And still MORE double standards...

In my two previous posts about double standards, I provided articles written by Katherine Kersten, a columnist for the Star Tribune in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. In Kersten's first article here, http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1115081.html she details the blatant double standard towards religion being coddled by Minneapolis Community and Technical College. Kersten describes how students and faculty are prevented from displaying ornamentation for such holidays as Christmas, Easter and Hanukkah, but plans to build a ritual washing facility for muslim students to use before prayer. The facility, will of course be built with "taxpayer" funding.

Kersten continued in her followup article here, http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1122449.html about some of the actual agendas behind the islamic push to include changes at schools such as permanent muslim prayer spaces, ritual washing facilities, separate food and housing for muslim students, separate hours at athletic facilities for muslim women, paid imams or religious counselors, and campus observance of muslim holidays. All this of course needs to be paid for somehow. Hello Mr. Taxpayer.

Excerpts below are from Adrian Morgans article found here, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27866 .

With groups like the Council of Islamic Education (CIE), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim Student's Association (MSA), indoctrination of our students is becoming even more widespread. Though imperfectly applied and interpreted, the "Establishment" clause partially protects American public schools from direct muslim indoctrination, a biased assessment of Islam is entering public schools via textbooks produced by mainstream publishers.

Books which promote islamic radicalism have made their way into school districts through donations. In 2001, the Omar Ibn Khatab Foundation made a donation of 300 Korans, entitled "The Meaning of the Holy Quran", to Los Angeles city school district. In 2002, these copies of the Koran had to be removed, as it was found that they contained anti-Semitic footnotes, such as: "The Jews in their arrogance claimed that all wisdom and all knowledge of Allah was enclosed in their hearts. Their claim was not only arrogance but blasphemy."

The issue of how islam is taught in schools is a hot-button issue. In California, Excelsior Elementary, took its teaching of islam to seventh graders to extremes. School pupils were made to dress up in Islamic clothing, to memorize koranic verses and even to fast during their lunch hour to mimic muslim behavior during Ramadan. The Five Pillars of islam were to be learned, pupils were encouraged to say "Allahu Ackbar" and using dice, the children played a "jihad game". The materials employed at the school stated: "From the beginning, you and your classmates will become muslims." Can you imagine the outcry if students were taught to become Catholics for three weeks?

Any parent of a child in a public school should be DEMANDING to know EXACTLY what their child(ren) is/are being taught about islam. Ask for study sheets, lists of the approved textbooks, talk to the teachers/principals, get a listing of "visiting guests" and what organizations they represent. If there is indoctrination in the process, write your elected representatives. The Constitution prevents religious indoctrination by government bodies. Put this RIGHT to use.

Silence and Outrages?

Why must we remain silent, with all the outrages around us? That's the question asked in an article written by Adrian Morgan which can be found here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=918699 at Family Security Matters and reprinted here: http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ArchDetails.aspx?id=190 at American Congress for Truth.

In his article, Morgan outlines the many atrocities over the last several years being committed by muslims, with little to no recourse. Antisemitism and hatred against Christianity runs rampant through the islamic faith, yet we are supposed to turn a blind eye to it all, the beheading, the rioting for supposed disrespect to islam, etc. To top it all off, these acts are being committed by people, simply for belonging to another religious faith.

Here are a few excerpts from Morgan's Article:

On Wednesday, April 18th in Malatya, central Turkey, three Christians were tied up, tortured for up to three hours, and then had their throats slit. Two of the victims, Ugur Yuksel amd Necati Aydin, were Turkish, and the other was a German national, Tilmann Geske. Their crime was to be Christians, working for Zirve, a publishing house which prints Bibles. Malatya is the home town of Mehmet Ali Agca, who tried to murder Pope John Paul II in 1981.

Thousands of miles away on Jolo island in the southern Philippines, seven Christians were taken hostage by Muslim terrorists last Monday. Their kidnappers belonged to the group Abu Sayyaf, which has links with Al Qaeda and also the pan-Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah which has enacted numerous atrocities, including the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002, in which 202 people died, and of October 1, 2005, in which 20 people died. The severed heads of five of the Christian victims were left at one army camp, and the heads of the other two were left at another military camp later on the same day. Their bodies were found in a village on Friday.

A Somali imam, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, urged Muslims to "punish" the Pope. He said: "Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim." (This was after the Pope's statement where he quoted a Byzantine emperor, Manuel Paleologos, who around the year 1391 had said "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.")

End of Excerpts.

Such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The koran is filled with hatred and antisemitic commands like this to kill those that aren't muslim. There is no other way to word it. It can't be twisted to mean anything else. Yet, schools in England have refrained from teaching about the Crusades or the Holocaust so as not to "offend" any muslim students. It's a sad day when we have to begin omitting important eras in history to accommodate peoples sensitivities. I don't see any schools ignoring the bombing of Pearl Harbor so sate Japanese students, or ignoring Hiroshima or Nagasaki to hide America's use of Atomic weapons on major population centers. One English school even went as far as to replace "The Three Little Pigs" in a story with the three little "Puppies." Public outcry reversed that decision. A spokeswoman for Kirklees Primary Music Festival said: "We feared that some Muslim children wouldn’t sing along to the words about pigs. We didn’t want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offense then we will do so."

America has yet to fall this far over the brink, even with terrorist fronting groups like CAIR running rampant staging "pity us," incidents like the six Imams booted from a US Airways flight. Of course a boycott of the airline was soon to follow, as well as an attempt to pass a law allowing muslim organizations to SUE the individuals that reported them. That law so far, has been struck down. In 1935, when the current Supreme Court building was opened, it contained a frieze of historical law-givers, carved by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. This included an image of Mohammed. In 1997, CAIR petitioned Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, demanding that the statue be sandblasted or removed. CAIR, then only three years in existence, objected to the sword in Mohammed’s hand as it was viewed as "reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors." The stereotype is not incorrect.

A somali cleric, Sheikh Ahmed Abdullahi once said of Mohammed that he was "the most honorable person that ever lived in the world." Most honorable? Mohammed today would be subject to the terms of Megan’s Law. When he was in his sixties, Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha. She was a child aged nine. Bukhari (810 to 870 AD) wrote (Vol VII, Book 62, Number 64): "Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. This does not seem like the action of an honorable person.

Whether we like it or not, whether we want to admit it or not, America is under siege. Unfortunately, it is our very own freedoms which we cherish that are allowing it to happen. With the relentless wave of "Hate Crimes" laws being introduced, and the wide spread misuse of the terms "Diversity and Inclusion," we are rapidly burying ourselves in a sea of defenselessness. Of which, we may not be able to resurface. Throughout history, there's not much example available of Democracies lasting beyond 200 years. We've had a lucky streak of making it past 230 years. Will Shia law replace our democracy in the future, and are we just supposed to "accept it?..."

Spread of "Islam in America" and Virginia Tech

The Virginia Tech massacre showed our terrorist enemies just ONE thing about America. And just one thing is all they need. America is NOT able to deal with domestic terrorism. Whereas Virginia Tech was NOT an act of terrorism as we normally know it, rest assured that Al Queda and other groups have taken note of it.

There's something people need to understand about the terrorist methods of our enemy. They always "one-up" their previous show. How much MORE devastating do you think Virginia Tech may have been if instead of just Cho, there were six or more terrorists. Armed with automatic rifles and explosives, raiding the school? Would we have seen a body count of perhaps 300+ instead of the 32 that we ultimately had? How much more revolting would the consequences have been if one of those terrorist brought a video camera with them and, since there is internet access in the school, uploaded a video of Jewish Professor Liviu Librescu being gruesomely executed?

In my previous post here, http://hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/04/religious-double-standard-in.html, I provided an article by Katherine Kersten describing the religious double standard in Minneapolis Community and Technical College. Kersten described the blatant hypocrisy of school administration in planning to build a ritual washing facility for muslim students with taxpayer funds, yet prevents students/faculty of other faiths from exhibiting anything relating to commonly accepted holidays such as Easter, Hanukkah and Christmas. Kersten also brought up the argument that even muslim leaders admit that given their location and situation, "washing" is not a requirement for these students. But it turns out, this is just the beginning.

In Kersten's follow-up article here: http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1122449.html describes the spreading of islamic establishments on campus to include, "permanent Muslim prayer spaces, ritual washing facilities, separate food and housing for Muslim students, separate hours at athletic facilities for Muslim women, paid imams or religious counselors, and campus observance of Muslim holidays. The task force is already hailing "pioneering" successes. At Syracuse University in New York, for example, "Eid al Fitr is now an official university holiday," says an article featured on the website. "The entire university campus shuts down to mark the end of Ramadan." At Henry Ford Community College in Dearborn, Mich., "halal" food -- ritually slaughtered and permissible under Islamic law -- is marked by green stickers in the cafeteria and "staff are well-trained in handling practices." At Georgetown University, Muslim women can live apart in housing that enables them to "sleep in an Islamic setting."

On MSA's website (http://www.msa-national.org/), the sort of inclusive language used by the Muslim Accommodations Task Force (which is where Minneapolis is getting it's islamic customs from) gives way to hard-hitting advice for insiders. One downloadable publication --"Your Chapter's Guide to Campus Activism" -- describes how activists can advance political positions such as "restoring justice within the Palestinian territories," and opposition to the Patriot Act and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The cover features a student with a megaphone, and the slogan "Speak Out! Stand Up! Say It Loud!" Shall we expect the same type of response here in America now for any "renegade cartoonists," as they had in Eur-abia? The MSA calls itself the "landmark Muslim organization in North America," and says it has chapters on 600 campuses.

600 campuses? Campuses like Virginia Tech? http://www.msavt.org/main/default.asp .

The Beginning of the End for Rosie

So Rosie and the network can't come to an agreement over a contract so "she" decided to discontinue her sitting at "The View." Riiiiight. It's more likely that ABC told her to cool off with the rantings, since it would become almost impossible to justify defending her, when CBS had to drop Don Imus for the same thing, offensive comments. Of Course Rosie isn't going to make any concessions regarding her ultra-liberal spew, so ABC most likely told her to take a flying leap. For a review of how biased, how left wing, how stupid Rosie can be, take a look here at MRC's Rosie-O compilation: http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/odonnell/welcome.asp

I'm sure ABC was probably feeling a bit of "heat" as well, with a good number of people calling for her removal. Countless numbers of petitions pages for creating a "Remove Rosie" petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/everyonehatesrosie, DeLay calls upon the GOP to have Rosie fired for her remarks: http://news.aol.com/entertainment/tv/articles/_a/after-imus-delay-calls-for-rosie-to-be/20070413103809990001, calls to contact advertisers to pull support until she's removed: http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/pol/304821679.html and yes, even the enigmatic Donald (Trump) predicted that Rosie would eventually be fired: http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/04/tv/main2329442.shtml.

I'm actually not sure if Rosie even missed any particular demographics with her rantings. Conspiracy theories that Bush blew up the WTC on 9/11, radical Christianity is more dangerous than radical islam, the Catholic church was behind the ban on partial birth abortion, British sailors and Marines were never captured, it was a Gulf of Tonkin ploy, hypocritical gun control statements, the list is endless. And she was even proud that her "5 year old son KNEW that Bush cheated in the 2000 election." Can that be considered child abuse that she teaches that to her kid? Perhaps she even teaches him that Jews bake their bread with the blood of palestinian children too?

All in all, it will just be good to see her gone, no matter how it happened. Perhaps now Rosie will just dissipate into the background and will be forgotten, all though that's highly unlikely given the size of her mouth. Something that big is only rivaled by the size of her posterior. I'm sure we'll hear more from her regardless of where she ends up...

A Double Slam on the media by ABC

Who would have ever thought, with as liberally biased as the media is, especially over the last few years with all the "Bush-Hate" they've been tossing out, that you would hear a MAJOR Network broadcast media center BLAST the other networks? I know what your thinking, "This is a joke right?.. They'd never do that!" But it has happened!

ABC had two separate stories regarding the Virginia Tech shootings on Thursday the 19th, 2007. The first, Thursday's Good Morning America with guest Michael Welner, an ABC News consultant and a forensic psychiatrist. Welner lambasting the other networks about the continual broadcasting of the Cho tapes said, "Just listen, if you can take Imus off the air, you can certainly keep [Cho] from having his own morning show." Welner continued with statements such as, "I examine these people. I've examined mass shooters who have told me they've watched 'Natural Born Killers' 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message, "and Let it be relegated to YouTube. This is a social catastrophe."

Welner pulled no punches during his conversation with the anchors. He compared Cho's posthumous attention to that of the acclaim given to Palestinian suicide bombers who have "articles written about themselves in the New York Times. Oh, yeah, you can be a hero and we'll make a wall poster out of you. No, no, no. This is perversion." He even went as far as recommending that parents take their kids out of the room when Cho's images were played, cut them out of the newspapers and dispose of them as he deserves no extra attention than what he already received.

Charles Gibson at the closing minutes of World News later that same day, showed pictures of all 32 victims and stated, "Those are the faces to remember," directing attention away from the Cho tapes. This quite possibly in response to the networks feeling a bit of heat from the public about the videos being shown in the first place. While not a direct slam in itself, the notion was made clear with Gibson's statement. Gibson also mentioned, "The words of the Virginia Tech killer were plastered across newspapers and Web sites today after they started airing on television last night. Raising questions: Do we learn anything seeing the hate of Seung-Hui Cho? Or do we simply play into his sick fantasies?"

The media got played, and so far, ABC was the first network to step forward and while not directly admit a mistake playing them, alluded to perhaps better choices could have been made with the "Play into his sick fantasies," comment.

For more info about this, try here: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070420.asp#1

Gore whines about lack of Global warming Coverage... Study says otherwise

Thursday April 19th, 2007's MRC Media Reality Check provides a more "whiny" aspect of the Gore-acle. Al, in all his magnificent splendor, blames the media for bias AGAINST global warming and believes it to be one of the principle reasons why many political leaders around the world haven't yet taken action. At least, this is what he told a "Media Ethics Summit" at Middle Tennessee University back in February. Gore went on to mention how any coverage of views opposed to his was irresponsible. Al calls it "Balance as Bias."

Views opposed to his own is irresponsible? Um, I think he missed the part about freedom of speech. Yeah, that must be it. Media ethics? Is there such thing as media ethics? Perhaps political leaders haven't jumped on the "Inconvenient Spoof" bandwagon because it's B.S.? That's a more likely reason. Especially when the presenter has a 10,000 square foot mansion that he "occasionally" lives in, but is always lit and heated. Sounds more like hypocritical crap to me.

A study by MRC covering January 1st to April 15th 2007, paints a different picture. Of the three major morning news outlets, including NBC’s Today, ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS’s The Early Show which have a combined audience of over 13 million, 115 global warming stories were broadcast. Of those, FOUR had only the slightest dissension against global warming, and those reports were still heavily stacked in favor of Global crisis. Four of 115? That's a mere 3%. Doesn't sound like the media is "lacking" in its coverage as Gore complains. As those networks morning shows are longer, being two to three hours in length, that "should" provide ample time for them to present varying views. But opposing views aren't in the agenda, erm.. I mean format, even though a considerable number of scientists disagree with the Climate Crisis.

Something else these "fair and balanced" journalists are omitting is the financial costs. In 1998, during the Kyoto Protocol era, a government study of the cost to abide by it would be over $400 billion a year to the U.S. economy. Yes, that's BILLION, with a "B." I know I have that kind of spare change laying around. How about you?

The only citing of dissent on a broadcast network, was a top U.S. meteorologist, Hurricane forecaster William Gray, who said that global warming was not a cause of the hurricane trend and its been blown out of proportion. It was an 11 second sound bite. There is another dissenter to Global warming, but was never reported on by the broadcast media. Writing in Newsweek’s April 16 International edition, MIT climate expert Dr. Richard Lindzen outlined the side of the story the broadcast networks have suppressed: "Recently many people have said that the Earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."

So it looks like Gore has been getting everything he wants out of the media, but enough truth prevails regardless and the world just isn't buying into his B.S. Sorry Gore, do not pass go, DO NOT collect a subservient populace, no matter how much you chastise the media for supposedly not doing your dirty work to your liking.

Information in this article was provided by: http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070419.asp

Walter's "Sad" Rosie gives up on Gun Control

Aw shucks. Isn't that just terrible. How awful for Rosie O'donnell to just give up on pushing for more gun control. It's just terrible, that HER OWN BODYGUARDS might have to give up their firearms when attempting to protect her. Yeah, she never mentions THAT part when she's hollering about gun control. Like when she jumped down Tom Selleck's throat back in May of 1999, when she had her own talk show. I applauded Mr. Selleck for not just walking off stage at that point, but standing his ground in defending his choice to support the NRA. A class act in my opinion. Here's some more info about the Selleck incident: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/1999/cyb19990521.asp#4

But what a tragedy it is that Walters is now sad Rosie is giving up her "crusade" for more gun control. Walter's said, "you're passionate, you care," and "for me to hear you yesterday...numb, saying we're never going to get a gun control law, kind of giving up made me sad. I don't want to see you do that." Well it's about time Rosie finally shuts up about it! Geez. As I said a couple times in my Virginia Tech blogs, "We don't need MORE laws, we just need them to be better,". It really IS that simple. Fix what is already there so law abiding AMERICAN citizens can defend themselves against those that DON'T abide by the law regarding firearms. The more laws we have and the more weapons bans we have, the MORE CRIME we have. Case in point, Washinton D.C. No weapons allowed in the city, highest violent crime rate in the country. Like I said, criminals don't play by the same laws as every one else.

The Views extra liberal guest co-host that day Aisha Tyler had this to say, "What's amazing to me is that the gun lobby is talking about, 'well, it's not legal guns that kill people, it's when people get guns illegally. But this is someone who bought a gun legally. It took them five minutes to run a background check. He had been committed to a mental hospital for two days for observation and that didn't pop up on his record. He was clearly to everyone around him mentally disturbed. And, it's not about, like you said, it's not about keeping guns out of the hands of hunters. But when a kid this upset, this out of it, can walk into and buy two guns and 50 rounds of bullets and nobody asks a question.'" Thank you "patient-doctor confidentiality rights" organizations like the ACLU. Perhaps Tyler should actually read the liberal spew that's been going out. Cho bought ONE gun in Virginia, the other was purchased out of state by so far unknown means. And the gunshop owner already explained the who's and what's about that purchase. END of that angle.

I guess another reason Rosie finally decided to pack it in is because of her previous sponsorship of K-Marts, which also happened to be one of the largest firearms sellers in the country for a while. Many stores have since reduced or negated sales of weapons, but it's still a Hypocritical sponsorship that continues to plague her credibility.

Here's some more to read about Rosie's backing down: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070419.asp#3

Partial Birth Abortion Ban UPHELD!

Today, Wednesday, April 18, 2007, The Supreme Court upheld a Ban on partial birth abortions. A brief filed by the American Center for Law and Justice (on behalf of over 80 congressmen and petitions of over 320,000 citizens) prevailed and won a victory of 5-4 in support of the ban. Personally, it should have been a unanimous 9-0 victory, but 5-4 still wins it. Here's the ACLJ page with the info: http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=472

Where as this is a significant victory for anti-abortionists, this DOES NOT prevent abortions from taking place after the 12th week period. While the vast majority of abortions are performed well before the 12th week period, this instead, is a ban against a particular METHOD OF abortion.

Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion that “the government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.” The Court recognized that a partial birth abortion, (a particularly brutal and gruesome act,) is the same as killing a newborn infant. This isn't surprising in the least since it is essentially birthing the child part-way out of the womb and either splitting or crushing its head. If that doesn't turn your stomach, then I don't know what would. Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. These men should be applauded.

The Courts opinion continued by stating that the government, “has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession.” This is also a positive, as many in the medical field are required to perform this procedure, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, or risk legal suits brought against them by such family caring groups like Planned (Genocide) Parenthood. Even if they agree to perform them, they still may be sued if they inform the mother of the long term effects of an abortion, such as depression or other medical problems, or if they tell the mother it is a life being ended. Hopefully that will change soon as well as legislation is being considered to make it mandatory for physicians performing an abortion to notify the mothers of these effects. Hopefully it passes.

I myself, after having to be the "shoulder to cry on after having abortions," for a few of my female friends, would like to see abortions in pretty much all cases stopped. Unfortunately, I can not bring myself to say in ALL cases. I do understand that rape, incest, and the life of the mother being threatened by giving birth are seriously debatable points, and situations that the mother should not have to bear. So, for now, until some medical miracle procedure arrives, I have to agree that not all abortions should be stopped. But as far as you junkies out there are concerned, squeezing out a half dozen crack babies, that's it for you! Time for a few knots to be tied in those tubes. Abortion SHOULD NOT be used as a method of birth control. If that's your argument, and your not ready to have a kid, then your not ready for sex yet and you should keep your legs locked at the knees... maybe even at the ankles if that's what it takes.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the decision saying it, "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists." Not that something like this from her would surprise any of us. However, it should be noted that this procedure, while inhumane, IS still permissible if the woman's life is in jeopardy, even though there is an equally and more widespread similar form of abortion available. She was joined in her decision by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Here's a couple more links regarding the decision:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266724,00.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-ex-abortion19apr19,0,308488.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Gun Control and Virginia Tech.

Hate me if you like, but there's no denying that I was right. Hardly 24 hrs. after the Virginia Tech shootings, the Governor himself HAD TO announce he has no interest in opening debate over gun control, and "Loathes," those who would bring it up at a time of grieving. You know something is wrong if he actually has to take the time to state that. Sure enough, media outlets everywhere are already touting how "lax" gun laws are in Virginia. They even have the BBC rattling on about it. Take a look at some of the many available stories that our wonderful liberal propaganda machine.. erm.. I mean media are already pushing: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070418.asp#1

One such story even includes a condemnatory soundbite from NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, explaining how easy it is to buy a gun with no waiting period in Virginia. To bad they fail to mention the per capita ratio of gun crimes between New York and Virginia.

Take a look at my previous post regarding Virginia Tech and gun laws here: http://hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-massacre-more-gun-control.html

I'll save you some time by placing some excerpts from it below, but you will want to read the whole story.

Arguments FOR more laws will use this shooting as a "See!, we need more gun control!," while opponents to laws will use the, "this could have been stopped sooner had students who are properly licenced been able to carry."

Both sides are right, and both are also wrong.

Those arguing FOR more laws don't actually need MORE laws, but BETTER laws. Cho is a perfect example of this. Cho was NOT an American citizen, but a legal immigrant. He had lawful permanent residence, via his parents, and renewed his green card in October 2003. Had current gun control laws reflected this, as well as the standard prohibitions such as felonies, would Cho even been able to purchase those firearms? Perhaps Cho may still had been able to "acquire" weapons, but how much further down the road? And would the counseling he was undergoing maybe able to have curbed the violent or erratic urges he was experiencing by then?

Those arguing AGAINST more laws or the loosening of laws don't need much either as described above, how much less mayhem may have occurred had there been at least one properly licenced carrying student present? There is no need for less law as there is no need for a student to carry a bazooka to school.

End of excerpts.

The plain and simple fact is, STOP WASTING TIME DAMN IT! It's just more mediocre B.S. to push agendas one way or the other, and no one is allowing these families and students time to grieve! Things WON'T get any better around there until these folks have some time to hash out their grief and get some form of closure. SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY with the the gun laws crap! And you pukes in the media aren't helping them any. Leave them alone. If you need something to broadcast, have just a simple small clip of times and locations of gatherings being held for the grief-stricken to gather and console one another. Perhaps provide listings of services for them. Your lust for blood needs to end. If it's air time you need to kill... have a minute or two of ON AIR silence in remembrance. That way you can at least PRETEND to look like you care.

All in all, the media needs to back the hell off, and we don't need more gun laws.. just BETTER laws. We don't need less laws either.. just BETTER laws. Figure it out.

Virginia Tech Massacre, more gun control laws?

First off, my sincere condolences to those who lost either friend or family in this horrible incident. The loss of life is always tragic, regardless of who it is. My prayers go out to you.

Mon. April 16th, 2007 saw the worst domestic massacre in America to date. A gunman now identified by Police as Cho Seung-hui, killed between 32 and 33 students and faculty (conflicting reports among multiple news stations,) at Virginia Tech's College Campus before turning a gun on himself. Cho had to be identified by finger prints on the weapon as the self inflicted head wound had supposedly removed a portion of his face making visual ID impossible.

Apparently, there was no profiles between any of the victims so far. Cho had left behind in his dorm room a note that used words and phrases such as, "You caused me to do this," "charlatans," "rich kids," and "debauchery."

Cho Seung-Hui, immigrated to the United States at age 8 in 1992, and had been living on campus in Harper Residence Hall. There's a number of comments available via CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and USAToday that cite Cho as being a "Loner," and "troubled." As of now speculation only, that he may have been taking medications for depression, which is possible as Cho had been referred to the school's counseling services for his "disturbing" creative writings. Also commented was that Cho was becoming increasingly violent and erratic.

It is believed that Cho is responsible for both the shootings in the Dorm, as well as the mass shootings a couple hours later. Two weapons were found in Cho's possession, being a Walther .22-caliber semi-automatic and a 9 mm Glock. The serial numbers had been filed off. A receipt for the 9mm Glock was found in Cho's possession also, as well as extra ammunition and a couple knives.

Ballistics has matched bullets from one of the two firearms to both the Dorm and the engineering building shootings, making Cho the sole suspect. A second "person of interest" was questioned, but later released.

This is all generally available information throughout the major networks, and I'm sure there will be more to come in the following weeks.

Several students afterwards, were quick to jump on the blame game train which is an awful thing to do when people were grieving over the lost. Why weren't people notified sooner? Heads will roll for this. President Charles Steger should step down for this. Steger defended his position, quite admirably in my opinion. The shooting was believed to be isolated to the Dorm and the gunmen was not believed to be on campus any longer. Something that those who wanted to blame also need to take into consideration, in 1966, when Charles Whittman killed between 16-19 people from the observation deck of the Austin tower, "they were in the open." In relation to this, had Campus officials made an immediate announcement over the PA system, as one student complained, with Cho (unknown to be) still in the area, Cho may have taken well over the 32-33 lives that he did take.

I suppose the primary question of this incident, of Cho should be how he was able to purchase firearms as a legal immigrant and not an American citizen. Also, how many less students might Cho have been able to wound or kill had the concealed firearms bill, House Bill 1572 been passed.

Yes, It is unfortunate, that most likely, the biggest debate out of this situation WON'T be how to make our campuses safer, but whether or not to impose more laws, or loosen the current gun control laws. Arguments FOR more laws will use this shooting as a "See!, we need more gun control!," while opponents to laws will use the, "this could have been stopped sooner had students who are properly licenced been able to carry."

There will be no easy solution to this debate, unless both sides are able to come to a compromise, something I myself am rarely given to. Both sides are right, and both are also wrong.

Those arguing FOR more laws don't actually need MORE laws, but BETTER laws. Cho is a perfect example of this. Cho was NOT an American citizen, but a legal immigrant. He had lawful permanent residence, via his parents, and renewed his green card in October 2003. Had current gun control laws reflected this, as well as the standard prohibitions such as felonies, would Cho even been able to purchase those firearms? Perhaps Cho may still had been able to "acquire" weapons, but how much further down the road? And would the counseling he was undergoing maybe able to have curbed the violent or erratic urges he was experiencing by then?

Those arguing AGAINST more laws or the loosening of laws don't need much either as described above, how much less mayhem may have occurred had there been at least one properly licenced carrying student present? There is no need for less law as there is no need for a student to carry a bazooka to school, but as reflected by the brutality of the shooter, coroners described none of the victims had less than three bullet wounds.

As a former Active duty Marine and combat veteran, I KNOW the capabilities and shortfalls of both properly and improperly handled firearms. My personal opinion is supporting rights to carry. This is not based on some robotic, brainwashed, murderous blood lust that people incorrectly attribute to military personnel, believing they are all "whack-out" and have nightmares of "Charlie." My support for a right to carry is based on simple principles. Washington D.C. has a restriction on firearms in the city. It also has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country, as criminals don't obey gun laws. Simple?

Utah is one of the only known states that allows it's students, who are properly licensed, to carry. I don't hear much of anything (actually, nothing at all) regarding problems with firearms at schools in Utah. It's not likely anyone will willingly walk into a Utah school attempting to shoot someone, knowing that quite possibly, 30 semi-automatics and large caliber revolvers will be pointing back at him/her. Simple?

All in all, it is a horrific event that happened in Virginia, the trauma of which will decimate the students for quite some time. But let us not overshadow the students healing with maniacal debate over making more or less gun laws. Just fix what is already there, and let actual healing take root.

DEM's "100 days" Failure, not that were surprised

Friday night, (Apr. 13, 2007), Charles Gibson's World News brought a report that it's contents, while surprising that the Lib-media would report, doesn't actually surprise any one. Its reached the 100-days mark for the 110th Congress that said would pass new bills they promised America. Nothing's happened in that realm. And their 'Six for 06' also un-amazingly enough failed to yield any results either. See the article here through MRC, as the ABC page is mysteriously undergoing edits of some sort: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070416.asp#1

But what should we really have expected from a DEM controlled house and senate? They have really nothing to show other than alot of noise. Oh, they did increase the minimum wage. Yipee! But so far, NONE of the six for 06 have even made it to the President's desk to be signed or veto'd. They have spent an admiral amount of time "Bush-bashing," going on "political fishing trips," and chest beating with the White House with Pelosi's-"easy with the threats, there's a new congress in town," comments. And let us not forget Reid's statement about "cutting funding for the troops if the President wants to play hardball." (D-Mi) Carl Levin was quick to recant this mistake with a statement for the Dem's that they will NOT cut funds for the troops, regardless. Nice to see that there IS an intelligent Dem out there.

To date, they have already had twice the oversight committees of the Bush Administration as Republicans did last year. While that is not really surprising, the fact is, more time is being wasted on "unnecessary" legislature and trying to instill their own form of a government within a government, than actually getting anything done. This can be seen with Madame (Traitor) Pelosi's visit to Syria. As if she had any real need to go to a country listed as sponsoring terrorism to promote her agendas. Read the interesting story at American Congress for Truths web page about this, here: http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ArchDetails.aspx?id=171 and here: http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ArchDetails.aspx?id=175

In the end the Dem's leadership has failed to produce anything of worth other than alot of hot air, and they know even with all the hoopla, it's still not enough to sway voters and promised to accomplish in the next 100 days what they more or less exactly failed to do in the first 100 days failure.

I'm betting on a repeat as more and more people loose faith in the media to bring them objective reporting. Refresh your "polls" memory here: http://hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/04/trust-military-over-news-outlets-every.html

Religious Double Standard in Minneapolis College

In an article written by Katherine Kersten for the Minneapolis-St.Paul Star Tribune, she expounds not only on previous cultural clashes, such as muslim Taxi drivers refusing to transport passengers carrying alcohol and muslim cashiers at Target stores not scanning pork products, but apparently now a facility is required for muslim students to wash their feet before prayer. Read the full article here: http://www.startribune.com/191/story/1115081.html

It would appear that a serious prejudicial, double standard about support of any religion is taking place in a Minneapolis Public College. Minneapolis Community and Technical College goes to extremes to ensure Christians are not promoting in any way, Christmas and other holidays to prevent any "entanglements," but now intends to spend taxpayer funds to build a foot washing facility on it's campus for Islamic students.

The Director of Legal Affairs at the college, Dianna Cusick, say the college, a public institution, has a strict policy of not promoting religion or favoring one religion over another. "The Constitution prevents us from doing this in any form." But isn't this exactly what they ARE doing by catering to the Islamic community? Even Muslim leaders have advised the college staff that washing is not a required practice for students under their circumstances.

So not only is it a double standard of "wanting to do this," for a portion of the student population, but it is also an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds. Just the sort of thing needed to spend money on when school funds are already being wasted enough as it is?

All in all it still stands that, political correctness and anti-Christian views are being crammed down our throats at every turn, and we are just supposed to accept it. Contact Minneapolis Community and Technical College Director Dianna Cusick at (612) 659-6319 and President Phil Davis at (612) 659-6300 and let them know what you think of their endorsement of Islam and promotion of Islamic practices and their prohibitions against Christian traditions. (Contact information provided by the http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/ )

Start putting your foot down against this kind of double standard.

Duke Players Cleared.. insincere apology

This is essentially an update to my previous "Duke Players cleared" post found here:

http://hoopyfrooddude.blogspot.com/2007/04/duke-players-cleared-no-charges-for.html

This afternoon of April 12th, 2007, D.A. Mike Nifong made what could only be described as a completly insincere apology to the three Duke Lacrosse Players who were charged with kidnapping and assaulting a female stripper.

The purpose behind this attempted apology is unknown as Nifong faces ethics violations by the State Bar over his handling of the case. Read the full story here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18079698/

It must be said, that even with as disingenuous as Nifong's apology was, it is highly likely that he will be the only one to apologize in any form. The odds of Sharpton and Jackson apologizing, (who were so adamant that these three Duke players be tossed in jail,) is so virtulantly non-existent that we won't even bother with it. Even CNN which is well known for it's media bias, has a page full of viewer e-mails DEMANDING apolgies from Sharpton and Jackson. Take a look:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/11/duke.emails/

All in all, I suppose we will just be expected to accept what apologies we do get and go on, with Racists like Sharpton and Jackson allowed to run free.

An open, POLITE inquiry of Atheists/Agnostics

Hello and welcome to those Atheists and/or Agnostics who may read this article. First of all let me say, this is NOT a post in an attempt to demean, evangelize or debate any of you in any way, shape or form. I am simply posting this for my own personal understanding as to "why" you choose not to believe.

I have but a couple small requests before we begin to prevent this going off on wild tangents that have no place in this post.

Please, absolutely No Flames! This is not the place for tirades and rants. If you have some difficulty in stating your opinion in an intelligent, conversational manner, then please take it elsewhere. Flame posts will just be deleted. As previously mentioned, I'm not here to "slam" you, so please don't subject anyone else to it who may read this post.

When posting your comments, please use "your own words," and not the preprogrammed responses of "Jesus didn't die on the cross," or "there's no enough evidence of...," as these have been proven wrong by both historical and archaeological evidences. I'm looking for your straightforward, honest reasoning.

Lastly, try to avoid injecting anything from either the book or movie, "The Da Vinci Code." As they were interesting entertainment, that's all they were, entertainment. There were only three factual items in them. London is in England, Paris is in France and Da Vinci painted some paintings.

With that being said, please feel free to tell why you Don't believe in God.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

John

H.R. 1592 .. A BOGUS Hate Crimes Bill

Talk about a full-blown B.S. law. This one that is currently in the works is soooo incredibly stupid, it's almost impossible to believe it's even being considered. On or abouts April 17th, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on H.R. 1592, The "Homosexual/Drag-queen hate speech" Bill. A mark-up is expected by the next day and move to the House for a vote within a week of that.

Yes folks, your Tax Dollars "HARD" at work. A bill to stop hate speech about gays and queens. Ok, personally, I could care less if these guys wanna dress up in drag and parade around West Hollywood. I could care even less if guys/guys or girls/girls, wanna get it on with each other. But STOP wasting resources on UNNEEDED legislature! This supposed "epidemic" is so minuscule, that it hardly even registers as even existing.

Here's the stats; In 2005, the FBI reports there were well under 1,200 sex-biased crimes. Out of that, about 300 of them were intimidation crimes, essentially name-calling. Another 330+ of them were simple assaults, pushing-shoving. Less than 600 made it into the assault category. Well under 200 made it into the aggravated assault category where actual physical bodily injury occurred.

In 2005, aggravated assaults (total for the Nation) totaled almost 863,000. Less than 200 out of 863,000? Hardly a national epidemic that requires Federal meddling in local Law Enforcement efforts by enacting special "hate crimes" legislation.

All this Bill is really intended to accomplish is to make "sexual behavior" a protected minority group and eventually, to grant them extra Civil rights above and beyond ethnicity. With a grand total of less than 3% of the countries population being gay, that's an awful lot of protection being granted for a lifestyle CHOICE. This pathetic, biased bill will also cause millions of taxpayer dollars, and immeasurable resources to be diverted from real needs to fund "anti-hate" materials and programs, that will essentially denigrate Christians and promote homosexual agendas, like indoctrinating your kids at school. Oh, wait... THAT ONE is already happening.

So get a hold of your Representatives and tell them to stop screwing around and get some actual "work" done. That's why you elected them. That's what you pay them for. To actually accomplish stuff. NOT to screw around with crap like this.

Here's how to contact them and let them know what you think of their wasting time and money working on this B.S. : http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Duke Players Cleared... NO charges for accuser?

There comes a time when "equality" just isn't equal, and this seems to be one of them. The three Duke lacrosse players have been completely cleared, charges dropped, and are supposedly free. But just how free are they really?

Will they really be able to live normal lives as they would have if this hoax hadn't been started? I think not. The stigma of this unfortunate incident is bound to haunt them for quite some time. With the wide spread news coverage of the case, their pictures have been plastered on every TV, across the front page of major newspapers, it will follow them for a long, long time. Thier names are everywhere. And now they have to try to go on with thier lives.

And all because some "less fortunate" individual wanted to make a second attempt at a gang-rape accusation. That's right! The accuser has made this same type of fraudulent charge before in 1996 where she told New York city police that she had been rapped by several men. No charges were brought against those men either.

Now, wouldn't you expect some form of appology to be made about this? From the accuser? The Police Department or D.A.? Perhaps even from the school? Not likely. As a matter of fact, there won't even be any charges brought against the accuser for filing a false report over this. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said no charges will be brought against the accuser, saying she "may actually believe" the many different versions of the stories she has told. "We believe it is in the best interest of justice not to bring charges." Here is the full article: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/ap/story.asp?AP_ID=D8OEJEDO0

In the best interest of justice? What will be in the best interest of justice? To let her try a few more times till she can get her story right and actually get some innocent(s) prosecuted? And she "may actually believe?" Is that all it takes? To just believe? Well then, I actually believe that I own Fort Knox. I'll be there next week to collect MY property. It's a crock, a sham. She isn't being prosecuted because of race relations. The accuser is black. The accused are white. Now that they have been cleared, we'll instantly hear Jackson and Sharpton hollering racial stuff if she were to be charged. And why, with this being her second failed attempt, is her information NOT being released to the public via media outlets? The accused players info was. Heck, there pretty much isn't anyting we DON'T know about them now. Equality?

Of course, the D.A. will be subjected to a bit of punishment in one form or another. Possibly even disbarment. Rightly so. He screwed up, so a bit should fall on him. No apology from him for his mistakes, as of yet.

Rev. Jesse Jackson said, "We just hope this traumatic experience for all involved ends with the minimum amount of damage." Jackson's Chicago based Rainbow/Push coalition had also offered to help the accuser pay for college. There was absolutely no mention of any form of an apology forthcoming. From ANYONE.

Yet, CNN reports this morning, (Apr. 12, 2007) that Al Sharpton is organizing a rally against Don Imus, and saying that an apology from him isn't enough and Imus should be fired. Here's the CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/11/imus.rutgers/index.html

So a white commentator makes a comment about black women and gets roasted, but a black woman commits a felony by filing a false police report, getting all kinds of personnel tied up over it, and nothing happens? Equality?

So after all is said and done, three young "white" guys get their lives screwed over. The still not yet identified to the public, stripper continues unabated to try to fry some other people some time down the road. And were all just supposed to overlook the whole situation according to Jackson. Let's just all hold hands in a circle singing Kumbaya.

Equality? If you believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying from me.

Is Imus really worth all the noise?

There's been quite a bit of coverage lately over the Don Imus "Nappy-headed hos" comment made about the Rutgers University women's' basketball team. Yes, I do agree, that was unprofessional. Yes, perhaps an apology is appropriate. And that should be that. The end. But is all the stink STILL being raised about this really worth it? Let's review this a little bit shall we?

Here's a link to USAToday's numbers about the current viewers for Imus' show. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20070409/d_cnn09.art.htm

That's right, barely 350 thousand. None of the syndication he airs on ranks in the top 20. So the fact that anyone even heard the comment is pretty astounding. The Media Research Center has a few things to say about this as well. Read it here. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070411.asp#5

All this hoopla, and no "Bang" for the buck.

It's nice to know that our "unbiased" media covers every angle though, to make sure we get fair, balanced, objective journalism. Like failing to question Al Sharpton, on why he hasn't publicly made any formal apologies for his blatant racial comments, let alone any of the mayhem his "freedom rallies" have caused.

Sharpton is the LAST person to be jumping anybodies butt about slurs and other racial or discriminatory problems. This is the same guy that during the Tawana Brawley hoax several years ago, verbally castrated several white men, including a prosecutor. A Civil Court found Sharpton in the wrong and ordered him to pay a restitution of about $345,000.00 for defamation. But no apology was forthcoming. Sharpton is also responsible for inciting anti-Semitic riots in New York city on a couple occasions, which in turn led to multiple violent acts resulting in the murder of eight people during those incidents. Take a look here for some of Sharpton's outstanding history. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2411

Now that we can see what a fantastically outstanding individual Sharpton is, does the "Imus Controversy" really need all the attention it's getting? Does it even really deserve any of it?

I thought not.

Costs of Immigration & Immigration Gumballs

The other night on the Communist News Network, Glen Beck said something that I have been saying for a while now, "Nancy, the whole Bush bashing thing, were bored with it. Come up with something new already." My sentiments exactly. It's gotten so old, that the moment I hear someone start with a, " Well, the Bush administration.." I pretty much instantly tune-out. All that is gonna be said is a bunch of B.S. Pretty much whenever you ask the Lib-Dem's a question about a topic, thier response is gonna start with something not unlike, "Well, The Bush administration..." And the question never really gets answered.

However, there IS one thing that we all should be bashing at Bush for. That's his immigration policies. The tide of illegals must be stopped. It's costing the American taxpayer waaaayyy too much, and not getting anything in return from it. At least, nothing good in return for it. Unless you consider higher crime, gang involvement, stress on the welfare system, etc, etc, etc, as GOOD. Then I'd have to question even your basic intelligence.

The following are some exerpts of an article written on the http://www.nationalreview.com/ web page. It gives a description of the kind of costs being put on the average American taxpayer, as well as some of the Presidents rhetoric regarding Immigration. All credit goes to the author of the article, Byron York. The full article can be read here. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTUyZjY3NzExYjIxODU0NmVmYWE4MTAxNTZlOWJkNDk=

Article exerpts begin:

The president touted his get-tough-on-the-border policies, enacted under pressure from the then-Republican Congress, and singled out Operation Jump Start, under which National Guard troops assist border agents. But he also stressed the need for "comprehensive" reform, and when he did his message sounded like the George W. Bush of old. "Past efforts at reform failed to address the underlying economic reasons behind illegal immigration," the president said. "People are coming here to put food on the table, and they're doing jobs Americans are not doing."

Robert Rector said, "From a purely money perspective, it's a powerful argument. At a cost of $22,449 per household per year -- well, multiply that by an adult lifespan of 50 years and you have an average lifetime cost to the taxpayer of $1.1 million per unskilled worker. Increase that population with a wave of unskilled immigrants, and you're talking a lot of money..."

Rector has just published a study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," that is ostensibly not about immigration at all. He takes the most detailed look yet at the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. With numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other government agencies, Rector found what they make, what they spend, and how much they receive in government services.

The reason Rector chose to look at low-skilled workers is that it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants fall into that category. (By way of comparison, slightly less than ten percent of native-born Americans are in that group.) By focusing on those workers, Rector was able to make use of information on them that is more detailed and precise than information on immigrants as a whole. And any conclusions he reached would be applicable to a large majority of illegal immigrants who are already in this country as well as those who would come here under various immigration reform proposals.

Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. "Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,"

Article exerpts end.

Be sure to take a look at the actual study mentioned in the Full article link written by Robert E. Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. Here is a direct link to the study.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm

Also in the Full article, it mentions the argument about the supposed growth that the illegal brings. Not so according to Rector as the miniscule growth created is USED by the immigrant himself.

Another aspect that needs to be addressed, is the flow of immigration itself. The argument that we need to help the less fortunate countries is bogus. By allowing more illegals into the country IS NOT helping the origin country itself, let alone America. This is most excellently demonstrated By Roy Beck of NumbersUSA in a video on YouTube. Here is the link to watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

More to come shortly.

Trust the Military over News outlets, every one else is apparently

No matter how you slice it, no one trusts news outlets anymore. Well, at least hardly anyone does anymore. The wave of what used to be objective journalism of the past has dashed itself on the rocks and is now receding in a tide of "bashing" this or that.

Newsbusters has the article about how poorly the media outlets look these days in the peoples eyes, and shows folks would rather hear from the military itself when it comes to the progress being made in the middle east areas. That's pretty sad when not more than a couple decades ago, every one gathered 'round the tele' to see the latest news release.

Here's the link:
http://newsbusters.org/node/11872

Something the media just isn't getting. The news they are reporting, has to do with our military personnel over there in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those military personnel have, what is known as family. Unlike John Kerry's remarks about how stupid people end up in Iraq and smart people go to college, these Marines and soldiers DO know how to write and dial a phone. They relay to their families how well things are going. And those folks tell other folks, and they tell other folks, etc, etc, etc. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that there is a declining sense of trust toward what we see on outlets like the Communist News Network.

Oh they occasionally try to make themselves looked balanced by tossing in a Glen Beck or some such. But the fact is, no one is buying it anymore. There only hope for survival is to flip a 180. Actually try reporting, instead of reading a tele-sync full of anti-everything positive comments. Maybe try making mention of how now almost half of Iraq has continuous uninterrupted power country wide, rather than just 25% of Baghdad prior to the war. Maybe tell about the orphanages and schools being built. Something. Anything.

But my guess is they will go to the grave, sticking to the "If it bleeds, it leads" principle. "Today, two US soldiers were killed in a car bombing in... bring the total to 2413 deaths.." We've been over there for a few years now. Should we perhaps, start doing a little comparing of our own? Like how many soldiers died on the beaches of Normandy or Iwo Jima (which, like Iraq, also isn't in America, but helped to secure America's safety and security) in just the first few days?

News people need to just shut the hell up and let the Military do it's job. Want the soldiers home sooner? Let them take care of what needs to be done then!

Why is Congressman former Navy Vice Admiral Joe Sestak raising money for CAIR?

The following is from the American Congress for Truth. An article written by Lori Lowental Marcus. All credit for this article goes to her, not me, but I will comment on it in the fact that we need to WAKE THE HELL UP! This group is right here in our backyard folks! Better start standing up and taking notice before we end up like Europe is becoming, more commonly now known as Eurabia.

Article begins here:

Why is a US Congressman helping to raise money for an American Islamic organization of which nearly a dozen associates have verified connections to terrorism?
Freshman Congressman and former Navy Vice Admiral Joe Sestak (District 7-PA) obstinately refuses to withdraw from speaking at a CAIR fundraiser in Philadelphia tomorrow, April 7th.
CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has a lengthy dossier proving it has had and continues to have associated with it dangerous individuals who have been convicted of, charged with and deported because of, actions that threaten America and its allies. Middle East and terrorism experts such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes have written extensively about CAIR's connections to terrorism.

Unfortunately, the public and in particular the mainstream media have embraced the rejection of the experts' warnings by CAIR and its fellow travelers who claim those experts are right-wing conservatives and - to make matters worse - Jews, who are furthering their personal agendas by vilifying CAIR.

Apparently many believe that CAIR is being victimized by neo-conservative Jewish operatives, and that any criticism of the organization or its supporters is evidence of Islamophobia. Indeed, that is precisely what CAIR leaders claimed was motivating (the primarily Jewish) critics of Congressman Sestak's financial connection to CAIR.

The public pandering to this dangerous group of Muslims is only possible by a refusal to distinguish between fact and opinion. FACT: five CAIR board members and employees have been convicted of terrorism-related activities. Fact: CAIR received seed money from and subsequently raised money for the Holy Land Foundation, an entity shut down by the US government because of its proven connection to Hamas. HLF is designated by the US State Department (hardly a coterie of neo-cons) as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization. Fact: CAIR is an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine, an organization that also was dissolved and designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Fact: CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, announced during a public appearance that he was a Hamas supporter. Fact: Immediately following 9/11 CAIR posted on its website a link seeking donations to what it labeled "the NY/DC Disaster Relief Fund." Unsuspecting potential donors who clicked on that link were connected to the web site of the HLF.

CAIR bills itself as a "civil rights organization," which is, perhaps, why it gets a free pass from those who should know better. But consider CAIR's peculiar understanding of civil rights: Randall "Ismail" Royer, CAIR's former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, is currently serving a 20 year sentence after having been charged with possessing "AK-47-style rifles, telescopic lenses, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, documents on undertaking jihad and martyrdom" and instructional booklets for manufacturing and using explosives and chemicals as weapons.

Several weeks before Congressman Sestak's scheduled appearance at a Philadelphia-CAIR fundraiser, he was scheduled to appear at a "town meeting" in a Philadelphia-area synagogue. Sestak's appearance at that event had been arranged by local Democrat party officials and was sponsored by the local Jewish Federation and the synagogue.

To his credit, but not necessarily to those who invited him and would not withdraw the invitation, Sestak showed up on March 11th to speak to what he had to know would be a very hostile audience. Area residents had been calling his office to register their disapproval. Unfortunately, the former CAIR employee and the one who arranged his appearance at the CAIR event was the Sestak staffer who was charged with taking calls on the topic.
And what was Sestak's response to the critical questions put to him? First of all, he told his questioners, dozens of his constituents were going to be present at the fundraiser and wanted him to be there. He told the town meeting participants that just as he meets with all his constituent groups: Irish groups, Polish groups, Jewish groups, the NAACP, he was going to meet with this group as well.

Second, the Congressman told the audience that during his campaign, whenever he needed people to help him hand out flyers he first called the Muslim community because they were always eager to help. In other words, Sestak's first go-to volunteer group during his campaign was the Muslim community rather than the Democratic Party machine. Odd. Finally, Sestak defended his association with CAIR by pointing out that the US government would have shut it down if there were any problems. Perhaps, but the myriad and verifiable dangerous activities with which so many CAIR members have been involved should be more than enough to deter a sitting Congressman from helping CAIR raise money. Meet with them if you feel you must, but assist in fundraising? That smacks of, at the very least, poor judgment.

Sestak told the audience that he had his campaign staff investigate CAIR during his campaign. Perhaps that happened when CAIR-PA Director Iftekhar Hussain made a several hundred dollar contribution to Sestak's campaign and with whom Sestak allegedly visited in his home.
At the town hall synagogue appearance Sestak floundered for several hours during which he was forced to face angry Americans who rejected his flaccid responses to their pointed questions. Since that time, though, no one has called him to task for what certainly seems to be an unnecessarily provocative, some might suggest unwise, decision. Joe Sestak is a US Congressman. Claiming that he is merely satisfying his obligation to meet with Muslim constituents by financially assisting a group like CAIR is not only an insult to non-terrorist related Muslims, but also to all his other constituency groups, and, frankly, to all Americans.
A local newspaper that covered Sestak's appearance at the Philadelphia-area synagogue editorialized that if there were anything to the terrorism-related allegations, there would be a huge public outcry. In fact, the first line of that editorial was: "Give Joe Sestak a break." The mainstream media has been giving Sestak a break which is why there has been no outcry. It is time for those who believe we should be fighting terrorism to stop pandering to dangerous groups. Joe Sestak refuses to break his connection to CAIR, a group with terrorist connections. Because of that, he does not deserve a break. And if he still gets a pass, then shame on all of us.
Here's what you can do about it. Contact his Washington, DC and District offices by phone and fax and tell him that you object to using his position as a U.S. Congressman in supporting a Islamic fundamentalist advocacy group like CAIR with known terrorist ties.

Congressman Joe Sestak's contact information
Washington D.C. Office
1022 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2011
Fax: (202) 226-0280

District Office
600 N. Jackson StreetSuite 203
Media , PA19063
Phone:(610) 892-8623 Fax:(610) 892-8628

End of Article.

There are TWO types of stem cell research?

As a matter of fact, yes there are, I'm glad you asked. Most people seem to be unaware that there are two separate types of stem cell research going on. Both started pretty close to the same time, but only one has produced any results what-so-ever, the other has pretty much been a waste of time.

Adult stem cell research - Has focused on using stem cells taking from living beings from such things as bone marrow and the like. This form of stem cell usage DOES WORK and is currently being successfully used to assist in treatments of over 60 different diseases. This doesn't require anyone/anything to die or be destroyed. THIS form of research needs to continue.

Embryonic stem cell research - Is based on the destruction of a stored embryo to retrieve the stem cell. This form of stem cell research, which involves the whole Micheal J. Fox / Rush Limbaugh incident, has had absolutely no success. The only thing this research so far has been able to lay claim to is creating tumorous masses. This research continues to be pushed by groups that "just don't get it." The real purpose to embryonic stem cell research is cloning. They could really care less if any progress is made in treatments, they want to clone people. That's all there is for them.

Here's a couple links about how adult stem cell research is working and embryonic isn't.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031228-114541-5034r.htm
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/449djpmz.asp?pg=1

There is a third stem cell option now and, although still in it's infancy, is already showing more promise than embryonic stem cell research. This third new form is known as Umbilical CORD BLOOD cell research. There are a couple positives already to this. Simply, it doesn't involve destroying anything to get the cells. Since the cord after birth is just medical waste, you can almost think of it as recycling.

Here's a couple links about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4157362.stm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/11/29/umbilical_cord_stem_cell_therapy_successful_paralysed_patient_walks_after_19_years.htm

Basically, two forms are working, the third (Embryonic) isn't. Let's stop wasting time, money and resources on a form that isn't and get hoppin' on what does work.

Still fretting over attorney removals

Why-o-why, are we still, repeatedly, getting this attorney firing crap forced down our throats? At exactly what point are people gonna say "Enough already!, We get the point!, Your a bunch of spoiled democraps that are just pissed-off cause the president won't play your games, so your just drilling the public with this attorney removal thing!"

WHO CARES why the president removed them! It's completely irrelevant why. There's no need to even look for a reason. The U.S. attorneys serve those positions "At the pleasure of the president." If the president doesn't like the shoes your wearing, he can remove you from these posts. He doesn't need any reason to remove you.

And to top it off, the media just keeps pushing this crap. Like that Marasmus clown in the YouTube vid, previous post, "There's no media bias, it's a myth." Why isn't the media making any comparisons of Bush's removal of a whooping Eight attorneys with Clinton's removal of over 90 of them when he was in office? Here's a couple links about it, but remember, there's no media bias.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11390
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp#1

And if you need super-clowns YouTube vid again, here's the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WIM5uQvTjw

So can we please get over this? Move on with our lives and stop wasting taxpayer funds on B.S.?

Global Warming Woes

The mighty "AL" has spoken, and he has proclaimed Global warming is our fate. Gimme a break please. Still, were getting pounded over the head on a daily basis with this global warming thing. It's kinda like one of those annoying little gnats, no matter how much you swat at them, they just won't go away.

Al's recent little venture, what I like to re-title as "An inconvenient SPOOF" says we need to reduce our output of carbon dioxide, conserve energy and recycle like there's no tomorrow. I have a little bit of a problem here. All this, coming from a guy who occassionaly lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion that he leaves heated and lit when away, and burns more energy than a family of four regularly uses up in a month.

This morning (Apr. 9, 2007) CNN's Robin and Company had the United States foremost climatologist on. Yeah, the guy who predicts the hurricanes and such. Basically, he said Al is blowing the whole warming out of proportion.

USA today just a couple months ago had a story, (buried about 6 pages in) about the satellite system they are using to track the temperatures around the globe. Turns out, the whole system is broken! The Earth's temperature has climbed as a whole less than 2 degrees F over the last 50 years+. Not the dreaded 5 degrees in the last 10 years.

I'm also not hearing much from the "globals" about the Palm trees and other tropical flora they've been digging up in the artic circle. Not pre-historic stuff mind you, stuff that's only about ten thousand to twelve thousand years old. What was the projected span of the ice age? Ten thousand years?

Another thing, the carbon dioxide output that's being registered is the "result of" the melting icecaps, "not causing" the icecaps to melt.

Lastly, something the "globals" are failing to mention is;

When Mt. St. Helens blew its cap quite a few years ago, it launched several million tons of crap into the air. (My condolences here to anyone who may read this that lost an aquantence in that disaster.) This SINGLE blast, put more crap in the air than all of humanity has managed to do over its entire existance. How many good sized volcanoes have erupted over say, just the last millenia?

All this really is, is about money. All these alternate energy folks stand to make a serious buck if we get convinced that gas is bad, hydrogen good. "Mongo like candy..."