America And Islam: The History You DON'T Learn In School

There is in absolutely no way, a possibility for me to accurately "sum up" the entire contents of an e-letter I just received from the American Congress for Truth. It is an extremely long posting, but worth every word you read of it. So, I shall humbly attempt to do what bit of justice to the content I can, by posting just a few paragraphs from the full article. I very strongly and VERY VERY VERY HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you read the original article on The Middle East Forum. Go grab yourself a cup of coffee, or whatever beverage you prefer, and settle in for a long but very indepth read of Islam's animosity for America.

The original article on meforum.org is also supported by a huge bibliography of sources for its information. And here's a hint of how far back this hatred has reached from, does the Barbary pirating years ring any bells?

HERE, is the full article. Here is the text link for those who may require it.

http://www.meforum.org/article/1830

"The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism"
by Melvin E. Lee
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2008

The fundamental premise of much scholarly examination and public discourse is that grievances with U.S. policies in the Middle East motivate Islamist terrorism. Such assumptions, though, misunderstand the enemy and its nature. In reality, the conflict is sparked not by grievance but rather by incompatibility between Islamist ideology and the natural rights articulated during the European Enlightenment and incorporated into U.S. political culture. Acquiescing to political grievances will not alter the fundamental incompatibility between Lockean precepts of tolerance and current interpretations of Islam: Only Islam's fundamental reform will resolve the conflict.

Many scholars mark the post-World War I partition of the Ottoman Empire as the origin of Islamist opposition to the West .... Contemporary jihadism is not the result of accumulated grievance; rather it has for cultural reasons been an integral factor in Islamic societies' interaction with the United States.

What Americans and Europeans saw as piracy, Barbary leaders justified as legitimate jihad. Jefferson related a conversation he had in Paris with Ambassador Abdrahaman of Tripoli who told him that all Christians are sinners in the context of the Qur'an and that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

The nineteenth century foreshadowed increasing conflict between the United States and Muslim Middle Eastern countries. The failure of effective Ottoman political reform coupled with the evolution of Islamic reform toward greater Islamism and less tolerance set up a conflict between the American notion that governments rule at the consent of the governed and the dominant attitude among Muslim potentates who subscribed to an intolerant, coercive, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian ideology.

Jihadis thrive in such stagnated conditions. This leads to negative annuity: Jihadism both grows amid stagnation and fuels stagnation. It accelerated coincident with the European Enlightenment and the relative decline of the Muslim Middle East. At its core, jihadism is a violent rejection of many of the fundamental principles of the European Enlightenment. Democracy, free markets, tolerance and freedom of religion, secular government, and separation between the religious, the political, and the individual spark religious fury. It is no coincidence, then, that jihadis, under the banner of cleansing their religion of evil Western influence, have focused their attentions on the United States, the clearest manifestation of the European Enlightenment today. They will continue to threaten Western civilization until they are checked.

Food for thought, I say.

Article info provided by American Congress for Truth and The Middle East Quarterly.

Florida Gets Transgender-ized: I Said This Would Happen

Only, I wasn't expecting it to be a state other than California to be the first to take this step. A short while back, I tapped out an article about the gay legislation that's been aggressively pushed here in California. Those being AB14/AB394/SB777. They were signed by the now known as "Gay-minator" and essentially, is but the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

Those bills pretty much opened the door for eliminating any gender barriers that existed, and as we now see, it's happening. But I was so expecting California to be the first casualty of this facade, being hailed as a form of a "civil rights" agenda. It has nothing to do with civil rights. It has everything to do with destroying the common perception of what the family unit has always been. But as it turns out, FLORIDA was the first to fall.

Gainesville, Florida city commissioners took a vote yesterday after hours of pro's and con's arguments. Those against as you can imagine, held the vast majority during those arguments. But with all that was presented against, the commissioners voted 4-3 in favor of the ordinance. Funny how that works. Most don't want it, so lets pass it anyways. Go figure.

Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan, and commissioners Craig Lowe, Jeanna Mastrodicasa and Jack Donovan have now added "gender identity" into a list of classes of people protected from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodation and obtaining credit. But it wasn't even necessary to be honest as the ordinance already covered race, sex, sexual preference and religion.

So now what happens? Well, you can be sure this isn't the end, but only the beginning. I'm sure in no time, we will see this kind of legislation cropping up nationwide. And of course, our wonderfully "fair and balanced" media, won't miss a beat in clamoring to the banners, drum beats and bugle calls to 'protect' the really vast minority among us.

You can read more HERE and HERE.

Article info provided by the Gainesvillesun.com and the Miamiherald.com.

Gays Better Get With It: Islam Is Coming For You

Ahmadinejad, what a great guy, eh? You've just got to love his anti-gay rant at America's fabulous liberal learning institution, that being Columbia University. Boy, to be able to stand on a public stage here in America, in front of a huge (almost SRO crowd,) and spout off about how "there are no gays in Iran," must have just been an uplifting moment for him. Funny thing was, there were no after affects because of it. I wrote a little bit about this in a previous article that you can read HERE. Essentially, the special interest groups said Nada on the topic.

Believe it or not, even though I am aggressively against the push by what can only be deemed as militant gays, I DON'T hate gay people themselves. I've said it many a time. I adamantly believe the lifestyle they pursue is immoral, but I don't hate them because of that, or anything else. Being a Christian allows me that freedom. To have compassion towards someone while detesting their actions. But there are some who DO hate them. And it's being shown, more often than not these days, in the newly emerging continent of "Eurabia."

Yes Eurabia, that continent across the Atlantic. The continent that we've liberated a few times from previous tyrannical upswings, is once again in the death throws of oppression. But it's a specific ultra minority that's taking the beating this time. Gays are feeling the squeeze, and it's not a pleasurable kinda squeeze they would enjoy.

There is an excellent article about this posted on the American Congress for Truth blog. The title, "First They Came for the Gays ." Jerry Gordon wrote the intro comments for it. The original article can be found HERE on the Pajamas Media site written by Bruce Bawer. Gordon's intro sums up the topic at hand quite well with his noting of "In this Pajamas Media report, Bawer explains why Gays and women are the frequent victims of intimidation and outright violence, including murder and rape, in major European capitals."

A serious upswing of violence against non-submissive women and gay men, is being perpetrated by mostly young muslim men. The possible reasoning as described in the article. These many muslims, having grown up in Europe, "are more inclined to see Europe as a part of the umma (or Muslim world), to believe that they have the right and duty to enforce sharia law in the cities where they live, and to recognize that any aggression on their part will likely go unpunished."

Moral of the story? Gays have it pretty good here, despite all their complaints of lack of this or that right. Better start appreciating what you have here, as with the way America is now starting to slide down that "Sharia-slope," it may not be much longer before they begin meeting the same problems here. It's just one more form of terrorism in my opinion. The world stage, with all it's supposed "humanitarian" causes, best step up to the plate and start addressing issues like this.

Article info provided by Pajamas Media and American Congress for Truth.

Disintegration Of American Sovereignty: Mexican Military Incursions

It doesn't seem to register more than an occasional blip on the radar of most media outlets. Whether it be the inner workings of the proposed North American Union (NAU), the repeated attempts to bind America under the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), or the cultural disintegration we as Americans are facing daily. What's more, there has been almost nil coverage of the "Armed Incursions" my Mexican military personnel onto American soil. With exception to what info is able to be gathered and disseminated by Conservative talk show hosts or blogs, Americans are being kept in the dark by our own media about this.

Bobby Eberle on the GOPUSA site has a bit to say about these incursions in his article "Danger at the Borders." And to add to it, he even has a Fiscal Year 2007 table listing the MANY times that it has happened. Amazingly, there actually are a couple that were apparently unintentional, but compared to the many that were deliberate, those few are moot. Eberle's article also contains a link to the Judicial Watch posting of the Dept. of Homeland Security report.

I can't and won't except the bogus argument that they are simply trying to stem the tide of the narcotics trade over the American-Mexican border. If that's the reason, they should have no problem dealing with it in their own country. And the fact that our own Border Agents are being confronted by some of these personnel, it's beginning to smell of intimidation.

Eberle closes his article with this. "Our borders must be protected. There should be absolutely no debate on this issue. Congress has passed legislation to build a fence, then other legislators come around and defund it. In addition to physical barriers and surveillance, another element is needed.... something simple, but as of yet, missing from the process: political pressure. The government of Mexico will not change its ways unless pressure comes from the U.S. government. We cannot allow these incursions into sovereign U.S. land. We cannot allow Mexico to encourage the exodus of its people through illegal means as a way of bringing more money back to Mexico. Protection of our borders starts with the White House and ends at the border line."

Well said Mr. Eberle. Well said.

Article info provided by GOPUSA.com and JudicialWatch.org.

The Next Jesse MacBeth: Fabricated Video

Just yesterday, an e-mail shout went out to a lot of us, (if not all) on the Grizzlygroundswell circuit about another video making the rounds. The video supposedly is a couple of veterans drinking and talking about their experiences overseas. Namely, their torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib to include the rape of a 15 year old girl. The speaker, an unidentifiable shaved headed looser even jokes about the girl, mentioning she was being "pimped out" to the soldiers for $50 a pop before she hanged herself. This is something to laugh about?

Anyways, here is my e-mail response back to Grizzly about it. Just from watching the vid and without doing outside research, this is what I was able to glean from the crap vid:

Heyas Chad,

Took a look at the vid. Couple things come to mind.

First off, they're drinking, and when military people drink, they talk "smack".. Bull Shit if you will. So there's the probability that this is just "talking out his ass" kinda stuff. Trying to look tough for the audience.

Of the two visible people on film, only one has a shaved head, the other guy has a full head of hair. Even Air Force personnel who have the lower end standards of grooming in the services don't have hair that long. So either, neither of them are service members, and its just made up, or just the bald guy is.

From my own experience in the service, The Marines, NO ONE wore military logo shirts when on leave/liberty. The bald guys wearing a U.S. Special Forces shirt. Most likely he's some guy who "washed out" of boot camp and is pretending to be a hard-core military guy.

The last thing that comes to mind, with how badly the Abu Grhab thing went over, ANYONE who was there that was involved and has of yet to be indicted in anyway, is going to be sealed tighter than a frogs ass about it. They aren't going to just start spouting off ON CAMERA about having committed an actual WAR CRIME. Rape is highly frowned upon in the military.

If anything, this guy is an Admin-pogue of some sort. Possibly supply and logistics or some such at the most, if he is really even an active service member at all.

Hope that adds some insight into your investigation.

With those thoughts in mind, it didn't take long for everyone else to just obliterate the validity of the video. Here is Snooper's article on it on Grizzly itself. CAO's Blog has quite a bit mentioned about it. And lastly, here is The Jawa Report about it. You will notice, a bit of the debunking echoed my own sentiments about the video.

In the end, it's just more annoying, fabricated bull$hit, to try and bring down veterans and a war that we are winning. The same kind of "Jane Fonda perched on a NVA AA-gun" kinda crap we've been seeing for years.

Article information provided by Me, Snooper, CAO and the Jawa Report. As well as a whole bunch of others who are destroying the spoof vid.

The Pope And The Media: Praises And Slams

I found this on NewsMax.com the other day to be rather interesting as it covers both ends of the spectrum even though the title itself "Pope Slams Unethical Media," portrays only one side of the article. According to the text, this last Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI "PRAISED the mass media for helping to spread democracy and knowledge around the world, but lamented that it also tended to hype violence, vulgarity and consumer products." Not to mention the particular slant that it seems to have adopted since the mid to late 60's. Something that regular readers of my blog have noticed I harp on quite a bit.

He, The Pope, brings up an very interesting angle though in the article. Benedict "suggested there might be a need for an 'info-ethics' field in the media, just as there is a bioethics field in medicine and science, to guarantee that human dignity is respected." That's a very enticing idea. Which means that in no way would the media ever submit to it. I suspect it would be hounded with calls of being a blight on 'free speech,' and other such supposed civil rights violations.

But Benedict didn't just slam the media, as noted above, he did issue praise for it, and also said "the media had played a "decisive" role in spreading literacy, democracy and dialogue among peoples, and should continue to be used for promoting justice." Which is pretty much what the media should have been about all along, instead of taking up the torch of one-sided ideals.

Benedict went on in the article to mention how the media can also subject its users to the "dominant interests of the day." Something we see almost constantly these days. The push for global warming, the sexualization of youth, the regular use of profanities in everyday shows, the promotion of what the majority of the populace considers to be deviant behavior. It goes on and on. But pop over and take a look at the full article. It's worth the quick read.

Article info provided by NewsMax.com.

Now That's A Strange Terrorist Target: A Hannah Montana Concert

Of all the targets a person plotting a terrorist attack could choose from, how in the heck did a Hannah Montana concert get the go ahead? Personally, I'm beyond tired of the "teen idols" fascination that permeates the news these days. But to hate it so much that you plan a suicide attack against a concert? That just takes the cake. It gives good rise to supporting a law to arrest people just for "felony stupidity." But anyways....

So, here's the basics of what happened. A 16 year old boy flying on a Southwest Airlines flight, number 284 from Los Angeles to Louisiana had planned to commit suicide. His plan, to overpower the flight crew and crash the aircraft into a Hannah Montana concert. He was removed from the flight in Nashville and had in his possession handcuffs, duct tape and a form of rope, possibly yarn. Yarn? What was he planning? To subdue the flight crew by knitting them afghans? Please....

The story can be found on both the CNN.com site and the National Terror Alert.com site. Both carry comments from FBI Spokesman George Bolds. Bolds has thus far, dismissed the Montana concert angle of the teens plot. Authorities have apparently searched the teens home and discovered a "mock" cockpit. Since the teen is still a minor, not much personal information is yet available, such as his name or mental condition.

Article info provided by CNN and National Terror Alert.

Will The Global Whiners Please Get Their Act Together

This is just fantastic. Apparently global warming is now dependant on a Monday morning quarter backing of the past seasons whether analysis. We've been pummeled for ages it seems by the Goracle and his mentally unstable entourage about how terrible the effects of global warming would be. We heard about how monstrously gigantic super-storms, bringing wave after wave of mega hurricanes, would batter the coastal regions of America and the world. But where did they go?

In actuality, depending on which reference you use, 2007 was the weakest hurricane season the U.S. (and the world) has seen in anywhere between five and twenty years. Like I said, depending on which reference you go by.

But "let us not alloweth that to standeth in our way," sayeth the prophets of Earthly warmth. "We shall overcometh. We shall now reverseth our words, confuseth and confoundeth thy terms, and thereby claimeth righteousness and victory in the coming age."

In other words, they got their butt's whooped by, as was expected, faulty computer modeling that can't even predict cloud coverage and movement, let alone, effects that are so predictable as mere windage. So they have in fact begun to reverse their thinking to place themselves in the right again.

Another "new study," this one authored by Chunzai Wang who is a research oceanographer at NOAA said he used observation and records instead of computer generated models to come to the conclusion that global warming would REDUCE hurricanes.

Not a bad idea, I'll giv'em that one, except for one thing. The global alarmists are dependant on MAN MADE global warming to make them their millions/billions in payoffs. Not NATURAL warming and cooling. Wang's survey essentially blows the lid off that possibility. According to the AP article, it mentions the study used records going back over 100 years of hurricane landfalls.

A little bit before MAN MADE would have had any real effect. Especially since nine of the ten hottest recorded years in U.S. history were BEFORE World War II. Ooooops. But just to cover the collective alarmist butt, is the last line of the abstract summary article (you have to pay for the full article); "Whether future global warming increases the vertical wind shear in the MDR for Atlantic hurricanes will depend on the relative role induced by secular warmings over the tropical oceans."

In short, they really have no clue as to what will happen and have left the end result open to an either/or option. More storms and they will say, perhaps warming does increase storms. Less storms and they say see, we were right about reduced storms. Way to go Wang. Glad your assisting the warming whiners. Keep up the good work.

Now will someone help me dig all the Prius' out of the tire treads of my 12-cylinder, 8.9 liter, 4 MPG, Super Heavy Duty, Uber-SUV?

Article info provided by the AP and AGU.org.

ANOTHER Poll Finds Media Liberal Slant: Shocked?

Does this news really surprise anyone any more? I mean, does any one really even believe that they are getting a "fair and balanced" report from any media outlet these days? Me either, and according to yet another national poll, (the 6th this year,) trust in media plummets even further, again. But in this latest poll, FOXNews outpaces its nearest competitor (CNN) by almost ten percentage points. Which poll was it this time? The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute. And the always faithful complaint by liberals that "it's a Conservative poll" won't work this time, as its results echo those of recent Rasmussen, Gallup and other polls.

NewsBusters.org carried this story yesterday, which included many of the embarrassing results for today's media.

Here are just some of the figures released from this survey;

Just 19.6 percent of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4 percent in 2003.

By a three-to-one margin “Americans see news media journalists and broadcasters (45.4 percent to 15.7 percent) as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative,” but for NPR and the New York Times recognition of a liberal tilt is closer to four-to-one.

The most trusted national TV news organizations, for accurate reporting, in declining order included: Fox News (27.0%), CNN (14.6%), and NBC News (10.90%). These were followed by ABC News (7.0%), local news (6.9%), CBS News (6.8%) MSNBC (4.0%), PBS News (3.0%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.5%).

You've really got to skip on over and read all the stats to see just how badly the media is doing in the eyes of America these days. They even have the links to the other polls mentioned such as Rasmussen and the like.

Article info provided by NewsBusters.org.

“Libel Terrorism” Legislation In The Works

Today's ACTforAmerica e-letter brings word of some positive legislation in the works. With the recent disappointing ruling by a New York court that it can not protect American authors or journalists from overseas libel suits, it seems like MUCH needed legislation. S.6687 and A.9652, the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" seeks to defend the First Amendment free speech rights of authors and journalists against foreign libel lawsuits. This legislation was spawned after a Saudi billionaire brought suit against a Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld for her book Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. In her book, Dr. Ehrenfeld named the billionaire as a financial supporter of terrorist organizations.

It should be made known that the plaintiff, "Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, has filed dozens of such lawsuits against American authors alleging libel and defamation of character. In numerous cases these lawsuits, clearly intended to intimidate and silence free speech and press rights, have led to publishers making public apologies, issuing retractions, or pulling books from stores," as noted in the ACTforAmerica e-letter.

These suits, being brought forth by persons such as Mahfouz, are ALWAYS filed in British courts, which have a much lower standard in libel cases, where the burden of proof is placed on the author/writer, rather than on the plaintiff to prove otherwise. The sponsor of the bill is Assemblyman Rory Lancman. So far, names that have attached themselves to the bill are, Senator Martin Golden and Senator Skelos.

While only introduced in New York, the bill could potentially have National implications and SHOULD BE sponsored by all, as any BLOG author could understand, if libel terrorism can affect both book and other print authors now, how long until WEB authors begin being affected?

Coughlin's Ouster Gains Attention: Will Things Change?

With all the fuss raised over the removal of Stephen Coughlin from his position in the Pentagon, it seems to be drawing more and more attention. Found on both NewsMax.com AND the American Congress for Truth website is an article by Kenneth R. Timmerman. The title, "Firing of Islam Expert Decried." The coverage on the ACT website has an intro by Jerry Gordon.

Gordon's intro speaks not only of Timmerman's own research, but what Timmerman has to say about Coughlin's work and how important it is to the American Intelligence Community. I highly recommend reading the full article yourself at one of the above links. As Coughlin was the ONLY Islamic Law expert the Pentagon had, it could be accurately described as "America flying blind" now.

It should be noted as listed in the ACT e-letter that brought this update regarding Coughlin, that Timmerman is not only an author, but also a 2006 Nobel Peace prize nominee, and a member of the Advisory Board for American Congress for Truth. So it's not just "some guy" talking out of his a$$, instead, he's someone who carries some actual clout.

Some of the tiers that have begun to take notice of Coughlin's impromptu removal are the White House itself. Thus far, at least one interview has been conducted of Coughlin by the White House. Although, as stated in Timmerman's article, Coughlin holds little hope of a WH rescue. I can understand that, as we still seem to have two border patrol agents serving 10+ year terms for wrongful convictions sitting in jail.

Also becoming very interested in this situation are members of Congress. As stated in Timmerman's article, "Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., has taken that call seriously, and said last week that she was examining the possibility of holding congressional oversight hearings on Coughlin’s dismissal. Myrick co-chairs the bi-partisan House Anti-Terrorism Caucus with Rep. Jane Harmon, D-Calif., which she started last year out of frustration that no one was educating the American people about the threat from Islamo-fascism."

As for now, I'm of the party that doubts, even with growing attention being brought to bear, that Coughlin will be reinstated. I'm of the belief that a significant portion of our leadership has taken their swig of the "religion of peace Kool-Aid," and have resigned us to submitting to Sharia law.

But this is America. Perhaps I'm not alone, and that enough people will finally say enough is enough, and will make change happen. Time will only tell.

Lou Dobbs For.. President?

Well, I suppose after seeing some of the recent elections here in California where we had everyone from students to a Porn Star running for Governor, I suppose this really isn't too far fetched an idea.

There are even a couple web sites that have started up regarding the issue, Lou Dobbs 4 President, and Draft Lou Dobbs for President. The ideal was covered in a NewsMax article yesterday titled, "Group Wants to Draft Lou Dobbs for President."

Personally, it really doesn't sound like too bad an idea. I suppose the standard argument of "lack of credible experience," would always be a common war cry of opponents. But if Hillary has experience for the Presidency just because she was married to Billy, wouldn't that equally qualify a person who has reported on government activities for a good number of years?

But those are just some thoughts.

The NewsMax article mentioned, "Lou Dobbs has earned national recognition for his tough stance on Border Security and curbing illegal immigration. While encouraging voters to register as independents, Dobbs addresses a host of issues dealing with the economy, trade agreements, election integrity, and America's middle class that would appeal to Democrats, Republicans, and Independent voters alike."

I'd actually like to see Duncan Hunter get a bit more recognition, but that's unlikely to happen. But minus a GOP candidate in the top running spots who has a stern stance against immigration, Dobbs could potentially be a force as a third party candidate. And UN-like the Ron Paul "internet presence only" following, Dobbs might be able to generate an actual "get out there and vote" following.

Article info provided by NewsMax.com.

The PalTalk.com Redemption: PalTalk Says NO! To Terrorists

About a week ago I tapped out an article about one of the largest voice chat hosts PalTalk.com, agreeing to shut down an anti-extremist chat room if the complainants (a terrorist web site called Ekllaas) were able to collect 1 million signatures against it. Joseph Shahda originally discovered this on the Ekllaas site. ACTforAmerica contacted PalTalk regarding the petition a couple days ago in hopes of what could be done about it.

Today's ACTforAmerica e-letter had this outstanding news; "Victory for Freedom Of Speech: Paltalk Stands Up To Terrorist Intimidation," by Jerry Gordon.

As it looks, the rumor about the petition being spread amongst the complainers was essentially a TAQIYYA. In layman's terms, a lie. A deception. Or what we've come to understand as "common practice of the extremists of the religion of peace."

According to the e-letter, "Paltalk confirmed to us that they are not going to ever submit to any petition directed against freedom of speech. Further, that they will never bow to the pressure of the petition submitted by Muslim activists to shut down a Christian room that criticizes Islam. In fact, Paltalk emphatically told us that the Muslim activists spread the false rumor about Paltalk closing the Coptic Christian room if they obtained 1 million signatures for their petition."

Not only is this a fantastic victory for Freedom of Speech, but a bold step against the cultural/legal jihad being waged against the West. Furthermore, PalTalk has offered Brigitte Gabriel the opportunity to host a weekly program on its large network according to the e-letter.

Out-Freaking-Standing! Go kick some extremist A$$ Brigitte!

Article info provided by ACTforAmerica.

Murtha's Earmarks: Reason Enough To Vote for LtCol. Russell

Although a couple days old, it's worth bringing up as it didn't seem to get much coverage. Especially at a time when exorbitant spending is rampant. But that hasn't stopped some politicians from running wild with their "earmarks."

Case in point, John Murtha. Mister "our soldiers are mass murderers," even though those in question had been exonerated. Murtha looks to be in the lead at the moment with the most money earmarked for his district. $162 million so far, to be exact.

NewsMax had a little bit about this in their article on Jan. 14th, 2008 titled "Murtha Led Congress in Earmarks." I guess being in charge of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee gives you permission to secure funds for a bunch of your contributors. 26 of them in all total.

Definitely makes Lt. Col. William Russell look like the better choice. I tapped out an article about him a short while back. Since then, his website which can be found HERE, has been a little more populated since it's inception. Including a NEWS section, which makes mention of Murtha's willingness to vote for the Ramadan month recognition, but refused to participate in the Judeo-Christian recognition. I recommend taking a look. For those that need the direct link, it can be found here; http://williamrussellforcongress.com/.

Article info provided by NewsMax.com and William Russell for Congress.

FDA Approves Cloned Food: Or Did They?

I'll try to keep this one as centrist as possible and just give my thoughts, both pro and con on the subject and let the readers decide. I just caught a snippet about this news story this morning, and figured it may require at least a little looking into. CNN's few second clip merely mentioned that the FDA has approved cloned food products, but they won't be seen in stores for at least another year or two.

Doesn't really say much does it, so it was necessary to find and read the actual article on the CNN.com site (read it HERE) to see what all the hub-bub was about. As it turns out, the FDA has NOT given the green light for immediate full scale production and distribution of a mass-cloned-cow industry. A 300 page report is being compiled regarding the subject, and the news flash was based on the paltry eleven pages thus far completed.

Dr. Stephen Sundlof, the FDA's veterinary medicine chief has only mentioned that, "There's no evidence that meat or milk derived from healthy cloned farm animals can harm people, the Food and Drug Administration says in its first attempt at assessing questions about the emerging technology." Ah, so they are only in the initial stage of assessing questions about it. Good to know. What they are actually looking at for the moment is the PUBLIC reaction to the impact cloning may have on the food supply BEFORE moving any farther forward. As mentioned in many cases prior to this, they're looking at the "Yuck factor."

But read the full CNN article HERE and educate yourself before judging this ideal. There are a few other links also available. Some are older, some recent. MSNBC, WashingtonPost, Yahoo, BBCNews, CBSNews.

Now for my thoughts about it. Well, about the thought of using cloned foods that is. I do see some positive outcomes from the possibility of cloned foods.

Take for instance 3rd world nations. We see quite often, many impoverished lands and the many peoples of them dying from starvation. With exception to India and a handful of other nations, (where cows are considered sacred) this could be a ready source of sustenance for these people.

If the cloning is derived from the most choicest cattle and is successful, could that mean POTENTIALLY healthier meats with lower fats and the like?

It may also prove beneficial in replacing mass quarantined cattle, i.e., a sizable mad-cow or other disease outbreak. The science of stud-farming is quite remarkable, but I have my doubts that it can regenerate 10,000 heads of cattle in just a couple years?

I'm sure there are many other pro's available, but I'm working on brevity here. Now for some con's.

I mentioned above, starving nations. While I can be pretty certain that a person on the verge of death by starvation would take ANY food given, what sort of global impact would this have? What sort of "Evil Americans" characterizations would we endure for giving this kind of food away?

As some of the articles I listed above mention, the science of cloning foods is still in its infancy, and some cattle and such have been born with serious birth defects. What kind of guarantee would there be, or controls in place to prevent such animals from making it into the food supply? And what would be the risks involved if it did happen?

Just as the pro's, the con's probably have many more to list, but I did say brevity. So there you have it. I'll leave it in many of your capable hands to discuss this topic amongst your fellows.

Article info provided by CNN, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, Yahoo/Reuters and the WashingtonPost.

2008 Candidates News Updates: Hillary, Obama And, The Rest?

Well, well, well. Over the weekend we seem to have garnered a bit of political brawls and smears. And it really wasn't too one sided. Seems to be the order of the day now during campaigns. It would be nice to have a season of campaigns that were more on the uplifting side. But I doubt that will ever happen.

So let's dive in to some of this weekends highlights shall we?

CNN's Carol Costello ponders if racial undercurrents will stymie Obama's chances at success in gaining the White House. Costello alluded to the "theory proposed by Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center, that Hillary Clinton's victory could be partially attributed to 'poor, uneducated whites who don't participate in polls and who often don't vote for blacks.'" Way to keep the flames of racism burning Carol.

Our favorite liberal finger-puppet Keith Olbermann has deemed Fred Thompson as the "Worst Person" for making a joke about the Iranian boats that harassed US warships, having come close to meeting their 72 virgins early. And? Your point Keith? Like I mentioned in my previous article, I would love to see what a five inch gun does to a speedboat.

Chris Matthews' "Big Number" segment is now the official "Your A Jihadist" show, labeling Huckabee as such for his statement about "those who attack the American military should be prepared to see the gates of hell." Important tip, attacking the US military may subject a person to being sent to the gates of hell.

Brian Williams loves Obama. At least it appears that way, having practically dedicated an entire show to him. He calls those assertions ridiculous on his blog. But despite the ABC Obama love fest, they are finally looking into the Obama Land Deal problem that will cause a little discontent amongst his followers. It looks to be a bad thing if you toss your hat in with an indicted extortionist.

CBS doesn't like the GOP's tax plans, and criticizes them, but loves Dem's plans. Specifically, they targeted Romney's plan as being "right out of the playbooks of Ronald Reagan and George Bush." Huckabee gained no love either as his plan will, according to CBS, abolish the Federal Income Tax and give rebates to those with lower incomes. And that's a BAD thing? Heck, I've been calling for the disbandment of the IRS for a while now.

Stephanopoulos and Couric and Cafferty, OH MY! When Hillary sheds a tear, the media takes notice. And the placement of "young fresh faces of hope" get noticed too. Couric has decided that Hillary is now humanized enough for women voters to love. Cafferty believes that Hillary is now "one of us," for just a moment at least. And Stephanopoulos wonders where Bill and Chelsea went during the New Hampshire victory speech. They went for burgers and milkshakes George.

But now comes the political back biting and revenge. Obama is to be wary, as Hillary has not gone down yet, nor will she easily. Prepare to be deluged and engulfed with the swath of negativity ads and slander as Hillary and Obama go at it. Toss in the “Gang of Four” to include Kerry, Dean, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore. NewsMax listed the reasons why the four of them hate Hillary.

And let us not forget the issues themselves generating ire amongst the candidates. Lou Dobbs has witnessed this firsthand, as he is getting slapped from BOTH sides. Obama, Hillary AND a McCain aide have derided Dobbs for his questioning about immigration.

Article info provided by the Media Research Center and NewsMax.

Iraqi Death Toll Overly Exagerated: WHY?

As it turns out, there were quite a few people behind the overly exaggerated, uber-inflated death toll numbers of 600 thousand plus in the hyped Lancet Study. That number, which has echoed through the halls of media outlets for a while now, and even touted by celebrities on talk shows, namely Rosie O'Donnell, was inflated by upwards of ten times the realistic amount. Fortunately, Elisabeth Hasselbeck shot her down and caused her to eventually leave "The View" television talk show early.

Now we know who some of the names where behind the faulty report. Names that surely won't surprise many of us, nor the reasons for it.

The Wall Street Journal's article for Jan. 9, 2008, titled "The Lancet's Political Hit" lists such names as George Soros's Open Society Institute, as one of the primary funders of the Lancet study. Other names included Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University. Also in the listing was the Lancet Editor himself, Richard Horton. So much for fair and balanced media reporting I guess.

As it looks, the report was intentionally released just before the 2006 elections, which would account for the Dem's having gained a bit of undeserved clout. Authority which, in their "100 hours" campaign yielded little more than a bump in minimum wages.

Soros funded the report to, well, basically he hates Republicans. No surprise as to why he's funding the heck out of Obama. Meanwhile, Burnham and Roberts told the reporters that they opposed the war from the outset and sent their report to the Lancet on the condition that it be published before the election. And lastly, there's Richard Horton who, according to the WSJ's article, "has also made no secret of his politics," and has been quoted as saying, "'This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease."

Now, a more accurate study, having been conducted by the World Health Organization, of over 10,000 Iraqi households puts the death toll number more in the area of about 150 thousand. While only more like four times LESS than the Lancet reports study, that still means there's 450 thousand plus Iraqi's that AREN'T dead.

There's even a little bit of transcript available from the Glenn Beck show when he reported on it.

Article info provided by the Wall Street Journal, NewsMax and Glenn Beck.

Cultural Jihad Update: Also Known As LEGAL Jihad

Just an update to my previous posting on the new islamofascist movement known as the Cultural Jihad. Another term being used is LEGAL Jihad, as referred to on the ACTforAmerica site.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, the author under attack in this new craze, is getting some support finally.

"A bi-partisan effort is now under way in New York to pass legislation designed to protect journalists, authors and publishers from lawsuits filed outside the U.S. by foreign nationals seeking to muzzle the First Amendment rights of American citizens, particularly those reporting on terrorism and its financiers," as reported in today's ACTforAmerica e-letter.

"This Sunday, January 13th, at 10:30 a.m., on the steps of the New York Public Library, 42nd Street and Fifth Avenue, a bi-partisan news conference will be held by New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Rory I. Lancman, where they will announce the introduction of such legislation. The two lawmakers, Ehrenfeld, and members of the bar, will warn that without this legislation, not only are authors and journalists threatened, the contents of the New York Public Library could be subject to assault by foreign nationals seeking to silence public debate in America. They are to be applauded and supported for this effort."

This is fantastic news, just as the John Doe legislation assists in protecting well meaning American citizens from being prosecuted for reporting suspicious activities. Now journalists, authors and publishers will be able to, (at least when the situation suits them,) report on radical islam without the intimidation factor that they all now face. At least, as long as the bill passes.

Article info provided by ACTforAmerica and Michelle Malkin's Blog.

Strait Of Hormuz Update: Was It Normal Or Never Happened?

OK, newest update of info that I could find about the Strait of Hormuz incident. In my UPDATE Article yesterday, I just listed more basic info which included the ships reportedly involved and some video footage. It also included some statements by Iranian Representatives. But now we seem to have some contradictions that need to be addressed.

In yesterdays article, I noted "So far, Iran has denounced the video as fabricated. The state-run Press TV quoted a spokesman for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Navy as saying that the video "had been compiled using file pictures and the audio had been fabricated." Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman downplayed the incident earlier, calling it "normal." "The case ... was similar to the past ones and it was a regular and natural issue," Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said."

Okay, so something happened, and the U.S. was just blowing it out of proportion then? Okay, I can roll with that. At least we know that there was SOME KIND of occurrence, but it wasn't all it was made out to be according to Iranian sources.

Now, here is were I have a problem. As noted in the quotes above, SOMETHING happened according to the Iranian sources, but it was "normal" activity that occurs all the time. But from today's video release by Iran, NOTHING at all happened. Here are just two of many links for the Iranian's version of the video. I just took ABCNews and FOXNews they were at hand.

Get my point in this? Did something of no significance happen? Or did nothing of no significance happen? You don't get both? Which is why I am skeptical of Iran's reports, and am going to go with U.S. reports that there was at least SOME KIND of incident. As for authenticity of EITHER sides video, that will have to wait for now.

Article info provided by ABCNews and FOXNews.

"Cultural Jihad" Continues Building Momentum: Coughlin Was A Casualty

As it looks, Stephen Coughlin was merely one casualty in what is self describing itself as a new war by islamofascists. Cultural Jihad. Subversion from within. Just as described in documents revealed in the Holyland Foundation trials in Dallas. And it seems to be building some momentum. I'll give just a few highlights, and let you have at it.

We'll start off back in December, on the 14th WorldNetDaily carried an article of a Wahhabi-trained Muslim chaplain being promoted in a ceremony NOT performed in the usual manner as in military honors style, but by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England himself. Yeah, you can see where I'm going with this already can't you. Navy chaplain Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam was promoted from lieutenant to lieutenant commander. The same guy that also fought to have the first mosque in Marine Corps history built. This guy also did a stint in Gitmo, getting a lot of plush treatment lined up for the detainees. I recommend reading the WND article for the full details of how good those guys really have it.

Curious how three weeks after this guy gets a nod, Coughlin gets the boot. Which leads me to the next little highlight, Diana West, editor and columnist for the Washington Post had some words to say a few days ago. In which she describes us living in an "era which, barring reversal, will probably be remembered as the era of the Islamization of the Western world." West, speaking about columnist Bill Gertz' recent articles about Coughlin, had this to say; "I hope to discover more about the internal machinations that led to his dismissal; so far, according to Gertz, we know that Stephen Coughlin had run afoul of the agenda of Hesham Islam, a key advisor to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who clearly sanctions multiculti policy delusions over rational assessments of the threat posed by expansionist Islam." Well said, good form I say.

Jump forward to today, and we see yet another loss of our free speech rights here in America. The ACTforAmerica News section today carried an article about Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. Dr. Ehrenfeld is the author of "Funding Evil," where in she describes how terrorism is financed, and what can be done about it. Dr. Ehrenfeld has been in a relentless legal battle trying to preserve not only her free speech rights, but those of American journalists and publishers. Dr. Ehrenfeld (a New York author) had recently lost a lawsuit filed in British courts by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz. As reported on the ACT site; "Ms. Ehrenfeld sought a court order to protect her Constitutional rights, but in a ruling with First Amendment implications sending legal shock waves throughout newsrooms across America, as well as potentially undermining our ability to expose terrorism's financial and logistical support networks of our enemies, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from a foreign defamation verdict." With this ruling, every scrap of parchment ever created could now be subject to libel tourist laws by overseas entities.

And there you have it, just a few highlights of what political correctness is doing/has allowed to be done, in America.

Article info provided by WorldNetDaily, DianaWest.net and ACTforAmerica.org.

Update: Confrontation In The Strait Of Hormuz

Okay, this is just a general update of information about the confrontation between U.S. warships and the Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

First off, here is the four minute, twenty second video released by the Pentagon. The easiest find was an upload by user Niteflyte6 on YouTube. The video was taken from the bridge area of one of the U.S. warships. There is additional video on CNN.com HERE.

The Pentagon has identified the three U.S. ships as the guided missile destroyer USS Hopper DDG-70, the guided missile cruiser USS Port Royal CG-73 and the guided-missile frigate USS Ingraham DD-444.

Apparently, the "box-like" objects dropped in the water by the Iranian boats, in the path of the U.S. warships DID float and were white in color. They were not retrieved as their contents were unknown.

It's still unknown at this time if the transmissions received by the U.S. warships originated from the Iranian boats themselves, another boat in the area or from a land based communicator.

It should be noted that back in November, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps had taken command of Tehran's naval operations. So it is likely that it was in fact the Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for this act.

So far, Iran has denounced the video as fabricated. The state-run Press TV quoted a spokesman for Iran's Revolutionary Guard Navy as saying that the video "had been compiled using file pictures and the audio had been fabricated." Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman downplayed the incident earlier, calling it "normal." "The case ... was similar to the past ones and it was a regular and natural issue," Mohammad-Ali Hosseini said.

Article info and video provided by CNN.com and YouTube's Niteflyte6.

Presidential Nomination RE-Vamp Time

This is something that has begun to weigh heavy on my mind over the last several elections we've had, as I'm sure it has others'. The presidential nomination process seems to be getting a bit outta whack as of late, and is looking to be in serious need of an upgrade... again.

I did a little sniffing around the web, and have come across a number of interesting articles about the subject, but none were as accurate and attuned to the arena as an article by Bobby Eberle over on "The Loft." Eberle's article, It's Time to Change the Presidential Nomination Process, not only notes the pitfalls that have developed in our current process, but provides a number of tangible solutions to the problem. (Unlike some of our current Representatives who just seem to criticize, but have no solutions either.)

And I have to say, I agree with Eberle on selecting the Delaware plan. I also agree that perhaps more than just the four groups noted might be a better thing. Personally, into the Delaware plan, I would insert a portion of the "Rotating regional primaries" plan, that in each new election, a different set of "kick-off" states be selected. i.e., not always starting with the same state like we do now with Iowa.

Here is the Delaware plans description;

Delaware plan: States broken into four groups by population. The smallest 12 states, plus federal territories, would vote first, followed by the next smallest 13 states, then the 13 medium-size states and finally the 12 largest states.

Even so, should something of this nature NOT be instituted, the current process needs an overhaul regardless. As Eberle notes in his article, the further along we go in our current process, the LESS relevant the later states seem to become.

I recommend you visit Eberle's posting to read the details in full.

Article info provided by GOPUSA.com/TheLoft.

Extremist Petition Against Anti-Extremists On PalTalk.com

Caving-in, to a cultural jihad. That's how Jerry Gordon described it in his opening commentary for an article written by Joseph Shahda. Shahda's article, "A Million Muslim Petition to Intimidate PalTalk anti-Islam chat room" unveils how extremists are being granted the opportunity to silence those who don't agree with them. The article is hosted on ACTforAmerica's website.

A couple weeks ago, I posted an article also written by Shahda, in which he originally exposed those same extremist forums on one of the largest voice-chat hosts, PalTalk.com. Forums that support Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as Hizballah and Hamas. Forums that, according to Shahda, "spread terrorist propaganda, violent terrorist materials, recruit people for Jihad, teach them how to conduct terrorist acts, teach them to hate anyone who disagree with their 7th century sharia, and conduct live interviews with Al Qaeda terrorists."

Apparently, PalTalk.com is also hosting (for now,) a forum that is against the rhetoric found in those rooms. And extremists are not happy with that. So much so, that an adjacent extremist website, Ekhlaas, has demanded that PalTalk remove it. Ekhlaas, has been granted the opportunity to make this happen. PalTalk has informed Ekhlaas that if they gather a million signatures, they will shut down the ANTI-extremist forum. HERE is the link to the petition itself.

So much for free speech, eh?

I guess it's OK to spread the hate that comes naturally with forums like Al Ansarr Ansar Al Mougahedeen, which is one of the most anti-American chat's out there. But speak against it, and it's some sort of great sin. Well, I guess to an extremist it would be.

Sometimes The Media IS Balanced

It's a real shock to hear this, I know, but it actually does happen on rare occasion. Case in point, as reported by the Media Research Center, Charles Gibson actually hit BOTH Rep's AND Dem's with pointed questions. Not the slanted YouTube/Anderson Cooper stuff we've seen in the past. But real, actual talking points.

MRC reported that Saturday night during the back to back Republican followed by Democrat debates, Gibson challenged both groups with the opposing parties primary push points. Republicans were questioned about the lack of national health care, while Democrats were hit with the success of the surge in Iraq.

Republicans were met with; "We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't insure all of our citizens. If we can afford a trillion dollar war in Iraq, why can't we afford medical insurance for everybody?"

While Democrats got the ; "We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked....Are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked? And Senator Clinton, let me start with you, because when General Petraeus was in Washington in September, you said it would take 'a willful suspension of disbelief' to think that the surge could do any good."

I sit in utter disbelief. Especially since this came from ABC. Perhaps there is still the tiniest glint of hope that America is not totally lost... yet.

Article info provided by the Media Research Center.

"I Am Coming At You. You Will Explode..."

Not exactly the kind of message any ship commander wants to hear. Personally, and this is just me saying this, I think they should have fired sooner. Allowing the boats to get as close as they did in my opinion was already a serious breach of security. I'm thinking 'U.S.S. Cole pt. 2' here. But hey, I'm juss ziss guy, you know.

So far there is only minimal information available, so I'll just disseminate what is out there so far. We know that three American warships were in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. So far, there are conflicting reports of WHAT TYPE of ships. Reports range from one destroyer, one cruiser and one frigate to two destroyers and a frigate.

We know that at least five Iranian speed boats, (described as cigarette boats) either approached and/or passed through the U.S. warship formation. We know by several reporting agencies that items (described as boxes) had been dumped from the Iranian boats into the sailing path of the U.S. warships. Their contents are thus far unknown. This action caused the U.S. warships to take evasive action.

Reports are that in some instances, the Iranian boats came within 200 yards of the U.S. warships. Way too close in my opinion. Like I said, is anyone having flashbacks of the "Cole?" It has also been reported that several radio transmissions were made by the Iranian vessels to the U.S. warships. The most stirring that we've been made aware of so far is, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes."

It has also been reported that the order to engage had been given, but that the Iranian boats peeled off and departed just before the U.S. warships fired upon them. (Damn, I'd love to see what a five inch gun would do to a speedboat.)

Now the fun begins. What shall we place our bets on? Will Democrats say this is all the Republicans fault? Some sort of tie-in with invading Iraq? Will the international community, most likely the U.N., claim that it is America's fault? (Most likely just because we are America.) Or will Rosie "I'm not a historical scholar, but I pretend to be one on T.V." O'Donnell claim that this is just ANOTHER Gulf of Tonkin ploy by George W. Bush?

We wait with eager anticipation.

Article info collected from MSNBC, CNN, FOXNews, USAToday, and many more media outlets.

Termination Of Stephen Coughlin: "An Act Of Intellectual Cowardice"

I couldn't have described it better myself. Posted originally on Jihad Watch and hosted as well on ACTforAmerica's site, the article was written by LTC Joseph C. Myers, Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff College. The articles title is, "The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice," and truly it is. I highly recommend reading the full article in the links provided.

LTC Myers brings about some very interesting points in his article. He reminds us that there is a serious lack in knowledge about jihad in islam, islam itself and what terrorism really is. He also touched on the notion that Coughlin was the only Islamic Law scholar on the Joint Staff. His voice while perhaps controversial, will be an egregious loss to our intelligence departments.

Coughlin, LTC Meyers says, is a lawyer by training, and a reserve M.I. Officer, who began his islamic law interface in Pakistan, investigating property rights cases. Coughlin had noticed footnoted references to the Quran and sharia law repeatedly.

Coughlin has briefed both military and staff leaders LTC Myers said, and has "lifted the veil of ignorance for all but only a few who are afraid to face what Islamic Law, doctrinal Islam, says and means with respect to jihad and how it plays out across the Islamic world from al Qaida, to the Saudi government, to Pakistan to the Muslim Brotherhood." Hey look, there's that Muslim Brotherhood again.

Even so, LTC Meyers mentions in his article that, "In short, he (Coughlin) argues we have in fact intellectually pre-empted our military decision making process and intelligence preparation of the battlefield process, the critical step 3-"evaluate the threat." Strategically we have failed to do that by substituting policy for military analysis, for substituting cliché for competent decision processes."

LTC Meyers closed out his article with some stirring words. "We can only hope he (Coughlin) can be positioned in his next venue to continue to educate our military for the fight we are in -- if we don't understand the war and the enemy we are engaged against we remain vulnerable and we cannot win."

We can only hope.

Article info provided by Jihad Watch and ACTforAmerica.

The 'Big Wall' Ideal: Yeah Cuomo, That's What We Want

Not known for his intellect when opening the hole under his nose while on air, Chris Cuomo has bumped up his tally for stupid comments once again as shown by the Media Research Center.

Cuomo, during the Thursday morning GMA segment, was interviewing a pretty unbalanced crosscut of Iowans, three Dem's and an Independent. During his segment, Cuomo asked one of the participants about immigration. Here's the transcripted dialogue;

CUOMO: All right. And, again, an issue that's a lot of politics now, but not a lot of real planning for what could happen, but we'll have to see what happens with that. Now, Gianna, for you, immigration.

GIANNA: Yes.

CUOMO: You've been naturalized. You've now here a naturalized citizen three years.

GIANNA: Yes.

CUOMO: But it's a big issue. Everybody wants to put up a big wall and then find who's not supposed to be here and throw them over that wall. But what is your perspective on that?

GIANNA: Okay. I think that, one, it's not going to work, first, at all. That is a joke. Um, we, immigration is a big issue because we need more humane laws. We need to reunite families. We need to -- There are a lot of negative feelings against immigrations (sp) and we need to be done with that. We need to secure our borders. I totally agree with that. But that doesn't mean you stop immigration. We need to first work with what we have inside, then that will help us protect ourselves from what is outside.

CUOMO: But for a politician, you want that red meat. You want to be able to be strong and we want them out!

Just like that Chris? We conservatives just want to put up a big wall and toss them over? Totally disregarding the fact that America en mass said "Hell no!" to the amnesty laws? Like I said, he's not the brightest star in the sky.

Chris, I hate to have to break it to you, but the vast majority of Conservatives DO NOT think like that. We want the 854 miles of double layer fence built (as described by the 9/11 commission) to prevent more from coming in. Specifically because of the terrorist threat. The immigration angle is SECONDARY to that.

I also need to let you know that many Conservatives favor Arizona's new immigration laws that penalizes businesses for knowingly hiring illegals. No muss, no fuss, and you'll notice that even most media brought attention to the mass exodus of illegals from Arizona. There was an attempt to overturn it, but it was upheld. Create a law like that in California, and more than a third of the 30 million illegals in America would leave.

Conservatives also favor REDUCING the incoming legal immigrants to pre-1965 levels, which is approximately 100-150 thousand a year, instead of the 1 million plus we're taking in now. Take a look at this video Chris, it spells out the immigration problem better than you seem to know about it.

Maybe we should create a form of Darwin-Awards ceremony for Media personages. Oh wait, there already is one.

Article info provided by MRC, New York Times, YouTube and WorldNetDaily.

American Airlines Appears To Not Want Anti-Missile System

In the Conservative Voice site today was an article about anti-missile systems moving into testing phases for commercial aircraft titled, "Airline to test anti-missile system." One would think this to be considered a GOOD thing. But after reading through the article, it sounds like American Airlines isn't particularly thrilled at the prospect. At least, that's the way it reads to me and I'm sure there will be those who think differently than I after reading it.

As it goes, starting this spring, three American Airlines jets will be outfitted with anti-missile defense systems. These tests won't be performed on actual passenger flights. The article reveals that the first aircraft, a 767-200 will be outfitted in April. The tests are to determine how the equipment will hold up under flight conditions.

Per the statement in the article from American Airlines, "American said it is "not in favor" of putting anti-missile systems on commercial planes but agreed to take part in the tests to understand technologies that might be available in the future." Uh, is there any other reason to participate in the tests then?

The U.K.-based BAE Systems PLC was awarded a $29 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to test it on passenger planes. And American Airlines has been working in conjunction with BAE for a couple years. So what is the point of all that work if you don't want the stuff on your planes? I just don't get it.

There are, according to the article, several tests left to be completed. One of which is to create a system that will initially hold up for at least 3,000 hours and to be followed by a system that will withstand 4,500 hours of use. BAE expects to test a system which it expects to last up to 7,000 hours by 2009. The systems at current, cost approximately $500 thousand to $1 million per aircraft. Nice price tag. That does give some cause for me to understand why AA isn't fully on the bus. Then again, it would be more costly if your the only server NOT using some form of system down the road, wouldn't it?

A bit back, Congress had approved funding for anti-missile defense out of fear that terrorists here in America, (which some still refuse to believe exist) may utilize shoulder fired weapons against jetliners during take offs/landings. Americans response was, "anti-missile defense is best handled by stopping terrorists from getting missiles that could shoot down commercial jets and by improving security around airports."

Security around airports? Unless American Airlines intends to "buy out" every homeowner for about four miles (the Stinger missile has a three to five mile range,) around every airport they service, I don't see that being the be-all end-all answer.

Article info provided by the ConservativeVoice and Wikipedia.

Sharia Finance: May We Give Your Money To Extremists?

Well, this certainly doesn't bode well for anyone, except islamic extremists that is. Apparently global banks are now bowing to Sharia. And that spells trouble for the western world.

One of today's ACTforAmerica e-letters was an article by Patrick Wood, the editor of The August Review: Global Elite Research Center. The article was also found on Newswithviews.com. What he has to say about the future of finance is rather disturbing.

The article was titled, Global Banks Embrace Islam, and it seems that is what is happening. Global banks such as Citigroup, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, have been jumping into bed with Islam. This lends credence and legitimacy to Shari'a unlike anything before, allowing greater access to America. Didn't part of Czechoslovakia get handed over to Germany a while back?

Sharia finance really didn't have much punch until the Khomeini revolution in Iran in 1979. After which, it took off like a rocket. For those unaware, Sharia is a brutal legal and judicial system which has been imposed on many Islamic countries in the middle east.

As we already well know, bankers aren't the most morally bound individuals on the planet. And their blind rush into cohesion with islam only supports that. And with over 1.6 billion muslims in the world, the age-old quest for global domination doesn't sound so far fetched after reading the full article, as a tithe of 2.5% is demanded to be given to Islamic Charity. When you consider the kind of money involved just in the banks listed above, 2.5% is an awful lot of money.

Add in that those "charities" might include CAIR-style organizations of one sort or another, and that some serious terrorist funding.

Good Luck trying to get a home loan in a few years.

Article info provided by ACTforAmerica, NewsWithViews, The August Review and Wikipedia.

Steve Coughlin: Pentagon DoD Islamic Extremist Expert Fired

This is rather disturbing news. If our own DoD personnel are no longer allowed to expound upon what really is one of the greatest threats to America and its citizens today, then what remains? The softer, kinder, gentler approach? Shall we just bend over, drop trousers and allow islam to give it to us in the rear?

I think not. Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" swirls about my mind in this instance, as well as it has in others incidents.

One of today's e-letters from ACTforAmerica provided a realistic look at what America faces in regards to our "religion of peace" impresarios. It was in reference to the Washington Times article written by Bill Gertz. Inside the Ring-Coughlin sacked.

According to the article, Stephen Coughlin is (until March '08) the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and islamist extremism. Apparently, his work is not pleasing some pro-extremists. Namely, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England's key aide, a Mr. Hasham Islam.

Mr. Islam, (sorry, but the name alone is causing me serious hilarity at the moment,) had confronted Coughlin in attempts to make him "soften" his views about extremism. Yeah, I can see how that would work. I believe Neville Chamberlain also softened the views of the world about Hitler, and we know how THAT turned out.

I guess Coughlin said no, since it has devolved into name calling with Mr. Islam accusing Coughlin of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen." If Mr. Islam has resorted to this, it means Coughlin is/was onto something. And he was. Coughlin had (according to the Wash. Times,) penned a memorandum utilizing documentation from the recent HolyLand Foundation trials in Texas. That trial has exposed the Muslim Brotherhood (there's that name again) as a primary source calling for front groups to sabotage America from within.

Obviously it's working, as Coughlin has been fired. And even though Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for Mr. England, said "no one in the deputy's office had any input into this decision," I think it's safe to say, that's BULLSHIT!

Jerry Gordon, an ex-Army intelligence officer had a few comments to say about Coughlin's ouster on the ACT page carrying the article. Gordon said, "This amounts to shooting the messenger who had crafted a telling message about the threat of Political Islam. It looks to many of us who know of Coughlin's important work and have written about it that something nefarious is going on across the Potomac inside the E-ring in the 'five sided squirrel cage' that I knew. Time to get the goods on who and why Coughlin was fired, as well as who and why Hasham Islam was hired."

Gordon called this, the "moral equivealent of the Dreyfus Affair of the 21st Century."

I agree.

Article info provided by the Washington Times, ACTforAmerica and wikipedia.

More Global Warming Critics: The New York Times?

WOW! I never in a million years (like I would really live that long) would have guessed that one of the primary mouth pieces in the 'Goracles' arsenal of global whining pundits, would turn out to be the New York Times.

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammo!

This one has really got to hurt a bit. NYTimes columnist John Tierney, took a good look into the debate (that's actually supposed to be over,) and shows that it's anything but a closed consensus.

You have so got to read this one being hosted on NewsMax.com. Tierney brings up how 2008's T.V. images will be wave after wave of the starving polar bears, some Arctic ice melting and other frightening images of havoc caused by global whining.

He refers to, "what what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness -- burning fossil fuels."

Tierney mentions the contradiction in warming model predictions. How droughts in Australia and the United States are being blamed on warming, yet the models predicted excessive precipitation globally.

Referring to the "selective monitoring," he brings up how even with Arctic ice melting, Antarctic ice ha grown substantially, but the 'availability ent's, only focus on that minuscule area that has warmed there.

Tierney also discusses a bit about how the predicted severe hurricane seasons, never seemed to materialize. How last season it turns out, was the calmest in the Northern Hemisphere in three decades. Green house gases was supposed to make 2007 the hottest year on record, yet it turns out was cooler than any year since 2001.

But there was just way too much info to list it all here. So head over to the NewsMax site or the NYTimes article itself, and read the full article.

Article info provided by NewsMax.com and the New York Times.

Obama Can't Win Because American Voters Are All, Racist?

Okay, I have my own reasons for not supporting Obama, and those reasons have to do with the direction he wants to take America. It has absolutely nothing to do with race. To be honest, I'm not even sure what race Obama would genuinely be classified into in the first place. Is he actually considered "black?" Or, since he grew up in the Indonesian area, would he be more so considered some sort of South Pacific Islander?

How exactly can I be racist, if I really don't know what he is? That's kind of like being told you hate all pink colored ice cream, without being told what flavors they are. It's just asinine to make such a statement.

But that train of thought being totally devoid of intelligence, hasn't prevented Chris Cuomo of Good Morning America, from making such a comparison.... TWICE so far. In fact, since mid November alone, GMA has, in some form or another brought racism up in the elections five times. Talk about being starved for viewers, it takes some serious idiocy to try and use race as a scandal in elections.

Cuomo's dialogue with Obama, as transcripted on the MRC page; "What do you think the bigger obstacle is for you in becoming President, the Clinton campaign machine or America's inherent racists, racism?" C'mon Chris, your supposed to be a professional journalist, not some grocery checkout 'hack'.

Not that Diane Sawyer is any better at the task. She seems to be bear hugging the racism branch as well; she asked Obama if America is "secretly...more racist or more sexist?" And even repeated the same question to liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

Racism. I'll start being concerned with the race issue, when it ACTUALLY becomes an issue, like racists actually doing things to people. When people are carving upside down crosses on their own doors, hanging nooses on thier own office door knobs, smacking police with cell phones in Government buildings, and crying over "reparations" and supposedly deserved apologies, there is NO sympathy to be had from me.

Article info provided by MRC.org.

Israel Thinking Ahead: Prepares Citizens for WMD Attacks

Ever since the recent NIE Report conceived by American Intelligence sources, America has had the proverbial finger of being warmongers pointed at it from almost every direction imaginable. Comments about Bush trying to start a new war, this time in Iran. References made about trying to bring about a new "cold war" with Russia, (which Russia is bringing about on its own quite well without our help, thank you very much.) And of course, how everything must be America's fault and we are just misunderstanding Iran's intents in their maniacal drive for nuclear power.

Did I miss anything?

I thought not.

But Israel isn't buying it, thankfully. It seems that ever since the first Gulf War, under Bush Sr., Israel has been working on protecting its citizenry against chemical and biological WMD's. I suppose, in a way, that this is GOOD news for western civilization. Especially since Israel is right there, on the doorsteps of terror sponsoring nations. And since they are adamantly more adapted to what goes on in the region, it stands to reason that they might have a better idea of what's REALLY going on.

But Israel is proceeding even further into defending its citizens, (unlike our own Congress being able to do,) in ramping up its civil defense. From NewsMax;

"The campaign will offer civilians detailed information on how to protect their homes against weapons of mass destruction — how to choose a protected room and how to seal doors and windows against a WMD attack. Information will be provided in a guidebook to be distributed to every household, as well as through television broadcasts, a Web site, and a telephone information center."

If only our own Congress would care so much about its constituency.

Article info provided by NewsMax.Com.