line in a news story. Yet something about it snagged my attention and drew me back for a second look. This time I read the line more slowly, more carefully to try to discover what it was about it that would not let it go. Slowly, it struck me that the sentence clearly stated that it wasn’t a law written by legislators, representing the will of the American People, that allowed for the destruction of millions of beating human hearts; it was simply a Supreme Court decision to do so.

In real, everyday terms, just a minivan load of guys who decided that somehow, what wasn’t written in so many words giving the “right” to kill millions upon millions of Americans was, in their wisdom which surpasses all others', present in spirit. At least to them, this was the intention of the Founding Fathers who somehow managed to keep secret all these long years, this colossal, momentous and hitherto, unthinkable idea: to allow for the mass murder of millions of inconvenient Americans in the name of privacy and freedom, however invented by the courts since it doesn't appear in the wording of the Constitution in any way. Such a small number of people felt empowered to call “right” that which previously seemed unconscionable. At least it used to be viewed for what it was: the ending of a human life.

Of course, we can look at all the ways that Privacy and Freedom are readily thrown to the side in the name of the law. Just about any action that’s committed daily, yet called a crime, is done so in private and with a sense of freedom on the part of the perpetrator. Yet that individual's declaration of freedom and privacy falls on deaf ears when he is taken into custody by the police. Unless of course the crime he committed paid more taxes than it likely would cost the taxpayer in the end, not unlike an unborn child to an unwed mother or a commercial developer of other people's homesteads. But that’s really another discussion.

This leads me to question what else we might see as "right", previously having been unthinkable. Of course, in good conscience, one would have to scrutinize this point. After being aware how evil grows by increment; the Nazi party for example, came to power and bit by bit, that which had previously been unthinkable was more than thinkable, it was reality. In wisdom, one probably should question radical shifts in the mainstream. The terror of the Third Reich happened with gradual public acceptance. Not because the mass murder of millions was such a natural and obvious thing to do, but because the authority that declared it as “right” went unquestioned, having convincingly argued justification for its own evil ways. Perhaps when so many can make so much money from an idea, its rightness will have to take second place to its profitability. Are there any not-for-profit abortion mills? ...simply because it's such a right thing to do?

However, if we allow profitability to shut the mouth of justice, then we begin to accept that which was ordinarily unthinkable. Eminent domain seizures of private property for commercial gain of private citizens seems unthinkable until you do it a few times.

I wonder, if it could have been arranged to end all the lives of all the unborn all on the same day, if many of us could view it with such complacent acceptance. The thought of stopping over 40 million human hearts on the same day in one great and massive, limb-tearing slaughter would probably make all those people who gathered to hold “hands across America” put their hands to their mouths in sheer horror. "Que sera, sera" can't apply simply because the translation is contradictory to the facts. "What will be, will be" doesn't explain "What once might have been can now no longer be."

In the words of the philosopher, Voltaire, "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities." Just as absurd as it seems to accept the forfeit of your home to someone who is willing to pay more tax on it; just as absurd as it seems for a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman; just as absurd as it seems to have a handful of fallible humans decide that it’s okay, in the absence of any supportive law, to kill the innocent who cannot defend themselves so likewise, it is patently absurd for the American people to accept the madness and evil that passes for jurisprudence. Neither “juris” nor “prudence” preside in the decisions of the Supreme Court on these matters.

Nevertheless, maybe, if we all "just act like nothing happened…”

[And even though the esteemed Academy thinks Brokeback Mountain is so great that it's worthy of an Oscar, it's barely in the theaters and already, it's no longer even in the top ten. Just act like nothing happened...'cause nobody's looking anyhow!]

Thursday, March 02, 2006

The Real Cost of Illegal Aliens

From The News Briefs in The Agape Press:

...The state auditor of Mississippi says illegal immigration is costing taxpayers in his state about $25 million a year for healthcare, education, and prison expenses. He believes the state cannot continue to absorb those kinds of costs. State Auditor Phil Bryant conducted his study because of concerns about the increased influx of illegal alien workers being used to rebuild the Katrina-devastated Mississippi Gulf Coast. Even though some estimates have the illegal population in the state as high as 100,000, Bryant prefers a conservative estimate of 49,000, many of whom he says are going to take advantage of government services like education and healthcare. "Unfortunately," he adds, "they're [also] going to come into contact with the public safety officials. And also, the remittance [is a factor] -- that's money that is earned here in Mississippi that is sent out of state to other countries." Bryant contends the actual expenses of illegal aliens is more than $69 million a year. "If you take that $69 million cost of illegal immigrations and subtract the almost $44 million that they contribute to the tax base, you come up with the rough estimate of $25 million dollars that is a real cost to [Mississippi] taxpayers each and every year," the state official explains. Bryant is recommending that state agencies collect accurate information on the number of illegal immigrants in order to apply for more federal dollars for social services. [Chad Groening]

I guess the moral to the story is "If you're going to smack yourself in the face with a frying pan you may as well not say that you just kissed a teddy bear". Call it for what it is.

What we might all enjoy is establishing an "Illegal Alien Sales Tax" to be applied to your regular state and local sales tax to offset the rising cost of non-paying illegals dragging down the system. This way, every time you make a purchase, at least you can be aware that the someone who foots the bill is ??? ... you guessed it... it's YOU!

Herald Sun: torture as state terrorism

Herald Sun: George W. Bush inflames passions [03mar06]:

"CHERIE Blair, the lawyer wife of the British Prime Minister, yesterday described torture as state terrorism, 'usually practised for the same reasons that terrorists use violence: to break the will of those they cannot persuade by lawful means.'

She said international conventions banned it without exception and allowed for the prosecution of those who permitted torture, from foot soldiers to heads of state.

But the US military officer presiding over the trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of an alleged aide to Osama bin Laden said yesterday he was not ready to rule out evidence obtained through torture."

So I wonder, if the US intelligence community became aware of a planned nuclear attack against England... the exact details but, those details were obtained through what she might call torture... would she want us to tell her about it? Would she be angry if we didn't? And then there's the real puzzler: Would she be angry if we did!?

Welcome To The Welfare State

The following is from an MSNBC news article, delivered to my inbox, as it is daily:

"The footage along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster."

All of this is such terrible news. The idea that the President knew all about how bad the situation could potentially become and didn't force the governor of Louisiana to step down so that the federal government could unconstitutionally pre-empt her authority is outrageous. And to think that G.W. Bush had the audacity to personally take full charge of the operations of FEMA and then boldly accepted the declinations of the state and local authorities, as if they came from responsible adults, is an outrage. Making matters worse, as if that were possible, he allowed the officials at FEMA to actually count among the roster of available rescue workers, the entire police force of the City of New Orleans! Imagine the nerve! To think that the local police would actually be available and willing to do their jobs! Absolutely outrageous!

Until we all recognize that Louisiana is a welfare state and that the President has the legal and moral obligation to supersede all local authority and treat the people of Louisiana as the welfare orphans that they really are, we will never have an end to this type of federal abuse of the privacy and autonomy of the several and varied states of the union.

It's simply unfair to expect any state to recognize what is best for them and to be prepared to protect and provide for themselves. The federal government should always take control. And to imagine that the states should be prepared to pay their own way is an even further abuse of the Principle of Dependency on which this great nation was founded.

Whenever the Federal Government, years ahead of any disaster, gives a state tens of millions of federal dollars to correct known flaws in their infrastructure and the state decides to squander the money on pursuits other than to provide for their own good, the rest of the nation clearly has the obligation to shoulder the cost of the individual state's mismanagement of federal grant money and fiscal irresponsibility. I mean after all, these people have Mardi Gras to think about. And where, might I ask, were the federal dollars to assist with that major production? Hmmm?

The next thing you know, Federal judges will, and without the aid of any specific law, take it upon themselves, and against the will of the states' local populations, to declare it legal to kill an unborn child while doctors profit, yet expect the rest of the nation to shoulder the long-term financial burden of that as well. Outrageous! (They did? Really? But I don't... I mean... wow!)

[It wouldn't hurt, I don't think, to look at the silver lining in all of this condemn-all-but-the-elected-responsible approach.
( )
Given that New Orleans is known for having one of the highest crime rates in the nation (the character of its police force not withstanding) shouldn't we be celebrating to some degree, the enormous reduction in actual crime in the aftermath of Katrina's visit as compared to the everday violence that's part of New Orleans culture and charm? Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a flood served to clean up the decacdence and corruption of a civilization. But, come to think of it, that time the two-by-two method used
opposite sexes. Maybe it is hopeless after all. Nevermind.]

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

The Muslim Standard of Justice is No Justice At All

"During the trial, Muslim terrorists protested outside the courtroom, threatening to kill the women, pastors, missionaries, and judges if the Christians were acquitted. Supporters of Zakaria, Pangesti, and Bangun have protested that any semblance of true justice for the women was highly unlikely in that atmosphere."

And the world needs Muslims, faithful to the teachings of the Koran, because they're so....???
News from The Agape Press: "Indonesian High Court Denies Imprisoned Sunday School Teachers' Appeal

VOM: Three Persecuted Christian Women Continue Sharing Their Faith, Even Behind Bars
By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
March 1, 2006

(AgapePress) - The Supreme Court of Indonesia has denied the appeal of three Sunday school teachers arrested and charged with breaking the law by allegedly coercing children to convert to the Christian faith.
The three Christians -- Dr. Rebekka Zakaria, Eti Pangesti and Ratna Bangun -- were arrested last May and charged with violating Indonesia's Child Protection Act of 2002 by trying to convert Muslim youth involved in a children's program the women ran for a nearby public elementary school in Indonesia�s West Java province. The teachers were accused of enticing Muslim children to participate in the program and coercing them with gifts to convert from Islam to Christianity.
The defense argued in court that none of the children were, in fact, converted or in any way coerced to do so. The attorneys furthermore pointed out that the Christian teachers always required and obtained parental consent before allowing any child to attend their voluntary Sunday school program. Nevertheless, the three women were declared guilty and each was sentenced to three years in jail.
During the trial, Muslim terrorists protested outside the courtroom, threatening to kill the women, pastors, missionaries, and judges if the Christians were acquitted. Supporters of Zakaria, Pangesti, and Bangun have protested that any semblance of true justice for the women was highly unlikely in that atmosphere.
Todd Nettleton is with Voice of the Martyrs, a ministry to the persecuted Church and one of the organizations that have been advocating for the release of the imprisoned women. He points out that, during the trial, no genuine proof was provided to support the contention that the Christian teachers were guilty of any wrongdoing, or indeed, that any legal violation had taken place at all.
"For the Indonesian Supreme Court not to overturn this verdict is a travesty of justice," Nettleton asserts. "As we look at some of the evidence that was presented and some of the alleged evidence that was used against these three ladies, there is absolutely no crime that has been committed, and there is no reason for them to be in jail."
But while the Indonesian Supreme Court's denial of the Christian teachers' appeal is "incredibly disappointing," the VOM spokesman notes, there is something encouraging to report regarding their situation.
Persecuted Believers 'Abounding' Despite Their Bonds"That good news comes from the reports we're hearing of these three ladies, while they're in prison, having opportunities to tell other prisoners about Jesus Christ," Nettleton explains. "I think that goes to show the way the Lord works."
According to the reports of those Christians in contact with Zakaria, Bangun, and Pangesti, the three women say their faith continues to sustain and encourage them. Zakaria, who wakes early each day to pray and read her Bible, intercedes for the guards as well as for her fellow prisoners, and she has even been privileged to lead others to Christ while behind bars.
Zakaria, a medical doctor who, besides teaching in the school program also used to treat some 30 to 40 Muslim and Christian patients daily in her clinic in Indramayu, has since her incarceration received permission to lead a weekly worship service in an outdoor courtyard of the prison. In addition to her fellow inmates, a number of Christians from her church are also allowed to enter the prison to take part in the service each week.
Although she and the other Christian women charged and sentenced with her report being occasionally discouraged, Zakaria's faith remains strong. She calls their present environment not a jail but their "School of Trust Bible School."
Despite the fact that the three Sunday school teachers have been denied both justice and freedom, Nettleton notes, they are still making a difference for Christ. He urges prayer for these faith-filled women and also asks believers to pray that Islamic extremists will fail in their attempts to intimidate Indonesia's Christians and that the country will eventually allow freedom for people of all religions.
© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved"

Wider Islamic Conflict - International Terrorism -

Negroponte fears wider Islamic conflict - International Terrorism -

How to understand the mainstream Muslim is made much simpler once you master understanding the mainstream media in the US. As the cartoon capers clearly illustrated, given a perceived misdeed at the hands of a few, millions react with blood-curdling rage that makes one wonder about their intent and balance of reason.

In American, one man forges a document insulting and demeaning the President of the US and the mainstream media, in this instance championed by Dan Rather, takes off with such enthusiasm as if they've found the cure for cancer, denouncing the president and the country which he leads.

A handful of misguided prison guards insult and demean a handful of prison inmates and the mainstream media takes off with such enthusiasm as if they've found the cure for cancer, denouncing the president and the country which he leads.

From Karl Rove to Cheney's legitimate and common target-shooting accident, the mainstream media makes out as if they've found something of note and that the world will be delighted to have had "Exposed". All the while it's more a tempest in a tea cup, twisted by none other than their own minds and intentions to portray the truth as a lie and the lie as if it were ... well... The Cure for Cancer.

Ironically it would appear more that their ilk is the cancer than that they've cured anything at all. Unless, of course, you consider normal, everyday, balanced, rational thought as a disease and the misrepresented, fictionalized distortions of truth as a cure. This is not to suggest that the goings on in politics are wholesome. They're often not, however the intentions and the objective are more to be scrutinized than the occasional misstep on the dance floor of Washington, DC.

Well, once you've gotten a handle on the regular pattern of brandishing agenda-driven opportunism as worthwhile information, or in the case of Islam, indignation, you then get a better feel for mainstream Islam in the world today. And the cartoons are just a great example of the everyday mentality of the everyday Muslim.

So then we see that an agenda driven media is much like an agenda driven Islam. To have a Muslim world one needs to gain control, just as to control the outcome in the US, one needs to gain control over the thinking of the everday American. Rally enough madness in the name of Allah and, through civil war and Muslim mayhem, the oil-dependent world can be brought to its knees. There is, perhaps, a method to the madness after all. We know this is true of the media. And as the media goes, so goes Islam.

I wonder.

Lessons of Cartoon Jihad

Lessons of cartoon jihad

From: The Arizona Republic
Robert Robb

Republic columnist
Mar. 1, 2006 12:00 AM

[Emphasis throughout by TIMe]

"Pluralistic values require a respect for the religious beliefs of others. But the liberty to discuss and debate important questions includes the right to assert that the religious beliefs of others are wrong."

"There is a strong desire in the West to believe that there is a silent majority within the Muslim world that believes in secular governance and a pluralistic culture, which has been suppressed by authoritarianism and shouted out by militants. That, however, might be wishful thinking.

Even among perceived moderate Muslim leaders, the talk is often of modernizing without Westernizing. By that they mean, among other things, not adopting the West's pluralistic approach to the role of religion in society."

"...virtually every leader of every Western nation ended up expressing an opinion about the propriety of the Danish cartoons.

That was extraordinary. And clearly a waste of time. The protests against the Danish cartoons quickly slid into protests against Israel and the United States, both of which had nothing to do with the cartoons."

"Because of oil and terrorism, the West must have some degree of engagement with particularly the Islamic Middle East. But the reality check of the Danish cartoons should cause more circumspection about what we do and hope to accomplish there."

"Modernity is primarily a product of Western historical and cultural development. In significant respects, it is impossible to modernize without Westernizing.

That includes at least partially adopting the principles of secularism and pluralism. Modernity includes interacting with the rest of the world, which is difficult to do well when a critical mass of your population threatens to behead those with whom they disagree."